Less than a week afterย NPRย revealedย that โ€œtheย Trump administrationย 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,โ€ the U.S. Department of Energy announced Monday that it is allowing firms building experimental nuclear reactors to seek exemptions from legally required environmental reviews.

Citing executive orders signed by President Donald Trump in May, a notice published in the Federal Register states that the DOE โ€œis establishing a categorical exclusion for authorization, siting, construction, operation, reauthorization, and decommissioning of advanced nuclear reactors for inclusion in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures.โ€

NEPA has long been a target of energy industries and Republican elected officials, including Trump. The exemption policy has been expected since Trumpโ€™s May ordersโ€”which also launched a DOE pilot program to rapidly build the experimental reactorsโ€”and the department said in a statement that even the exempted reactors will face some reviews.

โ€œThe U.S. Department of Energy is establishing the potential option to obtain a streamlined approach for advanced nuclear reactors as part of the environmental review performed under NEPA,โ€ the DOE said. โ€œThe analysis on each reactor being considered will be informed by previously completed environmental reviews for similar advanced nuclear technologies.โ€

The $84 Trillion Questionโ€“Will Your Familyโ€™s Wealth Last or Disappear?

Wealth rarely lastsโ€”70% disappears by Gen 2, and nearly all by Gen 3.

โ€œThe fact is that any nuclear reactor, no matter how small, no matter how safe it looks on paper, is potentially subject to severe accidents.โ€

However, the DOE announcement alarmed various experts, including Daniel P. Aldrich, director of the Resilience Studies Program at Northeastern University, who wrote on social media: โ€œMaking America unsafe again: Trump created an exclusion for new experimental reactors from disclosing how their construction and operation might harm the environment, and from a written, public assessment of the possible consequences of a nuclear accident.โ€

Foreign policy reporter Laura Rozen described the policy as โ€œterrifying,โ€ while Paul Dorfman, chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group and a scholar at the University of Sussexโ€™s Bennett Institute for Innovation and Policy Acceleration, called it โ€œtruly crazy.โ€

As NPR reported Monday:

Until now, the test reactor designs currently under construction have primarily existed on paper, according to Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group. He believes the lack of real-world experience with the reactors means that they should be subject to more rigorous safety and environmental reviews before theyโ€™re built.

โ€œThe fact is that any nuclear reactor, no matter how small, no matter how safe it looks on paper, is potentially subject to severe accidents,โ€ Lyman said.

โ€œI think the DOEโ€™s attempts to cut corners on safety, security, and environmental protections are posing a grave risk to public health, safety, and our natural environment here in the United States,โ€ he added.

How One Couple Successfully Sold Their Family Business

A Colorado couple's business sale illustrates how coordinated financial, tax, and succession planning can turn a major transition into a lasting legacy.

Lyman was also among the experts who criticized changes that NPR exposed last week, after senior editor and correspondent Geoff Brumfiel obtained documents detailing updates to โ€œdepartmental orders, which dictate requirements for almost every aspect of the reactorsโ€™ operationsโ€”including safety systems, environmental protections, site security, and accident investigations.โ€

While the DOE said that it shared early versions of the rules with companies, โ€œthe reduction of unnecessary regulations will increase innovation in the industry without jeopardizing safety,โ€ and โ€œthe department anticipates publicly posting the directives later this year,โ€ Brumfiel noted that the orders he saw werenโ€™t labeled as drafts and had the word โ€œapprovedโ€ on their cover pages.

In a lengthy statement about last weekโ€™s reporting, Lyman said on the Union of Concerned Scientists website that โ€œthis deeply troubling development confirms my worst fears about the dire state of nuclear power safety and security oversight under the Trump administration. Such a brazen rewriting of hundreds of crucial safeguards for the public underscores why preservation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as an independent, transparent nuclear regulator is so critical.โ€

โ€œThe Energy Department has not only taken a sledgehammer to the basic principles that underlie effective nuclear regulation, but it has also done so in the shadows, keeping the public in the dark,โ€ he continued. โ€œThese long-standing principles were developed over the course of many decades and consider lessons learned from painful events such as the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. This is a massive experiment in the deregulation of novel, untested nuclear facilities that could pose grave threats to public health and safety.โ€

โ€œThese drastic changes may extend beyond the Reactor Pilot Program, which was created by President Trump last year to circumvent the more rigorous licensing rules employed by the NRC,โ€ Lyman warned. โ€œWhile the DOE created a legally dubious framework to designate these reactors as โ€˜testโ€™ reactors to bypass the NRCโ€™s statutory authority, these dramatic alterations may further weaken standards used in the broader DOE authorization process and propagate across the entire fleet of commercial nuclear facilities, severely degrading nuclear safety throughout the United States.โ€