In the first clear indication in more than 20 years of utility interest in building new atomic reactors in the U.S., the Exelon Corporation has asked the NRC for an expedited schedule for the licensing and construction of new "pebble-bed" reactors in the U.S.

According to its presentation to the NRC on January 31, Exelon wants to start by building seven 110 MW PBMR reactors at an undisclosed site, beginning by 2004. Exelon is a minority owner in a consortium that is seeking to build the same reactor design in South Africa. The company is hoping to begin building that reactor in 2003, with testing to begin in 2005—well after U.S. construction would begin, according to the utility’s schedule.

Exelon is a holding company formed from the merger of Commonwealth Edison and PECO Energy. It also includes AmerGen, which is ½ owned by British Energy. The three companies involved in Exelon already control some 10% of the world’s nuclear power plants. Other partners in the PBMR project include British Nuclear Fuels, Eskom—a South African firm, and IDC, which apparently is a banking entity.

The January 31 meeting was marked by Exelon’s insistence that the NRC adopt the utility’s schedule for reactor construction, rather than—as might be considered normal for an applicant—a request than the NRC accommodate Exelon’s schedule. Apparently, Exelon wants to be sure all procedural and regulatory hurdles are overcome during the Bush administration.

However, Exelon wants a lot. For example, it believes its new reactor design is so safe that it does not need a containment; instead the utility’s presentation spoke of a "citadel" structure over the reactor. Exelon believes that the ceramic coating over the tens of thousands of fuel pellets that would be used as fuel for the reactor is sufficient to serve as a normal reactor containment despite the fact that such a design would require 100% perfection in the manufacture of these thousands of fuel pellets—an undoubtedly impossible goal.

But Exelon doesn’t stop there. It wants the Emergency Planning Zone for these new reactors to be reduced from 10 miles to less than ½ mile. It wants the NRC to provide a combined construction/operating license before it has even completed tests on its first South African reactor (which itself is under considerable opposition in that country). It apparently wants some relief from Price-Anderson Act considerations, as well as from prohibitions against majority foreign ownership of reactors. Exelon also wants the NRC to give it a combined construction/operating license, before it certifies its reactor design (and it wants to certify the design based on its South African experience—which it does not yet have—rather than go through the normal NRC certification process).

Where Exelon would want to build these seven new reactors is unknown, but it is unlikely that there are many localities eager to embrace them. Exelon envisions these reactors as being "merchant" plants—designed to sell electricity on the wholesale level, rather than directly to consumers. That would seem to indicate Pennsylvania as a likely spot for the reactors, since Exelon is essentially a Pennsylvania company, and that state has deregulated its electricity market sufficiently to be attractive to "merchant" generators. But that is by no means a given: Exelon and its various partners are, at this point, the most expansionist nuclear utility in the business.

The NRC provided little indication about its position toward Exelon’s demands during the January 31 meeting, but also provided no sense that it would not be willing to bend to the company’s requests.

Will Exelon succeed in being the first company to take a new reactor from initial order to licensing in the U.S. since October 1973? Odds are, no. The design of the reactors is too different, and beyond the NRC’s experience to handle on the fast-track schedule Exelon is demanding. Siting of the reactors will be tremendously controversial. The reactors may offer improved safety, but they can’t ensure complete safety, and they still produce radioactive waste, just like any other reactor.

But stopping Exelon, which seems determined to become the world’s dominant nuclear utility, won’t be easy. It will take concerted grassroots effort, wherever Exelon ultimately decides to try to site its reactors.