ML23240A530

2023 RIC Commissioner Plenary - Jeff Baran - Perspective

ML23240A530
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/14/2023
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
Shared Package
ML23240A518	List: ML23240A525 ML23240A526 ML23240A527 ML23240A528 ML23240A529 ML23240A530 ML23240A531 ML23240A532
References
Download: ML23240A530 (1)

Text

1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+ + + + +

35TH REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE (RIC)

+ + + + +

COMMISSIONER BARAN PLENARY

+ + + + +

TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2023

+ + + + +

The Plenary Session convened at the Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, located at 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, Maryland and via Video-conference, at 10:15 a.m. EDT, The Honorable Jeff

Baran, Commissioner,

NRC, presiding.

PRESENT:

JEFF BARAN, Commissioner, NRC RAY FURSTENAU, Director, Office Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC

2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Proceedings 10:15 a.m.

MR. FURSTENAU: Welcome back from the break. I want to remind everybody in the audience here about the QR codes for the session. That's the way we get the people who are here in person to submit questions for the plenary sessions and the same will be done for the technical session. So please take note of that as we get started.

So it's my pleasure to introduce the Honorable Jeff Baran. He was nominated by President Obama and sworn in as a Commissioner in October of 2014 and he's currently serving a term ending on June 30th of this year.

During his tenure on the Commission, Commissioner Baran's priorities have included maintaining a strong focus on safety and security of the operating reactor fleet, promoting environmental justice, and preparing for review and oversee the safety of new technologies. Since joining the Commission, Commissioner Baran has visited dozens of NRC-licensed facilities, as well as several sites abroad.

Before serving on the Commission, Commissioner Baran worked for the U.S. House of

3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Representatives for over 11 years. Originally from the Chicago area, Commissioner Baran earned a bachelor's degree and master's degree in political science from Ohio University. He also holds a law degree from Harvard Law School.

And, with that, Commissioner Baran, we look forward to your remarks.

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, thanks, Ray.

Good morning, everyone. It's great to be here for our first hybrid RIC. This is a terrific opportunity for face-to-face discussion after a few years of not being able to get together in person. It also offers a convenient way for stakeholders from across the country and around the world to concentrate their RIC participation on their areas of interest without the need for travel.

Whether you're participating in person or virtually, this conference is a chance to hear about what's happening at the Agency and to discuss current technical and policy issues with thousands of others who are focused on nuclear.

I'm excited to welcome our international regulator partners back to the RIC. I think we've all missed this week of engagement in recent times. We are honored to be joined by Chairman Korikov of the

4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine. We stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and with you and your colleagues who are working every day to ensure nuclear safety under incredibly perilous and stressful conditions.

As I embark on my eighth RIC, I've been reflecting on the major changes I've seen since 2014.

A lot has changed. We've seen major shifts in NRC's workload, budget, staff size, hiring, and overall outlook for the future. When I arrived on the Commission, these factors were all on a downward slope. Our workload was shrinking. Our staff and budget were shrinking. We had the Project AIM effort to reduce costs, narrowly avoided layoffs, and essentially had a hiring freeze for some time.

Nuclear power plants were shutting down. Back then, there was little talk of new construction beyond Vogtle. There was some interest in small modular reactors, but almost no real discussion of advance non-light water reactors.

Today, we're in a

very different situation. Policy makers and the public are increasingly focused on climate change and on dramatically reducing carbon emissions. President Biden has made it a priority to put the United States

5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com on a path to eliminate carbon emissions in the electric sector by 2035 and achieve a net zero economy by 2050. Many states and utilities have adopted similar targets. The urgency and scale of the climate challenge have led to a growing consensus among policy makers that meeting ambitious climate goals will involve nuclear power including new reactors.

The Inflation Reduction Act makes huge investments to drive this transition including through the Clean Electricity Production Tax Credit and funding for a domestic high assay low enriched uranium supply chain. Few, if any, nuclear power plants are expected to close in the U.S. any time soon. With more potential applications for advanced reactors, small modular reactors, subsequent license renewal, new fuel design, power uprates, and risk-informed programs expected, NRC's overall workload is increasing. We're hiring again and our budget has stabilized or even expanded a bit to allow us to do this new work. The outlook for nuclear has markedly changed and it is an exciting time to be doing our important work.

NRC has a key role to play in tackling the climate crisis. It's our job to ensure the safety and security of nuclear power in the U.S. energy mix. And that means we need to be ready. When utilities and

6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com vendors tell us that we should expect numerous new designs, and reactor applications, we need to be ready with sufficient resources and the right expertise to review them, and an efficient and effective licensing process that can handle whatever volume comes our way.

That's an important NRC responsibility.

In this period of change, NRC also needs to be open to and ready for new technologies that could improve safety.

Whether it's digital instrumentation and control, accident tolerant fuels,

sensors, advanced manufacturing techniques, or artificial intelligence, we need to establish a reliable regulatory framework for reviewing these technologies while ensuring that they are adopted safely without introducing any unacceptable risks.

NRC has the major task of establishing the regulatory framework for the review and safe operation of advanced reactor designs. The most prominent piece of this framework is the Part 53 rulemaking. NRC's current power reactor regulations were written for light water reactors, so it makes sense to update those requirements to address different technologies.

New reactor designs have the potential to be even safer than existing designs. We need to

7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com recognize the value of new safety attributes while maintaining a prudent degree of defense-in-depth.

Over the course of multiple drafts and countless public meetings, the NRC staff and many of you have been grappling with a range of complex issues, such as the appropriate performance standard, the role of ALARA, the facility safety program, Framework B, and micro-reactors.

We've all discovered together that it isn't easy to create a risk-informed, performance-based, technology-neutral framework that can work for molten salt reactors and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, micro-reactors, and gigawatt reactors.

The staff has also worked to shape the rule to accommodate applications in which probabilistic risk assessments would play a leading role, as well as applications where PRA would not be as central to the safety case. I think it made sense for the staff to take the additional time to develop a more deterministic pathway option. It's good to allow for different types of safety cases.

In the end, I think everyone agrees that we need a rule that offers this kind of flexibility while including enough detail to avoid the problem of evaluating custom safety cases in a way that results

8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com in uncertainty about what NRC will find acceptable.

The Commission has begun reviewing and digesting the draft proposed rule and I look forward to hearing your views about it.

The Part 53 rulemaking is extremely important. There are, of course, other pieces of the framework for new reactors. Establishing a complete regulatory framework requires the Commission to resolve related policy issues. The Commission recently addressed the question of how proximity to population centers should be considered in siting advanced reactors. We will be looking at other key policy issues including emergency preparedness, security, and the generic environmental impact statement for advanced reactors.

Many of the early mover applicants are planning to use Part 50 or Part 52 because those regulations are already on the books. There's another important rulemaking under way to get Part 50 and 52 better prepared for new reactor applications. While keeping two distinct licensing processes that offer different advantages, the rulemaking would more closely align the two regulations so that equivalent design applications submitted for NRC review under Part 50 or 52 would be assessed against consistent

9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com technical standards and would yield equivalent demonstrations of safety, security, and environmental protection.

In addition, the rule will reflect lessons learned from previous license reviews and reactor construction projects. For example, the draft proposed rule currently before the Commission includes many lessons learned from the AP1000 construction projects on topics like operator licensing, simulators, fitness for duty, and change processes.

These kinds of updates are going to improve Parts 50 and 52 for near-term applicants.

Non-power reactors will also play an expanding role in developing and demonstrating advanced reactor technologies. The applications for Kairos' Hermes test reactor and Abilene Christian University's molten salt research reactor are already being reviewed by the NRC staff and future applications are expected.

Another draft final rule under Commission review is focused specifically on non-power utilization facilities or NPUFs. The two most significant regulatory changes in the draft final rule are linked. The rule would eliminate license terms for research reactors while requiring all NPUF licensees

10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com to submit final safety analysis support updates to NRC every five years. Under this approach, research reactors would no longer need to obtain renewed licenses every 20 years, but would instead be required to regularly provide FSAR updates to NRC.

I think this new approach will provide an overall safety benefit. Over the years, the NRC staff has found that the license renewal process for research reactors hasn't identified significant aging management issues. Periodic FSAR update submittals, however, should provide substantial safety benefits by ensuring timely licensee documentation of changes to the licensing basis of a facility. This should improve the effectiveness of NRC inspections and licensee training and knowledge management.

The NRC staff has found that because NPUFs are frequently located at college campuses, staff turnover and limited staffing resources at an NPUF often contribute to a lack of historical knowledge of the development of the licensee's FSAR and changes to the FSAR.

The final rules requirement for regular FSAR update submittals will help maintain continuity of knowledge for both the licensees and NRC.

If you're interested in hearing more about

11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com the licensing of non-power advanced reactors, please join me for a session I'm moderating tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. We have an impressive lineup of panelists from DOE, NRC, industry, and academia. It should be a great discussion.

When we're talking about the potential of new nuclear technologies to help address climate change, fusion is now part of the conversation. With recent advances in the research and development of fusion energy systems, now is the time to begin establishing a

regulatory framework for this technology.

Although the precise contours of an operational fusion energy system are still being set, there is broad technical agreement on likely design characteristics, and the potential hazards to consider. Currently proposed fusion energy systems would not use uranium, plutonium, or thorium, would not produce high-level waste, would not present the possibility of a self-sustaining neutron chain reaction, and would shut down on their own during accident scenarios.

The NRC staff, therefore, expects that the safety focus of fusion energy systems will be on the control, confinement, and shielding of radioactive

12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com material present at the site, rather than on the performance and control of the device. For these

reasons, the NRC

staff, Agreement

States, international counterpart regulators, and many other stakeholders believe that near-term fusion energy systems are more appropriately regulated under the Part 30 byproduct material framework rather than the Part 50 utilization facility framework used for fission reactors. I agree.

A byproduct material approach will involve a limited scope rulemaking that would mostly consist of definitions related to fusion energy systems and a description of what is required in a fusion application. The rule could make changes to Part 30 to facilitate fusion reviews or create a new standalone fusion subpart.

The remaining question is whether the rule should also establish decision criteria to determine whether larger, higher hazard commercial fusion energy systems that differ from the characteristics of near-term facilities should be licensed under Part 30 or Part 50. The staff recommends this hybrid approach. On the other hand, there is widespread technical agreement that the near-term technologies of the coming years would more appropriately fit in the

13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Part 30 framework.

In my view, a substantial drawback of the hybrid option is that it creates regulatory uncertainty for these near-term designs about whether they could unexpectedly end up in the Part 50 framework at the conclusion of the rulemaking. This would dramatically impact the applicable regulatory requirements and even who is doing the regulating as Agreement States could license fusion energy systems under Part 30, but not Part 50.

Rather than have decision criteria as an open question in the limited scope rulemaking, I think it would be better to focus on what is needed to review near-term designs. I therefore support regulating fusion energy systems under a byproduct material framework.

As you can see, NRC is busy preparing the regulatory framework for new reactors of all types and reviewing applications that have already been submitted. And we need to be ready for much more new reactor work in the coming years. At the same time, NRC will continue to play our long standing critical role with the current operating fleet.

For the operation of existing nuclear power plants now and into the future, NRC's job is to

14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com provide strong safety and security standards and rigorous independent oversight. This goes to the very core of the Agency's mission.

I want to highlight a couple important issues related to the operating fleet this morning.

The first is subsequent license renewal which allows nuclear power plants to operate for up to 80 years.

As I said last year, the review of subsequent license renewal applications has been and continues to be a high priority for NRC. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and ensure that subsequent license renewal decisions rest on a firm legal foundation, it is essential that NRC update the Generic Environmental Impact Statement to examine the 60 to 80 year subsequent license renewal period.

The license renewal regulation must also be revised so that the GEIS findings can then apply to subsequent license renewal applications.

The Commission adopted an aggressive schedule to get this work done and excellent progress is being made.

The Commission recently approved publication of a proposed rule and accompanying draft GEIS, which take the necessary steps so that NRC can move forward expeditiously with subsequent license renewal reviews. The draft GEIS also includes new

15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com analyses of greenhouse gas impacts on climate change and climate change impacts on environmental resources.

I look forward to reviewing stakeholder feedback on the proposed rule and draft GEIS and appreciate the NRC staff's diligent work.

NRC is also focused on digital instrumentation and control technologies. In the last few years, the Agency has made significant progress in establishing a reliable and predictable regulatory framework for reviewing digital upgrades, while ensuring that digital technology is adopted safely.

Addressing the possibility of common cause failures in digital instrumentation and control systems has proven to be one of the trickier issues to resolve. The staff recently proposed a way forward.

The staff recommended revising the Commission's 1993 policy on common-cause failure in digital instrumentation and control to create a new risk-informed option as an alternative to the existing defense-in-depth and diversity assessment.

I agree with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards that this is a reasonable approach.

The staff's proposed changes to the policy will provide additional flexibility in demonstrating that

16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com common-cause failure of vulnerabilities have been appropriately identified and addressed. This paves the way for fully digital control rooms such as those included in the AP1000 and NuScale design.

Another priority at the forefront of NRC's work is the pursuit of environmental justice.

Environmental justice is about the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people with an interest in NRC's vital public health and safety mission. NRC can best serve the public when it ensures equal access to the Agency's decision-making process for all stakeholders and avoids disproportionate adverse health and environmental impacts on any communities.

To make meaningful progress on these goals, NRC must be open to the voices of disadvantaged communities. We cannot settle for doing things the way they have always been done. We need to ask tough questions about our programs and procedures to understand if they are serving disadvantaged communities or instead, creating barriers for them to overcome.

Beginning in April 2021, the NRC staff performed a systematic review of NRC's programs, policies, and activities. The staff team engaged a broad range of stakeholders as it developed

17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com recommendations to improve how the Agency pursues environmental justice. This effort produced several constructive and well-supported recommendations for strengthening NRC's focus on environmental justice.

Taken together with some additional steps, I believe the recommendations will put NRC in a position to achieve significant, tangible results on environmental justice.

The staff's first recommendation is to revise the Commission's Policy Statement on Environmental Justice. I agree that a substantial revision is needed. The Policy Statement has not been updated since it was originally issued in 2004. At that time, some stakeholders thought the approach announced by the Policy Statement was too narrow.

Nineteen years later, the document's limitations are even more apparent. As the NRC staff explains, the language and tone are very legal in nature, discussing caselaw, legal requirements, and the limits of the NRC's authority. During its outreach, the staff heard both internally from NRC staff and externally from stakeholders that the EJ Policy Statement does use plain language, [and] focuses too much on what the Commission cannot do instead of what it can do.

Similarly, the staff recommends revising

18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com NRC's Environmental Justice Strategy. The 1995 Strategy has never been updated. I agree that the NRC staff should provide a proposed updated Environmental Justice Strategy for the Commission's review.

I also support the staff's suggestion to revitalize the Agency's Environmental Justice Coordinator position, which has not been active for many years. Filling this position will facilitate NRC's future participation in the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council and attendance at the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Committee meetings.

Another key recommendation is for NRC to establish a

federal advisory committee for environmental justice. I see this step as critical to implementing the Agency's environmental justice initiatives. A representative advisory committee composed of external EJ professionals and community leaders would help identify, shape, and provide advice from an informed, outside perspective to the NRC on EJ-related programs, policies, and activities.

As the staff explained, many commenters expressed frustration with not having a seat at the table or with not being provided an opportunity or a way to provide meaningful input or participate in the

19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com NRC's decisions and effect regulatory outcomes. In fact, the desire for such an advisory committee was a repeating theme of the comments from a wide range of stakeholders.

I agree with the staff that we should follow other agencies in establishing a federal advisory committee focused on environmental justice.

I also agree with the other staff recommendations including adoption of a

more comprehensive and robust outreach effort with a focus on identifying EJ communities and Tribal nations earlier in the process, identifying the needs of these communities, and initiating early communication, such as offering further outreach or government-to-government consultation with federally recognized tribes. This would involve new environmental justice outreach positions and improve procedures and guidance.

To build on these valuable efforts and make NRC's environmental justice aspirations a reality, the Agency should establish an Office of Tribal Affairs, Environmental Justice, and Public Engagement. This foundational step has been taken by other federal agencies and was suggested by many commenters. The Office would provide information and

20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com assistance to stakeholders and help them navigate NRC's resources and processes.

NRC serves the public. The fulfill its mission, the Agency must be equally accessible to all communities and provide the same level of protection to everyone. I am confident that the Agency's environmental justice initiatives will improve the way the Agency operates and benefit all stakeholders.

As NRC does its work, the Agency is focused on its workforce. We're facing a significant hiring challenge. We have a large number of employees who are eligible for retirement. With higher employee attrition, the Agency's efforts on external hiring are crucial. Significant external hiring is necessary for the Agency to do the work we have in front of us now and to be ready for the work ahead of us in the future.

Last fiscal year, NRC recruited and brought 270 external hires into the Agency's pipeline.

The aspirational hiring goal for this fiscal year is 400 external hires. Compared to the last several years, that is a lot of hiring. It is a formidable task. But it presents a huge opportunity to boost our inclusion efforts by reaching a diverse pool of applicants and welcoming people into the Agency who

21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com bring a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives.

As you can tell, we have a lot of work ahead of us, and I'm excited about the opportunities to efficiently and effectively review new technologies, to tackle climate change, to promote environmental justice, and to maintain a strong focus on protecting public health and safety. I'm also enthusiastic about having face-to-face conversations to hear your thoughts and feedback. I've had the chance to visit several plants in recent months. I want to thank those of you who have hosted me at your sites. As always, I look forward to getting out to additional sites during the coming months. With that, I'm happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

As punishment for stealing my papers, Ray will have to stand with the questions! [laughter]

MR. FURSTENAU: Well, that would be just fine. We'll get to as many questions as we can. I think we'll start with the first one.

You talked about licensing, new applications coming in, licensing under Part 50 and 52 and also about what's going on with Part 53.

You mentioned that near-term applicants for new non-light-water reactors are using or are

22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com planning to use Part 50 or Part 52 for licensing.

Given that, why even bother with Part 53?

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, I think we have to think about this long-term and short-term, right? In the short-term, we have a couple tasks here. We have near-term applications that are already coming in and many, many more that are in pre-application. We need to be ready for those. And the regulations we have on the books are Part 50 and 52.

So obviously we'll be using those processes for those applications.

And as I referred to, we have some efforts under way, policy decisions to be made, Part 50/52 alignment and lessons learned rulemaking that I see as optimizing as much as possible those parts for advanced reactor and new reactor applicants. So I think that's great. But I think we also want to have something that's going to be more effective and efficient long-term, right?

We have on the books now in Part 50 and 52 regulations that were really premised on light water reactor technologies. And so there's a lot of inefficiencies in basically going through all of the prescriptive requirements that we have in Part 50 and determining which would or would not apply to a

23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com particular reactor type of a different technology.

Getting to something that is more technology neutral and performance based therefore makes a lot of sense. And this does require us to walk and chew gum --- really, walk, chew gum, and do something else, whatever the third thing might be, because we have applications under review. We have the optimization of the regulations we have right now, Part 50 and Part 52, and we've got to this huge task of getting the framework ready in Part 53, but I do think it's worthwhile.

And as Chair Hanson mentioned, as much effort that has gone into this and as long as we've been working on Part 53, we still have a ways to go and there's still a lot more engagement ahead of us.

It's just only recently come up to the Commission.

We're working through it. There's a lot of issues to work through and figure out. But even after all of that, we're going to be at a proposed rule stage and it's going to go out for formal public comment.

That's normally the first time we have stakeholders really engaging on a rule. In this process, we had the luxury, I guess, of really having interaction throughout with dozens of public meetings and drafts out there. And you know, I'm optimistic about Part

24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

53. I'm optimistic that we're going to create a terrific product.

There's the reality that all the sausage-making has been kind of out there for everyone to look at and there's a lot to consider and a lot of issues and everyone can find something they like. Everyone can also find something they dislike. So there's more to do there, but I think, in the end, that it's an important piece of the puzzle. I think having something that's going to be ready for light water or non-light water reactors, advanced reactors, that from the very beginning is premised on being technology neutral, performance based, risk informed, I think it's going to add value to the options we have and going forward that's what we'll end up with: multiple options that applicants would have and they can choose the option they want to pursue.

MR. FURSTENAU: Thank you. Next question.

You also talked about subsequent license renewal and I think this question is more on subsequent, subsequent license renewal. Do you think reactors can operate safely for 100 years? Or what changes would you, from your standpoint, think are needed to enable plants to operate for a 100 years?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, the short answer to that question is I don't know. There would be a lot of technical work that would need to be done.

So in the run up to subsequent, the first subsequent license renewal being considered the 60 to 80-year period, there was a substantial amount of research and technical work that needed to be done over the years by licensees, by DOE efforts, by EPRI. And by, of course, the NRC staff. That built the technical case for safety out to 80 years. That work has not yet been done for a period of 80 to 100.

Right now, I'm focused on subsequent license renewal on 60 to 80. I think it's been astonishing, with the legislation that passed Congress, how quickly that really transformed the thinking about subsequent license renewal. There are obviously quite a few plants that were contemplating or interested in subsequent license renewal 60 to 80 prior to the Inflation Reduction Act. After it, it's just an overwhelming amount of interest. And from my point of view, it's important for NRC to keep its eye on the ball here. We're going to have a lot of applications coming in now in the next few years for subsequent license renewal and that's a lot of work to do. It's a lot of work on the environmental side, but hopefully

26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com with this GEIS, we won't have a situation where we'll need site specific environmental reviews to the extent that we did without it.

So there's a lot of work to do. I want to make sure NRC is ready for that work. I don't want a situation where we find ourselves in triage mode. I want to be able to process applications for as much demand as there is. But it's very helpful for those of you who are interested in subsequent license renewal at utilities. Please let us know as early as possible what your plans are because we want to make sure we have the resources ready and the personnel ready to address those applications as they come in.

It's a pretty significant shift, I think, in just a relatively short amount of time, how much overwhelming interest there is in 60 to 80 years.

MR. FURSTENAU: Thank you. Next question.

What kind of investments do you think the NRC and the Agreement State partners should begin making to start to accommodate licensing applications for fusion energy systems?

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Yes, it's already started, right? I mean we have private fusion companies around the country and because of the similarity of a lot of these near-term technologies to

27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com particle accelerators, there's already a lot of interaction between these vendors and the Agreement States where they are situated.

I've been very impressed in my interactions with the Agreement States who are just at the forefront of a lot of the thinking on this and a lot of the engagement, whether it's California or Washington State, Wisconsin, or others. There are several Agreement States that are already kind of the vanguard of thinking through these regulatory issues.

And that's going to be really valuable to us because as we do -- if the Commission decides to go ahead with a Part 30 byproduct material framework and we go forward with a limited scope rulemaking -- we're going to need those partners who have already been engaging with the various technologies and the companies to help us work through that rulemaking. I don't see it as something that's going to be an overly complex rulemaking. As I mentioned in my remarks, I think it's largely definitional and about what would need to be in an application so that it's fine-tuned for fusion applications rather than the ones we've seen under Part 30 historically. But that's going to be valuable engagement. And we want to get that framework ready.

28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com There are always questions about when are we going to need it. Is it too early? I don't think so. I think now is the time and we may find ourselves surprised of just how quickly we start having pre-application discussions or even applications filed with us or with Agreement States.

MR. FURSTENAU: Thanks. Thank you. This one is on SMRs. How do you see the security priorities changing regarding the deployment of SMRs and newer technologies versus the large commercial light water reactors we have now?

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Yes, well, one of the issues that we're all kind of delving into that's pending before the Commission is security. And I don't know that I totally know the answer now. I think one premise that we all had and I hope we'll see is more security by design, right? This is one of the ideas behind new reactor designs, whether they're small modular or non-light water reactor designs We would see vendors, designers, try to build a security into the design in a way that wasn't done for large light water reactors and I think that holds a lot of promise. And part of our regulatory regime around security, I think, it's going to have to account for that and value that to the extent it's done. And to

29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com the extent it's not, we're going to have think through the issues there. We just really started doing so on the Commission, to start thinking through what's the appropriate framework.

It gets tough. To me, I think one of the hardest things about some of these pieces of a new reactor framework is not just a variation in designs, but variation in size, right? I mean it's -- what you think about for security on a 1,000 megawatt reactor, it can be very different if you're talking about a few megawatts. And those are the kinds of issues that we have to tackle and make sure we have a framework that fits the full range. It's not always easy. And security, I think, can be tricky in that regard, but we're working on it. We don't have the answer yet, but it's on our important list of key policy issues to resolve.

MR. FURSTENAU: We have time for one last question.

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Great.

MR. FURSTENAU: How do you propose that the Agency attract Native Americans to work at the Agency to help with the potential new activities going on? For the US NRC to be successful with Native communities, it helps to have people who represent

30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com Native Americans' culture.

COMMISSIONER BARAN: I absolutely agree.

And as we've seen a return to more hiring by the Agency, we're being more aggressive in terms of our outreach and thinking through what are the educational institutions that we should be tapping and accessing to give us the full range of a diverse pool of applicants. And that definitely includes Native Americans.

I have a hope, too, that as we get more engaged on environmental justice, as we start doing more in that area, well improve. -- I think actually in recent years, we've made a lot of strides in our tribal engagement. As we improve that even further and we do more of it and we engage more with communities, I'm hopeful that, too, will bring us in contact with a lot of additional folks who may be interested in working here. Because I agree with you.

-- or the person asking the question -- that that's a real value for the Agency.

As Chair Hanson said earlier, when you just have a diversity of backgrounds, of opinion, of experience, that's what you want in a safety regulator and the staff of a safety regulator. You want people with a questioning attitude. You want people bringing

31 a new perspective to these tough issues were trying to tackle. And whether it's Native Americans or other groups, and segments of the population, we want to make sure we're just bringing as much of that in for diverse opinions and experiences and backgrounds as we can.

MR. FURSTENAU: Okay. Well, thank you, Commissioner Baran for taking the questions.

COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you.

MR. FURSTENAU: And with that, I'll close this session. We have a little bit of time for a stretch break, but we're going to get started promptly at 11 with Commissioner Wright's remarks. So thank you again, Commissioner Baran.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 10:50 a.m.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 (202) 234-4433 www.nealrgross.com