Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s proposed Part 53 rule must be changed to comport with recent directives from Congress and the Executive Branch to “achieve the most effective and efficient regulatory framework possible,” the Nuclear Energy Institute said in February.
- The industry group’s recommendation was one of dozens submitted by utilities, trade associations, nuclear technology developers and other industry stakeholders since the NRC released the proposed rule last fall. Many recommendations, though not all, urged the NRC to amend the proposed rule to make it less prescriptive or reduce perceived burdens on future licensees.
- The current version of the “risk-informed, technology-inclusive” Part 53 framework, which would provide an alternative to the existing Part 50 and Part 52 licensing pathways, incorporates changes requested by lawmakers in 2023 and ordered by NRC commissioners in 2024 to improve the new framework’s efficiency.
Dive Insight:
The revised Part 53 framework eliminates quantitative health objectives, a set of safety metrics that some in the industry feared would restrict future license applicants’ flexibility. In a March 2024 staff memo, the NRC suggested applicants propose “a comprehensive plant risk metric (or set of metrics)” instead.
The revised Part 53 also removes a second possible licensing pathway, known as Framework B. Framework B more closely resembled the existing licensing pathways, but with technology-neutral modifications that reduce burdens on non-light water reactor designs.
Though the NRC voted last year to explore whether aspects of Framework B could inform existing licensing frameworks or possibly find life as a new, standalone framework, NEI in its comments last month recommended against the standalone approach, arguing that it was distracting NRC staff from pursuing more significant improvements to Part 53.
In its comments, NEI encouraged NRC staff to take a “systematic and aggressive search for potential changes, in requirements, policy and guidance, to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden that have not yet been fully considered.” It singled out possible changes to population standards in reactor siting and to the “as low as reasonably achievable,” or ALARA, standards for radiation exposure. The NRC could even identify enabling changes to the Atomic Energy Act, the 1954 law underpinning nuclear energy regulation in the United States, NEI said.
The NRC should assess the costs and benefits of each proposed change individually, rather than in the aggregate, “to avoid inadvertently including burdensome requirements through cost/benefit analyses of the aggregated changes,” NEI added.
Southern Company, which operates several nuclear power plants in the southern U.S., including the country’s only operational “Generation III+” commercial reactors at Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia, endorsed NEI’s recommendations in a separate comment on Feb. 28.
“We believe the ability of the nation to reduce carbon emissions and have a robust and reliable electric grid depends on a successful Part 53 rulemaking,” Southern Nuclear Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Cheryl Gayheart wrote.
Other industry groups weighed in on the Part 53 rulemaking last month. In a joint comment, the Nuclear Innovation Alliance and Breakthrough Institute recommended the NRC develop a less prescriptive radiation dosing threshold, change a key definition of “commercial operation” to accommodate mobile reactor designs, incorporate technology-inclusive decommissioning standards and remove potentially duplicative components like the integrity assessment program to monitor aging reactors’ condition.
Two state agencies, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, submitted comments urging greater state involvement in federal nuclear licensing processes. The NRC should clarify how it would ensure quality and consistency in its applicants’ probabilistic risk assessment models and “provide the public with a detailed review of [PRA] and risk insights to facilitate public confidence regarding the safety of advanced reactor designs,” NYSERDA said.
By law, the NRC has until the end of 2027 to finalize Part 53, and “no one is talking about missing the deadline, though the reality is Congress sets deadlines all the time and they’re missed,” said Steve Nesbit, an independent nuclear industry consultant and past American Nuclear Society president.
With early-mover advanced reactor developers like Oklo planning to pursue existing licensing pathways rather than wait for Part 53, there’s some urgency around finalizing the new pathway sooner rather than later, Nesbit said. The NRC can always modify Part 53 later, he added.
“We’ve been working on this a long time,” he said. “We need to get something issued and use it instead of just interminably arguing over whether it’s perfect or not.”
