News

Maintaining that balance—between progress and prudence—is central to fulfilling the mission entrusted to the NRC”

There is increasing talk of a nuclear renaissance in the United States, from your perspective, what must happen for that momentum to translate into real projects?

The industry has stood on the precipice of a nuclear renaissance before. In the early 2000s, projected growth in energy demand catalyzed a wave of new reactor projects based on the next generation of the technology. 

However, that growth never materialized as expected due to a number of factors leading to the eventual cancellation of all but one new project. Today, the anticipated demand is more structural and has a certain level of permanence that bolsters the case for investment in new nuclear assets. 

While this situation is very promising for new nuclear, we must balance this exuberance with the discipline required to usher new projects from concept to construction to operation. Many challenges lie ahead, but drawing on the lessons learned from the first renaissance will give us – both the industry and the regulator – the best opportunity to avoid the missteps of the past. 

How is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission adapting its regulatory framework to accommodate advanced reactors and new nuclear technologies?

Prior to joining the Commission and during my time with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I contributed to the drafting and passage of the ADVANCE Act. 

The ADVANCE Act represents a clear recognition by Congress of the need to promote the modernization of NRC’s regulatory frameworks, enable a culture of innovation, and support the safe and timely deployment of new nuclear technology. 

Recent Executive Orders reiteraed this call, which accelerated efforts already underway at the NRC and launched a wholesale review and revision of our regulations and guidance. Now, the NRC is poised to release a number of proposed rules that make greater use of graded approaches to scale regulatory requirements to risk significance, shed the accretion of unnecessary process, and revise our licensing pathways to be technology neutral by moving away from prescriptive requirements applicable to the legacy light water reactor fleet.     

What steps is the NRC undertaking to reduce regulatory uncertainty to address some of the regulatory challenges developers face when bringing new reactor designs to market?

Our regulations must be predictable and efficient. Uncertainty in process can be as consequential as uncertainty in design. Developers, investors, and communities need a regulatory system that provides clear expectations and timely decisions. The NRC has long emphasized the importance and value of pre-submittal engagement. 

These pre-submittal engagements provide valuable insights to NRC staff on the particularities of applicant designs and help staff better understand novel design concepts. The NRC has also implemented an initiative aimed at improving the quality of our communications with licensees and applicants to avoid as much as possible schedule delays through the issuance of formal requests for information. 

These activities demonstrate how the NRC is becoming more proactive, offering our view of solutions ahead of potential problems. One great example is a recently issued paper outlining pathways to leverage previously approved activities including early site permits and combined licenses from first nuclear renaissance.

It describes how the NRC will position itself to review applications in a predictable, risk-informed, and timely manner. Another recent example refined our construction oversight program to be scalable so that it can accommodate gigawatt-scale reactors all the way down to microreactors, and fully incorporates lessons learned from our oversight of construction at Vogtle, while including new additional innovative features. 

How is the NRC approaching licensing and oversight for emerging reactor technologies like SMRs and microreactors?

For the first time in over 30 years, the NRC finalized a new licensing framework, known as Part 53. This effort satisfies the mandate from Congress under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act to “establish a technology-inclusive, regulatory framework for optional use by commercial advanced nuclear reactor applicants for new reactor license applications.” 

This new licensing pathway represents a shift toward performance-based requirements that are better suited for new technologies such as SMRs and advanced non-light water reactors. Additionally, we have recently issued a separate proposal for a licensing pathway that can accommodate accelerated licensing reviews for reactors with reduced risk profiles including microreactors. 

This fit-for-purpose framework recognizes the unique design characteristics that make this class of reactors safer and can accommodate rapid, high-volume deployment enabled by factory production. 

These new frameworks represent a significant evolution in the NRC’s approach to licensing and oversight of emerging technologies, offering fundamental process improvements to better position the NRC’s reviewers to manage the expected increase in licensing activity over the coming years.

However, robust pre-license submittal engagement with NRC staff remains the cornerstone for successful implementation, especially for first-of-a-kind designs that utilize novel safety features. 

How does the NRC balance maintaining the highest safety standards while enabling innovation and faster deployment of nuclear technology?

The Atomic Energy Act calls on the NRC to regulate the use of atomic energy “so as to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare.” 

These words reflect a deliberate balance that acknowledges both the promise of the technology and the need for careful stewardship in how it is used. Today, there is a growing alignment over the potential benefits of nuclear energy. 

At the same time, the experience of the early atomic age reveals that the consequences of failure can be significant. Our responsibility is not to choose between enthusiasm and caution, but to have the discipline to hold both in view. Maintaining that balance—between progress and prudence—is central to fulfilling the mission entrusted to this agency. 

In my view, many of the reforms we are pursuing strike this balance without undermining our core responsibilities to provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety. 

Why is it valuable for regulators to participate in industry discussions and forums like the EPC Show, where developers, utilities, and suppliers come together?

Our participation in forums like the EPC Show provides mutual benefits for the NRC and the regulated community in several ways. One of my priorities as a commissioner is to foster a proactive, forward-thinking culture at the NRC. 

We rely on productive and open discussions with the industry to anticipate the future needs of our licensees and applicants and get ahead of potential regulatory or technical challenges. Engagements like these also inform our resource planning, which is necessary to fulfil our obligation to be good stewards of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars. 

Similarly, the NRC can also reach a broad audience of our stakeholders and communicate what it takes to implement our regulations as written. Given the highly technical nature of our requirements, our ability to provide regulatory clarity benefits the regulated community through improved predictability. 

Also, as we undertake wholesale reform of our regulations, we must establish a mutual understanding to garner meaningful feedback from our stakeholders to ensure that we achieve the desired outcome of this effort. And finally, there is little margin for error in building and sustaining public confidence in nuclear energy. A safety or security incident anywhere can cause irreparable damage to the public’s trust in nuclear energy everywhere. 

We all share the responsibility to maintain safety and security, and we must operate with this perspective every day.