Dr. Adam Stein • Feed
avatar
Dr. Adam Stein @astein.bsky.social

Major changes were made to the NRC FY 2025 fee recovery rule to implement reduced fees for advanced reactors, based on our substantive comments and several others.

Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2025 A Rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 06/24/2025
jun 24, 2025, 3:04 pm • 2 0

Replies

avatar
DrCrlsnPE @drcrlsnpe.bsky.social

Vogtle cost overrun was 100%. Blaming nuclear's overruns and delays on the NRC is like blaming a drunk driver's car wreck on the DMV. 🧵 #NuclearIsItsOwnWorstEnemy

jun 24, 2025, 5:04 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
DrCrlsnPE @drcrlsnpe.bsky.social

"NuScale… spent $500 million and 2 million hours of labor over several years just to get its design approved." Fact check: FalseAF🧵

jun 24, 2025, 5:13 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
DrCrlsnPE @drcrlsnpe.bsky.social

\Damn that NRC.\ “They were clueless.” "Since Shaw Modular had no welding standard in place, it needed to hire a degreed welding engineer with nuclear experience. 'I asked about it, and they laughed at me.'” —Christopher Hartz, former nuclear procurement QA manager, Shaw Nuclear Services

jun 24, 2025, 5:17 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
Dr. Adam Stein @astein.bsky.social

The updated fee rule, as initially proposed, was unworkable. It was not even close to following the letter of existing laws and regulations - including the Atomic Energy Act, NEIMA, and the ADVANCE Act. As proposed, only a handful of licenses would qualify thebreakthrough.org/issues/energ...

jun 24, 2025, 3:04 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
Dr. Adam Stein @astein.bsky.social

We provided substantive comments that identified the specific issues in the proposed rule, legal context, and provided solutions. Many of those issues were addressed in the final rule.

In the FY 2025 proposed fee rule, the NRC proposed defining an advanced nuclear reactor applicant as an entity that has submitted an application for an operating license, combined license, or manufacturing license for an advanced nuclear reactor as defined in NEIMA. Under the proposed rule, other types of advanced nuclear reactor applications ( e.g., for construction permits and design certifications) could still have been able to qualify for the Reduced Hourly Rate as advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicants. As discussed in Section IV, Public Comments and NRC Responses, the NRC received a number of comments encouraging the NRC to expand the proposed definition of advanced nuclear reactor applicant to include applicants for construction permits, early site permits, design certifications, limited work authorizations, and standard design approvals. Upon further consideration and in response to these comments, the NRC has revised the definition of “advanced nuclear reactor applicant” to include applications that may be used as part of a phased approach to licensing. Under the revised definition, “advanced nuclear reactor applicant” means an entity that has submitted to the Commission a “qualifying application.” “Qualifying application” is defined as an application that (1) is for an advanced nuclear reactor, as defined in section 3 of NEIMA; and (2) is for an operating license, combined license, manufacturing license, construction permit, early site permit, limited work authorization, design certification, or standard design approval. Conforming changes were also made to the definition of advanced nuclear reactor pre-applicant.
jun 24, 2025, 3:04 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
Dr. Adam Stein @astein.bsky.social

This was the first test of the NRC following its updated mission statement, and it went in the opposite direction. It is unfortunate that the NRC was so far off the mark that such in-depth comments were necessary.

This is a clear example of the NRC not aligning with its updated mission to enable the safe use of civilian nuclear energy for societal benefit. The proposed fee rule was an opportunity to embrace a more enabling posture without compromising safety—by simply following the plain text of the law and recognizing a broader set of licensing activities. Instead, the staff adopted a narrow reading that places unnecessary financial and procedural burdens on developers, despite the law’s intent to do the opposite. The ADVANCE Act was designed to support the commercialization of new nuclear technologies, not constrain them. A plain reading of the law makes clear that Congress intended a broader application of fee reductions than the NRC has proposed. BTI recommends the NRC revise and reissue the rule to align with the statutory text and ensure all relevant licensing activities are eligible for reduced fees
jun 24, 2025, 3:04 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
Dr. Adam Stein @astein.bsky.social

Several other groups helped as well. @ClearPathAction also submitted a substantive comment and collaborated. @KairosPower for supporting both of our comments. @ThirdWayEnergy and @theNIAorg provided supporting comments.

jun 24, 2025, 3:04 pm • 0 0 • view
avatar
Dr. Adam Stein @astein.bsky.social

Link to the FRN www.federalregister.gov/documents/20...

jun 24, 2025, 3:04 pm • 0 0 • view