INL issues second report recommending improvements to nuclear licensing

As explained in the Report, while NRC oversight is essential to ensuring nuclear safety and public confidence, the current licensing framework is viewed by many stakeholders as inefficient and a significant barrier to deployment. INL’s Stephen Burdick (Senior Counsel), John Wagner, Ph.D (Director), and Jess Gehin, Ph.D (Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science & Technology) prepared these updated recommendations in response to inquiries from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on potential reforms that could modernize nuclear energy licensing and regulatory processes. While much of this conversation around licensing efficiency pre-dates the current administration, the Report notes that these reforms support the new Secretary of Energy Chris Wright’s priorities to “Unleash Commercial Nuclear Power in the United States” and “Streamline Permitting and Identify Undue Burdens on American Energy.”

The updated set of recommendations builds on INL’s 2023 report (INL/RPT-23-72206), “Recommendations to Improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Licensing and Approval Processes,” taking into account the previous suggestions that were acted upon through legislation or agency action and which recommendations remain outstanding. It also introduces new ideas for reforming not only NRC procedures but also aspects of DOE’s own authorization processes. These suggestions include both legislative proposals and recommendations that could be implemented administratively. We provided a summary of INL’s previous report on recommendations to improve NRC licensing here. 

The 2025 recommendations span four topical categories:

1. Reforming licensing authority of NRC and DOE. 
2. Streamlining NRC hearings. 
3. Modernizing environmental reviews. 
4. Enhancing NRC safety reviews. 

A summary of the Report’s key recommendations is provided below.

Reforming Licensing Authority of NRC and DOE

• Extend NRC Initial Licenses from 40 to 60 Years. NRC’s statutory authority under the Atomic Energy Act limits initial reactor licenses to 40 years. Although renewals can extend licenses for additional 20-year periods, the Report argues that most current and advanced reactor designs anticipate 60-year operating lives. Allowing an initial 60-year license would align with design expectations and reduce the administrative burden of mid-life relicensing. This would require a legislative amendment to the AEA.

• Affirm NRC Authority over Interim Spent Fuel Storage. A 2023 ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals challenged the NRC’s authority to license away-from-reactor interim spent fuel storage facilities, such as those under development by Interim Storage Partners and Holtec. This ruling conflicts with previous decisions from the D.C. and Tenth Circuits. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court, which we have written about a number of times, including here. The Report urges Congress to clarify that the NRC retains authority for such licensing under the Atomic Energy Act to avoid prolonged legal uncertainty and disruption to spent fuel management strategies.

• Clarify DOE Authority for Non-Commercial Reactors. DOE currently has ambiguous authority under the Atomic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act to authorize demonstration reactors not connected to commercial power sales. The Report recommends Congress remove this uncertainty by explicitly allowing DOE to authorize any non-commercial nuclear project under contract with and for the account of DOE, even if those activities occur offsite or involve non-traditional R&D models.

• Allow DOE Authorization of Commercial Reactors on Federal Lands. The urgency for nuclear-generated power—especially for energy-intensive technologies such as artificial intelligence—makes siting reactors on DOE-controlled land attractive. The Report proposes Congress authorize DOE to permit commercial reactor construction and operation on federal property. This would create an alternative pathway to NRC licensing in limited, federally controlled environments, expediting deployment for critical applications.

• Remove Geographic Restriction on DOE Licensing Authority. Currently, NRC regulations automatically exempt DOE contractors from needing an NRC license if the work is performed at U.S. government-owned or controlled sites. The Report suggests removing this site restriction, noting that statutory language in the Atomic Energy Act does not impose a similar geographical limit. Revising the NRC’s regulatory language or amending relevant statutory sections would increase DOE’s flexibility for offsite projects. 

Streamlining NRC Hearings

• Eliminate Mandatory Hearings. The Atomic Energy Act requires an uncontested “mandatory hearing” for every NRC reactor license, even when no party has raised a concern. These proceedings add 4–7 months to the critical path of licensing and rarely affect the final outcome. The NRC has already streamlined the mandatory hearing process, which we wrote about here, but the process still involves significant time and effort and delays license issuance without substantively impacting the licensing goal of improving safety. The Report, supported by external groups such as Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, recommends removing this requirement entirely. Proposed legislation (e.g., the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act) would implement this reform.

• Replace Current Contested Hearings with Legislative-Style Format. Contested NRC hearings are governed by complex procedural rules under 10 CFR Part 2. The Report notes that any streamlining in these procedures would significantly benefit new reactor applications, but one option would be shifting to a simpler legislative-style process, as provided under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart O. This would reduce the administrative burden and duration of hearings while preserving public participation and due process. Bills introduced in the last Congress also support this change.

Modernizing Environmental Reviews

• Eliminate NEPA for Nuclear Projects. NEPA compliance is often cited as a major delay factor for reactor projects, despite evidence from prior Environmental Impact Statements that new reactor projects create minimal adverse impacts. Further, new reactor projects must comply with up to 36 federal environmental laws and regulations independently of NEPA, suggesting NEPA review may not be necessary to mitigate these projects’ environmental impacts. The Report recommends exempting new reactor construction from NEPA, particularly where other federal and state environmental laws already apply. This would require a legislative carve-out, similar to exemptions granted under the Stafford Act for disaster response. 

• Exclude Non-Commercial Projects on DOE Sites from NEPA. As a more targeted alternative, The Report proposes Congress exclude non-commercial nuclear demonstration projects on DOE sites from NEPA. Prior Environmental Assessments for projects like MARVEL, Project Pele, and the Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment have consistently shown minimal environmental impacts for these projects. 

• Establish Categorical Exclusions for Small Reactors. As another alternative, DOE and NRC should develop NEPA categorical exclusions for microreactors and small modular reactors with known, minimal environmental impacts. These exclusions would expedite approvals, saving years in review and millions of dollars in fees, without sacrificing environmental protection. Columbia University and the Nuclear Innovation Alliance have both issued supporting analyses. 

Enhancing NRC Safety Reviews

• Apply Section 104 “Minimal Regulation” Standard to Certain Reactors. The Atomic Energy Act provides a lighter-touch regulatory framework (Section 104) for research and non-commercial reactors. The Report proposes extending this standard to certain advanced commercial reactors that meet safety and performance thresholds, citing their lower risk profiles and strong passive safety features. 

• Limit ACRS Review to Novel or Hazardous Issues. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) currently reviews all licensing actions in detail, including repeat applications. These reviews can involve dozens of meetings and hundreds of hours of preparation and review for the applicant, NRC staff, and ACRS members. The Report recommends Congress limit ACRS involvement to cases involving new or particularly hazardous technologies. This change would reduce redundancy and conserve expert resources. 

• Permit Non-Public NRC Meetings with Applicants. Current NRC policy requires nearly all interactions between applicants and the NRC to occur in public meetings. The Report contends that this policy, while commendable, restricts candid discussion and hinders efficient issue resolution. Confidential meetings—backed by publicly-accessible documentation—would allow faster progress without sacrificing transparency. 

• Allow Use of Existing Meteorological Data. Applicants are often required to gather one to three years of site-specific weather data. The Report proposes the NRC allow use of existing data sources (e.g., nearby towers from nuclear plants, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or DOE), which would eliminate a major source of application delay. 

• Mandate 3-Month NRC Review for Repeat Microreactors. To facilitate rapid scaling, the Report recommends the NRC complete its review of nth-of-a-kind microreactors (≤50 MWe) within three months if the NRC has previously approved the design. This fast-track approach is justified by the low risk and standardized nature of such reactors. 

• Use General Licenses for Standardized Small Reactors. General licenses are already used by the NRC for certain nuclear materials and fuel handling, while the NRC issues specific licenses for all nuclear reactors. The Report suggests allowing general licenses for small, nth-of-a-kind reactors meeting pre-established criteria. This change, which would require changing the Atomic Energy Act, would eliminate the need for individual license applications for certain reactors and transform the reactor approval process into a more scalable model. 

Conclusion

The Report’s proposed reforms offer strategic ways to improve the nuclear licensing framework. These recommendations reflect the need for a streamlined licensing process if the United States is to deploy not only first-of-a-kind, but nth-of-a-kind new reactors. If implemented, the Report’s reforms would increase regulatory efficiency, cut project timelines and costs, and unlock the full potential of U.S. nuclear innovation, particularly as the United States seeks to deploy new nuclear reactors at a scale not seen in decades. These changes balance safety with practical implementation and help position nuclear energy as a cornerstone of American energy security and technological leadership. 

For more information, please contact Amy Roma, Partner, or Cameron Tarry Hughes, Associate. 

Authored by Amy Roma and Cameron Tarry Hughes.