Skip to main content

The NRC Licensing Process

In case you missed it: NEI's Sr. Director of New Plant Deployment, Adrian Heymer, appeared this afternoon on CNBC's Street Signs to discuss the licensing process with Michael Johnson, the NRC's Director of New Reactors. The entire segment can be seen here.

Heymer is optimistic that the application process can be significantly shortened:
Once the first applications have gone in and they've gone through the process and we've incorporated lessons learned and the industry sticks to standardization - a cookie cutter approach - we believe that the licensing process can be done in 'round about 27 months.

Comments

Anonymous said…
2 years 3 months as a best case scenario to approve a new plant using a plant design already approved is government gone wild.

The incredible amount of bureaucracy that has built up in America might now be the number one reason companies are outsourcing in other nations. Why go through endless regulations and red tape in America when you can have whatever you want to build completed by the time the regulators in America give you an answer.. and that answer might be no.

Now residential power the plant must be built close by, but any product being manufactured you just build in China or some third world nation.

Ultimately it falls on the President as chief executive of the government to reign in out of control growth of bureaucracy. Which government agencies left untended will always grow into a tangled bureaucratic mess, because of human nature.

--aa2
Rod Adams said…
KB:

Thanks for posting the link. It is good to note that CNBC is questioning the fact that the NRC review process is scheduled to take between 42-48 months. I do believe that is excessive considering the fact that the full process of inventing and building the Shippingport reactor took about that same amount of time.

It is kind of funny, however, that one of the best known media outlets in support of free market capitalism seems to be pining for an electrical power system with one utility and one standard plant design.

There is goodness in standardization - one Toyota Corrolla should be built to the same design as the next one. However, there is also goodness in competition - there is no reason whatsoever to believe that one size fits all or that every US power plant should be built by the same vendor.

There is not even any reason to believe that the five "standard" designs represent the best that we can do - technology moves forward and there are at least 5 additional designs that have already made contact with the NRC about their license approval process.

I know for a fact that there is at least one more that has not yet queued up for a variety of reasons, and I have a strong suspicion that there are several others in various stages of design.

Somehow, we have to make people realize that the process of approving a new plant design has to be continually adapted and refined.

My initial suggestion for a time saver is to work to remove the evacuation planning requirement. The technical reality is that evacuation would be a ridiculous response to any conceivable event at any of the proposed designs. In all cases, it would actually increase the risk of negative public health effects.
Anonymous said…
I hope they are right. My experience leads me to think otherwise. I was involved in relicensing a 0.5 MW research reactor. We submitted the application in Dec. of 1999. We received a letter this past month stating that the relicensing had been approved. So by my ciphering 12/99 to 6/08 is a total of 103 months, or a little over eight and a half years. True, it isn't a pre-approved, standardized design, but it isn't as complex as a power reactor either. So maybe they can do better with gigawatt-range power reactors, I don't know.
Anonymous said…
"Only 27 months" to license a reactor that is already approved is an oxymoron. They need to pear that process down to around 12 months.
Joseph Somsel said…
We're being told 42 months for a certified design. But then it told 18 months to generate the COL application. That included field work like core drilling which is required in any case.

I think the environmental report is the worst time waster, especially for new units on an existing site. Really, why bother?
Anonymous said…
"My initial suggestion for a time saver is to work to remove the evacuation planning requirement."

Can you imagine the public response to an industry move to eliminate evacuation planning, especially as a "time saver" for licensing new units?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…