US government agency reprimands NRC for ignoring climate crisis impacts on reactor safety

From Beyond Nuclear

The findings and recommendations of a new U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirm what Beyond Nuclear has been litigating with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): the agency cannot continue to ignore the safety impacts on nuclear power plants from the worsening climate crisis.

The GAO report is entitled NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: NRC Should Take Actions to Fully Consider the Potential Effects of Climate Change. It criticizes the NRC for failing to conduct assessments for commercial U.S. nuclear power plants by projecting climate risks and incorporating adequate safety margins into both old and new designs. 

These risks include a worsening of natural hazards and encompass heat and cold, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea-level rise, according to the GAO, all of which could seriously jeopardize the safe operation of the nation’s current fleet that is going through extreme license renewals — and any future new — nuclear reactors if not properly safeguarded.

“The NRC is proceeding with the extension of operating licenses for several vulnerable nuclear power plants without any climate change risk analysis,” said Paul Gunter, a policy analyst and spokesperson for Beyond Nuclear. “Worse, the NRC staff claim that preparing for the effects of the climate crisis is outside its scope.”

And yet, as Gunter points out, one of the candidates for license extension out to 2053 and 2054 is the two-unit Turkey Point nuclear power plant on the south Florida coast where sea-level rise is projected. Another is the three-unit Oconee nuclear power plant in South Carolina, also seeking a second 20-year extension that could see it operating for another 30 years. 

“Oconee sits precariously downstream and 300 feet below the top of the water level in Lake Jocassee behind a rock-filled earthen dam that holds back more than one million acre-feet of water,” Gunter said. “We are already witnessing recurring extreme precipitation, including prolonged atmospheric rivers attributed to climate change. And yet, the NRC staff have argued that ‘The effects of climate change on Oconee Station SSCs [systems, structures and components] are outside the scope of the NRC staff’s license renewal environmental review’. This is not only disingenuous, but dangerous,” Gunter added.

Beyond Nuclear is preparing to file another legal intervention in the NRC’s Oconee license renewal proceeding on April 29, 2024.

Jeff Mitman, a retired NRC senior risk analyst and expert witness supporting Beyond Nuclear litigations points to a damning revelation in the GAO report, perhaps an NRC obfuscation to shield a vulnerable industry from costly safety retrofits caused by worsening climate change. GAO interviewed NRC staff who acknowledge that the agency is shying away from using site-specific climate change hazards data in its licensing analysis, they claim,  because of the challenges presented by uncertainty. To that point, the GAO states:

“However, NRC regulations do not preclude NRC from using climate projections data, and new sources of reliable projected climate data are available to NRC. In 2023, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued guidance to federal agencies on selecting and using climate data to assess risks and their potential impacts. This guide provides information on climate models and projections to help federal agencies understand exposure to current and future climate-related hazards and their potential impacts.

“Without incorporating the best available information into its licensing and oversight processes, it is unclear whether the safety margins for nuclear power plants established during the licensing period—in most cases over 40 years ago—are adequate to address the risks that climate change poses to plants.”

The GAO also points out that even closed and decommissioning nuclear power plants are vulnerable due to climate change-induced weather extremes. The report cites the closed Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, where fire hazards are very high along with flooding risks, and Palisades in Michigan, also at risk of flooding and now looking to reopen. The hazards are represented by the highly radioactive waste inventories still on site.

Any planned new reactors, including the still-on-paper small modular reactor designs that would not materialize for likely another 20 years, must factor projected climate impacts into safety measures and environmental impact statements, Beyond Nuclear urged.  

“New reactors remain a mirage,” Gunter said. “But if they ever become operational, the climate extremes we are already seeing will be far worse. It is irresponsible for the NRC to claim that this is not a relevant safety concern for the agency.”

Given the many examples of risk that the GAO uncovered through extensive interviews, the report concludes that the NRC is not doing enough to “fully consider potential climate change effects” projected three decades and farther into the future. As the GAO frames it, “NRC primarily uses historical data in its licensing and oversight processes rather than climate projections data.” 

“It’s like the NRC is driving its nuclear power ambitions through the fog of uncertainty with its high beams on, blinded to what’s ahead,” said Gunter. “The GAO is rightly concerned that the NRC cannot serve public safety by viewing climate data only through its rear view mirror. There are simply too many unpredictable hazards now faced by an inherently dangerous industry,” he said. 

U.S. Senators Tom Carper (D-Del) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va), both devout supporters of nuclear power expansion, commissioned the GAO to look into the resilience of U.S. nuclear power stations to climate change. 

The GAO responded with its expert findings on how climate change is expected to affect nuclear power plant operations and what actions the NRC has taken to address the risks that nuclear power faces from climate change. The GAO report provides three reasonable recommendations regarding what they found to be inadequate or missing in the NRC’s oversight and licensing process: 

1) NRC should assess whether its licensing and oversight processes adequately address the potential for increased risks to nuclear power plants from climate change. 

2) NRC should direct its staff to develop, finalize, and implement a plan to address any gaps identified in its assessment of existing processes.

3) NRC should direct its staff to develop and finalize guidance on incorporating climate projections data including what sources of climate projections data to use and when and how to use climate projections data.

Paul Gunter is the Director of Reactor Oversight at Beyond Nuclear.

Headline photo by Kletr/Shutterstock