Why Nuclear Energy Developers Are Suing Federal Regulators
The lawsuit will hopefully make stringent regulations for nuclear power a relic of the past.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)—the federal body that regulates America's nuclear power plants—has long been criticized for stunting domestic nuclear power production with stringent regulations. Nuclear energy developers and states are pushing back.
In December, Utah, Texas, and microreactor company Last Energy sued the NRC, challenging the agency's regulatory authority. Last week, underground nuclear energy developer Deep Fission joined the suit.
The lawsuit challenges the NRC's Utilization Facility Rule, which requires all nuclear power–producing entities—even those that generate only enough electricity to turn on a lightbulb—to obtain a costly operating license before powering on.
While Deep Fission "feels good about our ability to be regulated under the current regime," the company is concerned "about the impact on the world if nuclear is unable to move forward faster – to meet the current anticipated energy demand," Liz Muller, co-founder and CEO of Deep Fission, tells Reason. "We plan to meet the highest nuclear safety standards, and we believe that it can be done with a streamlined and more modern regulatory process that takes into account the small size and inherent safety of our reactors."
The NRC's archaic, one-size-fits-all regulations have added undue costs and delays to the nuclear energy industry for no benefit to public health or safety. Test reactors on college campuses, which are recognized by the NRC to present "a lower potential radiological risk to the environment and the public," must comply with the Utilization Facility Rule. As a result, they have to pay an annual licensing fee of $124,400 per reactor. These include reactors at the University of Utah (100 kilowatts) and Texas A&M University, whose two reactors produce 1 megawatt (MW) and 5 watts of electricity (that amount isn't enough to power a typical LED lightbulb). Louisiana does not have a test reactor at any of its universities, but has charted a pathway toward developing small modular reactors, and joined the lawsuit in April.
Deep Fission is also negatively impacted by the rule. Using a 30-inch borehole, the company places its small modular reactor (which produces 15 MW of thermal power or 5 MW of electric power) one mile underground. At that depth, reactors are positioned well below the water table and "encased in billions of tons of stable bedrock," which means that they "pose little proliferation or public health risk," says Muller. Deep Fission argues that this "may eliminate the need for costly concrete and steel surface containment buildings," allowing its reactors to produce more affordable electricity.
However, before it can get up and running with this technology, Deep Fission will have to pay a steep fee—more than $5 million for larger reactors—to obtain an operating license. Since no small modular reactors are in operation yet (due in large part to stringent regulations), the NRC has not assigned an annual operating fee for these reactors.
Last Energy, one of the original plaintiffs of the lawsuit, has had to focus on developing its business overseas because of the utilization rule and others like it. Despite being based in Washington, D.C., the company has public plans for only one project on U.S. soil, which it announced in February.
The Utilization Facility Rule is just one of the many onerous regulations that have held back American nuclear power development. The increased state and private sector opposition to the regulation could hopefully make it a relic of the past.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But…nuclear? We’re all gonna die. Glowing.
https://www.engineering.com/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources/
"...To put these numbers into perspective, in 70 years and with a total of 667 nuclear power plants that have ever operated, only three major accidents have taken place. Using the official internationally-recognized death statistics for Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, the combined loss of lives from the three major nuclear accidents is 32 people. In fact, estimates on the number of deaths caused by the nuclear energy sector overall is 90 per 1000TWh—the least of any energy sector!..."
I think most, if not all, of those deaths were caused by just Chernobyl alone.
I believe there is one death now attributed to radiation exposure at Fukushima. The death toll from TMI remains solidly pegged at zero. So yes, essentially all direct-deaths associated with commercial nuclear energy generation are from that one incident.
It's worth pointing out that the evacuation order following the Fukushima accident displaced 164,000 people, at least 51 of whom died from the displacement. In other words, they didn't die from the accident, they died from government's panicked reaction to it.
And to reiterate Sevo's point, even with those outlier events, nuclear power remains far and away the safest form of energy generation as measured by deaths per unit of energy produced.
If so, that's one more than was earlier claimed; prior numbers were all those who died fleeing from the supposed danger.
Yeah, the one was lung cancer and didn't die until 4 years after the accident. I don't know what methodology they used to attribute his cancer to Fukushima and not other environmental/behavioral factors.
And NO ONE wants to talk about "radiation hormesis", whereby small doses of ionizing radiation are actually GOOD for us!!!
“Helminthic therapy” is of interest to me; so is “radiation hormesis”.
On radioactive wastes (ionizing radiation), Google “radiation hormesis”, and see USA government study of the Taiwan thing (accidental experiment on humans) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/ … Low-dose radioactivity is actually GOOD for you! Seriously!!!
On “helminthic therapy”, AKA gut parasite worms are GOOD for you, too, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054982 (USA government again) or others …
Well anyway, WHAT is a summary of what I am saying? I thought I heard you asking about that, through my tri-cornered aluminum-foil hat, as I am sitting here…
HERE is your summary: Hollyweird is WAY off base, with their horror movies! A Giant Gut-Parasitical Radioactive Teenage Mutant Ninja Tapeworm would be GOOD for us!!! Bring it ON, ah says!!!
Well anyway, dilution is the solution to pollution… Dilute the hell out of the radioactive cooties, release them, and they will do us GOOD!
Fuck off and die, spastic asshole.
Don't confuse people with the facts. They'd much rather hold on to their silly prejudices.
The lawsuit will hopefully make stringent regulations for nuclear power a relic of the past.
*looks around*
I hope that they make the unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations-- those regulations which don't increase safety a relic of the past.
Compared to the abjectly pointless and unfounded knee capping of nuclear energy around the world, a 25% loss on one side of a comparative trade advantage for four years is idiotically trivial.
Imagine gas at $0.50/gal. because all your other appliances ran on nuclear power. And I mean actually ran on nuclear power, not this, "It stops running when it hits 40 degrees in Texas or because we can't keep the brush trimmed in California" "ran".
How do you feel about electric cars and their batteries?
EVs suck and will for the foreseeable future.
At what point would they not suck in your judgment? They seem to work very well for certain climates and areas, and very badly in others.
For consumers, when they can be re-fueled in 5 minutes.
Something like a UPS truck which sits for hours might be an application, but EVs do not like stop and start operation.
Energy density numbers and ease of handling suggest that petroleum's highest and best use may be for air and ground transport.
Electric cars will be limited by our ability to increase electricity production. There will be plenty of competition for energy from IT and artificial intelligence. Nuclear is the only practical solution.
Every energy source is an opportunity. To say only one or another will work, is a recipe to fail. I was more poking at the concerns people have for batteries blowing up and catching fire, with the idea of nuclear powered cars.
"Every energy source is an opportunity..."
Nope.
Given that we want the light to go on when we flip the switch, both PV and wind are (extremely) expensive adjuncts to baseload generation.
Neither is an "opportunity" in any realistic terms; they are both 'feel-good' dead-ends for those unwilling to look at reality.
Why are you fishing for someone else to bring up your issue? If you want to talk about battery fires, just talk about battery fires from the git go.
Because the regulators fear the creation of reptiles skilled in the ancient art of assassination that answer only to a rat not located in DC?
creation? they live under the Denver airport.
There has never been a death from a civilian nuclear power plant in the United States and the strict regulations are a major reason why. Sometimes regulations are good.
"There has never been a death from a civilian nuclear power plant in the United States and the strict regulations are a major reason why."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
There has never been a tiger attack in my home because of the anti-tiger rock on my back porch.
There has never been a tiger attack in my yard and my tiger-repelling Japanese flowering cherry tree is a major reason why.
......I dont think that is an apt analogy? Although the Tiger repelling Japanese flowering cherry tree is an awesome line. There is a very real risk to Nuclear power, and many regulations do help curtail that. Tigers less so.
"...There is a very real risk to Nuclear power, and many regulations do help curtail that..."
Look at the chart in the article linked above and offer an object argument regarding the relative dangers of energy capture.
I want a small reactor installed in my back yard. Just sayin'
Between nuclear and piezoelectric technologies, it is superbly possible to distribute the generation of electricity down to the city/town/village level. It is past time for the giant, centralized electricity production and broad distribution systems to be retired.
Imagine piezoelectric floorboards, countertops, and seat cushions too!... heck, dressers and tabletops too... in your abode supplementing your electricity needs just by doing what you do in your own home. Imagine no more tri-state power outages from a single storm because every borough/county/parish and every city/town/village have their own nuclear power plant.
We
shouldcould be living in an age of a greater abundance of electrical power.Energy density: costs more to collect and store p/e than it is worth.
In the meanwhile, you should look into building one of the free energy devices you can see on YouTube.
What's the hardest part of making a perpetual motion machine?
Hiding the battery.
Folks, energy is, like every other economic good, subject to cost restraints, both in financial and ecological costs.
Absent any breakthrough, nukes are the go-to source for electric and sea transport, while nothing approaches petroleum for ground and air transport.
Objective arguments addressed...
Once they get nuclear power plants to fit in a car we'll finally have a chance at working time machines.
Unless there are regulations on time machines?
Not an objective argument.