Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Proposal for Generic Environmental Review for Untested Nuclear Reactors Criticized by Environmental Activist

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) has been criticized by environmental activist Dennis R. Nelson for its proposal to create a generic environmental review process for small-scale advanced nuclear reactors. Nelson, a researcher and writer with a long history of opposition to commercial nuclear power, argues that this proposal contradicts the USNRC's primary mission to protect public health and safety. He cites several reasons for his opposition, including the lack of experience by the USNRC in regulating advanced nuclear reactors, the uncertainty of the environmental impacts of such reactors, and the potential for significant offsite ionizing radiation releases.

Key Takeaways:

• The USNRC lacks experience in regulating advanced nuclear reactors, which would require rigorous study and experience.
• Creating a generic environmental review is an exercise in speculative fiction, as there is no such thing as a generic advanced nuclear reactor.
• There is no basis for assuming accidents with small-scale advanced nuclear reactors would not be able to cause significant offsite ionizing radiation releases.
• Advanced nuclear reactors would generate many different kinds and forms of radioactive waste, making their management even more difficult than current light-water reactors.
• All of the environmental impacts of small-scale advanced nuclear reactors will have significant environmental justice impacts, disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples and communities of color.
• The USNRC must consider the futility of streamlining the environmental review and licensing process for advanced nuclear reactors due to the realities of climate disruption and the development/promotion of "carbon-free/nuclear-free" energy technologies.
• Advanced nuclear reactors cannot be safely licensed and built quickly enough to address climate disruption, even if they prove commercially viable.

Statistics:

• 40-60% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels) by 2030, as recommended by the International Scientific Consensus.
• By the 2030s or 2040s, advanced nuclear reactors would not be ready for widespread commercial deployment, making them a futile attempt to address climate disruption.
• Water temperatures, sea-level rise, weather patterns, and other siting conditions will change dramatically by the time advanced nuclear reactors are ready for deployment.

Sources:

• Dennis R. Nelson's letter to the USNRC, dated June 18, 2020 (Federal Register Notice: 85FR24040, Comment Number: 2169)
• International Scientific Consensus on climate disruption and greenhouse gas emissions reductions (no specific source cited)