ML21106A125
| ML21106A125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/13/2021 |
| From: | NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21026A016 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML21106A125 (116) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+++++
BRIEFING ON ADVANCED REACTOR PREPAREDNESS THROUGH REGULATORY ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH COOPERATION
+++++
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2021
+++++
The Commission met via Video Teleconference, at 9:00 a.m. EDT, Christopher T. Hanson, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, Chairman JEFF BARAN, Commissioner ANNIE CAPUTO, Commissioner DAVID A. WRIGHT, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:
ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK, Secretary of the Commission MARIAN ZOBLER, General Counsel
2 EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER PANEL:
ASHELY FINAN, Director, National Reactor Innovation Center, Idaho National Laboratory J. CLAY SELL, Chief Executive Officer, X-energy SIMON IRISH, Chief Executive Officer, Terrestrial Energy USA, Inc.
STEPHEN KUCZYNSKI, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Southern Nuclear Operating Company TODD ALLEN, Senior Visiting Fellow, Third Way STEVEN SWILLEY, Deputy Chief Nuclear Officer and Senior Director, Research and Development Nuclear, Electric Power Research Institute ED LYMAN, Director Nuclear Power Safety, Union of Concerned Scientists
3 NRC STAFF:
MARGIE DOANE, Executive Director for Operations ROBERT TAYLOR, Deputy Office Director for New Reactors, NRR RAY FURSTENAU, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)
RAJ IYENGAR, Chief, Component Integrity Branch, RES MARILYN DIAZ MALDONADO, Chemical Engineer, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards MICHELLE HAYES, Chief, Advanced Reactor Technical Branch, NRR
4 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 9:01 a.m.
3 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Good morning, everyone, I 4 convene the Commission's public meeting on the NRC's preparedness 5 activities for advanced reactors through regulatory engagement and research 6 partnership.
7 The topic is very timely as the agency's focus on advanced 8 reactor preparedness continues to increase with ongoing stakeholder 9 interactions.
10 It's also very important to keep the public informed of 11 developments in this area of high interest so I thank you all for supporting this 12 meeting today and I'm look forward to a very good conversation.
13 We'll hear from two outstanding panels this morning. First 14 to present are participants in our external panel, following that we'll have a 15 short break and then we'll hear from the NRC staff.
16 So, before we start, I will ask my colleagues if they have any 17 remarks to make? Okay, so with that, we'll begin our external panel.
18 Each panelist will have six minutes to present and I intend 19 to proceed in the order in which you all are listed on the public notice for this 20 meeting.
21 We'll begin with Dr. Ashley Finan, who is the Director of the 22 National Reactor Innovation Center at Idaho National Lab. Dr. Finan?
23 DR. FINAN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and NRC 24 Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
5 1 My name is Ashley Finan, I'm the Director of the National 2 Reactor Innovation Center, or NRIC, a national DOE program focused on 3 accelerating demonstration of advanced reactors in partnership with the 4 private sector.
5 Next slide, please. This country has a track record of rapid 6 demonstration of advanced nuclear energy when faced with an urgent need.
7 The imperative we face today is climate change, alongside other energy and 8 security priorities.
9 Recent policy actions noted on this slide have directed the 10 work that both DOE and NRC are doing today in this area. While the history 11 is encouraging, today's effort is not identical to the past.
12 One important difference today is that instead of a single 13 Atomic Energy Commission we have separate agencies for R&D and 14 regulation in the DOE and NRC.
15 The ability of the DOE and the NRC to work in a coordinated 16 way while implementing their individual missions and fulfilling their separate 17 duties will be pivotal to the success of demonstration efforts.
18 The policies, MOUs, and meetings that are in place to affect 19 that coordination are a hopeful sign for the same reason that this Commission 20 meeting is especially important.
21 I'll next speak about the Advanced Reactor Demonstration 22 Program and NRIC in more detail. Next slide, please.
23 The ARDP, or Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, 24 is a DOE program to demonstrate advanced reactors in the next seven years.
6 1 It has three funding pathways that are aligned with technological maturity 2 level.
3 Next slide, please. Ten awards have been made under the 4 program including two commercial demonstrations on the left with TerraPower 5 and X-energy, a startup to occur within 7 years, and a 50-50 cost shared 6 arrangement in that public-private partnership.
7 And then five risk reduction awards have been made on a 8 longer timeframe of about 12 years, and these 5 projects include at least 2 9 experimental or demonstration reactors.
10 And then there are three advanced reactor concept awards 11 that are not on a specific demonstration timeline. Risk reduction and 12 advanced reactor concepts awards are 80-20 cost shares between private 13 industry and the Federal Government.
14 NRIC supports these important projects as well as other 15 demonstration efforts by industry's partners.
16 Next slide, please. Our vision at NRIC is to support the 17 demonstration of at least two advanced reactors by 2025 to restore U.S.
18 nuclear energy leadership. And then to see commercial advanced nuclear 19 available by 2030 to contribute to abundant clean energy.
20 Next slide, please. We are working to achieve that vision 21 through our mission to inspire stakeholders to empower innovators to test and 22 demonstrate their technology, and to deliver successful outcomes through 23 efficient coordination of partners and resources.
24 And we show that mission in a circle because those
7 1 functions are interrelated. As we empower innovators to test and 2 demonstrate technology, we'll be able to deliver successful outcomes.
3 And I'm confident that as we deliver successful 4 demonstration reactors, that will captivate and inspire the stakeholders who 5 are counting on affordable clean energy for future.
6 Next slide, please. We aren't doing that alone. Along with 7 GAIN, the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, we're helping 8 innovators cross the bridge from concepts to commercial products.
9 And we do that in large part by helping them access the 10 capabilities in the DOE NE R&D campaigns and support programs, which I've 11 catalogued in my back up slides for your reference.
12 Next slide, please. In addition, NRIC is working to 13 empower innovators with some capabilities specific to demonstration, 14 including the Demonstration Resource Network of test beds in existing 15 facilities, demonstration sites outside of existing DOE facilities, and 16 experimental facilities to help them do that.
17 We also have programs in regulatory risk reduction, in 18 economic risk reduction that I'll cover on the next slide, we have a virtual test 19 bed for demonstration modeling and simulation, and a resource team that 20 helps innovators access national lab expertise.
21 Next slide, please. I want to describe our efforts relative to 22 costs and markets because there are some regulatory implications. We want 23 to ensure that the technologies that we help demonstrate are economic and 24 scalable to meet our global challenges.
8 1 We're developing and open-sourcing digital engineering 2 tools and approaches in service of that, that have been proven to reduce costs 3 and improve schedule in other industries.
4 We're also developing a public-private partnership to 5 demonstrate some advanced construction technologies that could similarly 6 improve construction cost outcomes.
7 And we're partnered with the Integrated Energy System's 8 cross-cutting technology development program to develop a demonstration of 9 integrated energy systems alongside advanced reactors.
10 And we plan to issue a request for expressions of interest in 11 the coming weeks.
12 And then we're in the initial phases of a construction 13 readiness project to help address some of the key challenges related to 14 nuclear energy project management.
15 These are areas where we're in communication with the 16 NRC staff and see promising opportunities. Next slide, please.
17 Finally, NRIC is a national program and central integrator for 18 partners and collaborators. We are here to connect innovators with key DOE 19 resources to prepare key DOE resources and to look around corners to help 20 the private sector execute successful projects.
21 While DOE and NRC's priorities may appear to be in tension 22 at times, I think most recognize that in fact, in the long term they are mutually 23 reinforcing.
24 Because technological advancement drives improved
9 1 safety performance and strong technology-inclusive safety requirements both 2 drive technology advancement and open up new deployment possibilities, and 3 improve characteristics.
4 As values of the cooperative spirit we've seen in the NRC 5 staff, I commend the Commission's attention to this topic, I appreciate the 6 opportunity to participate, and I look forward to my fellow panelists' 7 presentation as well as the Q&A session.
8 Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Dr. Finan. Next we'll 10 hear from Mr. Clay Sell, the Chief Executive Officer of X-energy.
11 Mr. Sell?
12 MR. SELL: Thank you very much. Chairman Hanson, 13 Commissioners Baran, Caputo, and Wright, thank you for this opportunity to 14 make my inaugural appearance before the Commission.
15 It's my privilege to address this panel representing the 16 women and men of X-energy on the subject of advanced reactor regulatory 17 preparedness. If you can go to my second slide, please?
18 I'll just make an inquiry, can you all see my presentation?
19 There it is, if you'll advance to the next slide, please? Thank you very much.
20 The Department of Energy's advanced reactor 21 demonstrations, the program demonstrations represent an incredible 22 opportunity to prove our nation's ability to deploy advanced nuclear plants well 23 before the end of this decade.
24 It will also allow us to build on the progress of the Next
10 1 Generation Nuclear Plant program to improve the efficiency, the predictability, 2 and timeliness of regulatory reviews.
3 X-energy's commercial plant design is the Xe-100, a 4 generation 4 design that integrates the pebble bed, high temperature, gas-5 cold technology demonstrated internationally at the AVR and THTR reactors 6 in Germany.
7 It builds upon prior domestic operating experiences from 8 Fort St. Vrain, the extensive NRC pre-application engagements on General 9 Atomic's modular HTGR nearly three decades ago. And most recently from 10 DOE's Next Generation Nuclear Plant design.
11 X-energy also produces its own coated particle fuel, we call 12 it TRISO-X. We leveraged a substantial DOE investment in this technology 13 to manufacture the highest-quality radium oxycarbide TRISO fuel in the world.
14 We will be submitting our license application for an 15 expanded commercial facility later this year and have near-term pre-16 application activities that build upon the progress from the advanced gas 17 reactor program.
18 Please go to the next slide. Previous NGNP regulatory 19 engagements greatly benefit our Xe-100 licensing activities. The challenges 20 shown in the left column were raised during those previous interactions.
21 And since 2014, resolutions have been developed that are 22 ready for application now. For example, the acceptance of mechanistic 23 source term and safety design approaches that utilize multiple barriers to 24 retain fission products is provided through various Commission papers and
11 1 staff requirement memos.
2 There is now a systematic method for determining how to 3 select licensing basis events for safety analysis and a risk-informed method 4 of classifying structures, systems, and components and their treatment during 5 operations.
6 Both are provided through guidance developed in the 7 licensing modernization project. And I'll ask the slide driver to keep my slides 8 up, please.
9 Finally, we have a performance-based approach to 10 developing the emergency preparedness requirements associated with a 11 small reactor found in draft NRC guidance in the forthcoming rulemaking.
12 And some examples on the right highlight that there will also 13 be challenges ahead.
14 We recognize that a risk-informed application requires risk 15 insights from a maturing probabilistic risk assessment, a tool that must be 16 developed progressively through the design iterations. The Xe-100 17 incorporates security designs to delay and deter aggressors, an approach that 18 we intend to ensure is aligned with the forthcoming security rule making.
19 And finally, the Xe-100 also uses high-assay low-enriched 20 uranium for its fuel supply so access to HALEU is of critical importance to us.
21 We continue to work with domestic supplier centers with the 22 Department of Energy with other global suppliers and our peers in the 23 advanced reactor community to ensure this resource will be available and 24 ready for use for near-term deployments like ARDP and beyond.
12 1 Next slide, please. We feel confident the Xe-100 and 2 TRISO-X fuel can be reviewed efficiently and operate safely today. Specific 3 to your request for today's meeting, I'd like to make the following comments 4 regarding fuel fabrication.
5 We implement quality control measures to ensure we can 6 reliably credit fuel particle performance using our proprietary improvements to 7 the TRISO fabrication processes developed through the AGR program.
8 We also benefit from the certification of the Versa-Pak 55 9 shipping container for transport of our finished product to any site in the U.S.,
10 and we anticipate across the border to prospective Canadian customers.
11 The performance of TRISO-coated particle fuel has been 12 demonstrated through the AGR program and approved via the recent EPRI 13 topical report for use in licensing.
14 X-energy has plans to supplement these findings with 15 information from our own development program to confirm our TRISO-X fuel 16 performance.
17 Lastly, we are following the NRC endorsement of ASME 18 code for high-temperature reactors, representing the development of material 19 and design approaches for HTGR components commensurate with their 20 safety significance.
21 The first Xe-100 units will also have additional capability to 22 monitor system performance and evaluate pebbles to enhance the operating 23 experience of our TRISO-X fuel.
24 The plant's initial test program also provides opportunity for
13 1 both operational and safety testing. You can take the slides down.
2 The Xe-100 represents an evolutionary design that builds 3 upon a substantial amount of research, development, and experimental data.
4 We believe the amount and pedigree of operating 5 experience collected over decades of HGTR operations are sufficient to safely 6 license our design today.
7 We look forward to continued engagements with the NRC 8 on these topics, thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward 9 to your questions later in the hearing.
10 Thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Sell. Next we'll 12 hear from Mr. Simon Irish, the Chief Executive Officer of Terrestrial Energy 13 U.S.A. Mr. Irish?
14 MR. IRISH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 15 Commissioners.
16 I want to thank the NRC for this opportunity to participate in 17 this Commissioner's briefing on preparedness activities for advanced 18 reactors, particularly with respect to fuels and materials.
19 Can I have the first slide, please? I'd like to start with a brief 20 summary of the IMSR Power Plant. The IMSR is a 452 megawatt thermal, 21 liquid-fueled and cooled, molten fluoride salt reactor, operating in the thermal 22 spectrum with a graphite moderator and a pool-type design.
23 The reactor system operates at near atmospheric pressure 24 and delivers 600 degrees thermal energy by molten salt loops for either
14 1 electricity generation or direct supply to industrial process heat applications.
2 The plant electrical output is 195 megawatts electrical, 3 implying a 44 percent thermal efficiency, which is critically important for 4 economic performance.
5 The IMSR power plant is fueled with standard assay low-6 enriched uranium, i.e., less than five percent enriched over its entire life of 56 7 years. The plant operates on a seven-year fuel cycle, which is aligned with 8 the IMSR core unit replacement cycle.
9 After a seven-year period of operation, the entire sealed 10 IMSR core unit is taken offline and replaced with a new core unit.
11 Next slide, please. Terrestrial Energy has submitted the 12 IMSR for regulatory review activities in both Canada and the United States.
13 It's important to note that we have an ongoing dialog with 14 multiple U.S. and Canadian utilities, and their input and advice has been 15 invaluable in informing our regulatory approach.
16 In Canada, the IMSR was engaged early in the Canadian 17 Nuclear Safety Commission's vendor design review process, or VDR. In 2017 18 Phase 1 of the VDR was completed and Phase 2 of this process should be 19 completed later this year.
20 Concurrent with the VDR, Terrestrial Energy has developed 21 technical information to support an application in the U.S. for a standard 22 design approval of the IMSR core unit under Part 52.
23 To that end, Terrestrial Energy has been submitting 24 technical white papers on the IMSR as part of its U.S. regulatory engagement
15 1 plan with the NRC.
2 To the maximum extent practical for the NRC activities, we 3 are leveraging the ongoing engineering and regulatory work that has been 4 accomplished in Canada for the vendor design review process.
5 The key lessons learned from this approach is that early 6 engagement with the regulator is essential to establishing the firm regulatory 7 understanding of the requirements of the technical information necessary to 8 obtain regulatory approvals as part of any future license application.
9 Given the timing of the ongoing VDR activities undertaken 10 by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, as well as the numerous 11 ongoing pre-licensing activities for the NRC, the IMSR is well placed to support 12 the NRC-CNSC memorandum of cooperation and demonstrate a successful 13 two-country licensing approach.
14 While the protocol for cross-border interaction between the 15 regulators on important regulatory topics can be complex, it is our belief that 16 this regulatory collaboration initiative represents an opportunity to 17 substantially reduce regulatory burden in preparing applications for both the 18 U.S. and Canada, while maintaining country-specific regulatory requirements 19 and, hence, regulatory sovereignty.
20 As you may know, the NRC and the CNSC are reviewing a 21 topical report on postulated initiating events and we believe this review effort 22 is progressing well, and look forward to further topical reports that we will be 23 submitting jointly to both regulators.
24 We look forward to continuing collaborative interactions
16 1 over a broad spectrum of topics for both regulators. Next slide, please.
2 Fuels and material qualification programs are defined by our 3 basic engineering program at the IMSR power plant and are well underway 4 and scheduled to be completed later this year.
5 The overall design program includes physics, thermal 6 hydraulics, materials, and chemistry. In the case of IMSR, chemistry includes 7 fuel qualification. The design of the IMSR is derived from technology 8 developed in the 1960s within the molten salt reactor experiment ats Oak 9 Ridge National Laboratory.
10 The MSRE laid the practical technological foundations for 11 the IMSR reactor design. To address the differences between the IMSR and 12 the MSRE reactor designs, Terrestrial Energy has defined a technology 13 development program to identify and address gaps. And that program is 14 being executed today.
15 Although the IMSR is a fission reactor, just as all operating 16 reactors are today, the fuel qualification process for the molten fluoride salt 17 that is both coolant and fuel is markedly different from the qualification process 18 for traditional solid reactor fuels.
19 The same is true for the operating environment and the 20 unique requirements it places on materials selected for use.
21 Ongoing programs associated with IMSR material and fuel 22 development and qualification include corrosion studies, the confirmation of 23 the fuel's thermophysical properties, computational modeling of the fuel salt's 24 thermophysical properties, and conducting integrated studies to confirm the
17 1 gathered knowledge concerning corrosion of alloys, salt-graphite interactions, 2 fission product behavior, mass-heat transport in an integrated system, and 3 operational and accident conditions including IMSR radiation levels.
4 Within the fuel and chemistry program, contracts associated 5 with the fuel salt qualification have been placed and work is underway with 6 qualified suppliers, such as Argonne National Lab, Virginia Tech University, 7 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, ENGIE Laborelec, and others.
8 Specific to the IMSR core unit moderator, the second cycle 9 of graphite irradiation at the Petten reactor in the Netherlands has been 10 completed late last month.
11 All of the testing is proceeding well and results are as 12 anticipated. The alloy testing program is addressing the corrosion 13 characteristics of the chosen alloys in the fuel salt environment throughout the 14 seven-year life of the core unit, as well as associated stress corrosion cracking 15 behavior. Specific phenomena studied will include galvanic temperature-16 driven, impurity-driven and flow-accelerated corrosion. Corrosion kinetics 17 will be identified based on the measured data.
18 This corrosion kinetic data will then be used as input in the 19 design of corrosion loop tests. These tests will be helpful in addressing 20 outstanding corrosion phenomena and we believe they place us in a good 21 position to address these phenomena in our respected applications to the 22 CNSC and NRC.
23 Both fuel and material qualification programs are well 24 underway and on schedule to support the first commercial deployment of the
18 1 IMSR power-plant as early as 2028.
2 NRC staff are welcome to review these ongoing processes 3 as part of our collaborative review activities.
4 Next slide, please. I know this is rather a brief review and 5 only touched upon several topics in our entire development and deployment 6 effort. I will be glad to answer any specific questions the Commissioners may 7 have.
8 Thank you very much.
9 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Irish, I 10 appreciate your presentation. Next, we'll hear from Mr. Steven Kuczynski, 11 Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Southern Nuclear 12 Operating Company.
13 Mr. Kuczynski?
14 MR. KUCZYNSKI: Good morning, Chairman Hanson, and 15 Commissioners Baran, Caputo, and Wright. Thank you for the opportunity to 16 brief you today on Southern Company's perspective on advanced reactors as 17 well as our investments in advanced reactor technology.
18 Next slide, please. Thank you. Southern Company has 19 committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
20 We believe that new nuclear generation can be central to 21 enabling a net zero future by powering reliable, resilient, and dispatchable 22 production of clean electricity, hydrogen, and process heat required to 23 decarbonize the economy.
24 Even as we are nearing completion of the AP1000 reactor
19 1 at Plant Vogtle, we continue to pursue the next generation of nuclear 2 technologies.
3 Southern Company is committing resources to research and 4 development that supports availability of advanced reactor deployment 5 concurrent with any future retirements or decarbonization requirements.
6 We are pursuing technologies expected to be competitive 7 with natural gas combined cycle generation, post-combustion carbon capture 8 and solar generation, and energy storage.
9 We expect advanced reactors to reduce capital investment, 10 time to construct an operating and maintenance cost as a result of their 11 inherent and simpler safety cases, which will also make it possible to expand 12 siting options and open new markets to nuclear power.
13 The high-temperature heat that many advanced reactor 14 technologies generate is an especially attractive attribute that can be used to 15 decarbonize industrial processes, power clean hydrogen production, and 16 manufacture clean, synthetic fuels.
17 Advanced reactors can transform many industries and take 18 decarbonization beyond the 45 percent of the economy that can be electrified.
19 Southern Company sees tremendous potential for advanced nuclear 20 technologies to provide clean, safe, and affordable energy for customers and 21 for the nation.
22 Next slide, please. Southern Company closely follows 23 ongoing development and progress in the advanced reactor industry and has 24 partnered with TerraPower in developing its Molten Chloride Fast Reactor
20 1 technology, or MCFR.
2 MCFR is one of the most advanced Generation 4 nuclear 3 technologies under development.
4 By combining a homogeneous liquid fuel in a fast spectrum 5 with the molten salt coolant, the MCFR results in superior performance, safety, 6 and economic benefit, providing flexible, highly efficient, clean electric power 7 generation and carbon-free hydrate processes and thermal storage.
8 The DOE has selected Southern Company to lead a team 9 to design, construct, and operate the Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment 10 under the DOE's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program risk reduction 11 pathway, which focuses on the design and development of the advanced 12 reactor technologies with a potential to be licensed and deployed within 10 to 13 12 years.
14 The recently awarded Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment 15 will be the world's first critical fast spectrum salt reactor and is an integral part 16 of the comprehensive MCFR technology development program led by 17 Southern Company.
18 The Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment project will span 19 approximately five years and provide vital nuclear data and operational 20 experience that informs the design, licensing, and operation of a an MCFR 21 demonstration reactor that is expected to be operational by the early 2030s.
22 Southern Company's R&D and organizational lead 23 managed the effort in its collaboration efforts that include TerraPower and a 24 number of private companies, national laboratories, and universities, and
21 1 maintain the momentum begun in 2015 by Southern Company, TerraPower, 2 and several partners to develop and demonstrate key MCFR technology 3 under the DOE advanced reactor ARC award.
4 Next slide, please. As I mentioned earlier, advanced 5 reactor technologies have the potential to provide safe, clean, and affordable 6 energy to meet the future energy demands of our customers and our nation.
7 Southern Company believes that to take full advantage of 8 the promise offered by these designs an agile, predictable, and resilient 9 regulatory framework is needed.
10 Such a framework will enable a consistent, coherent, and 11 timely establishment of technical and oversight requirements across a range 12 of different advanced reactor designs, while providing flexibility, regulatory 13 predictability, and a streamlined oversight approach throughout the lifecycle 14 of the reactor.
15 We believe that integrated and holistic risk-informed, 16 performance-based regulatory framework is the best option to efficiently 17 achieving these desired attributes.
18 Therefore, we support the Commission's role in developing 19 the foundation for such a regulatory framework through deploying the 20 proposed Part 53 by 2024.
21 Southern Company has been working collaboratively with 22 DOE, NRC, and other industry stakeholders to build confidence in the 23 effectiveness and practicality of a risk-informed, performance-based 24 regulatory framework for many years.
22 1 For example, one of our most recent initiatives is the 2 Licensing Modernization Project, or LMP, a DOE cost-shared project.
3 LMP has established an optional risk-informed 4 performance-based methodology for developing and assessing the reactor 5 safety case within a Part 50 and Part 52 application.
6 LMP is also intended to be optional guidance for use of 7 future risk-informed performance-based rule that forms the foundation for 8 transitioning to an integrated, holistic risk-informed performance-based 9 regulatory framework for the license, inspect and enforce NRC requirements.
10 This holistically modernized regulatory framework will 11 enable all the stakeholders to move more effectively and utilize the enhanced 12 safety margin of advanced reactors to better serve our nation through the 13 lifecycle of a plant.
14 In conclusion, Southern Company believes advanced 15 reactors have an important role in decarbonizing the economy and is fully 16 engaged in investing in advanced reactor technology development and 17 regulatory modernization.
18 Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's 19 meeting, I look forward to any questions you may have.
20 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you very much for that.
21 Next we'll hear from Dr. Todd Allen, Senior Visiting Fellow with Third Way.
22 Dr. Allen?
23 MR. ALLEN: Good morning, Chairman Hanson, fellow 24 Commissioners, thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing. If you
23 1 can go ahead and go to my second slide, that would be fine.
2 So, where are we in the deployment of nuclear energy?
3 Well, a little history, between the 1970s and 2000s we proved that we can 4 deploy nuclear energy quite rapidly, 30 plants per decade over a 3-decade 5 period.
6 We've plateaued since, although we've increased the 7 operational efficiency of the existing plants. But we're at this point now where 8 some question are we at a cliff or inflection point?
9 Will we run the existing plants and that's it, or will we build a 10 new generation?
11 I think very strongly that the combination of addressing 12 climate change, the clean energy jobs that go along with that, influencing 13 international norms in nuclear energy, and supplying a resilient grid through 14 using multiple technologies will keep us deploying advanced nuclear energy.
15 Next slide, please. And you can click to the end so we see 16 everything, thank you. So, about five years ago you saw a very strong 17 recognition of advanced reactor companies.
18 So, many states were doing things to extend the life of the 19 existing reactors. At the same time we saw a number of new companies, a 20 few of them are talking today that had different ideas about how to move the 21 technology forward.
22 This was paralleled by federal programs to support those, 23 you've heard some of those this morning from Dr. Finan, like GAIN or NRIC, 24 the new RBE programs.
24 1 Legislation has moved forward in a bipartisan way to 2 support the deployment of these advanced reactor companies. We have 3 NGOs advocating for advanced reactor, we have the NRC working very hard 4 to be ready for these companies.
5 So, what's different? Next slide, please. I think what's 6 different is the potential uses of the technology.
7 I go back 50 years when I was a kid and it was simple, we 8 built gigawatt-scale electric plants and we sent out electricity through 9 transmission and distribution lines to the homes.
10 But now there are opportunities because of sources that 11 come on and off the grid that are variable, different energy products, different 12 deployment scenarios, the need or anticipated need for significantly more 13 electrification.
14 And so what's different is we need different products beyond 15 just gigawatt-scale electricity, and that's what the advanced reactor 16 companies are bringing in multiple, multiple ways.
17 Next slide, please, there we go. And so I think we'll see the 18 following things being important, we'll see nuclear energy concepts that are 19 aimed at different uses other than just gigawatt-size electricity production.
20 We see a couple of those today.
21 We'll see sites proposed that are different, people will want 22 to deploy these in different locations than we did with first-generation light 23 water reactor technologies.
24 I think the technological approaches that will be used will be
25 1 different. It may get value through updating more frequently than we may 2 have seen in the past.
3 And so at a big picture I think we'll see more ideas brought 4 forward at a faster pace, and so the more regulatory system can create 5 performance-based metrics rather than size-specific, site-specific, or 6 technology-specific approaches, the more efficient the system will be at 7 responding to these new ideas, which I think are positioned to improve our 8 society.
9 And so I will leave it at that, I thank the Commission for 10 inviting me today and I look forward to the Q&A.
11 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Dr. Allen. Next we'll 12 hear from Mr. Steven Swilley, Deputy Chief Nuclear Officer and Senior 13 Director of Research and Development for Nuclear at the Electric Power 14 Research Institute.
15 Mr. Swilley?
16 MR. SWILLEY: Thank you, Chairman and 17 Commissioners, for the opportunity to discuss this important topic on the future 18 of commercial nuclear power.
19 This morning I will briefly discuss two topics, technical 20 readiness and the role of private-public partnerships.
21 Next slide, please. On the subject of technical readiness, 22 I've got three projects here to talk about, near-term advanced reactor 23 deployment.
24 On the Owner-Operator Requirements Guide for advanced
26 1 reactors, EPRI has developed and published a new high-level platform for 2 communicating and understanding advanced reactor design attributes, 3 capabilities, and requirements among end users, developers, and other 4 stakeholders.
5 This guide is intended as a flexible living technology and 6 mission-inclusive framework to enable alignment of advanced reactor design 7 attributes with customer wants and needs, support customer evaluation of 8 those new designs, communicate advanced reactor capabilities and attributes 9 to regulators and other stakeholders, and facilitate introduction of events, 10 designs to new customers and new markets.
11 If you're familiar with the EPRI utility requirements 12 document, you may think of this Owner-Operator Requirements Guide as a 13 prequel to that document.
14 On safety and design, advanced reactor developers 15 pursuing design certification and/or licensing sometimes face challenges in 16 developing a safety case, and those designs may have limited to no 17 commercial operating experience or incorporate novel design elements and/or 18 have unique source terms.
19 A system engineering and establish qualitative and semi-20 quantitative process hazards analysis methodology provides a bridge to 21 quantitative probabilistic risk assessment that are progressively applicable 22 and adaptable to the design maturity and level of detail, and capable of 23 generating event trees and fault trees for quantitative risk assessments.
24 This methodology has been briefed to the NRC staff on several
27 1 occasions as well as to the ACRS during the Licensing Modernization Project, 2 which did lead to NEI 18-04 for risk-informed, performance-based technology-3 inclusive guidance for Non-Light Water Reactors licensing basis development.
4 On advanced reactor materials, as advanced reactors move 5 towards higher temperatures and harsher operating conditions than the 6 existing light water reactors fleet, material options are needed for the various 7 reactor types.
8 EPRI has developed material gap analysis reports for each 9 of these reactor designs and is focused on supporting not only the ASME code 10 material qualifications, but also capturing and understanding the 11 environmental effects such as irradiation and corrosion that are needed to 12 support regulatory approval.
13 One pillar of this initiative is focused on coordinating the 14 efforts within the industry to meet deployment timelines. Next slide, please.
15 On the subject of public-private partnerships, I've got three examples to 16 highlight.
17 The first one is on additive manufacturing. EPRI, along 18 with the Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 19 Westinghouse, and Rolls Royce collaborated with component fabricators and 20 the supply chain to develop the first ASME code case for additively 21 manufactured components.
22 We performed a series of round-robin testing on three 23 different components from five different fabricators, thus established 24 repeatability in the process and giving confidence to the industry and new
28 1 technologies.
2 This was not just one organization performing all of the work 3 and holding that expertise. We focused on the technology transfer, which is a 4 key value of public-private partnerships.
5 This first-of-a-kind code case will pave the way and provide 6 a pathway methodology for other materials and similar technologies to follow.
7 On the SMR Advanced Manufacturing Demonstration 8 Project, working with the Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National 9 Laboratory, Nuclear AMRC from the UK and NuScale, we are reinventing the 10 supply chain by focusing on three game-changing technologies for the nuclear 11 power industry.
12 The first one is powdered metallurgy hot isostatic pressing, 13 also known as PMHIP, is really an alternative to forging. It represents a 14 reduction in the time and cost and also opens up a domestic supply chain 15 opportunity.
16 Electron beam welding is factory fabrication with significant 17 reduction in weld times to the tune of a 90 percent reduction. Diode laser 18 cladding, an automated process reducing labor and lead times while also 19 reducing material cost.
20 Large-scale demonstrations are essential in moving 21 technologies from laboratory to the real-world applications, providing end 22 users confidence of deployment.
23 Scaling is made possible with public-private funding where 24 one private organization may not have the appetite to take on that risk.
29 1 My final example is TRISO fuel performance topical report.
2 TRISO structural isotropic coated particle fuel provides the foundation for 3 inherent safety and high-temperature operation in advanced high-temperature 4 reactors, including helium and molten salt cooled designs.
5 A public-private effort was initiated to support advanced 6 reactor developers and designs by leveraging and locking in existing 7 high-quality fuel qualification data resulting from close coordination among 8 EPRI, the Department of Energy, Idaho National Laboratory, and the High-9 Temperature Reactor Technology Working Group.
10 On August 11, 2020, the NRC published its final safety 11 evaluation report approving the use of the EPRI TRISO topical report for future 12 applicants. EPRI subsequently published the revised approved technical 13 report in November 2020.
14 The NRC's early agreement to conduct an off-fee basis 15 review of the resulting topical report based on its generic applicability was 16 essential to the successful outcome of this effort.
17 The resulting approved topical report should increase the 18 efficiency of the safety review process for design certification and license 19 applications to come.
20 This concludes my remarks, thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Swilley.
22 And last but certainly not least we'll hear from Dr. Ed Lyman, Director of 23 Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
24 Dr. Lyman?
30 1 DR. LYMAN: Good morning, Chairman Hanson and 2 Commissioners Baran, Caputo, and Wright. UCS really appreciates the 3 opportunity to present our views on this very important topic today.
4 Next slide, please. So, last month UCS released a report 5 on the landscape of Non-Light Water Reactors called Advanced Isn't Always 6 Better. And we looked in particular at sodium-cooled fast reactors, high-7 temperature gas-cooled reactors molten salt fuel reactors.
8 And overall, our research does not substantiate the notion 9 that any of these Non-Light Water Reactors actually meets the NRC advanced 10 reactor policy statement expectation that they will have clearly enhanced 11 safety margins.
12 And as a result, none of these designs warrant the broad 13 weakening of regulatory standards that the NRC is considering. Next slide, 14 please.
15 Now, I want to focus my remarks on the two Advanced 16 Reactor Demonstration Program demonstration reactors that the NRC has 17 licensing authority over. Now, we believe that the congressionally-mandated 18 timeline for startup of these reactors by 2027 is very aggressive.
19 And in fact, the Department of Energy itself characterizes 20 the timeline that way.
21 The program calls for commercial demonstration plants to 22 be built and operated by that date. Now, although what that actually means 23 is somewhat ambiguous, my reading is the clarification of those facilities is 24 that they will essentially be identical to subsequent commercial units.
31 1 Their goal is to produce electrical power on a commercial 2 basis and serve as models for subsequent commercial use.
3 And Mr. Levesque of TerraPower said last month that a big 4 piece of the company's private investment contributions to that program will 5 be the revenue stream.
6 And Mr. Sell testified before Congress also last month that 7 we are demonstrating a full-scale commercial plant, just like the plant we will 8 sell.
9 Next slide, please. So, why is this a problem?
10 We see this as a problem because the NRC has not yet 11 determined whether the criteria for plants with passive safety features or 12 additional advanced reactor qualities, as specified in 10 CFR 50.43(e), can 13 actually be licensed without having acceptable testing prototype plants, for 14 either the Natrium sodium fast reactor or the Xe-100 high-temperature gas-15 cooled reactor.
16 And during pre-application reviews in the 1990s, the NRC 17 staff expected that both those types of reactors would have prototype testing 18 before a design certification.
19 Now, if the NRC does decide for the advanced reactor 20 demonstrations a prototype testing of some sort is necessary, it really must 21 soon determine what type of testing will be required, what format it will take, 22 and for how long.
23 And the NRC's obligation is on maintaining public health, 24 safety, and security. And its licensing timetable has to be focused on that.
32 1 It should not compromise its standards to meet an arbitrary and unrealistic 2 schedule imposed by Congress.
3 Next slide, please. In our view, we do not think that either 4 of the demonstration plant designs are mature enough to be safely, securely, 5 and reliably deployed as commercial reactors on the current schedule.
6 This applies not only to the basic reactor design but as well 7 the fuels and materials that would be needed.
8 And that is because the past demonstrations of those 9 designs were not sufficiently representative of the current designs to provide 10 adequate data to support NRC's licensing decision.
11 So, we think prototype testing will be needed and, again, the 12 form of that prototype testing needs to be determined by the applicant in 13 discussion with the NRC.
14 If you deploy these plants commercially without doing that 15 testing, that could have safety impacts.
16 For instance, if the goal of those projects is really to 17 generate revenue, there may be pushback from the licensees to carry out 18 safety testing that may be necessary before full commercial operation.
19 And the other way around, if you take the deployment of the 20 Xe-100 at Columbia Generating Station, for example, the potential for grid 21 requirements to put constraints on the operation of that plant could require 22 operation in modes that may not have been fully demonstrated, load following 23 or cycling.
24 Next slide, please. So, I don't have time to go through this
33 1 but this is just some examples of aspects of the Natrium design, which differ 2 significantly from the prior U.S. demonstration of this technology, which is the 3 EBR2.
4 I'd like to focus on the sodium void worth, which is the 5 inherent feedback against power increases in the reactor. The EBR2 had a 6 negative void worth because it was a very small reactor and the Natrium will 7 be positive.
8 Why is that important? Next slide, please.
9 It's because a reactor with a positive sodium void worth 10 cannot be characterized as passively safe, and I'm quoting here from the 11 NRC's pre-application report for the PRISM reactor from the 1990s, where it 12 disputed characterizing this reactor as passively safe because of the potential 13 for a positive reactivity excursion on a rapid basis, sodium boiling and potential 14 for core melt and disassembly.
15 Next slide, please. And for that reason, the NRC did argue 16 that a PRISM prototype was needed and at that time DOE had committed to 17 doing such a prototype.
18 One important aspect is whether a conventional 19 containment building would be needed and NRC argued that the absence of 20 such a containment building would have to be demonstrated through transient 21 testing on the safety testing requirement side.
22 Next slide, please. And similar arguments apply for 23 HTGRs, especially the pebble bed, which has not been demonstrated in the 24 United States and prior demonstrations in Europe were not totally successful
34 1 and also had many different characteristics.
2 Next slide, please. One example of a safety concern with 3 that design is the potential for the Xe-100 at 200 megawatts thermal, which is 4 the target of our level for the demonstration to exceed the 1600 degree TRISO 5 safety limit in the most severe design basis accident.
6 That's a well-known safety limit that should not be exceeded 7 and will need demonstration eventually to determine whether or not those 8 safety limits are challenged. Next slide, please.
9 And you have to dig out that fact from a report in a technical 10 journal to learn that the safety limit would be exceeded. Next slide, please.
11 And again, in the 1990s the NRC staff believed that a 12 modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor of a prismatic block design, 13 which was demonstrated in the United States would still need another 14 prototype demonstration again to verify features of the design that would allow 15 the design not to have a conventional low-leakage containment.
16 Next slide, please. Now, the NRC itself has raised the 17 issue of early engagement with advanced reactor licensees on the need for 18 prototype testing through regulatory engagement plans.
19 There's very little public information about the NRC's 20 interaction with the current Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program 21 applicants on these issues, which clearly have to be sorted out immediately to 22 determine the extent of prototype testing and how that would be carried out.
23 Next slide, please.
24 So, to conclude, we believe that the ARDP demonstration
35 1 plants will probably need to have additional safety features and operational 2 constraints during prototype testing phases that last five years or more or until 3 the reactor has achieved equilibrium operation.
4 And the additional safety features may need to include 5 conventional containment buildings, safety-grade emergency diesel 6 generators and active backup emergency cooling until the passive features of 7 those designs are demonstrated.
8 I will stop there.
9 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Dr. Lyman, and thank 10 you to all of our panelists this morning for what were really illuminating and 11 helpful presentations.
12 We'll begin with questions from the Commission with 13 Commissioner Baran.
14 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you all for joining us 15 today and for sharing your perspectives. I want to get your thoughts about 16 NRC's Part 53 rulemaking, which will establish much of the regulatory 17 framework for advanced reactors.
18 This is a major effort and it's going to involve a lot of hard 19 work, creating a risk-informed, performance-based technology-neutral 20 framework that can work for molten salt reactors and high-temperature gas-21 cooled reactors, micro-reactors, and reactors of several hundred megawatts.
22 I think everyone agrees that's challenging. I've been 23 following the public meetings and it sounds like there's a fair bit of vendor 24 interest in deterministic options, particularly from micro-reactors.
36 1 That's different than what I think the NRC staff was initially 2 envisioning, which was more of a PRA-focused licensing modernization 3 project type approach.
4 For those of you who have been actively participating in the 5 Part 53 public meetings, do you think there should be options that are more 6 deterministic under the rule?
7 And if so, what do you think that should look like?
8 MR. KUCZYNSKI: This is Steve K., I'll touch on this a little 9 bit as my presentation touched on Part 53.
10 We do feel Part 53 is another option and we think the 11 pathway of performance-based, risk-informed really envelopes all of the 12 available technologies going forward. And we think that's an important 13 pathway to continue.
14 I think the level of PRA varies between technologies and I 15 think that can be overcome. And we would probably not lean forward on 16 being more deterministic in Part 53. We do think that Part 50/52 has some 17 optionality if individual companies want to go that direction.
18 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks, Steve, do others have 19 thoughts on that?
20 MR. IRISH: Commissioner Baran, I'll add to comments 21 from Steve Kuczynski. From our perspective, our strategy today is the 22 standard design application under Part 52, Subpart E.
23 That is our strategy today.
24 We are contributing, though, as a vendor to the efforts to
37 1 move forward with Part 53. Until rulemaking has occurred on Part 53, it's 2 going to be difficult for us to incorporate Part 53 into our licensing plans.
3 We anticipate, though, that Part 53 has the potential to be 4 important to the licensing activities in subsequent years.
5 With respect to specifically your question as to the 6 difference between probabilistic safety analysis and deterministic safety 7 analysis, obviously, Part 53 is focusing on probabilistic safety analysis.
8 I had certainly never viewed Part 53 to be exclusively 9 probabilistic safety analysis and we'd probably have to defer an expert 10 comment to my colleagues to determine exactly where, from our perspective, 11 the optimal allocation is between probabilistic and deterministic safety 12 methods with respect to our system.
13 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks, any other thoughts on 14 this?
15 DR. LYMAN: Yes, if I may? Sorry, I'll defer to Clay, 16 actually.
17 MR. SELL: I'll be very brief. As I previously stated, due to 18 the timelines required under the ARDP demonstration program, we're going 19 to pursue either Part 50 or Part 52 approach.
20 Nonetheless we really are interested and remain engaged 21 in Part 53 program, I mean developement program, we do see it, quite 22 honestly, as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to truly transform the 23 regulatory framework for a multiplicity of designs.
24 I will share with you just from a Chief Executive standpoint,
38 1 the rush to a rule perhaps might lead to us missing the truly transformational 2 opportunity with the Part 53 rulemaking.
3 Specifically to your question, Commissioner Baran, it's our 4 view that an appropriately designed Part 53 should allow for both deterministic 5 and probabilistic risk analysis approaches to regulation.
6 Thank you.
7 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Let me throw one other 8 question in here for folks who had the deterministic question too.
9 Do you think the rule should require an advanced reactor 10 applicant to have a PRA? Maybe Steve Kuczynski, do you have a view on 11 that? If you were going to apply it to Part 53, should you have to have a PRA?
12 MR. KUCZYNSKI: Yes, our view I think is consistent with 13 how the rule has been developed of many years.
14 We think the risk-informed quantitative measures are the 15 best way to, I'd say, provide clarity, certainty, and predictability in a regulatory 16 framework.
17 So, we do think that PRA is integral to that effort. So, yes.
18 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Any other thoughts on this 19 before we move on to other questions?
20 Really, what I'm trying to get at is when I read the transcript, 21 I was surprised that there was a significant level of vendor interest and 22 something more deterministic.
23 I wasn't really expecting that. I didn't have a negative 24 reaction to it, but it was surprising to me.
39 1 I'm not hearing a lot of that on the panel today but any other 2 thoughts on deterministic approaches and whether or not applicants should 3 be required to have a PRA under the rule?
4 DR. LYMAN: Yes, if I may say something? I share your 5 surprise that after so much advocacy for risk-informed, performance-based 6 regulation, which clearly implies a heavy reliance on PRA, that the Nuclear 7 Energy Institute and other stakeholders seem to be backing away from that.
8 Now, I personally am skeptical about how far a PRA can 9 actually be used in the licensing a plant that has no operating experience.
10 But I do think Part 53 offers the opportunity to solve or 11 address some of the gaps in licensing of the existing fleet that were 12 highlighted, for instance, in the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force. Where 13 were finally addressing the issue of how you come up with a consistent way 14 to classify a design basis and beyond-design-basis accidents and apply 15 appropriate treatment.
16 So, I think there has to be a deterministic element to 17 licensing new reactors.
18 The danger that I see in what's being proposed is that it's 19 quasi deterministic that some in the industry would like to be able to make, 20 essentially, a deterministic finding which is really implicitly risk-based.
21 In other words, what's the maximum hypothetical accident?
22 So, there's an implicit quantitative aspect there because you are, essentially, 23 saying what is so improbable that you don't need to consider it?
24 And so I think the danger there is not having a clear
40 1 standard of how you make a deterministic source term calculation, for 2 example, as in Part 50.
3 If you maintain consistent safety requirements with Part 50, 4 you need to have a deterministic approach that will provide comparable 5 protection of public health and safety.
6 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks, Ed. In the public 7 meetings some stakeholders are recommending that the rule contain 8 high-level language with a lot of detail and guidance.
9 Are you all envisioning a lot of technology-specific guidance, 10 for example, detailed liquid sodium cooled, fast reactor guidance? And if so, 11 who do you see developing that guidance?
12 Anyone want to weigh in on that one? How high-level 13 should the language be and then how much should we have in guidance?
14 And who should put that guidance together?
15 MR. KUCZYNSKI: Commissioner, when we think about 16 the quantitative measures, it is designed I would say, in our view, to 17 promulgate high-level performance objectives and then obviously, there's 18 work to do define what those are and what they cover and what those levels 19 will be.
20 And that then allows a framework for developers, not only 21 those that are in progress today that may choose 53 or those over the next 22 decades as technology evolves to know what the overall performance 23 objective, and not have to be extremely specific about every technology.
24 Then you leave it to the developers to develop a technology,
41 1 present the safety case, and demonstrate to the NRC how those performance 2 objectives are met.
3 And to us, that provides predictability but it also is agile 4 enough to be technology-inclusive, which I think ultimately is what we want to 5 try to achieve.
6 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks, Steve, I think it's a 7 good point. Reading the transcripts, it's not surprising to me that vendors 8 would prefer a lot of flexibility in how they demonstrate the safety of the reactor 9 designs.
10 I do worry, though, that if every safety case takes a unique 11 approach, that could impact regulatory predictability. There is a trade-off 12 between flexibility and predictability.
13 Thank you all for sharing your views, there's a lot of work 14 left to be done on this rulemaking and I look forward to continuing the 15 conversation.
16 Thanks.
17 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Baran.
18 Commissioner Caputo?
19 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Good morning, I'd like to start 20 by thanking all of our speakers for coming today and contributing their 21 perspectives on this very high priority topic for our agency.
22 I think I'd like to continue on with Commissioner Baran's line 23 of questioning. I know we've heard several views and Mr. Sell in particular 24 mentioned on one of his slides about the alignment of PRA expectations.
42 1 But I'd like to hear from Mr. Swilley, you mentioned how a 2 qualitative and systematic process hazards analysis could be a bridge to a 3 quantitative PRA.
4 Considering that a lot of these technologies may not have 5 the operational experience significant or systematic enough to generate the 6 high-quality level 3 PRA, how do you see your process hazards analysis being 7 that bridge to help these technologies develop?
8 MR. SWILLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. It's really 9 going to upon the maturity of each design as each developer comes in.
10 The hazards process and operability analysis has been 11 demonstrated in particular in the chemical industry for how do you go through 12 each area and identify what are the risks, what are the hazards, what are the 13 consequences?
14 Even though you don't have the quantitative information to 15 establish it at that point.
16 And the methodology is really intended to be iterative so if 17 you have a developer, instead of trying to tackle everything at once, if you go 18 through this process you can define what are the gaps, and what are the 19 additional information or R&D that needs to be established to create that 20 quantitative information?
21 And the methodology that we put together actually matches 22 up this process to the inputs necessary to develop a PRA. So, as you go 23 through this process, it helps you identify the inputs and then identify where 24 the gaps are in developing the PRA.
43 1 So, it's a difficult question to answer in that it's going to be 2 somewhat varied and different depending upon the maturity of each design 3 and the information that is available and the information that would need to be 4 developed.
5 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So, help me understand a 6 little bit more.
7 Through that process, is it likely that you would encounter 8 situations where you might find subtopics, per se, that would be easily 9 bounded and might be more suited towards a deterministic answer, simply 10 because it's simpler and more straightforward, while other topics should be 11 more exhaustively examined through a PRA approach?
12 MR. SWILLEY: Certainly, and I think that same process 13 could help prioritize what are those significant challenges that maybe you go 14 the deterministic route because it's more defined and simpler to implement.
15 But then in the end, maybe the PRA approach gives you 16 more flexibility in the approach that you use to solve the problem.
17 And again, it's a methodology, there are some case studies 18 we've gone through, there are more case studies to go through that people 19 can go back and look and determine how to apply this.
20 So, I try not to be cagey but without specifics, it's difficult to 21 answer.
22 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Fair enough, I think in 23 general one of the struggles that we'll face throughout this process is the 24 balance between clarity and reliability versus flexibility.
44 1 And if we look at taking an approach that is focused solely 2 on PRA, the approach may be simple but the execution may be complicated.
3 And so I would just encourage the staff to be flexible in terms 4 of how they go about distinguishing those issues.
5 My next question is to Dr. Allen and Dr. Finan. Both of you 6 have actively contributed to advanced reactor policymaking for many years.
7 So, in addition to the bipartisan support evident in Congress 8 for several years, President Biden's American Jobs Plan includes advanced 9 nuclear in its priorities and in its clean energy standard.
10 Secretary Granholm also emphasized her support for 11 deploying advanced nuclear reactors during her confirmation hearing. Do 12 you expect this level of administration support to accelerate the development 13 and deployment of advanced reactors?
14 DR. FINAN: Thank you for the question. Todd, I'll take my 15 take at it and then you can go ahead. Commissioner Caputo, I really think 16 back to Dr. Michael Ford's doctoral dissertation at Carnegie Mellon when I 17 think about this topic.
18 He studied DOE NE's past programs in detail and his 19 conclusion, one of them, was that successful innovation in nuclear requires 20 urgency, political support, and a coherent strategy consistently implemented.
21 And my own doctoral dissertation made some similar 22 recommendations, so I do think that the recent emergence of the coherent 23 and consistent strategy coupled with urgency is foundational and auspicious.
24 And the literature suggests that continued commitment will be critical to
45 1 successful outcomes in that strategy.
2 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. Todd?
3 MR. ALLEN: Thanks, Ashley.
4 And I think I would agree, I think that we've seen momentum 5 that started around 2015, it's crossed multiple administrations but it keeps 6 becoming more consistent.
7 And I think that the drivers I mentioned before addressing 8 climate change and a more resilient grid, I don't think these go away, I think 9 they continue on. And so I think we're just building support for federal 10 programs that in many ways will parallel what we did with renewables.
11 There's a combination of R&D plus federal programs that 12 drive improvements in the systems through partnering with commercial 13 industry. And I think the external drivers that want clean energy technologies 14 don't go away.
15 So, I think the trends continue.
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Dr. Allen, I have another 17 question for you and for Mr. Kuczynski.
18 Dr. Allen, you mentioned how more ideas will be brought 19 forward at a faster pace and Mr. Kuczynski, you mentioned the need for a 20 regulatory framework to be resilient and manage state-of-the-art changes 21 without unnecessary burden, delay, or disruption.
22 Would you provide a little more detail on your views of how 23 exactly the regulatory framework should address that challenge?
24 MR. ALLEN: I can go first, and I think I just would go back
46 1 to some of your previous comments or questions that you asked.
2 I think that you will see multiple different technologies and I 3 think what's important is if you lock down on just one approach, PRA or 4 deterministic, it will be hard.
5 And so I think the answers that were previously given, 6 maybe by Mr. Swilley, relative to a flexibility depending on the vendor while 7 maintaining a set of standards is probably going to be necessary.
8 And some of these companies will not make it, commercial 9 competition will eliminate them, but I do think we'll continue to see that 10 variability in the concepts.
11 MR. KUCZYNSKI: Commissioner, thanks for that 12 question.
13 A little insight on what we mean by resiliency, I think we're 14 looking at as these technologies emerge and if you think about it over the next 15 10, 20, 30 years and reflect back on the existing fleet, how do we handle, both 16 as a licensee and a regulator, different safety issues that arise through the 17 deployment of these technologies?
18 And there's always that balance between does the licensee 19 take initial ownership and manage the overall response to that safety issue as 20 we see in the programs in our industry?
21 Or is it the NRC that has the complete control and helps 22 guide those? And I think we've seen over the years a transfer in some areas 23 to where licensees using probabilistic methods have been able to update our 24 ability to address some of these programmatic issues.
47 1 So, I think going forward, we would continue to support that 2 dialogue between the balance between the licensee's responsibility to address 3 programmatic safety issues that may come up in the future.
4 We think there's an opportunity to continue the trend to 5 where the licensee has more direct ownership and the NRC provides that 6 high-level oversight on how a licensee does respond.
7 So, that was kind of what our thinking was around the 8 resiliency, and obviously, today we don't know exactly what issues we will face 9 in the future as new technologies develop and are deployed.
10 But the framework about how we address those is what 11 we're talking about in Part 53 in the rule.
12 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Caputo.
14 Commissioner Wright?
15 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 It's good to see everybody in person here at the table who I'm sure cannot 17 wait until we can get the panel here in person as well.
18 So, first off, I'd like to extend my appreciation to all of these 19 speakers today.
20 We covered a lot and I had a lot of questions, some of them 21 have been addressed in some way, so we may plough over a little bit of ground 22 that we've already ploughed just to maybe get a little bit more clarity.
23 Mr. Sell, I want to talk to you first and I've said before and 24 it's no surprise, I think my colleagues share the same view that the NRC
48 1 doesn't want to be a barrier to advanced reactor technology.
2 Instead, consistent with our mission, we want to work efficiently and 3 effectively to license technologies that are coming before us.
4 So, in terms of our efforts to do so, I wanted to kind of get 5 your thoughts on the progress of Part 53 of the rulemaking so far, as 6 discussed, the goals for it to be performance-based and risk-informed.
7 Do you believe we at the NRC are implementing that 8 approach thus far?
9 And if not, are there areas where we could look to leverage 10 such an approach and areas where it would not be appropriate to do so?
11 Could you maybe address that for me?
12 MR. SELL: Commissioner Wright, would you mind 13 restating your question for me? I want to make sure I understand it correctly.
14 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So, we're going through the 15 Part 53 rulemaking and we're having regular meetings and stuff on this with 16 industry.
17 And as we're going forward on this, it's purposed to be both 18 performance-based and risk-informed. So, do you believe that we in this 19 process at the NRC are implementing that approach thus far?
20 And if we're not, are there areas where we could look to 21 leverage such an approach? And are there areas where we probably ought 22 not do so?
23 MR. SELL: My sense, Commissioner Wright, thanks for 24 the question and the opportunity to comment on it.
49 1 I'm just going to speak to you from the level of the Chief 2 Executive based on the feedback that I'm getting from both our industry 3 supporters, my licensing team, other people that I listen to.
4 My sense is that perhaps the early deadline that's been 5 imposed by the Commission has forced some decision-making, forced an 6 approach more exclusively towards probabilistic risk assessment that perhaps 7 will not result in the rule that we all hope for or what we all hope to achieve in 8 Part 53.
9 That's my sense. Now, I have not been involved directly or 10 engaged in these discussions, it is something I'm quite interested in but in our 11 case, we are intensely focused right now just from an operational licensing 12 standpoint on our pre-engagement activities, on the ARDP, and on our pre-13 licensing activities.
14 And then we anticipate most likely a Part 50, possibly a Part 15 52, application associated with the Energy Northwest demonstration project.
16 So, that's where all of our operational focus is now.
17 It's certainly my view that a rush to an early Part 53 18 rulemaking may allow us, through good intentions and a focus on getting it 19 done early, to miss the opportunity to create a truly transformational rule that 20 will stand the test of time and be attractive for future licensing activities beyond 21 the late '20s era that we're focused on now.
22 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. Simon, maybe, 23 do you want to address that at all, the Part 53 issue?
24 MR. IRISH: Yes, Commissioner Wright, I had a few more
50 1 comments on Part 53. We are providing feedback to Part 53, I'm listening to 2 comments today regarding the importance of getting this right.
3 A risk-informed framework I think is critically important to 4 maintain the flexibility of the regulatory process. And that flexibility is 5 important to support innovation.
6 The innovation process itself is uncertain and the start of the 7 innovation process of any technology is very difficult, almost impossible, to 8 predict looking forward 10 years what the successful commercial outcomes 9 may be.
10 So, I support getting Part 53 correct, I support the principles 11 very much, the principles and the importance of a risk-informed framework. I 12 see it as a tremendous effort because that risk-informed framework would 13 have to embrace the many possible pathways for a licensee in the future, it's 14 a lot of work.
15 I suspect that work will need to be done there. Our focus 16 concurrently, as I said earlier, is on the standard design application of the Part 17 52 and perhaps using certain regulatory arguments, such as exemptions, for 18 certain systems and components as methods to move that application 19 forward.
20 So, I hope that provides a little bit more detail and color, 21 Commissioner, to your question.
22 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Right, thank you so much. I 23 heard that Mr. Sell's company, X-energy, is doing, what is it, Part 52(e) and 24 then you all are looking at either 50 or 52?
51 1 We're trying to develop 53 so everybody can come under 2 that and try to figure out how we don't make it so cumbersome that nobody 3 uses it. So, I'm trying to really get to what do we need to try to encourage the 4 development and inclusion of?
5 And I think from what I've been hearing in the last few 6 weeks, people are concerned about it just being too big, too cumbersome, too 7 wieldy, and not providing the avenues that might be necessary.
8 We've heard and I'm actually going to ask this in the next 9 panel as well but we've heard feedback that it's too restrictive and not flexible 10 enough.
11 Some had suggested that there is a need for some that 12 could use LMP and then others maybe a graded PRA approach, and then 13 maybe some using maximum credible accident as part of it as well.
14 Or even the IAEA standards. So, I'm just wanting to make 15 sure that knowing that you're looking at a different avenue to do stuff and our 16 goal is not to go license to exemptions or to put license conditions on, we want 17 to try to get this rule right. So, I'm trying to figure out are there other ways 18 that we can get there that the staff is not considering already? And what do 19 we need to do to make sure that we can get that done in a timely way.
20 I hear everybody saying we don't need to go too quickly and if the 21 deadline is 24, 27 and we don't hit it, it's okay as long as we get it right. And 22 I do subscribe that we need to do this right.
23 So, does anybody want to maybe add or pitch in, make any 24 comments on things that we can encourage or that you all can encourage, the
52 1 staff?
2 Do you think that give and take is taking place? That's kind 3 of what I'm trying to get at, based on what I've been hearing.
4 MR. KUCZYNSKI: Commissioner, this is Steve, I'd like to 5 make some comments on your general question there. I think we all want to 6 make sure that we get it right and it's a quality product and it serves the 7 long-term benefits of the developing technology.
8 I think what we need to recognize, I don't think it's 9 unexpected that as we get further into the rulemaking and the issues become 10 clearer that the intensity of the dialogue ramps up from all the stakeholders.
11 I think that's a good sign. I think our challenge is how do 12 we reconcile and manage that input and not allow a issue or two issues to stall 13 the overall progress?
14 I think it's going to require just some enhanced level of 15 engagement and elevation of issues so that we don't get stuck and go forward.
16 I don't necessarily align with the rule as rushing, I just 17 believe you do decide to set a target to try to achieve and when you find 18 barriers, then as leaders we have to determine are there ways to navigate 19 through those challenges to still meet a deadline and a target?
20 Obviously, if that's impractical, then the target potentially 21 moves but I got involved in this is 2015 in the Advanced Reactor Working 22 Group and we're talking about nine years later.
23 I just don't fundamentally see that as a massive rush to get 24 into a rule. My experience is organizations work to whatever the expectation
53 1 that the leadership sets and if we set 2029, it will be 2029.
2 If we set 2024, then I think our challenge is to orchestrate 3 and manage our way towards a product. And I think the real key here is I 4 think there's going to need to be expanded interaction and elevation of tough 5 issues.
6 And so both all the stakeholders will have to align and get 7 all the information available and same with the staff and the NRC to just make 8 sure we're able to navigate our way through some of these more challenging 9 issues, which I'm not surprised are there as we get towards more definition 10 around the rule.
11 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay, anyone else?
12 (Simultaneous speaking.)
13 MR. IRISH: I'll defer to my colleague on the panel.
14 DR. FINAN: Thank you, Simon.
15 Commissioner Wright, I would add for context that while Part 16 53 may not apply to these demonstration projects, as you're probably aware, 17 there are dozens of other advanced nuclear companies pursuing development 18 of demonstration projects down the line.
19 So, I think we should keep in mind that it is not just short 20 term and long term. There are a number of companies coming through the 21 pipeline who could be supported by Part 53 depending on the timing.
22 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you for making that 23 point. That's where I was trying to go, so thank you for that. There was 24 somebody else?
54 1 DR. LYMAN: Yes, may I say something, please?
2 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Sure.
3 DR. LYMAN: Hello?
4 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes?
5 DR. LYMAN: So, my impression, although I don't agree 6 with some of the avenues that the staff is taking and the development, I think 7 they're doing a very good job in trying to respect the requirements and the 8 responsibilities of the NRC to again maintain a consistent level of safety with 9 the current regulations.
10 Because we think that the NRC is missing an opportunity to 11 require the next-generation of nuclear plants to be clearly safer than the 12 current generation but that's not your policy.
13 But you have to maintain a clear and consistent nexus to the 14 current requirements and I think the staff is trying to do that while 15 accommodating the wishes of the industry.
16 But the NRC's fundamental commitment is, again, to 17 adequate protection of public health and safety.
18 Your responsibility is not to make things easier for 19 applicants if that could compromise your ability to maintain your statutory 20 requirements to the public, responsibilities to the public, and so I urge you to 21 keep that in mind, at the forefront as you go forward.
22 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And if I could make one last 23 comment, Mr. Chairman? Just to be clear, I know there was a 2027 deadline 24 and I think we went aggressively more to 2024 deadline.
55 1 I'm not suggesting that we go past 2027 at all, I'm just saying 2 that if it takes us past 2024 to get it right then I want to be sure we get it right.
3 Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.
5 And this is the peril of going last, certainly not least of all 6 because my colleagues have covered all the topics.
7 But also the ways in which they've covered them and their 8 characteristic insights in an erudite manner, particularly the crux of some of 9 these things with regards to probabilistic versus deterministic approaches, 10 flexibility versus predictability versus clarity, ensuring that both applicants and 11 the public understand how we're approaching these things, how we're making 12 our adequate protection determinations.
13 So, I want to thank my colleagues for that and given the 14 ground that we've ploughed, I'm going to take this in a slightly different 15 direction. My first question is really for Mr. Sell and Dr. Finan and Mr. Swilley, 16 and I wanted to ask about HALEU.
17 And given how it is being used not just in the X-energy 18 design but a number of other designs that are by vendors that are interacting 19 with the NRC, can you share where we stand with respect to data needs to 20 support criticality safety code validations for expected fuel storage and 21 transportation designs?
22 And to what extent are DOE, industry, EPRI, and others 23 working to address any data gaps that we might have?
24 MR. SELL: Chairman Hanson, I'll start to say that I think
56 1 the tremendous work that's been done in the advanced reactor program and 2 in NGNP over the last 15 has really phenomenally filled most, if not all, of the 3 data gaps as it relates to the issues you've identified.
4 We still plan to do some confirmatory irradiation both at MIT 5 and Petten that will provide additional validating data for a particular fuel 6 design.
7 And as it relates to the issues of storage and criticality and 8 transportation and issues that you identified, I think the work of the last 15 9 years has served us very well.
10 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Interesting. Dr. Finan, Mr.
11 Swilley, are you guys participating in this at all?
12 DR. FINAN: Chairman, I'll add one comment, which is 13 broader regarding HALEU but I do think that it's become clear that the 14 availability, the deconversion and the fabrication, and all of these aspects of 15 the use of HALEU is critical path in some sense to advanced reactor 16 demonstrations.
17 And there's been a renewed commitment to developing and 18 finalizing a strategy around HALEU. There's a lot of work to be done 19 and we've made great strides but we need to keep pushing that forward to 20 ensure that we have the supply and we're ready to use it for these advanced 21 reactor demonstrations.
22 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you.
23 MR. SWILLEY: From the EPRI perspective, I can't add 24 much more than that. We are delivering roadmaps in gaps and working
57 1 through the data gathering actively. Nothing more to add.
2 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Dr. Lyman, did you want to add 3 something here? I thought I saw your hand up. Okay, as a follow-on to that, 4 there's been some interaction between the NRC and the Canadian Nuclear 5 Safety Commission.
6 And there's a memorandum of cooperation on advanced 7 reactors and on some of the designs that we're talking about today. But I was 8 intrigued by a comment, Mr. Sell, that you made in passing about moving 9 HALEU across the U.S.-Canadian border.
10 And in addition to reactor collaboration or cooperation that 11 we're having with the CNSC, do members of the panel have any suggestions 12 for the NRC with regards to other fuel cycle aspects or cooperation with CNSC 13 that you think we should be having or would be useful in this area?
14 MR. SELL: Chairman Hanson, I don't know if you 15 eliminated me from the potential answer set or included me in the potential 16 set. I think there is tremendous opportunity between the CNSC and the US 17 NRC. As some of the panel may know, we are actively in the DVR Phase 18 1 and 2 process with the Canadian regulator right now.
19 We have identified a specific area to test appropriate 20 collaboration between the two regulatory bodies as it relates to the specific 21 code standard for reactor pressure vessel.
22 I think there are further opportunities for the CNSC and the 23 US NRC to work together to actually make cross-border transportation of 24 material through the approved Versa-Pak 55 that the NRC has done to
58 1 coordinate on that and actually make appropriate transportation protocols 2 across the border easier to operate and actually improve the efficiency of 3 transportation cross-border.
4 Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you. Anyone else want to 6 jump in on that?
7 MR. IRISH: Chairman Hanson, I'll maybe comment as 8 well. It doesn't relate specifically to HALEU.
9 Our system also uses, as I said earlier, five percent standard 10 assay but the cross-border point I think still holds with respect to your 11 engagement with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and it reflects I 12 think what we all know is a structural feature of the Canadian nuclear industry.
13 Namely, it's use of natural uranium or near natural uranium 14 and an enriched moderator. So, fuel supply of enriched uranium and the 15 cross-border requirements to support that fuel supply through the packaging I 16 think is a topic that is very cross-cutting in the industry.
17 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Irish, I appreciate 18 that. All right, changing tact just a little bit here, Dr. Lyman, I was intrigued 19 by your presentation.
20 As we go about licensing advanced reactors, we have a 21 series of what I would call information streams. We have experimental data 22 from the national labs, we have some operating experience from potentially 23 analogous reactors around the world and in the United States, we have 24 modeling and simulation.
59 1 And then there is, as you pointed out, prototypes, operating 2 experience as, in your view, and I hope I'm characterizing this correctly, as a 3 major or the primary information stream that's necessary for licensing for really 4 ensuring adequate protection. But it did raise for me the question about how 5 you see these other information streams and their relevance and the role they 6 could also play in making the adequate protection determinations?
7 Particularly I'm interested in modeling and simulation and experimental data.
8 How do you see those factoring in, in addition to, or in some 9 cases maybe in lieu of operating experience through a prototype?
10 MR. IRISH: Chairman Hanson, I'd say with respect to 11 modeling and simulation, the industry today in regard to their innovation efforts 12 are supported by modeling and simulation tools that are extraordinary in their 13 sophistication and capability compared to the case 25 years ago or even 15 14 years ago.
15 So, computer power has provided a tremendous set of 16 analytic capabilities. So, modeling and simulation will continue to be 17 invariably the central feature of reactor development going forward.
18 And that modeling simulation I think can assist 19 tremendously with respect to assessing performance of component systems 20 and subsystems.
21 Obviously, with modeling and simulation one will need to go 22 and demonstrate either through single tests or integrated tests the solid 23 performance of the model. And that program will be the responsibility of the 24 vendor.
60 1 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you. Dr. Lyman? Are you 2 there? I don't know, Dr. Lyman, are you on mute? I saw you.
3 DR. LYMAN: I'm not, can you hear me?
4 CHAIRMAN HANSON: I can hear you now.
5 DR. LYMAN: Sorry, I don't know what happened.
6 So, on the issue of modeling and simulation, it's very design 7 and issue-specific and I'm not saying that there aren't some aspects where 8 there are insufficient validation and clarification of codes. But to be able to 9 answer some of those questions within the necessary precision that you 10 needed.
11 But it's not clear yet that there's a systematic approach for 12 the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program designs that are before you, 13 but to be able to make those decisions.
14 And so that's why I'm arguing, certainly I haven't seen 15 enough public information to be able to make a judgment myself whether or 16 not some of that data is adequate.
17 But again, as I point out in our report, in the talk, there are 18 significant differences with regards to past demonstrations to the extent that I 19 don't think -- I would be skeptical that you could really get to the necessary 20 precision you need to make your safety determinations without the kind of 21 prototype testing that the NRC staff called for back in the 1990s.
22 Because nothing really has changed much since then 23 because computational tools may have improved but they're only as good as 24 the information you have to validate them. And that I think is an outstanding
61 1 gap.
2 So, a big part of the prototype testing is to be able to provide 3 information to validate those tools so you can predict accurately any regimes 4 you can't test in. For instance, you're not going to be testing to failure but you 5 do need to have severe accident tools that will give you the data.
6 And just looking at Fukushima and the fact that Light Water 7 Reactors have many decades of operating experience, very well developed 8 PRAs, and yet, the MELCOR code doesn't do a very good job in trying to 9 replicate what actually happened in Fukushima.
10 So, even with the best developed tools and data, there are 11 still gaps in these modeling simulations. Thank you and I'm sorry about the 12 feedback.
13 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Not at all, technical difficulties, it's 14 been the story of the last 13 months plus for everybody so no worries.
15 Thank you, Dr. Lyman. One last question for Mr.
16 Kuczynski. Is the molten chloride reactor experiment a prototype?
17 MR. KUCZYNSKI: I'd say it's a difficult question to answer 18 at the moment. There's a lot of different definitions of what people consider 19 a prototype and what we should get out of that.
20 Our intent is to demonstrate the critical aspects through this 21 upcoming phase. I think the future of what else will go after this current phase 22 I think is still up for some dialogue and debate.
23 But we certainly feel that we're willing to go prove over the 24 next five to seven years will be incredibly important to informing the safety
62 1 case for MCFR.
2 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Great, thank you all very, very 3 much.
4 Thank you to our panelists, Dr. Ashley Finan, Mr. Clay Sell, 5 Mr. Simon Irish, Mr. Steve Kuczynski, Dr. Todd Allen, Mr. Steven Swilley, and 6 Dr. Ed Lyman, thank you all very much for being with us this morning for this 7 really illuminating conversation.
8 The Commission is going to take a five-minute break and 9 we'll reconvene at 10:45 a.m. to hear from the staff panel. Thank you.
10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record 11 at 10:41 a.m. and resumed at 10:47 a.m.)
12 All right, welcome back, everyone. We will now have the 13 NRC staff panel to continue the discussion of NRC's preparedness for 14 advanced reactors through regulatory engagement and research 15 partnerships.
16 The staff panel will be kicked off by our Executive Director 17 for operations, Margie Doane, followed by staff panelists. Margie, the floor is 18 yours.
19 MS. DOANE: Okay, good morning, Chairman and 20 Commissioners.
21 We are pleased to be here today to provide an update on 22 the agency's activities to support advanced reactor preparedness through 23 regulatory engagement and research cooperation.
24 As discussed during the external panel, there is significant
63 1 industry interest in employing new advanced reactor technologies to meet our 2 future national energy needs.
3 Regulatory preparedness is a critical part of the staff's plan 4 to meet the challenges that the NRC will face in reviewing applications that 5 support this deployment.
6 Advanced reactor preparedness is a priority for the NRC's 7 safety and security mission. Our ongoing preparedness efforts will continue 8 to require forward thinking and planning using risk-informed insight as we 9 identify and resolve challenges associated with the industry's proposal to use 10 new and emerging technologies.
11 As you've heard in the previous panel, we are actively 12 engaged in ensuring our regulatory framework, staffing, and agency 13 infrastructure are ready for new licensing review of advanced technologies.
14 Staff across the agency are engaged in incredible work, 15 some of which we will be highlighting today. The Office of New Reactor 16 Regulation, NRR, is actively engaging with applicants and preparing for 17 regulatory reviews.
18 Early coordination, dialogue, and pre-planning are key to 19 facilitating more effective, predictable licensing review processes.
20 To this end, the staff will describe the progress that has 21 been made in issuing guidance that provides flexibilities for advanced reactor 22 design differences in areas of risk-informed licensing and environmental 23 reviews.
24 For example, last month the staff issued a design review
64 1 guide on instrumentation and controls to further modernize the review of 2 advanced reactor applications by making it more technology-inclusive, 3 risk-informed, and performance-based.
4 The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, or Research, is 5 preparing technical bases to support the use of new technologies and 6 updating its existing tools to support confirmatory safety analysis of advanced 7 designs.
8 Recently, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 9 has endorsed the staff code development plan for advanced reactors. This 10 endorsement has provided staff confidence in its approach.
11 The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 12 NMSS, is preparing for licensing reviews associated with the front and back 13 end of the advanced reactor fuel cycle to support deployment with operators 14 and vendors already.
15 This year, NMSS has completed technical reports 16 identifying information gaps and challenges for advanced reactor fuels. The 17 office has also completed a package certification to support advanced reactor 18 fuel transportation.
19 All of these offices are engaging with stakeholders across 20 the federal government, industry, and with international organizations to 21 enhance our work in advanced reactors.
22 We are also actively and openly engaging with members of 23 the public to provide transparency and opportunities to engage in our 24 advanced reactor regulatory activities.
65 1 In describing the work of the staff since our last meeting on 2 advanced reactors, I would be remiss if I didn't talk about the ongoing impacts 3 of the COVID-19 pandemic on our work over the last year.
4 Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected our 5 ability to have in-person audits, meetings, and interactions with applicants and 6 our domestic and international counterparts.
7 In-person engagements have proven highly effective in 8 resolving complex issues over the years and we look forward to a time when 9 we can have these engagements again.
10 But there has also been a silver lining in our virtual 11 environment.
12 As has many of NRC programs, the pandemic has forced 13 us to develop transformative approaches to overcome these challenges, 14 which have yielded enhanced benefits for reaching more stakeholders and 15 sometimes allowed for better sharing of information by leveraging technology.
16 For example, the NRC now routinely draws over 100 17 participants to its periodic stakeholder meetings on advanced reactor topics.
18 The use of virtual platforms allow us to reach more stakeholders and efficiently 19 share information during those meetings and interactions.
20 Next slide, please. Now let me turn to our most important 21 asset, our people.
22 Pictured on the slide are the faces of NRC staff from several 23 offices supporting the advanced reactor program. Their energy and 24 dedication are key to the agency's success.
66 1 Indeed, to meet the regulatory challenges for advanced 2 reactor licensing and regulation, we must continue to remain focused on the 3 recruiting and retaining of staff that are necessary to meet the challenges of 4 today and tomorrow.
5 Importantly, we will need to ensure they have the right 6 training, skills, and abilities to accomplish the challenging work in front of us.
7 Our modern, strategic workforce planning and our 8 forecasting tool we refer to how signposts and markers enable us to better 9 assess and respond to the dynamic external environment that affects our work 10 and identify skill gaps and workload trends.
11 A strategic look at the next several years has allowed us to 12 effect change now to ensure we have a stable and well-trained workforce in 13 years to come. In addition, our engagement with the Department of Energy 14 and the National Labs is proving very effective for providing training and 15 development opportunities for our staff in enhancing our capabilities to 16 respond to the evolving advanced reactor environment.
17 Next slide, please. Now I'd like to introduce the panelists 18 who will describe the agency's activities to support preparedness for advanced 19 reactors.
20 Rob Taylor, the Deputy Office Director for New Reactors in 21 NRR will provide an overview of the agency's preparedness activities and 22 licensing efforts.
23 And I couldn't help but notice the Commission's interest in 24 Part 53 so I think you'll be hearing a lot about that this morning.
67 1 Ray Furstenau, the Director of the Office of Research will 2 provide an overview of the agency's research activities that support the 3 agency's confirmation capabilities and external engagement.
4 Next, Raj Iyengar, the Chief of the Component Integrity 5 Branch, also in the Office of Research will provide insight into research on 6 technologies supporting advanced materials and manufacturing.
7 Marilyn Diaz, a chemical engineer in the office of NMSS, will 8 provide insight into the regulatory preparedness of the nuclear fuel cycle for 9 advanced reactors.
10 And finally, Michelle Hayes is the Chief of the Advanced 11 Reactor Technical Branch in NRR and she will discuss how research and 12 international activities support ongoing and future licensing deployment of 13 these advanced reactor technologies.
14 This concludes my opening remarks, I'm going to now turn 15 the presentation over to Rob Taylor.
16 MR. TAYLOR: Thanks, Margie. Good morning, 17 Chairman and Commissioners, it is a pleasure to be here today to talk about 18 the staff efforts to transform and prepare for the review of new and advanced 19 nuclear technologies.
20 During my discussion today, I will talk about how those 21 transformation efforts are ensuring safety and security, how our activities are 22 aligned to support national advanced reactor priorities, and how we leverage 23 domestic and international partnerships to achieve success.
24 Next slide, please. Pictured in this slide is an image from
68 1 our redesigned advanced reactor webpage, which showcases the pillars of 2 our efforts, including our activities to transform our workforce, modernize our 3 tools, and develop flexible review strategies among others.
4 In late 2020, we unveiled our redesigned webpage by 5 offering a more modern look for members of the public, providing a 6 streamlined experience, and making it easier to obtain information about the 7 staffs advanced reactor activities.
8 The newly redesigned webpage also includes information 9 for stakeholder engagement such as public meetings, workshops, and other 10 activities.
11 We recognize that preparing licensing for advanced nuclear 12 technologies is not just about the right regulatory framework. It takes a 13 commitment of the right people, the right safety focus, the right communication 14 strategy, and the right dedication to our mission and stakeholders' interests.
15 We recognize that this is a journey and the evolving 16 landscape and diversity of new technologies will challenge us to declare 17 complete preparedness.
18 Nevertheless, we can say that our activities ensure that we 19 can rise to the challenges that we will encounter and that we will have the 20 necessary capabilities in our people, regulatory framework, and analytical 21 tools to adapt and advance.
22 To help us confidently do our jobs even better, our principles 23 of good regulation will continue to be our guide for identifying opportunities to 24 be innovative, to take a fresh look at how we provide efficient, reliable, and
69 1 open approach to our activities.
2 Next slide, please. As we prepare for licensing the next 3 generation of nuclear technologies, it is critical that we keep one eye focused 4 on how external factors are driving an evolving landscape and growing interest 5 in deploying these technologies.
6 Over the last year, we have seen the landscape for 7 advanced nuclear technologies steadily evolving and we are adopting and 8 changing with it. This interest is driven in part by strong Congressional and 9 Executive Branch support for deploying advanced nuclear technologies.
10 The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act and 11 the Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program have 12 been tremendous catalysts for advanced reactor technologies.
13 Recently, DOE announced the recipients of awards related 14 to two demonstration projects to be operational within five to seven years, five 15 risk reduction recipients, and three advanced reactor concept recipients.
16 DOEs efforts are spurring substantial engagement from 17 vendors with the NRC. Today we anticipate receiving 13 or more 18 applications by 2027 for advanced and small modular reactors and new 19 research and test reactors.
20 These include applications for various licenses including 21 construction permits and operating licenses, combined licenses, standard 22 design approvals, and design certifications.
23 These applications could eventually result in six or more 24 operating licenses by 2027. We are now actively engaged with 10 entities in
70 1 various stages of pre-application activities.
2 Also, we are interacting with other entities on additional 3 potential applications in various degrees of design maturity and expect that 4 the numbers will change as our discussions progress.
5 Over the last two years, we've completed reviews of 17 6 topical reports or white papers for 7 vendors and have another 20 from 8 7 vendors under review.
8 We are seeing strong pre-application engagement from 9 many vendors and we continue to encourage it.
10 We're also anticipating additional submittals as vendors 11 ramp up their pre-application activities. Our focus remains on early 12 engagement and resolving issues that will facilitate timely and efficient 13 licensing when applications are submitted.
14 Next slide, please. Now I'd like to pivot and discuss the 15 staff's efforts to support these national advanced reactor priorities.
16 The NRC staff continues to make substantial progress in 17 executing its vision and strategy for advanced reactor readiness by achieving 18 the activities outlined in the six implementation action plans pictured on this 19 slide.
20 Still, work remains to ensure that we can successfully review 21 the variety of technologies on the horizon. During my presentation I will cover 22 some of the implementation action plan activities while my fellow panelists will 23 cover others during theirs.
24 As part of the NRC's efforts to build a 21st-century
71 1 workforce, we are using strategic workforce planning and signposts and 2 markers initiatives to respond to the evolving environment we work in to better 3 identify skill gaps and work with trends.
4 A strategic look at the next several years has allowed us to 5 effect change now to ensure that we are prepared with a stable workforce in 6 the years to come. Especially in this evolving landscape, our staff continues 7 to be our most important resource.
8 We are investing in a new generation of nuclear safety 9 leaders through the Nuclear Regulator Apprentice Network, some of whom 10 actively work in the advanced reactor program.
11 In addition, we're also investing in to ensure that our current 12 workforce has the skills needed to execute our mission through training and 13 developmental opportunities.
14 In addition to preparing our workforce, we continue our 15 efforts to prepare a technology-inclusive risk-informed regulatory framework, 16 also known as Part 53.
17 We recognize that a flexible review process that includes 18 key guidance is critical to that effort. Within the last two years, the NRC has 19 published or endorsed nine guidance documents such as the licensing 20 modernization project and have another 12 under development, many of 21 which are planned to be issued in the next two years.
22 We recognize the guidance development will remain a 23 critical focus area, especially in support of Part 53, and we remain committed 24 to working with stakeholders to identify and develop and needed additional
72 1 guidance.
2 In addition to the guidance, we're enhancing our analytical 3 tools and capabilities to review enhanced technologies, endorsing new 4 standards from advanced reactors, resolving key policy and technical issues, 5 and progressing and completing a variety of rulemaking activities related to 6 Part 53, advanced reactor environmental reviews, emergency preparedness, 7 and physical security.
8 Next slide, please.
9 We cannot be successful on any of the activities I have been 10 discussing unless we simultaneously foster strong working partnerships with 11 domestic and international counterparts to ensure that we both share 12 experience and knowledge and collaborate where possible to enhance our 13 regulatory processes and decision-making.
14 I will cover some of them here while Ray will cover our 15 research partnership with DOE during his presentation, and Raj will talk about 16 our efforts on consensus codes and standards.
17 Over the last year the list of stakeholders with whom we are 18 engaging has continued to grow as more vendors and technology developers 19 have approached us. More stakeholders are participating in our public 20 activity and more international counterparts have expressed interest in our 21 activities.
22 We are implementing new approaches to our engagement 23 in a variety of our initiatives. For example, we are continuing our readiness 24 activities by prioritizing the new Part 53 rulemaking to complete it by October
73 1 2024.
2 The staff is committed to a framework that achieves the 3 goals of the Commission's advanced reactor policy statement and the NRC's 4 principles of good regulation.
5 To provide better visibility and clarity on the staff activities, 6 we are implementing a novel approach of releasing preliminary rule language 7 to facilitate public discussion with applicants, vendors, non-governmental 8 organizations and others about the direction and content for this rulemaking.
9 This early engagement highlights areas requiring enhanced 10 dialogues to iteratively risk-informed the rule language to ensure clarity and 11 reliability.
12 The staff has already received 65 unique comment 13 submittals, each of which may include multiple individual diverse comments 14 on preliminary language. We received constructive and good feedback on 15 aspects of the rule such as those related to the role of probabilistic risk 16 assessment, defense in-depth, and the tiering structure.
17 As we evaluate the input we are receiving, the staff is 18 committed that the preliminary language will remain open for ongoing dialogue 19 and we expect further revisions to the subparts as the staff progresses 20 towards development of the proposed rule. These efforts will ultimately help 21 us prepare a better rule that will accomplish the desired outcomes. On the 22 international front, the NRC and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or 23 CNSC, have worked constructively with various advanced reactor vendors to 24 identify projects and establish a framework that could support coordinated
74 1 safety reviews of key design aspects for some advanced technologies.
2 The NRC and CNSCs memorandum of cooperation on 3 advanced reactors and similar technologies, is a first-of-a-kind endeavor and 4 continues to be an utmost priority for both agencies.
5 Our teams have made meaningful progress, successfully 6 overcoming many challenges and aggressively proceeding with projects in 7 greater harmony and focus.
8 This includes implementing first-of-a-kind virtual staff 9 exchanges to maximize collaboration that has put us on track to successfully 10 complete some initiatives and produce first-rate products this year.
11 Michelle Hayes is going to provide additional perspectives 12 on this collaborative effort and other international activities during her 13 presentation.
14 We recognize that actively engaging with all stakeholders 15 will bring various new ideas and approaches that will inform and shape how 16 we undertake our regulatory activities.
17 Next slide, please. 2021 is shaping up to be a defining year 18 for the NRC to deliver on the safety and security mission, and our vision to 19 make the safe use of nuclear technology possible.
20 At the beginning of my presentation today, I mentioned that 21 we need to ensure that we have the right regulatory framework and the right 22 people, safety-focus, communications, and dedication.
23 Our efforts on each of these fronts will continue in 2021 and 24 we will only be successful if we partner with our stakeholders. Now, I'd like
75 1 to turn it over to Ray Furstenau.
2 MR. FURSTENAU: Thank you, Rob. Good morning, 3 Chairman and Commissioners.
4 The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research provides the 5 technical advice, tools and information to support the NRC's safety and 6 security mission. Rob shared with you a growing interest in advanced 7 reactors, as did the previous panel. And as you know, it's a diverse array of 8 technologies.
9 Research had a "be ready' mantra and I'd like to share with 10 you some of the activities we are doing in coordination with our licensing office 11 partners to help ensure NRC's readiness for licensing innovative reactor 12 technologies.
13 Next slide please. Slide 12. I'm not seeing the slides but 14 I'll assume they're there. For Slide 12 the Office of Nuclear Regulatory 15 Research has focused on developing codes and tools endorsing technical 16 standards and in developing our staff capabilities.
17 A key element of our readiness strategy is the development 18 of codes and analytical tools to support confirmatory analyses that may be 19 used in advanced reactor licensing actions.
20 Our code development plans include analytic capabilities to 21 assess fuel performance, reactor safety, source terms, severe accidents, 22 siting and safety of the front and back end of the fuel cycle.
23 Through this fiscal year we will have completed plans that 24 document the specific codes the staff planned to use. Gaps in those code
76 1 capabilities and data needs, validation needs and code development tasks for 2 different reactor and fuel technologies.
3 Through this process we gain feedback from our licensing 4 offices, the ACRS, and the public, to help align our priorities and next steps.
5 To support timely regulatory reviews, the staff is developing what we call 6 reference plant models based on publicly available information on several of 7 the advanced reactor designs.
8 The value we see in developing these models is to exercise 9 the codes, identify the bugs in the codes, and operability issues before the 10 licensing applications are submitted. Thus reducing the amount of time 11 needed to prepare design-specific plant models.
12 These reference plant models then can be adapted based 13 on pre-submittal interactions and design information in the licensing 14 application submittal.
15 We are planning a number of public workshops later this 16 year to show in full, plant source term calculations used in our codes, SCALE 17 and MELCOR for example, for three of the reference plant models.
18 The office is also engaged in the important work of engaging 19 with industry on developing the standards and technical bases that support 20 safety assessment of new reactor designs. Specifically, we are working 21 towards the development and endorsement of standards for high temperature 22 materials and probabilistic risk assessment standards for advanced reactors.
23 Lastly, as Margie and Rob both stated, and I will also 24 emphasize, our talented staff is key to our success. To that end, we are
77 1 focused on hiring new talent and further developing existing staff talent.
2 We also leverage the enormous capabilities that exist within 3 the national laboratories, commercial contractors, and universities.
4 Slide 13 please. Under the umbrella of the Nuclear Energy 5 Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017, and our accompanying MOU with the 6 DOE on nuclear energy innovation, we continue to closely coordinate, and 7 cooperate, with our DOE colleagues and the national laboratories on 8 advanced reactor technologies.
9 This slide captures many of the programs and areas 10 relevant to the agencys preparedness for advanced reactors. Along with our 11 DOE, R&D and deployment counterparts, we have instituted several MOUs 12 and MOU addenda, fostering increased coordination and cooperation.
13 Our discussions help to identify and close technical gaps 14 and identify areas for resolution, in addition to leveraging opportunities to 15 cooperate in activities. For example, modeling and simulation capabilities 16 and the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation Group.
17 Data needed to support ATF fuel concepts, advanced 18 manufacturing technics and the versatile test reactor, which is sodium cooled 19 fast test reactor being built and authorized by DOE.
20 The advanced reactor demonstration program, the National 21 Reactor Innovation Center and nuclear science user facilities.
22 Slide 14 please. On this slide are three research 23 approaches I would like to highlight. The DOE-sponsored Accelerated Fuel 24 Qualification Program, or AFQ is an innovative approach to new reactor fuel
78 1 development that couples physics-informed advanced nuclear fuel 2 performance modeling and simulation, with accelerated fuel testing aimed at 3 significantly reducing the cost and time for the qualification of new fuels.
4 NRC staff have been observers during the AFQ workshops, 5 thus building expertise on new methods being developed to test, qualify and 6 potentially fabricate new fuels that could be used in advanced reactor designs.
7 Besides DOE and NRC participants include national labs, 8 fuel and reactor developers, and even NASA contractors who are helping to 9 develop new fission systems for space applications.
10 The imagine you see on the slide, the one with the penny 11 and the small uranium nitrite particles shown along the edge of the penny, 12 illustrate a mini fuel irradiation concept being used in the high flux isotope 13 reactor at the Oak Ridge Nuclear Lab. This concept, and the HFIR, are ideal 14 for rapid separate effects testing of large numbers of small specimens under 15 a diverse set of isothermal conditions.
16 This approach produces large data sets that help in the 17 development and validation of fuel performance codes.
18 Under our international collaborations with the closure of the 19 Halden Reactor in Norway, fuels and materials irradiation testing alternatives 20 had to be identified to address the loss of that irradiation capability.
21 The newly-created NEA Framework for Irradiation 22 Experiments, or FIDES program, will be providing a replacement capabilities 23 to many of the Halden reactor capabilities.
24 Planned experiments under the FIDES framework will
79 1 provide insights into accident tolerant fuel design performance, these 2 capabilities for ATF designs foreshadow their potential to support advanced 3 reactor programs as well.
4 Through participation and leadership in FIDES, the NRC will 5 be able to leverage fuels and materials research conducted around the world 6 and foster international and domestic partners to meet our research needs.
7 The image you see at the top right is a view of the top of the 8 BR2 test reactor in Belgium. One of our first joint experimental programs 9 under the FIDES framework, and they're called JEEPs, it's called P2M, or 10 Power to Melt and Maneuverability.
11 That will be a series of two integral in pile tests performed in 12 the pressurized water capsule at the BR2 reactor and it's aimed at reaching 13 incipient fuel melting at the end of a specific long-lasting power transient to 14 assess actual operational margins and overall fuel behavior.
15 In the U.S., DOE and the Idaho National Laboratory, are 16 sponsoring a JEEP called High-Burn up Experiments in Reactivity Initiated 17 Accidents, or HERA and it's dedicated to the understanding of LWR fuel 18 performance with a high-burn up under reactivity-initiated accidents.
19 And that's used in transient reactor test facility, or TREAT, 20 which is located at the Idaho National Lab.
21 Similarly, the NRC International Users Group for Severe 22 Accident Analysis, we call that the CSARP program, radiation protection, 23 which is the RAMP program, and thermal hydraulic analysis, the CAMP 24 program, provide the opportunity to collaborate, exchange knowledge and
80 1 build capabilities.
2 Lastly, on university engagement over $2 million of the FY20 3 NRC mission related R&D grants support advanced reactor research 4 capabilities, including modeling for heat pipe, microreactors data for molten 5 salt reactors, new approaches to uncertainty analysis, verification and 6 validation work and use of liquid metal data for thermal hydraulic and 7 computational fluid dynamic codes.
8 I'm very proud of this past year where we created the 9 mission related R&D funding opportunity announcement as part of the 10 integrated university program. We are continuing that approach this year in 11 Fiscal Year 21. In addition to our traditional scholarships, fellowships and 12 faculty development grants.
13 The results of these grants programs provide not only a 14 pipeline of capable university graduates, but they also provide information that 15 could help inform regulatory and industry activities to support advanced 16 reactors.
17 With our highly trained staff, modern and adaptable 18 analytical capabilities and extensive external partnerships, Research is well 19 positioned to support advanced reactor licensing.
20 Next Raj Iyengar will highlight several of our important 21 successes in the materials research areas. Raj.
22 MR. IYENGAR: Thanks so much, Ray. Good morning, 23 Chairman and the Commissioners.
24 The fuel selection and qualification for advanced reactor
81 1 designs are long-lead and design limiting. Two years ago I appeared in front 2 of you to highlight our multi-pronged approach to prepare the agency for 3 licensing advanced reactors, reactor materials and component integrity.
4 I'm glad to note that we have been expeditious, yet 5 judicious, in accomplishing our goals. In the next few minutes I expect to 6 convince you that we are continuing to deliver on our commitment.
7 Next slide please. A few years ago, the staff developed 8 plans to initiate research projects and collaborative efforts to prepare the 9 readiness for materials and components for advanced non-light water 10 reactors.
11 Our proactive approach has brought early fruits. Staff has 12 made significant progress on technical issues through issuance of reports on 13 molten salt compatibility, high temperature materials and compatibility, 14 graphite performance, and an assessment of American Society of Mechanical 15 Engineers, known as ASME, code related to materials qualification.
16 Staff engagement with code committees and international 17 workshops have enabled building new capabilities in advanced materials to 18 high temperature applications and supporting the identification of key 19 challenges.
20 We had conducted a successful and well-attended 21 international workshop on advanced non-light water reactors materials and 22 component integrity in December of 2019. The discussion and presentations 23 led to the event of such activities underway to address the challenges.
24 Staff is completing an independent assessment of ASME
82 1 Section III, Division 5 - Design and Construction Rules for High Temperature 2 Materials. This effort will result in a technical basis document, draft regulatory 3 guide for public comment, paving the way for applicants and vendors to use 4 code qualifying materials.
5 I'd like to provide an example that underscores staff agility.
6 Recently, a new high temperature alloy, known as Alloy 617, was qualified by 7 ASME marking the first high temperature material to be code qualified in 8 nearly 30 years.
9 Staff initiated an effort to develop independent technical 10 basis to potentially endorse the code case. The staff has developed 11 computational tools for confirmatory use of high temperature metal 12 components.
13 This tool will enable efficient licensing reviews and could 14 also be used to verify alternative approaches to materials qualification based 15 on vendor specific designs.
16 You may notice the mention of a workshop on advanced 17 manufacturing technologies known as AMT in the slide. I'll provide more 18 context later.
19 Next slide please. As we conduct our research, the staff is 20 continuous exploring leveraging opportunities.
21 The slide visually captures the extent of our outreach. Staff 22 has engaged proactively to prepare for the adoption of advanced 23 manufacturer technologies, known as AMT, in nuclear application in 24 anticipation of industry applications and licensee submittals.
83 1 While the research activities are focused on near-term 2 applications of these components for operating rector, impact of this 3 technology is expected to be more profound for advanced reactors.
4 Recognizing the need to build staff capabilities through hands-on activities, 5 RES has detailed a staff member on a part-time basis to Oak Ridge National 6 Lab to work with a transformation challenge reactor program team.
7 Staff is also leveraging a small future focused research 8 program on digital trends to better understand the application, digital 9 instrumenting, to aid accelerated qualification of AMT components. We have 10 partnered with Idaho National Lab and Oakridge National Lab to execute 11 various aspects of this project.
12 Over the last three years, we have built strong international 13 partnerships that facilitated significant information exchanges and benefitted 14 our knowledge, data and international experience.
15 I'd like to briefly mention three such interactions. Our 16 colleagues in the Office of Nuclear Regulation, United Kingdom, have been 17 extremely forthcoming in sharing their research, data and operation 18 experience on crafting components.
19 We are furthering our collaboration to include other topics, 20 such as advanced manufacturing and failure assessment of high temperature 21 components. We both have benefitted from the information from Japan 22 Atomic Energy Agency on high temperature materials, operational experience 23 with sodium fast reactors, and thermal related programs.
24 More recently, we have initiated an engagement with the
84 1 Research Center Rez in Czech Republic on molten salt electro-chemistry and 2 materials compatibility.
3 Next slide please. So, where are we heading? The next 4 phase of our support will involve activities to prepare the staff to address 5 technology specific and material specific aspects, including staff's technical 6 assessment and potential endorsement of ASME, Section 11, Division 2 7 reliability and integrity management.
8 Technical issues related to molten salt environment and 9 application of application of digital engineering and advanced sensors to 10 reduce uncertainties and risk.
11 In so doing, we will expand our leverage to external 12 collaboration for data acquisition and information gathering to aid staff's 13 independent assessments incorporating applicable risk insights.
14 Before I turn over to Marilyn, I want to express my gratitude 15 and appreciation to the small staff team who have, over the last three years, 16 applied the passion to learn new topics, the energy to seek solution through 17 leverage and their commitment to move the dial dispute limited resources.
18 Indeed, I'm quite honored and privileged to be part of the 19 team and the great NRC culture. Thank you so much.
20 Next speaker will be Marilyn Diaz.
21 MS. MALDONADO: Thanks, Raj. Good morning, 22 Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to inform you 23 on staff efforts on advanced reactor fuels and its regulatory preparedness for 24 the licensing of fuel fabrication and transportation.
85 1 The division of fuel management in NMSS has the lead for 2 planning for and conducting regulatory reviews of advanced reactors which 3 focus on fuel cycles, transportation and storage activities.
4 Next slide please. We are making progress with license 5 fuel fabrication and certified transportation packages of advanced reactor 6 fuels. We have completed a few transportation package certifications for 7 advanced reactor fuel in limited quantities, including a transportation package 8 that can transport TRISO particles.
9 We have also an ongoing review of Centrus license 10 amendment to support the development of high-assay low-enriched uranium, 11 also known as HALEU, for DOE's HALEU demonstration program and we are 12 on track to complete it this year.
13 We have experienced licensing fuel fabrication and 14 certifying of transportation packages of higher uranium enrichments and 15 advanced fuels. We're leveraging our current experience to ensure the safe 16 fabrication and transportation of advanced rector fuels.
17 This experience also ensures that our reviews will be risk-18 informed and efficient for the near-term advanced reactors concepts. For 19 example, we recently reviewed and approved a package to allow 20 transportation of accident-tolerant fuel rods that reach up to seven percent.
21 We risk-informed this review by using engineering 22 judgement to conclude that there was sufficient margin in the criticality 23 analysis to compensate for the lack of critical experiments in the enrichment 24 range for benchmarking.
86 1 Next slide please. We are proactively working on our 2 regulatory readiness for the front and back end of the nuclear fuel cycle to 3 enable the safe use of this advanced fuels to support industry timeline for 4 deployment of advanced reactors.
5 We're currently monitoring the DOE activities and budget 6 allocations, industry's plan and participating in external forums to maintain 7 external awareness and be prepared for any shifts in landscape plans or 8 schedules.
9 Staff has examined the current regulatory framework and 10 with the information we have today on advanced reactor fuels, we have 11 concluded that current regulations are flexible enough to accommodate the 12 advanced reactor fuel cycle.
13 To date, no changes to our regulatory framework for fuel 14 cycles facilities, storage and transportation, which includes 10 CFR Part 70, 15 71 and 72, are needed to support the near-term advanced reactor concepts, 16 such as designs for solid fuel.
17 The regulations are performance-based and technology 18 inclusive, which are expected to sufficiently comprehensive for risk-informed 19 licensing of advanced reactor fuel processing operations, transportation and 20 storage.
21 We continue to assess our regulatory infrastructure to 22 identify any challenges and/or data needs for longer term advanced reactor 23 fuel concepts, such as the non-solid fuel forms to ensure our readiness.
24 Potential challenges include, use of special nuclear material
87 1 of moderate strategic significance, also known as Category II quantity of 2 materials, which in this case are those with higher enrichments ranging from 3 ten percent to 20 percent. This will impact the material control and 4 accounting, physical security and risk profiles that may introduce being 5 hazards.
6 On the transportation area, a potential challenge includes 7 criticality benchmarks that are using the verification of criticality computer 8 codes. There is currently a lack of this benchmark for the HALEU levels.
9 What this means is that without this benchmark additional 10 conservatism will need to be added and may result in smaller packages for 11 transporting material.
12 We're addressing these challenges by conducting technical 13 evaluations associated with advanced reactor fuels. Additionally, we are 14 identifying any information needs and assessing necessary updates to our 15 guidance so that we can address these challenges in a timeline that supports 16 advanced reactor licensing.
17 We're ensuring our readiness with the development of an 18 advanced reactor fuel strategy plan to ensure that we complete the research 19 needed to obtain the information to support the industry timelines.
20 The information gathered by our technical reports, research 21 and readiness activities are intended to add to a library of information we 22 already have so that we can be efficient in our reviews and update our 23 guidance if necessary.
24 We're working closely with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory
88 1 Research to ensure we have information necessary to ensure our review of 2 transport packages is efficient, focusing on safety.
3 We're also coordinating with the NRC across offices. For 4 example, the NRC expects some of the research efforts related to accident 5 and tolerate fuels with higher enrichments, specifically with respect to 6 criticality safety, to benefit the licensing and certification of advanced reactor 7 fuels.
8 We're also using the strategic workforce planning to focus 9 on developing our people with the goal of ensuring that our workforce is fully 10 equipped with knowledge and skills needed to support the workload.
11 Next slide please. We are proactively engaging with the 12 industry and stakeholders. We're conducting pre-application meetings to 13 enable staff and applicants to facilitate a more effective and efficient licensing 14 certification process.
15 For example, we're involved in pre-application meetings 16 with X-energy for a future submittal of the TRISO fuel fabrication facility and 17 have also conducted several pre-application meetings with transportation 18 vendors on advanced reactor fuel transportation package design.
19 We continuously and actively participate in periodic 20 stakeholder public meetings, workshops and conference. For example, our 21 staff has presented in several advanced reactor stakeholder meetings to 22 inform the public our progress in our readiness activities with the goal of 23 providing regulatory clarity and transparency.
24 We're engaging industry via letters to communicate the
89 1 timelines for necessarily regulatory activities to support fuel fabrication and 2 transports of advanced reactor fuels. We're also engaging our federal and 3 international partners to leverage information and best practices.
4 We periodically meet with DOE on fuel cycle, transportation 5 and storage. We're also actively engaged with international communities and 6 groups.
7 Thank you for your time. And now I will turn it over to 8 Michelle Hayes. Thank you.
9 MS. HAYES: Thank you, Marilyn. Good morning, 10 Chairman and Commissioners.
11 I'm excited to have this opportunity to share how the NRR 12 staff are using research and international activities to make advanced reactor 13 reviews more safety focus and efficient. As Rob mentioned, we have 14 engaged in these reviews for a few years now.
15 We've completed several evaluations and have many others 16 underway, including the first combined license application for a non-light water 17 reactor, the Oklo Aurora.
18 Slide 24 please. Because the landscape for advanced 19 reactor technologies changes so frequently, we are continuously engaging 20 with Ray's team and research to reevaluate priorities, to ensure we have the 21 analytical capabilities available for each specific technology and time to 22 support the ongoing and upcoming reviews. And we've been successful to 23 date.
24 Ray mentioned the concept of a reference plant model to
90 1 exercise technology specific analytical tools. This proactive approach has 2 provided staff with insights early in their reviews.
3 For example, results from the microreactor plant model 4 alerted staff to safety significant features of the Oklo Aurora design. Staff 5 also used a technical report on nuclear data uncertainty from a Department of 6 Energy Laboratory to give confidence other features of this design were not 7 as important.
8 This demonstrates how staff are seeking information from 9 multiple sources to inform a graded review approach that focuses on the 10 safety significant items.
11 We appreciate the analytical codes and models being 12 developed by RES. We plan to use them to perform limited confirmatory 13 analysis focused on the safety case, such as novel features with less 14 operating experience, areas with small safety margins or areas where 15 sensitivity studies would provide an efficient means to understand the 16 important phenomena.
17 As Ray and Raj mentioned, we plan to issue draft regulatory 18 guides endorsing three high priority consensus codes and standards by the 19 end of this calendar year. One of these is the non-light water reactor 20 probabilistic risk assessment standards.
21 For vendors using the licensing modernization project, the 22 acceptability of the probabilistic risk assessment takes on added significance 23 because its results are used to establish a safety case.
24 Our regulatory guide endorsing this standard will provide the
91 1 industry with clear expectations for acceptability at the different phases of 2 design and construction. This regulatory guide will also endorse peer review 3 guidance developed by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which will make our 4 reviews more efficient because staff can focus on the areas identified during 5 the peer review.
6 We continue to engage internally and with stakeholders to 7 evaluate options for vendors not using the licensing modernization project.
8 We are aware of advanced reactor designers who are 9 considering the use of additively manufactured components. The advanced 10 manufacturing action plan will ensure we're prepared to review these 11 applications when they arrive.
12 Slide 25 please. The NRC is actively engaged with 13 international communities to develop common regulatory positions and 14 guidance and to facilitate the exchange of information on the safety and 15 regulation of advanced reactors.
16 As part of the International Atomic Energy Agency, small 17 modular reactor regulators forum, we align with international regulators on 18 important topics, such as fundamental safety functions and defense-in-depth.
19 The position papers produced by this forum, and exposure 20 to other regulatory approaches, allows us to leverage international experience 21 for developing NRC regulations and guidance.
22 We recently collaborated with the Nuclear Energy Agency's 23 working group on the safety of advanced reactor on guidance for fuel 24 qualification. And as a result, the guidance documents issued by the working
92 1 group and the NRC are very similar.
2 This allowed us to take advantage of international expertise 3 to inform our product and harmonization with the international community will 4 help vendors considering licensing in more than one country.
5 We expect the same benefits from ongoing collaborations 6 on analytical codes and methods and recently initiated project on materials 7 qualification.
8 Building off what Rob shared regarding our work with the 9 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, within the past six months we have 10 established the structure and format for joint products, approved five work 11 plans and are nearing completion on the first two projects; a joint review of the 12 construction code X-energy proposed for the Xe-100 reactor pressure vessel 13 and documentation of areas of commonality and differences between our 14 licensing modernization project and the Canadian guidance.
15 Slide 26 please. As evidence by today's diverse speakers, 16 our ability to execute our vision is the result of a coordinated agency-wide 17 effort where staff are working across offices towards a common goal.
18 I'd like to thank the staff I work with in the advanced reactor 19 program for their dedication, adaptability and innovation. In addition to 20 developing the technical skills necessary to resolve policy issues, develop 21 guidance and perform reviews in this very different world of advanced 22 reactors, I've seen them embrace the challenge to become a modern risk-23 informed regulator.
24 They are focusing on safety significant items, streamlining
93 1 processes and products, and striving to make the safe use of advanced 2 reactor technology possible.
3 The photos on that last slide reflect the sixth implementation 4 action plans that Rob shared in an earlier slide. The progress made to date 5 in each area has positioned us to perform today's licensing reviews and will 6 continue to execute the plan to prepare for the diverse technologies expected 7 in the future, and to make our upcoming reviews even more efficient.
8 Thank you for time. Now I'll turn it back to Margie for 9 closing remarks.
10 MS. DOANE: Thank you, Michelle. And in conclusion, I 11 want to add my thanks to the staff across all of the offices in the advanced 12 reactor program.
13 And I'd also like to thank the staff that helped us prepare for 14 this meeting today. They put in countless hours.
15 And with that, I turn it back over to you, Chairman, for 16 questions from the Commission.
17 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Margie. And thanks 18 to the staff for that presentation. And we'll start the questions this morning 19 with Commissioner Baran.
20 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well thank you all for your 21 presentations and your work. I want to start by asking about the Part 53 22 rulemaking, as Margie predicted, I think. Because that will establish the 23 overall regulatory framework for advanced reactors.
24 On the first panel I ask about PRAs and whether the rules
94 1 should offer deterministic avenues for vendors to demonstrate the safety of 2 their designs. Rob, what's the staff's current thinking about whether the rule 3 should require an applicant to have a PRA and whether the PRA should be 4 reviewed by NRC staff during licensing?
5 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Commissioner, for the 6 question. Currently the preliminary rule language does include a requirement 7 for applicants to have a PRA. However, as I indicated, we're at an iterative 8 process for revising that language.
9 In our most recent iteration we've attempted to provide 10 some additional flexibility to allow applicants to use other generally accepted 11 risk-informed approaches. Things like the IAEA SSR standard, and other 12 generally accepted risk-informed approaches.
13 So, from that perspective, I think it's been discussed that we 14 kind of started with building Part 53 off of an approach that attempted to 15 maintain consistency with prior PRA decisions by the agency, such as the 16 requirements in Part 52 and the PRA policy statements.
17 But we're seeing stakeholders express some interest to 18 have some even more flexibility and diversity and we're considering that as 19 we revise and consider the revisions to the rulemaking.
20 We believe that the PRA provides one potential opportunity 21 to scope the rule and help with the development of the design and identify 22 what's truly risk-significant in a technology inclusive kind of way.
23 So we see the PRA or our graded risk-informed approaches 24 being valuable in that sense. So we want to make sure that we, if we go with
95 1 alternative approaches we can accomplish those goals that we talked about 2 out of the advanced reactor policy statements and still be successful with the 3 rule at the end of the day.
4 So I think we're still dialoging on it. We certainly haven't 5 made a decision and we've also stood up a group to look at developing a 6 graded PRA approach that might be useful and applied in the role. So 7 hopefully that answers your question, Commissioner.
8 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Yes, that's very helpful, Rob, 9 thanks. The current regulatory framework has a long list of deterministic 10 requirements applicable to light-water reactors.
11 I didn't envision the new framework trying to create 12 equivalent lists of deterministic requirements for other technologies, I was 13 imaging something more technology neutral. What are the staff's current 14 thoughts about that?
15 Are we going to see a lot of detailed technology specific 16 guidance with the rule?
17 MR. TAYLOR: I'll start with that, Commissioner. Our goal 18 is a technology neutral framework. And so that means, both within the 19 regulations and our guidance.
20 I think, as I mentioned the diversity, and you heard the first 21 panel talk about it a lot, the diversity of the technologies that we're going to 22 see will create challenges if we try to build guidance for every single possible 23 design. So you are seeing things like, in the advanced reactor content of 24 applications guidance that we're building.
96 1 We trying to make sure that the scope is with regards to how 2 we're going to focus on the most safety-significant and risk-significant aspects 3 of those designs and ensure that the level of detail and the content that comes 4 into us is commensurate with that risk and safety significance.
5 So, long story short, I think the goal is to stay as technology 6 inclusive as possible. If we identify a need or stakeholders identify a need I 7 think we'll adapt and adjust and consider building technology specific where 8 we need it. But it wouldn't be our first desire or priority I think.
9 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. On the first panel Ed 10 Lyman raised the question of whether NRC will require prototype testing of 11 the designs receiving financial support from DOE. He recommended that 12 NRC define the additional design features needed for the prototypes.
13 What is the staff's current thinking on whether prototype 14 testing will be required?
15 MR. TAYLOR: That's a great question. I wish I had a 16 crystal ball, because I think it's still a little too early to tell at this point.
17 Because the venders are still developing their designs and engaging with us 18 in pre-application activities.
19 Dr. Lyman was very good in pointing out that in 2017 we put 20 out a regulatory review roadmap document and it has an enclosure and two 21 great appendices that specifically talk to this subject with regards to how 22 essential applicants can consider developing their testing and analytical 23 programs to make the case under the 10 CFR 50.43(e) requirements which 24 allows two different approaches, one of which is a prototype approach.
97 1 But the other is one to demonstrate, through testing and 2 analysis, that they have the sufficient data.
3 You also heard it in the first panel, one of important things 4 is making sure that the data and analyses are sufficient to support the 5 conclusions being drawn, so taking the insight from prior lab work, and NRC 6 licensed facilities, and then demonstrating how that data and analysis can be 7 applied to these new designs will be a critical focus area as we make our 8 independent assessment and determine whether a prototype facility is 9 needed.
10 I think they need to make the argument to us and the 11 justification to us as to why they have that sufficient data, and then our job is 12 to assess it independently and reach a conclusion. So long story short, I think 13 it's just a little early to make that conclusion at this point.
14 COMMISSIONER BARAN: And do you have a sense, I 15 mean, and I understand it'd be kind of case-specific, but do you have a sense, 16 is that a demonstration you would expect that would be made in the 17 application, or it would be, you know, during pre-application discussions?
18 How far along would someone be before they needed to, where they would 19 find out NRC's determination about whether they needed a prototype?
20 MR. TAYLOR: So I think, it would certainly be, we put out 21 a draft white paper last year on what we considered an effective strategy for 22 pre-application engagement and it highlights a number of areas that are critical 23 to supporting the overall safety and licensing basis for the facility that will be 24 submitted to us.
98 1 So I think if we -- and we've heard a number of the vendors 2 indicate their appreciation for that and their intent to follow it. So I think it's, 3 my desire would be that it would be a logical outcome from that discussion as 4 we engage in those pre-application activities to assess whether there are any 5 gaps in data and analysis that would make it a challenge for us to make the 6 finding under 50.43(e) that there's sufficient information, and the prototype 7 facility is not needed. So to me, it's a critical item within the pre-application 8 activities.
9 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. One of the big policy 10 questions around advanced reactors is what siting limitations should apply.
11 The NRC staff has recommended changing the guidance and interpretation of 12 the regulation to significantly scale back siting restrictions for advanced 13 reactors.
14 Under the suggested interpretation, reactor designs 15 deemed sufficiently safe on paper could be sited within a town of 25,000 16 people and right next to a large city.
17 For reactor designs that have not been deployed before, 18 and have no operating experience, does the staff believe that this would be a 19 sufficiently cautious approach to protecting the public? And how would it be 20 consistent with the regulatory requirement that reactor sites should be located 21 away from very densely populated centers?
22 MR. TAYLOR: Thanks for that question, Commissioner.
23 We gave that a lot of thought as we developed that paper. I think we 24 submitted it to the Commission last year. And it included the four options as
99 1 considered the spectrum of possibilities for how we could do this.
2 And we ultimately did recommend an option that included 3 updates to our guidance. And we recognized that that was an important 4 policy consideration for the very reason you mentioned at the end with regards 5 to prior Commission policy statements on this fact.
6 So when we think about siting, I think the staff thinks about 7 it holistically in the case of protecting public health and safety both from the 8 safety and the siting aspects of the design. So I don't think you can go 9 forward with a decision on the acceptability of the site without a good and 10 comprehensive understanding of the safety basis for that facility which would 11 have to be demonstrated as part of the licensing application.
12 So in my mind, while we were proposing to update the 13 guidance and provide or allow for more flexibility, ultimately you shouldn't 14 make the decision on whether the site is acceptable until you've also included 15 the prospectus regarding the safety of the design. So I think those two are 16 inextricably linked in our mission to protect public health and safety.
17 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Do you see that as a change 18 though from how things have been done in the past? You know, I sense the 19 history of this is that traditionally it's been the opposite. That one of the key 20 principles of siting was that it was an independent defense in depth measure 21 separate from, independent of design.
22 And kind of what you articulated is really the opposite of that 23 which is it's totally enmeshed in the design review. How do you think about 24 that?
100 1 MR. TAYLOR: It's a great question, Commissioner. I 2 think we have historically provided layers of defense in depth in our licensing 3 approaches to technologies. And I think that we can continue to maintain that 4 if the Commission determines that's the appropriate way to go.
5 But I also think that making sure that we take a holistic 6 perspective on the safety of these designs in the facilities is an opportunity to 7 be somewhat transformative in how we think about it. We still want to have 8 the appropriate defense in depth in the barriers to protection of public health 9 and safety.
10 But I think we can look at how we accomplish that in a 11 variety of mechanisms for these advanced reactor designs, if they achieve the 12 safety goals that they're proposing that they could achieve. So I think it's an 13 important factor as we consider the designs and the overall safety in the 14 protection of public health and safety.
15 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, I appreciate the staff's 16 thoughtful paper on this. It gives us a lot to think about. I also appreciate 17 the value of a risk-informed approach.
18 When I think about it holistically, I worry that pairing minimal 19 siting restrictions with no offsite emergency planning zones for a first-of-a-kind 20 reactor wouldn't be prudent. That's my concern. But thank you for your 21 thoughts on that. Thanks.
22 MR. TAYLOR: Understood, thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Baran.
24 Commissioner Caputo?
101 1 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. And my thanks 2 to the staff for their hard work in preparing their presentations today, both 3 those who gave remarks and those who supported the development. It's a 4 voluminous amount of information to cover in one meeting, and I really 5 appreciate the hard work that went into that.
6 I'm reflecting on some of the comments that were made in 7 the earlier panel and just how we heard criticism from several of the speakers 8 about the rush to develop Part 53 and how that may result in a rule that has a 9 rigid over-reliance on PRA with inadequate flexibility and that this may result 10 in a rule that may be unworkable and unused by innovative designs.
11 I'd like to point out, however, that the staff is currently 12 reviewing our first application for advanced reactor. And the agency spent 13 nine months deciding which aspects of our regulations would apply and 14 govern the review. So I would just suggest that the practical ramification of 15 this is the development of an application-specific regulatory framework, de 16 facto.
17 Given the expectation of 13 incoming applications, how 18 tenable is it to recreate a technology-specific, application-specific regulatory 19 framework? And doesn't that situation create a sense of urgency to finish 20 Part 53 and to get it right?
21 Rob?
22 MR. TAYLOR: Sure, Commissioner. Thank you for the 23 question. I think it is a great question. And I listened intently as it was asked 24 and discussed during the first panel.
102 1 I reflect, and I keep a copy of the SRM from the Commission 2 that, in my mind, was clear about the importance of both moving expeditiously 3 to build Part 53 to provide the flexibility and to minimize the need for 4 exemptions and the very things you talked about in your question.
5 So Part 53 and the importance of developing Part 53 is 6 critical, in my mind, to enabling technologies in the deployment of advanced 7 reactors. But it's equally critical to get it right. And I think that's a 8 tremendous balancing opportunity and effort that we have underway.
9 So that's why we're doing the extensive outreach, and we're 10 trying to apply the novel approach of releasing the preliminary language as we 11 go and soliciting the feedback from the stakeholders.
12 So our goal is to try to accomplish both of those things.
13 And I know it's going to be a challenge. We highlighted what we thought 14 those challenges were as part of our paper that we sent to the Commission in 15 November of last year.
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So you mentioned earlier in 17 response to Commission Baran, you talked a little bit about PRA and creating 18 some perhaps more flexible options. Could you just discuss a little bit more, 19 in perhaps other areas of development, how you're balancing the need for 20 predictability, clarity, stability, with the need for flexibility in a technology-21 neutral regulation?
22 MR. TAYLOR: Commissioner, I just want to make sure I 23 understand the question. Is it Part 53-specific or is it ---
24 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Yes.
103 1 MR. TAYLOR: -- is it a more generic ---
2 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Within Part 53.
3 MR. TAYLOR: Ah, within Part 53, okay. So Part 53, and 4 I think one of the key elements as we try to develop and do this balance that 5 we're talking about, is how to accomplish a truly performance-based 6 regulation, one that acknowledges what the outcome will need to be and then 7 provides the flexibility on how to accomplish those outcomes.
8 And as you can imagine, there could be multiple ways to be 9 successful in doing that. And I think the dialogue we're having, and I still think 10 for early in the process for developing this rule, is highlighting that different 11 stakeholders have different perspectives.
12 I mean, you heard it from the first panel that there's a lot of 13 stakeholder perspective in how to strike that right balance relative to it.
14 And one of the things we want to make sure that we do 15 accomplish, well, two things we want to make sure that we accomplish, we 16 think it's critical out of the advanced reactor policy statement that we maintain 17 the same level of safety for the advanced reactors that we do for the existing 18 fleet of light-water reactors. That was critical. So our goal is to maintain that 19 bar in the same place relative to the technology.
20 And then the second is that we allow for, if the designs 21 demonstrate their enhanced safety margins, that will allow for increased 22 operational flexibility. And in fact, at the public meeting last week, we rolled 23 out a white paper that talks about an approach to potentially supporting things 24 like autonomous operations in advanced reactors.
104 1 And we think that's critical that the framework would enable 2 that kind of capability. And one of the keys is how do you demonstrate the 3 safety margins that allow you to take and use those operational flexibilities as 4 we go forward. So it's a significant challenge and it's something I think that 5 the staff is working aggressively on.
6 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. So I'm going to have 7 you develop a little more, a couple of things that you mentioned in there. So 8 this iterative process, you know, how beneficial has that been?
9 I know there can be some tension between perhaps 10 stakeholders having some criticisms of the portions they've seen which may 11 be attributed to the fact that there are portions that related to it that they may 12 not have had the benefit of reviewing yet.
13 So how efficient and effective is this iterative process in sort 14 of trying to develop concepts, and ideas, and approaches concurrently, even 15 though not all portions are available at once?
16 MR. TAYLOR: And so that's a really good question, 17 Commissioner. I think as you try anything as novel as doing this, and we 18 have released preliminary language and other rules like we did it on the 19 advanced reactor physical security rulemaking, you can find that it can be very 20 beneficial.
21 Because it allows a focusing of what are the critical issues, 22 where are the potential gaps or misunderstandings between us and 23 stakeholders. And it allows us to hone in and focus on those dialogues, that 24 dialogue to get to a more tangible, hopefully, outcome and understanding of
105 1 each other.
2 That said, it does create a challenge to confront reality as 3 you put out iterative language trying to make sure you're building all the pieces 4 together. And we talked about this last week. It's difficult as we're moving 5 aggressively on this rulemaking.
6 And we can certainly understand why some stakeholders 7 want to see all the pieces put together, to make sure that they have the whole 8 picture of the rulemaking. And we're working as quickly as we can to build all 9 the subparts and to get them released so that we can do that.
10 And that's one the reasons we committed that we would 11 leave the language open, especially on important pieces like Subparts B and 12 C. Because we know we'll have to go back as we build those subsequent 13 pieces.
14 And we may find that some of the things we thought we 15 needed to do in Subparts B and C, we don't actually need to do. And we can 16 remove those pieces or move them to other sections of the rule. So that's 17 why we recognize that we can't lock in on any particular aspect. And we need 18 to put all the pieces together and continue to have the dialogue. It'll help us 19 build a better rule at the end of the day.
20 I think we should do a lessons learned at the end of this and 21 ask the question is this the right format and structure for rulemaking going 22 forward. But right now, I think it's the best approach we can have to have the 23 dialogue we need with the stakeholders.
24 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Another point that you
106 1 mentioned earlier is that you are seeking to apply the same level of safety 2 requirements as existing reactors, yet the NRC's been criticized for 3 considering a broad weakening of regulatory standards for non-light water 4 reactors.
5 I think one dynamic here that gives me a little bit of pause is 6 certainly between where we stand now and the nature of how our reviews over 7 the next several years will be governed by deciding what portions of our 8 regulatory framework to apply to these reviews.
9 And with each design potentially being different with 10 different applicability, we certainly open ourselves to criticism that we are 11 perhaps exempting certain designs from safety standards.
12 How, through the nature of, you know, the review work as 13 you expect it over the next several years, how you both counter this concern 14 of weakening our regulatory standards, and how do you communicate the 15 nature of how you're setting the regulatory standards and ensuring that high 16 level of safety?
17 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you for that question. I think it is a 18 significant challenge. One thing I'll go back to, and we've had a lot of dialogue 19 with our stakeholders with regards to the approach to the applicability of the 20 regulations in Part 50 and 52 to the advanced reactor technologies and the 21 designs, and we put out a white paper that we received comments back on.
22 And we've continued to iterate, and take those comments, and add value to it.
23 And one of the things we're thinking about is putting a flow 24 chart in that paper that'll help these new technologies move through it. And
107 1 that should help provide transparency to both those entities who are going to 2 apply to us as well as to the pubic who's following our activities.
3 Because I can tell you that there's no -- the dedication of the 4 staff to our safety mission is phenomenal, and to our NRC values.
5 So there is, I understand those who may think or see that a 6 change to our requirements is a perception of weakening them. I see the 7 opposite. I see that it's a commitment to maintaining our values and our 8 commitment to our mission, and just finding a different way to accomplish that 9 same outcome.
10 So the key is to provide opportunities to do that 11 transparently, so that the stakeholders can follow what we're doing and that 12 we listen to them and respond to them if they think that we are relaxing or 13 weakening our requirements.
14 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: I agree with you in the level 15 of confidence that we place in the agency staff, both in terms of their 16 commitment and dedication but also in their level of expertise. So I think 17 really communication here is probably a key effort. And so your focus on 18 transparency, I think, is a good one. Thank you for that.
19 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Caputo.
20 Commissioner Wright?
21 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 So, Rob, first and foremost, I want to thank you and your 23 staff for your efforts in this area. This has been really enlightening. And I 24 also want to give you the opportunity to comment or maybe even respond to
108 1 some of the feedback more than you have already.
2 I understand there's been a lot of dialogue about the safety 3 objectives in Part 53 and the staff's considering a tiered approach. I believe 4 it's been referred to as adequate protection and extra-adequate protection.
5 So given that our mission and findings are tied to reasonable 6 assurance of adequate protection, can you help me better understand how 7 the second tier or extra-adequate term is consistent with the findings we're 8 going to have to make?
9 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Commissioner Wright, for the 10 question. I don't think -- I would start with this, the term extra-adequate 11 protection comes from a letter that was submitted to us by the Nuclear Energy 12 Institute. So it's not a term that the staff has been using within the context of 13 building Part 53.
14 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Very good.
15 MR. TAYLOR: But that's initial thinking when you say this 16 is -- we're trying to build this rulemaking that raises the performance-based 17 aspects of the rule and what needs to be submitted to us to make our 18 regulatory findings.
19 So as we think about what we have built in Part 50 and 52, 20 we think about the idea that we don't want everything to just fall into one of 21 two buckets, safety related or non-safety related. We've recognized over the 22 years that there's value to having that spectrum of things can be classified and 23 maintained by the licensees within their own programs. Think about the 24 maintenance rule, kind of thing.
109 1 So what the staffs approach with the two tiers was to do 2 was to try to give that flexibility to do that and to have those capabilities for the 3 management of those materials.
4 We still think all of it falls within the adequate protection 5 realm, and we're still having dialogue with the stakeholders to see if our 6 thought process and our logic stands up and is understandable to 7 stakeholders.
8 And so we're open and amenable to the flexibility and the 9 approach for how the two tier structure works and what will need to be within 10 those two tiers. So I think we're a long way from a decision on that.
11 And it's going to be really dependent on how it interfaces 12 with the other parts of the rule, like the operations piece that I was talking 13 about a little bit earlier. I hope that helps to answering our question.
14 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: It does, thank you so much.
15 And you heard me ask the question, and I think Mr. Sell 16 responded to it, talking about the flexibility part and that some people were out 17 there thinking that the, to follow-up on Commissioner Caputo's questioning 18 too, that it was just too big. And people may not use it, because there weren't 19 enough flexibilities built in, or a graded approach, or something like that.
20 And I think I heard you really acknowledge that you've heard 21 that and that you're really trying to incorporate those types of flexibilities within 22 the rule, although we're very early. Am I correct, did I hear you correctly in 23 that?
24 MR. TAYLOR: You absolutely did, Commissioner. I do
110 1 want to say this. I do think that Part 53 has -- at least the preliminary 2 language is crafted. It's substantially more flexible than Part 50 and 52. I 3 think we've taken a substantial step towards a performance-based regulation.
4 Does that mean we should stop and declare victory?
5 Absolutely not, we should continue to have the dialogue and ask if there's 6 more flexibility that could be incorporated into it. But you're not going to find 7 very prescriptive requirements on fuel cladding performance or containment 8 leak rate testing right now in Part 53. So you're going to find a much more 9 performance-based type of structure.
10 And then we are -- what I'm appreciative of is the discussion 11 we're having is how to accomplish those pieces. And I think that's the right 12 conversation. And I think Steve Kuczynski kind of hit on it during his session.
13 Those are the kind of conversations we should be having.
14 And these are difficult issues that we need to work through.
15 And we need to challenge ourselves to do it in a timely and effective manner.
16 But we also have to make sure we do it right. So I think the questions in the 17 first panel are really important and significant on the point of trying to drive to 18 resolution but also be mindful of getting it right at the end of the day.
19 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: All right, thank you so much.
20 I really appreciate your openness and the way you're sharing with us today.
21 This has been really enlightening. So thank you so much.
22 And I'm going to switch gears for a minute. I want to go to 23 Raj for a second. I understand that Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, 24 or AMT, is used as an umbrella term to cover a broad range of novel and non-
111 1 standardized manufacturing methods and materials that aren't traditionally 2 used in the US nuclear industry.
3 Could you give me a few examples of how potential 4 applicants propose to use AMT in advanced reactors?
5 MR. IYENGAR: Yes, the staff is working on the agency 6 action plan on the advanced manufacturing technology applications. As part 7 of the effort, it's a collaborative with the Office of Research and NRR.
8 That effort, we are making assessments of the state of 9 technology for specific technologies that will be of interest to the licensees in 10 terms of application. Based on the assessment reports, the staff is 11 developing technical positions which will be used for inspection guidance for 12 these technologies. We have completed one such effort and we are 13 embarking on other technologies as we go. And our efforts are dependent 14 on largely what the industry is contemplating.
15 In addition to that, we've also developed state of the --
16 technology assessment supports for radius views of modeling and simulation 17 to augment some of the data needs that we might have, as well as pre-service 18 inspection which is fairly important for the use of these advanced technologies.
19 We do understand that, in terms of, specific to nuclear 20 reactors, nuclear applications, we need to get more information on the 21 radiation damage. And that's going to be, that's going to have to wait until we 22 get more experience and more data on all of those things.
23 But this is essentially what the staff is doing. The staff has 24 followed many, two years ago actually, when I came and talked to the
112 1 Commission, we even got actively embarked on this project. But since then, 2 I actually made tremendous progress in that effort.
3 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you so much. And, 4 Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
5 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.
6 I just want to start off by acknowledging the outstanding 7 efforts of the staff in supporting the advanced reactor program. I think the 8 conversation that we've had at the Commission this morning, and particularly 9 with the first panel, I think really highlights the significant challenges and the 10 complexity associated with this effort, and the multiple, the areas of balance 11 and consideration kind of along multiple axes that the staff is having to 12 consider.
13 While we're trying to accommodate, you know, really what 14 is a pretty dynamic and evolving landscape out there in the world in terms of 15 what might come to the Commission, all while, I think, as Rob really eloquently 16 noted, the ongoing really strong commitment by the staff to serve the public 17 and ensure the safety of the issues before us, as well as just the flexibility not 18 only in developing this new Part 53 but also for applicants that are coming in 19 and wanting to use Part 50 or Part 52.
20 And I want to recognize the significant challenge, and I want 21 to really applaud the tremendous amount of effort and creative thinking that 22 the staff has put in so far.
23 So with that, I want to recognize -- Rob has gotten a lot of 24 love this morning. And don't get me wrong, I love Rob too. But I'm going to
113 1 spend a little time with Marilyn, ha, ha, ha, because I am interested. And I 2 wanted to revisit this question I had earlier, for the earlier panel, about data 3 gaps in HALEU.
4 And I think it was, Marilyn, in your presentation, you had 5 mentioned a lack of benchmarks for high-assay low-enriched uranium. And, 6 you know, without some of these benchmarks, additional conservatism might 7 be needed in terms of handling this fuel, storing this fuel, transporting that fuel.
8 And I'm just wondering if you could say a little bit more about 9 that and how the staff Is working to address those, either with the National 10 Labs or with vendors, or others?
11 MS. MALDONADO: Sure. I'll say that, for fuel cycle, 12 transportation and storage, I would pull those data needed for code validation 13 that are primarily focused on criticality safety. This is, like I said during my 14 presentation, this is due to the fact that fuel-critical experiments used for code 15 validations are for the less than five percent enrichment, with relatively few in 16 the five to 20 percent enrichment range of interest for advanced reactor fuels.
17 I'll say that NMSS has the ongoing effort to assess and 18 strengthen the modeling tools for advanced fuels in advance of their 19 anticipated introduction. For example, we have made significant --
20 (Audio interference.)
21 MS. MALDONADO: Our capabilities in criticality and 22 shielding modeling for near term ATF for light water reactors to allow us to 23 effectively evaluate anticipated ATF licensing actions with higher enrichment 24 as well. We're also taking that same approach to ensure that we're similarly
114 1 well positioned to evaluate advanced reactor fuels.
2 I'll also note that we are working with DOE in the GAIN 3 initiative, that they have also ongoing efforts to evaluate those higher 4 increased enrichment benchmarking studies for the uranium hexafluoride 5 with, again, above the five percent enrichment.
6 So I think we're getting there. We're trying to address the 7 data needs. I think the industry and DOE has -- it's also engaged in getting 8 those benchmark studies. And we have come up with certain paths forward 9 as to how to license those and regulate those.
10 We have one of the proposed packets to use sensitivity and 11 uncertainty analysis techniques to demonstrate that some of the lower 12 enriched critical experiments are applicable to those with higher. So we're 13 working through it. And we see that we will be able to address those.
14 CHAIRMAN HANSON: That's great, thank you very much.
15 I mean, I could ask 100 questions about this topic alone and size of 16 transportation packages and certificates of compliance, and a whole bunch of 17 things. But I won't bore my colleagues or the public on that today.
18 My next question, I think, Marilyn, for you is really going to 19 be about how we're thinking about safeguards and security, and not just 20 exclusively for you, Marilyn, but maybe also for Michelle, about how we're 21 thinking about safeguards and security integrated into some of these designs.
22 And in particular, I think I've been struck by what I perceive, 23 and this is part of my question, about kind of the material accounting, and 24 control issues associated with, like, liquid fuel type designs and how that's
115 1 being accounted for in our design reviews and our regulatory framework.
2 MS. MALDONADO: Michelle, I can start, and if you have 3 something to add, you can do it after.
4 What I'll say is, as you may know, the movement of special 5 nuclear material in some advanced reactor designs can differ significantly 6 from existing light water reactors in that the SNM contained in discrete items 7 like fuel assemblies, and refueling, and removal of spent fuel can occur 8 continuously during operations rather than a discrete outage period.
9 So MC&A requirements for existing reactors take into 10 account the discrete nature of the fuel in the refueling process. SNM, in some 11 of the advanced reactor designs, if you know that they're in liquid form, it's in 12 some ways more, like, at fuel cycle facilities where much of the SNM is 13 considered in process and can be controlled and tracked as such.
14 The existing, we believe that the existing MC&A regulations 15 for this type of facility have been successful applied at fuel cycle facilities that 16 use these type of processes. And at this point, we expect that the 17 performance-based regulations in Part 74 can encompass the range of 18 designs currently anticipated for advanced reactors.
19 So staff is pursuing technical studies to confirm this 20 approach. We have been involved in technical studies. DOE is currently 21 sponsoring other technical studies for this and the advanced reactor designs.
22 For the molten salt designs with the salt fuel, those are the 23 ones that may represent the most distinct challenges for MC&A. But those 24 are being considered in some of the ongoing studies that I mentioned in
116 1 planning further work in the future in the next fiscal year, if needed.
2 CHAIRMAN HANSON: All right.
3 MS. MALDONADO: Thanks.
4 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Thank you. Michelle?
5 MS. HAYES: I don't have a whole lot to add, just that we're 6 aware and we're working on the same studies and working with labs on how 7 best to incorporate that.
8 CHAIRMAN HANSON: Okay. All right, great. Thank 9 you.
10 With just a couple minutes to go, I think we'll wrap it up there.
11 I want to thank everyone this morning. I want to thank the public for 12 attending, our staff panelists, our external panelists, thank you especially to 13 SECY for supporting a hybrid meeting.
14 Obviously all of the Commissioners are here in the room in 15 One White Flint in Rockville. But we've had all of our panelists join us 16 remotely and with very few, if any, technical glitches. And I want to thank the 17 efforts of our secretary, Annette Vietti-Cook, Wes Held, Sergio, and others, for 18 supporting us this morning. And with that, we're adjourned.
19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record 20 at 12:12 p.m.)