Case against NRC overreach – any thoughts on this?

In the high-risk sector of energy production, nuclear power remains one of the most promising technologies for meeting global demand while minimizing emissions. However, as Christopher Koopman and Eli Dourado explain in a Wall Street Journal article, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has become a regulatory quagmire that stifles innovation. Recent lawsuits from Texas, Utah and Last Energy seeking to curb NRC overreach could mark a turning point in the future of small modular reactors (SMRs) – an innovation too critical to be stymied by bureaucratic inertia .

Regulatory regime frozen during the Cold War

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was enacted with the foresight to differentiate between different types of nuclear reactors based on risk profile. Reactors that may pose a significant national security or public health risk require federal oversight. However, this sensible framework was undermined in 1956, when the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, decided that all nuclear reactors, regardless of their size or risk, must undergo the same stifling regulatory process.

This one-size-fits-all approach persists, leading to absurdities like the regulation of Texas A&M University’s teaching reactor—a reactor so small it can’t even power a single LED light bulb. As Koopman and Dorado point out, even the National Research Council itself admits that a research machine like this poses no meaningful safety risk. Still, they are subject to the same permitting challenges as gigawatt-scale power plants.

Small modular reactor revolution

Small modular reactors are a game changer for nuclear power. Unlike the sprawling nuclear power plants of the mid-20th century, SMRs are compact, generate a fraction of the energy of conventional nuclear power plants (about 20 megawatts or less), and are equipped with modern safety features. For example, Last Energy's reactor design operates within a 12-inch steel-walled vessel, making a radioactive release virtually impossible—even in the worst-case scenario.

Last Energy was designed to operate entirely within a 12-inch steel-walled container, with no reliable radioactive release pattern even under the worst-case scenario.

The plaintiffs claim that even in this case, the radiation exposure would be less than one-tenth of what the NRC has deemed too safe to regulate in other circumstances, and less than 1/800 of that of a routine abdominal CT scan.

However, these significant advances have been hampered by the NRC's outdated and cumbersome permitting process. Another SMR innovator, NuScale, spent more than $500 million and more than 2 million hours of labor to obtain design certification. That’s before applying for an operating license, which will only multiply the cost.

What’s at stake in states like Texas and Utah

The timing of this challenge is crucial. Texas and Utah are facing an energy crisis as their populations grow. Texas has its own power grid that serves more than 27 million customers. With a rapidly growing population and a booming economy, the Lone Star State faces unprecedented demand for reliable power. Utah’s Operation Gigawatt aims to double its electricity generation capacity over the next decade. Without regulatory hurdles, nuclear power could play a vital role in the energy futures of both countries, not to mention the United States.

Why the NRC’s overreach must end

At the heart of the lawsuit is a simple but transformative demand: The NRC must comply with the law. The Atomic Energy Act does not require federal oversight of reactors that pose negligible risks. State regulators are well positioned to ensure the safe operation of small and medium-sized reactors, allowing federal regulators to focus on reactors with real public health and safety impacts.

Washington's high-pressure intervention is not only unnecessary, but also counterproductive. The NRC's licensing system is not a regulatory framework; it is effectively a moratorium on nuclear innovation. The NRC turned what should have been a decade of progress into a decade of paperwork by requiring detailed and often irrelevant documentation.

Unleashing America's Nuclear Potential

The NRC’s bureaucratic stranglehold on nuclear energy not only hinders innovation but also hinders nuclear energy development. It poses a threat to national energy security and economic competitiveness. As the world increasingly turns to renewable and low-carbon energy, the United States risks falling behind by limiting one of its most promising technologies.

Koopman and Dorado’s call to action is clear:

Federal courts should simply require the NRC to comply with federal law. Reactors that could affect the nation's public health and safety should be subject to strict federal oversight. But national regulators are adequate to ensure safe operation of small modular reactors. Washington does not need to be involved.

This lawsuit is more than just a legal battle; it is a critical moment in regaining the promise of nuclear energy. If successful, it could pave the way for countries to harness small stacks of modules to sustainably and safely meet growing energy needs, while freeing innovators to do what they do best – innovate.

In short, this is not just a fight against overregulation, but a fight for the future of energy itself.

Relevant