U.S. Army opens solicitation for microreactors at military installations

Last month, the U.S. Army (Army) announced its Janus Program, a next-generation nuclear power program to deploy nuclear reactors for national defense installations and critical missions. Under the Janus Program, the Army will field nuclear microreactors (Microreactor Power Plants or MPPs).

The recent Executive Orders (EO) called on agencies to explore jurisdictional pathways that had long existed but not been regularly used with the goal of expediting the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies outside of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing. Specifically, the EOs called on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of War (DoW) to use their distinct agency-specific authorities to authorize advanced reactors, as we previously covered.

Specifically, DoW’s Janus Program sprang from Executive Order 14299 “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security,” which directed the Secretary of Defense (now War) to commence operation of a nuclear reactor, regulated by the Army, at a domestic military base or installation by September 30, 2028. This executive order and the Janus Program reflect the criticality of stable, reliable energy sources, something nuclear is poised to provide.

As we have explained, the DoW has independent authority under the Atomic Energy Act Sec. 91 to construct and operate reactors for military purposes independent of the NRC. It has most recently used this authority in the development of the Project Pele microreactor in partnership with the DOE.

This week the Army announced nine installations at which it will consider siting microreactors under the Janus Program and issued a corresponding solicitation. The nine installations are as follows:

1. Fort Benning
2. Fort Bragg
3. Fort Campbell
4. Fort Drum
5. Fort Hood
6. Fort Wainwright
7. Holston Army Ammunition Plant
8. Joint Base Lewis-McChord
9. Redstone Arsenal

What unifies these sites is that all nine apparently need additional generation resources. Although a number of these sites exported power at one point—meaning they are thoroughly integrated into the civilian grid—it does not appear that any of them currently sell power to the public. The most dramatic example, Fort Wainwright, formerly exported power from an on-site coal combined heat and power facility but is currently a net importer of energy. Dependent on aging coal-fired generators, this entire Alaskan region suffers from high energy costs and poor air quality, with limited transmission capabilities and few generation alternatives. Yet the area has significant needs from Fort Wainwright, Eielson Air Force Base (which is pursuing its own microreactor), the University of Alaska, and the Fort Knox Gold Mine. Sites like Fort Wainwright and the others on this list may offer opportunities to showcase microreactor technology to the public and demonstrate not only that it is a viable source of electricity, but that it can help resolve energy conundrums.

While not all nine listed sites will see microreactors installed, the Army stated it was committed to maximizing the number of sites based on technical feasibility, site suitability, and available resources. The number and location of the microreactors will be determined as part of the acquisition process. Interested parties should consider responding to the solicitation, which the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) is administering, by its December 15, 2025 deadline.

Solicitation details

The overarching goal of the solicitation is for the Army to prototype MPPs and demonstrate them on a military installation within the United States by 2030. The MPPs must provide continuous and reliable power in all DoW scenarios over a 30-year operating life. The prototyping activity will be done under a prototype other transaction agreement with the Army and transition to a power production agreement.

The Army intends to select multiple reactor designs and will pair each with a military installation, prototype a first-of-a-kind (FOAK) MPP under the Army’s regulatory authority, and then deploy a second-of-a-kind (SOAK) MPP under the same authority through iterative prototyping.

Proposals must include the following:

• Technical requirements.
  • Fuel: The MPP’s fuel must be ≤20% enriched U-235 and be legal for defense use. Such fuel must be available and fabricated on the Janus Program timeline (i.e., deployment by 2030). Defense-purpose feedstock may be made available as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for FOAK and SOAK; the proposal must address the implications of this GFE feedstock being both available and unavailable.
  • Power Output: The MPP should provide power up to 20 MW(e) or 60 MW(t).
  • Operational Capabilities: The MPP should have black-start and grid-start capabilities. When operating, the MPP must be capable of operating with a commercial grid connection and integrating with existing infrastructure to the greatest extent possible.
  • On-site control: The MPP must be controlled on-site and cannot be controlled wireless or remotely. Remote maintenance and diagnostic capabilities are allowed only if they comply with U.S. government cybersecurity (e.g., NIST 800-171 Rev. 2).
• Safety and siting. Proposals should note how an MPP includes reasonable and appropriate safety, physical, cyber, and safeguards measures. The MPP design should include passive safety features, to the extent practicable, and must address Natural Hazard Phenomena (e.g. seismic, flooding).
• Lifecycle responsibility. Proposals must cover the entire lifecycle of the MPP, including design, testing, regulation, construction, operations, deconstruction, and returning the site to an unrestricted release status. It is possible that more complex issues, such as the handling of spent nuclear fuel, will be hammered out at a later stage of negotiations, but MPP vendors should at least address all aspects of the reactor lifecycle.
  • The non-core and core components must be removed within 2 and 5 years of the contract end, respectively.
  • Before permitting the project, the Army must approve an initial irradiated material disposal plan and an initial decommissioning plan, both with adequate financial backing.
• Supply chain and technological gaps. MPP developers must address procurement of their supply chain and demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of how their technology addresses technological gaps.
  • Proposals must address how the MPP developer will procure a nuclear-grade supply chain compliant with defense-purpose limitations, e.g. identifiable and limited international sources.
  • MPP designers must provide the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) for equipment included in the design.
  • The proposal should identify gaps in codes and standards, computational tools, and materials performance data.
• Other Financing Arrangements. Although not necessary to address in the initial proposal, MPP vendors must have financial backing independent of the federal government in order to progress past Phase 2 of the solicitation. Proposals that rely entirely on government funding without vendor supported financial contributions for MPP prototypes will not be considered.

Interested parties must submit a solution brief to DIU by 11:59pm on December 15, 2025.

Novel considerations

Although the DoW has clear statutory authority to deploy nuclear reactors at military installations, doing so raises novel contracting and practical considerations.

The Army intends to make these awards via one or more Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) for the prototyping of the reactor. The structure of these OTAs is likely to follow the model used for Project Pele as well as other prototyping DoW activities. Each OTA likely will be structured on commercial terms as a fixed price milestone rather than as cost reimbursable agreements. This should lower the administrative overhead requirements faced by the developers, especially as related to accounting, audit, and reporting system requirements under the award.

Upon successful demonstration of a prototype, the DoW may enter into follow-on MPP production contracts and/or electricity production agreements. Transition pathways for the prototypes could include company owned/company operated or COCO Power Purchase Agreements in addition to production OTA Agreements or Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)-based contracts. Each of these contracting pathways would produce different obligations and requirements on the developer.

Additionally, contracting for the Janus Program creates two very specific novel legal issues that must be carefully considered during negotiations that are unique to nuclear development: nuclear liability and spent nuclear fuel management.

• Nuclear Liability. A developer regulated by the NRC would be covered under the NRC the Price Anderson Act (PAA), which is the federal law that establishes a comprehensive liability and insurance framework for nuclear incidents in the United States, ensuring compensation for the public while limiting the liability of nuclear operators. Additionally, under a DOE contract, a reactor developer would derive the benefit of DOE’s PAA nuclear hazard indemnification authority. These NRC and DOE authorities effectively grant developers PAA coverage automatically, which provides protection for third-party nuclear liability. However, projects developed outside the NRC/DOE frameworks—such as the types of deployments the DoW is currently pursuing under recent Executive Orders—do not automatically qualify for PAA coverage. The Army is therefore limited in its ability to provide indemnification to its selectees under the Janus Program.

In these cases, sometimes consider Public Law 85-804, which allows the government to indemnify contractors for unusually hazardous risks, including radiation-related incidents. The Army could use its Public Law 85-804 coverage to provide unlimited indemnification for unusually hazardous or nuclear activities through the contract with the MPP developers. As a general matter, companies strongly prefer the PAA’s automatic, well-established structure, whereas Public Law 85-804 indemnification must be affirmatively invoked by the agency head and is less commonly used. Alternatively, the Army and DOE could use an interagency agreement or an assisted OTA to either make the Army a contractor of DOE or make DOE a co-sponsor with Army of the project. If either of these options is selected, then the Army may be able to flow DOE’s statutory nuclear liability coverage to the MPP OTAs.

As developers in the Janus Program will be operating outside the standard indemnification system, they will want to carefully consider and negotiate the indemnification term in their OTAs.

• Spent Fuel Management. What happens to civilian spent nuclear fuel under a DoW-administered project is legally ambiguous. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and pursuant to NRC regulations, developers must enter a Standard Contract with DOE for disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The Standard Contract requires DOE to take back all spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste produced by NRC-licensed developers. This requirement does not exist for the Janus Program unless, like is the intent with the DOE prototyping reactor program, the MPPs transition to an NRC license at some point.

The Army may not have determined the answer to this issue yet, as the DIU solicitation indicates that spent fuel management solutions will be iteratively developed through an integrated and phased planning approach during the program. Nonetheless, developers should begin to consider plans for the treatment and management of their waste forms early, including consideration of their partners in the fuel cycle, and be prepared to include notional ideas as part of their applications.

Conclusion

The Janus Program provides an exciting opportunity for microreactor developers to deploy their technologies in cooperation with the U.S. government. As microreactor developers formulate their proposals and subsequently negotiate agreements with the DoW, there are many considerations about which the Hogan Lovells team is uniquely qualified to advise. We are prepared to leverage our extensive experience with nuclear regulation and deployment, as well as negotiating government agreements.

For more information, please contact Amy Roma, Partner; Stewart Forbes, Counsel; Porter Wiseman, Counsel; Stephanie Fishman, Senior Associate; and Cameron Hughes, Associate.