Congress mulls nuclear rule changes
Bill aims to speed up development of new generation of reactors
WASHINGTON — Congress is weighing another overhaul of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amid criticism it is not moving fast enough to get the next generation of advanced reactors licensed.
The Senate is currently considering the Atomic Energy Advancement Act, which passed the House on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote last month. The bill calls for the NRC to not only further streamline its licensing process but to move beyond its mission to ensure reactor safety and consider “the potential of nuclear energy to improve the general welfare” and “the benefits of nuclear energy technology to society.”
U.S. Rep. Randy Weber, RFriendswood, who introduced nuclear permitting legislation last year that was folded into the larger bill, said the commission was moving too slowly in permitting technology that was badly needed as U.S. electricity demand increases.
“Sometimes the political environment takes control, so these projects take a long time for permitting or get canceled,” he said. “When someone is thinking about investing in nuclear you’re talking about billions of dollars, and when you try to go out to find investors they’re going to be a little reluctant if the permitting process takes five to seven years.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was founded almost 50 years ago to ensure the safety of the nation’s nuclear power fleet following criticism its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, was too cozy with the industry.
The NRC recently has come under fire for being too focused on safety, unwilling to adjust its permitting process for a new generation of reactors being developed by companies such as X Energy, which is building a reactor at a Dow Chemical plant north of Corpus Christi. Those technologies included small modular reac
tors that could be built off-site and shipped to remote locations, as well reactors cooled with liquid metal or gas instead of water, which are advertised as safer and more easily built at scale, reducing the price tag on an industry that has struggled with project delays and cost overruns.
“Oftentimes the NRC can be so focused on fulfilling its mission they lose sight of the bigger picture,” said Patrick White, research director at the nonprofit Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a think tank studying advanced nuclear power’s role mitigating climate change impacts. “They’re so focused on ensuring public safety and licensing they’re not getting through the backlog of projects.”
The alliance is funded primarily by Houston billionaire John Arnold’s Arnold Ventures, the Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust and Breakthrough Energy Foundation, chaired by billionaire Bill Gates, whose company Terra Power is building an advanced sodium-cooled reactor in Wyoming.
The NRC is in the process of developing a framework for evaluating this new generation of advanced reactors, with commissioners ordering staff this month to go back and revise a proposed overhaul of regulations that had drawn criticism from Congress and industry.
“The NRC is proposing a rule that will transform the way the agency reviews new reactor applications, while continuing to fulfill our mission to assure the safety of the public,” Chair Christopher Hanson said in a statement.
The question facing the commission is how safe these new generation of reactors really are.
X Energy and Terra Power claim their nuclear technology drastically reduces the risk of meltdown, therefore not requiring the costly containment systems and other safety measures required by traditional nuclear plants.
That could potentially cut the cost of nuclear power plants in half, White said. But some scientists are skeptical the technology is as safe as developers claim.
Nuclear scientists have experimented with metal- and gascooled reactors for decades, and claims they are less likely to meltdown than conventional reactors are “a load of baloney,” said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“Countries have tried these technologies but found there’s too many technical problems,” he said. “The concern is if you make too many optimistic assumptions you can end up with something overly risky.”
A spokesman for X Energy challenged that analysis, explaining the radioactive core “naturally shuts down” in the event its reactor lost cooling.
“Our plants are designed not to melt under foreseeable adverse conditions and require no operator actions under such adverse conditions,” he said. “It’s physics, not mechanical systems that ensure safety.”
However, scientific knowledge of how advanced reactors function remains largely theoretical.
A study by the National Academy of Sciences last year warned there was “little or no direct operational experience of some designs at engineering scale,” and of a “lack of adequate capabilities to develop, test, and qualify advanced fuels and materials.”
Whether the Senate would go along with the House bill’s language calling for a broader mission for the NRC remains unclear.
Legislation passed by the Senate last year was more limited in scope. And already some pro-nuclear advocates, like former energy secretary Ernest Moniz, have begun to question whether the industry might better focus on existing technology.
“We’ve heard a lot about a leapfrogging to the next generation of nuclear technologies,” Moniz said at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Brussels last week, according to Bloomberg. “I would submit it might just be better to focus on getting some technologies deployed right now.”
But plenty are willing to press ahead on advanced nuclear reactors now. With President Joe Biden pushing to decarbonize the economy and Republicans eager to expand the nation’s nuclear fleet, nuclear energy has developed a momentum not seen in decades.
And for now, many politicians are willing to trust these new generation of reactors are as safe as developers claim.
“Does it mean there can never be a problem? No, but I’m a lot more comfortable,” Weber, the Texas Republican, said. “In the last 60 to 70 years, can’t we say we’ve made some advancements?”*