On Wednesday, November 15, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff published a revised and final regulatory basis document in support of its rulemaking to reform emergency planning requirements for small modular and advanced reactors, including medical isotope reactors.  This rulemaking promises to significantly reduce costs for next generation nuclear plants by employing individualized, risk-informed requirements as opposed to rigid deterministic ones.

Fifty-seven individuals, companies, and organizations commented on the draft regulatory basis document.  The NRC staff made a number of edits to respond to the comments, including further incorporating risk-informed concepts into the text of the regulatory basis, and increasing discussion of the agency’s framework for establishing the size of emergency planning zones for new reactor designs.  According to the NRC’s rulemaking schedule, a proposed rule is due to be published early 2019, with a final rule in 2020.

This action by the NRC coincides with exciting developments for the US Department of Energy.  This week the Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) at Idaho National Laboratories successfully completed low-power operations after being brought out of standby since 1994.  As explained in industry press, the restart of TREAT is a big success story for the agency, which refurbished the facility a year ahead of schedule and $20 million under budget.  TREAT specializes in testing new reactor fuels under heavy irradiation conditions, to see how they perform particularly in accident scenarios.  Testing new fuel designs is a linchpin to commercializing new reactor designs, as many of them rely on completely new concepts for nuclear fuel.

TREAT may also be getting company.  This same week, the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology approved an exciting new bill markup, HR 4378, the “Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act of 2017.”  This piece of legislation tries to deliver on repeated calls to build a new test reactor in the United States.  It calls for a fast-neutron test facility to be completed in the mid-2020s that supports (among other things) high-temperature testing, testing of different coolant types, medical isotope production, and which is designed to be upgrade-able over time.  Funding is set aside, with $35 million in 2018, scaling up to $350 million from 2023 to 2025.

For more on any of these topics, feel free to contact the authors.

Last week China announced the launch of a company to build twenty (20) floating nuclear power stations.  Russia continues to move forward with its floating nuclear power station, which are to be mass-produced at shipbuilding facilities and then towed to areas in need of power.  In fact, it is working towards initial fuel load on its first floating reactor.  Politics aside, these developments highlight a trend in nuclear power, which is the growing interest to power our cities with smaller, more flexible  reactors—which could be located offshore.

China and Russia are not the first to suggest the concept of sea-based reactors.  The world’s first operational nuclear reactors were naval reactors for submarines, and nuclear reactors continue to power submarines and aircraft carriers around the world.  In the commercial power space, a floating nuclear reactor effort called the Offshore Power System project was explored in the 1970s to provide power onshore, although it eventually did not move forward.  Since then, Russia has taken a lead role, constructing the Akademik Lomonosov, a floating reactor that will be towed to Pevek in Russia’s Eastern half for power generation.  Private enterprise has also taken interest in the concept.  For example, a company called ThorCon is proposing a molten salt reactor power that would be located on a ship and deploy-able around the world, called the ThorConIsle.  However, China’s effort may ultimately prove to be one of the more extensive ones.  The company will be formed by five entities including the China National Nuclear Power Corporation, and will have an initial capital of $150 million.

The legal, policy, and regulatory issues posed by floating reactors are as interesting as the technology.  The location of the floating reactors next to other countries is of course a key concern. The Akademik Lomonosov had to change where it would be fueled due to concerns by Norway.  Some are alleging that the Chinese reactor project is part of an effort to help boost control of the South China Sea.  The transit of floating nuclear reactors–which do not propel the vessels they are on–by neighboring countries raises legal issues that would need to be navigated.  In addition, just as the siting of wind turbines offshore has at times generated strong local opposition, similar grass-roots opposition could arise to challenge the siting of floating reactors located offshore.  These challenges can be overcome, but should be considered early on in project development.

The regulatory framework in which a private company would construct a reactor would also need to be examined.  For example, in the United States, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Standard Review Plan for examining the safety of nuclear reactors does not necessarily envision floating reactors.  That does not mean a floating reactor could not get licensed in the United States, however, and in fact the Offshore Power System, and the licensing of the NS Savannah provide some useful precedent.  The NS Savannah was licensed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor agency of the NRC, and although this was built to be a “goodwill ship,” a goal in the construction of the ship was to meet civilian safety requirements so the vessel could be usable by the public.  Moreover, the NRC works with the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide technical support for DOE’s oversight of the U.S. Nuclear Navy.

Extending civilian use of nuclear power to the ocean presents questions, but also significant opportunities, for both the developed and developing world.  Please do not hesitate to contact the authors if you wish to learn more.

The House of Representatives quickly passed HR 1551 Tuesday, after its approval out of committee last week.  This bill represents a bipartisan effort to promote nuclear power development in the United States by removing the deadline on the nuclear Production Tax Credit, and allowing tax credits to be transferred in certain cases.  The text of the bill can be found here.

If there are any questions on the legislation, please contact the authors.

Both Congress and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) moved forward last week with significant programs to support the development of nuclear power in the United States. Congress took a critical step towards extending the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for nuclear power, and DOE announced nearly $67 million in new grants for nuclear power research.

On Thursday June 15, 2017, the House Committee on Ways and Means approved H.R. 1551, legislation designed to essentially remove the deadline on eligibility for the nuclear PTC. This bill is not only very important for the four AP1000 nuclear reactors under construction in Georgia and South Carolina, but potentially also for next-generation nuclear plants. These plants can take advantage of the remaining credits left over after the AP1000 projects are completed (from the 6,000 MW available under the current tax credit); the credits would normally expire on January 1, 2021. The bill can be found here.

The day before, on Wednesday June 14, DOE announced nearly $67 million in grants awarded towards advanced nuclear energy research from a series of funding programs. The grants include:

  • $37 million under the “Nuclear Energy University Program” to support “university-led nuclear energy research and development projects” and also fund “reactor and infrastructure improvements” towards the nation’s 25 university research reactors;
  • $11 million towards three “Integrated Research Projects,” which are complex research projects led by a coalition of “universities, industrial and international research entities, and the unique resources of the DOE national laboratories”;
  • $6 million in research towards “advanced sensors and instrumentation, advanced manufacturing methods, and materials for multiple nuclear reactor plant and fuel applications”; and
  • $12+ million towards projects taking advantage of “Nuclear Science User Facilities” to “investigate important nuclear fuel and material applications.” Five of these projects are industry-led and thus take advantage of the GAIN Initiative, which provides industry with a means to access facilities and resources “across the DOE complex and its National Laboratory capabilities.”

If you have any questions about the nuclear PTC or DOE research programs, please contact the authors.

Published reports indicate that as many as 18 reactor designers are looking at the possibility of siting their first facility at Idaho National Laboratory, DOE’s lead laboratory for nuclear reactors. From time to time, there are similar expressions of interest in DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Savannah River Site.

DOE facilities have much to recommend them for such an undertaking, including incredible nuclear expertise near-at-hand, locations that are both remote and friendly to nuclear undertakings, and plenty of open space. At the same time, it is important to recognize the unique challenges that come with such sites.

Entering into a site use permit with DOE requires an understanding of certain “immovables,” including: DOE mission requirements, present and future; DOE obligations to state regulators, particularly environmental regulators; past uses of the sites that may not yet be remediated, such as environmental contamination or unexploded ordnance; and appropriations law restrictions, which mean that DOE cannot spend money to address an issue until Congress appropriates the money for that purpose.

There are also discontinuities between nuclear safety, security and liability approaches applicable to DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that have to be accommodated. These could affect matters as diverse as site access, transfer of ownership and radiation exposure standards. Likewise, dealing with two federal agencies that have different roles will complicate compliance with certain laws that apply equally to both of them, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.

Finally, there are also unique financial considerations arising both out of sharing common services and buying services from DOE.

None of these issues are insoluble, but it will take time and flexibility in approach to reach agreement. A reactor designer looking at a DOE site should go into it with eyes open and a large measure of patience for the negotiation that will be required.

Hogan Lovells has experience with negotiating these types of unique agreements with DOE. For additional information please contact one of the authors below.

Mary Anne Sullivan
Dan Stenger
Amy Roma
Sachin Desai

Last Thursday the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported out of committee the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 (bill S.97).  This legislation will “enable civilian research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies by private and public institutions” and represents a significant opportunity for advanced reactors.  It is now one step closer to a full Senate floor vote.

This comes on the heels of a different advanced reactor bill, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act of 2017 (bill S.512), reporting out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee a week earlier.  Confused about the multiple advanced reactor-related bills moving forward in Congress?  Check out our prior post to learn more about them.

On Thursday, a team of eight U.S. Senators introduced S. 512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.   As described in a press release by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, this bill tackles a number of issues affecting the licensing of advanced reactors.  It promises to “establish[] new transparency and accountability measures to the commission’s budget and fee programs,” “develop the regulatory framework necessary to enable the licensing of advanced nuclear reactors,” and “improve the efficiency of uranium regulation,” among other things.  The text of the bill can be found here.

S. 512 builds off of a prior version of the bill introduced in 2016, numbered S. 2795 (see a prior post on this legislation here). Among some of the changes from the 2016 version, S. 512 contains new sections on uranium recovery and transfers. It also adds a new focus on the licensing of new types of nuclear reactor fuel—for example, it now asks that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission evaluate “strategies for the qualification of advanced nuclear reactor fuel, including the use of computer modeling and simulation and experimental validation.”

A similarly-named bill, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, was introduced in Congress earlier in 2017 (S. 97 and H.R. 431). You can see our blog post on this legislation here.  The Senate version of the bill, which was referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, shares some of the same sponsors as S. 512.  The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act appears to focus more on R&D and the use of national laboratories to assist nuclear energy innovators.  On the other hand, S. 512, which is broader in scope, focuses more on NRC licensing.

The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act is an exciting piece of legislation.  We will continue to inform readers as it moves through the legislative process.