ML21026A315

Slides for January 26, 2021 Virtual Public Meeting on Developing a Regulatory Framework for Fusion Energy Systems

ML21026A315
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/26/2021
From:	William Reckley NRC/NRR/DANU/UARP
To:
Reckley W,NRC/NRR/DANU/UARP
References
Download: ML21026A315 (112)

Text

Developing a Regulatory Framework for Fusion Energy Systems January 26, 2021

Agenda Background NRC Staff (12:30-1:00)

Andrew Holland, Fusion Industry Association Diversity of Designs & Related Hazards Derek Sutherland, CT Fusion (1:00-1:30)

NRC Staff General Discussion (All)

Regulation as a Utilization Facility NRC Staff (Fission Reactor Model)

William Sowder, ASME FE.1 Standard (1:30-2:15)

Jeff Merrifield, Pillsbury General Discussion (All)

Break (2:15-2:30)

Byproduct Material Approach NRC staff (e.g., similar to accelerators)

David Kirtley, Sachin Desai, Helion/Hogan Lovells (2:30-3:30)

Tyler Ellis, Commonwealth Fusion Systems Agreement State Perspectives Megan Shober, Wisconsin; Jack Priest, Massachusetts General Discussion (All)

New or Hybrid Approach NRC Staff (3:30-4:00)

General Discussion (All)

General Discussion (4:00-4:25) General Discussion (All)

Next Steps/Wrap up NRC Staff Times shown in EST 2

Background

• Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) signed into law in January 2019 requires the NRC to complete a rulemaking to establish a technology-inclusive, regulatory framework for optional use for commercial advanced nuclear reactors no later than December 2027 o (1) ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORThe term advanced nuclear reactor means a nuclear fission or fusion reactor, including a prototype plant with significant improvements compared to commercial nuclear reactors under construction as of the date of enactment of this Act, 3

Commission Direction on Rulemaking Plan

• In SRM-SECY-20-0032, dated October 2, 2020 (ADAMS ML20276A293), the Commission:

o Approved the staffs proposed approach for the rulemaking o Directed the staff to provide:

a schedule with milestones and resource requirements to achieve publication of the final Part 53 rule by October 2024 key uncertainties impacting publication of the final rule by that date options for Commission consideration on licensing and regulating fusion energy systems o Directed the staff to develop and release preliminary proposed rule language intermittently, followed by public outreach and dialogue 4

Current Activities

• On November 2, 2020, staff submitted a Commission memorandum responding to the SRM direction to provide a schedule with milestones and resources to complete the final rule by October 2024 (ADAMS ML20288A251).

• Continuing interactions such as the public forum in October 2020 with an NRC public meeting scheduled for January 26, 2021

• Assess potential risks posed by possible commercial deployment of various fusion technologies and possible regulatory approaches for commercial fusion facilities

• Regulatory framework for advanced reactors (Part 53) being developed to accommodate fusion technologies as much as possible to maintain flexibility for future

• May recommend separate rulemaking for fusion facilities that would extend beyond 2024 but would be completed before 2027.

5

Advanced Reactor Concepts

• Light-Water Small Modular Reactors

• Non-Light-Water Reactors

• Liquid Metal Cooled Fast Reactors

• Gas Cooled Reactors

• Molten Salt Cooled Reactors

• Molten Salt Fueled Reactors

• Heat Pipe Reactors o Microreactors

• Accelerator Driven Systems

• Fusion Reactors 6

7 Andrew Holland, Executive Director Fusion Industry Association 7

Building the Fusion Economy Fusion energy will revolutionize the global energy system. It can solve the climate crisis and build energy abundance.

• The Fusion Industry Association is accelerating commercially viable fusion energy by advocating for policies that support our 22 member companies as they develop commercial fusion power.

• The FIA is building a movement to tell the world should know how important clean, safe, affordable, and secure fusion will be to the future energy system. The FIA is educating key stakeholders in the private, public, and philanthropic sectors about the importance of tomorrows fusion power economy.

Fusion must be deployed fast enough to meet the worlds challenges.

Why Fusion?

To solve our generations biggest challenge:

The Climate Crisis Current clean energy technologies will prove insufficient to reduce carbon emissions enough to solve climate change.

Fusion is a breakthrough energy source uniquely suited for rapid, widespread adoption to disrupt and displace fossil fuels around the world.

To solve our species Why Fusion?

biggest challenge:

Resource Scarcity Clean, safe, affordable, and inexhaustible fusion energy will power the economy of the future.

It will raise living standards and meet growing global energy demand without environmental sacrifices.

It will break the geopolitics of energy, so a countrys destiny is not determine by the size of its hydrocarbon deposits.

Mission of the FIA The Fusion Industry Association is the voice of the growing fusion industry. It supports efforts to accelerate commercially viable fusion research and development. The Association promotes the interests of the fusion industry around the world by advocating for ways to commercialize fusion power on a time-scale that matters.

A Global Race to Fusion Power Membership Affiliate Members How does the Fusion Industry Association advance fusion?

Three strategic priorities for accelerating fusion energy

How does the Fusion Industry Association advance fusion?

1. Partnering with Governments The private sector should have access to the scientific research that governments have pursued for decades. Public-Private Partnerships that include government support to private fusion companies can rapidly accelerate fusion development by driving private financial support.

2. Building a Fusion Movement The world should know how important clean, safe, affordable, and secure fusion will be to the future energy system. FIA is educating key stakeholders in the private, public, and philanthropic sectors about the importance of tomorrows fusion power economy.

3. Ensuring Regulatory Certainty Fusion research, development, and deployment should be subject to appropriate, risk-informed regulation when experiments are built and sited.

Ensuring Regulatory Certainty U.S. policymakers should establish a broad legislative and regulatory framework that explicitly and permanently removes fusion energy from the regulatory approaches that the federal government has taken towards fission power plants.

Ensuring Regulatory Certainty

• The NRCs Part 50, 52 and proposed 53 regulations for large commercial fission reactors address a different suite of risks compared to risks that fusion facilities could create and therefore are not appropriate for fusion systems.

• Rules like the NRCs Part 20 regulations for general radiation protection and Part 30 rules for handling byproduct material would properly address fusion facilities risk profiles.

• The DOE has created a framework for safe construction and operation of experimental fusion energy devices that has worked well for decades.

Thank You https://www.fusionindustryassociation.org/po st/fusion-regulatory-white-paper

Discussion - Background 8

9 Derek Sutherland, Chief Executive Officer CT Fusion 9

Fusion Regulatory Public Forum January 26, 2021 Derek Sutherland, Ph.D. -- Co-Founder and CEO

All fusion energy approaches are pursuing the Lawson criterion in their fusion power core (FPC)

/ ~12.32 yrs Lawson triple product nT! defines the threshold for ignition for a given fusion type The required temperature T is largely set for a fusion fuel choice (e.g. DT)

The deuterium-tritium (DT) fusion reaction fuses heavy hydrogen and produces helium and a neutron T

Variations between fusion approaches on fuel type, n, ! , and confinement method to reach Lawson conditions Can activate materials

There are three general approaches to fusion energy Magnetic Fusion Magneto-Inertial Inertial Fusion Energy Energy (MFE) Fusion (MIF) (IFE)

Low Medium High High Medium Low

Partial Fusion Energy Landscape Most differences between fusion approaches reside in fusion power core (FPC), but are all qualitatively similar

• Make use of an ionized gas (plasma) and a vacuum region

• Generate some sort of product: neutrons, alpha particles, etc.

• Specific confinement methodology varies between and within each main category:

• Magnetic Fusion Energy (MFE)

• Magneto-Inertial Fusion (MIF)

• Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE)

• The nature of hazards is similar between approaches, which can be reduced by:

• Reducing tritium inventory and activation volumes by reducing size of system

• Making appropriate material choices to reduce activation

• Pursuing advanced fuel cycles to avoid usage of tritium and reduce neutron production

There are similarities in PMI and BOP subsystems for any DT fusion power plant concept Note: not to scale!

Given a FPC using deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel, the design of PMI and BOP often share these BOP characteristics:

PMI Plasma-Material Interface (PMI)

• Made from solid or liquid material

• Directly interacts with plasma

• Neutrons impact interface, which can lead to FPC activation dependent on material choices Balance-Of-Plant (BOP)

• Solid or liquid blanket(s)

• Moderates DT fusion neutrons and cools PMI

• Contains Li to produce T on-site for closed fuel cycle

• Converts heat into electricity

Advanced fusion fuel cycles may reduce challenges associated with DT fusion The usage of tritium and neutron activation of materials are the two primary hazards to consider for DT fusion Advanced fuel cycles (D-D, D-3He, p-11B) require higher plasma temperatures than DT Advanced fuel cycles avoid the need for tritium as an input and produce less energetic neutrons Multiple private efforts are focusing on the D-3He and p-11B fuel cycles instead of DT

Ongoing engagement and support of the public is needed to develop effective regulation and enable successful commercialization

• As with any new technology, public engagement and support is imperative to adoption

• Public engagement and support are needed for the successful commercialization of fusion

• Effective regulation will enable the safe adoption of fusion energy worldwide while respecting local and regional viewpoints

• International coordination would help accelerate worldwide usage as part of coordinated fight against climate change

The physics of fusion and fission are different, which encourages different approaches to regulation

• All fusion approaches have no risk of meltdowns, no long-live radioactive waste intrinsic to the process, and no usage of special nuclear material

• Risk-informed evaluations recently used by the NRC in the fission sector are recommended to develop the regulatory framework for fusion

• Emphasis on risk-informed regulatory processes is also encouraged by the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA)

• DOE has already taken important steps to support the commercial fusion energy industry by establishing regulatory precedents for fusion energy devices at DOE facilities

Conclusions

• There are a variety of fusion energy approaches being pursued in pursuit of the Lawson criterion

• The three main categories of fusion approaches are magnetic fusion energy (MFE), magneto-inertial fusion (MIF), and inertial fusion energy (IFE)

• Advanced fuel cycles being pursued by a few organizations may avoid the need for tritium as an input and reduce neutron activation concerns

• Commonalities between all approaches motivate a unified fusion regulatory framework

• All fusion approaches have no risk of meltdowns from runaway reactivity, no long-live radioactive waste intrinsic to the process, and no usage of special nuclear material - motivates a different approach to regulation than fission power plants using risk-informed methodology

• Ongoing public engagement and support are critical for the successful commercialization of fusion energy as part of the coordinated fight against climate change

https://www.ctfusion.energy Email: admin@ctfusion.net Seattle, WA, USA

Effective regulation is complementary to the efficient deployment of fusion energy as a needed tool in the fight against climate change

• Fusion will work in concert with renewables to deeply decarbonize our energy grids

• Effective regulation can encourage more private sector investment in current and near-term R&D phases

• A risk-informed approach to regulation will be most effective and consistent with NEIMA

• Fusion can have a significant impact on climate change while posing a minimal safety risk to the public

• Effective regulation is needed and complementary with this mission

Challenge - Diversity of Designs and Hazards Fusion Technologies

• Magnetic

• Magneto-Inertial

• Inertial Fusion Reactions

• DT

• P11B

• D3HE Radiological Hazards Chemical & Other Hazards 11

Integrated Approach (Background)

Bow-Tie Risk Management Figure 12

Regulatory Approaches

• Preliminary assessments left open the regulatory approach for commercial fusion reactors

• Possible approaches include treatment similar to:

o Nuclear (fission) power plants o Materials (e.g., accelerator)

Requirements o Hybrid or new approach  ?

Hazard 13

Discussion - Consideration of Diverse Technologies & Related Hazards 14

Regulation of Reactor Facilities

• Legal and technical framework defined in Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations for utilization facilities (currently those using special nuclear material (SNM))

- SNM is plutonium, uranium 233, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235

• NRC historical focus on large light-water reactors

• Technical requirements on design, construction, operation and decommissioning

• Extensive licensing reviews

• Environmental Impact Statements

• Mandatory hearings

16 William Sowder, Chairman ASME C&S Section III, Division 4 Fusion Energy Devices 16

Developing the ASME Construction Code and Standard for Fusion Energy Facilities William K. Sowder Chairman, ASME C&S Section III, Division 4 Fusion Energy Devices 17

• The goal is to develop a recognized fusion construction code and standard to be issued by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

• This new construction code would be used in the USA or globally as an acceptable basis for nuclear regulators or nuclear enforcement authorities for the construction, licensing and operating of new fusion facilities, such as the Compact Pilot Plant, DEMO, etc.

18

• Existing nuclear codes and standards for construction do not adequately cover the design, manufacturing or construction of the magnetic confinement fusion energy devices (e.g. Tokamak devices) that are currently being considered for future DEMO constructions. They also do not provide support for the on-going projects, such as ITER and others.

19

• As an alternative to just modifying the existing fission design based codes and standards new set of codes and standards are being developed specific for these fusion devices to cover their design, manufacturing and construction activities including the different levels and types of inspection/testing activities.

• In addition, it is anticipated that operation and maintenance requirements for these fusion energy devices will require new Operation and Maintenance (O&M) codes and standards or major modifications to existing ones to utilize the best available methods and technology in each area.

20

• These new rules for fusion energy devices would apply to fusion-energy-related components such as vacuum vessel, cryostat and superconductor structures and their interaction with each other.

• Other related support structures, including metallic and non-metallic materials, containment or confinement structures, piping, vessels, valves, pumps, and supports will also be covered.

21

• Division 4 Fusion Energy Devices (FED) issued in November 2018 a Draft Standard for Trial Use of proposed code rules entitled Rules for Construction of Fusion Energy Devices ASME FE.1-2018

• The issuance of the Fusion Draft Standard for Trial Use and Comment is for a 3-y period of time that requires further approvals.

• The Draft Standard is not an approved consensus standard. ASME has approved its issuance and publication as a Draft Standard only.

22

• To develop this new fusion code and standard a Division 4 Roadmap was written to focus limited resources on areas being considered for development, as well as, providing project management to this development effort.

• The Division 4 code and standard effort are being managed by various project teams within Division 4 of the ASME BPV Committee on Construction of Nuclear Facility Components (III).

23

• The current membership of the ASME Division 4 Fusion Energy Devices Sub-Group (FED) is global in its participation with 27 members including from the USA(7),

several nuclear regulators(2), United Kingdom(5) and other EU member countries(3), South Korea(2), India(2),

Japan(1), and China(5).

24

ASME Section III Division 4 Fusion Energy Devices Sub-Group Organization Section III Standards Committee Division 4 Sub-Group Fusion Energy Devices Work Group Work Group Work Group Work Group Work Group General In-Vessel Magnets Vacuum Vessel Materials Requirements Components 25

26 27 28 29 Division 4 FED is also working with the ASME Section XI In-Service Inspection Operations Code in developing for future FED use a type of Reliability and Integrity Management (RIM)

Program using as guidance the recently published Section XI Division 2 Code Rules-Requirements for Reliability and Integrity Management (RIM) Programs for Nuclear Power Plants 30

What is Reliability and Integrity Management (RIM):

Those aspects of the plant design process that are applied to provide an appropriate level of reliability of SSCs and a continuing assurance over the life of the plant that such reliability is maintained. These include design features important to reliability performance such as design margins, selection of materials, testing and monitoring, provisions for maintenance, repair and replacement, pressure and leak testing, and In-service Inspection (ISI).

31

32 33 Jeffrey Merrifield, Partner Pillsbury 33

Fusion Energy:

Considerations for Regulation of Fusion-Based Power January 26, 2021 The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP

=

Background===

Long sought after, fusion power is finally within reach o Over two dozen private sector companies actively developing fusion tech o Strong private and federal support o Commercialization is now predominantly an engineering and financial challenge One challenge facing realization of fusion energy is establishment of an appropriate regulatory framework o Proper regulation is essential for allowing the technology to develop o Regulatory certainty will allow fusion projects to attract investment o Ensures public health and safety 35 l Considerations for Regulation of Fusion-Based Power

NRC Regulation of Fusion Reactors Discussions have often focused on regulating fusion devices as utilization facilities

• SECY-09-0064 - Regulation of Fusion-Based Power Generation Devices o Asserted NRC regulatory jurisdiction over commercial fusion energy devices o One of staffs bases of jurisdiction was on defining fusion devices as utilization facilities

• The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act includes both fission and fusion under its definition of advanced reactors

• Does not compel that fusion be regulated as a utilization facility but may create that implication Fusion could also be regulated under Part 30 based on its use of byproduct material 36 l Considerations for Regulation of Fusion-Based Power

Problems with Utilization Facility Framework Utilization facility regulatory framework is designed to address issues more specific to fission power o Offsite nuclear releases, spent fuel and waste management, proliferation The utilization facility framework is inappropriate for fusion devices o Fusion reactors do not present the same threat of offsite radioactive release o Limited or no proliferation risks o Limited need for financial assurance for long-term waste management 37 l Considerations for Regulation of Fusion-Based Power

Burdens Imposed by Utilization Facility Classification

• Subject Fusion Facilities to Price Anderson Act Liability

• Imposes significant insurance and financial protection requirements

• Makes fusion facilities potentially liable for accident at a fission facility

• Inappropriate given the risks of fusion Economic

• Limit foreign investment and ownership of U.S. fusion companies or facilities

• Unnecessarily restricts financing for U.S. commercialization of fusion energy

• Impose fission licensing process

• Extended process, mandatory hearings, high cost

• NRC should not impose such a complex licensing process at this stage Regulatory

• Restrict state involvement

• Precludes Agreement State process

• Subject fusion devices to NRC export licensing requirements

• Restrictions in AEA Sections 127 - 129 (e.g. IAEA Safeguards)

Foreign Trade

• Impose AEA Section 126 inter-governmental consultation process 38 l Considerations for Regulation of Fusion-Based Power

Regulation of Fusion Reactors under Part 30 An alternative is to regulate fusion devices under Part 30

• Part 30 is an appropriate framework for this stage of fusion development o Already used to license many types of large-scale nuclear facilities

• nuclear medicine centers, cyclotrons, food irradiators o Demonstrated track record of protecting public health and safety

• Part 30 already regulates tritium used in some fusion research Note that it is not clear whether the Atomic Energy Act provides a solid basis for long-term regulation of commercial fusion under Part 30 o While the Part 30 framework is appropriate for fusion regulation, additional legislation may be necessary to provide the most regulatory certainty 39 l Considerations for Regulation of Fusion-Based Power

Regulation of Fusion Reactors under Part 30 Part 30 avoids the pitfalls of regulating fusion devices as utilization facilities o Provides a more flexible licensing regime

• Allows the NRC discretion in holding hearings

• Avoids the high costs imposed by extended licensing process o Allows for greater foreign investment in domestic facilities and facilitates exports of U.S. technology o Avoids cost-prohibitive Price Anderson liability o Allows state regulatory involvement 40 l Considerations for Regulation of Fusion-Based Power

Conclusion

• As commercial fusion increasingly becomes a reality, an appropriate regulatory framework is critical to the success of this emerging technology

• Regulation of fusion devices as utilization facilities, while legally permissible, is an inappropriate framework that would impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on fusion development

• Instead, the NRC should regulate fusion devices under Part 30, which will provide the NRC and the industry the needed flexibility to realize the full potential of commercial fusion but still allow the NRC to meet its adequate protection standards Further information can be found here 41 l Considerations for Regulation of Fusion-Based Power

Discussion - Utilization Facility Approaches 42

Regulation of Radioactive Materials

• Application needs to address areas such as:

- Radionuclides, including maximum possession limits

- Information on Radiation Safety Program (personnel, monitoring, etc.)

- Occupational and public doses

- Procedures for safe use of radionuclides, security of materials, and emergencies (emergency plans, if required)

- Waste management

- Decommissioning (including financial assurance, if required)

- Environmental protection regulations

- Some usages of byproduct material have additional requirements due to the unique purpose of these materials. Examples include:

• 10 CFR Part 30 and NUREG-1556, Volume 21 (Accelerators)

• 10 CFR Part 36 and NUREG-1556, Volume 6 (Irradiators)

Regulation of Radioactive Materials

• Another item to note is that pre-commercial demonstration of fusion may be able to be conducted under DOE oversight and requirements if the private sector fusion company performs pre-commercial demonstration activities at a DOE facility. The company would not be subject to NRC/Agreement State licensing or specific regulations.

• Historically, Agreement States have licensed fusion research facilities. As a general matter, the byproduct material licensing of fusion-related activities have not gone beyond the requirements for possessing tritium or production of neutrons by companies, universities or other research institutions. Examples include:

- Phoenix Neutron Generators (Wisconsin)

- Laboratory for Laser Energetics (New York)

- Planned approach for Commonwealth Fusion Systems' SPARC facility (Massachusetts)

45 David Kirtley, Chief Executive Officer Helion Energy Sachin Desai, Senior Associate Hogan Lovells 45

Helion Energy Dr. David Kirtley CEO, Helion Sachin Desai Attorney, Hogan Lovells January 26, 2021

Agenda

• About Helion

• Fusion Devices as Accelerators

• Application of Accelerator Framework

Agenda

• About Helion

• Fusion Devices as Accelerators

• Application of Accelerator Framework

Helion's Accelerator Approach Two ring-shaped plasmas (FRCs) are propelled from opposite ends of the accelerator. They collide at the center and are compressed by a magnetic field, releasing fusion energy.

The whole process takes less than 1 millisecond from start to finish and is repeated every 10 minutes.

Energy is directly recaptured and recycled in a capacitor bank (upwards of 95% energy recovery).

Goal for 7th Gen accelerator is to run 1 Hz for short period.

Helion Runs on Helium 3

• Deuterium-Helium 3 Fusion minimizes many challenges with Deuterium-Tritium fusion

- Eliminates 14 MeV Neutrons and their materials activation or latent heat challenges

• Only 5% of energy is produced as lower energy neutrons

• Minimizes machine rebuild and maintenance issues

- Eliminates tritium breeding challenges

- Eliminates the need for a steam cycle

- Enables non-ignition fusion, further enhancing safety

• Deuterium-Helium 3 Fusion is possible because of advancements in direct energy recovery technology and Helions magneto-inertial fusion design.

Agenda

• About Helion

• Fusion Devices as Accelerators

• Application of Accelerator Framework

Two Definitions of Accelerators Energy Policy Act of 2005 Rulemaking (72 FR at 55,868)

A particle accelerator is a device that imparts kinetic energy to subatomic particles by increasing their speed through electromagnetic interactions.

NRC Regulations (10 CFR 30.4)

Particle accelerator means any machine capable of accelerating electrons, protons, deuterons, or other charged particles in a vacuum and of discharging the resultant particulate or other radiation into a medium at energies usually in excess of 1 MeV.

Potential threshold question as to how fusion fits within the US radiological protection framework

Two Definitions of Accelerators, cont.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 Rulemaking (72 FR at 55,868)

A particle accelerator is a device that imparts kinetic energy to subatomic particles by increasing their speed through electromagnetic interactions.

All fusion devices impart kinetic energy (i.e., raise temperature)

All fusion devices use subatomic particles (i.e., plasma)

All fusion devices work via electromagnetic interactions (e.g., magnets, magnetic fields, lasers, plasma pinches)

Two Definitions of Accelerators, cont.

NRC Regulations (10 CFR 30.4)

Particle accelerator means any machine capable of accelerating electrons, protons, deuterons, or other charged particles in a vacuum and of discharging the resultant particulate or other radiation into a medium at energies usually in excess of 1 MeV.

All fusion devices accelerate particles (i.e., raise temperature).

All fusion devices work with charged particles (i.e., ions/plasma).

All fusion devices work in a vacuum.

All fusion devices discharge the resultant particulate into a medium (e.g., into the plasma, into walls).

States currently classify fusion devices under this definition

Agenda

• About Helion

• Fusion Devices as Accelerators

• Application of Accelerator Framework

Working an Accelerator Framework into a Model of Fusion Regulation Possible Tiered Model of Regulation No NRC - Industry is here. No real radiological risk from current R&D work.

Tier 1 Regulation - Although no formal NRC regulation of fusion, NRC principles still of R&D heavily guide and inform state regulatory frameworks.

- Industry is heading here, and needs room for innovation.

State-Led - Legally fusion devices fall under the accelerator definition.

Tier 2 Accelerator - Technically demo devices and low-impact devices appear to pose Framework no greater risk than current commercial accelerators.

- NRC can assist and guide state regulatory programs.

NRC - Applicable to large-scale commercial devices if their radiological Tier 3 Enhanced risk profiles run outside what states are able to regulate.

Regulation - Would likely need new regulatory regime.

Delineating Between Tiers 2 and 3 Sample Tech-Neutral Factors Key Inputs

• Radiation Flux

• Radiological Inventory

• Accident Release Scenarios

• Fuel Type

• Facility Sizes &

• Need for Ignition Conditions Designs

• Fuel Supply Chain Needs

• Proliferation Concerns

• State Regulator

• Capability of States to Regulate Considerations

• Current & Future

• Need for Uniform Regulation Accelerators

47 Tyler Ellis, Founder Black Hills Partners Commonwealth Fusion Systems 47

CFS Approach and the Byproduct Material Licensing Model Tyler Ellis, Ph.D.

1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 1

CFS Approach

• Extensively studied (since the 1950s), traditional tokamak design which

• No possibility of a melt-down nor production of long-lived nuclear waste incorporates magnets utilizing high-temperature superconductors (HTS) due to the lack of source or special nuclear material

• If power is cut or vacuum chamber fails, facility simply shuts down,

• Solid technical basis described in the Journal of Plasma Physics special minimal decay heat to deal with issue on Status of the SPARC Physics Basis TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION COMMERCIALIZATION DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Achieve net energy from fusion Fusion power on the grid ARC, COMPLETED: IN PROGRESS SPARC, Q>2 Q>10, Pelectric~200MW Proven science Demonstrate Alcator C-Mod Groundbreaking

$200M HTS magnets 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 2

High-Temperature Superconductors

• New superconducting materials expanded what is possible in magnets

• CFS developed a new generation of superconducting magnets to increase magnetic field in fusion machines 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 3

The HTS difference Government plans JET (UK) ITER (World) DEMO Largest Net-energy (World) operating experiment First tokamak power plant

~ to scale 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 C-MOD SPARC (CFS) ARC (CFS)

• 100x smaller scale than traditional tokamaks (MIT) Net-energy First power

• Immense reduction in cost, tritium fuel and low-level waste production Plasma experiment plant physics

• No private companies are pursing ITER/DEMO scale facilities

• Accelerates fusion deployment to address climate change CFS plan 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 4

Tokamaks are effectively regulated under 10 CFR 30

• Like other private fusion approaches, tokamaks:

• do not contain source or special nuclear material

• produce no long-lived or high-level waste

• are driven reactions, so power loss or vacuum failure simply shuts down the facility instantaneously

• Most private fusion approaches utilize tritium in their fuel cycle

• All private fusion approaches produce neutrons and activated materials

• These byproduct materials are already effectively regulated under 10 CFR 30 and fusion should not be treated as a utilization facility 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 5

NRC Definition of a Utilization Facility Utilization facility means: (1) Any nuclear reactor other than one designed or used primarily for the formation of plutonium or U-233; or (2) An accelerator-driven subcritical operating assembly used for the irradiation of materials containing special nuclear material described in the application assigned docket number 50-608.

Nuclear reactor means an apparatus, other than an atomic weapon, designed or used to sustain nuclear fission in a self-supporting chain reaction.

• Fusion energy systems are NOT utilization facilities because they arent nuclear reactors, nor do they irradiate special nuclear materials

• There are no private fission-fusion hybrid approaches; but if there were, it would qualify as a utilization facility due to the presence of special nuclear material

• This is consistent with how the NRC approached regulating SHINE 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 6

Additional Considerations for NRC Evaluation

• The 2009 NRC Memo stated the Commission may be able to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over fusion devices by treating such devices as utilization facilities

• To do this, the NRC would have to find in a rulemaking both that:

• (1) fusion constitutes atomic energy within the meaning of the AEA, and

• (2) the fusion process is of such quantity as to be of significance to the common defense and security, or in such manner as to affect the health and safety of the public

• Fusion processes fall within the definition of atomic energy since atomic energy is defined to mean all means of energy released in the course of nuclear fission or nuclear transformation

• However, commercial fusion facilities should not be utilization facilities because they will not be of significance to the common defense and security and their health/safety impact only falls within 10 CFR Parts 20 and 30 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 7

Additional Considerations for NRC Evaluation

• Fusion energy facilities will not be of significance to the common defense

• Commercial fusion facilities will not be capable of producing the fissionable materials because there is no source material nor special nuclear material on site

• Even though neutrons are produced, using them to produce fissionable materials would be an extremely complex endeavor requiring immense effort and cost, so unlikely to be a credible threat

• To the extent that fusion facilities use tritium fuel to start, its possible to secure tritium on the civilian market so there is no diversion of any material resource from U.S. defense needs

• Fusion energy facilities are also capable of producing all the tritium fuel that they need on-site

• Once commercialized, fusion energy facilities will join a mixed electricity grid so it is highly unlikely that any U.S. defense facility or Fusion neutrons are born at this energy, where capture is hundreds to activity will rely solely on fusion for power generation in the thousands of times less likely than the foreseeable future moderated neutrons used in fission systems, so proliferation concerns are not likely to be a credible threat 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 8

Additional Considerations for NRC Evaluation

• Fusion energy facilities will not affect the health and safety of the public in a negative way

• All effects from abnormal operation of a fusion energy facility would be confined to the plant site and would not have a negative impact on the public

• Fusion energy facilities would be constructed to comply with applicable standards for radioactive materials, rendering residual risks comparable to risks from existing hydrocarbon power plants or other industrial facilities

• Fusion energy facilities will not produce high-level radioactive waste and would comply with existing rules for handling radioactive materials like tritium

• By providing an emissions-free and inherently safe source of electricity, fusion will improve the health and safety of the general public 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 9

Additional Considerations for NRC Evaluation

• The 2009 NRC Memo suggested that an additional consideration involves the potential benefits of the NRC establishing a national regulatory framework for fusion devices instead of requiring various State and local agencies to develop programs to address this new technology

• States already handle radioactive sources under Parts 20 and 30 through the Agreement State Program (with 39 states participating) and the NRC exerts oversight through regular audits, so national consistency is already maintained

• The success of the Agreement State Program demonstrates that states are fully capable of exercising regulatory oversight for radioactive sources and this program is applicable to the tritium needed for future fusion systems

• NRC Staff suggested in SECY-20-0032 that development of requirements for fusion reactors potentially includes regulatory approaches similar to those for the regulation of [particle] accelerators, which may include Agreement State considerations

• Imposing the same fission standards on the fusion sector would create a costly regulatory requirement developed to address risks that will not be present at a fusion energy facility 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 10

Tokamaks are very similar to accelerators

• NRC definition of accelerator: any machine capable of accelerating electrons, protons, deuterons, or other charged particles in a vacuum and of discharging the resultant particulate or other radiation into a medium at energies usually in excess of 1 megaelectron volt.

• Tokamaks:

• accelerate deuterons and tritons in a vacuum

• resultant particulates are helium nuclei, protons and neutrons

• particulate energies range from 3.3 to 14.1 megaelectron volts

• particulates can run into the vacuum vessel wall

• Given this strong similarity, it makes sense to regulate private fusion approaches, like tokamaks, in the same way as accelerators under 10 CFR 30 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 11

Tokamaks are very similar to accelerators

• Tokamaks have similar hazards to accelerators

• Direct radiation - addressed through proper shielding

• Activated materials - addressed through materials selection and operations

• Tritium - addressed through byproduct material regulations and handling procedures

• Tokamaks have similar operational procedures to accelerators

• Tritium hazard from vacuum breach - air goes in instead of radioactive material coming out

• Reaction can always be shut off - accomplished through interlocks, vacuum, magnet controls

• No chain reaction - purely a driven system for direct radiation hazards

• Previous tokamaks have been regulated as accelerators under 10 CFR 30

• Alcator C-Mod (MA)

• DIII-D (CA)

• Pegasus (WI) 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 12

Agreement State Program already regulates fusion facilities under 10 CFR Part 20/30

• Wisconsins oversight of a deuterium-tritium fusion device offers a clear example of an agreement states capacity to regulate fusion energy facilities and can provide an important precedent for NRC rulemaking actions

• New Yorks oversight of a deuterium-tritium fusion device at the University of Rochesters Laboratory for Laser Energetics offers another example

• 39 states regulate ~17,000 radioactive material licenses under this agreement which is ~86% of all US licenses and NRC oversight assures compliance with federal standards

• This reaction is the same as that proposed in many commercial fusion energy facilities, using the same reactants and demanding the same level of safeguards and regulatory compliance

• Because fusion energy devices will be similar to these facilities, the NRC can look to these case studies as an example of an agreement states capacity to regulate fusion devices under 10 CFR Part 20/30 Phoenix Neutron Generator. Source: https://phoenixwi.com/

1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 13

Recommended NRC Approach

• NRC should use only Parts 20 and 30 to regulate the fusion energy industry

• States, operating within the oversight of the NRCs Agreement State Program, should have a significant role in regulation of fusion energy plants

• This approach complies with the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) 1/25/2021 © Commonwealth Fusion Systems 14

49 Agreement State Perspective

• Megan Shober, Wisconsin Department of Health Services

• Jack Priest, Massachusetts Department of Public Health 49

Discussion - Byproduct Material Approaches 50

Possible Hybrid Approaches

• Considerations for New/Hybrid Approaches

- Diversity of designs and related hazards

• Appropriate for graded requirements

- Consolidated or Fragmented Framework

- Development of technical requirements

• Prevention and mitigation

- Legal requirements

• Atomic Energy Act

• National Environmental Policy Act

• Other

- Possible Legislative Changes 51

Possible Hybrid Approaches

• Approach within current frameworks Utilization Facility Model (Part 53)

Design &

Decision Associated Hazard Criteria Byproduct Material Model (Part 30) 52

Possible Hybrid Approaches

• Dedicated Fusion Framework Requirements Design &

Decision Associated Hazard Criteria Hazard/Consequences 53

Discussion - Possible Hybrid Approaches 54

General Discussion & Next Steps 55

Backup Slides 56

NRC Staff Plan to Develop Part 53 Subpart B Subpart C Subpart D Subpart E Subpart F Subpart G Project Life Cycle Design and Siting Construction Operation Retirement Analysis Requirements Facility Safety Definition System External Construction/ Program

• Fundamental Safety & Component Hazards Manufacturing Design Surveillance Functions Site Ensuring Maintenance

• Prevention, Mitigation, Analysis Characteristics Capabilities/

Performance Criteria Requirements Configuration (e.g., F-C Targets) Reliabilities Environmental Control

• Normal Operations Safety Change Control (e.g., effluents) Considerations Categorization Design

• Other & Special Environmental Changes Treatment Considerations Staffing &

Programs Plant/Site (Design, Construction, Configuration Control)

Clarify Controls Analyses (Prevention, Mitigation, Compare to Criteria) and Distinctions Between Plant Documents (Systems, Procedures, etc.)

LB Documents (Applications, SAR, TS, etc.) Subparts H & I 57

DOE-HDBK-1224-2018; August 2018 DOE HANDBOOK - HAZARD AND ACCIDENT ANALYSIS HANDBOOK

DOE-STD-1027-2018 HAZARD CATEGORIZATION OF DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

First Principles See: SECY-18-0096, Functional Containment Performance Criteria for Non-Light-Water-Reactors, and INL/EXT-20-58717, Technology-Inclusive Determination of Mechanistic Source Terms for Offsite Dose-Related Assessments for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Facilities 60

61 High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR)

Mechanistic Source Term Figure

Integrated Approach (Background)

Bow-Tie Risk Management Figure

Licensing Modernization (Licensing Basis Events: NEI 18-04 & Reg Guide 1.233)

Event Sequences

• Anticipated Operational Occurrences

• Design Basis Events

• Beyond Design Basis Events Design Basis Accidents (relying on safety-related structures, systems, and components)

See: NEI-18-04 (NRC ADAMS ML19241A336) and Regulatory Guide 1.233 (NRC ADAMS ML20091L698) 63

Licensing Modernization (Classification & Defense in Depth: NEI 18-04 & RG 1.233)

• Safety Classification and Performance Criteria

• Safety Related (based on needed capabilities and reliabilities)

• Non-Safety Related With Special Treatment

• Non-Safety Related With No Special Treatment

• Defense in Depth Assessment See: NEI-18-04 (NRC ADAMS ML19241A336) and Regulatory Guide 1.233 (NRC ADAMS ML20091L698) 64