Several nuclear power startups are balking at joining the industry’s voluntary regulatory body in what could become a major shakeup to plant safety oversight.
The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, or INPO, was created by utilities in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 to police safety at their nuclear power plants, supplementing the work of government regulators. Today, every U.S. utility with a nuclear plant is a member and adheres to INPO’s best practices, and the country hasn’t had a nuclear accident since.
“The high levels of safety and performance and reliability that exist today are possible because of what INPO does,” Ho Nieh, chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told POLITICO’s E&E News. “They have a very intrusive process to assess all aspects of a utility’s performance in operating a nuclear reactor in terms of safety and reliability, way more intrusive than anything the NRC does.”
But now dozens of entities, many started by Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs, are looking to bring novel reactor technologies online. Some of those startups have a different safety culture from the existing nuclear fleet. Of nine companies participating in the Department of Energy’s pilot program for new advanced reactors, only one — Natura Resources — is in INPO’s program for reactor suppliers.
That apparent lack of interest from Silicon Valley nuclear startups raises key questions about the organization’s future.
“As new technologies and new companies come into existence, whether or not they are part of INPO, that’s the discussion we were having,” Nieh said.
The questions around safety come as the DOE pilot program for advanced reactors aims to sustain fission reactions by July 4 under a goal set by President Donald Trump. The White House hopes the program, alongside regulatory revisions, will supercharge the nuclear industry and help quadruple nuclear power by 2050.
At the direction of the White House, the NRC is making internal changes, including a rollback of oversight resources and a boost to licensing work. Nieh has justified many of the plans, including one to reduce inspections at power plants, by arguing that the industry’s own safety culture is extremely robust.
“In fact, the NRC has delegated some of its regulatory authority, so to speak, to INPO, specifically in the realm of operations and maintenance training programs,” said Scott Morris, an industry consultant and former NRC official. “The NRC and INPO are not duplicative; they’re complementary.”
But while NRC compliance is mandatory for the nuclear sector, INPO is voluntary. The organization and its extensive information-sharing were established on the premise that one accident is liable to torpedo all nuclear power companies.
Public perception about nuclear power plants has historically been influenced dramatically by single events. The 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan halted what many thought would be a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. and spurred the now-complete phase-out of nuclear power in Germany.
“The bigger picture here is the risk to the entire industry if the nuclear community doesn’t come together in whole,” Jeff Place, INPO’s executive vice president of industry strategy, said in an interview.
‘Comprehensive approach to safety’
Through its partnership with the World Association of Nuclear Operators, INPO collects and disseminates global operating data to provide member plants with critical lessons learned that enhance operational reliability. INPO maintains a comprehensive oversight program that uses continuous data monitoring and periodic site visits to ensure every U.S. member facility meets rigorous safety and reliability standards.
“Because we get to work with all the members across the entire industry, we identify some of those best practices, and then we share those with others so they can emulate that,” Place said.
Those best practices come from a highly intrusive process.
“It’s a very, very, very, very highly structured, very comprehensive approach to safety and reliability oversight that goes well beyond what the NRC does,” said Morris, the nuclear consultant.
That rigor has borne fruit.
“What we find is that when we’re working together, and we’re helping advance each other to a level of excellence, you start seeing — it may sound counterintuitive — but actually, you see costs come down,” Place continued.
Research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998 modeled the effects of INPO on the nuclear fleet 19 years after the organization’s founding. The results showed that INPO’s work, even when done ostensibly for safety rather than efficiency, led to fewer unexpected shutdowns and more time operating at maximum output.
“It costs roughly $10 million to recover a plant for a very simple scram,” Place said, referring to an emergency shutdown of a reactor.
If operators can keep plants from shutting down, he added, that keeps needed power on the grid.
‘It is too early’
But not all of today’s nuclear reactor developers are sold on the necessity for that level of cooperation through INPO.
“These entities are businesses, and they’re trying to make money,” Morris said. “Any infrastructure that you put around that entity that is not directly contributing to its bottom line, it’s going to be questioned.”
That philosophy is especially prevalent among newcomers, Morris added, who haven’t seen efficiency and reliability benefits from INPO and are more likely to think of it as further red tape. Most of the dozens of entities exploring building nuclear reactors in the U.S. have never built one before.
INPO’s current supplier program features 11 reactor vendors. That includes established companies like BWX Technologies, GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Rolls-Royce SMR and Westinghouse Electric Co., but also aspiring players: Holtec SMR, NuScale Power, SaskPower, TerraPower, X-energy, Natura Resources and Advanced Float Co.
“We have NDAs signed with another seven companies, along with early engagements with five other companies. In total, these represent the majority of front-running companies in the new nuclear marketplace,” Place said. “The few ones we have not had conversations with include some of the reactor vendors in the DOE pilot project.”
E&E News reached out to all companies participating in the DOE pilot program. Two, Antares Nuclear and Valar Atomics, did not return a request for comment. Two more, Radiant Industries and Terrestrial Energy, responded but without an answer on whether they planned to join INPO.
One, Oklo, said it hopes to join INPO’s supplier program as early as this year. Oklo was founded by a pair of married MIT grads and has support from OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Meta.
Neither Aalo Atomics, Deep Fission nor Last Energy committed to membership in INPO programs, but they indicated it was possible.
“Adapting INPO’s model to smaller reactors brings questions that need careful consideration,” Jimmy Glotfelty, an adviser for Aalo, said in a statement. “For now, it is too early for us to fully commit to following INPO’s framework without a better understanding of the oversight process the NRC will create for commercial microreactors. In the meantime, we will continue using best practices from INPO and other reliable industry sources to maintain our focus on safety and operational excellence.”
Place acknowledges that INPO has developed around large, conventional reactors that differ from the smaller and next-generation cooling technologies being explored today, although he notes they have helped get a next-generation reactor online in China.
“We have a New Nuclear Plant Advisory Committee, and we are inviting [newcomers] to that group. It is really set up to help shape the support they need and influence us through how we operate,” he said.
One area of focus is training, something traditionally handled by utilities. But with many new reactor developers looking to own plants themselves, they’re looking to INPO for assistance with operations training.
Both Place and some companies, like Last Energy, said engagement is only going to increase with time. Many would-be developers still only have designs on paper and remain years away from generating electricity.
As papers are swapped with pylons, new stakeholders may add pressure for firms to work with INPO. For example, the organization’s strict best practices serve as a key reference for insurance companies deciding whether to cover a reactor and for what premium.
“The bottom line is the public’s going to expect safe and reliable power coming out of these plants. There are any number of ways to get that done, and we believe we can help,” Place said.
