- NRC is Missing the Boat on Climate Change – GAO
- Food for Thought for Reforming the NRC
- Breakthrough Institute Has Five Questions for the NRC
- Current Legislation to Reform the NRC
- Risch, Warner Launch Advanced Nuclear Caucus
NRC is Missing the Boat on Climate Change – GAO
In a new report the agency took a look at the existential threat of climate change and asked the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take it into account in its regulation of the commercial nuclear energy industry.
(Full text GAO-24-106326) (One Page Summary)
In a short and to the point summary, GAO wrote climate change is likely to exacerbate natural hazards—such as floods and drought. The risks to nuclear power plants from such hazards include damage to systems and equipment that ensure safe operation.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s oversight process includes addressing safety risks at these plants. However, NRC doesn’t fully consider potential increases in risk from climate change. For example, NRC mostly uses historical data to identify and assess safety risks, rather than data from future climate projections.
What GAO Found
GAO recommended that NRC fully address climate risks to nuclear power plants. Climate change is expected to exacerbate natural hazards—including heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea level rise. In addition, climate change may affect extreme cold weather events. Risks to nuclear power plants from these hazards include loss of offsite power, damage to systems and equipment, and diminished cooling capacity, potentially resulting in reduced operations or plant shutdowns.
However, NRC’s actions to address risks from natural hazards do not fully consider potential climate change effects. For example, NRC primarily uses historical data in its licensing and oversight processes rather than climate projections data.
NRC officials GAO interviewed said they believe their current processes provide an adequate margin of safety to address climate risks. However, NRC has not conducted an assessment to demonstrate that this is the case.
Assessing its processes to determine whether they adequately address the potential for increased risks from climate change would help ensure NRC fully considers risks to existing and proposed plants. Specifically, identifying any gaps in its processes and developing a plan to address them, including by using climate projections data, would help ensure that NRC adopts a more comprehensive approach for assessing risks and is better able to fulfill its mission to protect public health and safety.
Why GAO Did This Study
GAO was asked to review the climate resilience of energy infrastructure. This report examines (1) how climate change is expected to affect nuclear power plants and (2) NRC actions to address risks to nuclear power plants from climate change. GAO analyzed available federal data and reviewed regulations, agency documents, and relevant literature. GAO interviewed officials from federal agencies, including NRC, the Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and knowledgeable stakeholders from industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. GAO also conducted site visits to two plants.
GAO’s Recommendations
GAO is making three recommendations, including that NRC assess whether its existing processes adequately address climate risks and develop and implement a plan to address any gaps identified.
1. The Chair of the NRC should direct NRC staff to assess whether its licensing and oversight processes adequately address the potential for increased risks to nuclear power plants from climate change.
2. The Chair of the NRC should direct NRC staff to develop, finalize, and implement a plan to address any gaps identified in its assessment of existing processes.
3. The Chair of the NRC should direct NRC staff to develop and finalize guidance on incorporating climate projections data into relevant processes, including what sources of climate projections data to use and when and how to use climate projections data.
What the GAO Missed in Its Analysis
While the GAO was diligent in assessing climate risks in terms of threats to the current fleet of US nuclear reactors, most of which were built in the 1960s and 1970s, it did not address the need for the agency to update its regulatory approach to licensing to speed up approvals of new nuclear power plants needed to decarbonize the US economy.
The risk here is that GAO’s focus on potential harm to current plants might actually backfire in terms of the regulatory approach the NRC takes in developing its Part 53 regulations for licensing advanced reactors.
What’s missing here is what should have been the second part of its analysis which is how to be effective in addressing safety issues for new technologies and not strangling them with draconian restrictions that don’t add to safety and security of new reactors.
Additionally, GAO should have doubled down by taking a look at how the NRC could seek to fulfill two objectives. (1) address the risks of climate change, and (2) speed up licensing of new reactors to accelerate the decarbonization of the economy by removing energy sources that spew CO2 into the atmosphere.
It is not enough to be reactive to mitigate the physical threats of climate change. GAO should have also looked at how the NRC could be proactive to simultaneously carry out its mission to assure the safety of nuclear technologies and to more rapidly license new technologies that will replace fossil fuel burning power plants and other uses of process heat and electrical power.
In a search on the GAO website of reports prepared by the agency about the NRC, looking as far back as 2017, none of them addressed recommending the NRC take actions to speed up regulatory reviews to cut costs to applicants, cut out unnecessary internal hearings and reviews, and overall reduce the time to market for current and advanced nuclear reactor projects.
& & &
Food for Thought for Reforming the NRC
Numerous stakeholders from across the political spectrum have made recommendations for accelerating the NRC’s regulatory process, but reforms so far have not been adopted or have they made a significant difference in the agency’s glacial progress for permitting the deployment of new reactors regardless of design or technology.
In an issue brief published in January 2024, the Bipartisan Policy Center offered a number of “reforms” which are the kinds of interventions that could make a difference in getting design reviews done in a more timely manner. Here’s the list from the paper “Licensing and Permitting Reforms to Accelerate Nuclear Energy Deployment”
- Change the NRC environmental review process so that advanced reactors do not automatically require an Environmental Impact Statement
- Require the NRC to create and utilize a generic EIS for the construction and operation of advanced nuclear reactors
- Require the NRC to develop a process for timely environmental review of nuclear projects that reuse brownfield sites (e.g., coal-to-nuclear projects)
- Increase the NRC off-fee funding and make agency funding for infrastructure, technology upgrades, and training activities non-fee-dependent
- Eliminate license review fees for new advanced nuclear reactors
- Establish and enforce timelines for each stage of the licensing and permitting process
- Eliminate uncontested mandatory hearings from the licensing process for new reactors
- Replace court-like hearings on contested environmental issues in license applications with a public comment process like that conducted by other federal agencies
- Require the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to review only novel or safety significant issues rather than all applications
& & &
Breakthrough Institute Has Five Questions for the NRC
- Five Questions for NRC Chair Chris Hanson
- Can Hanson Bring the NRC into the 21st Century?
In a long essay, analysts at the Breakthrough Institute, a think tank, pose five trenchant questions for NRC Chairman Chris Hansen. Here are the questions. The essay is worth your time to read the basis for them.
These questions go beyond the think tank’s previously documented misgivings, and the need for significant changes, related to an early NRC draft of the Part 53 regulations for licensing advanced nuclear reactors.
“To his credit, Hanson has moved the commission to make significant improvements to the proposed draft of the Part 53 licensing framework for advanced reactors produced by the NRC staff, removing deeply problematic provisions that would have enshrined epidemiologically unobservable, demographically implausible, and technologically impossible health and safety standards and assumptions from the rule.”
The five questions sound like a really good Q&A for a congressional hearing. Hopefully, the newly formed Advanced Nuclear Caucus will take the suggestion and hold one. (See news story below)
1. Does he support revising the NRC’s mission to fully account for the public health, climate, energy security, and electricity reliability benefits of nuclear energy?
2. How does Hanson propose to establish cumulative radiological health standards for advanced reactors?
3. What sort of leader will Hanson choose as the next executive director of the NRC?
4. What steps is he prepared to take to expedite commission actions?
5. How does he propose to improve public engagement at the NRC?
Current Legislation to Reform the NRC
H.R.6544 – Atomic Energy Advancement Act (status) Passed House (02/28/2024). Senate – 02/29/2024 Received in the Senate and and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
This bill establishes various requirements to accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy technologies, such as advanced nuclear reactors.
Specifically, the bill sets forth requirements that direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to efficiently license and regulate nuclear energy activities. The bill also revises the NRC’s hiring process to enable the NRC to respond to a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need by using direct hiring for certain positions to carry out NRC’s responsibilities and activities in a timely, efficient, and effective manner.
It also reduces certain licensing fees charged by the NRC for advanced nuclear reactors. Further, it authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) to make awards that pay for certain licensing fees.
Additionally, the bill directs the NRC to promulgate a final rule that implements a process to facilitate efficient and timely environmental reviews of nuclear reactor applications.
The NRC must also develop and implement strategies to enable efficient and timely licensing reviews for, and to support the oversight of, nuclear facilities at brownfield sites, including sites with retired fossil fuel facilities.
Next, the bill sets forth requirements for expediting certain licensing decisions for new nuclear reactors that will use a previously licensed design and will be on or adjacent to a site on which a nuclear reactor already operates or previously operated.
It also authorizes DOE to establish a pilot program under which DOE may make certain long-term power purchase agreements for power generated by commercial nuclear reactors.
Finally, the bill establishes requirements concerning international nuclear energy cooperation and safety.
& & &
Risch, Warner Launch Advanced Nuclear Caucus
U.S. Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) announced the launch of the Senate Advanced Nuclear Caucus. The Senate Advanced Nuclear Caucus will amplify the critical role nuclear energy plays in the United States, explore emerging nuclear technologies, and promote the goals and priorities of the U.S. nuclear industry.
“America must maintain its leadership in nuclear energy development. From lighting the first nuclear powered lightbulb to groundbreaking advanced reactor research, Idaho and the Idaho National Laboratory continue to play a crucial role in achieving this goal,” said Risch.
“With Senator Warner, I am launching the Senate Advanced Nuclear Caucus to showcase the Gem State’s continued nuclear innovation and to expand opportunities for Congress to support nuclear research and development.”
“Advancing the next generation of nuclear energy technology is critical to meeting U.S. and global energy demands. The U.S. has a rich history of leadership in the nuclear industry, and it is crucial that we maintain this competitive edge. I’m proud to launch the Advanced Nuclear Caucus with Senator Risch to promote the advancement of the U.S. nuclear energy industry,” said Warner.
The launch of the caucus is supported by multiple stakeholders.
“The near-term, commercial deployment of advanced nuclear technology is fundamental to providing the clean, reliable and resilient power needed to meet the nation’s energy and national security demands. The establishment of the Senate Advanced Nuclear Caucus is a testament to the benefits that nuclear power provides to the energy, technology, manufacturing and scientific communities. I thank senators Risch and Warner for their leadership,” said John Wagner, director, Idaho National Laboratory.
“Senator Mark Warner and Senator James Risch’s bipartisan leadership in establishing the Senate Advanced NuclearCaucus demonstrates the growing recognition on the hill of nuclear’s critical role in strengthening our nation’s national security while meeting rapidly growing electricity needs now and in the future. We look forward to working with the caucus to help pave the way for the next generation of nuclear reactors,” said Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) President and CEO Maria Korsnick.
“Ten years ago, when Third Way was a lone voice in the wilderness advocating for American leadership on advanced nuclear innovation, our wildest dream was to have a robust private sector backed by government investment and bipartisan leadership in the US Senate,” said Senior Vice President of Third Way’s Climate and Energy Program, Josh Freed.
“Today, that’s exactly where we are. The launch of the Senate Advanced Nuclear Caucus reinforces how committed the United States is to advanced nuclear as a key clean firm energy, economic, and security tool for our nation. We welcome their leadership and look forward to working closely with the Caucus.”
# # #
