The "ADVANCE Act," a bill to promote nuclear power, was passed 88 to 2 in the U.S. Senate last week. The ADVANCE stands for "Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy." The only senators voting against it were Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
It was approved in the House of Representatives in May, also by a lopsided margin: 393-13. And it now has gone to President Joe Biden.
Among the many points in the bill are fast-tracking the federal licensing process for new nuclear power plants notably those described as "advanced", reducing licensing fees, allowing ownership of nuclear facilities in the U.S. by foreign nations, and establishing within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission an Office of International Programs "to carry out the international nuclear export and innovation activities".
The action by Congress comes amid what Kevin Kamps of the organization Beyond Nuclear says is "the biggest push for nuclear power that I've experienced in 32 years of anti-nuclear power activities".
The nuclear industry, he says, is "trying to use the climate crisis" by claiming nuclear energy is carbon-free. "It's not true. It's not carbon-free by any means," he says, and "not even low carbon when you compare it to genuinely low carbon sources of electricity, renewables like wind and solar." But the nuclear industry is involved in a "propaganda campaign" attempting to validate itself by citing climate change, he says, and many in government having "fallen for this ploy".
Diane D'Arrigo of the group Nuclear Information and Resource Service commented: "Nuclear power makes climate worse-- stealing resources from climate solutions and districting us from real solutions-- and this bill is putting our already threatened democracy at even greater risk."
"Clearly, the U.S. Congress doesn't understand or care about the dangers of radiation that will result," said D'Arrigo in an interview. "The nuclear Advance Act, passed by nearly the whole U.S. House and Senate, hitched a ride on a must-pass fire-fighting bill as wildfire season is taking off during an election year." The act of more than 90 pages was inserted into a three-page Fire Grants and Safety measure.
"The nuclear industry," she said, "has been investing in Congress to get massive subsidies for operating and proposed new nuclear power reactors and those huge investments paid off billions in the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure laws, possibly more for nuclear and carbon capture than renewables and efficiency. Now the 118th Congress is again attempting to kickstart nuclear by bending the already-skewed rules making it harder for impacted communities to protect themselves.
"Possibly most dangerous," said D'Arrigo, "is the boost to a plutonium economy with accompanying police state. The 'advanced' fuel encouraged in this bill is nearly bomb-grade uranium and the bill provides for exporting it to other countries as well as using it in reactors all over this country. It's a dismal moment in environmental, economic and human history. But one we must continue to challenge."
Applauding the Senate's passage of the ADVANCED Act was John Starkey, director of public policy at the American Nuclear Society. "It's monumental," said Starkey in an article on HuffPost. His society describes itself as "the premier organization for those that embrace the nuclear sciences and technologies." Starkey further said: "This has been a long time coming."
The HuffPost piece by Alexander C. Kaufman on passage of the ADVANCE Act says Biden "is all but certain to sign it into law." But, his article adds: "Yet it's only a first step."
It says: "The full legislation depends on Congress increasing funding to the NRC" and "help the agency staff up for an expected influx of applications" for new nuclear power plants".
The HuffPost article was headlined: "Congress Just Passed The Biggest Clean-Energy Bill Since Biden's Climate Law. It's all on nuclear."
Edwin Lyman, nuclear power safety director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, declared: "Make no mistake. This is not about making the reactor licensing process more efficient, but about weakening safety and security oversight across the board, a longstanding industry goal. The change to the NRC's mission effectively directs the agency to enforce only the bare minimum level of regulation at every facility it oversees across the United States.
"Passage of this legislation will only increase the danger to people already living downwind of nuclear facilities from a severe accident or terrorist attack," said Lyman, "and it will make it even more difficult for communities to prevent risky, experimental reactors from being sited in their midst."
Lyman, co-author of the book Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster, also spoke about it being "extremely disappointing that without any meaningful debate" Congress was "changing the NRC's mission to not only protect public health and safety but also to protect the financial health of the industry and its investors. Just as lax regulations by the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]-- an agency already burdened by conflicts of interests-- can lead to a catastrophic failure of an aircraft, a compromised NRC could lead to a catastrophic reactor meltdown impacting an entire region for a generation."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
