Piracy: Dumping Radioactive Regulations

In the MAGA rush to cut treaties, laws, regulations, taxes, federal employees, grants, humanitarian aid worldwide, etc., who will be making sure no one dumps toxic radioactive wastes?

According to the EPA, “more than 55,000 containers of radioactive wastes were dumped at three ocean sites in the Pacific Ocean between 1946 and 1970. Almost 34,000 containers of radioactive wastes were dumped at three ocean sites off the East Coast of the United States from 1951 to 1962.”

By the 1970s, the United States and other countries became increasingly concerned about the environmental impacts of human activities on the marine environment, including the uncontrolled disposal of wastes into the ocean. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter of 1972, known as the London Convention, is one of the first international agreements for the protection of the marine environment from human activities.

Currently, some very influential, powerful people see regulations as ‘red-tape’ and bureaucratic roadblocks. According to an article in the New York Times:

The regulatory process is often criticized as onerous and time-consuming and the idea of letting all government regulations expire periodically has been promoted in conservative circles for years. The idea may have gotten a recent boost from Elon Musk, the billionaire adviser to Mr. Trump. “Regulations, basically, should be default gone…And if it turns out that we missed the mark on a regulation, we can always add it back in.”

Wow. So little respect and understanding for how regulations are created to protect our lives and environment- usually after a major disaster occurs. So the “thinking” is to remove existing regulations until the next avoidable calamity occurs? Think again: it will be too little too late to reintroduce regulatory requirements after the next event. Maybe the MAGA people hope no one is watching or even cares about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; maybe they only want individual freedom - as in nothing left to lose?

Previously, I wrote a 10 part blog on the nuclear fuel cycle to share my experiences including working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the importance of regulations that help to mitigate hazards and keep us all safe. By the way, independent Commissions are created by Congress and are not located in the Executive Branch.

On another blog, I share news from my interview with ProPublica on how uranium mills have impacted groundwater including polluting drinking water for several Native American tribes.

Yesterday, I joined a public meeting held by NRC on Duke Power’s process for siting a new nuclear power plant in northwestern North Carolina. Without any regulatory requirements and oversight, the company could do whatever they want. Check out all the fines imposed by NRC even with a vigilant regulator according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. The $5.4 million fine to the owner of Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in Cleveland initiated a larger corruption settlement for $230 million due to fraud. For information on accidents and this ‘near miss’ meltdown, see my blog.

MSNBC’s Ari Melber on this week’s broadcast reported on efforts by Trump and Musk to cut federal regulations that agencies use to enforce numerous laws. He shows examples of how lax regulations led to the 2008 housing crisis, the Chernobyl nuclear accident, and industry polluting drinking water. CLICK TO SEE BROADCAST!

Also this week I checked Facebook and noticed my grad school geologist friend Janet reposted the following information from Curtis Mahon who’s a wildlife researcher and photographer and might not be aware of how the administration is cutting regulations for the nuclear industry as well:

“To my many friends who thought it wouldn't happen, guess what, it has happened! Donald Trump has dropped the environmental destruction nuke of an EO, planning to sunset ALL environmental regulations made in the last 100 years. And I mean ALL. https://www.whitehouse.gov/.../zero-based-regulatory.../

The Endangered Species Act. Gone. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Gone. The Marine Mammal Protection Act. Gone. The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. Gone. The Bald Eagle Protection Act. Gone! You name it, it's gone.

To remind those friends why we have these laws, I'm going to try to put them into terms which anyone can understand, money.

The Endangered Species Act is literally the founding, central pillar of modern conservation globally. It's hard to list the accomplishments of this act as it is so vast. It directly protects and calls for plans to raise the populations of rare species. It's directly responsible for the comeback of many iconic species, such as the Bald Eagle, the Peregrine Falcon, the California Condor, and a host of others. Talk about return on investment, the amount of money spent vs the amount gained from people wishing to just see iconic rare species is in the billions of dollars. For what would a visit to the grand canyon be without seeing a conder soar over or a visit to Yellowstone without seeing wolves and bison. People do whole drives across the country just for these experiences and that's what the ESA is about. Lots of revenue there.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act was one of the first environmental laws every made, and bans the harm or collection of all non-game birds in America. It was implemented in a time when hunters we shooting everything to turn them into hats, from songbirds to puffins to herons to albatross. The banning of this and subsequent restoration efforts lead to dramatic increases in bird populations and continue to protect them from harm. In just one example, consider a puffin. In Maine, every tourist I talk to wants to see two things, lobster and puffins. They were once hunted to near extinction in the US and are now a central pillar to the economy of an ENTIRE STATE. Thousands of people a DAY take expensive boat trips for puffins and that's at risk without these regulations, not to mention cuts to NOAA.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act protects whales from being killed or harmed and lead to the global war on whaling. Now because of it, America watches whales! You can go on a whale watch in nearly every coastal city in America and it generates HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in tourism and employs thousands of people. We hurt whales, we hurt our pockets and jobs.

The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act allows the government to enter agreements with states and plan and fund ways to increase the populations of migratory fish. It has direct benefits to anglers across the country, funding 50% of initiatives for things like stocking and habitat restoration in major fisheries such as both Atlantic and Pacific Salmon, Trout, Striped Bass, American Shad, and Sturgeon.

And removing the Bald Eagle Protection Act! I thought we loved eagle guys? What's more American than a Bald Eagle, and they want to remove protections for them? Many older Americans can probably remember a time when they never saw Bald Eagles. Now you can see them commonly in nearly every state! That's a direct result of the Endangered Species Act and Bald Eagle Protection Act.

These are just a few of the laws the Republican party wishes to remove. All have proven track records of benefiting Americans, both monetarily through supporting major American industries worth billions of dollars and employing hundreds of thousands of Americans and spiritually as corner stones of the country's wilderness. The removal of these protections is peak short term gains over long term profits.

If you don't like it, there's a lot you can do. Call your representatives. It feels like yelling to void but we've seen a handful of senators pushed to action by your voices. This matters regardless of the political party of your representatives. Also, get out and protest if you can. The next big one is April 19th. Search for your local 50501 group to see where the protests were at. It's incredibly empowering to get out and be a part of a movement with thousands of people in your town, and millions nationwide. See you in the streets.”

One correction that I found in the comments section:

“Yes, but it's actually the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. https://www.fws.gov/law/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act.”

Please also see my SOS blog from February 5th featuring the bald eagle before I could imagine all regs would be cut. We cannot allow pirates to steal everything away from us and the US!

Update: May 11, 2025

On Friday, NPR reported that Trump tightens control of independent agency overseeing nuclear safety:

“Going forward, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must send new rules regarding reactor safety to the White House, where they will be reviewed and possibly edited. That is a radical departure for the watchdog agency, which historically has been among the most independent in the government. The new procedures for White House review have been in the works for months, but they were just recently finalized and are now in full effect.”

One of my Facebook groups includes former NRC employees who are responding to this very alarming news:

Here are some of the comments posted so far:

JW wrote: “I'm sure many folks in this group have seen reports regarding the order that all rules will now be reviewed and approved by the White House. I am curious what people here think of that plan. I was not a rulemaking expert, by any means, but questions like "how does the Administrative Procedures Act apply?" occur to me.”

GW replied: “Surely the public understands that rules for complex technologies requre expertise and extensive technical review and approval. Simple words like "should" and "shall" in a rule or regulation can mean the difference between a safe operating nuclear power plant and one that releases radioactive matterial to the environment. Relegating final review and approval of the kind or regulations promulgated by NRC, to a loyal Trump supporter or Trump himself would greatly reduce the confidence the public deserves when they agree to permit nuclear power plant in their jurisdiction.”

DP replied: “RIF the staff and issue licenses faster. Right. Today it’s rules, later it will be SERs. It’s a slippery slope. So much for independence. Staff will be afraid of filing a DPO concerning anything that comes from the WH for fear of losing their job. That is of course, if there remains a meaningful DPO process. I just hope that no matter what happens, that safety isn’t affected.”

JL replied: “This is clearly disappointing. Hope the Commissioners exercise their independence and refuse to comply with an illegal executive order recognizing they may be removed. Eventually the Supreme Court will need to address the independence issue and the standards for removing commissioners.”

JW replied: “For my own part, I can’t help but think of a couple times I stuck my neck out on what I believed to be misguided regulatory actions. What fate awaits a staff member who raises an uncomfortable issue in this new scheme? The agency has long had challenges with an “open and collaborative work environment,” or whatever they call it these days, and the intervention of the White House won’t improve that situation. I also wonder how they envision responding to emergent issues, like a late night emergency tech spec or temporary non-compliance.”

Former NRC Commissioner Stephen G Burns stated “I am deeply concerned about this move. Here's my post on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/.../urn:li:activity.../”

AR replied: “How does anyone in the White House, including the top brass there, know anything technical about NRC rules and the basis for them! What a farce having the White House reviewing and approving rules. But it doesn't surprise me, considering the myriad of other inane actions they are taking.”

WL: “There's a Commissioners office, a Staff Organization, 4 regional offices a Navsea Nuclear Reactors 08 Div and a USA Dept of Energy. Is there any duplication? How many times has the Staff been reorganized? Will our Federal Energy Policy permit Small Modular Reactors? Could the White House deal with the Intervenors like we did in the past? I remember the SRP, GDC, Part 50, Tech Specs, Sholly Notices, and the Reg Guides..will they all be reviewed in the Oval Office. Turn it all over to AI.”

JD wrote: “Having spent 20 years at the NRC, I can confidently say that overall NRC does a really good job of balancing reasonable public health and safety with that of efficiency and commercial needs. All of the great people I previously worked with at the NRC are passionate and highly technically competent individuals who try hard to make good decisions for all involved stakeholders.

That said, after having now spent nearly a decade on the industry side, I feel that industry doesn’t get enough credit for self-regulation of safety. Safety is a shared goal. After all, we need safe, reliable plants to deliver our electricity to our customers. It would not make good business sense to operate in an unsafe manner. In addition, the industry has the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) which continually challenges the industry to achieve higher and higher levels of excellence.

So, if done correctly and with the right technical conscience, there may be something to be gained by looking closely at some efficiency changes with a different set of eyes. In my opinion, if we are going to overhaul the regulations which have proved effective all these years, the DOGE should work with a coalition of NRC, industry, NEI, and INPO experts to carefully weigh the potential gains and/or consequences of such changes.

I worked as a contractor in the commercial nuclear field and at NRC for 31 years and completely agree that both industry and NRC pursue the same goal - safety. However, I think just knowing that there is an independent regulator who will be reviewing industry submittals contributes to the quality of industry safety analyses which leads to the industry having a good safety record.”

LC wrote: “Can you imagine them reading and understanding the complexity of the technical issues and regulatory complications etc. It has not been uncommon for the NRC to come under attack by both parties over the years-too much regulation or not enough regulation-so it goes. The NRC is the leading nuclear regulator in the world!”

CA stated: “Agree. Defense in depth; redundancy for safety's sake is important. It will be awkward to look a foreign regulator in the eye after all the times NRC has stressed the importance of an independent regulator.”

I added: “NRC has been the “gold standard” of nuclear regulators worldwide. We can all recall or revisit cases like Davis-Besse’s near-miss meltdown, corporate fraud and NRC fines. I suggest retired NRC employees compose an open letter to publicly share the essential facts about the “gold standard” as the President loves gold! I also recall our quick actions on increasing protections nationwide of all facilities after 9/11 and creating NSIR!”

DP replied, “you can add NRC’s role in investigating and requiring nation-wide improvements in: 1) fire protection after Browns Ferry fire; 2) maintenance after 1984 loss of feedwater event at Davis -Besse; 3) diesel-generator reliability of Transamerica Delaval diesel generators after crankshaft failure at Shoreham in the mid-1980s; and 4) site specific seismic upgrades at San Onofre 1 and Trojan. And our preemptive work preparing for Y2K in case something unforeseen happened.”

Efficient Nuke Licensing

In July 2024, President Biden signed the Fire Grants and Safety Act into law. According to DOE, the law is “chalking up a BIG win for our nuclear power industry. Included in the bill is bipartisan legislation known as the ADVANCE Act that will help us build new reactors at a clip that we haven’t seen since the 1970s.”

The ADVANCE Act is short for: ‘‘Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024.”

DOE states, “any of the advanced reactors under development use different coolants than what is currently used in our commercial light-water reactors—making the regulatory process more of a challenge. The ADVANCE Act directs the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reduce certain licensing application fees and authorizes increased staffing for NRC reviews to expedite the process.”

NRC expediting environmental reviews is discussed in Section 506 of Title V.

TITLE V—IMPROVING COMMISSION EFFICIENCY

Sec. 501. Mission alignment. NRC must update mission statement to include “efficient”
Sec. 502. Strengthening the NRC workforce.
Sec. 503. Commission corporate support funding.
Sec. 504. Performance metrics and milestones.
Sec. 505. Nuclear licensing efficiency.
Sec. 506. Modernization of nuclear reactor environmental reviews.

According to Section 506, NRC must submit a report to Congress within 180 days (due January 2025) with planned efforts to “facilitate efficient, timely, and predictable environmental reviews of nuclear reactor applications for a license…through expanded use of categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and generic environmental impact statements.”

These new mandates are based on changes made to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in section 321 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act in 2023 as discussed in this blog from the American Action Forum. I previously wrote a blog about the history of NEPA and my submitting public comments to NRC.

According to the ADVANCE Act, NRC must report to Congress and consider:

A)      Using NEPA documents prepared by other Federal agencies

B)      Using previous NEPA documents prepared by NRC

C)      Using mitigated findings of no significant impact to reduce proposed impacts

D)      Relying on other Federal, State, and local government evaluations

E)      Coordinating development of NEPA documents with other Federal agencies

F)      Streamlining consultations with other Federal, State, and local agencies

G)     Streamlining analyses of alternatives including sites and power alternatives

H)     Establishing new categorical exclusions

I)       Amending 10 CFR Section 51.20(b) to determine if an EA can replace an EIS

J)      Authorizing use of applicant’s EIS as the NRCs draft EIS

K)     Adopting online and digital technologies to allow applicant and agency coordination

L)     Making other revisions to 10 CFR 51 that may be needed

Yesterday, I attended a virtual public meeting with NRC staff to take comments on the ADVANCE Act directive to be included in the report to Congress. About 60 people attended including 40 members of the public and 20 NRC staff. Some attendees strongly oppose nuclear energy while others represent the industry or academia which made for diverse and lively comments.

About 20 years ago, I worked for NRC conducting environmental reviews for relicensing operating nuclear power plants. Many of us felt the NEPA schedule of about 18 months was very aggressive and there was more than one Christmas-New Year’s holiday “break” we had to work to get the EIS completed on time! Here’s the basic process: the applicant submits an application then NRC issues the notice of intent (NOI) that gets published in the federal register (FRN) which starts the clock on the application process. NRC staff reviews the industry environmental report and starts the scoping process to conduct the NEPA study, site tours and audits, permit reviews, discussions with agencies/tribes and obtain public comments. This provides input into the draft EIS which involves obtaining and addressing public comments to prepare the final EIS. The NEPA review occurs parallel to the safety evaluation report and the total process to grant a license takes about 2 years.

I commented that for the above item F, NRC must also consult with Native American tribes which are sovereign nations as they are directly affected by uranium mining, mill sites, transportation routes, and more impacts that must be considered in NEPA analyses. I know NRC staff are well aware and are very involved in tribal consultations and the Congressional text must be updated. I could not identify anyone on the public meeting representing Native American tribes and many of the public attendees complained about lack of notification for the meeting. I randomly learned about the meeting by looking at new documents entered into ADAMS. I suggest NRC make more of an effort to engage the general public through social media announcements.

As I reported about 10 months ago, I worked preparing environmental reports to build small modular reactors (SMR) in Idaho. We were very close to submitting the application before the utility shut the project down so the NRC officially did not start the NEPA process. However, NRC became very involved in “pre-application” meetings and reviews of draft documents so there was close coordination between industry and the regulators to make the process very efficient.

Regarding the ADVANCE Act mandate of considerations, NRC will need to determine and justify if other NEPA documents previously prepared by NRC or other Federal, State, or local agencies are relevant, reliable, and adequate to meet all requirements. While NRC consults with Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Commerce NOAA, I recommend NRC obtain reviews from the U.S. Geological Survey which is often closely involved in local and tribal resource issues. For example, see the DOE project involving USGS on tribal land related to impacts from uranium mill sites which I coauthored.

I advocate that NEPA documents need to consider alternative siting and sources of power. How did the applicant objectively consider various locations for the project and arrive at the proposed site? For the Idaho SMR project, the Shoshone-Bannock tribe wanted to know the same thing and wondered how the site construction might affect their reservation’s view of the mountains or noise during construction as well many other disruptive concerns.

I believe one of the failures of the Idaho SMR project, beyond the proposed rapid inflationary construction cost increases to the project, was the lack of public outreach to engage ratepayers such as in Salt Lake City to counteract the misinformation regarding baseload and alternative energy sources needed for grid stability. As coal plants get retired or replaced with natural gas plants, the only other source of baseload power (where the electricity flows 24/7) is with nuclear power. While wind and solar power alternatives are increasingly popular, without very expensive battery storage — grid stability will be impossible. So the public, especially the anti-nuclear activists need to face the energy and climate change realities. Therefore, I recommend NRC keep the requirement for industry to provide alternative siting and need for power sources in the environmental report which NRC reviews and incorporates in the EIS. I also do not advocate that first of a kind power plants receive an exemption from considering alternatives.

Similarly, for category J, I do not advocate for NRC adopting the industry environmental report as the draft EIS. That will skip the scoping process involving the pubic. For the Idaho SMR project, we almost completed the environmental report and there was no public involvement. How can NRC plagiarize verbatim industry reports then claim it meets their nuclear ASME quality assurance practices (NQA-1)? When I worked for NRC and learned that our consultant took information directly from the industry report without referencing the source of information this became a serious breach of trust. How will the general public perceive any government report written by industry proponents?

With the U.S. not creating a nuclear waste repository and having to pay industry to store nuclear waste, it is not reasonable for NRC to expect industry will resolve these issues in the environmental report as would be needed if category J were adopted.

I suggest NRC prepare a nationwide programmatic or generic EIS that can be tiered to site specific EIS documents. I do not agree that EAs can be substituted for EIS documents (category I) as nuclear power plants are major federal actions and public involvement with meetings is necessary and might be excluded in the EA process.

Plans to conduct another NRC public meeting on the ADVANCE Act is planned for October 16. This blog will serve as my official public comments submitted to Mr. Lance Rakovan: lance.rakovan@nrc.gov.

Update October 16, 2024

Big news today- Amazon Web Services announced plans to partner with a company to build nuclear energy sites. Here’s a report from AP discussing Amazon and Google’s recent announcements.

Today, I attended another NRC meeting on the ADVANCE Act - this time focusing on the big picture as the first public meeting involving the entire organization. Here are my comments that I posted online:

“I attended public meetings today and on September 25th, 2024. So far at both meetings, the NRC requested public "scoping" comments on the ADVANCE Act but has not provided proposed decisions that must soon be provided to Congress. I submitted comments on Section 506 to modernize nuclear reactor environmental reviews on September 26. The report to Congress on Section 506 is due in early January 2025. Will there be an opportunity to review and provide comments to this draft report to Congress or will it be considered a final report? How can the public provide comments in the process to evaluate NRC recommendations?

At the meeting today, the NMSS Director responded to a question that the ADVANCE Act is being considered beyond the Congressional direction for "advanced nuclear reactors" and being considered for all parts of the agency. This increase in scope warrants an increase in public awareness to all programs nationwide and internationally with participation including from IAEA, other federal agencies, state and local governments and sovereign Native American tribal governments. For example, questions were asked at today's meeting about nuclear waste storage and disposal but no one from the Department of Energy responded. However, the Advance Act (Section 506 items D-F) directs NRC to coordinate with other agencies during the NEPA process. Before changes are made to the process, more public meetings are needed to involve these other groups with public engagement to understand what the NRC recommends.

I recommend NRC consider providing the draft report on Section 506 to Congress and offer a public comment period to review and incorporate comments as is typically done in the EIS process: scoping, draft EIS, final EIS. This would enable NRC to meet its obligation for submitting a report on time and for including additional public input. Support for carbon-free nuclear power is increasing and this is a timely opportunity to increase public pressure on Congress for finding a permanent geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste.

The statement that taxpayers will be subsiding about half of the increased mandates resulting from the Act needs to be detailed. What aspects of the pre-application and application process will be paid by the industry or by taxpayers? The public are not generally involved in pre-application meetings so using taxpayer dollars would be inappropriate.

While the current process of 25 tasks presented today is efficient for NRC to accomplish requirements on many different timelines over the next few years, a reasonable person will not be able to put the pieces together. Therefore, I recommend one overarching mission document is needed in responding to the ADVANCE Act.

Another question asked was how will these changes might affect Reg Guides and other documents. No answer was provided. The industry and public need clarity for what will be affected by regulatory changes and the timelines. For example, Reg. Guide 4.2 to prepare environmental reports will need to be updated for changes to the Act Section 506 and 10 CFR Part 51.

With the 50th anniversary of NRC and preparing for the RIC in March 2025, I suggest the EDO recommend to the Commission:

1) that the ADVANCE Act is vital for the nation's civilian nuclear program and necessitates demonstration as an independent regulatory, similar to the Federal Reserve

2) one holistic agency-wide document describing all functions of NRC will be prepared focusing on proposed changes

3) the NRC organize a panel for the RIC involving a wide number of agency experts to describe the changes being made from the Advance Act.”

UPDATE January 16, 2026

The NRC completed the report to Congress directed by Section 506 of the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act). Here are links to the letter and report. Based on my reading, the report proposes potential changes to the way NRC conducts environmental reviews for new power plants with the overall theme for industry to have a much larger role in the NEPA process. For example, utility consultants may take the lead in several areas including: 1) threatened and endangered species biological reviews and preparing assessments, 2) interactions with tribal governments, and 3) preparing environmental assessments (EA) as the preferred option over full environmental impact statements (EIS). Previously, NRC took the lead in all these areas including having industry submit the environmental report that fed into the expanded EIS. In addition, issues common to all future nuclear plants could be resolved in the Generic EIS for New Reactors in the same way NRC regulates other fuel cycle entities.

The use of “incorporation by reference” will expand where the applicant cites previous public information so the reader must track down information. The NRC focus will be on new and significant information as well as only consider alternative sources of energy as part of the no action alternative as related only to nuclear options. Therefore, NEPA documents will no longer consider various sources of non-nuclear energy which for adoption of future nuclear power and generating additional nuclear waste needs to become part of the national and international conversation. The report is very brief with summary tables provided in Enclosure 1. NRC acknowledged my previously submitting public comments along with eight other commenters as shown in Enclosure 2.

When I worked for NRC preparing EIS documents to relicense nuclear power plants, we needed several staff and about 15 experts from national laboratories to conduct environmental reviews. There are extensive data requirements such as for air and water that must begin several years before the application stage, so there will be much more burden on industry consultants to fully plan and execute the expanding requirements.

Please let me know if you are interested in discussing how these changes could impact your business when interacting with the NRC.