A port site is a multi-agency site.
TidalCore is an independent concept-stage development study. It is not a licensed reactor design, no application has been submitted to the U.S. NRC, and no approval, review, or endorsement by the NRC, DOE, USCG, IMO, MARAD, any national laboratory, port, or utility is claimed or implied. All figures are modeled design targets subject to independent validation.
The NRC’s technology-inclusive licensing framework, 10 CFR Part 53, was published on 2026-03-30 and became effective and available to applicants on 2026-04-29. It is risk-informed and performance-based, and it is the framework this study assumes a port-sited reactor would use. TidalCore has not opened pre-application engagement, has not submitted any application, is not docketed, and holds no permit or licence.
Federal and international activity through August 2026 — the IAEA ATLAS initiative and MARAD's agreements with the Port of Long Beach (2026-07-22) and Port of Corpus Christi (2026-08-19) — indicates the port interface is under active public examination. TidalCore is not a party to any of it and claims no endorsement or relationship.
Licensing sequence under study
The sequence below is a research artefact, not a schedule. Nothing in it has commenced. Items are labelled NOT STARTED where no action has been taken, PLANNING ASSUMPTION where the step reflects an internal assumption that may change, and TARGET where it is an intended future objective with no committed date.
- Step 1NOT STARTEDPre-application engagement with the NRC
A first pre-application interaction under the NRC's published guidance, covering the heat-pipe primary and TRISO fuel qualification basis. No meeting has been requested, scheduled, or held, and TidalCore is not in any NRC engagement.
- Step 2PLANNING ASSUMPTIONPart 53 conformance gap analysis
An internal mapping of the concept against the Part 53 design and performance requirements, plus a defence-in-depth position paper. Scope and sequencing are planning assumptions.
- Step 3PLANNING ASSUMPTIONDesign-stage application under Part 53
Whether a design approval, a manufacturing licence, or a combined route is appropriate is an open question for the study — it depends on engineering maturity that does not yet exist.
- Step 4TARGETManufacturing-licence route evaluation
Evaluating a factory-built sealed module against the manufacturing-licence pathway. No application has been prepared and no facility exists.
- Step 5NOT STARTEDUSCG and port-authority interface protocol
A siting protocol for the marine approach, security perimeter, and shore-power umbilical would have to be developed with the Coast Guard and the host port. No agency or port has been engaged.
- Step 6TARGETHost-site licensing at a specific port
Site-specific licensing presumes a host port, a site characterisation campaign, and funding — none of which are in place.
- Step 7TARGETConstruction, commissioning, first power
Any construction or operating date would be a downstream consequence of every step above. No date is claimed or implied.
No calendar dates are given because none are committed. Any future date would depend on funding, engineering maturity, a host site, and regulator availability, none of which are secured.
Reactor, quay, grid and vessel all have different regulators.
A land-based reactor inside a port’s secure perimeter would be NRC-regulated. The marine approach, the security perimeter, and the shore-power umbilical interface touch U.S. Coast Guard authority. A future nuclear-powered vessel calling at that berth brings international framework questions of the kind the IAEA ATLAS initiative is convening on. Interconnection and microgrid islanding bring the host utility and the local grid operator in as well. Mapping those seams early is the substance of this regulatory research track — it is not evidence of engagement with any of these bodies.
Further reading: NRC pre-application process guidance (opens in a new tab).