Technical Review and Status of Small Modular Reactor Technologies: Prospects of Nuclear Infrastructure Development in the Philippines

Abstract

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are gaining significant attention as nuclear power sources due to their advantages, such as compact design, enhanced safety features compared to large nuclear plants, and scalability for varying power output needs. To successfully consider this emerging technology, understanding SMR designs and their readiness levels is essential for informed decision making and effective planning. This technical review provides insights into the potential, development, and application of SMR technology. Various SMR designs were investigated to identify those in deployment, commercial operation, or nearing deployment stages. Key technical parameters of advanced-stage SMRs, with some local insights, were analyzed to establish a comprehensive set of criteria for future technical and economic assessments in the context of local applications. Additionally, this study outlines potential phases for SMR project implementation in the Philippines, referencing the IAEA Milestone Approach for nuclear power infrastructure development. Relevant policies, issues, and activities are also discussed, highlighting the status of the country’s nuclear power infrastructure, as well as its legislative and regulatory framework for supporting nuclear energy. While certain SMR technologies show technical readiness, it is important to consider that many are still under development, requiring a careful evaluation of factors such as the 19 Infrastructure Issues to ensure a successful SMR deployment in the Philippines.

1. Introduction

As of 2024, approximately 440 commercial nuclear reactors operate across 32 nations, contributing about 9% of the global electricity supply [1,2,3]. While some countries like Russia, China, and India continue to invest heavily in nuclear power to expand their reactor fleets [4,5], others have made significant decisions regarding their nuclear energy policies. For example, Germany officially completed its nuclear phase-out in April 2023, shutting down its last reactors [6]. On the other hand, Italy, which phased out nuclear power following a referendum in 1990, is now reconsidering nuclear energy as part of its future energy mix [7,8,9]. Belgium, which initially planned a phase-out, has extended the operation of its last two reactors until 2035 to ensure energy security [10].

Meanwhile, the Philippines is re-evaluating nuclear power as a solution to rising energy demands and the impending depletion of the Malampaya gas reserve, which currently supplies 30% of Luzon’s energy needs [11,12]. Coal currently dominates the electricity mix, accounting for around 60% of the total generation, while natural gas and renewables play supporting roles. Luzon, which consumes 70% of the nation’s power, remains dependent on fossil fuels and imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) [13]. With the impending depletion of the Malampaya gas reserve and the country’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels, the Philippines is looking for alternative and additional energy resources in the power mix, such as nuclear power.

The history of nuclear power in the Philippines is marked by periods of promise, conflicts, and a renewed sense of potential. This narrative originated in the 1970s when the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) was commissioned under the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos as a response to the global oil crisis. Designed by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the BNPP was intended to house a single 620-megawatt pressurized water reactor (PWR), making it the first nuclear power plant constructed in Southeast Asia. The plant was built in Morong, Bataan, at an estimated cost of USD 2.1 billion [14]. The National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) was designated to operate the plant, and Filipino engineers and technical personnel were sent abroad for training in nuclear operations and maintenance [15]. However, previous concerns such as safety, the global decline of nuclear energy, and other issues led to the BNPP’s closure in 1986 before it could become operational. The global decline of nuclear energy and heightened fears after the Chernobyl disaster further cemented the BNPP’s fate, preventing it from ever becoming operational [16,17,18,19]. Despite remaining dormant for decades, the facility has been maintained, with feasibility studies periodically conducted to assess its potential rehabilitation. Various editions of the Philippine Energy Plan (PEP) have explored the role of nuclear energy, including discussions on repowering the BNPP or transitioning to newer reactor technologies [11,20,21]. However, a definitive decision regarding the implementation of a nuclear power program has remained elusive in past years.

In response to both the current and projected energy demands and the global push for clean energy, the Philippines is re-evaluating nuclear energy, with a particular focus on modular reactors such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These small nuclear power plants are gaining attention for their compact size, scalability, and safety advantages [11]. SMRs hold promise in meeting the country’s evolving energy needs, which are influenced by a growing population, economic development, and complex geography [1,22,23]. Their compact design makes SMRs well suited to address the Philippines’ energy requirements because they can potentially replace aging coal-fired plants and be installed in small islands [24,25,26,27]. The government’s renewed interest in nuclear energy is evident in various policy documents aimed at facilitating the exploration and potential adoption of nuclear power. The latest directive, Executive Order (EO) No. 164, adopts a national position on nuclear power and mandates a thorough study of nuclear power as a potential energy source in the country, assessing the feasibility of developing, constructing, and operating nuclear power plants [28].

Several review papers have examined SMRs from various perspectives, including technical, economic, and safety aspects [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. For instance, Vinoya’s study reviews SMRs’ technology, economics, and safety but is limited by a lack of real-world deployment data and practical assessments [39]. Similarly, Hussein’s work critically reviews the advantages of SMRs, emphasizing their flexibility, economic potential, safety features, and role in sustainable energy, but also highlights challenges related to modularity implementation, licensing, fuel costs, and the need for further research to optimize modular design and construction for nuclear applications [44]. Other studies, such as those by Black et al., evaluate the potential of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) for carbon-free energy in developing countries, highlighting their flexibility, lower costs, and compatibility with renewables, but they are limited by economic feasibility concerns and a lack of real-world deployment data [45]. While these reviews contribute to a comprehensive understanding of SMRs, the existing literature lacks a focused analysis on the applicability of SMRs in the Philippine context.

Several authors have extensively studied the potential of nuclear energy in the Philippines [19,46,47]. Among them, Josef T. Yap’s 2020 and 2021 publications [19,46] stand out for their in-depth analysis of both historical and contemporary aspects, with a particular focus on the BNPP. Yap’s 2020 study challenges conventional views, arguing that the BNPP’s closure in 1986 was driven more by political and safety concerns than by technical shortcomings [18]. Their 2021 paper builds on this argument, presenting expert interviews and historical documents that call for a reassessment of the BNPP’s revival or the adoption of SMRs as viable low-carbon and reliable energy options [46]. Meanwhile, Andal and co-authors have explored the social dimensions of nuclear power, identifying six key barriers and emphasizing the need for transdisciplinary research and public dialog to address these challenges [47]. Collectively, these studies highlight the importance of a balanced, science-based evaluation of nuclear energy’s benefits and risks, each focusing on distinct aspects of this complex issue. However, none specifically examine the available nuclear technologies, such as SMRs, which could be a valuable area for future research and potential local deployment.

As the Philippines considers SMR deployment, it is valuable to examine the experiences of other countries undergoing similar energy transitions. Many nations, both developed and emerging, are exploring SMRs as a viable option for energy security, decarbonization, and grid modernization. In ASEAN, Indonesia is actively conducting feasibility studies for SMR deployment, recognizing its potential to power remote islands and industrial zones. Outside the region, countries such as Poland and Canada are advancing their nuclear strategies, with Poland seeking to replace coal-fired power plants and Canada establishing regulatory pathways for early SMR deployment. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, China, and Russia have made significant progress in SMR policy support and deployment, providing valuable lessons on licensing, infrastructure development, and government–industry collaboration. These international experiences offer important insights for the Philippines, helping to shape a roadmap for SMR adoption that considers both regional and global best practices [48].

Thus, in this work, the technical characteristics of SMR technologies currently available in both the global market and the academic literature were examined and evaluated for their potential application in the Philippines. This review encompasses multiple SMR designs with a particular emphasis on those with established pilot and demonstration facilities, as well as those currently under construction. To support any future analysis of these designs, some key technical characteristics are selected with local insights. Furthermore, this study explores relevant policies, challenges, and prospects for SMR deployment in the Philippines, detailing the country’s nuclear power infrastructure and regulatory landscape. By providing a comprehensive assessment of both technological and policy aspects, this work aims to contribute to informed decision making on the feasibility and potential implementation of SMRs in the Philippines.

2. Overview of SMR Technology

Current nuclear power plant relies on nuclear fission reactions to generate electricity, and this process starts at the reactor core, as shown in Figure 1. Within the reactor core, there are fuel rods containing enriched uranium or other fissile materials that initiate controlled nuclear fission reactions. Depending on the needed power or desirable power output, the size of the reactor core, the number of fuel assemblies, and the amount of uranium, a nuclear power plant capacity can be designed or built.

Nuclear power reactors come in various sizes, and they can be are categorized based on their electricity output, as shown in

Table 1. Categorization of nuclear power plants by electricity output.

Electricity Output (MWe)	Type of Nuclear Power Plant
10 below	Micro-Reactor (MR)
10 to 300	Small Modular Reactor (SMR)
300 to 800	Medium-Sized Reactor (MSR)
800 above	Large Reactor (LR)

[49]. The smallest among them, with an electricity output of less than 10 MWe, are known as Micro-Reactors (MRs). These types of reactors are designed to be deployed in hard-to-reach isolated areas where electricity requirements are small. Slightly larger are the Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), falling into the range of 10 MWe to 300 MWe. SMRs are designed to be installed in cities or remote areas without the need for large-scale infrastructure and they are also envisioned to replace aging coal-powered plants. Beyond electricity generation, MRs and SMRs are designed to extend their application to producing process heat for industrial purposes, such as desalination and hydrogen production.

Medium-sized reactors are nuclear reactors with outputs ranging from 300 MWe to 800 MWe. An example is the BNPP, with an output of 620 MWe. Many nuclear power plants built in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly those using CANDU designs, belong to this category. At the top end of the scale, we have Large Reactors (LRs), which are nuclear power plants with an electricity output of 800 MWe and above. The majority of nuclear power plants currently under construction worldwide belong to this category. This categorization helps differentiate between reactor sizes and their capacities, each serving specific energy demands and operational requirements [49].

The development of SMRs is a significant departure from traditional nuclear power plant technologies. Their compact design, enhanced safety features, and scalability set them apart from other nuclear power reactor sizes.

For compact design aspects, SMRs occupy a much smaller footprint than traditional nuclear reactors, making them easier to transport, install, and integrate into various locations, including remote or space-constrained areas. Their factory-fabricated components streamline construction, reducing on-site assembly time and enhancing quality control. This smaller scale also lowers infrastructure and land requirements, making SMRs a practical option for regions with limited space or existing industrial sites [49,50].

Safety is a core principle in SMR design, with many models incorporating passive safety systems that rely on natural forces such as gravity and convection, reducing the need for operator intervention or external power in emergencies. However, effective deployment requires adapting SMR designs to different environments, as terrain-specific challenges vary. In desert regions, reactors must endure extreme heat, water scarcity, and sandstorms, often utilizing air-cooled systems and advanced water management. In mountainous areas, seismic resilience, landslide prevention, and maintenance accessibility are key considerations. For SMRs near rivers or coastal areas, water cooling offers efficiency benefits, but risks such as flooding, saltwater corrosion, and regulatory constraints must be carefully managed [49,51].

SMRs also enable modular scalability, allowing utilities to expand capacity incrementally by adding reactor units as demand grows. This flexible deployment strategy makes them well suited for integration into existing grids or as independent power sources. Additionally, the factory-based production of modular components enhances efficiency, reduces costs, and accelerates deployment timelines compared to conventional nuclear power plants [49,52]. Overall, these three features make SMRs an attractive energy source.

2.1. Essential Technical Decision Parameters

Technical decision parameters are specific, measurable criteria used to evaluate and compare options in engineering and technical decision-making. These parameters ensure that decisions are based on objective, quantifiable factors rather than subjective opinions. In frameworks like Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), parameters are weighted and scored according to their importance [53]. A clear understanding of these factors is crucial for assessing the suitability of a nuclear power plant (NPP) for deployment, enabling informed and effective decision making. In the context of SMRs, understanding the technical specifications of each design is particularly important. These specifications determine not only the performance and feasibility of an SMR but also its adaptability to specific deployment conditions. Unlike large-scale reactors, SMRs offer greater flexibility, but their effectiveness depends on how well they align with the unique requirements of their intended locations [51].

For example, if a certain NPP is selected, the siting is an important factor to consider, and technical parameters for each NPP design should be carefully considered [51]. In this regard, technical parameters such seismicity, coolant availability, and plant footprints play a crucial role in siting. Thus, each deployment site presents distinct challenges that influence SMR design considerations or selection depending on which design is better suited to a certain location. For instance, desert regions require solutions to extreme heat, water scarcity, and sandstorms, often necessitating air-cooling systems or advanced water management strategies. In mountainous areas, SMRs must be engineered to withstand seismic activity, landslides, and accessibility constraints. Meanwhile, SMRs near rivers or coastal areas can take advantage of water cooling but must address risks such as flooding, saltwater corrosion, and regulatory restrictions on water use [54].

A thorough assessment of these site-specific parameters ensures that the selected SMR design aligns with environmental conditions, energy demands, and regulatory requirements. Table 2 provides an example of such parameters, illustrating key technical factors that can be evaluated [49]. However, beyond site-specific considerations, a broader evaluation of nuclear power plants is necessary to ensure their long-term feasibility and integration into the national energy strategy.

In this context, the reactor type and thermal capacity must be compatible with the existing grid infrastructure, while factors such as coolant selection, fuel enrichment, and refueling cycles influence operational efficiency, fuel logistics, and regulatory oversight. For geologically active countries like the Philippines, seismic resilience, land availability, and disaster preparedness are critical considerations. Additionally, the regulatory status of a reactor design significantly affects deployment timelines, licensing processes, and overall project feasibility. Given the Philippines’ high seismic activity, geographic constraints, and increasing electricity demand, selecting a nuclear power plant requires balancing technological readiness, safety, economic feasibility, and grid integration. This involves weighing the reliability of proven reactor technologies against the potential benefits of next-generation designs, ultimately shaping the country’s long-term energy security and sustainability.

To support such informed decision making, a wealth of publicly available materials and reports provide valuable insights into nuclear energy development. For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) offers a comprehensive overview of advanced SMR technologies and their global development status [49]. Brown et al. examine the infrastructure, government policies, and resource requirements for deploying both Large and Small Modular Reactors, with a particular focus on Australia’s energy landscape [55]. Additionally, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Technology Assessment Design Handbook presents a structured framework for evaluating technological innovations, aiding policymakers in making well-informed decisions [56]. Together, these references offer essential technical insights relevant to the adoption of both large nuclear power plants and SMRs.

Table 2. Fundamental components of a nuclear power plant, regardless of design [57,58].

Technical Parameters	Description
Reactor type	The specific type or model of the nuclear reactor being described, such as pressurized water reactors (PWRs), boiling water reactors (BWRs), etc.
Coolant/moderator	The substance used to transfer heat away from the reactor core (coolant) and, if applicable, to slow down neutrons to sustain the nuclear chain reaction (moderator).
Thermal/electrical capacity, MW(t)/MW(e)	The thermal and electrical power output of the reactor, usually measured in megawatts (MW). “MW(t)” refers to thermal power, while “MW(e)” refers to electrical power.
Fuel type	The type of nuclear fuel used in the reactor, such as uranium dioxide (UO2), mixed oxide fuel (MOX), high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), thorium-based fuels, tristructural isotropic (TRISO) fuel, or liquid metal fuels.
Fuel enrichment (%)	The percentage of uranium-235 in fresh nuclear fuel.
Refueling cycle (months)	The frequency at which the reactor requires refueling, usually measured in months.
Design life (years)	The expected operational lifespan of the reactor is usually measured in years.
Plant footprint (m2)	The physical footprint or area occupied by the reactor plant, including buildings, structures, and associated facilities.
Seismic design (SSE)	The reactor’s ability to withstand seismic events, typically expressed in terms of seismic design category or maximum ground motion acceleration.
Design status	The current status of the reactor’s design and development, indicating whether it is in the design phase, the conceptual phase, under construction, or successfully deployed.

Table 2. Fundamental components of a nuclear power plant, regardless of design [57,58].

Technical Parameters	Description
Reactor type	The specific type or model of the nuclear reactor being described, such as pressurized water reactors (PWRs), boiling water reactors (BWRs), etc.
Coolant/moderator	The substance used to transfer heat away from the reactor core (coolant) and, if applicable, to slow down neutrons to sustain the nuclear chain reaction (moderator).
Thermal/electrical capacity, MW(t)/MW(e)	The thermal and electrical power output of the reactor, usually measured in megawatts (MW). “MW(t)” refers to thermal power, while “MW(e)” refers to electrical power.
Fuel type	The type of nuclear fuel used in the reactor, such as uranium dioxide (UO2), mixed oxide fuel (MOX), high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), thorium-based fuels, tristructural isotropic (TRISO) fuel, or liquid metal fuels.
Fuel enrichment (%)	The percentage of uranium-235 in fresh nuclear fuel.
Refueling cycle (months)	The frequency at which the reactor requires refueling, usually measured in months.
Design life (years)	The expected operational lifespan of the reactor is usually measured in years.
Plant footprint (m2)	The physical footprint or area occupied by the reactor plant, including buildings, structures, and associated facilities.
Seismic design (SSE)	The reactor’s ability to withstand seismic events, typically expressed in terms of seismic design category or maximum ground motion acceleration.
Design status	The current status of the reactor’s design and development, indicating whether it is in the design phase, the conceptual phase, under construction, or successfully deployed.

2.1.1. Reactor Type

The nuclear reactor core is the fundamental component of an SMR, where nuclear fission occurs to generate heat. This heat is then transferred to a coolant system and used to produce steam that drives turbines, ultimately generating electricity.

Reactor designs vary based on their moderator, coolant, and neutron spectrum, which influence their efficiency, fuel requirements, and operational characteristics. Most reactors fall into two broad categories: thermal reactors, which use a moderator to slow down neutrons and enhance fission efficiency, and fast neutron reactors, which rely on fast-moving neutrons to sustain the chain reaction [57,59].

Among thermal reactors, light water reactors (LWRs) are the most common, utilizing ordinary water as both a coolant and moderator. LWRs include pressurized water reactors (PWRs), where water is kept under high pressure to prevent boiling, and boiling water reactors (BWRs), where water boils directly in the core to generate steam. Another type is heavy water reactors (HWRs), such as CANDU reactors, which use heavy water (D₂O) as a moderator, allowing them to operate with natural uranium fuel and reducing the need for enrichment. Other thermal reactor designs include gas-cooled reactors (GCRs), which use gases like carbon dioxide or helium as coolants. These include advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs), known for their high efficiency [57,59].

In contrast, fast neutron reactors (FNRs) do not use a moderator and instead rely on fast neutrons for fission. These include sodium-cooled fast reactors (SFRs) and lead-cooled fast reactors (LFRs), which offer advantages such as fuel recycling and high-temperature operation. Molten salt reactors (MSRs), another emerging design, use liquid fuel mixed with molten salt, providing enhanced safety and efficiency [57,59].

Given the diverse range of reactor technologies, national policies may favor specific designs based on regulatory considerations, operational history, and safety performance, as is currently observed in the Philippines. The pending Philippine Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority (PhilATOM) Bill, currently filed in Congress, signals a preference for water-cooled reactor (WCR) technologies, which include heavy water reactors (HWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs) [60,61]. This inclination may be driven by WCRs’ extensive operational track record and strong safety performance, which decision makers perceive as a practical choice for the country’s nuclear energy ambitions.

However, while WCRs are favored, they are just one category among several reactor technologies, each with its own set of advantages and challenges. As shown in

Table 3. Typical water-cooled reactor types and their advantages and challenges [58,59,63].

Category	Reactor Type	Advantages	Challenges
Heavy Water Reactors (HWRs)	Heavy Water Reactor (HWR)	Can use natural uranium, reducing fuel enrichment needs; high neutron economy allows for alternative fuel cycles (e.g., thorium); continuous refueling improves operational flexibility	Heavy water is expensive to produce and maintain; Larger physical footprint compared to LWRs; proliferation concerns due to potential plutonium production
Light Water Reactors (LWRs)	Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)	Well-established global operational history; strong safety record with negative reactivity feedback; compatible with existing regulatory frameworks	Requires high-pressure operation, increasing design complexity; higher construction and maintenance costs; produces high-level radioactive waste
	Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)	Direct steam generation simplifies system design; fewer components compared to PWRs; faster refueling process	Water boiling within the reactor core leads to reactivity instabilities; higher radiation exposure to turbines; requires enriched uranium fuel
	Integral Pressurized Water Reactor (iPWR)	Compact, modular design enables faster deployment; integral components enhance safety; reduced refueling frequency simplifies operations	Limited operational history compared to traditional PWRs; smaller power output may impact economic viability; initial capital investment can be high

, selecting a specific reactor type depends on multiple factors, including safety considerations, fuel availability, regulatory requirements, and intended applications. A comprehensive assessment of these factors can be conducted using the IAEA Reactor Technology Assessment (RTA) method [62].

2.1.2. Coolant and Moderator

The efficiency of SMRs is heavily influenced by the choice of coolant and moderator, as these factors directly impact thermal output and energy conversion efficiency. Advanced SMR designs, beyond those currently shortlisted, have demonstrated the capability to achieve outlet temperatures as high as 700 °C. A notable example is the High-Temperature Test Reactor (HTTR) in Japan, developed to explore high-temperature applications beyond electricity generation [64,65].

Such a high-temperature operation not only improves electricity generation efficiency but also unlocks new industrial applications, particularly in hydrogen production. Thermochemical processes such as high-temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) and the iodine–sulfur (I-S) cycle benefit significantly from these elevated temperatures. While the large-scale industrial adoption of nuclear-assisted hydrogen production remains in the demonstration phase, ongoing advancements in high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) technology—especially in Japan—suggest that commercial feasibility is within reach [64,65].

Beyond hydrogen production, the ability to sustain higher temperatures also plays a crucial role in reactor coolant selection, a key factor in optimizing efficiency and safety. Currently, water is the most widely used primary coolant in nuclear power plants due to its excellent heat transfer properties, availability, and cost-effectiveness [66]. Additionally, water serves as an effective neutron moderator, slowing down neutrons to sustain the fission reaction efficiently. While alternatives such as gas or heavy water offer advantages—such as higher operating temperatures or reduced neutron absorption—they often introduce additional costs, technical complexities, or supply constraints.

This preference for water-cooled reactors is reflected in the global nuclear industry, where pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs) dominate. Their widespread adoption can be largely attributed to geopolitical factors, particularly the influence of the United States through the Atoms for Peace program [67,68]. By providing allied nations with technical expertise, training, and financial assistance, this initiative played a crucial role in establishing PWRs and BWRs as the dominant technologies, particularly in Europe and Asia. While historical factors have shaped the prominence of LWRs, the emergence of advanced SMRs with alternative coolants presents new opportunities for diversifying nuclear deployment and improving efficiency.

However, conventional light water reactors (LWRs) such as PWRs and BWRs face inherent efficiency limitations. Their thermal efficiency typically ranges between 30 and 35% due to their relatively low operating temperatures (around 300 °C). In contrast, advanced reactor designs—including high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) and sodium-cooled fast reactors (SFRs)—can achieve significantly higher efficiencies. For instance, Japan’s HTTR, an HTGR, has demonstrated outlet temperatures of 950 °C, enabling thermal efficiencies exceeding 40% [59].

These efficiency gains stem from operating at higher temperatures, which enhance thermodynamic cycle performance. Unlike LWRs, which are constrained by the boiling point of water, HTGRs and SFRs operate in temperature regimes where more efficient thermodynamic cycles, such as the Brayton cycle or supercritical CO₂ cycle, can be utilized. This allows for greater energy extraction from heat, improving overall reactor performance [59].

In the Philippine context, the selection of the coolant and moderator for SMRs must consider the country’s tropical climate, water resource availability, and energy infrastructure constraints. While light water remains a practical choice due to its established use in conventional reactors, the country’s high ambient temperatures may influence thermal efficiency and cooling system requirements. Alternative coolants, such as helium or molten salts, which enable higher reactor outlet temperatures, could be explored for their potential to enhance efficiency and resilience against external temperature fluctuations. Moreover, the availability of heavy water or enriched uranium fuel—required for certain advanced reactor designs—poses logistical challenges, as the Philippines currently lacks domestic enrichment and heavy water production capabilities. This makes thermal reactors with water moderation more viable in the near term, given their compatibility with existing international nuclear fuel supply chains. However, as the country refines its nuclear energy roadmap, evaluating coolant and moderator options based on long-term sustainability, fuel supply security, and adaptation to local environmental conditions will be crucial for ensuring safe and efficient reactor operations.

2.1.3. Fuel Type

The choice of fuel type in small modular reactors (SMRs) plays a crucial role in reactor performance, fuel cycle efficiency, and overall operational sustainability. Traditional nuclear reactors primarily use uranium dioxide (UO₂) or mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, with carefully controlled uranium enrichment levels to sustain a stable chain reaction. In SMRs, particularly advanced designs, alternative fuel types have been developed to enhance safety, reduce waste, and extend operational cycles. High-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), enriched between 5% and 20%, is gaining attention for its ability to improve neutron economy and prolong refueling intervals compared to conventional low-enriched uranium (LEU). Other advanced fuels include tristructural isotropic (TRISO) fuel, composed of multilayer-coated uranium particles that enhance containment and safety, and liquid metal fuels, used in some fast reactors and molten salt reactors (MSRs) to enable in-line fuel recycling and efficient heat transfer [59,69].

In the Philippine context, nuclear fuel selection will be shaped by factors such as supply chain reliability, regulatory readiness, and infrastructure constraints. Without domestic uranium enrichment or fuel fabrication facilities, the country will rely entirely on international suppliers. Proposed nuclear policies favor light water reactor (LWR) technology, which depends on well-established LEU supply chains [60,61]. While advanced fuels like TRISO and liquid metal fuels offer advantages in fuel integrity and waste minimization, their adoption would require significant regulatory adjustments and specialized infrastructure. Thus, assessing fuel availability, safety, and long-term sustainability is essential in determining the most viable SMR technologies for the country’s nuclear energy program.

2.1.4. Fuel Enrichment and Refueling Cycle

Fuel enrichment is the process of increasing the proportion of uranium-235 in natural uranium to make it more suitable for use in nuclear reactors. The reason for its enrichment is that natural uranium contains only about 0.7% uranium-235, which is insufficient for sustaining a controlled chain reaction in most commercial reactors [70]. Different types of reactors require varying levels of enrichment; for instance, pressurized water reactors (PWRs) like the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) typically use low-enriched uranium (LEU) with 3–5% uranium-235, while heavy water reactors (HWRs) can operate using natural uranium due to the superior neutron-moderating properties of heavy water. In light water reactors (LWRs) such as PWRs, ordinary water serves as both a coolant and a moderator, slowing down fast neutrons to sustain fission. However, because light water absorbs some neutrons, fuel must be enriched to compensate for these losses. The problem with fuel enrichment lies in its complexity, cost, and the proliferation risks associated with higher enrichment levels, which require strict international oversight [57,59].

In a PWR system like the BNPP, refueling is a carefully managed process that occurs every 12 to 24 months, depending on fuel burnup [71]. During refueling, a portion of the reactor core’s spent fuel is removed and replaced with fresh, enriched fuel assemblies. The spent fuel, which remains highly radioactive, must be stored safely. Initially, it is placed in on-site spent fuel pools to allow for cooling and radiation decay. Eventually, long-term management decisions must be made regarding its disposal. In the Philippine context, if the BNPP or future reactors were to operate, a national strategy would be needed to determine whether spent fuel should be stored in a domestic repository or sent abroad for reprocessing. One option is a fuel take-back program, in which supplier countries retrieve spent fuel for reprocessing [72]. The issue of nuclear waste management is also being discussed in the proposed bill, highlighting the need for clear policies on spent fuel disposal [61]. SMRs, which produce a smaller spent fuel inventory, also require clear policies on waste management [73]. Their compact fuel cycle could make take-back agreements more feasible, but a domestic repository remains an option that the Philippines would need to consider in the long run.

2.1.5. Design Life

The design life of an SMR refers to the expected duration for which the reactor is designed to operate efficiently and safely under normal conditions [74]. Essentially, it represents the lifespan that engineers envision for the reactor to reliably generate electricity or other intended services. Typically established during the initial planning and design phases, determining this lifespan involves considering factors such as construction materials, adherence to engineering standards, regulatory compliance, and projections of wear and tear over time.

2.1.6. Plant Footprint

Plant footprint refers to the total physical area of land occupied by a nuclear power plant facility and its associated infrastructure, encompassing not only the reactor building itself but also structures such as cooling towers, turbine buildings, fuel storage areas, administrative buildings, parking lots, and security perimeters. Minimizing the plant footprint optimizes space utilization, particularly in urban areas where land is scarce and expensive, thereby reducing costs and lessening the environmental impact by preserving natural land. The compact footprint requirement of SMR designs enhances their siting flexibility [48,51]. This feature can be particularly advantageous in the Philippines, where large land spaces are typically unavailable on small islands due to preservation or environmental protection efforts.

2.1.7. Seismic Design

Seismic design refers to the engineering principles and techniques used to design structures that can withstand earthquakes. It ensures that buildings, bridges, nuclear power plants, and other critical infrastructure remain safe and functional during and after seismic events [75]. In the case of SMRs, seismic resilience is enhanced through compact, integrated systems that reduce overall seismic load, reinforced structures with base isolators or damping systems, and underground or pool-type configurations that stabilize heat removal and minimize structural stress. The seismic design of SMRs varies based on the structural configuration, reactor type, and regulatory requirements [76]. Underground designs offer greater seismic resistance, while aboveground reactors require reinforced foundations. Compliance with site-specific seismic regulations influences design choices. In addition, many designs incorporate passive safety features, such as gravity-driven cooling and automatic shutdown mechanisms, ensuring continued safety during seismic events. These innovations make SMRs well suited for deployment in high-seismic regions, offering improved safety and adaptability compared to traditional nuclear reactors [74].

Given the Philippines’ location in the Pacific Ring of Fire [77], where frequent seismic activity poses a significant challenge, seismic design is a crucial factor in selecting an appropriate SMR. Ensuring robust seismic resilience is essential to maintaining safety and reliability, especially in the face of earthquakes caused by tectonic movements or volcanic activity. A well-engineered seismic design not only enhances structural integrity but also minimizes operational disruptions and ensures the continued safe operation of the reactor under challenging geophysical conditions. Therefore, choosing SMRs with strong seismic resilience is essential for their successful deployment in the country.

2.2. SMR Technologies in Various Stages of Development

In 2024, there was a significant global development effort underway for SMRs, with around eighty (80) different SMR designs in various stages of progress as reported by the IAEA [49]. The SMR designs encompass various types, including land-based and marine-based water-cooled reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, liquid metal-cooled fast neutron spectrum reactors, molten salt reactors, and microreactors. Among the more than 80 SMR designs, as identified by the IAEA, some of the prominent SMRs are listed in Table 3 with the country of origin. The current design column lists all different SMR designs as reported by the IAEA. Among these designs, this study further categorizes the current SMR designs, which are already in the advanced stages of development such as those under pre-commercialization and those already with proof of concept—with demonstration or operational. The information compiled originates from reliable sources, including reports released by respected international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), and the World Nuclear Association (WNA). These reports offer valuable insights into the progress and potential of SMRs [1,49,66,78]. Detailed technical specifications of each SMR design, which go beyond the scope of this paper, are available in reference [49].

Notably, advanced-stage designs are prominent in countries such as the United States, China, Russia, Argentina, and the UK. These designs have either completed pre-licensing and certified design phases or have pilot and demonstration plants already constructed. Among the more than 80 SMRs, only 5 SMR designs have been demonstrated, under construction or already in operation. The KLT-40s and HTR-PM designs stand out as forerunners, as they have not only reached the deployment phase but have also commenced generating electricity [79,80,81]. This demonstrates the practical feasibility of SMRs. On the other hand, designs like the ACP100, CAREM, and BREST-300-OD, though still in the construction phase, signify a promising future for SMR technology [82,83,84]. Since these five SMR designs have already shown significant advancement, these SMR designs can be an option for further evaluation and assessment for near-term deployment. Other pre-commercialization SMR designs as listed in

Table 4. Overview of countries with notable nuclear power programs and with active development activities with SMRs as of December 2024.

Developer Country	SMR Designs
	Current Designs [49]	Advanced Stage of Development or with Proof of Concept [77]	Demonstration Plants Under Construction	With an Operational Power Plant (Connected to the Grid)
USA	NuScale VOYGRTM, BWRX-300, SMR-160, Westinghouse SMR, mPower, Xe-100, SC-HTGR, EM2, Westinghouse Lead Fast Reactor, SUPERSTAR, ThorCon, U-Battery, AURORA, Westinghouse	BWRX-300, Hermes, NuScale VOYGRTM, Aurora, Natrium, XE-I00	None	None
France	NuwardTM	NuwardTM	None	None
China	ACP100, CAP200, DHR400, HAPPY200, ACPR50S, TEPLATORTM	ACPR50S, ACP100, HTR-PM	ACP100	HTR-PM (demonstration)
Russia	RITM-200, UNITHERM, VK-300, KARAT-45, KARAT-100, RUTA-70, ELENA, KLT-40S, RITM-200N, ABV-6E, BREST-OD-300	KLT-40S, RITM-200N, RITM-200S	BREST-OD-300	KLT-40s (commercial)
South Korea	SMART, Micro Uranus, i-SMR, BANDI-60	SMART	None	None
Canada	CANDU SMR, STARCORE, ARC-100, Integral Molten Salt Reactor, Stable Salt Reactor-Wasteburner	ARC-100, Stable Salt Reactor-Wasteburner	None	None
United Kingdom	U-Battery, UK SMR, STARCORE	Rolls-Royce UK SMR, U-Battery	None	None
Japan	DMS, IMR, 4S, GT-MHR, MHR-T Reactor, HTR-10, HTTR, Fuji, MoveluX	None	None	None
Sweden	SEALER-55	SEALER-55	None	None
Argentina	CAREM	CAREM	CAREM	None
Denmark	Copenhagen Atomics Waste Burner	None	None	None

may be considered and their selection may just be dependent on the local country regulation or nuclear policy.

2.3. SMR Technologies in Various Stages of Development: SMR Designs with Operational Power Plants and Those Under Construction

The technical parameters of five (5) SMR technologies that have been shortlisted and are already in the advanced stages of development are shown in

Table 5. Comparison table of the technical parameters of selected SMR designs.

Technical Parameters	KLT-40s	HTR-PM	ACP100	CAREM	BREST-OD-300
Technology developer	JSC “Afrikantov OKBM”, Rosatom, Russian Federation	INET, Tsinghua University, China	CNNC/NPIC, China	CNEA, Argentina	NIKIET, Russian Federation
Reactor type	PWR	Modular pebble bed HTGR	Integral PWR	Integral PWR	Liquid metal-cooled fast reactor
Coolant/moderator	Light water/light water	Helium/graphite	Light water/light water	Light water/light water	Lead
Thermal/electrical capacity, MW(t)/MW(e)	150/35	2 × 250/210	385/125	100/~30 (CAREM 25)	700/300
Fuel type	UO2 pellet in silumin matrix	TRISO	UO2	UO2 pellet/hexagonal	Mixed uranium plutonium nitride
Fuel enrichment (%)	18.6	8.5	<4.95	3.1% (CAREM25)	up to 14.5
Refueling cycle (months)	30–36	On-line refueling	24	14 (CAREM25)	36–78
Design life (years)	40	40	60	40	30
Plant footprint (m2)	3420 (floating NPP)	256,100	200,000	36,000 (CAREM25)	80 × 80
Seismic design (SSE)	~0.3 g	0.2 g	0.3 g	0.25 g	~0.2 g–0.25 g
Design status (as of December 2024)	Began full commercial operation in May 2020 and had its first refueling in November 2023 [81]	Connected to the grid and entered commercial operation in December 2023 [80]	Steel containment dome was installed in November 2023 [85] and Control Room was commissioned in May 2024 [86]	Construction in progress [83]	Construction in progress [82]

. These parameters provide can valuable information for decision makers and stakeholders in assessing the potential local deployment of SMRs. The data presented in Table 5 are sourced from the latest IAEA publication, which compiles recent advancements and innovations in SMR technology, incorporating information submitted by various technology developers [49].

From an energy engineering perspective, several specific parameters stand out as particularly crucial for this paper and future analyses. These parameters include the reactor type, coolant and moderator used, thermal and electrical capacities, fuel type, fuel enrichment levels, refueling cycle duration, design life expectancy, plant footprint size, and seismic design considerations. A thorough understanding of these factors is essential in evaluating the suitability of different SMR technologies for deployment in the Philippines.

While technical specifications are fundamental in assessing reactor technologies, they are only one aspect of the decision-making process. The successful deployment of SMRs in the country will also depend on non-technical factors such as policies, regulatory frameworks, ongoing initiatives, and future energy strategies. Thus, a comprehensive assessment must consider both technical and broader contextual elements to determine the most viable SMR option for the country.

3. Related Policies, Issues, Activities, and Prospects for Deployment of SMRs in the Philippines

The history of nuclear power spans more than six decades, characterized by significant shifts in global policies. Presently, there are over 440 nuclear power plants located in 32 countries, contributing roughly 9% to the global electricity supply. However, this share was once higher, around 16%, before recent decades saw a notable decline. This decline can be linked to various nuclear accidents in this century, which spurred a global shift toward renewable energy sources like solar and wind power as growing public opposition to nuclear energy pushed governments to reassess their policies and invest more in renewables [87,88,89,90]. Initially considered too expensive, advancements in solar and wind power technologies have considerably reduced their costs, making them increasingly competitive with nuclear power [91]. This shift has not gone unnoticed by the business community, resulting in a significant redirection of energy project investments [92]. Consequently, the nuclear power industry, especially in countries heavily reliant on nuclear energy, finds itself navigating a transformed landscape, with its significance somewhat diminished in the aftermath of these events, alongside challenges such as evolving regulatory frameworks, public perception concerns, and competition from alternative energy sources.

As the global community confronts the pressing challenge of climate change, there is a noticeable shift toward clean energy alternatives, bringing nuclear power back into focus. This renewed attention stems from nuclear energy’s contribution to energy security, advancements in nuclear technology, and the evolution of clean energy policies worldwide [93]. Many countries are advancing nuclear energy initiatives, though not all have embraced it. For instance, Germany has fully phased out its nuclear program, while Italy, after initially abandoning its nuclear ambitions, is now reassessing its role in the country’s future energy strategy [6,7]. While some regions are moving away from nuclear power, others, such as Russia, are actively marketing their large conventional nuclear power plants worldwide [5]. Meanwhile, China is making significant progress in nuclear plant construction and could soon surpass France in the number of constructed nuclear power plants [5]. Additionally, Korea, which previously considered phasing out nuclear power in 2017, is now contemplating its revival. Similarly, Japan is gradually restarting its nuclear power plants following the Fukushima accident [94].

When launching a nuclear power program, there is no universal approach, as each country exercises its sovereignty in determining strategies and decision-making processes. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) provides a notable example, having recently completed four nuclear power plants. Leveraging its substantial financial resources and geopolitical standing, the UAE strategically designed its nuclear program to align with national priorities, engaging leading international nuclear experts and partnering with South Korea as its chosen vendor to plan, construct, and operate its plants [95]. In contrast, Turkey pursued a different route, opting for a build-own-operate (BOO) model in partnership with Russia. Under this arrangement, Russia’s state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom, is responsible for financing, constructing, and operating the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant. While this approach reduced Turkey’s upfront investment burden, it also created long-term dependence on Russian expertise and fuel supply [96]. Similarly, Bangladesh adopted a vendor-driven model, collaborating with Rosatom for the construction of the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant, but with a distinct financial structure. Unlike Turkey, Bangladesh secured financial assistance from Russia, with state-backed loans covering most of the project costs [97]. This underscores the crucial role of financial structuring in nuclear power development, as access to external funding can significantly influence the feasibility and timeline of such projects [79]. These experiences highlight how the diversity of approaches to nuclear energy adoption reflects the influence of geopolitical considerations, financial capabilities, and strategic partnerships in shaping each nation’s path.

In the Philippines, where there is a renewed interest in nuclear power, the country has been seeking guidance from the IAEA. It is important to note that the IAEA does not have the authority to dictate what the Philippines can or cannot do. Instead, it can offer guidance and assistance to ensure that any decisions regarding nuclear power projects are implemented safely and in line with the best international practices.

Figure 2 presents a structured diagram illustrating the framework and chronological progression of a nuclear-embarking country toward developing its first nuclear power plant, following the IAEA’s Milestones Approach. Figure 2 is structured into two horizontal sections. The upper section outlines the overall development of nuclear power infrastructure, while the lower section details the project stages specific to the first nuclear power plant. The framework is divided into three phases. In Phase 1, the country evaluates its readiness and makes an informed decision on whether to pursue nuclear power. Key outputs of this phase include establishing a national position, developing legal and regulatory frameworks, and forming a Nuclear Energy Program Implementing Organization (NEPIO). Moving to Phase 2, the country builds the necessary infrastructure, including regulatory bodies, safety and security frameworks, and human resource capabilities. This phase typically involves an Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) mission conducted by the IAEA to assess progress and provide recommendations. Finally, in Phase 3, the country finalizes its nuclear regulatory framework, secures financing, selects a vendor, and begins the construction of its first nuclear power plant, leading to its commission and eventual operation. The entire process follows a timeline of approximately 10–15 years, from the initial consideration phase to the commercial operation of the plant [98].

Figure 3 presents the current status of new nuclear power infrastructure developments in the Philippines across different phases that have been publicly documented. At present, most activities are concentrated in Phase 1, with key milestones including the establishment of the Nuclear Energy Program Implementing Organization (NEPIO) in 2016, the successful execution of the Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) mission in 2018, and the completion of a public perception survey in 2019. Additionally, significant governmental actions, such as the issuance of Executive Order 116 (E.O. 116) in 2020 and Executive Order 164 (E.O. 164) in 2022, have played a crucial role in shaping the country’s nuclear energy landscape [28,99,100,101].

Collectively, these developments form a strong foundation for a safe, secure, and sustainable nuclear power program by addressing key preparatory elements. NEPIO’s establishment provided institutional coordination, while the INIR mission assessed readiness and identified areas for improvement based on the IAEA guidelines. The 2019 public perception survey contributed to stakeholder engagement strategies, fostering transparency and public trust. Meanwhile, E.O. 116 mandated a feasibility study to support evidence-based policymaking, and E.O. 164 formally incorporated nuclear power into the national energy policy, solidifying its legal and regulatory framework. These steps, aligned with international best practices, ensure a structured and well-informed approach to nuclear energy development in the Philippines.

One of the most significant activities among those mentioned is the INIR mission, conducted under the IAEA’s auspices, which provides a structured evaluation of a country’s readiness to establish a nuclear energy program. This mission assesses key infrastructure issues and produces a report with recommendations and action plans, helping the country identify and address gaps while progressing toward nuclear power deployment [101]. As part of this comprehensive review, the mission evaluates 19 Infrastructure Issues recommended by the IAEA, including national position, nuclear safety, management, funding and financing, legal framework, safeguards, regulatory framework, radiation protection, electrical grid, human resource development, stakeholder involvement, site and supporting facilities, environmental protection, emergency planning, nuclear security, nuclear fuel cycle, radioactive waste management, industrial involvement, and procurement [98]. For the successful deployment and implementation of any SMR technology, these infrastructure issues must be adequately addressed.

Transitioning to Phase 2, the focus shifts to development activities, highlighted by two significant developments. Firstly, the Philippine House of Representatives passed House Bill 9293, a critical move towards establishing the Philippine Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PhilATOM). Secondly, the signing of the 123 Agreement with the United States lays down a legal framework for nuclear energy projects with American companies [102]. The goal is to promote collaboration between the Philippines and the United States in the responsible and secure utilization of nuclear power while fully adhering to the safety, safeguards, and security guidelines outlined by the IAEA. In addition, the Department of Energy created the Nuclear Energy Division [103], which is a good indication of the Philippines commitment to advancing its nuclear power program.

One crucial factor in operating an SMR in the Philippines is obtaining a license from the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI), which is the current nuclear regulator as per Republic Act 5207 [104]. The PNRI, formerly known as the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), holds the exclusive responsibility for advancing and overseeing the safe and peaceful utilization of nuclear science and technology within the country. For example, for Phase 2, a construction license must first be secured. Historically, the PAEC issued a construction license for the first nuclear power plant in the Philippines, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). However, the BNPP never received an operational license due to different concerns that led to its non-operation. With the emergence of SMRs, the Philippines must modernize its licensing system and procedures, considering that the BNPP was licensed decades ago and no new nuclear facilities have been approved since.

Currently, if a private entity intends to construct an SMR, it must navigate a two-step licensing procedure, involving both a construction and an operating license. Prior to commencing the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant, prospective applicants must gain PNRI approval. They must meet the stipulated criteria outlined in the Code of PNRI Regulations (CPR), specifically CPR Part 5 and CPR Part 7 [105,106], which addresses the siting requirements and licensing of nuclear power plants, such as seismic safety, environmental impact, population density considerations, and emergency preparedness. This CPR is established following Republic Act No. 5207, also known as the “Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968 [104]. Its primary purpose is to set forth the regulations and licensing procedures governing atomic energy facilities and materials in the Philippines. It outlines the prerequisites for license applications for the construction of new nuclear installations or significant modifications and renovations to existing ones, as well as license applications for the operation of nuclear installations, encompassing nuclear commissioning tests. However, the establishment of PhilAtom is expected to introduce changes to licensing processes and other nuclear regulatory requirements, including a more streamlined framework for approving nuclear facilities, enhanced safety and security protocols, and clearer guidelines for public engagement and transparency. Furthermore, PhilAtom will serve as the sole regulatory authority for both nuclear power and non-power applications of nuclear energy in the country, marking a significant departure from the current setup under the PNRI, which simultaneously promotes and regulates nuclear energy [61].

The last quarter of 2024 marked significant progress for the Philippines’ nuclear energy initiatives. The Nuclear Supply Chain Forum, the first of its kind in the country, gathered diverse stakeholders to discuss innovations and best practices, guiding the transition to sustainable energy [107,108]. Senate Bill 2899 improved upon its predecessor by addressing regulatory gaps through a dedicated nuclear regulatory authority and streamlined licensing. It enhances financial sustainability with a cost recovery mechanism requiring nuclear operators to fund decommissioning and waste management. The bill aligns with IAEA standards, mandating cybersecurity audits, a risk-informed framework for advanced reactor licensing, and disaster-resilient infrastructure to withstand seismic and climate risks. It also establishes a decommissioning trust fund, sets nuclear energy targets for 2050, and strengthens compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) through enhanced safeguards and material accounting [61]. Additionally, the follow-up INIR Mission reviewed the country’s readiness for a nuclear power program. A team of IAEA experts noted significant progress in addressing recommendations from the first INIR mission in 2018. It confirmed the Philippines’ adoption of a national position to advance its nuclear energy program [109].

Phase 3 involves final investment decisions, contracting, and construction. Once these stages are completed, the commissioning and operation of an SMR or any nuclear power plant can begin. After several years of operation, the plant will be evaluated, and based on the recommendations, it will eventually undergo decommissioning.

4. Summary and Conclusions

This study presents a technical review of SMR technologies, outlining key technical parameters and the global development landscape. It highlights various SMR designs at different stages of development and operation, identifying five (5) designs with established pilot or demonstration facilities or currently under construction. To support future analyses, this study provides key technical characteristics, incorporating important local insights such as reactor type, coolant and moderator, thermal and electrical capacities, fuel type and enrichment, refueling cycle, design life, plant footprint, and seismic design considerations.

Building on this technical foundation, this study also examines policies, challenges, and prospects for SMR deployment in the Philippines. It provides an overview of the country’s existing nuclear power infrastructure and offers insights into the ongoing development of its legislative and regulatory frameworks. The Philippines is actively exploring nuclear energy adoption, guided by the IAEA’s Milestones Approach. At present, efforts are primarily concentrated in Phases 1 and 2, focusing on policy development, regulatory framework establishment, and addressing nuclear infrastructure issues.

A critical aspect of SMR deployment is the licensing and regulatory oversight, currently under the Department of Science and Technology-Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (DOST-PNRI). With the proposed Philippine Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PhilATOM) Bill, reforms are expected to enhance regulatory clarity and strengthen governance over nuclear power development in the country.

While certain SMR technologies demonstrate technical readiness, their successful deployment in the Philippines requires a comprehensive assessment of factors across the various phases of nuclear infrastructure development. These factors, encapsulated in the IAEA’s 19 Infrastructure Issues, must be carefully evaluated to ensure the viability and effective implementation of an SMR project. A well-structured approach to these challenges will be essential in determining the feasibility of integrating SMRs into the country’s energy mix.