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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …