The NRC responds: Among the more notable proposals found in the rulemaking was the potential to change or extend the duration of early site permits, manufacturing licenses, and operating license renewals. In summary, the proposed rulemaking would do the following:
- Eliminate expiration dates and renewal requirements for early site permits.
- Extend manufacturing licenses to 40 years.
- Extend operating license renewal terms from 20 years to 40 years.
Lengthier terms raised questions from some in the public as to whether this could lead to lengthier reviews jeopardizing the expedited review process the NRC has recently undertaken. In 2026, the NRC approved subsequent license renewals for reactors at Hatch and Robinson nuclear power plants, the reviews of which lasted 12 months or less.
Deputy director for licensing and programs Michele Sampson said the goal is still for the NRC to maintain its streamlined review process.
“Clearly that one-year timeline is predicated upon a high-quality application and effective communication between the applicant and staff during the review,” she said. “If there are complexities that arise, certainly that can slow review down. But our intent would be to meet our one-year review schedule.”
But where do small modular reactor applicants fall into these lengthier terms? Could SMRs one day seek 40-year license renewals despite their lifetimes likely being shorter in length? Sampson addressed this topic after a member in the virtual audience raised the question.
“The NRC can issue a license for up to 40 years. The NRC of course would review an application and must make safety findings to support whatever approval we issue,” she said. “It certainly is possible that an applicant might ask for something less than 40 years, but that is our traditional license term.”
As with other proposed rulemakings, the reactor licensing rule provides risk-informed, performance-based (RIPB) pathways. The Part 54 enhancements regarding power plant license renewals include options for applicants to propose alternative RIPB criteria, as well as reducing prescriptive requirements for application content and post-approval recordkeeping.
Flexible options are also prevalent in this proposed rule. One example of this includes developers who would have the option to voluntarily submit operational programs with manufacturing license applications under Part 52. Another example is that all applicants and licensees would have the option to use performance-based regulations for addressing emergency preparedness. And when it comes to new reactor applications addressing decommissioning finances, the applicants would be given the option to submit a design-specific decommissioning cost estimate.
About the meetings: NRC staff’s first two public meetings on the proposed rule addressed other key topics, including the following:
- Accelerating new reactor construction.
- Streamlining quality assurance criteria.
- 10 CFR Part 100 siting changes.
- 10 CFR 50.55a changes.
- Implementing determinate and data-backed thresholds for reactor safety assessments.
- Increasing enrichment of conventional and accident tolerant fuel designs for light water reactors.
- Implementing RIPB acceptance criteria in Parts 50 and 52 regulations.
The three virtual Q&A meetings were just the latest NRC staff held this summer over proposed rulemakings. The public can comment on the proposed rule through August 31 via the federal rulemaking website under Docket ID NRC-2025-0975. It is expected that the final rule will be posted in December.
