ML22321A289

M221110: Transcript - Briefing on NRC International Activities

ML22321A289
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/10/2022
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
References
M221110
Download: ML22321A289 (56)

Text

1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+++++

BRIEFING ON NRC INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

+++++

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2022

+++++

The Commission met in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland, at 10:00 a.m.,

Christopher T. Hanson, Chair, presiding.

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, Chair JEFF BARAN, Commissioner DAVID A. WRIGHT, Commissioner ANNIE CAPUTO, Commissioner BRADLEY R. CROWELL, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:

BROOKE P. CLARK, Secretary of the Commission MARIAN ZOBLER, General Counsel

2 NRC STAFF:

LUIS BETANCOURT, Acting Technical Assistant, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DANIEL DORMAN, Executive Director for Operations PETER HABIGHORST, Chief, Export Controls and Nonproliferation Branch, Office of International Programs DAVID SKEEN, Acting Director, Office of International Programs 1

3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 10:00 a.m.

3 CHAIR HANSON: Good morning, everyone. I convene 4 this public meeting on the NRC's international activities. It's very important to 5 keep the public informed of the agency's developments in this area, so I thank 6 you all for supporting this meeting today and I'm looking forward to a great 7 conversation.

8 We'll hear from one small panel. We've had both ends of 9 the spectrum this week. I think we maybe had a total of 13 or maybe even 10 14 panelists on Tuesday. We've got two today.

11 Before we start, though, I'll ask my fellow Commissioners if 12 they have any remarks they'd like to make.

13 (No response.)

14 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. With that, we'll begin with Dave 15 Skeen, the acting Director of the Office of International Programs. Dave, the 16 floor is yours.

17 MR. SKEEN: Well, good morning, Chair Hanson and 18 Commissioners. It is a real pleasure for me to be here today with Dan 19 Dorman, our Executive Director for Operations, to jointly present to you the 20 accomplishments and priorities of the agency's international programs.

21 As you may know, in years past, the Commission did hold 22 annual public briefings on the international programs, and, with the increased 23 interest that we're seeing in nuclear energy around the world, we are pleased 24 to have this opportunity to reinstate that practice today.

4 1 Next slide. So Dan and I plan to cover the NRC's 2 international program accomplishments from fiscal year 2022 at a high level 3 and then also address the agency's programmatic priorities for the fiscal year 4 in 2023. Our remarks will be organized into five main categories, and that 5 includes conventions and treaties, export licensing, international assistance, 6 international cooperation, and cooperative research. For each category, we 7 will emphasize how our engagements are targeted to meet the objectives set 8 forth in the NRC's international strategy.

9 For the benefit of our newer commissioners and for the 10 members of the public who are joining us today, the NRC staff published the 11 most recent International Strategy in 2021, and it is publicly available on the 12 NRC's public website. The strategy was developed after extensive input 13 from NRC senior leadership, as well as our colleagues from around the 14 Executive Branch. The strategy has five strategic objectives, and that is to 15 excel in executing our international program activities, to integrate NRC's 16 international interactions with the efforts of the State Department and other 17 federal agencies, and to partner with countries of strategic importance to the 18 NRC and the broader U.S. government. Also, to lead by sharing NRC's vast 19 regulatory experience with our international counterparts and assist other 20 countries who want to strengthen their nuclear regulatory programs.

21 These five objectives of the international strategy 22 supplement the references to the agency's international engagement that are 23 included in the NRC's strategic plan and serve to demonstrate the strong 24 connection between our international programs and both the agency's

5 1 domestic mission and the broader U.S. government's foreign policy and 2 national security objectives. As we go through the slides this morning, you 3 will see that we noted which strategic objectives are supported by the work in 4 each of the main categories.

5 Next slide, please. So as I mentioned at the outset, we bin 6 the NRC's international activities into five high-level categories. These 7 categories are consistent with the way the information was historically 8 presented during the public international briefings to the Commission in the 9 past. The activities listed here represent resources and expertise from 10 across the entire agency across a very broad variety of both technical and 11 non-technical disciplines.

12 Throughout the rest of our presentation, we will be 13 discussing in more detail our accomplishments and priorities in each of these 14 areas. First, I will cover our work in conventions and treaties, export 15 licensing, and our international regulatory assistance. Then I'll turn the floor 16 over to Dan to cover our bilateral and multilateral cooperation activities and 17 our international nuclear safety research program.

18 But before I move on, I just wanted to highlight the photos 19 on this particular slide. The top photo there is Chair Hanson in a bilateral 20 meeting with his counterpart from Ghana, as a matter of fact, at the IAEA 21 general conference this year. That's just one of the many bilateral meetings 22 he had with head regulators during that week.

23 The middle photograph is actually one of our Region I 24 employees, Don Jackson, with some of his students in Egypt. Don served as

6 1 an instructor at the IAEA School for Nuclear and Radiological Leadership.

2 It's a training course to help train new regulators. And the NRC was heavily 3 involved in developing this course with the IAEA. In fact, they requested the 4 NRC to help them develop this course, and it's been very successful. And so 5 we appreciate Don and Region I for allowing Don to participate.

6 Also, the bottom photo you see there, that is, again, Chair 7 Hanson is there with a cohort of six of the Polish assignees at the Plant 8 Vogtle site. The assignees came and spent six weeks at the NRC, including 9 doing some formal training at the Technical Training Center in Chattanooga 10 and then spending time with our folks in Region II, as well as NRC 11 Headquarters for some on-the-job training, and then finally some time at the 12 Vogtle plant. And as it turns out, that was fortuitous because they have now 13 selected to build three AP1000s in Poland.

14 So I'll start with the conventions and treaties and just at a 15 high level. So the convention and treaties category represents the 16 legally-mandated activities as specified in binding international treaties that 17 the United States government has. In addition to fulfilling the excel objective 18 in our international strategy, our engagement in this category also enables us 19 to demonstrate leadership in the international community and also integrate 20 our activities with the broader U.S. government policy priorities.

21 The NRC plays a critical role in the U.S. government's 22 implementation of its legally-binding obligations. In fiscal year 2022, the 23 NRC, and specifically the NMSS folks and OIP, supported the Seventh 24 Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel

7 1 Management and Radioactive Waste. NRC representatives served in 2 leadership roles at this meeting as a country group chairman, as well as a 3 country group coordinator, and also delivered the U.S. national report 4 presentation along with the Department of Energy.

5 The NRC also, led by NRR, prepared and submitted on 6 behalf of the United States the national report for the next review meeting of 7 the Convention on Nuclear Safety. Both of these triennial review meetings 8 were postponed in the last few years due to the pandemic and the inability of 9 folks to travel to meet in person.

10 The NRC staff and management also played central roles in 11 the first ever review meeting of the amended Convention on the Physical 12 Protection of Nuclear Materials. The OIP also represented the NRC on the 13 U.S. delegation to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference 14 this year in New York, and NSIR participated in the meeting of competent 15 authorities for both the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident 16 and the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or 17 Radiological Emergency.

18 On the safeguards side, the staff continued its 19 implementation activities under the U.S. IAEA Safeguards Agreement.

20 Obligations under this agreement include providing information to the IAEA on 21 the location of civilian nuclear facilities and providing access to those facilities 22 to conduct inspections. Activities included serving as the chair of the 23 subgroup on IAEA safeguards in the U.S., supporting the DOE's International 24 Nuclear Safeguards Engagement Program, and supporting an IAEA

8 1 verification visit to licensees in Puerto Rico reporting under the U.S. IAEA 2 Safeguards Agreement for the Caribbean territories.

3 Returning to the Convention on Nuclear Safety, we'll talk 4 about the priorities for 2023. As the lead federal agency for the Convention 5 on Nuclear Safety, the NRC will lead the delegation to the next review 6 meeting in March of 2023. Chair Hanson will present the U.S. national report 7 with the support from the Executive Director of Operations, as well as from 8 the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations who will represent the industry.

9 And we will have staff participating in each of the country groups during the 10 review meeting.

11 The CNS review meetings provide a critical opportunity for 12 nuclear regulators to peer review one another's regulatory programs, identify 13 good practices, and recommend areas for improvement where necessary.

14 On the security side, we will continue to work closely with 15 the Executive Branch to advocate to universalize the amended CPPNM, 16 Convention for Physical Protection. The NRC will also co-chair the triennial 17 meeting of the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive 18 Sources. While the code is not legally binding internationally, the United 19 States has made a political commitment to it.

20 Moving to export licensing, in FY22, as the U.S. licensing 21 authority for exports of nuclear material, components, and equipment, the 22 NRC plays a critical role in meeting U.S. non-proliferation and peaceful uses 23 obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Our primary objective is 24 maintaining a licensing process that is stable, predictable, and transparent.

9 1 To that end, we prioritize frequent engagement with both our licensees and 2 our Executive Branch colleagues to ensure that our process is well 3 understood and applications can be reviewed in a timely manner.

4 In fiscal year 2022, the NRC completed 62 licensing actions 5 with more than 90 percent of those completed within 60 days of receiving the 6 Executive Branch views. OIP receives outstanding support and input from 7 NMSS, NSIR, and OGC on all export licensing reviews.

8 Our staff also conducted a variety of outreach activities at 9 conferences such as the Institute for Nuclear Materials Management and the 10 annual National Conference of Radiation Control Directors. Also, at training 11 courses for U.S. government employees, such as the Department of Energy's 12 non-proliferation seminar. Also, in multinational fora, such as the IAEA's 13 International Conference on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources 14 and also to congressional staff on Capitol Hill.

15 We also continue our support for the Nuclear Suppliers 16 Group, which implements international export controls for nuclear materials 17 and equipment. Changes made to the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines 18 result in commensurate changes to our own 10 CFR Part 110 regulation, so 19 the staff must work closely with international colleagues in negotiations to 20 ensure that any changes do not conflict with NRC's equities. Our 21 participation in these activities is key to the success of U.S. policy.

22 Finally, the NRC continues its close engagement with the 23 National Security Council, the Department of State and Department of 24 Energy, and other U.S. government partners in policymaking discussions with

10 1 potential impacts on NRC's export and import licensing activities. This 2 engagement included NRC participation in negotiations for bilateral 3 agreements for civil nuclear cooperation under Section 123 of the Atomic 4 Energy Act, which we refer to as 123 agreements, as well as detailing an 5 NRC staff member to the State Department to work on export licensing from 6 the Executive Branch's perspective.

7 Turning to FY23 priorities, the NRC's export and import 8 licensing program is required by the Atomic Energy Act, so our top priority 9 every year is to prepare to license exports of advanced reactors. Just as on 10 the domestic side, our technical staff is engaged in pre-application 11 discussions to obtain important information and ask questions up-front, the 12 OIP staff works closely with the NRC technical offices and our Executive 13 Branch colleagues, as well as the potential applicants, to ensure that we have 14 a robust understanding of the various reactor designs.

15 We are also continuing our engagement with our 16 counterparts in partner supplier countries to help ensure that international 17 export control guidelines reflect the additional proliferation nuances that these 18 new designs may bring. We are also working to ensure we have adequate 19 resources to support upcoming physical protection bilateral visits.

20 And, finally, we will continue to work closely with our 21 Executive Branch partners on policy development activities that could impact 22 NRC export or import equities. For example, in the recent past, information 23 about China's misuse of U.S. nuclear technology resulted in a development of 24 a policy restricting certain exports to China. And, currently, Russian

11 1 aggression in Ukraine is causing the U.S. government to focus on improving 2 the domestic nuclear fuel supply.

3 The last area I will cover before turning things over to Dan is 4 the NRC's international regulatory assistance activities. The NRC's 5 international regulatory assistance activities strengthen global nuclear safety 6 and security and align closely with U.S. government foreign policy and 7 national security priorities. Through our assistance efforts, we aim to 8 positively, independently, and in technically competent ways make sure that 9 these new entrant countries can develop their nuclear regulatory programs in 10 accordance with, mirrors the key principles of the NRC's infrastructure and 11 regulatory approaches. This, in turn, contributes to nuclear power and 12 radioactive materials being used more safely and securely around the world.

13 While we are an independent agency, we work closely with 14 the Executive Branch to ensure that we are prioritizing our assistance work 15 consistent with broader U.S. government objectives. A great example of this 16 is our work with the Polish Atomic Energy Agency. The NRC has hosted 17 Polish regulatory executives and 12 international assignees at the Technical 18 Training Center, at our headquarters office, in Region II, and Vogtle. This 19 one-year effort has allowed our Polish counterparts to immerse themselves 20 on daily NRC activities associated with new reactor licensing, construction, 21 and plant start-up. Supporting this activity has been a significant effort 22 involving numerous offices, including NRR, Region II, OCHCO, the folks at 23 the Technical Training Center, and OCIO. It demonstrates the NRC's 24 commitment to help prepare the Polish regulator to license and regulate their

12 1 first nuclear power plant.

2 As the Executive Branch seeks to limit Russian influence in 3 the civil nuclear market, Eastern European countries like Poland have 4 become important partners.

5 Our international assistance work also touches U.S.

6 government foreign policy priorities in other ways, particularly when there are 7 emergent geopolitical issues affecting nuclear equities. In fiscal year 2022, 8 we responded quickly to the continuing Russian aggression in Ukraine by 9 leveraging our relationships across the U.S. government, coordinating with 10 international counterparts, and working with other NRC offices to facilitate 11 information sharing, address urgent technical questions and requests for 12 information, and quickly commit funding to the IAEA to support Ukrainian 13 regulatory counterparts.

14 We are also working closely with the Department of State 15 as it implements its foundational infrastructure for the responsible use of small 16 modular reactor technology. I know that's a mouthful, so we call it FIRST, 17 the FIRST program.

18 The State Department highlights FIRST as a 19 capacity-building program designed to deepen strategic ties, support energy 20 innovation, and advance technical collaboration with partner nations on 21 secure and safe nuclear energy infrastructure. Through our engagement 22 efforts, we help ensure synergies between our engagement in the FIRST 23 program to target countries' and states' efforts, highlighting the importance of 24 credible safety regulation to the success of fledgling nuclear energy

13 1 programs.

2 On the radioactive source and safety side, in fiscal year '22, 3 we completed three radioactive source inventory phases in Africa. This 4 phased approach refers to the work that the NRC staff and contractors do to 5 help our assistance partners establish and maintain a national radioactive 6 source registry. As each registry can take months due to the geographic 7 size of the country and the number of sources, we conduct them in phases.

8 Generally, we start in the country's capital and then begin moving out to other 9 regions in subsequent phases.

10 We also worked in FY22 with the government of Tanzania 11 to develop some new transport security regulations in that country.

12 Our international assistance work also touches U.S.

13 government foreign policy priorities in other ways. I think I've already 14 covered that. Sorry about that. Let's go to slide 11.

15 So we have three main priorities for our international 16 regulatory assistance work in fiscal year 2023. First, we will continue to 17 integrate our assistance activities with U.S. government foreign policy 18 priorities and, in particular, we will support high-priority requests from the 19 Executive Branch related to the global deployment of new reactors. With 20 Poland's recent announcement of its decision to construct three 21 Westinghouse AP1000 units, we expect that our engagement with the Polish 22 regulator will continue to increase. This will be impactful both from a safety 23 perspective and a policy perspective, as our work will directly assist Poland in 24 starting up its nuclear program as safety as possible with the benefits of our

14 1 expertise, which has the added impact of reducing Russian influence in the 2 Eastern European region.

3 Second, we will continue to help embarking countries 4 develop their regulatory infrastructure to enable them to regulate nuclear and 5 radioactive material use safely and securely. And, finally, the NRC's 6 regulatory assistance program will continue to support countries in developing 7 national radiological source inventories, particularly in high threat regions of 8 the world.

9 Our work in this area, combined with our engagement with 10 regulatory bodies under the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of 11 Radioactive Sources strengthens both safety and security worldwide. It 12 reduces proliferation risk and facilitates expanded access to the peaceful 13 uses of nuclear technology. These are all key obligations under the nuclear 14 non-proliferation treaty.

15 In addition to these important areas, the NRC will continue 16 its strong support for nuclear safety and security in Ukraine to continue close 17 engagement with our interagency and international partners.

18 So with that, I will invite Dan to share his thoughts and 19 insights from our international cooperation and research areas.

20 MR. DORMAN: Thank you, Dave. It's my pleasure to talk 21 to you today about our many accomplishments and priorities in the areas 22 Dave just mentioned. The NRC's international cooperative engagement 23 benefits our domestic mission in a wide variety of technical and nontechnical 24 disciplines. It also enables the NRC to share our expertise and demonstrate

15 1 leadership to strengthen other regulatory programs around the world.

2 International cooperation activities fulfill nearly every one of 3 our international strategic objectives and involve a broad range of NRC 4 offices, both headquarters and region and both technical program and 5 corporate offices.

6 As you can see on this slide, there's a great number of 7 committees, peer reviews, working groups, and other engagements that make 8 up our international cooperation. I suggested to staff we do a word cloud on 9 this one to capture the breadth and diversity, as well as the essence of all that 10 we do here in one place.

11 In fiscal '22, NRC managers and staff led or participated in 12 all of the International Atomic Energy Agency and committees responsible for 13 the development, revision, and approval of safety standards and security 14 guidance. We participated in 13 IAEA peer review missions and preparatory 15 meetings, including leading the International Physical Protection Advisory 16 Service mission in the Czech Republic and a follow-up Integrated Regulatory 17 Review Service meeting in Zimbabwe and providing a deputy team leader for 18 the IRRS missions to Argentina and India.

19 I want to highlight the expertise that our regional offices 20 bring to the table in this area. Five of the peer review mission participants in 21 the last fiscal year were from the regions. At the Organization for Economic 22 Cooperation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, we led and 23 participated in standing technical committees responsible for setting the 24 NEA's budget and program of work and publishing technical positions to

16 1 strengthen nuclear safety regulation in a variety of areas, including reactor 2 oversight, waste management, radiation protection and public health, safety 3 culture, risk reduction, human factors, and others. The staff has also led 4 cooperative engagement and training development in the areas of risk 5 communication and nuclear law.

6 Under the Memorandum of Cooperation on Advanced 7 Reactor and Small Modular Reactor Technologies, the NRC staff successfully 8 collaborated with our Canadian colleagues on advanced reactor topics and 9 issued unified positions through first-of-a-kind joint reports. This past 10 September, the NRC and CNSC, our Canadian counterparts, signed a charter 11 documenting collaboration on a new project associated with GE Hitachi's 12 BWRX-300 design. Ontario Power Generation and the Tennessee Valley 13 Authority are working together on the industry side to share experience and 14 enhance design standardization. NRC and CNSC agreed that the initial 15 topics of cooperation will be in the areas of advanced construction 16 techniques, safety strategy, and pre-qualified fuel verification and validation.

17 The NRC-CNSC is intended to reduce duplication of 18 licensing review efforts, jointly utilize third-party verification, identify areas for 19 collaborative verification, share expertise, and leverage analysis performed by 20 each regulatory organization.

21 The staff has also collaborated extensively with regulatory 22 counterparts in Canada, Finland, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, 23 South Africa, Spain, and the United Kingdom on operator licensing 24 benchmarking activities to help inform the development of the Part 53

17 1 rulemaking, which will establish a new transformative regulatory framework 2 consistent with the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.

3 On the security side, the staff has engaged in cooperative 4 discussions with the UK, Canada, France, Japan, and the Republic of Korea 5 on security-related topics, such as drones and oversight activities related to 6 the force-on-force program. These are all prime examples of how the NRC's 7 international engagement is essential in strengthening and informing our 8 domestic activities.

9 Finally, in the past year, we have welcomed international 10 assignees from Japan, Poland, and the Republic of Korea to work alongside 11 NRC staff for on-the-job training and experience. These highly-qualified 12 experts contribute to our work as much as they learn from us.

13 The next slide. It will not be a surprise to hear that the 14 main priorities for the NRC internationally align closely with our domestic 15 priorities. This presents opportunities, as well as challenges. In the 16 opportunities category, international cooperative engagement enables us to 17 share expertise with regulatory partners and multilateral organizations, 18 demonstrate leadership to influence the direction and content of international 19 standards and guidance, and learn from our counterparts in ways that 20 enhance our domestic reviews. Our cooperative work directly aligns with 21 most of our international strategic objectives across a wide range of technical 22 topics.

23 In the challenges category, the same experts who are 24 leading domestic projects are sought after internationally for their knowledge

18 1 and expertise. This makes it especially critical that we prioritize our activities 2 appropriately so that our domestic work is not adversely impacted.

3 We expect an increasing number of requests for 4 engagement focused on SMRs and advanced reactors. Bilaterally, we will 5 continue our joint technical review work with Canada. We also expect to 6 expand engagement with France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the 7 United Kingdom in this area. And multilaterally, we will continue our 8 leadership of the IAEA's SMR Regulators' Forum and work to influence the 9 direction of the new Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative, or 10 NHSI, at IAEA so that it can strike an appropriate balance between optimizing 11 the efficiency of regulatory reviews and preserving critical sovereign 12 responsibilities.

13 We will also engage strategically with Canada and the UK 14 on a trilateral basis, as well as bilaterally with France, to partner in the 15 development of multilateral activities related to physical and cybersecurity and 16 emergency preparedness for SMRs and advanced reactors at both the IAEA 17 and NEA.

18 NRC staff and management will also serve as team leaders 19 or deputy team leaders for IRRS missions or preparatory meetings in 20 Germany, Poland, Sweden, and Finland, among others. We will hold 21 steering committee meetings with Canada, France, Japan, and Republic of 22 Korea, and bilateral technical meetings with India and Taiwan. These 23 meetings, under the leadership of Senior Executive Service champions, 24 provide opportunities for fruitful bilateral discussions with some of our primary

19 1 regulatory counterparts that include a documented list of prioritized 2 engagements for the coming year. This enables both parties to judicially 3 allocate resources to various activities on a specific timetable.

4 We look forward to resuming these meetings in person after 5 several years of COVID-related uncertainty, and we'll also continue our 6 cooperation with Canada on the front end of the fuel cycle and transport 7 issues.

8 On that subject, every area of the NRC's work was 9 impacted by the COVID pandemic and international engagement was no 10 different. But I wanted to emphasize that the staff worked extremely hard to 11 ensure that COVID would not significantly disrupt our cooperation with the 12 staff participating in virtual meetings at all hours of the day and night with 13 counterparts in different time zones. We are leveraging best practices, 14 lessons learned, and expanded IT abilities from virtual engagement, as we 15 consider how to most efficiently collaborative with our international partners.

16 This includes greater use of hybrid approaches to bring the right NRC 17 expertise to the right meetings at the right time and realizing cost savings 18 whenever possible.

19 I wanted to just briefly note on the slide here is the signing 20 of the charter for the BWRX-300 project with myself with Ramzi Jammal, my 21 counterpart from Canada.

22 NRC management served on OECD NEA standing 23 technical Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installation and the Committee 24 on Radiological Protection and Public Health. In addition, the staff

20 1 maintained leadership roles in many NEA working groups and IAEA 2 cooperative research projects.

3 We have calculated that our involvement in OECD research 4 projects yields up to a ten-to-one cost-benefit ratio. Having access to the 5 international research facilities enables the NRC and its counterparts at 6 regulatory bodies and technical support organizations to share costs and 7 leverage expertise on a wide variety of projects with far-reaching benefits.

8 Data and results from these projects have direct impact on NRC's regulatory 9 work in critical areas like fire protection, component degradation, reactor 10 system phenomena like passive heat removal, and severe accident 11 prevention and prediction.

12 International nuclear safety research has important 13 applicability to both conventional and new reactor designs and is informing 14 the NRC's preparedness for review and licensing of new designs. Absent 15 these multinational research efforts, we would have to construct similar 16 research facilities in the United States at significant cost to the U.S.

17 government in time and resources that would almost certainly be detrimental 18 to meeting our domestic nuclear safety objectives.

19 The staff also initiated or renewed 18 computer code 20 sharing agreements in fiscal '22. Computer code sharing yields important 21 insights to help validate our computer codes for thermal hydraulics, severe 22 accidents, and radiation protection. In fiscal '22, we've collected $1.8 million 23 in revenue from our computer code-sharing programs, as well as an array of 24 beneficial in-kind contributions from countries conducting research alongside

21 1 us.

2 We also resumed technical meetings with our research 3 counterparts in France and Germany. As these organizations are separate 4 from the regulatory bodies in those countries, our relationships with them are 5 especially important.

6 Looking forward to fiscal '23, we will continue our 7 engagement with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and UK's Office 8 for Nuclear Regulation on overarching principles for evaluating the uses of 9 artificial intelligence technologies. The goal is to establish a common set of 10 principles for evaluating the use of AI technologies based on existing 11 knowledge and identify further areas of collaboration after considering these 12 principles, helping inform future regulatory approaches for AI.

13 We will also continue our leadership of the NEA agreement 14 for the Framework for Irradiation Experiments II, or FIDES-II, a follow-up to 15 the Halden Reactor Project. International collaboration under FIDES 16 agreement allows for international collaboration to foster and facilitate 17 radiation experiments to test materials and fuels. This agreement fosters a 18 multinational community in the field of study, industry, and research that 19 shares goals, resources, and results to define and implement Joint 20 Experimental Programs, or JEEPS, and cross-cutting activities. The NRC is 21 gaining access to the results of these joint programs, which will help inform 22 NRC safety and licensing strategies for nuclear innovations, such as accident 23 tolerant fuels, extensions to fuel burnup limits, and the high radiation 24 exposure of reactor materials such as stainless steel welds over subsequent

22 1 periods of extended operation. Research Director Ray Furstenau is the 2 Chair of the FIDES governing board, which authorizes these Joint 3 Experimental Programs.

4 Before we close, we'd like to share a quick snapshot of our 5 international program accomplishments over the last year. I want to thank 6 the Office of Public Affairs for sharing their format of the NRC By the 7 Numbers graphics, which they release quarterly, to provide you with this 8 visual representation of some of the overarching accomplishments in the 9 international programs.

10 We'd also like to acknowledge OPA's efforts in publicizing 11 the Commission and staff's international engagement on social media, 12 including international and domestic visits, important agreement signings and 13 conferences, and the release of our international strategy. This is another 14 area where we can model transparency and learn from our counterpart 15 regulators' engagement strategies.

16 With that, I'll turn it back to Dave to give some brief closing 17 remarks.

18 MR. SKEEN: Thanks, Dan. And thank you, Chair and 19 Commissioners, for affording us this opportunity to brief you on the agency's 20 international activities. This was not, by any means, an exhaustive list of 21 activities and priorities, but I hope we gave you a snapshot at least of our 22 work and how we are meeting our strategic objectives.

23 Our international work directly benefits our domestic 24 mission. It enables us to learn from and share knowledge with partner

23 1 countries. It strengthens global safety and security through regulatory 2 assistance, allows us to demonstrate leadership to influence important 3 international safety standards and multilateral initiatives, and closely connects 4 our work with broader U.S. government policy priorities. Our goal in creating 5 the international strategy was to enable all NRC staff to clearly identify how 6 their individual work helps meet the agency-wide international objectives, and 7 we are very proud at the way this is demonstrated across the NRC in 8 headquarters, in the regions, and across all technical disciplines.

9 With that, we'll be happy to take your questions. Thank 10 you.

11 CHAIR HANSON: Thanks, Dave and Dan. Really 12 appreciate the high-level overview. I think I'm just going to dive in here with 13 some remarks, and I may make my way around to a question at some point 14 in the ten-minute period, but there are no guarantees in that regard.

15 So let me kind of repeat some things that I said in some 16 other contexts about how important I think the work that OIP does and the 17 way OIP really leverages the rest of the agency in these international fora.

18 The relationships that get built over time, you know, one of the things about 19 these relationships is you're never quite sure when you're going to need 20 them, and you need them to be robust and you need to have gone through a 21 few ups and downs by the time something bad or something maybe even 22 very good happens so that you're ready for that opportunity. As Brooke 23 occasionally likes to say, fortune favors the prepared, and I think that that is 24 an awful lot of what the work of OIP does, the work in staffing and bringing

24 1 our expertise to bear on these international fora.

2 You know, as I get to travel internationally, one of the great 3 things I've enjoyed is getting to know the technical experts that we bring over, 4 people that I may not see around the building, people from the regions, and 5 other kinds of contexts who are really, you know, exceptionally highly 6 regarded internationally for their expertise. And that kind of almost kind of 7 one-on-one relationship building is so critical. And I think we saw that in our 8 relationship with Poland. That's something that started ten years ago.

9 We've ramped it up a lot in the last couple of years because Poland has come 10 to us and asked for the strategic, as well as the prosaic, you know, document 11 management and licensing reviews. We did a workshop on that maybe 18 12 months ago.

13 And, again, the relationships that got built, we had our 14 foreign assignees there. They went down to Vogtle and they met our on-site 15 construction inspectors, as well as our resident inspectors for Units 1 and 2, 16 as well as the folks in Atlanta and so forth, and all of those relationships really 17 matter because what we're ultimately doing here, besides sharing our 18 expertise, is actually sharing our values. The ultimate objective, in a way, is 19 for us, as part of these engagements, particularly with embarking countries, is 20 to build strong, independent, technically-competent regulators who are 21 capable, who can certainly learn from us, sometimes even the technical stuff, 22 right. I mean, you mentioned Ramzi Jammal, Dan. Ramzi's saying is a 23 neutron is a neutron is a neutron. Yep.

24 But building the capability in these other countries so that

25 1 they can make their own technically robust decisions around that is really 2 critically important and not only around those technical conclusions but also 3 around our overall kind of philosophical approach to regulation, right. Our 4 principles of good regulation and our values. And, you know, I'm particularly 5 enamored with those in the international context because I really believe that 6 our nuclear safety values, the things that we go out and espouse, are also 7 democratic values, and they're worth sharing from that perspective, as well.

8 And that, in some cases, is how they fit in to the overall USG strategic foreign 9 policy context on some of these things.

10 Let me talk for just kind of a minute about Ukraine and our 11 relationship with the Ukrainian regulator. Congress saw fit to provide us with 12 a little extra money so that we could help support them. We've done that 13 both on the nuclear safety side with regard to the safety of some of their 14 plants, particularly Zaporizhzhia and the continued detailed ongoing 15 engagement there, but also on some of the material side, right, and helping 16 them keep track of, in a war zone essentially, their radioactive sources, which 17 we also care about the safety and security of.

18 And that, you know, with regard to that then, it's also 19 important, you know, what we have in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the 20 Russian war against Ukraine; let's call it what it is, right. We have a direct 21 kind of assault on the international rules-based order, and that rules-based 22 order exists in a lot of context, right. It exists in treaties and laws, but it also 23 exists in these organizations, the IAEA, the UN, the OECD NEA, the OSCE, 24 NATO, other kinds of contexts. And it's our involvement in those that sustain

26 1 those institutions and make them robust and make them robust in times of 2 conflict and in times of attack. And particularly when it comes to nuclear 3 safety and security, this agency has a direct interest in sustaining the 4 international rules-based order through, you know, a lot of the conventions 5 and agreements that you guys made in your remarks. And those institutions 6 are the thing, because Russia invaded Ukraine, it scrambled the global 7 nuclear fuel cycle, right. And so there is a real need for like-minded 8 countries to come together and rewire that fuel cycle to everyone's benefit.

9 And we're figuring that out but an awful lot of the things that 10 have to occur are going to come through this agency. Greater capacity for 11 enrichment, greater capacity for conversion, export controls of technology, 12 ensuring peaceful uses, ensuring safeguard standards are upheld, et cetera.

13 And we're going to have to do all that, you know, not in a vacuum, in 14 partnership with our USG colleagues, and, again, with our allies on so many 15 of these things.

16 And in that way, you know, as we endeavor to do that, none 17 of that stuff is charity, right. This is all in our national strategic interest. And 18 so it is just one way in which, you know, we get to play our small role in the 19 overall U.S. government foreign policy.

20 Let me just put in a quick plug here for materials, you know.

21 Nuclear power gets a lot of focus, as well it should, right. For a lot of these 22 countries who are embarking, it's about energy security, it's about national 23 security, maybe down the road it's about climate security. But like in the 24 U.S., you know, peaceful uses of radioactive materials are people's exposure,

27 1 everyday exposure to the nuclear world. And supporting those efforts 2 around the world are also really important. Talking about source security 3 and working with our friends at the National Nuclear Security Administration, 4 enabling the peaceful uses for human health and development, participating 5 in things like the IAEA Rays of Hope, which endeavors to put radioactive 6 source cancer treatments into more countries. Well, what enables all of 7 that? Well, again, strong independent regulators. They don't have to be 8 very big, you know. I was down in Panama earlier this year, and they've got 9 five people. Not a fully-independent regulator, they're part of the Ministry of 10 Health, but we're down there and we have modest efforts to help train 11 personnel in radiation protection and health physics and other kinds of things 12 down there that enable those uses. Even though that regulator is small, you 13 know, we went to the COPEG, the screwworm eradication facility there that 14 the U.S. and Panama jointly operate, and, you know, sure enough, in the 15 room with the radioactive source was the license from the Ministry of Health.

16 And so they're fulfilling their obligations, and we can help with that, too.

17 On some of my journeys and interactions, particularly in 18 Latin America, I've learned a lot of about disused sources, right. A lot of 19 these countries now have several decades of experience in using these 20 materials and, by golly, they've got a growing inventory of disused sources.

21 Well, you know what, that might be something we can help with or we can 22 participate with our international partners on helping with. Does each 23 country need its own, you know, what about storage, what about security of 24 those sources, et cetera. I think it's just one more example where, again, it's

28 1 in our strategic safety, security interests. And, you know, I've thought and a 2 lot of other people have for a long time that, you know, supporting 3 international human health and development goals is also in the U.S. interest, 4 even if we don't see that immediate benefit right away.

5 So I just want to express the appreciation and the great 6 pride I've had in getting to travel internationally with people and, you know, 7 have international counterparts come up and say, you know, we don't know 8 you from Adam, but we really like so-and-so in the NRC staff. I mean, it 9 really is enormously satisfying.

10 So, again, thank you all across the agency for what you do 11 and, I think, some of the success that we've had in these efforts, and I look 12 forward to hearing a lot more about it.

13 Commissioner Baran.

14 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks. Well, with growing 15 interest in new reactor construction in the U.S. and around the world, NRC's 16 international work has never been more important. Some countries are 17 interested in learning more about our regulatory approach as they develop 18 their own regulatory capabilities. At the same time, there's growing interest 19 in collaboration on technical issues that need to be evaluated in the licensing 20 reviews of new designs, and nuclear export licensing may become a larger 21 focus area for us. So I think this is a valuable and timely meeting.

22 My recent trip to the Darlington site in Canada, President 23 Velshi and I discussed NRC's cooperative efforts with the Canadian Nuclear 24 Safety Commission on the GE Hitachi BWRX-300 design. I'm very

29 1 enthusiastic about our two agencies looking at some of the technical issues 2 and trying to come to common technical positions that could then feed into 3 our separate licensing reviews. Can you give us an update on the status of 4 those efforts?

5 MR. DORMAN: Sure. Thanks, Commissioner. As I 6 mentioned, and we had the picture on the slide, the first step was establishing 7 the charter for that work under the MOU, and Ramzi and I signed that in 8 September. And then concurrent with that, the staff was working with 9 General Electric Hitachi and with OPG and TVA, as well as with CNSC, to 10 identify topics that were ripe for that sort of collaborative effort. And so those 11 three projects have just within the last week or so been laid out, so we now 12 have established the three projects areas that we'll be working on with our 13 Canadian counterparts as we work with those applicants.

14 COMMISSIONER BARAN: That's great. And when I met 15 with Mark Foy of the UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation, it sounded like they 16 might be interested in getting more involved in the cooperative efforts we 17 have with Canada. Are we having those discussions?

18 MR. DORMAN: We do have those discussions with Mark 19 and his team. One of the challenges in this international collaboration is an 20 applicant bringing the same technology to multiple regulators at the same 21 time, and that's what we've got with the proposals from OPG and TVA for our 22 Canadian counterparts.

23 I know GE is having discussions with a number of countries 24 on the X-300 technology. UK is high on that list. UK has other technologies

30 1 that are talking to them. So I know ONR is interested, and, at this point, I 2 think we've had conversations more about them participating as an observer.

3 We have the established MOC with our Canadian counterparts. If we 4 wanted to go deeper, we would have to develop the appropriate instruments 5 to enable that.

6 I think there are a lot of other countries. Every time I talk to 7 a vendor, their list of countries that they're talking to is growing. And so I 8 think one of the challenges with harmonization and standardization is we've 9 already, through some of the first projects that we did with our Canadian 10 counterparts, worked through some of the challenges of just getting two 11 regulatory frameworks to work together. The more you bring into the 12 conversation, the greater the risk that that harmonization effort is actually 13 bogging things down, so we don't want to do that. But one of the things in 14 the IAEA initiative is to look at how downstream regulators can take credit for 15 or learn from the first regulators. There's a great example of that experience 16 between UAE and South Korea and the development of the Barakah project 17 in the United Arab Emirates and the NHSI effort at IAEA is looking to learn 18 from that to identify a framework where a newcomer coming to an established 19 regulator who has already licensed the technology can gain efficiencies from 20 that process, as well.

21 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks. And I think you make 22 a really good point, which is that I think sometimes there's the temptation to 23 think, well, cooperation with more countries simultaneously on something is 24 always better. And I think what we've seen in our work with the Canadian is

31 1 that sometimes actually something that's more bilateral or trilateral you can 2 really get a lot of, just from the practicalities of it, get more real product 3 deliverables at the end of that effort. And I think that's really valuable.

4 I'm interested in hearing a little more about separate 5 trilateral effort with Canada and the UK on artificial intelligence. It sounds 6 like that might be just getting started. Can you tell us a little bit more about 7 that?

8 MR. DORMAN: I'm going to go to a lifeline on that --

9 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay.

10 MR. DORMAN: -- and ask Stephanie or Luis from 11 research to give us an update on that effort. Thanks.

12 MR. BETANCOURT: So good morning, Commissioners.

13 So thank you for that question. So the purpose of this project, as Dan 14 Dorman mentioned, is to evaluate AI technologies, and the plan is by the end 15 of the year of calendar year 2023 we will deliver the white paper that basically 16 shows a common position on how we plan to evaluate this technology and, to 17 your point, how can we better leverage the expertise across the Canadians, 18 the ONR, and the NRC to be able to have a common product that will be 19 useful for both the industry, as well as the regulators.

20 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Great. Well, that sounds like 21 a great project.

22 Let me ask a slightly different question. To assess NRC's 23 readiness to handle potential advanced reactor exports under our Part 110 24 regulation, the staff conducted a review. Can you talk a little bit about what

32 1 the staff found and how the Part 110 rulemaking is going?

2 MR. SKEEN: Yes. Thanks for that question, 3 Commissioner. And I can take that one. So that's done under our group 4 under the import/export licensing folks. And, yes, we figured out a few years 5 ago that, with this new interest in some of the advanced designs, we asked 6 ourselves a question: if we got an advanced reactor export application, could 7 we do that under current Part 110, our regulations?

8 And so the working group got together, they met with a lot 9 of folks, talked internally, talked to some of their folks externally, and basically 10 what the report came out with was that we could with more advanced designs 11 today under Part 110. However, there were a number of ways we could 12 improve that and be prepared for some of these new designs that we see 13 coming down the road. And it was fortuitous the designs that we looked at 14 and the kind of components that we were looking at and materials that would 15 be used are actually the same five that NRR now is getting interest in and 16 getting applications for. So that was good that that kind of meshed together.

17 So as a result, we decided to put together a rulemaking 18 plan for the Commission to consider, and that will be coming up to you guys 19 probably in the first quarter of calendar year '23 to talk about ways that we 20 could improve on Part 110 if the Commission decides to go forward with that.

21 And so you should be seeing that soon.

22 But I don't know if you need more details, Pete Habighorst 23 is our branch chief in that group, and he could probably speak to a little bit 24 more on that.

33 1 MR. HABIGHORST: Good morning, Chair. Good 2 morning, Commissioners. Just an addition to what Dave mentioned, he 3 asked me to expect a rulemaking plan and we look at that as an opportunity 4 for the Commission's decision, obviously, on a path forward on 110. We just 5 know that, from advanced reactors, it's already happening on exports. We've 6 already approved an export six months ago dealing with TRISO fuel to the 7 Netherlands for nondestructive examination and fuel qualification.

8 So even though we believe it's down the road, we're starting 9 to see, as vendors start to test and get ready for advanced reactors and 10 licensing, we start to see those exports.

11 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Great. Thanks. Appreciate 12 the update.

13 One last question I had. One important aspect of our 14 cooperation with our international counterparts is IAEA peer review missions.

15 Our frequent involvement in the peer reviews of other regulators was 16 mentioned earlier. NRC had its last peer review in 2010, and most of our 17 counterparts have been reviewed more recently.

18 To promote U.S. international leadership and gain the 19 benefit of the findings and perspectives of our international partners, I'd like to 20 see NRC begin exploring the scope and timing of a future peer review 21 mission. Can you talk about the staff's efforts in this area?

22 MR. DORMAN: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. And I 23 may go to a lifeline for more detail, but I think, as we prepared for the 24 Convention on Nuclear Safety, we, I think, coincident with your approval of

34 1 our national report, you asked us to take a look at this. So the staff, over the 2 next year or so, will be looking at the issues associated with conducting an 3 IRRS, receiving an IRRS mission. It's a significant multi-year effort. There's 4 a structured self-assessment that IAEA has laid out the framework for that's 5 about a year for the regulator to develop that self-assessment as an input to 6 the team that then comes and engages in a review of our program against 7 IAEA's standards.

8 And then there's a several year effort following the IRRS 9 mission to address the findings of the team and, typically, then a follow-up 10 mission three to four years after the original mission. So you mentioned the 11 2010. I think we had our follow-up in 2014.

12 And the other -- so there's a timing issue, there's a scope 13 issue that the staff will explore and present options to the Commission on 14 what we would ask IAEA to bring a team to look at. And the 2010 mission 15 that you referred to, we focused only on the operating reactor program. As 16 we go to some of the other countries, a lot of them do full scope, so reactors, 17 materials, everything.

18 With the size of our programs, that's a very heavy lift. And 19 so the Commission, in 2010, decided to focus to just operating reactors, so 20 we'll explore those options and bring those to you in response to the direction 21 you provided.

22 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Great. Well, I look forward to 23 all those discussions and appreciate all the work you're doing and your teams 24 are doing. And I agree with the Chair that it's just vital work. It always has

35 1 been, but I think it's especially true today. So thank you.

2 CHAIR HANSON: Commissioner Wright.

3 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair. First off, I 4 want to thank you for your comments. I was -- they were very good and they 5 covered a lot of ground, and I'm hoping to maybe refer to some of them in 6 what I want to do today. I may have a question, maybe not. I don't know 7 that I'll use my whole ten minutes either.

8 But, one, Dave, I want to thank you and all the members of 9 your team and your office for what you do and what you have done. It's one 10 of these areas that is overlooked probably on a national scale by other, you 11 know, we know what we're doing, right. But outside the building, maybe 12 people don't really realize. And you're doing it on a very limited budget, 13 which is one of the areas I think we need to maybe look at and delve into in 14 the future because what you're being asked to do on the international side is 15 to a scale now that we've probably never done before and it's going to get 16 even bigger and it's more and more important.

17 The relationships that you've been building over the years, 18 they're certainly bearing fruit, and they're more important today than they 19 have ever been. And going forward with the work that we are doing and with 20 what the future kind of looks like with advanced reactors and some of the 21 things that these countries are trying to get involved in, they're only going to 22 be successful if we are successful here on the domestic side, right. And if 23 we don't meet the mission, if we don't meet the moment here, then we're not 24 helping, we're not going to be able to help them the way that they need to be

36 1 helped.

2 It's going to be important for us for several reasons. It's 3 what we do, it's how we do it, it's when we do it, right, because time limits for 4 some of this is critical, right. The need is there.

5 I've been fortunate enough to start traveling again and, as 6 you know, went to Romania back in May. A very successful trip. And I've 7 done a number of trips. This is the first time that I was involved in a trip 8 where other federal organizations were actively present, and we were 9 actually, although we're an independent agency, we have a role to play, you 10 know, and we were used in a good way. What we participated in had real 11 value.

12 You know, I was able to work and meet and work directly 13 with the Canadian regulator over there, and Cantemir and CNCAN over there, 14 and I met with the -- you know, never met a prime minister before; I met a 15 prime minister, right. I got to actually have a dialogue with the prime 16 minister, with the minister of energy, with the general secretary and others.

17 And what we were able, along with DOE and with State and Commerce, you 18 know, we were able to talk about the importance of not what we do but how 19 important it is for them to do and support their regulator in a way that they can 20 thrive, that they can grow, that they can build a team, and that they are able 21 to then do the regulatory work that they're going to be asked to do, right.

22 And they know that. They're trying to address the financial issues that 23 they've got, you know, and to be able to pay their inspectors what they need 24 to be paid in order for them not to be picked off by other countries or even by

37 1 the state-run utilities over there.

2 I've had eye-opening experiences before. That was very 3 eye-opening because one of the things that I learned over there, you know, 4 Romania, depending on where you're at, some of them are still living a 5 hundred years ago, you know. You can be driving down the highway in a 6 bus, and you're seeing the guys with wagons full of hay pulled by donkeys 7 going up the street the other way. They don't have power. And one of the 8 things that we learned there was that the regulator, not only do they have to 9 provide the power but they have to provide it in a very affordable way 10 because the people will choose just not to plug up, right.

11 And, you know, this goes to what the Chairman was talking 12 about, you know. So when the Chair was saying there's a health benefit to 13 this, you know, from the materials side. There's certainly the growth 14 opportunities that come from it economically or whatever jobs in those 15 countries. Electrification, period, in some other countries, you know, that 16 they don't have. And, yes, we don't technically, supposed to concern 17 ourselves with that economic part, you know, things, supposedly just the 18 safety. But what we do overlaps. Other countries, their regulators have to 19 be concerned with that, right, so we have to help them in a way that I think it 20 certainly teaches, it educates us on our side. And I'm very, I'm very grateful 21 to be able to be a part of that, and it's only because of how you all train us up 22 before we go and help us when we're there that allows that, you know, allows 23 us to feel like we're doing our part, right.

24 So I know that what we're -- if we do our things right here

38 1 and we meet the moment here, we're going to be allowing countries to 2 produce clean water, right, to get into food production in a way they've never 3 done it before, to provide just those things that are going to help the residents 4 of their country. Their citizens experience something people before them 5 never have, right, and that, to me, is exciting and you guys are on the front 6 line.

7 In fact, I do understand that a connection we made in 8 Romania with one of the people that were there were, the U.S. Trade and 9 Development Agency, actually contacted us this week, connected my office, 10 about some investments they're looking at, I guess in South Asia maybe. So 11 that's a benefit that comes from this, and I really think that it's exciting to me.

12 That's part of what we do as commissioners that I'm appreciating more and 13 more. I just want to be sure that, as a commission, that we are able to help 14 you the way that we need to going forward.

15 And I guess -- so I'll ask one question, I guess. So are 16 there other areas, you know, where OIP and Dan and then your shop think 17 Commission engagement would also be beneficial in the coming years, which 18 would further strengthen our international relationships and work, you know, 19 on top of what we know is going on with, you know, the harmonization stuff.

20 MR. SKEEN: Well, let me start and maybe Dan, if you 21 want to weigh in. So thanks for those comments, Commissioner. I 22 appreciate all the remarks you made there, and, certainly, the kudos to the 23 staff. The whole office is high performers, and they do a great job. And 24 Nader and I built a good team there, so we certainly appreciate that.

39 1 As far as your last part there about is there something 2 Commissioners could do, I think I'd like to take the opportunity just to say 3 thanks to you and to Commissioner Baran for your visits to Canada and to 4 Romania and in your meetings with Mark Foy in the UK. I've seen the 5 Chairman's schedule for travel, and it is a lot. And I know when Nader was 6 traveling with him, they traveled quite a bit internationally. And what I would 7 say is what it looks like right now, I think we're going to be increasing our 8 engagements internationally. So I'm not sure the Chairman can take all the 9 international trips to go meet with all these people, so I think we may be 10 calling on Commissioners to maybe help with some of that. And it's just as 11 you said: the value of Commissioners going and talking not just to the 12 regulator but to those who provide the funding to the regulator or they write 13 the legislation for the regulator, to ensure that they're coming up with, first, the 14 independent piece, that you're not tied to the energy department, that you can 15 make your own decisions based on safety; the fact that you need to have 16 enforcement capabilities because identifying problems and not being able to 17 do anything about it, that doesn't help either. The regulator will be ignored.

18 As far as the staffing piece, you're exactly right. We see 19 this in country after country that the regulator gets, they'll hire people and 20 train them for a year or two, but, because many countries, the government 21 caps what a government worker can make, they can't make enough money to 22 keep the people. So what happens is the utility can pay more or those 23 people leave completely and go to another country and work.

24 And so some of the regulators get caught in this, it's just a

40 1 catch-22. If I train people up, they get pretty good at what they do and they 2 leave. And so now I'm in this constant training mode of I've got to hire new 3 people and train them, and they don't stay either.

4 So those kind of messages, I think, delivered at higher 5 levels in the government is very helpful. So what I would say, is there 6 anything the Commissioners could do, I think we will be coming to you. And 7 it's probably a good thing we have five now instead of three. Depending on 8 how fast this goes with some of these countries, but we are seeing it's 9 accelerating, it's not a constant pace. It's the more countries you meet with, 10 almost every country we meet with now is interested in SMR, if not a large 11 light water reactor because, while they can't use maybe a thousand megawatt 12 base load plant in their country because of their grid condition or their island 13 nation is spread out everywhere, that distributed type of power system is 14 attractive to them. But as we tell them, you know, if you don't even have a 15 materials program, we talked about the materials previously from Chair 16 Hanson, if you're not even tracking the materials you're using for industrial or 17 academic or medical purposes and you come in and say I want to build a 18 nuclear power plant, it's like, well, you've got a ways to go before you're ever 19 ready to set up a nuclear power program.

20 So I think all of that, helping carry the message forward, 21 having someone other than just the Chair doing that, and having 22 Commissioners engaged, I think we would welcome that if we're able to do 23 that.

24 Dan.

41 1 MR. DORMAN: I would just emphasize, Dave touched on 2 legislation, and I think in my travels over the last couple of months and seeing 3 these aspirations, I've actually heard of one country that actually has draft 4 legislation to establish a regulator to build a nuclear power program, so I think 5 there's opportunities there to work with the rest of the government and 6 engage those countries early on and particularly emphasize the importance of 7 the independent safety regulator and the role that that plays in ensuring that 8 they'll get their safely.

9 You know, we've worked with some countries who have 10 gone through this process, and it takes the better part of a decade with a 11 concerted effort to build an effective regulator to be ready to license and build 12 a nuclear power plant. So I think that early engagement to help make sure 13 that they get on the right track legislatively and applying the principles, you 14 know, we can export the principles of good regulation, I don't think we need a 15 license for that. But I think that's real opportunities that seem to be growing.

16 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you so much.

17 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you. And I'd just, for the record, 18 I and my family would welcome broader engagement on international travel.

19 (Laughter.)

20 CHAIR HANSON: Commissioner Caputo.

21 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you, gentlemen, for 22 your remarks today. I'm going to start by associating myself with the 23 Chairman's very thoughtful and articulate remarks on this. I know he has 24 certainly been incredibly busy with international activities lately, and that's a

42 1 job well done and very important.

2 And I also want to follow on from Commissioner Wright's 3 comments about, you know, utilizing the four of us Commissioners. It's 4 incredibly important to build these relationships abroad, but, to a certain 5 extent, some of us may have a limited time frame that we're here and we 6 may be interacting with counterparts who also have a limited time frame.

7 So sometimes, as important as relationship building is, I 8 really do think it's crucial for the staff that we have to have long-term 9 relationships but that also have that expertise and ability to advise us and 10 prepare us and to engage as productively as we can. So as you look toward 11 a proposal for how the four Commissioners can engage internationally, I 12 would just encourage you to sort of think beyond just relationships and look at 13 outcomes and results and ways that we can, you know, achieve something 14 that's going to be longer lasting than just our visit and putting a face with a 15 name.

16 Let me ask a question here about the UK. Dave, in the 17 Commission's fusion meeting this week, we heard from a UK speaker on their 18 preparations to regulate fusion. They seem to be probably farther along in 19 their thinking than we are at this point. Given how much we collaborate with 20 them, is there a particular effort ongoing in fusion?

21 MR. SKEEN: So I don't know of anything that ONR has 22 brought to us to cooperate on fusion. They may have talked more through 23 NRR, but, in my discussions with Mark Foy, when I talked with him, he hasn't 24 brought anything to us about cooperating in the fusion area.

43 1 MR. DORMAN: I'm getting head shakes from the back of 2 the room there that we don't have any specific bilateral engagement with 3 them on fusion.

4 MR. SKEEN: But we can raise that with them now that 5 you've raised it with us. We're happy to ask that question.

6 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. I'm also going to 7 follow on. Commissioner Baran talked about Canada and our collaboration 8 with Canada, and Dan talked about the success we've had in that 9 collaboration. Once we've completed our work with Canada, do you see 10 potential to build off that success and either expand that cooperation or begin 11 establishing other bilaterals?

12 MR. DORMAN: Thank you, Commissioner. I think one of 13 the things I mentioned was having a vendor that's bringing the same 14 technology to multiple regulators at once seems to me to be a key to a 15 specific collaboration. And I know there are, beyond GE Hitachi, there are 16 other vendors that are talking to both us and CNSC. So I think, as we get 17 through the GE experience and learn from that, I think we'll be open to other 18 opportunities under that MOC.

19 I think my personal view, if we can be successful in that 20 under NHSI, the framework for then follow-on regulatory engagements where 21 we would have a technology that we've already licensed and are partnering 22 with somebody else who's looking at licensing it and they can learn from us 23 and gain efficiency in their process. I think those will be, in my view, the 24 opportunities for the greatest success. But I do think there will be

44 1 opportunities in particular in our bilateral relationship with Canada. And as 2 we get better at it, you know, maybe there are opportunities to bring in ONR 3 or others. But as I say, too many cooks in the kitchen can be problematic.

4 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Well, I've often used that 5 same expression, which leads me to my next question on harmonization.

6 There's been a lot of international discussion about harmonizing regulatory 7 requirements and there are multiple efforts out here. How do these 8 harmonization efforts differ from MDEP, the multi-lateral --

9 MR. DORMAN: Yes. So I think, first off, fewer cooks, you 10 know, if I take the Canadian example, bilateral, there's fewer cooks in the 11 kitchen. MDEP was around specific designs and had many cooks in the 12 kitchen. The harmonization initiative at IAEA is not about designs, it's more 13 process focused. There is a regulator track and an industry track. Both 14 tracks have an item on information sharing, which has multiple pieces to it.

15 There's a government interest in export control aspects of information 16 sharing. There are vendor interests in proprietary intellectual property rights 17 that might inhibit sharing of information.

18 So there's a couple of conversations going on on 19 information sharing, but, fundamentally, that gets to, okay, a vendor wants to 20 go talk to how many regulators and the government side of that is how many 21 different processes do they have to go through to get the agreements on 22 information sharing. So that's a process efficiency issue.

23 I think the other two tracks on the regulator side, one is to 24 develop, at the concept design review stage, a framework for an applicant to

45 1 bring its conceptual design to IAEA for assessment against the safety 2 standards there. And I liken that to our pre-application discussions that we 3 have on an extra-regulatory basis. They're not a requirement, but it's an 4 opportunity for them to see, you know, what kind of questions the regulator is 5 asking, as well as our reviewers, to get familiar with the technology as they 6 develop it.

7 So that's a piece that, you know, we'll see how many 8 vendors want to actually do that because it seems like a step before a step to 9 the regulator. I hope it doesn't become another step.

10 And then the one that I mentioned, which would be looking 11 at building on the experience that United Arab Emirates engaged with the 12 Korean regulator that licensed the APR-1400, as well as with the technology 13 supplier, got up to speed on the technology, as well as what was done in the 14 regulatory review and then came back to UAE, in their sovereign 15 responsibilities, decided what they could take credit for that Korea had 16 already done. And so looking at what are the issues that are ripe for that 17 kind of exchange so that, as we meet in the moment, as Commissioner 18 Wright said, and get the first-of-a-kind done in the originating country, that 19 other countries can gain efficiencies in carrying that forward.

20 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: I've often thought data 21 qualification is really maybe perhaps a low bar, but, if we could at least agree 22 internationally on just the quality of the numbers that we're all using, even if 23 we reach different decisions, that, I think, would go a long way to jumpstarting 24 some of these applications. But that's just one small aspect of it.

46 1 MR. DORMAN: I agree that's a very ripe one in that last 2 category that I talked about is, okay, the host regulator has already done 3 analyses that support it and they have a V&V behind their analytical methods, 4 so maybe the new country may want to run a couple of their own runs to 5 validate that they get similar results but they don't need to revalidate the 6 code.

7 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Yes, exactly. So, Dave, I'm 8 going to take a moment to sort of look at international programs from a 9 results-driven angle. Taxpayers invest significant resources in our 10 international programs, and you mentioned a variety of accomplishments 11 today. One thing I think that's good about this meeting and the briefing that 12 we've had today is, certainly, as a Commissioner, I have this sort of 13 awareness that there is always a lot going on in international programs and 14 we get weekly reports on what's being done. But seeing the full scope of it 15 right before us today is always a great reminder of just the high level of work 16 that goes on, and it's very impressive how you and your staff cover a lot of 17 ground.

18 But in your work, at least in some of the activities that you 19 engage in, how do you measure return on investment and sort of analyze that 20 to ensure that you're applying your efforts and resources where you have the 21 greatest impact?

22 MR. SKEEN: Thanks for that question. And it's 23 something we ask ourselves all the time, right. A lot of what we do is more the 24 intangibles, as you've heard here. It's that relationship building so that, when

47 1 a country is ready to get assistance or to cooperate with the NRC, we've 2 already built that relationship with them.

3 But, you know, it's hard to come up with the tangibles of 4 what is the value of international programs, right. You have to look at the 5 overall aspects, including the training that we do for some of the regulators. I 6 mean, what we're doing is trying to build, as is said, the independent 7 regulator, the competent regulators. And so we know we're successful when 8 they complete things or they get materials licenses in, they know how to do 9 that. I'll go to the materials side and I would look at the Panama situation 10 where we helped develop the master's degree program there for radiation 11 safety officers. So they had nothing ten years ago, and now they have a 12 program that every year puts out some master's level radiation safety officers 13 that make a real difference in radiation safety within their country.

14 So, for that, we can certainly see that that's a success, right, 15 when you do something like that. But also we've seen, as we export our 16 materials knowledge and when we go to these countries that they have no 17 regulations or they have regulations but there's no kind of inspection program 18 for the materials that they use in their country. Panama was an example 19 where they used to take the density gauges when they were building the 20 Panama Canal, when they got through with them they threw them over the 21 hill. No one tracked them, they didn't know where they went.

22 So we talked about orphan sources, the Chair talked about 23 that. They found a lot of orphan sources in Panama, and so tracking those 24 down and making sure that those get put into a safe storage place, as well as

48 1 just training radiation safety officers not just for the regulator but for hospitals 2 and for the industrial uses that they have. That's how we measure the 3 success, when you're putting out those kind of people, those professionals 4 that are now looking at the materials in their country, that's a measure of 5 success.

6 Also, I would say that where we've gone in and provided 7 this database, our program that we developed and we provided database to 8 these countries to track their materials. When you go back and see in a 9 year, two years, they've got all the sources in there, they've got a schedule of 10 when they go inspect to make sure that those sources are still in the places 11 they're supposed to be, that's a measure of success that we can take.

12 And, quite frankly, if we work with a country and we have a 13 few workshops and we see that they are not moving forward or they're not 14 really moving that far ahead, then we will not prioritize them as a country to 15 deal with and we will move on to someone else that is more ready or more 16 accepting of the assistance that we can provide.

17 So in a few ways, that's how we measure success. The 18 other thing I would say is, as far as our international assignee program, right, 19 we have folks come here from regulators from all over the world, and many of 20 those become the head regulator or senior officials in their organizations 21 when they return home. And it may take a year or five years or ten years, 22 but we see a lot of folks who were assignees at the NRC who are now head 23 regulators or very high up in their regulatory bodies, as well.

24 So I think from that standpoint of training international folks

49 1 and sending them back to their countries, again, we're exporting regulatory 2 expertise, right. I always say the NRC does not promote nuclear energy, but 3 we promote nuclear safety. So when we do things like that and you see 4 those folks rising up in organizations, that's another measure of success that I 5 think we have.

6 So there's a number of ways, but we're always looking for 7 other ways to do that.

8 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. And thank you 9 both for being here today.

10 CHAIR HANSON: Commissioner Crowell.

11 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12 This has been a helpful presentation for me, and I'm glad that I'm going last 13 today because I get to learn a little bit from all of my colleagues' questions.

14 You know, in my short time at the NRC, I've been very impressed with OIP's 15 staff and their engagement, and you guys probably have more work now than 16 you've ever had before and I don't see that ending anytime soon. And I 17 think, in that context, you guys are doing great work on, you know, advanced 18 reactors, you know, engaging with the international community on traditional 19 reactors, things of that nature, and maintaining our, you know, gold standard 20 that the U.S. has in that realm.

21 But an area where the U.S. doesn't have the gold standard 22 is in spent fuel and waste management and potentially transportation. And 23 curious, you know, if one of you could talk a little bit more about our 24 international engagements on that front where we could have some lessons

50 1 learned, where we could benefit more from those engagements to help our 2 domestic situation here with regard to spent fuel and waste management and 3 disposal.

4 MR. DORMAN: Thanks, Commissioner. So as you note, 5 there are a number, particularly the European countries, who are farther down 6 the path toward long-term disposal. Finland probably leading the way and 7 several others well down the path.

8 So we participate in a regulators' forum, about a half a 9 dozen of us, Canada, France, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland. I think I got all 10 of them. I hope I didn't miss anybody. And, you know, at one point, we 11 were kind of the leader in that field, and we took a step back and now they're 12 moving forward and making progress in that area. So that's a forum for us to 13 learn from our counterparts.

14 So we can learn from that from the regulatory side. I think 15 there's also opportunities, as we look toward a national policy that's outside 16 this Commission's responsibility, but looking at consent-based siting and 17 getting to a solution in the U.S. I think there's an opportunity for us to work 18 with other parts of the government that have that responsibility and convey 19 what progress is being made on that front.

20 That's the disposal of what we already have. Just earlier 21 this week, I was at an NEA workshop in Canada looking at how we're thinking 22 about the end product of advanced reactors' fuel cycles and how the vendors 23 are looking at that and what are the things we can look at, what are the things 24 that they're looking, and what are the things that the broader nuclear safety

51 1 community can be considering in the design and the implications for the back 2 end of the fuel cycle for reactors that are currently aspirational.

3 So I think that there's a number of areas where we engage 4 to stay abreast of what's being done both for the existing inventory, as well as 5 looking forward.

6 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And I noticed that the IAEA 7 director recently made a comment about, you know, light water reactors being 8 potentially run for a hundred years. So this issue is not going away. But as 9 we look to both traditional nuclear, as well as advanced reactors, it's critical, 10 it's indispensable in the context of addressing climate change, but if we're 11 helping solve that generational problem but ignoring the back end of the fuel 12 cycle and, thereby, creating a generational problem in terms of waste and 13 spent fuel, we haven't done our job as a public officials.

14 And so I think that, I'm hoping that OIP and even the other 15 staff within your realm, Dan, that we have adequate capacity to focus on 16 these things and really gather some lessons learned and do the engagement 17 that's necessary and have a good partnership with DOE here in the U.S., as 18 well as our partner countries going forward. And if that's not the case and 19 you need help or assistance from the Commission, please let us know as 20 soon as possible.

21 MR. DORMAN: Will do. Thanks.

22 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Kind of on a similar front, 23 hopefully, the real nuclear renaissance is underway this time. There's still 24 decommissioning happening, and I'm curious to know how, I wanted you to

52 1 speak a little bit more to how, you know, the more advanced western nations 2 do decommissioning of their plants and how that compares with how we do 3 decommissioning here and if there's anything that we could learn or do better 4 domestically on decommissioning that we've gleaned from our international 5 partners.

6 MR. DORMAN: So, yes, we do maintain ties with a 7 number of countries who are involved in decommissioning and, obviously, 8 some of them, Germany in particular, has a very active decommissioning 9 program. So we do have, through the standards committees at IAEA, 10 looking at radiation protection and waste issues, issues around 11 decommissioning, and also through bilateral engagements, share information 12 on decommissioning.

13 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Are we as far along in that 14 process, from a technical or from a community relations standpoint, as other 15 countries are?

16 MR. DORMAN: In many ways, yes. In many ways, we 17 have more experience with it. You know, we have completed 18 decommissioning of quite a number of nuclear power plants and other 19 significant nuclear facilities. The community relations piece, you know, I 20 think that's one where we could always learn and grow and do better. But I 21 think that the experience that we've had over several decades in promoting, 22 kind of encouraging licensees in decommissioning to have constructive 23 engagement with the communities in the process, it's not something that's 24 been imposed as a requirement. But we have had, in the '90s and 2000s,

53 1 we had significant positive experience where community safety boards with 2 different models. You know, I've seen community safety boards that were 3 chartered by the utility and advised the utility. I've seen them established in 4 state legislation to advise the governor. So there's different models that 5 have been used. I think all of the models have been good, but I think the role 6 that we have played in that, as a licensee approaches the closure of a facility, 7 to encourage them to engage such a process.

8 So it's something that we've promoted, but it is not 9 something that we've required.

10 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I see a direct relationship 11 between our work on new and advanced reactors and our decommission 12 efforts, and that connection is, if we're not doing decommissioning very well 13 and having the support of the communities, we're not going to have that 14 support in the communities that are looking to host nuclear facilities. And so 15 it's important that we give equal attention to both of those things.

16 My last question, this is a kind of open-ended one on a hot 17 topic that either one of you can jump on, but can you talk a little bit more 18 about fuel supply, both in the context of traditional reactors and fuel needed 19 for advanced reactors and from the mining, milling to the enrichment, full 20 scope?

21 MR. DORMAN: How much time do we have?

22 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: So I asked last, and I went 23 last, so you can go as long as you want.

24 (Laughter.)

54 1 MR. DORMAN: I think the conversation has touched on 2 this a little bit. I mean, we're already, without the added energy security 3 impetus that's come up through the invasion of Ukraine, we already have 4 significant challenges on the front end of the fuel cycle, as various fuel 5 providers explore different advancements in fuel technology, and then, 6 ultimately, those would need to get into production and make some changes.

7 And part of that, there's an increased interest in the industry in higher 8 enrichments and burnups to support longer fuel cycles, and so there would be 9 a need for increases in the license limits for our enrichment facilities and for 10 the facilities that then handle that.

11 So that's already there. Then overlay on that, now we 12 need to look at the whole supply. You know, where is the uranium coming 13 from the ground but then, as was also mentioned earlier, then the capacity to 14 provide the conversion services and the enrichment services needed to 15 support the U.S. fleet but also the global fleet is a significant challenge that's 16 before us. And then overlay on that, you know, TRISO fuels and advanced 17 reactor fuels and so forth.

18 So there's a lot of work that needs to happen to touch all of 19 those things in the coming years in the fuel cycle.

20 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Just one small and 21 potentially unfair question I'll ask you. What's your gut sense of where we 22 are and how far along we are on advanced reactors and then, in terms of time 23 line for the first ones coming online? And the fuel supply and enrichment 24 conundrum, are they going to match up or are we going to have a

55 1 disconnect?

2 MR. DORMAN: So I think the first-comers that are small 3 modular light water reactors are using either existing or evolutionary fuel 4 designs, so I think the changes there can be in place to support deployment.

5 I think the first-comers in the non-LWRs are generally looking to the 6 government to supply their first cycle of fuel. TRISO fuel, X-Energy is 7 moving forward on a fabrication facility, so there is some movement on the 8 industry side to establish the capacity that would be needed in the long term.

9 But I think the short answer is, for the first of a kinds, the 10 LWRs, I think the existing infrastructure can support it. For the non-LWRs 11 and the more different fuels, we'll need to develop their front end.

12 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you.

13 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell.

14 And thanks, Dave and Dan, for a good conversation this morning. I really 15 appreciate it, and I think we all do.

16 And thanks to my colleagues. I think we hit on a number of 17 key and important issues. Commissioner Crowell's, obviously, emphasis on 18 other parts of the fuel cycle is really timely and important. I certainly agree 19 with Commissioner Wright and Baran that kind of doing our own work well 20 and our own, to meet our own needs is a critical part of actually productive 21 international engagement. And thinking about results and the end in mind is 22 also a point well taken. So, with that, thank you all. And we are adjourned.

23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record 24 at 11:33 a.m.)

56 1