Executive Summary
The US government is encouraging the construction of hundreds of new nuclear reactors, including through efforts to streamline the reactor licensing process. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversees the licensing of new nuclear power plants. The longest part of this process is typically the NRC safety evaluation, which includes a review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The ACRS is an independent body established in statute by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 that produces integrated technical reviews of reactor projects to support public health and safety. As part of the NRC’s safety evaluation, the Committee’s review imposes time and cost burdens but also provides value.
This report, part of a series of publications on nuclear licensing reform at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, analyzes ACRS reviews of new reactor licensing actions, including their length and cost to applicants. Because the AEA currently requires the ACRS to review all construction permit and operating license applications, the report also explores circumstances in which ACRS reviews may not provide significant value and might be reasonably declined.
The key findings of this research are as follows:
- The ACRS has played a valuable role in the development of US nuclear safety regulation since its establishment in statute in 1957.
- As the United States potentially undertakes deployment of reactor types that the NRC has not licensed in decades—if ever—having the ACRS examine NRC safety evaluations enhances safety and public confidence.
- ACRS reviews conducted in the past, before recent efficiency efforts, comprised about 3 to 11 percent of the total time for new reactor licensing actions. The cost of these reviews is difficult to estimate because of data limitations.
- In light of moves by the Trump administration that have broadly challenged the independence of the NRC, preserving the ACRS’s independence can help protect NRC decisions from political influence.Â
- Going forward, some reactor applications may not benefit significantly from ACRS review, particularly those involving previously approved reactor designs.Â
Policy pathways for Congress and the NRC include the following:
- If Congress pursues legislative reform related to the ACRS, it should grant the Committee flexibility to decline unnecessary reviews, thereby improving efficiency, while preserving its authority to determine which matters warrant review. Congress could also steer the Committee in that legislation toward more novel and unique issues.
- The NRC could revisit some ACRS review requirements (e.g., in 10 CFR 54) to adapt to developments, such as increased licensing experience, since these requirements were first published.
- To address public data limitations and promote future research on this subject, the ACRS could provide estimates of expected charges for reviews of construction permits, operating licenses, early site permits, and combined licenses, and the NRC could disclose the amount of staff time dedicated to engaging with Committee reviews.