Did you catch "The Meltdown: Three Mile Island" on Netflix? TMI remains a danger and TMIA is working hard to ensure the safety of our communities and the surrounding areas. Learn more on this site and support our efforts. Join TMIA. To contact the TMIA office, call 717-233-7897.
The White House has introduced radical changes that threaten to disrupt the effectiveness of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The agency was formed in 1975 to be an independent regulator, separating it from the promotional role pursued by its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. The NRC has set safety requirements that have become the global gold standard for nuclear regulation. The White House actions threaten to undermine this record.
Conversations with fellow former NRC chairs and retired NRC experts reveal a shared concern that the changes will have unintended, dangerous consequences. In February, the White House issued an executive order that intruded on the traditional autonomy of independent agencies, thereby giving the White House the capacity to control NRC regulatory actions and allow politics to infect regulatory decision-making. A series of executive orders on nuclear matters issued in late May compounded the challenge. One of the executive orders focuses on the reform of the NRC. It would establish arbitrary deadlines for decisions on construction permits and operating licenses, regardless of whether the design offers new and previously unevaluated safety challenges. Other provisions demand the review of all the extensive NRC regulations within 18 months. The other executive orders allow the construction of nuclear power reactors on federal lands—sites belonging to the Energy Department and the Defense Department—without any review by the NRC.
Then, on June 13, the Trump administration firedChristopher Hanson, an NRC commissioner and former chair, without any stated justification. These actions all serve to weaken protections for those who work in or live near reactors. Given the anticipated expansion of reliance on nuclear power, the drastic staff reductions contemplated by the White House come at the wrong time.
There is always room to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory process and adapt it to the evolution of nuclear technologies and their implementation. Recognizing that, past and current NRC commissioners and technical staff have set in motion changes to reduce the regulatory burden and speed the deployment of reactors at a lower cost. The changes are prudent and reasonable and support the promise of expanded reliance on nuclear energy. Congress has also encouraged those efforts and further instructed the NRC to make more improvements to the process through the bipartisan ADVANCE Act signed into law in 2024. All of this was underway before the White House interference.
The NRC has protected the health and safety of Americans for 50 years without a single civilian reactor radiation-related death. The lessons of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident have long been woven into the safety regime, and every commercial reactor in the United States is safer today because of major safety steps taken after the destruction of reactors in Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant by a massive earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
Since Three Mile Island, the agency has licensed approximately 50 power reactors to operate. It has recently issued construction permits for advanced reactors ahead of schedule. And the NRC has cleared utilities to boost the power of many existing reactors and has licensed them to run longer than originally planned.
We are concerned about the unintended safety consequences that a reduced NRC independence and a schedule-driven regulatory paradigm threaten to bring.
We fear the loss of public confidence that can befall a safety agency when expediency is seen to be given priority. Reducing the NRC’s independence while mixing promotion of nuclear energy and responsibility for safeguarding the public and environment is a recipe for corner-cutting at best and catastrophe at worst.
We are also concerned that such steps could damage the reputation of US reactor vendors worldwide. A design licensed in the United States now carries a stamp of approval that can facilitate licensing elsewhere, including the many countries that plan to embark on a nuclear power program. If it becomes clear that the NRC has been forced to cut corners on safety and operate less transparently, US reactor vendors will be hurt.
The US nuclear industry is helped by the fact that it has a strong independent regulator behind it. The White House’s executive orders may produce the opposite effect from their stated purpose.
Editor’s note: The authors are former chairs of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
With a new social media account, a name change and an appearance from a former Miss America, Constellation Energy recently held a rally to bolster support for a nuclear renaissance near the site of one of the biggest atomic accidents in US history.
“When I say 'nuclear', you say 'energy',” Grace Stanke, the 2023 Miss America winner-turned-nuclear energy engineer and advocate, shouted to the crowd at the site of the Three Mile Island Unit 1 reactor in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro also took part in the rally with 400 in attendance, many of them Constellation Energy employees.
“This restart will safely take advantage of existing infrastructure while creating thousands of energy jobs and strengthening Pennsylvania’s legacy as a national energy leader,” the Democratic Governor said.
Initially named Three Mile Island Unit 1, (TMI1), the reactor, which is shut down, now goes by the name Crane Clean Energy Centre.
This name change followed last year's announcement by Constellation Energy and Microsoft of a two-decade power purchase agreement, under which the plant will resume operations to fill a potential energy grid gap created by power-hungry AI data centres.
That announcement raised eyebrows in part because Three Mile Island played a large role in creating a stigma around nuclear energy that has lingered in the US for many years.
In 1979, the core of the plant's Unit 2 reactor was partially exposed, leading to a temporary evacuation of the nearby area and a lengthy clean-up.
Debate and studies continue into the potential health effects stemming from the accident. A recent Netflix documentary also reignited interest and controversy about Three Mile Island (TMI).
Constellation touched on the 1979 accident in its announcement of the Microsoft deal with Microsoft, attempting to make clear the damaged reactor was not going to be part of the new project.
“The Unit 1 reactor is located adjacent to TMI Unit 2, which shut down in 1979 and is in the process of being decommissioned by its owner, Energy Solutions,” the Constellation said. “TMI Unit 1 is a fully independent facility, and its long-term operation was not impacted by the Unit 2 accident.”
Yet despite the recent rally held by Constellation, and even amid several polls showing nuclear energy receiving more support in recent years, not everybody is on board with the project.
“The name change is not about remembering, it’s about forgetting,” said Eric Epstein, director of Three Mile Island Alert, a grass roots safe energy organisation founded in 1977, two years before the Unit 2 accident.
Mr Epstein, who unsuccessfully filed a petition with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to oppose the name change, has not backed down from his critiques of Constellation's partnership with Microsoft, and for that matter, the much touted nuclear renaissance driven by AI energy demands.
“The name change is intended to honour Chris Crane, the former CEO of Exelon, who presided over a massive nuclear corruption scheme resulting in a $200 million fine,” he said.
The name change is an “attempt to establish a fictional narrative divorced from past misdeeds,” he told The National.
As well as Mr Epstein's concerns about nuclear waste storage, the lingering clean-up at Unit 2 and fears about potential over-running costs that might burden taxpayers, he has alleged that Pennsylvanians will not be benefiting from the electricity generated once Crane Energy Centre goes online.
“The partnership between data centres and nuclear power plants has the potential to meet the needs of data centres, but does nothing to address the energy needs of businesses, consumers and farmers,” he recently told the Pennsylvania public utility commission.
Yet in terms of nationwide public sentiment, Mr Epstein might be fighting an uphill battle.
According to Pew Research polling last month, about 59 per cent of US citizens now support nuclear energy as a way to meet the country's energy demands.
Other US technology companies have joined in the push for nuclear energy to plug the electricity gap potentially posed by AI technology.
Meta, parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, recently teamed up with Constellation for a 20-year power purchase agreement to revive a nuclear plant in Illinois.
“Nuclear energy from the project will be used to support Meta’s operations in the region,” Meta said. “We’re building AI technologies that are transforming the global economy and the way people connect … our data centres enable these innovations.”
As for the Crane Energy Centre in Pennsylvania, Constellation says the plant, originally set to reopen in 2028, is ahead of schedule with some of its regulatory processes, and may be online as early as 2027.
Meanwhile, some still warn the AI tech bubble could burst, meaning many of these deals could be risky. For now, however, the AI investments, data centres and overall infrastructure in need of energy show no sign of slowing down.
NRC Accelerates Review of Kemmerer Power Station Construction Permit
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has set a more aggressive schedule and aims to complete its review by the end of 2025 on TerraPower’s construction permit application for Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 in Kemmerer, Wyoming.
Frequent and productive engagements with TerraPower, along with other efficiency gains, mean the NRC could complete reviews by Dec. 31, 2025, 6 months ahead of the current schedule. The accelerated timeline depends on a continued commitment from TerraPower to resolve the remaining issues in a timely manner.
TerraPower, through its subsidiary US SFR Owner, filed the application in March 2024, requesting a permit to build the sodium-cooled, advanced reactor design on a site near an existing coal-fired power plant. The 345-megawatt electric Natrium plant includes an energy storage system to temporarily boost output up to 500 MWe, when needed. If the NRC issues the construction permit, TerraPower would need to submit a separate operating license application.
A copy of the TerraPower construction permit application, is available at the Lincoln County Library, 519 Emerald St. in Kemmerer. More information about new reactor licensing is available on the NRC website.
France: National Assembly rejects »nonsensical« plan to halt expansion of solar and wind energy
On Tuesday, the French National Assembly rejected a proposal to stop expanding renewable energy sources. The corresponding bill was rejected by a vote of 377 to 142, with 47 members abstaining. Surprisingly, on Thursday, the National Assembly passed a moratorium on the construction of new solar and wind farms as part of an amendment to the energy bill with the support of Les Républicains (LR) and the right-wing populists of Rassemblement National (RN). The moratorium was to remain in force »until an objective, independent study ... ... more
GridParity launches new AgriPV initiative – economically viable even without solar package bonus
With a completely revamped product line and a clear strategic realignment, GridParity is launching a new AgriPV initiative that is economically viable even without the controversial bonus scheme included in the solar package. In view of the political uncertainties surrounding Solar Package II, GridParity is focusing on independence, transparency, and cost-efficient system solutions – with success: AgriPV systems close to farms are economically viable starting at just €350,000 per megawatt peak (MWp).
Solar package or not – GridParity lowers barriers to entry
“We wanted to create a system that doesn't depend on political favors,” explains project manager Eva Muhle. “Our customers need planning security and functioning business models – now, not sometime in the future.”
The revised pricing structure allows electricity production costs of just 3 to 4 cents per kWh, even with full feed-in to the grid. This means that investments can be solidly financed even below the regular EEG remuneration of 6.89 cents/kWh – without any additional bonuses.
Eight system variants – optimized for agriculture:
Denmark: Logistics company commissions 35 MW rooftop system
The new logistics center of the Danish logistics company DSV is home to what is currently probably the world's largest PV rooftop system. This was announced by Ernst Schweizer AG, which supplied the mounting system for it. The ballasted mounting system, »MSP-FR east-west,« was used. It is an aerodynamically optimized solution that does not require roof penetration.
The Danish contractor SolarFuture ApS installed a total of 78,000 solar modules on an area of over 300,000 square meters. The plant in ... ... more
German battery market to decline significantly in 2024
The German battery market reached a volume of €20.5 billion in 2024, according to the German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Association (ZVEI). However, with a decline of €3.8 billion (minus 16 percent) compared to 2023, it was unable to continue the strong growth of the previous five years. The decline is almost entirely attributable to lithium batteries, which recorded losses of just under €3 billion. According to ZVEI, this is due to the recent weak development of electromobility in Germany, which is attributable, among other things, to ... ... more
Trianel GmbH, based in Aachen, is planning a large-scale battery storage facility on the outskirts of the Ruhr region in Waltrop, North Rhine-Westphalia. The first phase of expansion will achieve an output of 900 megawatts (MW) and a storage capacity of 1,800 megawatt hours (MWh). This has been announced by the company. The project will be built on a plot of unused land originally intended as a construction site for the neighboring Trianel coal-fired power plant in Lünen.
Trianel is implementing the project in cooperation with BKW AG, an ... ... more
NRC Reduces Hourly Rate for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Applicants and Pre-Applicants
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has amended its regulations for the licensing, inspection, special projects, and annual fees it will charge applicants and licensees for fiscal year 2025. The fiscal year 2025 final fee rule was published today in the Federal Register.
In this rule, the NRC is making amendments to implement a reduced hourly rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants for certain activities as required by the ADVANCE Act of 2024. The reduced hourly rate is $148 per hour and represents an over 50% reduction from the full-cost professional hourly rate of $318 per hour. The reduced hourly rate will take effect on Oct. 1, 2025, consistent with the statutory effective date.
The FY 2025 final fee rule reflects a total budget authority of $944.1 million, the same as FY 2024. Under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, the NRC is required to recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100% of the NRC’s total budget authority for FY 2025, less the budget authority for excluded activities. A proposed fee rule was published for public comment on Feb. 19, 2025.
After accounting for the exclusions from the fee-recovery requirement and net billing adjustments, the NRC must recover approximately $808.8 million in fees in FY 2025. The NRC assesses two types of fees: service fees, established in 10 CFR part 170, recovering the NRC’s costs of providing specific benefits to identifiable recipients (such as licensing work, inspections, and special projects); and annual fees, established in 10 CFR part 171, recovering generic and other regulatory costs not otherwise recovered. For FY 2025, approximately $205.4 million will be recovered through service fees under 10 CFR Part 170 and $603.4 million will be recovered through annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171.
Compared to FY 2024, annual fees are decreasing for the operating power reactors fee class, fuel facilities fee class, non-power production or utilization facilities fee class, the uranium recovery facilities fee class, and five materials users fee categories. Annual fees are increasing for most materials users’ fee categories and annual fees remain stable for the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class.
Trump’s NRC firing raises alarms at pro-nuclear and watchdog groups alike
Commissioner Christopher Hanson’s sudden dismissal could make NRC less efficient — and less trusted — just as its workload explodes, advocates say.
Published June 23, 2025
By Brian Martucci
President Trump fired Christopher Hanson, a commissioner at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, on June 13, 2025. The image by Tony Webster is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Dive Brief:
Nuclear industry watchdogs and advocates alike worry that President Trump’s abrupt firing of Commissioner Christopher Hanson from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hinder ongoing NRC reforms and threaten Trump’s promise of an American nuclear renaissance.
Hanson’s dismissal opens a vacancy on the five-member Commission, which requires three members to meet quorum. A second vacancy looms if the U.S. Senate fails to act on Trump’s renomination of Chairman David Wright by July 1.
In a public statement, Hanson described his termination late on June 13 as “without cause, contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent regarding removal of independent agency appointees.”
Hanson has not yet taken legal action to challenge his dismissal or indicated whether he plans to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court in a May ruling gave the President broad latitude to dismiss most independent agency appointees without cause.
A White House spokesperson told National Public Radio that Trump “reserves the right to remove employees within his own executive branch who exert his executive authority” and that “[a]ll organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction.” The spokesperson did not indicate what prompted Hanson’s dismissal.
Industry groups and pro-nuclear nongovernmental organizations voiced concern that the firing would set NRC back just as its workload balloons.
A Breakthrough Institute analysis of NRC voting records shows that a fully staffed Commission is nearly twice as efficient as a three-member Commission, said Adam Stein, director for nuclear innovation at the pro-nuclear think tank.
“While a three-member commission would “[satisfy] the quorum requirement, past experience has shown that a full five-member Commission is essential for effective and timely decision making,” Stein said in a June 16 statement.
Other pro-nuclear groups echoed Stein’s efficiency concerns and hinted that Hanson’s firing could erode NRC’s legal authority.
“The arbitrary removal of commissioners without due cause creates regulatory uncertainty that threatens to delay America’s nuclear energy expansion,” the American Nuclear Society said on Monday.
Public trust could also suffer, as could the U.S.’s aspirations to be a major Western exporter of advanced nuclear technology, Nuclear Innovation Alliance President and CEO Judi Greenwald said.
“As advocates for new nuclear energy, we are focused on the NRC’s role in reestablishing U.S. nuclear energy leadership,” Greenwald said in a Monday statement. “Undermining NRC’s independence is damaging to both long-term U.S. interests and to the ongoing work that is required to ensure that nuclear power can provide reliable and clean energy to power the American economy.”
Greenwald’s June 16 comments echo an NIA statement last month which offered qualified praise for Trump’s executive orders while warning against staff and funding cuts at the agencies responsible for implementing them, including NRC.
“Our assessment is that NRC is already making significant progress on reform in compliance with congressional direction including the 2024 ADVANCE Act,” she said on May 23. “It is in everyone’s interest that this progress continue and not be undermined by staffing cuts or upended by conflicting directives.”
Longtime industry watchdog Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Trump’s move would undercut NRC’s core safety mission.
“The main issue is that [NRC] was created specifically to avoid conflicts of interest associated with being directed by the executive branch,” Lyman said in an interview. “That independence is critical because it shows that they are making judgments based on safety criteria and not … favoring one technology or applicant over another for political reasons.”
Efforts to streamline NRC operations began in earnest with the enactment last year of the ADVANCE Act, which directed the agency to set deadlines for reactor licensing reviews, expedite certain applications and develop guidelines for lower-output microreactors.
That push has accelerated under Trump, propelled by what Lyman said are unvetted industry claims that advanced nuclear plants are inherently safer than conventional power reactors. That means it’s exactly the wrong time to weaken NRC independence, he said.
“The industry has had a chip on its shoulder for so long that it’s afraid to be honest about what it doesn’t know, and it’s putting forth a positive message that’s not backed by science,” Lyman said. “It’s the regulator’s role to see through that.
