DOE Pilot Program Targets Three Nuclear Test Reactors for 2026 Criticality Under Department Authorization

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has launched a novel pilot program that will allow private developers to build and operate full-scale advanced nuclear test reactors outside of the national laboratory system, without a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Through a new authorization model grounded in the Atomic Energy Act and a Trump-era executive order, the program seeks to bring at least three test reactors to criticality by July 4, 2026, using DOE-issued permits, private funding, and accelerated safety reviews.

The initiative, launched on June 18, marks a significant departure from established nuclear licensing precedent in decades. Rooted in Section 5 of President Trump’s Executive Order 14301 on “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy,” the regulatory pivot leverages the DOE’s authority under 42 U.S.C. § 2140 of the Atomic Energy Act, which exempts reactors built “under contract with and for the account of” the department from NRC licensing requirements. However, the program also extends DOE’s traditional purview beyond government-owned facilities to privately controlled sites—a jurisdictional expansion that industry experts and safety advocates are closely monitoring.

“For too long, the federal government has stymied the development and deployment of advanced civil nuclear reactors in the U.S.,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright. “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, we are expediting the development of next-generation nuclear technologies and giving American innovators a new path forward.”

New Fast-Track Pathway to Test Advanced Reactors

The pilot program is formalized in a Request for Applications (RFA, DE-FOA-0003569), a solicitation that establishes a framework and sets July 21, 2025, as the initial application deadline for first-round consideration. DOE is expected to announce initial selections by Aug. 25, 2025, but after the initial deadline, applications may be submitted at any time for periodic review and selection “as soon as reasonably possible.” The rolling submission approach will accommodate varying developer readiness levels while maintaining program momentum, the DOE suggests.

DOE anticipates selecting at least three projects for Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs), a flexible contracting instrument intended to streamline safety reviews, speed authorization, and preserve developers’ intellectual property. Selected applicants, notably, will also receive a dedicated DOE support team to guide them through a fast-tracked permitting process.

Significantly, the DOE noted it will not provide funding under this program. It says selected applicants must cover all costs associated with design, construction, operation, and decommissioning. However, DOE will cover its own internal review and oversight costs.

The RFA defines a “Qualified Test Reactor” according to Section 2(c) of Executive Order 14301, establishing four foundational eligibility thresholds. First, reactor designs must be sufficiently mature to support the near-term development and submittal of safety basis documentation, including a final preliminary documented safety analysis. Second, applicants must present comprehensive fuel plans that utilize qualified fuel forms and clearly identify fabrication and spent fuel disposition pathways. Third, developers must demonstrate adequate financial resources and a mature supply chain capable of supporting full lifecycle activities—including design, construction, commissioning, operation, and decommissioning. Fourth, execution readiness must encompass the procurement and manufacture of all reactor materials, systems, and components, along with qualified staffing for all project phases.

“DOE will only consider Qualified Test Reactors capable of demonstrating the ability to achieve criticality safely by the target date of July 4, 2026, or as soon as possible thereafter,” the RFA states. Under the program, a Qualified Test Reactor is also defined as a nuclear fission reactor that offers significant improvements over reactors operating as of December 27, 2020, including features such as enhanced inherent safety, lower waste yields, improved fuel and material performance, greater thermal efficiency, modular scalability, and operational flexibility to support both electric and non-electric applications, along with reduced environmental impacts and increased resilience.

The RFA instructs applicants to submit a comprehensive Technical Volume (limited to 50 pages), along with required attachments, including a Master Document and Deliverables List (MDDL), a detailed project schedule, and resumes of key personnel. The Technical Volume must clearly demonstrate:

• A mature reactor design with high technology readiness and a robust safety analysis.
• A viable fuel plan, including sourcing, fabrication, delivery, and spent fuel disposition—particularly relevant for developers requiring HALEU.
• A test plan outlining experimental objectives, instrumentation, operator training, and responsibilities across all phases.
• A full lifecycle schedule from permitting through decommissioning, structured around defined milestones.
• A site integration plan detailing how the reactor will interface with local infrastructure, even at privately controlled locations.
• A DOE authorization strategy covering compliance with nuclear safety, quality, and NEPA obligations.
• Documented funding sources and financial viability, including contingency planning.
• Evidence of technical and managerial capabilities, including team structure and partnerships.

Applicants are also expected to demonstrate control or near-control of a suitable U.S. site and submit an MDDL identifying the documentation needed to support safe operations and regulatory compliance.

Exploiting a Regulatory Gray Area

If successful, the program could serve as a proving ground for advanced reactor designs that have struggled to progress under existing licensing frameworks, accelerating commercialization and reshaping the U.S. nuclear innovation pipeline.

Notably, the new pilot program exploits a regulatory gray area by classifying privately funded, off-site reactors as “qualified test reactors” for research and development purposes, rather than commercial demonstration. That distinction allows DOE to exercise its authorization authority under the Atomic Energy Act while maintaining that these reactors are intended to advance technology—not deliver commercial energy services.

However, the jurisdictional divide between DOE and NRC has remained essentially unchanged since the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, which split the Atomic Energy Commission’s promotional and regulatory functions. Historically, DOE retained authority over R&D reactors at national laboratories, while NRC licenses commercial and demonstration reactors intended to validate market readiness. The pilot program shifts this boundary by authorizing reactors on privately controlled sites, while asserting non-commercial intent.

In its review of the executive orders issued May 23, an American Nuclear Society (ANS) Expert Advisory Group warned that the new pilot pathway could blur the lines between optional federal authorizations and NRC’s established commercial licensing process. “While there is legal precedent for alternative regulatory frameworks, it must be made clear that any DOD or DOE licensing routes are voluntary, not mandatory,” the ANS group stated. “Developers must not be placed in a position where they are pressured to pursue DOE or DOD authorization only to later find NRC licensing for their commercial facilities is also required, resulting in delays or duplicative reviews.”

The group also emphasized that NRC’s standards are well-recognized. “The NRC’s regulatory standards serve as the foundation for nuclear deployment abroad, and it is essential that the agency remain fully engaged in reactor design and approval processes to maintain U.S. leadership in civil nuclear exports,” it said

From a practical standpoint, the ANS group cautioned that staffing and resource limitations could undermine the execution of these parallel frameworks. “Successful implementation of DOD and DOE licensing processes will likely require leveraging NRC technical expertise to support licensing review and oversight activities,” the group said. “Additional resources and information-sharing can lead to a shortened licensing and review process. Ultimately, the implementation of this EO should result in an improved process; otherwise DOE and National Lab resources would be better spent directly supporting companies moving through the NRC’s licensing process.”

DOE’s Expanded Role in Nuclear Regulation?

The legal foundation for DOE’s pilot program—and its broader implications for federal reactor oversight—are growing into focal points in the current debate over nuclear regulatory reform. In April 2025, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) released Recommendations to Improve Nuclear Licensing (INL/RPT-25-84292) at the request of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The report adds to the growing institutional momentum for expanding DOE’s authority to authorize and oversee reactors beyond the national laboratory complex.

The INL report clarifies that while the Atomic Energy Act already allows the DOE to construct and operate reactors “under contract with and for the account of the Department,” legal ambiguity remains regarding the precise boundaries between DOE and NRC authority. INL’s recommendations urge Congress to formally broaden DOE’s statutory authority to avoid jurisdictional uncertainty and reduce the risk of litigation that could delay advanced reactor deployment.

While DOE’s reactor oversight has historically been limited to national lab sites, INL argues that “significant efficiency and predictability improvements” could be achieved by clarifying DOE’s authority to include offsite activities it is already authorized to conduct, regardless of site ownership. The report recommends that Congress allow DOE to authorize any non-commercial demonstration nuclear reactor projects without exception, and clarify that DOE may oversee off-site activities under its statutory authority without requiring NRC approval, even when those activities occur on privately controlled sites.

However, INL also warns that the current legal uncertainty surrounding NRC and DOE boundaries—especially for demonstration and non-commercial projects—could inadvertently delay reactor deployment timelines, especially for novel reactor classes. To address this, the lab recommends that DOE’s offsite authorizations proceed without requiring NRC approval, provided the reactors are not intended for commercial power generation or the sale of commercial products to non-DOE entities. That approach, INL argues, would preserve NRC’s global credibility and free agency resources to focus on export-facing and commercial designs.

The report also notes that the preferred approach would be to delete the “other demonstration nuclear reactors” exception in the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) Section 202, allowing projects “under contract with and for the account of” DOE to proceed under DOE authorization, regardless of site ownership. Alternatively, the ERA could be amended to clarify that NRC licensing jurisdiction applies only to DOE projects that commercially sell electricity or other products to entities outside DOE, it says.

—Sonal Patel is a POWER senior editor (@sonalcpatel, @POWERmagazine).