NuScale Power Module
About
The NuScale Power Module is an integral small PWR, producing 77 MWe and is intended to be deployed in multi-module configurations of 4, 6, or 12 units. It is designed for flexible electricity production or cogeneration, in the form of desalination or district heating.
| Developer | NuScale Power |
|---|---|
| Country of Origin | United States |
| Size | Small |
| Type | Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) |
Jump To:
Analysis
4
Deployment Timescale
Score Justification
The NuScale Power Module is the first SMR certified by the U.S. NRC, which facilitates its deployment timeline. Despite being modular, its containment structure still requires on-site construction, which can introduce scheduling delays.
By indicator
- 3/4 Regulatory Engagement
To what extent has the reactor developer engaged with a recognized nuclear regulatory authority in the licensing process? (30% of total score) - 5/6 Technology Precedent
Has the reactor design, or a sufficiently similar design, been certified anywhere in the world? (10% of total score) - 2/3 Modularity
What share of total reactor systems can be manufactured off-site in controlled factory environments rather than constructed on-site? (15% of total score) - 2/4 Specialization
To what extent do construction activities and components require lengthy qualification processes? (15% of total score) - 5/5 Supply Chain
How mature and available are suppliers for key reactor components and fuel services? (30% of total score)
3
Overnight Cost
Score Justification
The expected overnight costs for the NuScale Power Module are moderate, given its relatively small size. As a PWR, the reactor does not require exotic specialized components, but it does require nuclear-grade construction related to containment.
By indicator
- 3/4 Component Cost
What is the expected cost of the reactor’s major components? (40% of total score) - 3/6 Construction Cost
To what extent does the design reduce construction cost and risk through modular fabrication and limited nuclear-grade specialization? (60% of total score)
4
Operational Cost
Score Justification
The NuScale Power Module benefits from predictable waste management and fuel costs based on its standard–assay LEU UO₂ fuel. As a PWR, its high- pressure systems and primary components contribute to higher maintenance costs than many similarly sized non-PWRs.
By indicator
- 3/3 Fuel Cost
What is the estimated cost of nuclear fuel per unit of electricity generated, including enrichment, fabrication, and back-end costs? (15% of total score) - 3/4 Maintenance Cost
What is the expected annual maintenance cost for the reactor and balance of plant systems, including consumables? (25% of total score) - 5/5 Staffing Level
How many full-time personnel are required to safely operate and maintain the reactor unit? (40% of total score) - 3/5 Spent Fuel & Radioactive Waste Management Cost
What are the expected operational costs associated with managing spent fuel, including interim storage, transport, disposal, or recycling? (10% of total score) - 4/5 Decommissioning Cost
What are the total lifetime contributions required for decommissioning, regardless of funding mechanism? (10% of total score)
2
Cost Predictability
Score Justification
NuScale has designed and built an engineered prototype, the NuScale Integral System Test (NIST-2), but it has not yet completed a nuclear prototype. While NuScale’s design reduces the scope of the balance‑of‑plant compared with large reactors, the remaining systems still introduce cost uncertainty potential delays or overruns associated with the containment structure and below grade siting.
By indicator
- 1/5 Prototype
To what extent has the reactor design been built, demonstrated, or commercially deployed in practice? (75% of total score) - 2/3 Modularity
What share of total reactor systems can be manufactured off-site in controlled factory environments rather than constructed on-site? (25% of total score)
5
Security
Score Justification
NuScale initiated an internal project to establish an international safeguards strategy for its NuScale Power Module in 2022. Although not specifically security-by-design, that strategy incorporates many of the same characteristics as security by design, such as building in approaches to monitoring and accountability.
By indicator
- 3/3 Fuel
What is the enrichment level and composition of the reactor fuel? (40% of total score) - 4/4 Nuclear Material Production
What is the potential for the reactor to produce weapons-usable nuclear material? (40% of total score) - 1/1 Security by Design
Has the reactor developer built in security by design? (20% of total score)
4
Safety
Score Justification
The safety case for the NuScale Power Module has been approved. Like many reactors, it combines negative reactivity feedback with an independent active shutdown system in the form of control rods, which are actively actuated by a sensor and passively deployed by gravity.
By indicator
- 2/2 Safety Case
How mature and publicly established is the reactor’s safety case with the regulator? (40% of total score) - 1/2 Shutdown Mechanism
How diverse, independent, and passive are the reactor’s shutdown systems? (20% of total score) - 0/1 Fuel With Safety Characteristics
Does the reactor use fuel with accident tolerance or inherent safety characteristics? (10% of total score) - 3/4 Pressure & Containment
How well does the reactor’s containment strategy protect from the release of radioactive material? (10% of total score) - 3/3 Passive Heat Removal
How long can the reactor remove core heat without operator intervention? (10% of total score) - 3/4 Coolant Reactivity
How chemically reactive is the reactor coolant? (10% of total score)
3
Spent Fuel & Radioactive Waste Management
Score Justification
The NuScale Power Module uses standard-assay LEU UO₂ fuel, which has been licensed and qualified for disposal in multiple countries. This familiar spent fuel form can usually be transferred to interim storage within five years. The reactor does not introduce novel waste streams that require separate treatment and handling beyond past practice.
By indicator
- 1/1 Spent Fuel Licensing Precedent
Has the spent fuel form been previously licensed for disposal? (20% of total score) - 3/4 Waste Streams
How many distinct waste streams require separate conditioning or handling pathways? (20% of total score) - 2/3 On-Site Storage
How much on-site area is required for interim spent fuel storage? (10% of total score) - 2/3 Spent Fuel Volume
What volume of spent fuel is produced per unit of electricity generated? (15% of total score) - 1/2 Decay Heat
What is the decay heat output of spent fuel at the 50-year interim storage milestone? (20% of total score) - 2/2 Time to Interim Storage
What is the average time until spent fuel can be transferred to interim storage? (15% of total score)
5
Supply Chain
Score Justification
The NuScale Power Module’s supply chain relies on commercially established LWR fuels and materials, allowing it to tap into existing global manufacturing capacity rather than requiring new, purpose‑built supply chains.
By indicator
- 2/2 Key Component Availability
To what extent are commercial or pilot-scale suppliers available for the reactor’s major components? (60% of total score) - 4/4 Fuel Availability
Are suppliers available for both fuel fabrication and enrichment required by the reactor design? (40% of total score)