The US Approach to Nuclear Safety Policy

President Trump’s stated objective is for the United States of America to be highly competitive against every other nation.  His actions to impose tariffs on goods imports is aimed at encouraging US consumers to buy American products, and for American industry to maintain its prices below those of the imports. These are both laudable objectives, but there are some obvious potential difficulties, not least the cost of labour, and the availability of domestic raw materials.

A firm policy bedrock is to ensure the availability of low-cost energy as demonstrated by the President’s ‘Drill, Baby Drill’ rhetoric, and the clearly stated desire for the US one day to annex Greenland (and even Canada) with the aim of acquiring large untapped mineral and fossil fuel reserves.  The most recent US announcement to change and reduce nuclear regulatory oversite has raised some further concerns in the US itself and further afield.

The global nuclear industry regulatory environment has been derived from decades of scrutiny into the potential consequences inherent from nuclear activity.  Medical evidence into the short and long-term effects of nuclear radiation underpins the nuclear regulatory umbrella.

Whilst nuclear regulations may be considered by some to be highly conservative, particularly within the nuclear industry itself, it has provided a safety platform that is understood by the general public and politicians, as well as by the nuclear industry itself.  Any dilution of the safety environment which is driven purely by the promise of substantial financial gains to be achieved by the US has the potential to be damaging to the reputation of the global nuclear industry.