A closer look at the NRC’s reactor licensing revamp
Make no mistake about it: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s proposed rulemaking on reactor licensing, safety oversight, and siting practices is expansive. When it was unveiled on July 1, NRC officials called it the “most comprehensive modernization of reactor licensing in decades,” one that could save the NRC and the industry as much as $1.86 billion.
“NRC’s regulations have not kept pace with new technologies and our energy needs,” NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said in an announcement. “This proposed rule strips out rigid frameworks and unnecessary conservatism to accelerate the safe deployment of new reactors and expand existing capacity across America.”
The proposed rule, “Modernizing Reactor Licensing, Safety Oversight, and Siting Practices,” spans just over 550 pages. At first glance one may understandably not know where to start. Fortunately, Nuclear News took a deeper dive into the massive rulemaking, focusing on 17 key provisions that the NRC identified in the rule.
At this writing, the proposed rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register. Once published, it will be open for public comment for 45 days. Below are summaries on these key changes.
Expedited construction: Some potential nuclear reactor developers would like to construct non-safety-significant portions of a nuclear facility ahead of a construction permit or combined license, the NRC says. Under the proposed rule, the agency would add language to create a general license to begin this type of construction upon docketing an application. Furthermore, the NRC would update its definition of “construction” to include structures, systems, and components (SSCs) for which “construction can affect the SSC’s capability to perform a safety-related or safety-significant function and will, therefore, require NRC approval before commencing construction.” The argument here is that defining which SSCs fall into which category will help facilitate nuclear power plant construction.
Reactor design changes: Executive Order 14300 directed the NRC to establish stringent thresholds for reactor design changes during construction and operation. In response, the agency proposes amending its regulations regarding reactor design changes during construction and operation. The changes under 10 CFR Parts 52 and 53 would establish “appropriate thresholds for NRC-initiated changes as well as provide additional flexibility and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden for licensee-initiated changes.” Of note is the proposal to eliminate “increased standardization” as a criterion for changes in design certification.
Revising emergency preparedness: Changes here would amend regulations to create more adaptable pathways for emergency preparedness. The NRC argues that this will create a “strengthened, more risk-informed approach” to emergency preparedness and will provide greater assurances in the event of a radiological emergency.
Operational programs: Developers applying for a manufacturing license could voluntarily submit operational programs for NRC review and approval as part of the license review under this provision. The NRC notes here the interest for “rapid, widespread” deployment of new reactors of a standard design, supported by NRC staff recommendations. “These agency actions would support the rapid licensing and high-volume deployment of new microreactors and other low consequence reactors and the direction in EO 14300 to adopt shorter timeframes tailored to particular licensing pathways,” according to the rule.
Early site permits: Amendments to early site permit licensing and approval processes would eliminate the requirement for a permit expiration date, clarify the applicability of permit requirements, and propose conforming amendments to enhance the agency’s effectiveness and efficiency in licensing and approvals.
Reactor manufacturing license extensions: The proposed rule would extend a manufacturing license’s lifespan to 40 years and extend renewals to 40 years, as well. Currently, a manufacturing license lasts a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 15 years. “The current landscape for nuclear power reactors designs, which encompasses potential microreactors and small modular reactors in addition to traditional large LWRs, may significantly benefit from the regulatory stability afforded by a longer ML term,” the rule said.
40-year operating license renewals: The length of operating license renewals would increase from 20 years to 40 years under the proposed rulemaking. “Most U.S. reactors are already operating beyond 40 years under renewed licenses and are following their approved aging management programs,” the rule says.
Reactor site criteria flexibility: All stationary power reactor applications submitted after January 10, 1997, follow siting criteria in subpart B of 10 CFR Part 100. Current criteria are more prescriptive and tend to cater to large sites for LWRs, according to the rule. The proposed criteria changes would be more flexible to better accommodate a broader range of reactor technologies. The NRC would still maintain its preference for siting reactors in less-populated areas. It would, however, provide flexibility for siting reactors in areas of greater population density as long as it is “justified by an assessment comparing the societal risks and societal benefits of siting reactors in those areas.”
Decommissioning funding assurances: This provision would allow certain new reactor applicants and licensees to submit a design-specific decommissioning cost estimate that is less than the approved table of values found in 10 CFR 50.75(c). It is something the NRC is also considering for 10 CFR Part 53, intended to more broadly accommodate new reactor technologies.
More alternatives: The NRC would allow licensees to request a broader scope of alternatives to the requirements in 10 CFR 50.55a(z), “Codes and standards.” The argument here is that the expansion would allow for added flexibility without requiring exemptions; reducing or eliminating exemptions is a recurring theme in the rulemaking. “This proposed action would allow nuclear power plant licensees and applicants for construction permits (CP), operating licenses (OL), combined licenses (COL), standard design certifications, standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses (ML) to request authorization of voluntary alternatives to a broader scope of requirements in 10 CFR 50.55a,” according to the rule.
Increasing flexibility: Two changes would be made to 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, tests, and experiments,” These changes would allow the use of quantitative risk results to demonstrate that a change to a facility does not result in a “more than minimal increase,” as well as allow licensees to make changes to methods that previously required NRC review. This second item would only be allowed if the licensee adopted an acceptable verification, validation, and uncertainty qualification program. “This shift would enable licensee-led evaluations and allow for the evaluation of advanced modeling methods through structured processes rather than fixed requirements,” according to the rule.
Streamlining QA criteria: This proposed appendix to 10 CFR Part 50, “Streamlined Quality assurance criteria for nuclear power plants and fuel reprocessing plants,” would provide an alternative to a separate appendix that has been a mainstay for establishing minimum quality assurance requirements for safety-related SSCs. Concerns have been raised about how the older appendix fits into modern practices, according to the rule. The new appendix would establish performance-based QA criteria that would provide direction on using a graded approach for QA requirements regarding SSCs, would incorporate QA terminology and methodologies used across industries, would provide enhanced regulatory certainty, and would remove NRC oversight of suppliers and vendors of products and services, when appropriate.
Language updates: Updates to language abound in the proposed rule. One noted by the NRC regards proposed changes to language surrounding construction permit requirements and related licenses. According to the rule, these updates would more clearly link the level of detail required to be submitted with a CP application to the findings the NRC requires in 10 CFR 50.35(a), 50.40, and 50.50 to issue the permit. This would also adjust some of the light water reactor–centric language to be more technology-inclusive.
Alternative risk-informed, performance-based criteria: The proposed rule would add new, standalone provisions providing licensees and applicants technology-inclusive, risk-informed, or performance-based criteria as alternatives to existing requirements that are more prescriptive. “These new provisions would support the expanded and accelerated use of acceptance criteria reflective of innovative nuclear technologies without the need for exemptions, while continuing to ensure reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety,” the rule states. This would also include updating and clarifying its general design criteria regulations, allowing for deviations from these regulations without requiring exemptions.
Increased enrichment for fuel designs: The NRC wants to improve its licensing of fuels enriched above 5.0 weight percent uranium-235 by updating its regulations. The agency argues that the proposed updates would reduce the number of exemption requests from existing regulations. “The new requirements also would address fuel fragmentation, relocation, and dispersal in relation to the key accident tolerant fuel components of increased enrichment and burnup limits,” the rule says.
Design-basis and beyond-design-basis events: This provision would add the terms “design-basis event” and “beyond-design-basis event” to the definitions section of 10 CFR 50.2, as well as a conforming revision to the definition of “design-basis event” in 10 CFR 50.49, “Environmental qualification of electric equipment important to safety for nuclear power plants.”
Footnote removal: Under this provision, the NRC would delete a footnote that clarifies safety-related electric equipment as Class 1E equipment under Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard 323-1974. The NRC considers the footnote unnecessary at this point, having established the connection between safety-related electric equipment and Class 1E equipment.
