Regulatory Review Processes for Nuclear Projects

Yesterday, X-energy and Dow filed a major permit for a new nuclear plant. They chose a path that might seem surprising, but there are good reasons every new project seems to be going this way. The two companies submitted a 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑡 for their Seadrift, Texas plant using the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Part 50 licensing process. Part 50 is a two-step approach where you first apply for a 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑡, then come back later for an 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒. This is the same route TerraPower and Natura Resources have taken for their advanced reactors. So why are today’s innovators turning to an older process instead of the newer Part 52, which combines construction and operating approvals into one license? Simply put: 𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 Part 52 works best with a fully locked-down design before even breaking ground. With a certified design like the Westinghouse Electric Company AP1000 or the NuScale Power SMR that might sound efficient. In practice though, design changes during construction get expensive in both dollars and delays as the license is amended. The most recent reactors built in the US, Vogtle Units 3 and 4, were submitted under the Part 52 process. Even with a certified design, these AP1000 plants ended up nearly 10 years behind schedule and more than $17 billion over budget. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that roughly $1,600 per kilowatt - 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝟭𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 - 𝒄𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒎𝒂𝒅𝒆 𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈. Part 50 may look slower on paper, but when you’re building something that’s never been done before, it gives you the room to adapt. For these first-of-a-kind designs (and potentially projects 2 and 3), that flexibility may be key to getting them to the finish line faster. #nuclearpower #atomiceconomics #atomecon

The economics of new nuclear plants are heavily influenced by their capital cost, which accounts for at least 60% of their LCOE. With large upfront capital costs, the longer it takes to license and build a reactor the higher the cost of capital--because you're paying interest on loans for a long time before you get to operations. Anything that can reduce the amount of upfront capital needed on a project and shorten the duration of licensing reviews and construction--to accelerate time to operations and generating $$$--is critical to bringing down the cost of a project. A lot of the new nuclear technologies focus on reducing costs, such as with simpler designs, modular construction, standardization, etc. But what about other drivers in the timeline--like licensing reviews? I've spent a lot of time over the years thinking of ways to streamline U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing reviews, and write/speak about this topic often. This includes improving #NEPA/environmental reviews. I've done this for 20 years, and have seen both ends of the spectrum--some good examples (like the Kairos Power application review) and some not so good. Since there's a renewed interest in improving NRC envirornmental reviews, I'm posting a paper I published back in 2019 --"Streamlining NRC NEPA Reviews for Advanced Reactor Demonstration Projects." This report identifies some of the challenges that have been apparent in NEPA reviews of commercial nuclear energy projects, and makes several policy and operational recommendations to support more efficient review for first-of-a-kind nuclear projects while still protecting the environment. https://lnkd.in/eQqtUK8N

Many who have read the new EO’s released yesterday are still skeptical of our nation’s ability to take immediate steps to build new nuclear bc of the high uncertainty associated with working with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They are not wrong. For the general public who does not understand the barriers that licensees must overcome to build new nuclear, I’d like to explain one example. Over time, the NRC learned how to weaponize the National Environmental Policy Act (#NEPA) during the review process for new nuclear #power plant licenses. While NEPA was designed to ensure that environmental considerations inform federal decision-making, its application by the NRC has turned into a weapon for delaying or obstructing nuclear projects, rather than facilitating informed decisions. This trend not only undermines the intent of NEPA but also hampers the nation’s ability to transition to reliable and cleaner energy sources at a critical juncture. While thorough environmental reviews are necessary, in practice, the NRC has interpreted NEPA's requirements in ways that expand the scope of environmental reviews far beyond reasonable bounds. For example, concerns about hypothetical environmental impacts, often highly exaggerated or based on outdated data, is just one driver that leads to lengthy and costly reviews. This has resulted in a situation where project timelines stretch into years, if not decades, and where proponents of nuclear energy face insurmountable obstacles in navigating the review process. The consequences of this can be seen in the number of new nuclear plants the U.S. has built in the last 40 years. The weaponization of NEPA by the NRC has serious consequences for both the nuclear industry and the broader energy landscape. The hurdles imposed by an overly burdensome NEPA process hinder investment in nuclear technology and innovation. Moreover, these delays feed into public skepticism regarding nuclear energy. As a result, even well-researched and environmentally sound projects fall victim to unwarranted opposition, further isolating #nuclear energy as a viable solution in the #energytransition. But there is a rational path forward to reform how the NRC uses NEPA. 2 simple examples: 👉🏼1. Adopt a more efficient and focused approach to NEPA reviews that involves setting clear timelines and ensuring that only relevant environmental impacts are assessed. 👉🏼2. Provide clear guidance to staff and stakeholders on NEPA's intent and appropriate applications. This includes training on how to aggregate and assess data responsibly, minimizing speculative impacts, and fostering a culture of efficiency. By reforming its approach, the #NRC can uphold the spirit of NEPA while facilitating the growth of the nuclear industry. As the clock ticks on our ability to create #energysecurity for our country and growth of #AI, it is imperative that interpretation of regulations, like NEPA, are reformed. NOW!

🇨🇦☢ Everyone thinks new reactor designs take forever to get approved. But Candu Energy is speeding things up. Here's the plan: 1. Team up with regulators: ↳ Candu Energy has partnered with Canadian nuclear regulators, ↳ They're planning a Pre-Licensing Design Review for the Candu Monark reactor, ↳ This helps the CNSC get familiar with the design early on. 2. Streamline the design and review process: ↳ The design phase wrapped up in September 2023, ↳ AtkinsRéalis aims to finish preliminary engineering by 2027, ↳ The first build could start by 2029 and finish by the mid-2030s. 3. Use the Vendor Design Review (VDR) process: ↳ A VDR helps verify that Canadian regulatory requirements will be met, ↳ It also helps identify and resolve any licensing barriers early on, ↳ Normally, a VDR has three phases, but the Candu Monark builds on past models. 4. Decide the best path forward: ↳ AtkinsRéalis has asked for either a VDR or a preliminary regulatory design assessment, ↳ The CNSC and AtkinsRéalis will develop a schedule and estimate for both, ↳ They'll consider the improvements and changes made to the Candu Monark. 🎯 The goal is to ensure that any new build can proceed with confidence in the licensing costs and timeline. Image source: AtkinsRéalis

Palisades Nuclear Plant – Notification of Readiness for Transition to Power Operations Licensing Basis Shortly after PNP transitioned to a decommissioning facility, Holtec1 assumed ownership of PNP and given the support from the Governor of the State of Michigan and the Department of Energy, Holtec commenced a project to return PNP to a power operations plant. In a letter dated March 13, 2023 (Reference 5), followed by a meeting with the NRC on March 20, 2023, Holtec presented a regulatory path to reinstate the power operations licensing basis (POLB) allowing resumption of power operations through a suite of licensing submittals permitted within the existing regulatory framework. The regulatory path to reinstate the PNP POLB is consistent with the guidance provided in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2562, Light-Water Reactor Inspection Program for Restart of Reactor Facilities Following Permanent Cessation of Power Operations, issued on April 24, 2025, detailing the inspection activities and requirements for plant operational readiness to provide reasonable assurance for safe operations following reactivation of an operating license. This IMC promulgates the NRC's previous position that the existing NRC regulatory framework, including the processes for exemptions and license amendments, may be used on a case-by-case basis to reauthorize the resumption of operations. The purpose of this letter is to report the licensing and regulatory activities needed to support the resumption of power operations at PNP and its readiness to implement the POLB. The proposed implementation date for transitioning PNP to the POLB is August 25, 2025.

The NRC accepted Dow's application for a construction permit for the first of a kind X-energy facility at the Long Mott site in Texas. The NRC estimates an 18-month timeline using 28,500 staff hours. That equates to a $9.2M in fees at $323/hr, and $1.3M in outside contractor support. https://lnkd.in/eQTBTU2Y The ADVANCE Act called for reduced licensing fees for advanced reactors, but the proposed rule excludes most agency actions, including construction permit applications. So, the full $323/hr rate is assumed. More information on the Fee rule here: https://lnkd.in/erEYDtVC The review employs a similar number of staff hours to the ongoing TerraPower Natrium application, but utilizes an environmental assessment (EA) rather than an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). That change is the primary driver for the shorter timeline.