The NRC's Mission Statement

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. [Jefferson and the other signers]

We have met the enemy and he is us[Pogo]

The GKN has argued that the ``landmark" ADVANCE Act is toothless. But I never expected the NRC bureaucrats to publicly agree. The Infallible Preacher predicted the apparatchiks would genuflect, promise to do better, maybe make a few cosmetic changes, and go about business as usual. I was wrong. For the ecclesiastical record, I was not speaking ex cathedra.

The key section of the ADVANCE Act is 501. Section 501 requires the NRC to update its Mission Statement. Here it is in its entirety.

(a) UPDATE.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, while remaining consistent with the policies of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.) (including to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment), update the mission statement of the Commission to include that licensing and regulation of the civilian use of radioactive materials and nuclear energy be conducted in a manner that is efficient and does not unnecessarily limit—

(1) the civilian use of radioactive materials and deployment of nuclear energy; or

(2) the benefits of civilian use of radioactive materials and nuclear energy technology to society.

(b) REPORT.—On completion of the update to the mission statement required under subsection (a), the Commission shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that describes—

(1) the updated mission statement; and

(2) the guidance that the Commission will provide to staff of the Commission to ensure effective performance of the mission of the Commission.

Miffed by this awkward, confused, mealy mouthed suggestion that the NRC should not ``unnecessarily limit" nuclear power, the staff decided to go on the offense. In reply, the NRC Office of General Counsel (OGC) issued a document recommending that the Commissioners change the NRC's Mission Statement from the present:\cite{nrc-2024}

The NRC licenses and regulates the Nation’s civilian use of radioactive materials, to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment.

to

The NRC protects public health and safety and the environment and promotes the common defense and security by licensing and regulating the Nation’s civilian use of radioactive materials. We accomplish this mission efficiently and without unnecessarily limiting the civilian use or benefits to society of radioactive materials and nuclear energy, while providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.

The new mission statement literally doubles down on the NRC's job to protect "public health and safety" from the horrors of nuclear power. To remove any remaining doubt, the OGC brief argues that the NRC not only is not required to include the benefits of nuclear power in its ``protection of public health and safety", but is precluded from doing so, since doing so would be ``promotional". It cites the original Atomic Energy Act (AEA, the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), case law, and the legislative history of the ADVANCE Act in defending this position.

The Breakthrough Institute bravely tries to put its words in Congress's mouth, claiming that Congress "intended" that the NRC make big changes and the bill was "a clear statement on the updates that the NRC needs to make from the top down".\cite{bti-2024} It is not often the GKN sides with pajama clad parasites working from their homes; but the NRC lawyers are right. Here's what the ADVANCE Act did not do:

(1) It did not proscribe the biologically nonsensical Linear No Threshold harm hypothesis and require its replacement by a model that recognizes our amazing ability to repair radiation damage.

(2) It did not renounce ALARA and require firm limits based on a comprehensive benefit cost analysis.

(3) It did not take away or modify the NRC's absolute power to change its rules on the fly and without appeal.

(4) It did not require the NRC to include the benefits of nuclear power in its evaluation of its regulation. It did not require any sort of benefit/cost analysis at all. In fact, a reference to "the general welfare" was removed during the negotiations. The word "balance" appears no where in the Act.

(5) It was careful not to amend either the AEA or ERA. In fact, the legislative history shows a proposal to make some changes to the ERA was rejected.

The ADVANCE Act does not do much of anything. Nobody's toes were stepped on. No congressional district has to worry about losing nuclear pork. No incumbent vendor has to worry about a reduction in the depth of his regulatory moat. The immense wind/solar rip off will proceed without competition from nuclear. And Congress gets to claim they are doing something. No wonder the Act passed with such large margins.

The Breakthrough Institute does have a point. Some members of Congress do recognize that a dictatorial regulatory body focused only on nuclear's risks has resulted in a tragedy of global magnitude. Under the NRC's rule, nuclear power which should be the cheapest of all sources of electricity has become prohibitively expensive. But squabbling about mission statements will do nothing to solve the Gordian Knot.

The NRC is a creature of Congress. Congress and ultimately we are responsible for what we have created. We are responsible for this tragedy. It's past time to dissolve the NRC and come up with a regulatory system that balances nuclear's benefits and risks.