Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements restrict the market of suppliers and developers

Extensive documentation and Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements add significant project costs. This is partially a function of limited supply and increased cost of the physical inputs:

“An analysis by EPRI found that nuclear-grade components were in some cases 50x more expensive than off-the-shelf industrial grade ones. Nuclear-grade components don’t necessarily have higher performance requirements than conventional components. Reinforcing steel in nuclear-grade concrete, for instance, is the same material used in conventional concrete. Instead, the additional cost often comes from the additional documentation and testing required.

Documentation requirements also increase costs indirectly, by reducing market competition among manufacturers. Because these requirements are difficult for manufacturers to implement, many simply don’t bother to manufacture nuclear-grade components. Combined with the fact that the US spent a long period of time not building new nuclear plants, this limits the pool of potential nuclear component suppliers, making it harder to obtain components and further increasing their price. Some experts think these QA/QC requirements and their downstream market effects are the prime reason for high nuclear construction costs"

— Brian Potter, Institute for Progress (IFP) ¹

Lack of contractor familiarity with the additional processes required for nuclear-grade components and infrastructure causes issues as well:

“The difficulty of meeting requirements, combined with the lack of construction expertise due to long periods without constructing new plants, means that any new construction inevitably struggles as the builders learn how to meet the high level of stringency required. Delays at Vogtle Units 3 and 4 were partially due to a contractor unprepared for the difficulty of nuclear construction. Similar issues seem to be responsible for delays and cost overruns on Flamanville in France and Olkiluoto in Finland.”

— Brian Potter, Institute for Progress (IFP) ¹

1. Insufficient nuclear workforce & expertise
2. Concrete used in nuclear facilities has placement challenges

Vectors for addressing the bottleneck

1. Reclassification of safety components

   "Higher safety classes than required according to existing safety rules might be assigned to some components simply because they are going to be part of a nuclear facility. The use of more refined risk-informed approaches during design stages may allow for better assessment of the boundary between nuclear and non-nuclear components. Reducing (or suppressing) the safety class in some systems enables the introduction of commercial off-theshelf (COTS) components, especially for lower safety classes. As a result, substantial savings can be realised in the absence of nuclear-grade labels thanks to a greater supplier availability and keener competition.

   Furthermore, using COTS components promotes higher levels of nuclear design simplification and standardisation, leading to additional cost cuts. Lastly, owing to manufacturers’ extensive experience in a variety of industries, COTS components may be more reliable. As an example, a cost reduction of 98% could be obtained for valves, depending on the valve quality standards"

— Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) "Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear: A Practical Guide for Stakeholders"²

Additional Resources

• Sources of Cost Overrun in Nuclear Power Plant Construction Call for a New Approach to Engineering Design; Philip Eash-Gates, Magdalena M. Klemun, Goksin Kavlak, James McNerney, Jacopo Buongiorno, Jessika E. Trancik (2020)
• A Review of Light Water Reactor Costs and Cost Drivers; Karen Dawson and Piyush Sabharwall for Idaho National Lab (INL) (2017)
• Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear: A Practical Guide for Stakeholders; Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) (2020)