Scott Burnell
Public Affairs Officer
Since 2012, the NRC has licensed 11 new reactors in the United States. The first four of those are under construction, two in Georgia and two in South Carolina.
The other seven? Their licenses are ready to go whenever the companies involved choose to start building them, and here’s why.
These new reactors are authorized through the NRC’s Combined License process. Under this approach the license includes permission to both build a reactor and operate it later, as long as a detailed list of completion requirements are met.
A Combined License includes the same 40-year operating period as the licenses for today’s reactors. Those 40 years start when the NRC concludes the reactor has been built according to its license and can operate safely. The construction portion, on the other hand, is set up without a definitive expiration date.
We base our permission to build the reactor on our review of technical and environmental information the applicant provided. Issuing a license means we found all that information acceptable.
Let’s imagine Company X receives a Combined License and waits 10 years before deciding to start construction. If the original information is still valid, the project could get underway. Most categories of information won’t change in that time. The license includes provisions where the company must account for new information when it decides to start construction.
All of this means that companies with a Combined License can therefore take additional time to consider those issues affecting the business decision to construct or not that fall outside the NRC’s jurisdiction. For example, a state’s utility agencies can create or revise policies on how the state obtains and pays for electricity. Changes in interest rates, prices for other electricity sources and even the makeup of regional electricity markets can affect the company’s overall business case.
Once a company concludes conditions are right for using a Combined License, the utility will give the NRC advance notice of its intent to start construction. The NRC will inspect construction activities and otherwise ensure the company meets relevant requirements for protecting the public.
U.S. NRC Blog 
Blog comments are reviewed and approved during regular work days. Your most recent comment was submitted yesterday and approved today.
Moderator
After having waited for over a month to my posting above, It is implied that, the Agency discontinues the communication mode via blog effectively, am I right in assuming!
Stronger regulatory/industry standards across the board are so necessary, especially if we are talking about recycling and redistribution of toxic nuclear waste.
The blog remains under review. As you can see, however, we continue to post comments.
Moderator
After having waited for over a month to my posting above, It is implied that, the Agency discontinues the communication mode via blog effectively, am I right in assuming!
Stronger regulatory/industry standards across the board are so necessary, especially if we are talking about recycling and redistribution of toxic nuclear waste.
Now it is very important to remember that it is necessary to approach very carefully the licensing of nuclear power plants.
You can visit Chernobyl https://chernobyl-city.com.
And in Chernobyl you can see how dangerous is nuclear power.
Is the agency stuck in neutral with this one blog(for more than 4-months)!! Are there no more topics to discuss Or is it that, there no political will to be transparent?
I believe that this is very important to the frequent monitoring of all nuclear installations in the country. It is an excellent source of energy, but it can become dangerous if we do not take care of it.
Well Said Sarah..!Every one here please consider sarah comments..thanking you
Best Wishes By
Jan Krohn
Giving new licenses should be a well-thought process…
Long-Term View on New Reactor Licenses
No doubt Anon that $$$ has been & will continue to be an Achilles heel for nuclear. But the costs of not going nuclear are becoming higher & higher too. No matter how one feels about man’ s impact on global warming putting crap into the air is killing people. Centralized nuclear power conserves our precious land resources while being pollution free.
Oh I know about all that spent fuel stored in almost one hundred locations all over America, the majority of it near large population centers. Storing all that in one central repository like some other countries makes safety & economic sense. If any of that spent fuel was near, or as I prefer on Long Island, a central repository on perhaps a military reservation in the middle of nowhere would happen overnight!
Not so fast bud – don’t declare victory as yet for these “new, even safer, nuclear power plants” – one has to see if Vogtle 3 & 4 were able to over come the financial cost over runs and be able to comply with gazillions of ITAACs and satisfy 52.103 (g) findings, before start cranking any electrical power – far far into the future 2025 may be. Even then, think about all the Dry cask storages and spent fuel assemblies these units will leave behind – may be half Long Island acreage worth!!!!
Love the plans for these new, even safer, nuclear power plants.
If we had to instead produce the electricity from these 10 nukes with wind generators it would require 1,560 square-miles of land. If we covered DC & Long Island with these bird-killing, unreliable & unsightly wind turbines, it would almost be enough to replace that nuclear power. Why does putting all those turbines in the backyard of Congress & the Kennedys on Long Island appeal to me so much?!
As a contractor employee working on one of those projects, why are reports of legitimate safety concerns me with rhetoric and excuses. Rather than sending a list redundant responses, “we have reviewed and determined this is an issue we cannot pursue” …or “…we have reviewed the facts and circumstances associated with this concern…” and in reference to this or that, you quantify removal of redundant IROFS (Items Relied on for Safety…this should be clue enough NOT to approve removal of these redundant sensors, but you do it anyway, because you don’t have a clue why they were there in the first place, obviously not grasping the concept of consistency checking and how important that is when it comes to releasing contamination), along with alarms and warnings as acceptable for some nonsense fed to you by the contractor. You say you have technically awesome people in the NRC. How about having one of your technically awesome people offer to meet and ask some questions if you’re really as actually concerned about the public safety as much as you are defensive about anyone questioning any of your misguided decisions reflecting that your most reliable action to verify safety of the public is actually complete inaction. You espouse to defense-in-depth, and in the same voice approve of incentive-paid cost reductions which diminish safety of the systems in place. And getting you to listen to anything about safety concerns at is like talking to the wind. Leonard Misner len.misner@yahoo.com
fyi, this comment comes from someone with 40+ years of international success involving daily hands-on experience, design, implement, qualify, CIP, optimization, safety, process, productivity, 6-Sigma conceptual limitations of variations at every level; automotive, food, pharmaceutical, printing and most recently and including being recognized with promotion to Level II Test Director on MOX Project – responsible for writing and processing of test procedures for fully integrated equipment; all process, monitoring, control, redundant SPLC critical monitoring and verification and MMIS…do you even know what MMIS or SPLC is?
Giving new licenses should be a well-thought process…
I completely agree with you here, however my concern is that without this nothing would get done either now or in the future, resulting in a cycle of waiting to get approval and then the project failing.
I personally believe nuclear is the way to go but as you say its vitally important we construct these potentially dangerous sites in the right way.
Long term will be good idea…
Such a nice article, we liked it very much.
So my prediction is almost coming true with Westinghouse declaring Chapter 11 on Wednesday (pulling down Toshiba down with it).. So four green bottles are wobbling on the wall with 5 Billions in cost over runs as on-date (Vogtle and Summer). These are White Elephants to build here in the United States.. What with all the grandioise safety regulations, this is a pipe dream to achieve here! Good Luck New Nukes.
And then we just have the problem of waste contamination in those 3rd world, so we all ALL must be responsible for the quality and quantity of construction, especially when waste has yet to REALLY find a safe home. Oooooohhhh ….
The regulators are catching up with your concerns to bring plant design to modernization, up to snug and to current day’s standards by issuing gazillion amendments to the originally issued COL, this not withstanding any backfits. That is not to diminish the kabhooki dance that the new reactor builders have to overcome – but, it is the prohibitive cost over runs and staying competitive with other market place forces of cost of generation of nuclear power with other means. Don’t worry, the safety of construction will be preserved in this country. My prediction is that, the new generation of American/European designs (AP1000/ESBWRs/EPRs) will be feasible to construct only in third world countries, not here in the U.S. (And that, there too, the U.S. Vendors will have to stand competition with Russian VVERs 3+). Nuclear business is very COSTLY!
We all know the story out of the originally ordered 243 first generation power reactors only 100 or so still remains and struggling to operate. We don’t know how many out of these ” Out Of The Eleven Green Bootles Standing on the Wall” will accidentally fall???
Ok, so, does this makes sense to anyone else, because I’m now lost: today we’re gonna approve construction they don’t have to start for X number of years based on today’s science in nuclear energy? I mean nuclear energy science and our need for the type of regulations we need 10 years from now … nuclear energy science is WAY too dynamic for keeping old standards for new construction. This is really stupid regulation policy, imho, which is really based on nothing except my thoughts. =) <3nikiV p.s. we really cannot be stupid with nuclear plants/weapons. thanks