USApedia

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (view source)

Revision as of 22:43, 10 April 2025

31,272 bytes removed ,  10 April
no edit summary
VisualWikitext
m (1 revision imported)
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Organization
|OrganizationName=Nuclear Regulatory Commission
|OrganizationType=Regulatory Commissions
|Mission=Regulate civilian radioactive material use to protect health, security, and environment.
|CreationLegislation=Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
|Employees=2900
|Budget=$9.949 million (Proposed FY 2024)
|OrganizationExecutive=Chair
|Services=Reactor licensing; Materials safety; Waste management; Nuclear security; Research; Enforcement
|Regulations=10 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 - Energy); Nuclear Material Safety; Nuclear Reactor Regulation; Incident Response
|HeadquartersLocation=39.04699, -77.11179
|HeadquartersAddress=11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, USA
|Website=https://www.nrc.gov/
}}
{{Short description|Government agency of the United States}}
{{Short description|Government agency of the United States}}
{{Infobox government agency
{{Infobox government agency
|agency_name    = Nuclear Regulatory Commission
|agency_name    = Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Line 108: Line 123:
!rowspan="1"|No.
!rowspan="1"|No.
!rowspan="1"|Name (chair)
!rowspan="1"|Name (chair)
!rowspan="1"|Photo
!colspan="2"|Term of office
!colspan="2"|Term of office
!rowspan="1"|Appointed by
!rowspan="1"|Appointed by
Line 114: Line 128:
|1
|1
|[[Bill Anders]]
|[[Bill Anders]]
|[[File:William Anders.jpg|70px]]
|January 19, 1975
|January 19, 1975
|April 20, 1976
|April 20, 1976
Line 121: Line 134:
|2
|2
|[[Marcus A. Rowden]]
|[[Marcus A. Rowden]]
|[[File:Marcus_Rowden.jpg|70px]]
|January 19, 1975
|January 19, 1975
|January 15, 1977
|January 15, 1977
Line 127: Line 139:
|3
|3
|[[Joseph M. Hendrie]]
|[[Joseph M. Hendrie]]
|[[File:Joseph_Hendrie.jpg|70px]]
|March 3, 1977
|March 3, 1977
|December 7, 1979
|December 7, 1979
Line 134: Line 145:
|4
|4
|[[John F. Ahearne]]
|[[John F. Ahearne]]
|[[File:John_Ahearne.jpg|70px]]
|December 7, 1979
|December 7, 1979
|March 2, 1981
|March 2, 1981
Line 140: Line 150:
|5
|5
|[[Nunzio J. Palladino]]
|[[Nunzio J. Palladino]]
|[[File:Nunzio_Palladino.jpg|70px]]
|July 1, 1981
|July 1, 1981
|June 30, 1986
|June 30, 1986
Line 147: Line 156:
|6
|6
|[[Lando W. Zech Jr.]]
|[[Lando W. Zech Jr.]]
|[[File:Lando_Zech_Jr.jpg|70px]]
|July 1, 1986  
|July 1, 1986  
|June 3, 1989
|June 3, 1989
Line 153: Line 161:
|7
|7
|[[Kenneth Monroe Carr]]
|[[Kenneth Monroe Carr]]
|[[File:Kenneth Monroe Carr.jpg|70px]]
|July 1, 1989
|July 1, 1989
|June 30, 1991
|June 30, 1991
Line 160: Line 167:
|8
|8
|[[Ivan Selin]]
|[[Ivan Selin]]
|[[File:Ivan_Selin.jpg|70px]]
|July 1, 1991
|July 1, 1991
|June 30, 1995
|June 30, 1995
Line 166: Line 172:
|9
|9
|[[Shirley Ann Jackson]]
|[[Shirley Ann Jackson]]
|[[File:Shirley Ann Jackson World Economic Forum 2010.jpg|70px]]
|July 1, 1995
|July 1, 1995
|June 30, 1999
|June 30, 1999
Line 173: Line 178:
|10
|10
|[[Richard Meserve]]
|[[Richard Meserve]]
|[[File:Richard Meserve.jpg|70px]]
|October 29, 1999
|October 29, 1999
|March 31, 2003
|March 31, 2003
Line 179: Line 183:
|11
|11
|[[Nils J. Diaz]]
|[[Nils J. Diaz]]
|[[File:Nils J. Diaz, former Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.gif|70px]]
|April 1, 2003  
|April 1, 2003  
|June 30, 2006
|June 30, 2006
|!style="font-weight:normal" rowspan="2"|[[George W. Bush]]
|!style="font-weight:normal" rowspan="2"|George W. Bush
|-
|-
|12
|12
|[[Dale E. Klein]]
|[[Dale E. Klein]]
|[[File:Dale Klein.jpg|70px]]
|July 1, 2006
|July 1, 2006
|May 13, 2009
|May 13, 2009
Line 192: Line 194:
|13
|13
|[[Gregory Jaczko]]
|[[Gregory Jaczko]]
|[[File:Gregory B. Jaczko.jpg|70px]]
|May 13, 2009
|May 13, 2009
|July 9, 2012
|July 9, 2012
Line 199: Line 200:
|14
|14
|[[Allison Macfarlane]]
|[[Allison Macfarlane]]
|[[File:Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane.jpg|70px]]
|July 9, 2012
|July 9, 2012
|December 31, 2014
|December 31, 2014
Line 205: Line 205:
|15
|15
|[[Stephen G. Burns]]<ref name="burns">{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/commission/burns.html|title=Stephen G. Burns|access-date=6 April 2017}}</ref>
|[[Stephen G. Burns]]<ref name="burns">{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/commission/burns.html|title=Stephen G. Burns|access-date=6 April 2017}}</ref>
|[[File:Chairman Stephen G. Burns.jpg|70px]]
|January 1, 2015
|January 1, 2015
|January 23, 2017
|January 23, 2017
Line 211: Line 210:
|16
|16
|[[Kristine Svinicki]]<ref name="svnicki">{{cite web |url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/commission/svinicki.html |title=Chairman Kristine L. Svinicki |access-date=6 April 2017}}</ref>
|[[Kristine Svinicki]]<ref name="svnicki">{{cite web |url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/commission/svinicki.html |title=Chairman Kristine L. Svinicki |access-date=6 April 2017}}</ref>
|[[File:Kristine Svinicki.jpg|70px]]
|January 23, 2017
|January 23, 2017
|January 20, 2021
|January 20, 2021
Line 218: Line 216:
|17
|17
|[[Christopher T. Hanson]]<ref name=nei-20210128>{{cite news |url=https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsbiden-appoints-new-head-of-nrc-8476871 |title=Biden appoints new head of NRC |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=28 January 2021 |access-date=1 February 2021}}</ref>
|[[Christopher T. Hanson]]<ref name=nei-20210128>{{cite news |url=https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsbiden-appoints-new-head-of-nrc-8476871 |title=Biden appoints new head of NRC |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=28 January 2021 |access-date=1 February 2021}}</ref>
|[[File:Commissioner Christopher T. Hanson.jpg|88x88px]]
|January 20, 2021
|January 20, 2021
|Incumbent
|Incumbent
Line 228: Line 225:
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:center"
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:center"
|-
|-
!Portrait
!Commissioner
!Commissioner
!Took office
!Took office
!Left office
!Left office
|-
|-
|[[File:Marcus Rowden.jpg|100px]]
|[[Marcus A. Rowden]]
|[[Marcus A. Rowden]]
|January 19, 1975
|January 19, 1975
|April 20, 1977
|April 20, 1977
|-
|-
|[[File:Edward A. Mason.jpg|100px]]
|[[Edward A. Mason]]
|[[Edward A. Mason]]
|January 19, 1975
|January 19, 1975
|January 15, 1977
|January 15, 1977
|-
|-
|[[File:Victor_Gilinsky.jpg|100px]]
|[[Victor Gilinsky]]
|[[Victor Gilinsky]]
|January 19, 1975
|January 19, 1975
|June 30, 1984
|June 30, 1984
|-
|-
|[[File:Richard T Kennedy.jpg|100px]]
|[[Richard T. Kennedy]]
|[[Richard T. Kennedy]]
|January 19, 1975
|January 19, 1975
|June 30, 1980
|June 30, 1980
|-
|-
|[[File:Joseph Hendrie.jpg|100px]]
|[[Joseph Hendrie]]
|[[Joseph Hendrie]]
|August 9, 1977
|August 9, 1977
|June 30, 1981
|June 30, 1981
|-
|-
|[[File:Peter_A._Bradford.jpg|100px]]
|[[Peter A. Bradford]]
|[[Peter A. Bradford]]
|August 15, 1977
|August 15, 1977
|March 12, 1982
|March 12, 1982
|-
|-
|[[File:John Ahearne.jpg|100px]]
|[[John F. Ahearne]]
|[[John F. Ahearne]]
|July 31, 1978
|July 31, 1978
|June 30, 1983
|June 30, 1983
|-
|-
|[[File:Nunzio Palladino.jpg|100px]]
|[[Nunzio J. Palladiono]]
|[[Nunzio J. Palladiono]]
|July 1, 1981
|July 1, 1981
|June 30, 1986
|June 30, 1986
|-
|-
|[[File:NRC_Commissioner_Thomas_Morgan_Roberts.jpg|100px]]
|Thomas M. Roberts
|Thomas M. Roberts
|August 3, 1981
|August 3, 1981
|June 30, 1990
|June 30, 1990
|-
|-
|[[File:James_K._Asselstine.jpg|100px]]
|[[James K. Asselstine]]
|[[James K. Asselstine]]
|May 17, 1982
|May 17, 1982
|June 30, 1987
|June 30, 1987
|-
|-
|[[File:Fred Bernthal.jpg|100px]]
|[[Frederick M. Bernthal]]
|[[Frederick M. Bernthal]]
|August 4, 1983
|August 4, 1983
|June 30, 1988
|June 30, 1988
|-
|-
|[[File:Lando Zech Jr.jpg|100px]]
|[[Lando W. Zech Jr.]]
|[[Lando W. Zech Jr.]]
|July 3, 1984
|July 3, 1984
|June 30, 1989
|June 30, 1989
|-
|-
|[[File:Kenneth Monroe Carr.jpg|100px]]
|[[Kenneth Monroe Carr]]
|[[Kenneth Monroe Carr]]
|August 14, 1986
|August 14, 1986
|June 30, 1991
|June 30, 1991
|-
|-
|[[File:Kenneth_C._Rogers.jpg|100px]]
|[[Kenneth C. Rogers]]
|[[Kenneth C. Rogers]]
|August 7, 1987
|August 7, 1987
|June 30, 1997
|June 30, 1997
|-
|-
|[[File:James_R._Curtiss.jpg|100px]]
|James R. Curtiss
|James R. Curtiss
|October 20, 1988
|October 20, 1988
|June 30, 1993
|June 30, 1993
|-
|-
|[[File:Dr. Forrest J. Remick.jpg|100px]]
|[[Forrest J. Remick]]
|[[Forrest J. Remick]]
|December 1, 1989
|December 1, 1989
|June 30, 1994
|June 30, 1994
|-
|-
|[[File:Ivan Selin.jpg|100px]]
|[[Ivan Selin]]
|[[Ivan Selin]]
|July 1, 1991
|July 1, 1991
|June 30, 1995
|June 30, 1995
|-
|-
|[[File:Dr._E._Gail_de_Planque.jpg|100px]]
|[[E. Gail de Planque]]
|[[E. Gail de Planque]]
|December 16, 1991
|December 16, 1991
|June 30, 1995
|June 30, 1995
|-
|-
|[[File:Dr._Shirley_Ann_Jackson.jpg|100px]]
|[[Shirley Ann Jackson]]
|[[Shirley Ann Jackson]]
|May 2, 1995
|May 2, 1995
|June 30, 1999
|June 30, 1999
|-
|-
|[[File:Greta_Joy_Dicus.jpg|100px]]
|[[Greta J. Dicus]]
|[[Greta J. Dicus]]
|February 15, 1996
|February 15, 1996
|June 30, 2003
|June 30, 2003
|-
|-
|[[File:Nils J. Diaz, former Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.gif|100px]]
|[[Nils J. Diaz]]
|[[Nils J. Diaz]]
|August 23, 1996
|August 23, 1996
|June 30, 2006
|June 30, 2006
|-
|-
|[[File:Edward_McGaffigan,_Jr.gif|100px]]
|[[Edward McGaffigan Jr.]]
|[[Edward McGaffigan Jr.]]
|August 28, 1996
|August 28, 1996
|September 2, 2007
|September 2, 2007
|-
|-
|[[File:Jeffrey_S._Merrifield.gif|100px]]
|[[Jeffrey S. Merrifield]]
|[[Jeffrey S. Merrifield]]
|October 23, 1998
|October 23, 1998
|June 30, 2007
|June 30, 2007
|-
|-
|[[File:Richard Meserve.jpg|100px]]
|[[Richard Meserve]]
|[[Richard Meserve]]
|October 29, 1999
|October 29, 1999
|March 31, 2003
|March 31, 2003
|-
|-
|[[File:Gregory B. Jaczko.jpg|100px]]
|[[Gregory Jaczko]]
|[[Gregory Jaczko]]
|January 21, 2005
|January 21, 2005
|July 9, 2012
|July 9, 2012
|-
|-
|[[File:Dr. Peter B. Lyons.jpg|100px]]
|[[Peter B. Lyons]]
|[[Peter B. Lyons]]
|January 25, 2005
|January 25, 2005
|June 30, 2009
|June 30, 2009
|-
|-
|[[File:Dale Klein.jpg|100px]]
|[[Dale E. Klein]]
|[[Dale E. Klein]]
|July 1, 2006
|July 1, 2006
|March 29, 2010
|March 29, 2010
|-
|-
|[[File:Kristine Svinicki.jpg|100px]]
|[[Kristine Svinicki]]
|[[Kristine Svinicki]]
|March 28, 2008
|March 28, 2008
|January 20, 2021
|January 20, 2021
|-
|-
|[[File:George_Apostolakis.jpg|100px]]
|[[George Apostolakis]]
|[[George Apostolakis]]
|March 29, 2010
|March 29, 2010
|June 30, 2014
|June 30, 2014
|-
|-
|[[File:William_D._Magwood_IV.jpg|100px]]
|[[William D. Magwood IV]]
|[[William D. Magwood IV]]
|March 29, 2010
|March 29, 2010
|August 31, 2014
|August 31, 2014
|-
|-
|[[File:William_C._Ostendorff.jpg|100px]]
|[[William C. Ostendorff]]
|[[William C. Ostendorff]]
|March 29, 2010
|March 29, 2010
|June 30, 2016
|June 30, 2016
|-
|-
|[[File:Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane.jpg|100px]]
|[[Allison Macfarlane]]
|[[Allison Macfarlane]]
|July 9, 2012
|July 9, 2012
|December 31, 2014
|December 31, 2014
|-
|-
|[[File:Jeff Baran.jpg|100px]]
|[[Jeff Baran]]
|[[Jeff Baran]]
|October 14, 2014
|October 14, 2014
|June 30, 2023
|June 30, 2023
|-
|-
|[[File:Chairman Stephen G. Burns.jpg|100px]]
|[[Stephen G. Burns]]
|[[Stephen G. Burns]]
|November 4, 2014
|November 4, 2014
|April 30, 2019
|April 30, 2019
|-
|-
|[[File:Annie Caputo, NRC Commissioner.png|100px]]
|[[Annie Caputo]]
|[[Annie Caputo]]
|May 29, 2018
|May 29, 2018
|June 30, 2021
|June 30, 2021
|-
|-
|[[File:David A. Wright official photo.jpg|100px]]
|[[David A. Wright]]
|[[David A. Wright]]
|May 30, 2018
|May 30, 2018
|Present
|Present
|-
|-
|[[File:Commissioner Christopher T. Hanson.jpg|100px]]
|[[Christopher T. Hanson]]
|[[Christopher T. Hanson]]
|June 8, 2020
|June 8, 2020
|Present
|Present
|-
|-
|[[File:Annie Caputo, NRC Commissioner.png|100px]]
|[[Annie Caputo]]
|[[Annie Caputo]]
|August 9, 2022
|August 9, 2022
|Present
|Present
|-
|-
|[[File:Bradley Crowell, NRC Commissioner.jpg|100px]]
|[[Bradley Crowell]]
|[[Bradley Crowell]]
|August 26, 2022
|August 26, 2022
Line 434: Line 391:
[[File:NRC Headquarters Campus site in Rockville, Md. (7845755802).jpg|thumb|The three building that comprise NRC's North Bethesda campus, with [[North Bethesda station]] in the right bottom corner]]
[[File:NRC Headquarters Campus site in Rockville, Md. (7845755802).jpg|thumb|The three building that comprise NRC's North Bethesda campus, with [[North Bethesda station]] in the right bottom corner]]
The NRC consists of the commission on the one hand and offices of the executive director for Operations on the other.<ref name=org>{{cite web|title=Organization & Functions|url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization.html|work=website|publisher=NRC|access-date=21 May 2014|date=27 November 2013}}</ref>
The NRC consists of the commission on the one hand and offices of the executive director for Operations on the other.<ref name=org>{{cite web|title=Organization & Functions|url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization.html|work=website|publisher=NRC|access-date=21 May 2014|date=27 November 2013}}</ref>
The commission is divided into two committees (Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes) and one Board, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, as well as eight commission staff offices (Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication, Office of Congressional Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Office of International Programs, Office of Public Affairs, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Executive Director for Operations).
The commission is divided into two committees (Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes) and one Board, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, as well as eight commission staff offices (Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication, Office of Congressional Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Office of International Programs, Office of Public Affairs, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Executive Director for Operations).


[[Christopher T. Hanson]] is the chairman of the NRC.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/commfuncdesc.html|title=NRC: The Commission|website=www.nrc.gov|access-date=February 24, 2021}}</ref> There are 14 Executive Director for Operations offices:
[[Christopher T. Hanson]] is the chairman of the NRC.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/commfuncdesc.html|title=NRC: The Commission|website=www.nrc.gov|access-date=February 24, 2021}}</ref>  
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, [[Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation]], Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Office of Enforcement, which investigates reports by [[nuclear power whistleblowers]], specifically the Allegations Program,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations-resp.html |title= Allegations |date=28 June 2013|publisher=NRC}}</ref> Office of Investigations, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, Region I, Region II, Region III, Region IV, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Administration, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, and Office of Small Business and Civil Rights.


Of these operations offices, NRC's major program components are the first two offices mentioned above.
=== Operations offices ===
There are 14 Executive Director for Operations offices:


NRC's proposed FY 2015 budget is $1,059.5&nbsp;million, with 3,895.9 full-time equivalents (FTE), 90 percent of which is recovered by fees. This is an increase of $3.6&nbsp;million, including 65.1 FTE, compared to FY 2014.<ref name=budget>{{cite web|title=Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2015 (NUREG-1100, Volume 30)|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1100/v30/|work=NUREG-1100, Volume 30|publisher=NRC|access-date=21 May 2014|date=March 2014}}</ref>
# [[Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards]]
# [[Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation]]
# [[Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research]]
# [[Office of Enforcement (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)|Office of Enforcement]], which investigates reports by [[nuclear power whistleblowers]], specifically the Allegations Program<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations-resp.html |title= Allegations |date=28 June 2013|publisher=NRC}}</ref>  
# [[Office of Investigations (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)]]
# [[Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (Region I)]]
# [[Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (Region II)]]
# [[Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (Region III)]]
# [[Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (Region IV)]]
# [[Office of the Chief Information Officer (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)]]
# [[Office of Administration (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)]]
# [[Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)]]
# [[Office of Small Business and Civil Rights (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)]]


Of these operations offices, NRC's major program components are the first two offices mentioned above. NRC's proposed FY 2015 budget is $1,059.5&nbsp;million, with 3,895.9 full-time equivalents (FTE), 90 percent of which is recovered by fees. This is an increase of $3.6&nbsp;million, including 65.1 FTE, compared to FY 2014.<ref name="budget">{{cite web|title=Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2015 (NUREG-1100, Volume 30)|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1100/v30/|work=NUREG-1100, Volume 30|publisher=NRC|access-date=21 May 2014|date=March 2014}}</ref>
=== Headquarters ===
NRC headquarters offices are located in unincorporated [[North Bethesda, Maryland]] (although the mailing address for two of the three main buildings in the complex list the city as [[Rockville, MD]]), and there are four regional offices.
NRC headquarters offices are located in unincorporated [[North Bethesda, Maryland]] (although the mailing address for two of the three main buildings in the complex list the city as [[Rockville, MD]]), and there are four regional offices.


Line 484: Line 457:


In 2019 the NRC approved a second 20-year license extension for [[Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station|Turkey Point]] units 3 and 4, the first time NRC had extended licenses to 80 years total lifetime. Similar extensions for about 20 reactors are planned or intended, with more expected in the future. This will reduce demand for replacement new builds.<ref name=wnn-20191206>{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Turkey-Point-licensed-for-80-years-of-operation |title=Turkey Point licensed for 80 years of operation |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=6 December 2019 |access-date=9 December 2019}}</ref>
In 2019 the NRC approved a second 20-year license extension for [[Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station|Turkey Point]] units 3 and 4, the first time NRC had extended licenses to 80 years total lifetime. Similar extensions for about 20 reactors are planned or intended, with more expected in the future. This will reduce demand for replacement new builds.<ref name=wnn-20191206>{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Turkey-Point-licensed-for-80-years-of-operation |title=Turkey Point licensed for 80 years of operation |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=6 December 2019 |access-date=9 December 2019}}</ref>
== Controversy, concerns, and criticisms ==
Byrne and Hoffman wrote in 1996, that since the 1980s the NRC has generally favored the interests of nuclear industry, and been unduly responsive to industry concerns, while failing to pursue tough regulation. The NRC has often sought to hamper or deny public access to the regulatory process, and created new barriers to public participation.<ref>John Byrne and Steven M. Hoffman (1996). ''Governing the Atom: The Politics of Risk'', Transaction Publishers, p. 160.</ref>
[[Barack Obama]], when running for [[President of the United States of America|president]] in 2007, said that the five-member NRC had become "captive of the industries that it regulates".<ref name="salon-elliot"/>
Numerous different observers have criticized the NRC as an example of [[regulatory capture]]<ref name="salon-elliot">{{cite news|url=http://www.salon.com/news/japan_earthquake/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/17/jeff_merrifield_nuclear_energy_institute|author=Justin Elliott|title=Ex-regulator flacking for pro-nuke lobby|work= Salon.com|date=17 March 2011|access-date=18 March 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0401_nuclear_meltdown_kaufmann.aspx |title=Preventing Nuclear Meltdown: Assessing Regulatory Failure in Japan and the United States |author=Daniel Kaufmann |date=April 1, 2011 |work=Brookings |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110406062959/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0401_nuclear_meltdown_kaufmann.aspx |archive-date=April 6, 2011 }}</ref> The NRC has been accused of having conflicting roles as regulator and "salesman" in a 2011 Reuters article,<ref name=reuters>{{cite web |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-industry-nrc-idUSTRE73H0PL20110418 |title=Exclusive: U.S. nuclear regulator a policeman or salesman? |author1=Ben Berkowitz  |author2=Roberta Rampton  |name-list-style=amp |date=April 18, 2011 |work=Reuters }}</ref> doing an inadequate job by the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/28/28greenwire-japanese-nuclear-reactors-us-safety-to-take-ce-30444.html |title=Japanese Nuclear Reactors, U.S. Safety to Take Center Stage on Capitol Hill This Week|author=Hannah Northey |date=28 March 2011|work=New York Times }}</ref> and the agency approval process has been called a "rubber stamp".<ref name="motherjones">{{cite web|author=Kate Sheppard|url=http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/japan-nuclear-regulatory-commission|title=Is the Government's Nuclear Regulator Up to the Job?|work=[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]]|date=17 March 2011|access-date=18 March 2011}}</ref>
[[Frank N. von Hippel]] wrote in March 2011, that despite the 1979 [[Three Mile Island accident]] in Pennsylvania, the NRC has often been too timid in ensuring that America's commercial reactors are operated safely:
<blockquote>
Nuclear power regulation is a textbook example of the problem of "regulatory capture" — in which an industry gains control of an agency meant to regulate it. Regulatory capture can be countered only by vigorous public scrutiny and Congressional oversight, but in the 32 years since Three Mile Island, interest in nuclear regulation has declined precipitously.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24Von-Hippel.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=frank%20von%20hippel&st=cse |title=It Could Happen Here |author=Frank Von Hippel |date=23 March 2011|work=New York Times }}</ref>
</blockquote>
An article in the [[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]] stated that many forms of NRC regulatory failure exist, including regulations ignored by the common consent of NRC and industry:
<blockquote>
A worker (named [[George Galatis]]) at the [[Millstone Nuclear Power Plant]] in Connecticut kept warning management, that the spent fuel rods were being put too quickly into the spent storage pool and that the number of rods in the pool exceeded specifications. Management ignored him, so he went directly to the NRC, which eventually admitted that it knew of both of the forbidden practices, which happened at many plants, but chose to ignore them. The whistleblower was fired and blacklisted.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/6/44.full |title=Fukushima and the inevitability of accidents |author=Charles Perrow |date=November–December 2011 |volume=67 |issue=6 |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |pages= 44–52  |bibcode=2011BuAtS..67f..44P |doi=10.1177/0096340211426395 |s2cid=144904813 }}</ref>
</blockquote>
=== Terrorism concerns and threats ===
[[Image:NRC building.JPG|thumb|right|NRC headquarters outside [[Rockville, Maryland]]]]
Terrorist attacks such as those executed by [[al-Qaeda]] on [[New York City]] and [[Washington, D.C.]], on [[September 11 attacks|September&nbsp;11, 2001]], and in [[London]] on [[7 July 2005 London bombings|July&nbsp;7, 2005]], have prompted fears that extremist groups might use radioactive [[dirty bomb]]s in further attacks in the United States and elsewhere.<ref name="wash">{{cite news |author=Jay Davis |date=25 March 2008 |title=After A Nuclear 9/11 |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032402291_pf.html}}</ref><ref name="kittrie">[http://students.law.umich.edu/mjil/article-pdfs/v28n2-kittrie.pdf Averting Catastrophe] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100607150719/http://students.law.umich.edu/mjil/article-pdfs/v28n2-kittrie.pdf|date=2010-06-07}} p. 338.</ref><ref name="nyt">{{cite news |author=Nicholas Kristof |date=10 March 2004 |title=A Nuclear 9/11 |newspaper=NY Times |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE0D7143EF933A25750C0A9629C8B63}}</ref>
In March 2007, undercover investigators from the [[Government Accountability Office]] set up a false company and obtained a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that would have allowed them to buy the radioactive materials needed for a dirty bomb. According to the GAO report, NRC officials did not visit the company or attempt to personally interview its executives. Instead, within 28 days, the NRC mailed the license to the West Virginia postal box. Upon receipt of the license, GAO officials were able to easily modify its stipulations and remove a limit on the amount of radioactive material they could buy. A spokesman for the NRC said that the agency considered the radioactive devices a "lower-level threat"; a bomb built with the materials could have contaminated an area about the length of a city block but would not have presented an immediate health hazard.<ref name="nyt2">{{cite news |date=12 July 2012 |title=A Nuclear Ruse Uncovers Holes in U.S. Security |newspaper=NY Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/us/12nuke.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin}}</ref>
=== 1987 congressional report ===
Twelve years into NRC operations, a 1987 congressional report entitled "NRC Coziness with Industry"<ref name="congress">{{cite web |author=U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on General, Oversight and Investigations |date=1987 |title=NRC' COZINESS- WITH" INDUSTRY" Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fails to Maintain Arms Length Relationship with the Nuclear Industry |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yaDs5KO2hncC |access-date=21 May 2014 |work=An Investigative Report 100th" Congress First Session}}</ref> concluded, that the NRC "has not maintained an arms length regulatory posture with the commercial nuclear power industry ... [and] has, in some critical areas, abdicated its role as a regulator altogether".<ref name="atom19" /> To cite three examples:<blockquote>
A 1986 Congressional report found that NRC staff had provided valuable technical assistance to the utility seeking an operating license for the controversial [[Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant|Seabrook plant]]. In the late 1980s, the NRC 'created a policy' of non-enforcement by asserting its discretion not to enforce license conditions; between September 1989 and 1994, the 'NRC has either waived or chosen not to enforce regulations at nuclear power reactors over 340 times'. Finally, critics charge that the NRC has ceded important aspects of regulatory authority to the industry's own Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), an organization formed by utilities in response to the Three Mile Island Accident.<ref name="atom19" />
</blockquote>
=== Nuclear Reactor License Renewal Program ===
One example involves the license renewal program that NRC initiated to extend the operating licenses for the nation's fleet of commercial nuclear reactors. [[Environmental impact statement]]s (EIS) were prepared for each reactor to extend the operational period from 40 to 60 years. One study examined the EISs and found significant flaws, included failure to consider significant issues of concern.<ref name="The EIS Book 2014">{{Cite book|title=The EIS Book: Managing and Preparing Environmental Impact Statements|chapter=1|year=2014|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1466583634}}</ref> It also found that the NRC management had significantly underestimated the risk and consequences posed by a severe reactor accident such as a full-scale nuclear meltdown. NRC management asserted, without scientific evidence, that the risk of such accidents were so "Small" that the impacts could be dismissed and therefore no analysis of human and environmental was even performed. Such a conclusion is scientifically indefensible given the experience of the [[Three Mile Island accident|Three Mile Island]], [[Chernobyl disaster|Chernobyl]], and [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster|Fukushima]] accidents. Another finding was that NRC had concealed the risk posed to the public at large by disregarding one of the most important EIS requirements, mandating that [[cumulative impacts]] be assessed (40 Code of Federal Regulations §1508.7). By disregarding this basic requirement, NRC effectively misrepresented the risk posed to the nation by approximately two orders of magnitude (i.e., the true risk is about 100 greater than NRC represented). These findings were corroborated in a final report prepared by a special Washington State Legislature Nuclear Power Task Force, titled, "Doesn't NRC Address Consequences of Severe Accidents in EISs for re-licensing?"<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/NEJSTF/Documents/14%2009%2025/Nuclear_Power.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2017-08-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170220174111/http://leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/NEJSTF/Documents/14%2009%2025/Nuclear_Power.pdf |archive-date=2017-02-20 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="The EIS Book 2014"/><ref>{{Cite book|title=The EIS Book: Managing and Preparing Environmental Impact Statements|chapter=5|year=2014|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1466583634}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Preparing NEPA Environmental Assessments: A Users Guide to Best Professional Practices|chapter=8|publisher=CRC Press|year=2012}}</ref>
=== Post-Fukushima ===
In Vermont, the day before the [[2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami]] that [[Fukushima I nuclear accidents|damaged Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant]], the NRC approved a 20-year extension for the license of [[Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant]], although the [[Vermont state legislature]] voted overwhelmingly to deny an extension.<ref name="motherjones" /> The plant had been found to be leaking [[Radionuclide|radioactive materials]] through a network of underground pipes, which [[Entergy]] had denied under oath even existed. At a hearing in 2009  Tony Klein, chairman of the [[Vermont House of Representatives|Vermont House]] Natural Resources and Energy Committee had asked the NRC about the pipes and the NRC also did not know they existed.<ref name="motherjones" />
In March 2011, the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] released a study critical of the NRC's 2010 performance as a regulator. The UCS said that over the years, it had found the NRC's enforcement of safety rules has not been "timely, consistent, or effective" and it cited 14 "near-misses" at U.S. plants in 2010 alone.<ref name="wapo-yang">{{cite news |author=Jia Lynn Yang |date=March 18, 2011 |title=Democrats step up pressure on nuclear regulators over disaster preparedness |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/democrats-step-up-pressure-on-nuclear-regulators-over-disaster-preparedness/2011/03/17/ABLd66n_story.html |access-date=19 March 2011}}</ref>
In April 2011, Reuters reported that diplomatic cables showed NRC sometimes being used as a sales tool to help push American technology to foreign governments, when "lobbying for the purchase of equipment made by [[Westinghouse Electric Company]] and other domestic manufacturers". This gives the appearance of a regulator which is acting in a commercial capacity, "raising concerns about a potential [[conflict of interest]]".<ref name="reuters" />
San Clemente Green, an environmental group opposed to the continued operation of the [[San Onofre Nuclear Plant]], said in 2011 that instead of being a watchdog, the NRC too often rules in favor of nuclear plant operators.<ref>{{cite web |author=Onell R. Soto |date=April 28, 2011 |title=Anti-nuclear protest planned at NRC meeting |url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/28/anti-nuclear-protest-planned-at-nrc-meeting/ |work=SignOnSanDiego}}</ref>{{third-party inline|date=August 2014}}
In 2011, the [[2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami|Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami]] led to unprecedented damage and flooding of the [[Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant]]. The subsequent loss of offsite power and flooding of onsite emergency diesel generators led to loss of coolant and subsequent [[Nuclear meltdown]] of three reactor cores. The [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster]] led to an uncontrolled release of radioactive contamination, and forced the Japanese Government to evacuate approximately 100,000 citizens.<ref>{{cite web |title=FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR POWER STATION ACCIDENT |url=https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/fukushima.html |website=UNSCEAR |publisher=United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation |access-date=12 July 2022}}</ref>
[[Gregory Jaczko]] was chairman of the NRC when the 2011 [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster|Fukushima disaster]] occurred in Japan. Jaczko looked for lessons for the US, and strengthened security regulations for [[nuclear power plant]]s. For example, he supported the requirement that new plants be able to withstand an aircraft crash.<ref name=nrc /> On February 9, 2012, Jaczko cast the lone dissenting vote on plans to build the first new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years when the NRC voted 4–1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Co to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors at its existing [[Vogtle Electric Generating Plant]] in Georgia. He cited safety concerns stemming from Japan's 2011 [[Fukushima nuclear disaster]], saying "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-nrc-idUSTRE8182J720120209  |title=U.S. approves first new nuclear plant in a generation  |author=Ayesha Rascoe | date=Feb 9, 2012  |work=Reuters }}</ref> In July 2011, Mark Cooper said that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is "on the defensive to prove it is doing its job of ensuring safety".<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/8.abstract |title=The implications of Fukushima: The US perspective |author=Mark Cooper |date=July 2011 |volume=67 |issue=4  |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |page=9 |doi=10.1177/0096340211414840 |s2cid=146270304 }}</ref> In October 2011, Jaczko described "a tension between wanting to move in a timely manner on regulatory questions, and not wanting to go too fast".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/the-n-r-c-goes-social/ |title=The N.R.C. Goes Social |author=Matthew Wald |date=October 4, 2011 |work=New York Times }}</ref>
In 2011 [[Edward J. Markey]], Democrat of Massachusetts, criticized the NRC's response to the [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster]] and the decision-making on the proposed Westinghouse [[AP1000]] reactor design.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/u-s-regulator-says-fukushima-lessons-can-percolate/ |title=U.S. Regulator Says Fukushima Lessons Can Percolate |author=Matthew L. Wald |date=July 28, 2011 |work=New York Times }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/35103/page2/ |title=Fukushima's Spreading Impact |author=Peter Fairley |date=March 15, 2011 |work=Technology Review }}</ref>
In 2011, a total of 45 groups and individuals from across the nation formally asked the NRC to suspend all licensing and other activities at 21 proposed nuclear reactor projects in 15 states until the NRC completed a thorough post-[[Fukushima nuclear disaster]] examination:<ref name=groups45>{{cite web |url=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fukushima-fallout--45-groups-and-individuals-petition-nrc-to-suspend-all-nuclear-reactor-licensing-and-conduct-a-credible-three-mile-island-style-review-119844504.html|title=Fukushima Fallout: 45 Groups and Individuals Petition NRC to Suspend All Nuclear Reactor Licensing and Conduct a "Credible" Three Mile Island-Style Review |date=April 14, 2011 |work=PRNewswire}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/04/14/anti-nuclear-movement-gears  |title=Anti nuclear movement gears up |author=Carly Nairn |date=14 April 2011|work=San Francisco Bay Guardian }}</ref>
<blockquote> The petition seeks suspension of six existing reactor license renewal decisions ([[Columbia Generating Station]], WA [[Davis–Besse Nuclear Power Station]], OH, [[Diablo Canyon Power Plant]], CA, [[Indian Point Energy Center]], NY, [[Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station]], MA, and [[Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant]], NH); 13 new reactor combined construction permit and operating license decisions ([[Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station]] Units 3 and 4, AL, Bell Bend, [[Callaway Nuclear Generating Station]], MO, [[Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Generating Station]], MD, [[Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant]], TX, [[Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station]], MI, [[Levy County Nuclear Power Plant]], FL [[North Anna Nuclear Generating Station]], VA, [[Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant]], NC, [[South Texas Nuclear Generating Station]], TX, [[Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station]], FL, [[Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant]], GA, and [[William States Lee III Nuclear Generating Station]], SC);a construction permit decision (Bellefonte Units 1 and 2); and an operating license decision ([[Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station]], TN). In addition, the petition asks the NRC to halt proceedings to approve the standardized [[AP1000]] and [[Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor]] designs.<ref name=groups45/></blockquote>
The petitioners asked the NRC to supplement its own investigation by establishing an independent commission comparable to that set up in the wake of the less severe 1979  [[Three Mile Island accident]]. The petitioners included [[Public Citizen]], [[Southern Alliance for Clean Energy]], and San Luis Obispo [[Anti-nuclear groups in the United States#Mothers for Peace|Mothers for Peace]].<ref name=groups45/>
=== Intentionally concealing reports concerning the risks of flooding ===
{{More citations needed|section|date=May 2021}}
Following the Fukushima disaster, the NRC prepared a report in 2011 to examine the risk that dam failures posed on the nation's fleet of nuclear reactors. A redacted version of NRC's report on dam failures was posted on the NRC website on March 6. The original, un-redacted version was leaked to the public.
The un-redacted version which was leaked to the public highlights the threat that flooding poses to nuclear power plants located near large dams and substantiates claims that NRC management has intentionally misled the public for years about the severity of the flooding.
The leaked version of the report concluded that one-third of the U.S. nuclear fleet (34 plants) may face flooding hazards greater than they were designed to withstand. It also shows that NRC management was aware of some aspects of this risk for 15 years and yet it had done nothing to effectively address the problem. Some flooding events are so serious that they could result in a "severe" nuclear accident, up to, and including, a nuclear meltdown.
This criticism is corroborated by two NRC whistleblowers who accused their management of deliberately covering up information concerning the vulnerability of flooding, and of failing to take corrective actions despite being aware of these risks for years. Richard Perkins, a second risk engineer with the NRC and the lead author of the leaked report, filed a complaint with the agency's Inspector General, asserting that NRC staff had improperly redacted information from the public version of his report "to prevent the disclosure of this safety information to the public because it will embarrass the agency." Perkins wrote. "Concurrently, the NRC concealed the information from the public."<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/nuclear-plant-flood-threat-leak_n_1983005.html|last=Zeller|first=Tom|work=Huffpost|title=Leaked Report Suggests Long-Known Flood Threat To Nuclear Plants, Safety Advocates Say|date=October 19, 2012}}</ref>
Larry Criscione, a second NRC risk engineer also raised concerns about the NRC withholding information concerning the risk of flooding. He stated that assertions by NRC's management that plants are "currently able to mitigate flooding events," was false.
David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and safety advocate with the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]]: "The redacted information shows that the NRC is lying to the American public about the safety of U.S. reactors,"<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
The [[Oconee Nuclear Station]] has been shown to be at particular risk from flooding. An NRC letter dated 2009 states that "a [[Jocassee Dam|Jocassee Dam failure]] is a credible event". It goes on to state that "NRC staff expressed concerns that Duke has not demonstrated that the [null Oconee Nuclear Station] units will be adequately protected."<ref>NRC's July 2011 report on dam failures say that the 2009 letter is not publicly available; this quote here is taken from the unredacted version of the NRC's July 2011 report</ref>
NRC's 2011 leaked report notes that "dam failure incidents are common". NRC estimated the odds that dams constructed like Jocassee will fail is about 1 in 3,600 failures per year. Oconee is licensed to operate for another 20 years. The odds of the Jocassee Dam failing over that period are 1 in 180. NRC requires risks to be investigated if they have a frequency of more than 1 in 10,000 years. For a reactor operating over a period of 40 years, these risks must be evaluated if they have a chance greater than a 1 in 250 of occurring.
NRC identified 34 reactors that lie downstream from a total of more than 50 dams. More than half of these dams are roughly the size of the Jocassee dam. Assuming the NRC's failure rate applies to all of these dams, the chance that one will fail over the next 40 years is about one in four or 25 percent chance. This dam failure rate does not include risks posed by earthquakes or terrorism. Thus, the true probability may be much higher.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/floods-from-dam-failure-10-19-12.pdf|title=Union of Concerned Scientists, Dam Failures and Flooding at U.S. Nuclear Plant|access-date=September 6, 2019|archive-date=September 26, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190926060112/https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/floods-from-dam-failure-10-19-12.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
This raised a second and potentially larger issue. NRC recently completed its license renewal program which extended the operating licenses of the nation's fleet of nuclear reactors for an additional 20 years. NRC stated that the probability of a severe accident is so incredible that the consequences can be dismissed from the analysis of impacts in its relicensing [[environmental impact statement]]s (EIS). Yet this conflicts with NRC's internal analyses which concluded that flooding presented a serious human and environmental risk. Critics charge that if these relicensing EISs failed to evaluate the risks of flooding, then how can the public be confident that NRC did not mislead stakeholders concerning other risks such as the potential for a nuclear meltdown.
NRC officials stated in June 2011 that US nuclear safety rules do not adequately weigh the risk of a single event that would knock out electricity from the grid and from emergency generators, as a quake and tsunami did in Japan.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/u-s-reactors-unprepared-for-total-power-loss-report-suggests/ |title=U.S. Reactors Unprepared for Total Power Loss, Report Suggests |author=Matthew Wald |date=June 15, 2011 |work=New York Times }}</ref> {{As of|2011|10|alt = In October 2011}}, and NRC instructed agency staff to move forward with seven of the 12 safety recommendations put forward by a federal task force in July 2011. The recommendations include "new standards aimed at strengthening operators' ability to deal with a complete loss of power, ensuring plants can withstand floods and earthquakes and improving emergency response capabilities". The new safety standards will take up to five years to fully implement.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/188767-federal-regulators-agree-to-implement-tighter-nuclear-standards |title=Nuke regulators toughen safety rules |author=Andrew Restuccia |date=2011-10-20 |work=The Hill |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120114112850/http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/188767-federal-regulators-agree-to-implement-tighter-nuclear-standards |archive-date=2012-01-14 }}</ref>
{{As of|2011|11|alt = In November 2011}}, Jaczko warned power companies against complacency and said the agency must "push ahead with new rules prompted by the nuclear crisis in Japan, while also resolving long-running issues involving fire protection and a new analysis of earthquake risks".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/nrc-chair-warns-nuclear-industry-against-complacency-says-it-must-resolve-long-running-issues/2011/11/10/gIQAq32l9M_story.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827034738/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/nrc-chair-warns-nuclear-industry-against-complacency-says-it-must-resolve-long-running-issues/2011/11/10/gIQAq32l9M_story.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=27 August 2016 |title=NRC chair warns nuclear industry against complacency, says it must resolve long-running issues |date=11 November 2011 |newspaper=Washington Post }}</ref>
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also been criticized for its reluctance to allow for innovation and experimentation, even controlled for and purportedly safe methods of deploying nuclear power that countries such as Poland are approving before the United States. As reported by [[Reason (magazine)|Reason magazine]] in May 2022: {{blockquote|Oregon's NuScale Power signed an agreement with the Polish mining and processing firm KGHM to deploy NuScale's innovative small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) in Poland by 2029. At the U.N.'s Glasgow Climate Change Conference in November, NuScale contracted with a Romanian energy company to deploy its SMR technology in that country by 2028. NuScale has signed similar memoranda of understanding with electric power companies in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Ukraine.
This kind of advanced energy technology will likely be powering homes and businesses in Europe before the first reactor is completed in the United States. That's because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is in no hurry to help.<ref name="America's Nuclear Reluctance – Reason">{{cite web |last1=Bailey |first1=Ronald |title=America's Nuclear Reluctance |url=https://reason.com/2022/05/23/americas-nuclear-reluctance/ |website=reason.com |date=23 May 2022 |publisher=Reason |access-date=25 May 2022}}</ref>
}}
=== Exceeding powers licensing off-site interim storage facility ===
In September 2021 the NRC issued a license for a privately operated temporary consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for [[spent nuclear fuel]] in [[Andrews County, Texas|Andrews County]], [[Texas]]. However a group including the [[State of Texas]], which had passed a law in 2022 prohibiting the storage of [[high-level waste]] in the state, petitioned for a court review of the license. In August 2023 the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]] ruled that the NRC does not have the authority from Congress under the [[Atomic Energy Act of 1954|Atomic Energy Act]] or the [[Nuclear Waste Policy Act]] to license such a temporary storage facility that is not at a nuclear power station or federal site, nullifying the purported license. Another CISF in [[New Mexico]] is similarly being challenged in the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]].<ref name=wnn-20230830>{{cite news |url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Court-annuls-licence-for-Texas-used-fuel-store |title=Court annuls licence for Texas used fuel store |website=World Nuclear News |date=30 August 2023 |access-date=3 September 2023}}</ref><ref name=appeal-20230825>{{cite web |url=https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60743-CV0.pdf |title=Appeal from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency No. 72-1050 |id=21-60743 |website=United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |date=25 August 2023 |access-date=3 September 2023}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==
Retrieved from ‘https://openusaproject.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/9531...32451’