I wouldn't mind having one in our basement. So long as I don't glow in the dark.
A Lawless NRC Obstructs Safe Nuclear Power
The agency lacks the authority to regulate today’s small reactors, and there’s no need for it to do so.
By Christopher Koopman and Eli Dourado, WSJ
Jan. 5, 2025 4:11 pm ET
A new federal lawsuit may finally unleash nuclear energy’s potential. On Dec. 30, Texas and Utah, along with the startup company Last Energy, sued to force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to stop breaking the law and start letting small, modular nuclear reactors operate without crushing overregulation. This could be the most consequential legal challenge to America’s nuclear regulatory regime in 70 years, freeing states to expand nuclear power generation as population booms and energy demands soar.
Building any new commercial reactor in the U.S. has become almost impossible. Only three have been built in 28 years, all behind schedule and over budget. The reason isn’t lack of demand or technology but the NRC’s licensing regime, which, as the plaintiffs argue, “does not really regulate new nuclear reactor construction so much as ensure that it almost never happens.”
That licensing regime isn’t supposed to cover every kind of nuclear reactor. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 established a precise framework for nuclear regulation, requiring federal licensing only for facilities that either use nuclear material “in such quantity as to be of significance to the common defense and security” or use it “in such manner as to affect the health and safety of the public.” This careful distinction recognized that not every nuclear reactor poses meaningful risks.
In 1956 the Atomic Energy Commission (the NRC’s predecessor) effectively erased this distinction, declaring that every nuclear reactor—regardless of its actual security or safety profile—requires the full federal licensing treatment. That includes everything down to the teaching reactor at Texas A&M University, which is so small it couldn’t power an LED lightbulb. The NRC itself acknowledges such research reactors pose no meaningful safety risk. Yet the NRC categorizes them as regulated “utilization facilities,” like gigawatt-scale power plants.
This licensing regime is most harmful to the most innovative nuclear technology. Small modular reactors are dramatically different from the massive reactors envisioned during the Cold War. The reactors at issue in this case generate a fraction of the power of conventional nuclear plants—around 20 megawatts or less—and are designed with modern safety features that would release close to zero radiation even in a worst-case meltdown scenario. Last Energy’s design operates entirely inside a container with 12-inch steel walls that has no credible mode of radioactive release even in the worst reasonable scenario.
Even in such a scenario, according to the plaintiffs, radiation exposure would be less than a tenth what the NRC has deemed too safe to require regulation in other contexts—and less than 1/800th of a routine abdominal CT scan.
Small modular reactors could safely provide power for growing communities, businesses and others. Yet the NRC is stifling this progress. The licensing process alone can take up to nine years. Small modular reactor company NuScale spent more than $500 million just to get its design certification approved by the NRC, a process that took more than two million hours of labor and required millions of pages of information. NuScale still needs to apply for its license, which will multiply these costs.
None of this is necessary or required under federal law, despite what the NRC claims. Reactors that can’t release dangerous radiation and university teaching tools that pose less risk than an X-ray machine shouldn’t face regulatory burdens designed for traditional nuclear power plants.
The timing of this challenge is crucial. Texas and Utah face energy crises as their populations grow. Texas operates its own electrical grid, serving more than 27 million customers. With its rapid population growth and booming economy, the Lone Star State faces an unprecedented need for reliable power. Utah’s “Operation Gigawatt” aims to double its power production over the next decade. Nuclear power could play a crucial role in both states’ energy futures, to say nothing of America’s, if regulatory barriers don’t stand in the way.
Federal courts should simply require the NRC to follow federal law. Reactors that could affect the nation’s public health and safety should be subject to rigorous federal oversight. But state regulatory authorities are more than sufficient to ensure that small modular reactors operate safely. Washington doesn’t need to be involved.
Mr. Koopman is CEO and Mr. Dourado chief economist at the Abundance Institute.
Comments