ML25058A144

(NEI) Input on Recent Executive Orders

ML25058A144
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	02/10/2025
From:	True D Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	Mirela Gavrilas NRC/EDO
References
Download: ML25058A144 (1)

Text

Douglas True Sr. Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Phone: 925.998.8810 Email: det@nei.org February 10, 2025 Dr. Mirela Gavrilas Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-000

Subject:

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Input on Recent Executive Orders Project Number: 689

Dear Dr. Gavrilas,

There is clear evidence that the U.S. needs more energy to meet our economic, national security, and energy reliability needs. Demand for electricity is rising at an unprecedented rate, and the country must rise to meet the moment. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued several Executive Orders (EOs),

including, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, which directs federal agencies to accelerate the growth of the nations energy production by expediting regulatory approvals, and Unleashing American Energy, which seeks to remove unnecessary regulatory burden to facilitate the growth. Given that the commercial nuclear industry currently provides nearly 20 percent of U.S. electricity and is the nations most reliable source of electricity, we see these EOs as a call to action for both the industry and the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

We appreciate the NRCs ongoing efforts to enhance efficiency, and we are encouraged by the initial steps to modernize. However, these EOs raise the expectation for action beyond those already underway in response to the ADVANCE Act. These two EOs have near-term deadlines for the identification of immediate actions that can be taken to address the need for deployment of additional reliable power. To this end, the industry has developed proposals that could be taken by the NRC to meet the objectives of the Presidents directives.

NEIs recent Future of Nuclear Power 2024 Survey1 summarizes the industrys plans to submit numerous applications in support of expanding nuclear energy production from existing and new reactors. These applications will require the investment of significant time and resources by the industry and NRC in the near-term, as both share a responsibility for enabling the safe deployment of additional nuclear energy generation.

1 https://www.nei.org/resources/reports-briefs/the-future-of-nuclear-power-2024-survey

Dr. Mirela Gavrilas February 10, 2025 Page 2 Nuclear Energy Institute The industry believes that these EOs especially call for concerted action in two areas:

1. Efficient Processes for Expanding Generation from the Existing Fleet Based on NEIs survey, these activities could enable 6 GWe or more of new nuclear energy generation within this decade from restart of previously shuttered plants, power uprates and fuel cycle extensions of operating plants. In addition, it is essential that the current fleet continues to operate, making license extensions for extended operation a priority. Both the licensees and the regulator must work to create efficient processes to enable success of these efforts.

2. Regulatory Framework for Efficient Deployment of Advanced and Micro-reactors At-Scale NEIs survey also found strong utility interest in the deployment of advanced reactors, both small and large, for grid applications. The total need estimated by NEI nuclear utility members was over 100 GWe by the 2050s. Other NEI members have a strong interest in near-term rapid deployment of micro-reactors for more targeted applications, such as oil and gas production, data centers, and off-grid heat and electricity generation. Other NEI members are interested in using nuclear energy for process heat applications. While the NRC staff has worked hard on the newly proposed 10 CFR 53 regulation, there are many other aspects of the regulatory framework in need of modernization to enable deployment at-scale. In July 2024, NEI proposed a suite of changes focused on the rapid deployment of reactors and many of those changes would benefit larger reactors. In addition, other areas, such as siting and environmental requirements, should be significantly streamlined. Industry and NRC should plan to have these actions implemented on the same timeframe as the 10 CFR 53 rulemaking to enable nuclear energy to provide the maximum benefit to society and the environment In addition to NRC modernization efforts underway, numerous regulatory decisions for both the operating fleet and advanced reactors are pending before the NRC and could be disrupted by sudden changes in staffing. The industry supports ensuring the NRC is adequately staffed to provide timely decisions while efficiencies are implemented and will do its part to provide high quality applications.

To assist the NRC in obtaining feedback from the industry, NEI2 worked with our members to develop the attached detailed recommendations for the NRCs consideration. We recognize that some of these recommendations have been shared previously but we believe they have taken on new significance in light of the EOs.

2 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.

Dr. Mirela Gavrilas February 10, 2025 Page 3 Nuclear Energy Institute No written response to this letter is necessary. The industry stands ready to work with the NRC on the necessary actions to do our part in addressing the Energy Emergency.

Sincerely, Douglas True Sr. Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer Attachments CC:

Laura Dudes, NRC/Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation John Lubinski, NRC/Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Craig Erlanger, NRC/Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response Brooke Clark, NRC/Office of the General Counsel RECOMMENDED NRC ACTIONS SUPPORTING DEPLOYMENT OF NEW GENERATION RESOURCES UNDER THE NATIONAL ENERGY EMERGENCY The industry is committed to submitting high-quality license applications and using standardized application templates to facilitate review efficiency, and we offer the following recommendations for consideration.

For operating and new reactors, the NRC should establish review schedules for power reactor license transfer, initial license renewal, subsequent license renewal, and power uprate amendment applications as recommended below:

Initial license renewal - Complete review within 12 months of docketing Subsequent license renewal - Complete review within 12 months of docketing Measurement Uncertainty Recapture power uprate - Complete review within 6 months of docketing Stretch power uprate - Complete review within 9 months of docketing Extended power uprate - Complete review within 12 months of docketing License transfer - Complete review within 6 months of docketing Other license amendment requests - 90% should be completed within 6 months and 100% should be completed within 12 months.

The NRC should also establish the following generic milestones for new reactor permits, licenses, and certifications. The NRC should also consider using its authority under 10 CFR 52.7, Specific Exemptions, to expedite these actions.

Issuance of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and final EIS (or environmental assessment (EA)) no later than 6 and 12 months after the application is docketed, respectively.

Issuance of a safety evaluation report no later than 18 months after the application is docketed.

Issuance of a decision on the requested permit, license, or design certification no later than 21 months after the application is docketed.

Issuance of a decision on the renewal of the requested permit, license, or design certification no later than 9 months after the application is docketed.

The above targets for the issuance of a safety evaluation report and a decision on the requested permit or license are each reduced by 6 months for the second requested permit or license that references a previously approved design.

The NRC should also prioritize the following key licensing actions that are currently under review or expected to be submitted to the NRC this year including:

Reactor restarts at Palisades Nuclear Plant, Crane Clean Energy Center, and Duane Arnold Energy Center, if the utility pursues this project Construction permits for Kemmerer Power Station, Unit 1, Long Mott Energy (Xe-100 design) and Tennessee Valley Authority Clinch River Nuclear Site Standard design approval for NuScale US460 Subsequent license renewal applications, some of which have been under review since 2020 Additionally, the NRC should expedite the review and approval of TSTF-585, Revision 2, Provide an Alternative to the LCO 3.0.3 One-Hour Preparation Time, so that the decision to shut down a reactor is informed by deterministic and risk insights, preventing unnecessary outages.

RECOMMENDED NRC ACTIONS IN SUPPORT OF REDUCING REGULATORY BURDEN TO UNLEASH AMERICAN ENERGY To implement this executive order, the NRC should consider the following recommendations and should leverage all available tools, such as direct final rulemakings and interpretative rules where possible, for rulemakings that would improve regulatory efficiency and/or remove unnecessary regulatory burden.

1. Reporting Requirements

a. The NRC should undertake a comprehensive review of the agencys reporting requirements to ensure a robust safety nexus exists and the reports are necessary for execution of the agency mission. This review should take the following into consideration:

i.

The proposed rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.72 is pending before the Commission (SECY 0049) and, if approved, would remove unnecessary regulatory burden without impacting safety. This rulemaking should be expedited and revised to remove all non-emergency event reporting requirements under 10 CFR 50.72 consistent with NEIs 2018 petition3 for rulemaking.

ii.

The NRC should also separately revisit NEIs input4,5 provided in response to the NRC Retrospective Review of Administrative Requirements (RROAR) effort, which recommended over 115 reporting requirements that could be revised or eliminated. We recommend that the NRC reconsider these recommendations since the rulemaking plan provided to the Commission in SECY-21-0110 did not include most of them. Additionally, the NRC should consider recent public meeting dialogue on the potential elimination or streamlining of certain additional annual and cyclical reports that were not previously identified.

2. Efficient Environmental Reviews

a. The NRC should expedite adoption of the environmental review efficiencies recommended by NEIs September 6, 2024, letter6 on Section 506 of the ADVANCE Act.

3. Combined Increased Enrichment and 10 CFR 50.46a/c Rulemaking

a. The industry strongly supports the NRCs rulemaking on increased enrichment as it will enable a safe and efficient pathway for enhancing the performance of existing nuclear power plants through power uprates, longer fuel cycles and the generation of less spent fuel. We request that the agency ensures this rulemaking remains on schedule for completion in the first quarter of 2027.

3 Pitisa, Bill (NEI) to Annette L. Vietti-Cook, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Petition to Amend 10 CFR 50. 72, Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors," August 2, 2018. ADAMS Accession Number ML18247A204.

4 Uhle, Jennifer (NEI) to Margaret Doane, Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRCs Retrospective Review of Administrative Requirements, September 8, 2021. ADAMS Accession Number ML21256A149.

5 Slider, James (NEI) to Andrew Carrera, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Comments on the NRCs Retrospective Review of Administrative Requirements, May 6, 2020. ADAMS Accession Number ML20128J340.

6 Mauer, Andrew (NEI) to Mike King, Special Assistant for ADVANCE Act Implementation, Office of the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NEI Input on Efforts to Modernize and Optimize NRC Environmental Reviews, September 6, 2024. ADAMS Accession Number ML24250A193.

4. Expeditious Licensing of New Reactors

a. On July 31, 2024, NEI submitted recommendations on changes to the licensing process that would accelerate the reviews of rapid high-volume deployable and other advanced reactors. NEIs proposal7 identified over 30 regulations, which could represent more than 100 requirements that would require changes to address the set of issues in the proposal.

b. The NRC should revise Regulatory Guide 1.84 concerning the endorsement of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Case N-883, that does not permit the fabrication of reactor modules prior to identifying an owner. This position unnecessarily impedes business models and will hinder the deployment of advanced reactors.

c. With the 10 CFR 52 design certification process, each certification comes with some plant-specific action items (PSAI). To the degree possible, the NRC should include the resolution path of these items for plants licensed under 10 CFR 50 or 52 to facilitate plant deployment.

d. NEI will provide separate comments on the 10 CFR 53 rulemaking.

5. Oversight & Licensing

a. The NRC should implement the recommendations included in NEI's October 28, 2024, letter8 on Sections 505 and 507 of the ADVANCE Act to increase efficiency and eliminate unnecessary burden.

b. In the area of digital instrumentation and control, Regulatory Guide 1.187 Rev. 3 refers to Regulatory Issue Summary 2002-22 Supplement 1, which included unnecessarily restrictive language related to 10 CFR 50.59 that should be removed.

c. The NRC should incorporate industry lessons learned into DI&C-ISG-06 to improve the licensing process, such as integrating the Alternate Review Process with other review areas, including Equipment Qualification, Human Factors Engineering, and Technical Specifications.

d. The area of codes and standards continues to be a high priority for the industry, and the NRC should undertake a review of 10 CFR 50.55a to eliminate any conditions that impose unnecessary burden on licensees.

e. The NRC should accelerate approval of licensee applications to use risk-informed programs, such as 10 CFR 50.69, and supporting guidance.

6. Emergency Preparedness

a. Given the current understanding of plant safety, we believe the requirement for a 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for a large light-water reactor is unnecessarily conservative. The emergency preparedness (EP)-related regulations for large plants should be amended to allow an applicant or licensee to determine the size of a facilitys EPZ using the risk-informed and performance-based approach described in the EP for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Other New Technologies (ONTs) final rule.9 In addition, the amended regulations should also grant the applicant or licensee the option of developing a performance-based emergency plan in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.160.

b. The NRC should revise and risk-inform the 10 CFR 50.54(q) evaluation process using the approach found in the recently revised EP significance determination process. Under the new 7 True, Doug (NEI) to Dr. Mirela Gavrilas, Executive Director of Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulations of Rapid High-Volume Deployable Reactors in Remote Applications (RHDRA) and Other Advanced Reactors, July 31, 2024.

ADAMS Accession Number ML24213A337.

8 Mauer, Andrew (NEI) to Michael King, Special Assistant for ADVANCE Act Implementation, Office of the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NEI Input on Improvements to Licensing and Oversight Programs, October 28, 2024. ADAMS Accession Number ML24302A311.

9 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/16/2023-25163/emergency-preparedness-for-small-modular-reactors-and-other-new-technologies

approach, only changes affecting risk-significant planning standards would require a reduction in effectiveness review.

c. The NRC should revise 10 CFR 50.54(t) to remove all EP program review requirements after a plant has operated for over eight years, except for the review of state and local interfaces.

d. The NRC should revise exercise requirements so that scenarios drive demonstration of the initial plant and offsite response organization responses (i.e., those within approximately the first five hours) to the most likely accident sequences identified by each sites probabilistic risk assessment.

7. Security

a. The NRC should revise 10 CFR 73.54(c)(2) to reduce cyber security inspection subjectivity.

b. The NRC should revise the triennial force-on-force exercises to transition to a performance-based and risk-informed inspection model similar to EP evaluated exercises.

c. The NRC should develop guidance to enable the use of advanced technology, such as LiDAR, drones, and AI-assisted image processing available today.

d. The fuel cycle cybersecurity rulemaking detailed in SECY-17-0099 should be withdrawn since this rule is obsolete and the licensees already incorporate cybersecurity into their businesses due to commercial reasons.

8. Fitness for Duty

a. The NRC should revise its regulations to permit the use of oral fluid and urine testing for all testing conditions and eliminate blind testing submittals. This will enable licensees to rely on U.S.

Department of Transportation requirements for oral fluid testing, and be more efficient while strengthening the insider mitigation program.

9. Enforcement Policy

a. The Commission should approve SECY-24-0009, which would revise the Enforcement Policy to consider risk in traditional violations and more accurately describe the significance of inspection findings.

b. The NRC should expand its use of enforcement discretion to reduce resources spent on resolving matters of very low safety or security significance.

10. Independent Spent Fuel Storage, Decommissioning, and Low-Level Waste

a. The NRC should perform a comprehensive review of its independent spent fuel storage installation and decommissioning regulatory framework to remove unnecessary duplication and ensure that it is consistent with the level of risk associated with dry cask storage.

b. The NRC should eliminate 10 CFR 72.48 (c)(2)(viii) as it calls for an excessive level of regulatory intrusiveness, which is inappropriate for the simplicity and low risk of spent fuel storage systems.

The remaining provisions of this regulation are adequate to provide reasonable assurance of safety.

c. 10 CFR 72.214 requires a lengthy NRC rulemaking process subsequent to the approval of each individual certificate of compliance (CoC) and should be eliminated. The rule imposes an additional 4-6 months of paperwork before a CoC can be used and its elimination would enable CoCs to be available to use 6 months sooner.

d. The NRC should modify the 60-year requirement for completing decommissioning and license termination in 10 CFR 50.82 to allow extensions beyond 60-years if justified on a case-by-case basis.

e. The NRC should revise the definition of decommissioning in 10 CFR 50.82 through a direct final rulemaking and replace it with the Internal Revenue Service definition.

f.

The NRC should continue the rulemaking proposed in SECY-24-0045. When issued for public comment, the proposed rule should also reduce the proposed compliance period in 10 CFR 61 from 10,000 years to 1,000 years.

11. Transportation

a. The NRC should revise 10 CFR 71 to provide a pathway for addressing changes to packages without NRC approval.

b. Due to the low risk profile of fresh fuel packages, the current 5-year limit for fresh fuel transport packaging license extension should be increased to 10 years, reducing unnecessary regulatory burden.