8

The Elements of Regulatory Risk

Recent years have brought significant efforts to improve regulatory efficiency in nuclear energy. Adam Stein, Breakthrough Institute, moderated the workshop’s final panel discussion, which explored changing regulatory landscape and the expected near-term impacts on the deployment of new nuclear reactors. Panelists considered how the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is implementing the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act of 2024 and preparing for non-light water reactor (LWR) license applications, along with opportunities to further improve processes to enable advanced nuclear technology, increase efficiency, and prioritize societal benefits.

The panelists were Michael King, NRC; Marcus Nichol, Nuclear Energy Institute; Peter Hastings, Kairos Power LLC; and Mark Shaver, NuScale Power.

OPENING REMARKS

In opening remarks, King underscored the NRC’s commitment to being part of the solution to advancing nuclear energy. Recognizing that this is a critical time for the United States and for nuclear power, he described how the NRC has created an executive-level, cross-agency team to build a coordinated response to the provisions of the ADVANCE Act while meeting energy demands, furthering energy security goals,

and upholding the fundamental safety objectives set by the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.¹

The ADVANCE Act’s focus on licensing efficiency requires balancing NRC resources with internal and external stakeholder engagement. King said that recent and planned changes will permanently change how the NRC operates, in keeping with the spirit of the ADVANCE Act, and will become core principles of the NRC’s updated mission and culture. “We should operate internally with the highest level of administration efficiency and run internally like a business should, where we have lots of metrics to [which we] hold ourselves accountable [including timeliness],” King said, adding that “there are a lot of activities going on behind the scenes to build the infrastructure necessary to help us do that.”

Nichol said that the nuclear industry is at a turning point. Advanced reactor technologies are no longer merely conceptual, and he stressed that regulations designed for LWRs must be fully modernized—not just incrementally adapted—to reflect how truly different these new technologies are. Modernizing regulations is an iterative process that starts with a new reference point based on a deep understanding of the different technologies, security and business needs, applications, and end uses. He said that Congress appears to support continuing this process of radical change, which he posited should be accelerated even further. He added that it is appropriate for the NRC to play a leading role in this effort as it leans into its new mission, collaborates with stakeholders, and accelerates advanced nuclear projects.

While progress has been made to modernize regulations, Hastings emphasized that investors and energy markets need to know that it is possible, if sometimes difficult, for advanced reactors to be licensed through the existing regulatory framework. For example, he noted that Hermes and Vogtle reactors were licensed through Parts 50 and 52.^2,3 He said that environmental reviews, audits, and construction permitting timelines have been shortened, especially through the use of electronic reading rooms, but licensing is still an inefficient tangle of audits, Requests for Additional Information, and other cumbersome processes. He posited that more changes are needed to eliminate redundancies

___________________

¹ U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1965, Legislative History of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law 585, 79th Congress) in Three Volumes, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1810/ML18102A021.pdf, accessed April 14, 2025.

² U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), “Part 50—Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/full-text.html.

³ NRC, “Part 52—Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part052/full-text.html.

and unnecessary burdens, such as mandatory hearings; further streamline environmental reviews and environmental impact studies (EISs); improve the efficiency of safety reviews and NRC committee work; reduce the number of alternatives to evaluate; and view all regulations more holistically with a strategic view toward the future. In addition, he reiterated the point made throughout the workshop that project management—on the part of the applicant, the NRC, and the interface between the two—plays a key role in the ultimate success of any nuclear project.

Building on these points, Shaver said that it is highly inefficient to try to navigate a regulatory framework that is not designed for today’s technologies. NuScale’s experiences have shown it is possible to pursue small modular reactor (SMR) projects under a system that is designed for LWRs, but this requires careful work to understand the intention or spirit of each rule and determine how it applies to the SMR context, a laborious and time-consuming process. Rather than making incremental changes to existing regulations, he suggested that a new regulatory framework should be developed that is technology neutral. This would allow the flexibility necessary to reflect the diverse field of nuclear technologies, especially in light of the shifting definitions of different technology types and as new markets and use cases continue to emerge. A new regulatory framework can also help to drive cultural change, which will require full stakeholder support, especially from the NRC, along with sustained, continuous improvement moving forward.

PANEL DISCUSSION

Outcomes of the ADVANCE Act

Stein asked panelists to comment on what they view as the most significant outcomes of the ADVANCE Act. King replied that the act is both very broad and very specific, and NRC teams have been carrying out holistic and detailed examinations of its implications both in internal processes and public meetings. He said that many changes, such as eliminating redundancies and expediting reviews, make sense, are easy to implement, and do not disrupt reasonable assurance and adequate protection standards. The NRC is also in the midst of a process to explore options for further improvements, King added; for example, this could include applying Section 505 of the act broadly across all business lines, using audits or Requests for Confirmation of Information instead of Requests for Additional Information, adopting new strategies and accountability metrics to resolve internal barriers more quickly. He added that some changes have been made to the NRC Inspection

Manual,⁴ including improvements to project management guidelines, and that more changes are under way. Thus far, he said that the changes have brought significant benefits without compromising the NRC’s independence, neutrality, or safety standards.

Nichol said that the ADVANCE Act has accelerated work the NRC was already enacting or considering and will push the industry to achieve greater efficiency while maintaining protections for public health and safety. As an example, he said the provisions of the act have already helped the Nuclear Energy Institute speed up development of rapid high-volume deployable reactor approaches. Hastings also agreed that the act will help to accelerate progress, including in the areas of workforce development and cultural alignment. He cautioned that while the NRC must be careful to remain independent, it can provide more guidance without crossing the line to act as a consultant to industry, stating that “collaboration does not equal collusion.” Hastings also expressed his support for Shaver’s idea that regulations should be technology neutral. Shaver noted that the changes intended with the ADVANCE Act are very high-level, but “the devil is in the details.” Making meaningful changes can be challenging in light of the many different reactor types and the complex and constantly evolving international environment.

In reply to a question from Robert Ichord, Atlantic Council, King explained that the ADVANCE Act also clarifies the NRC’s roles in helping to shape international regulations and informs how reactors are built in other countries. The act spurred an internal evaluation of how the NRC can best perform these roles and share knowledge internationally, he said.

Other Developments Affecting the Regulatory Environment

Stein prompted panelists to discuss how other changes are affecting the regulatory environment for the nuclear industry. Shaver highlighted how changes to emergency planning zones, emergency response organizations, and site characterization requirements have opened new markets and end uses for smaller plants or those closer to population centers, while expedited reviews and upfront licensing can speed up deployments. He added that factory fabrication could also shorten deployment timelines, but it creates challenging regulatory questions, especially if the NRC does not know who—or where—the end user will be.

Hastings agreed and also identified Idaho National Laboratory’s work on advanced reactors’ principal design criteria and the NRC’s generic EIS as positive changes. Nichol added that important changes were also made

___________________

⁴ NRC, “Inspection Manual,” https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-manual/index.html.

to rulemaking for advanced reactor physical security, scalable annual fees, risk-informed applications, and the frequency consequence curve, which is how the NRC determines its public dose restrictions.

King highlighted several other changes in the works at the NRC, including the adoption of new accountability metrics for licensing timelines and efforts to increase transparency into oversight processes. The NRC has commissioned papers, established dedicated teams, and held public meetings on these topics to clarify issues, identify needs, and address problems with guidance from expert stakeholders as quickly as possible. Stein noted that the NRC also has a new information portal to spur community engagement and public feedback.

Stein asked panelists how they perceive changes aimed specifically at streamlining the EIS review process, which is a large part of the environmental review and has been impacted by other laws, such as the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA).⁵ King replied that the NRC has complied with the FRA directives to make environmental reviews more efficient by lowering page limits and instituting mandated deadlines.⁶ Other proposed improvements are before the commission or still in the ideation phase.⁷ Hastings added that the FRA codified changes and simplifications that the NRC was already making and had broad staff support, such as encouraging shorter EISs, instituting a generic EIS, and lowering the requirements on the number of alternatives to be evaluated. He said that these relatively small changes are creating substantial progress. Shaver added that EISs can also be more streamlined when dealing with advanced reactors, since they have lower frequency consequence curves and a smaller physical footprint than existing reactors.

Looking at the business context, Nichol noted that the NRC regulatory structure ensures developers meet the requirements to achieve licensing for a product—clean energy—that they can sell. Streamlining regulatory compliance can greatly impact businesses, beyond review and licensing, by shortening the time to market. However, he said that some difficult issues have yet to be addressed and posited that more aggressive changes are still needed, such as updates to population siting criteria, Part 100 requirements, commercial codes and standards, emergency planning zones, and Probabilistic Risk Assessments, all of which could be

___________________

⁵ H.R.3746, “Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023,” June 3, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746/text.

⁶ S.A. Morris, 2024, “Achieving Timely Completion of License Renewal Safety and Environmental Reviews (License Renewal Roadmap),” March 28, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2405/ML24059A132.pdf.

⁷ NRC, “SECY-24-0046: Implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 National Environmental Policy Act Amendments,” released June 13, 2024, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2407/ML24078A013.html.

more efficiently addressed for advanced reactors through alternatives to the current approaches developed for large LWRs.

Asked by a member of the audience about the transition from construction permits to operational licenses, Hastings replied that the two processes are very different but both benefit from productive pre-application engagement with NRC staff. He added that having greater stability in the regulations, along with more public support and increased availability of information, has helped to reduce roadblocks and make both processes smoother.

Rob Whelan, Gridway AI, asked for further details about electronic reading rooms, and Hastings explained that electronic reading rooms are secure online platforms that enable NRC staff to remotely evaluate applications, which may include hundreds of thousands of pages of supporting documents, instead of traveling to the site. King added that while the rooms are not public, they do not reduce transparency because the documents that are relied on to make regulatory decisions are made publicly available. Electronic reading rooms also do not replace audits or site visits, which improve communication and create a shared understanding among stakeholders.

Long-Term Objectives

Stein asked panelists to comment on longer-term objectives, specifically Part 53: Risk Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors, which is mandated by the Nuclear Energy Innovation Modernization Act from 2019 but has yet to be finalized.⁸ Part 53 is intended to provide a regulatory pathway for advanced reactor designs that minimizes the focus on rigid design specifications and is risk informed, technologically inclusive, and performance based.⁹

Hastings explained that while Part 53 today represents an improvement over its initial version, and can still be workable, it is very different from Parts 50 and 52 because it uses probabilistic risk assessments instead of pre-defined and conservative safety rules. Some of its criteria could be merged with Parts 50 and 52, but that process could inadvertently make things worse. Instead, he suggested that it may be better to build entirely new regulations applicable to advanced reactors, which have far lower risks than the current operating fleet, which itself is already the safest

___________________

⁸ NRC, “Part 53—Risk Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors,” reviewed/updated March 4, 2025, https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/modernizing/rulemaking/part-53.html.

⁹ U.S. Congress, Senate. S.512, “Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act,” 115th Congress, January 14, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/512/text.

form of electricity production. Part 53’s regulatory burdens may be too high, and he suggested that Kairos would prefer to use Parts 50 and 52 instead.

Nichol agreed that Part 53 is not significantly better than the existing regulatory frameworks, but expressed his view that it can be successful if fixed. To move forward, he suggested that it should be more aggressive, incorporate the ADVANCE Act changes, and rely on high-level guidance with performance-based—not prescriptive—rules that define outcomes but let applicants decide how to achieve them. A focus on outcomes, especially for public health and safety, is an enormous change, and could lessen the tension between the NRC and applicants if paired with improved stakeholder communication and collaboration, he said, adding that it is also more consistent with the NRC’s updated mission to improve efficiency. Shaver agreed, adding that a long-term objective should be to streamline grid and infrastructure licensing to ensure that new nuclear power has an end user.

King added that advanced reactor construction oversight is a long-term policy issue that deserves more consideration. The NRC has been critically examining whether its processes reflect the broad range of technologies and potential risks to the public to identify a scalable approach to regulation that encompasses design considerations and lessons learned from past construction projects.

Public Engagement and the Role of States

Timothy Judson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, expressed concern that it has become increasingly difficult for the public to participate in important NRC discussions and worried that the agency was being treated as a client of the nuclear industry, rather than a representative of the public’s interest.

Hastings responded by emphasizing that the changes in the NRC’s operations have not removed opportunities for public engagement. Mandatory hearings, which are closed to the public and also informally called “uncontested” hearings, have since become streamlined and simplified to remove redundant formalities. Contested hearings are still in use and continue to serve as an important forum for public engagement. He and Shaver agreed with Judson that in addition to the NRC, applicants must also make improvements, such as communicating more effectively with regulators, defining terms more clearly, and collaborating more closely across the nuclear ecosystem. King also agreed with Judson that public engagement is very important to establishing public trust and stressed that the NRC will continue to prioritize public safety above all else.

Jeffrey Semancik, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, asked if public acceptance would be easier if state governments were more involved in the regulatory process. King replied that stakeholder engagement does include state and local representatives and authorities, who are very important to the process.

Another participant asked if it would be more efficient for states to license nuclear projects instead of the NRC. Hastings said that the NRC has a consistent, if imperfect, regulatory framework and a vast expertise that is unlikely to be easily replicable in all 50 states. Nichol agreed, stating that, if efficiency is the goal, focusing on improving the existing NRC framework is the best way toward safe, efficient, large-scale nuclear deployment. Shaver also agreed, noting that putting nuclear regulation in the hands of the states could result in a situation where each state has different regulations, creating more uncertainty and impeding attempts to improve standardization and efficiency across the industry.

Key Points

Stein invited panelists to highlight what they see as key points or critical needs in the regulatory space. Shaver highlighted the importance of pursuing continual progress through a process that attends to the entire deployment and operational lifecycle and is risk informed, performance and objective based, less prescriptive, and more descriptive. He also underscored the need to better define terms across the nuclear ecosystem.

Hastings stated that decisions should be guided by risk level; low risks should have low regulatory burdens. Nichol identified a need for continued and aggressive regulatory change, which he posited will be welcome as long as public health and security are not compromised. He also underscored the urgency of taking action to enable the industry to move forward, stating, “we have a very short window of opportunity to do all of this.”

King reiterated that the NRC welcomes changes that will enable the agency to efficiently fulfill its mission. “Our credibility as a regulator is paramount in all of this, so at the end of the day we will achieve reasonable assurance, but we are going to do it in a way that’s efficient and smart,” he said.

This page intentionally left blank.