July 16, 2025: The Water Cost of Electricity on the Susquehanna River

May 15, 2025: Data Centers and Nuclear Power on the Susquehanna River: More Questions than Answers

Sep 29, 2024: The case against restarting Three Mile Island’s Unit-1


Radioactive: The Women of Three Mile Island

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.

    

 

NRC MastheadNuclear ReactorsNuclear MaterialsRadioactive WasteNuclear SecurityPublic Meetings & InvolvementNRC LibraryAbout NRCReport a Safety ConcernNRC FacebookNRC TwitterNRC LinkedInNRC InstagramNRC YouTubeNRC FlickrNRC NRC BlogNRC GovDeliveryNRC RSS FeedNRC Homepage

Constellation Energy Generation, LLC Fleet - Request to Use a Provision of a Later Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI (EPID L-2025-LLR-0088)

Accession No. ML26016A628

ADAMS Public Search Application:

https://adams-search.nrc.gov/home

Bookmark and Share


Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.

This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

 


Stay Connected to the NRC!
 
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

 ​​​​​​​

Gents,
 
Roger informed me that he has updated his article.  The technical aspect has been run by Alan Blind.  He has added some schematics.
 

Opinion: Gov. Cox is wrong about nuclear power

Nuclear power was born as an afterthought of manufacturing nuclear weapons. It should remain an afterthought

 
Dr. Brian Moench is the president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. He is a former adjunct faculty member of the University of Utah Honors College, where he taught the public health consequences of environmental degradation. He is the author of two books on environmental contaminants and public health.
 
As a first grader in 1956, a routine classroom drill was “duck and cover,” i.e. how to respond to a nuclear apocalypse. Hiding under our desks to protect us from deadly radiation was obviously worthless and irrational. But “irrational” has been the constant companion of the nuclear industry since our government sprinkled Utahns with radioactive fallout nearly 1,000 times. And it still is, despite the latest cheerleading from nuclear lobbyists and Utah politicians.
 
Nuclear reactors were originally developed by the military to create plutonium for nuclear weapons. When the American public began questioning the sanity of nuclear weapons or “nuclear” anything, the Eisenhower Administration launched a PR campaign, “Atoms for Peace,” to soften public opposition toward “mutually assured destruction.” That’s when the idea emerged that nuclear reactors could generate electricity, “too cheap to meter.” Nuclear power was born as an afterthought of manufacturing nuclear weapons. It should remain an afterthought.
 
There are numerous reasons to oppose nuclear power, and they are the same ones that have existed for decades. Nuclear power is essentially one of the government’s biggest proverbial welfare queens. It’s the most expensive and dangerous way ever devised to boil water — over three times more expensive than renewables.
 
John Rowe, former CEO of Exelon, America’s largest owner of nuclear plants, said, “I’ve never met a nuclear plant I didn’t like ... (but) it just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame.” Claims that small modular reactors (SMRs), nuclear reactors in a shiny new mini box, will change the cost equation have been made for 15 years and are still disputed by numerous nuclear experts.
 
Those experts say SMRs will be even more expensive than large reactors per kilowatt of electricity produced. Initial capital and materials costs, secondary containment, control systems, instrumentation, and emergency management all increase as reactor size decreases. Uranium resource requirements and hence fuel costs and radioactive waste are expected to be higher than large reactors, and they would carry increased risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
 
SMRs will not be safer. In fact, in scavenging for cost savings, the industry is proposing eliminating numerous standard safety features. Water consumption will still be intense, about the same as a coal-fired power plant and almost the same as large nuclear reactors, per kilowatt of electricity.
 
But the biggest reason for pouring cold water on this recurring nuclear fantasy is this simple scientific fact. There is no safe level of radiation exposure. Period. Radiation damage is cumulative — each successive dose builds upon the cellular damage and disease potential of previous exposures. Any exposure to radiation increases the risk of damage to key biologic infrastructure — tissues, cells, DNA, mitochondrial DNA and other essential subcellular structures — with the capability of causing genetic mutations, cancer, leukemia, birth defects, impaired brain development and reproductive, cardiovascular, endocrine and immune system disorders. Across all age groups, the most rapidly dividing cells are those most at risk for damage. Fetuses, infants, children and women are particularly vulnerable.
 
When millions of people are exposed to even slight increased risk, thousands of new victims are created. Radiation is released and public health is harmed by every phase of the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining uranium to radon-emitting mill tailings to routine operation of a nuclear plant to management of the waste and eventually to the decommissioning of the plant. Water vapor vented from the plant and the cooling water discharged to nearby water bodies contaminate air, water, soil and the food chain. Even without nuclear accidents, we are exposed in numerous ways that are being ignored by nuclear lobbyists.
 
Worldwide, people living near nuclear plants have increased rates of cancer and other diseases. For example, in Massachusetts there is an increased risk of cancer inversely proportional to the distance of a residence from a nuclear power plant. At 2 kilometers away, the increased risk varied from 52% to 253% depending on the sex and age of the residents. So when Utah Gov. Spencer Cox says he wants a nuclear power plant in Brigham City, maybe the residents should have a say about increasing their cancer risk.
 
Dr. John Gofman, an original Manhattan Project physicist who became one of the nation’s top cardiovascular researchers and arguably the nation’s most qualified person on the risks of nuclear power, said, “Each added amount of radiation causes damage to the health of human beings all over the world … The entire nuclear power program was based on a fraud — namely that there was a ‘safe’ amount of radiation, a permissible dose that wouldn’t hurt anybody.”
 
It’s still a fraud, even in fun size.
 
Ducking and covering won’t save us from the poor choices of our politicians. Instead, call them up and tell them what you think about more unnecessary, self-inflicted radiation exposure, making us victims once again of the nuclear industry.
 
Sampling of Additional Resources, earlier articles...
Inside the nuclear energy debate (don't be fooled - lays out why not nuclear energy but then blasts off into a full-throated advocacy as "the solution we need" complete with industry hyped claims )
 
Opinion: Not your grandparents’ nuclear energy (no surprise here - outdoes the previous article, telling us to ditch old fears 
or outdated narratives.)
 
Nuclear energy’s stylish comeback?  (Cox hobnobbing with "advocates, experts and lobbyists in the energy space" ) with what appears to be not even a token nod to concerns or challenges - as easy as putting on an old pair of shorts to prove how "stylish you can be...)
 
 
Should you be afraid of nuclear energy? Another cheer leading chorus complete with "making nuclear cool again" describing how "in Washington, D.C., this past June, a group of young nuclear energy enthusiasts bopped their heads along to electronic dance music at a “rave for nuclear energy” — in hopes the U.S. will go full throttle with nuclear power" 

Press Advisory 

Public Meeting to Discuss Holtec Relief Request on Palisades Pressure Spray Nozzles

Monday, February 9th @ 2:00 pm ET.  Several Months Delay Anticipated

For additional information please contact:
Michael J. Keegan, Intervenor with Don't Waste Michigan (734) 770-1441, mkeeganj@comcast.net 
Kevin Kamps, Intervenor with Beyond Nuclear (240) 462-3216, kevin@beyondnuclear.org 
 
Last week the NRC posted Palisades  'Revised Relief Request Number RR 5-9' (ML26019A041) in which Holtec concedes that unauthorized welding work not meeting ASME welding standards had been done on Pressure Spray Nozzles.  "These welds are completely out of compliance, with no simple fix. Holtec tried the quick and dirty approach of repair not replace. The existing reactor pressure vessel head is junk and needs to be replaced at a cost in the hundreds of millions, with a delay in excess of a year" stated Michael Keegan with Don't Waste Michigan.
 
Please follow Meeting Info link below to Register for this important Public Meeting on Palisades, Monday at 2:00pm ET
 
02/09/26
2:00PM -
3:00PM ET
Meeting info
Public pre-submittal meeting to discuss the potential for Holtec to submit Relief Request 5-14 for Palisades related to the Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Safe End and Safety Nozzles RV-1039 and RV-1040 Flange Welds. Members of the public are invited to provide comments to the NRC staff at the close of the business portion of the meeting. [more...]

Participation: Observation

 Teleconference
Webinar
Marlayna Doell
(301) 415-3178

Justin Poole
(301) 415-2048
 
Docketed 1/28/2026
Document Title:
Palisades Nuclear Plant - Revised Relief Request Number RR 5-9, Proposed Alternative Section XI Code Requirement for Modification of Reactor Pressure Vessel Closure Head, Control Rod Drive Mechanisms and Incore Instrmentation Penetrations
Document Type:
Letter
Request for Code Relief or Alternative
Document Date:
01/16/2026
 
For extensive information, please see Beyond Nuclear’s “Newest Nuke Nightmares at Palisades, 2022 to Present”.
Interviews with nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen can be arranged through Kevin Kamps.
 
--- end ---
N2
Michael J. Keegan
Don't Waste Michigan
The Trump administration has secretly rewritten nuclear safety rules
Geoff Brumfiel    JANUARY 28, 2026
HEARD ON MORNING EDITION
 
Idaho National Laboratory/Collage by Joan Wong for NPR
 
The Trump administration has overhauled a set of nuclear safety directives and shared them with the companies it is charged with regulating, without making the new rules available to the public, according to documents obtained exclusively by NPR.
The sweeping changes were made to accelerate development of a new generation of nuclear reactor designs. They occurred over the fall and winter at the Department of Energy, which is currently overseeing a program to build at least three new experimental commercial nuclear reactors by July 4 of this year.
The changes are to departmental orders, which dictate requirements for almost every aspect of the reactors' operations — including safety systems, environmental protections, site security and accident investigations.
NPR obtained copies of over a dozen of the new orders, none of which is publicly available. The orders slash hundreds of pages of requirements for security at the reactors. They also loosen protections for groundwater and the environment and eliminate at least one key safety role. The new orders cut back on requirements for keeping records, and they raise the amount of radiation a worker can be exposed to before an official accident investigation is triggered.
Over 750 pages were cut from the earlier versions of the same orders, according to NPR's analysis, leaving only about one-third of the number of pages in the original documents.
 
The new generation of nuclear reactor designs, known as small modular reactors, are being backed by billions in private equity, venture capital and public investments. Backers of the reactors, including tech giants Amazon, Google and Meta, have said they want the reactors to one day supply cheap, reliable power for artificial intelligence. (Amazon and Google are financial supporters of NPR.)
Outside experts who helped review the rules for NPR criticized the decision to revise them without any public knowledge.
"I would argue that the Department of Energy relaxing its nuclear safety and security standards in secret is not the best way to engender the kind of public trust that's going to be needed for nuclear to succeed more broadly," said Christopher Hanson, who chaired the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2021 to 2025, when he was fired by President Trump.
"They're taking a wrecking ball to the system of nuclear safety and security regulation oversight that has kept the U.S. from having another Three Mile Island accident," said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "I am absolutely worried about the safety of these reactors."
The Department of Energy did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment. But in a previous email, it said safety was its top priority. 
"The U.S. Department of Energy is committed to the highest standards of safety in the research and development of nuclear technologies, including the reactor designs utilizing the DOE authorization pathway," a department spokesperson wrote to NPR in December.
 
A new nuclear path
The origins of the changes can be traced to the Oval Office. In May of last year, Trump sat behind the Resolute Desk and signed a series of executive orders on nuclear energy.
"It's a hot industry, it's a brilliant industry, you have to do it right," Trump said as smiling executives from the nuclear industry looked on. "It's become very safe and environmental, yes 100%."
Among the executive orders Trump signed that day was one that called for the creation of a new program at the Department of Energy to build experimental reactors. The document Trump signed explicitly stated that "The Secretary shall approve at least three reactors pursuant to this pilot program with the goal of achieving [nuclear] criticality in each of the three reactors by July 4, 2026."
In other words, the Department of Energy had just over a year to review, approve and oversee the construction of multiple, untested nuclear reactors.
That timeline has raised eyebrows.
"To say that it's aggressive is a pretty big understatement," said Kathryn Huff, a professor of plasma and nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who served as head of the DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy from 2022 to 2024. Research reactors typically take at least two years to build from the point when construction begins, Huff said. Few — if any — have been built on the timescale laid out in the executive order.
Officials at the Energy Department knew the clock was ticking. In June, they met with the heads of several companies at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's main lobby group in Washington, D.C. They briefed the gathering of CEOs, lawyers and nuclear engineers about the department's new "Reactor Pilot Program."
"One thing I do want to stress, this is not a funding opportunity," Michael Goff, the DOE's principal deputy assistant secretary for nuclear energy, said during the meeting, which was recorded. Rather than offering money, the Reactor Pilot Program was promising something else that the companies had long wanted — a pathway to quickly get new test reactor designs through regulatory approval.
"Our job is to make sure that the government is no longer a barrier," said Seth Cohen, a lawyer at the Department of Energy responsible for implementing Trump's executive orders.
The DOE was uniquely positioned to offer a speedy pathway to approval. The nation's commercial nuclear reactors are typically under the regulatory oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Hanson says the NRC is independent and known for its rigor and public process.
But since the NRC began its work in 1975, the Energy Department has retained the ability to regulate its own reactors, which have historically been used for research and nuclear weapons-related activities.
The rules governing DOE reactors are a mix of federal regulations and directives known as "orders." Changes to federal regulations require public notice and comment, but DOE's orders can be legally changed internally with no public comment period. The orders have historically been made public via a DOE database.
Until now, the DOE's rules have typically applied to just a handful of reactors located on government property. The Reactor Pilot Program expands that regulatory authority to all reactors built as part of the program. Officials explained to the crowd in the June meeting that this includes DOE-contracted reactors built outside of the department's national laboratories.
And while broadening its oversight, officials said, safety personnel located primarily at Idaho National Laboratory would also rewrite the DOE's orders for these reactors.
"DOE orders and standards are under evaluation as part of this regulatory reform," Christian Natoni, an official from DOE's Idaho Operations Office, told the gathering. "What you will see in the near term is a streamlined set of requirements to support this reactor authorization activity."
 
Rules rewritten
The documents reviewed by NPR show just how extensive the streamlining effort has been.
The new orders strip out some guiding principles of nuclear safety, notably a concept known as "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA), which requires nuclear reactor operators to keep levels of radiation exposure below the legal limit whenever they can. The ALARA standard has been in use for decades at both the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Removing the standard means that new reactors could be constructed with less concrete shielding, and workers could work longer shifts, potentially receiving higher doses of radiation, according to Tison Campbell, a partner at K&L Gates who previously worked as a lawyer at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"So the result could be lower construction costs, saved employment costs and things like that," Campbell said. "That could reduce the overall financial burden of constructing and operating a nuclear powerplant."
Huff said that many people in the industry think the concept of ALARA has become overly onerous, and she agrees it's worth reconsidering the standard.
"The argument against ALARA is that in a lot of cases it's been mismanaged and used overly stringently in ways that go beyond the 'reasonable,'" Huff said.
But not everyone wants to rethink ALARA.
"It certainly cost the industry money to lower doses [of radiation]," said Emily Caffrey, a health physicist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. "But I don't think it's been incredibly problematic."
In a memo issued earlier this month, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright gave approval to end ALARA, in part to "reduce the economic and operational burden on nuclear energy while aligning with available scientific evidence." The existence of the memo was first reported by E&E News.
However, the orders seen by NPR suggest the department had already begun removing the ALARA requirement from the new rules as early as August, months before the secretary's approval was given.
ALARA is not the only safety principle that has been stripped from the orders. Gone too is the requirement to have an engineer designated to each of a reactor's critical safety systems. Known as a cognizant system engineer, the idea is to task one person to take responsibility for understanding each part of a reactor that could lead to a severe accident if it failed.
The new rules also remove a requirement to use the "best available technology" to protect water supplies from the discharge of radioactive material.
"Why wouldn't you be using the best available technology? I don't understand the motivation for cutting things like that," Caffrey said.
The revised orders leave out dozens of references to other documents and standards, including the department's entire manual for managing radioactive waste. Some lines from the 59-page manual have been integrated into a new 25-page order on radioactive waste management, but pages of detailed requirements for waste packaging and monitoring have been removed.
But perhaps nowhere are the cuts more obvious than in the new order on safeguards and security. Seven security directives totaling over 500 pages have been consolidated into a single, 23-page order
 
 
 
 

NRC MastheadNuclear ReactorsNuclear MaterialsRadioactive WasteNuclear SecurityPublic Meetings & InvolvementNRC LibraryAbout NRCReport a Safety ConcernNRC FacebookNRC TwitterNRC LinkedInNRC InstagramNRC YouTubeNRC FlickrNRC NRC BlogNRC GovDeliveryNRC RSS FeedNRC Homepage

No: 26-009                                                                                                               January 22, 2026
CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC to Hold Public Meeting to Discuss Progress on Potential Restart of Crane Clean Energy Center

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a hybrid public meeting Feb. 19 to discuss the agency’s activities related to the Crane Clean Energy Center Restart Panel.

The meeting will be held from 6-8:15 p.m. at the Student Enrichment Center, Kulkarni Theatre, on the Penn State Harrisburg campus, 777 West Harrisburg Pike, in Middletown, Pennsylvania. The meeting notice includes the agenda and a link to register for the Microsoft Teams version of the meeting, for those unable to attend in person. The meeting will include an update from Constellation, NRC presentations and a question-and-comment session for attendees to engage with the NRC’s panel members.

The CCEC reactor (formerly Three Mile Island Unit 1) permanently ceased operations in September 2019. In late 2024, Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, the reactor license holder, notified the NRC of its interest in returning the plant to an operational status. The NRC created the CCEC Restart Panel to guide staff efforts to review, inspect, and determine if the plant can be safely returned to operation.

Additional information on a potential Crane Clean Energy Center restart can be found on the NRC's website.

 

 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created as an expert, technical agency to protect public health, safety, and security, and regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials, including enabling the deployment of nuclear power for the benefit of society. Among other responsibilities, the agency issues licenses, conducts inspections, initiates and enforces regulations, and plans for incident response. The global gold standard for nuclear regulation, the NRC is collaborating with interagency partners to implement reforms outlined in new Executive Orders and the ADVANCE Act to streamline agency activities and enhance efficiency.

Bookmark and Share

Pages