As indicated earlier, new SMRs in the US can be licensed by the NRC under either of two existing regulatory approaches that require a CP, an OL, or a combined CP/ OL (COL). Licensing options will be briefly outlined below to the extent one or more of the options might be similar to licensing processes in other countries. Important to note in any licensing option is whether (a) the design submitted is preliminary or final, (b) the design submitted has been previously approved or certified by a competent and capable regulatory authority, and (c) the chosen site has been previously characterized and approved (in the US through an Early Site Permit (ESP) process), or is seeking approval. Fundamentally, any chosen licensing strategy will depend on the status of the safety review of the reactor design, and the status of the review of the safety and environmental characteristics of the site.

The NRC has two unique licensing processes. First, the NRC licensing process has a requirement that reactor designs that will be certified through 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B, must go through a rulemaking process to provide an opportunity for public involvement. No other country requires a rulemaking process in order for a reactor design to be certified by a cognizant regulatory authority. A design certification rule (DCR) is intended to freeze the design in a more final and formal manner. Any changes to the design must be done by amendment to the DCR which requires a formal and lengthy rulemaking process. Second, another licensing option in the US is for a utility or other end-user to ‘bank’ a potential SMR site through the ESP process under 10 CFR Part 52. If an ESP is granted by the NRC, then the applicant can file a subsequent COL application that would reference both the ESP and the DCR. An ESP has a limited time for use (within 10-20 years), but it can be transferred to another potential applicant that might want to use the site for a nuclear power plant.

• Option 1: Preliminary design provided and site needs approval. This option begins with the submittal of an application for a CP that contains site safety information, a complete environmental report (ER), preliminary design information, and a preliminary plan for operational programs. Once the CP is issued, an OL application is submitted that provides final design information and operational programs (with implementation schedules). Upon review and approval of the OL and completion of construction, the NRC grants authorization to load fuel.

• Option 2: Final design provided and site needs approval. This option starts with the submittal of an application for a CP that contains site safety information, a complete ER, final design information, and a preliminary plan for operational programs. Once the site is approved and the CP is issued, an OL application is submitted with a description of the operational programs (with implementation schedules) and confirmation that safety configurations and systems are as described in the final design application. Once construction is complete and the OL is issued, the NRC grants authorization to load fuel.

• Option 3: Design approved/certified and site needs approval. This option is the same as option 2 except that the COL application references a certified design, i. e., a DCR. The COL further contains site safety information, a complete ER, final design information with inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC), and a description of the operational programs (with implementation schedules). Once the site is approved and the COL is issued and ITAAC are met, the NRC grants authorization to load fuel.

• Option 4: design approved/certified and site approved. This option is the same as option 3 in that a COL application is submitted that references the DCR, but it also references a previously approved site. Once the COL is issued and ITAAC are met, the NRC would grant authorization to load fuel.

The NRC and the US nuclear industry see significant advantages in the Part 52 process and it is the preferred, if not the only, licensing process for all applications that are not FOAK designs. Advantages to this process and key considerations for international licensing are:

• standardized design that will remain final and stable for most applications;

• early identification and resolution of all licensing issues;

• few licensing exemptions required;

• public and transparent licensing process;

• predictable and efficient licensing process that reduces financial risk.

These licensing advantages can benefit the international application, licensing and deployment of US-certified or other regulatory-approved SMR designs as will be discussed later in this chapter.