The Trump Administration has created a categorical exclusion that shields new experimental nuclear reactors being built at U.S. sites from major requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That law would normally require agencies to disclose how construction and operation might harm the environment and to produce a public Environmental Impact Statement or a lesser Environmental Assessment that lets communities review and comment on potential projects.
The Department of Energy announced the change in a Federal Register notice, saying advanced reactor projects “typically employ inherent safety features and passive safety systems” and therefore can be excluded from NEPA’s full environmental review process. The DOE also said reactors could still undergo a “streamlined approach” to environmental review, with analyses informed by previously completed reviews for similar technologies.
The exclusion follows reporting by NPR that DOE officials had secretly rewritten environmental, safety and security rules to make it easier for reactors to be built. Those internal edits at Idaho National Laboratory relaxed protections for groundwater and environmental language — for example, changing mandates that the environment “must” be protected to guidance that impacts “may be” avoided or minimized if practical. Experts criticized the rule changes for being shared with companies but not released for public discussion.
The categorical exclusion had been anticipated: President Trump required such a step in an executive order on deploying advanced nuclear reactor technologies. Adam Stein, director of nuclear energy innovation at the Breakthrough Institute, said the exemption was expected and that he views it as appropriate for some reactors, noting past DOE reactors were not found to have significant environmental impacts. But critics say the new designs differ from earlier reactors and lack real-world operating experience.
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued the absence of experience warrants more rigorous safety and environmental reviews. “Any nuclear reactor, no matter how small, no matter how safe it looks on paper, is potentially subject to severe accidents,” he said. Lyman called DOE’s moves to reduce safety and environmental protections a grave risk to public health and the environment.
The move comes as the DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program aims to have at least three advanced test reactors operating by July 4. Around ten startups are building the reactors with billions in private financing, much from Silicon Valley; supporters say the reactors could power AI data centers and jump-start the nuclear industry.
Allowing reactors to avoid full environmental reviews reduces public opportunities to comment. Adam Stein agreed public participation and acceptance are important but questioned the value of comments on Environmental Impact Statements that may ultimately be disregarded.
In its Federal Register notice and a supporting record, DOE said the new reactors’ safety features, fuel types and limited fission product inventories constrain potential adverse consequences from releases during construction, operation and decommissioning. Opponents dispute that assessment and urge fuller review.
Clarification: A new exclusion category for the reactors has been created. Individual reactor companies will still need to request the exclusion.