ML23286A085

Follow Up to September 11, 2023, Public Meeting on the Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory

ML23286A085
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute, 99902028
Issue date:	09/25/2023
From:	Nichol M Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	Andrea Veil Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk
References
Download: ML23286A085 (1)

Text

MARCUS R. NICHOL Executive Director, New Nuclear 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 P: 202.739.8131 mrn@nei.org nei.org September 25, 2023 Ms. Andrea Veil, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Subject:

Follow up to September 11, 2023, Public Meeting on the Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory Project Number: 689

Dear Ms. Veil:

The Nuclear Energy Institutes (NEI)1 on behalf of its members, is pleased to submit our comments regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Draft White Paper, Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory, for the staffs consideration in preparation for further activities. We appreciate the staffs public release of this draft white paper and enclosure, and the opportunity to participate in the public meeting held on September 11, 2023. The series of issues highlighted in the Draft White Paper are strong priorities for advanced reactor developers, micro-reactor and small modular reactors alike, to support deployment of their new and innovative technologies by the end of the decade.

As you are aware, NEI and industry representatives have been fully engaged in and supportive of the evaluation of near-term regulatory pathways to allow for factory manufacturing of advanced reactors. The first NEI paper on this topic, Micro-Reactor Regulatory Issues, was developed on November 13, 2019. A subsequent White Paper, titled Proposed Approach for Manufacturing License Requirements in 10 CFR Part 53, was submitted to the NRC on July 16, 2021. We provided further comments on this topic as it pertains to the ongoing Part 53 rulemaking efforts (see NEI letters to Mr. Dan Dorman, dated November 5, 2021 (ML21309A578) and August 31, 2022 (ML22243A257)).

1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.

Ms. Andrea Veil September 25, 2023 Page 2 We appreciate the transformational thinking on the issues presented in the Draft White Paper and encourage continued use of this innovative approach to advanced reactor licensing and regulation. It is clear that NRC staff have considered industry concerns around the implementation of factory manufacturing with respect to regulatory efficiency. As such, we appreciate the NRCs recognition on Page 8 of the Draft White Paper that loading fuel in a factory without an operating license or combined license could improve regulatory efficiency of licensing and deployment of factory-fabricated micro-reactors without a reduction in safety (emphasis added). We fully agree with this assessment. Developers and utilities alike are encouraged by NRCs line of thinking.

Industry is also pleased by the staffs recognition of 10 CFR Part 70 as one acceptable safety basis for initial fuel loading at the factory. The use of features to preclude criticality, as an analogue for initial fuel load benchmarks in more traditional construction processes, is another key concept identified by the staff. This approach would resolve several complex issues associated with the need for an operating license or combined license at certain points in the deployment process, as well as other issues described in the Enclosure to the Draft White Paper. We support NRCs position from the September 11, 2023, public meeting that features to preclude criticality would be described as a high-level, performance-based objective, rather than be the subject of highly prescriptive regulatory requirements. We believe this approach to regulation meets the intent of Congress Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), which directs the use of risk-informed and performance-based evaluation techniques and regulatory guidance to facilitate licensing advanced nuclear reactors, where appropriate. The use of high-level performance-based requirements allows for details to be defined in guidance or topical reports, and the allowance of flexibility for a variety of approaches results in an efficient and effective regulatory framework.

However, concerns remain regarding some concepts that may undermine the viability of these near-term pathways, which are outlined in Enclosures 1 and 2. For instance, we believe that the staff should consider alternative deployment models, such as factory fabrication by a contractor partner. This topic was raised during industrys constructive dialogue with the staff at the public meeting in support of exploring innovative approaches to address modern commercial and regulatory challenges. While we would have performed further analysis and provided more detailed comments on these issues, it is not feasible to complete such work in the review time between the NRC issuing the paper for stakeholder engagement and the planned time for NRC to send a paper to the Commission.

Further, there remain outstanding policy issues wherein regulatory requirements for large light water reactors, such as aircraft impact assessments, continue to apply to micro-reactors, without any evolution or reduction in unnecessary regulatory burden. This is a topic that warrants further NRC evaluation and resolution, as outlined in our aforementioned Part 53 comment letters. While it may not be feasible for the NRC to include a full analysis of these topics in the paper that the staff plans to send to the Commission in October, we urge the staff to identify for the Commission that these are topics that still require further work and may require NRC to make policy decisions or pursue rulemakings.

Ms. Andrea Veil September 25, 2023 Page 3 We acknowledge the time and energy expended by NRC on identifying innovative near-term solutions for factory-fabricated modules. NEI members carefully considered and compared staff options as outlined for the three issues covered in the Draft White Paper. As a result, we developed Enclosures 1 and 2 to this letter to describe industry perspectives and recommendations around the proposed solutions, and if applicable, we have identified concerns with the options. Enclosure 1 addresses the Draft White Paper, while provides comments on the NRCs Enclosure to the Draft White Paper. The staff also requested prioritization of the items in the Enclosure to the Draft White Paper for future engagement. While the industrys prioritization is not provided in this letter or its enclosures, we do plan on providing feedback on the next set of topics that are most important to the micro-reactor community in the future.

We trust that NRC staff will consider the contents of the enclosures for the forthcoming SECY paper, and we look forward to the next steps and Commission direction on these issues. Please contact me or Julianne McCallum (jgm@nei.org) of my staff with any comments or questions on the content of this letter.

Sincerely, Marcus R. Nichol

Enclosures:

1. Comments on Draft White Paper, Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory

2. Comments on Enclosure to Draft White Paper, Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory c:

Mr. Robert Taylor, NRC/NRR Mr. Mohamed Shams, NRC/NRR/DANU Mr. William Kennedy, NRC/NRR/DANU Mr. Steven Lynch, NRC/NRR/DANU NRC Document Control Desk

ENCLOSURE 1 COMMENTS ON Draft White Paper, Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory No.

Reference Comment 1

General Comment Recommend NRC explore an option under which a 10 CFR 70 licensee could act as a contract manufacturer to procure and build to specifications for a contract with an entity who holds either a Standard Design Certification (DC) or a Manufacturing License (ML) to fabricate and deliver a factory-fabricated module containing fuel to the holder of a Construction Permit (CP), Operating License (OL), or Combined Operating License (COL). As part of that evaluation, the NRC should further consider which entities are required to hold manufacturing licenses, and how the definition of utilization facility is to be applied (or if there are instances where it does not need to apply) across the manufacturing, operating, refueling and decommissioning timelines of factory-fabricated modules, within the context of varying deployment models.

2 General Comment In the last paragraph on page 1 and in SECY-20-0093, the staff includes aircraft impact assessment as a one of several topics that should be addressed to support the licensing and regulation of micro-reactors. However, that topic was not addressed in the proposed Part 53 and is not addressed in this draft White Paper. NEI has provided comments on this subject in comments on the draft proposed Part 53, but the NRC did not address the topic in Part 53. NEIs paper from 2019 makes the case that Aircraft Impact Assessments as addressed in 10 CFR 50.150 are inappropriate for micro-reactors and may also be inappropriate for some small modular reactors.

Recommend further discussion around how advanced reactors could address RIPB guidance and/or demonstrating the AIA does not need to be addressed, potentially including a screening flowchart or a future workshop on this topic.

3 General Comment A fundamental subject of this paper is whether the Commissions historical position that considers fuel load as part of operation of a traditional large LWR is applicable to factory-fabricated modules. The fact that the staff, and Commission by inference, has a historical

Comments on Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations:

Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory practice of equating fuel load with the beginning of operation should not preclude revising this practice for micro-reactors.

The discussion under Topic 1 in the Enclosure regarding language in AEA Section 189a.(1)(B)(i) is the more compelling discussion. It would be useful to move part of the discussion of AEA Section 189a.(1)(B)(i) into the body of the paper and deemphasize the discussion of the Commissions historical position.

The proposed use of features to preclude criticality provides a viable approach to addressing the issue through exemptions in the near-term. However, NRC should pursue rulemaking to change the definition of fuel load to achieve the regulatory efficiency and certainty of a long-term solution.

Further, Industry believes that a factory fabricated module, as described by the staff in this paper, that is specifically designed and controlled to preclude criticality and to preclude a self-supporting chain reaction during factory assembly, transport, and storage, may not need to be classified as a Reactor as defined in 10 CFR 50 or as a Utilization Facility. This may reduce excessive and potentially duplicative regulations of assembly, transport and storage activities which are currently adequately regulated under existing regulations in 10 CFR 70, 71 and

72. Additional analysis and discussion is recommended.

4 Option 1b - discussion of transportation The discussion of transportation issues in the Draft White Paper seems to suggest that Part 71 would be employed, assuming features for precluding criticality have been installed, but the discussion does not suggest the complexity described in the Enclosure. Recommend including reference to the complexity described in the Enclosure in the body of the White Paper.

5 Option 1b - 1st paragraph The discussion in the White Paper appears to assume that the Manufacturing License holder will also be the manufacturing organization and hold all applicable licenses related to fuel and fueling operations, e.g., licenses under Parts 30, 40, and 70. However, there are other deployment models under which the ML holder would

Comments on Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations:

Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory contract with qualified organization to manufacture the reactor to specifications provided by the ML holder. The manufacturing organization would hold the appropriate licenses to support possessing the fuel and fueling the reactor, such as licenses under Parts 30, 40, and 70. Any activities related to the manufacturing license would be done under contract to the ML holder and under the provisions of Part 52 ML (see Comment 2 above).

The industry requests NRC to expand the scope of the representative deployment model considered in the White Paper to address this real-world scenario.

6 Topic 1 - 1st paragraph The text states [T]he installation and removal of these features would entail significant modifications to the module. The features to preclude criticality would be described in the design of the factory-fabricated module, which would be included in an application for a manufacturing license, standard design certification, or other permit or license. The statement that installation and removal of the features to preclude criticality would entail significant modifications warrants further discussion especially since it is noted that these features would be included in the application for an ML, DC or other permit or license. During the September 11, 2023, meeting, NRC staff noted that physical features installed with the requirement of some deliberate physical action for removal would meet this requirement, while procedural and monitoring controls would not be sufficient.

Based on discussion at the same meeting, we appreciate that NRC staff plan to develop guidance around this topic, and we encourage NRC to engage with stakeholders during the development process.

7 Factory-Fabricated Micro-Reactor Deployment Model Text at the top of the 1st paragraph on page 4, states

[D]eployment models rely on the concept of a factory where modules would be fabricated, loaded with fuel, and potentially operated for testing. Further, the NRC staff assumes that a manufacturing license would be issued pursuant to Subpart F of 10 CFR Part 52for the factory-fabricated modules due to the desired high degree of standardization and plans for mass

Comments on Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations:

Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory production. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph states [T]he manufacturing license would satisfy the statutory requirements in AEA Section 101, License Required, that a license issued pursuant to AEA Section 103 is required to manufacture, transfer, or possess any utilization facility. The 2nd paragraph addresses fuel loading in the factory with the last sentence stating

[T]his paper presents an option where fuel could be loaded into a module under a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, without a 10 CFR Part 50 or 52 license. Under this option, the portions of the factory supporting fuel loading would be subject to requirements in 10 CFR Part

70.

Recommend the discussion of the interactions between the ML provisions in Part 52, Subpart F and Part 70 be expanded to make clear what would be required in terms of license applications and related requirements.

8 Page 8, 2nd paragraph The NRC staff also notes that in contrast to the AECs reasons for ultimately not authorizing fuel load under a construction permit, loading fuel in a factory without an operating license or combined license could improve regulatory efficiency of licensing and deployment of factory-fabricated micro-reactors without a reduction in safety. The improvement in regulatory efficiency without a reduction in safety is an important point.

We recommend that the NRC consider other aspects of fuel loading and operational testing in the factory that have the potential for improvements efficiency in safety.

For example, if operational testing efforts revealed a problem in the operation of the reactor, that problem could be resolved in the factory setting without the challenges of repairing at the deployment site or returning the reactor to the factory for repair and re-deployment.

9 Option 3b Option 3b appears to be the preferable option as compared to 3a. However, the NRC has noted several areas where the non-power reactor process may work.

While Option 3b is preferable, it does leave the applicant open to changes in NRC positions and the views of individual reviewers. In the long term, we recommend

Comments on Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations:

Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory changing the applicable regulations to provide certainty to the applicants would be a better solution.

ENCLOSURE 2 COMMENTS ON Enclosure to Draft White Paper, Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory No.

Reference Comment 1

Reference Comment 3 in Enclosure 1 and Topic 5 in the White Paper Enclosure The discussion of transportation in the Draft White Paper and the Enclosure addresses a complicated topic but is not easily followed, with some statements being in conflict with other aspects of the discussion. For example, the text in the 1st paragraph on page 19 states [S]hipment of a factory-fabricated module containing fuel would be subject to the transportation requirements in 10 CFR Part 71.

However, the ensuing text describes a number of other pertinent regulations.

For example, the 1st sentence in the 3rd paragraph on page 19 notes that a manufacturing licensee would be subject to the regulations in 10 CFR 52.153, 52.157, and 52.167 in addition to Part 71. Further, the 1st sentence of the 4th paragraph notes the requirements in 10 CFR 70.20a and 10 CFR 70.20b contain provisions for general licensees to possess special nuclear material and irradiated fuel during transport and storage incident to transport.

The text in the 4th paragraph goes on to describe requirements for physical protection of fissile material in transport contained in 10 CFR Parts 70, 50, and 52. The 1st paragraph on page 20 notes that in addition to Part 71, 10 CFR Parts 20 and 21 are applicable, and further that 10 CFR 30, 50, 52, and 70 could apply. The 2nd paragraph on page 20 describes the NRCs co-regulation of transportation with the Depart applicable DOT regulations under 49 CFR 173.415 and 173.416 would apply.

Clearly, the transportation considerations are complex, with numerous regulations being applicable in addition to Part 71. We recommend the treatment of the applicable regulations be expanded and clarified to the benefit of the many audiences for this paper.

2 Topic 2 - Timeframe for Authorization to Operate at the Deployment Site In the 1st paragraph, the staff notes [F]actory-fabricated micro-reactors that are of a self-contained

Comments on Enclosure to Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory design with the nuclear and balance-of-plant systems in one or a few containers that are fully fabricated at the factory would likely require only simple construction activities at the deployment site (e.g., pouring a small concrete pad on which to place the container housing the reactor). While not one of the central topics in the Draft White Paper, site preparation would be central to the overall timeline and any discussions regarding the ability of licensees and NRC to meet the various notification timelines included in the regulations, as applicable. The only external hazard that could occur with no warning is a seismic event, which would require limited concern due to the short time periods for fabrication and low levels of decay heat, even after testing. The NRC doesnt require analysis of impacts of seismic events during fuel loads at large light-water reactors and that the seismic event would have to be quite large to incur passive heat removal failure Given this and that off-site release would be extremely low should the worst scenario occur, there should not be requirement for analysis of seismic activity or other external hazards at the site.

3 Topic 2 - Timeframe for Authorization to Operate at the Deployment Site We recommend that staff consider how the ITAAC included in an ML can be closed out by the licensee (i.e.,

COL holder) at the manufacturing facility prior to it being shipped to deployment site. In addition, staff should consider how these ITAAC can be closed out by a COL applicant (prior to COL hearing and issuance of COL),

similar to what is contemplated in the regulations if the acceptance criteria for certain ITAAC in a referenced early site permit (ESP) or DCD are met prior to issuance of the COL referencing the ESP or DCD (ref. 10 CFR 52.97(a)(2)). There is precedence for completing ITAAC at the manufacturing facility with Vogtle Units 3 & 4, but a pathway that supports closure without a COL (or prior to COL issuance) would support a "one and done" closure process for applicable ITAAC.

4 Topic 3 - Replacement of Factory-Fabricated Modules at the Deployment Site Would or has NRC considered use of other design changes or maintenance processes such as a reload-like process, LAR, 50.59, or maintenance rule risk assessment process to license replacement reactors? Our understanding is that sites will apply for licenses that included the number of reactors that are desired to be licensed at that time. These sites may anticipate the need of additional reactors in the future, but not desire

Comments on Enclosure to Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory to seek licenses for them, or may later determine the need for more reactors that were not originally anticipated. It is feasible that future reactors, including the swapping out of the reactor unit during a fuel reload could incorporate future design changes. In the event of other design changes or maintenance processes, we recommend the use of a reload-like process, LAR, 50.59, or maintenance rule risk assessment to process licenses for replacement reactors. It is unclear how the proposed approach would work for license renewal.

Should a micro-reactor pursue license renewal, we recommend a scaled licensing approach to LWRs is taken, with the regulatory burden of the license renewal process scaled to the operating lifetime and potential impact of the micro-reactor.

We recommend that the staff expand this section to respond to these questions.

5 Topic 4 - Autonomous Operation and Remote Operation We recommend the use of automatic operations as opposed to autonomous operations, given that the intent of these deployment models is to allow automatic response from the reactor to demand from the grid. The use of "autonomous operations implies that artificial intelligence or other computer programming is the sole operator of a reactor. In the NEI 2019 paper, we discuss automatic operations as Micro-reactors are expected to have automatic features that may not require human actions for accident response, and Some may be fully automatic and not require any operators, other than to initially commission the reactor and go critical, or to load and unload the fuel, and It is noted that human actions may not be necessary to perform these functions, as they could be performed by automatic plant features.

6 Topic 4 - Autonomous Operation and Remote Operation In the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 11, it is stated both autonomous and remote operations raise potential policy-related matters. For example, autonomous operation would entail reactivity manipulations being performed by automation rather than licensed operators, as well as potentially eliminating humans as a layer of defense-in-depth. It should be noted that reducing operator responsibilities as a layer of defense-in-depth may eliminate human error.

Comments on Enclosure to Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory In some cases, automatic operations could be a safety improvement, and we recommend that a reduction in safety due to automatic operations should not be assumed.

7 Topic 4 - Autonomous Operation and Remote Operation Discussion of automatic operation in the Draft White Paper states the following: License applications submitted under 10 CFR Part 50 or 52 for autonomous operations of nuclear reactors that, for example, would not include licensed operator staffing in a control room or would permit a non-licensed grid operator to change plant output (i.e., load following) would need to include requests for exemptions from these requirements, where relevant. If a micro-reactor site plans to have licensed operators, would an exemption be required to allow automatic reactor responses to load follow? Or just if a facility has load following capabilities without a licensed operator physically onsite? We recommend additional discussion in the Enclosure for clarity.

8 Topic 4 - Near Term Strategy To support the NRCs HFE reviews of advanced reactor license applications under 10 CFR Part 53, the NRC staff recently completed development of draft DRO-ISG-2023-03, Development of Scalable Human Factors Engineering Review Plans (ML22266A072, nonpublic).

Citing a nonpublic document as the basis for what would be critical HFE reviews leaves the subject unclear. We recommend that the staff make this document publicly available as soon as possible.

9 Topic 4 - Near Term Strategy For near-term license applications that include proposals for remote or autonomous operation, the NRC staff would use available guidance to assess compliance with the applicable 10 CFR Part 50 or 52 regulations and applicant requests for exemptions, as needed.

This would not be a useful strategy for the near term, absent guidance from the staff regarding acceptable application content. We recommend prioritizing guidance on application content for compliance for automatic operations.

10 Topic 4 - Near Term Strategy, Remote Operation, 1st paragraph

[T]he NRC staff would need to determine whether proposed PDCs for remote operation meet GDC 19; in the 2nd paragraph [A]s noted above, 10 CFR

Comments on Enclosure to Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory 50.34(f)(2)(iii) requires, in part, a control room design that reflects state-of-the-art human factor principles. For applications that include proposals for remote operation of a nuclear reactor, the NRC staff would intend to apply this requirement to any facility from which a nuclear reactor can be operated remotely.

In the 3rd paragraph for applications that include proposals for remote operation of a nuclear reactor, the applicant would need to request an exemption from requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(m), unless the deployment model included maintaining on-site licensed operator staffing that meets the current staffing requirements.

In the discussion of Remote Operation, the staff set out inaccurate expectations. Nearly all micro-reactors are non-light water reactors (LWR), and therefore the GDC do not apply. The ARDC, which are the non-LWR versions of GDC, are also not requirements. The expectation that all micro-reactors comply with GDC (in this case GDC-19) is inaccurate, and we recommend that the NRC identify a valid requirement to reference for control rooms.

On a positive note, the staff states that they would review exemption requests associated with remote operations using NUREG-1791 since it addresses potential reductions in staffing, but also the possibility of operations from remote facilities and portable devices.

11 Topic 4 - Cybersecurity The closing sentence in the discussion of Cybersecurity notes [A] defensive computer security architecture that incorporates remote operation technology would have to be more complex than those of current licensees to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of digital computer and communication systems and networks associated with SSEP functions. It is not clear how a more complex defensive computer security architecture than currently required would align with the automatic operations being considered by some designers. Complexity does not equate to increased protection. Perhaps the staff intends that it would be more sophisticated, in that it could perform functions

Comments on Enclosure to Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory necessary for automatic operations that are not necessary for todays paradigm that does not include automatic operations. Would cybersecurity and instrumentation & controls become significant obstacles to implementing automatic operations?

We recommend further elaboration of the staffs view, including the development of guidance for near-term applicants.

12 Topic 4 - Remote Operations, page 17, 2nd paragraph The NRC addresses a potential gap in Part 26 requirements and notes how they propose to use the proposed amendment to Part 26 associated with Part 53 and a nonpublic draft guide. Given the lack of Commission approval of or comment on Part 53, this approach is highly speculative. Further, relying on a rule amendment and draft guidance associated with Part 53 raises timing issues about the Part 26 approach being available for near term use. This appears to be speculative on the part of the staff and near-term guidance would be important to near-term applicants.

We recommend NRC identify all instances in which the paper relies on policy or requirement changes that are the subject of Part 53, so that the Commission is aware of the connections between this paper and Part 53.

13 Topic 6 - Storage of Fuel After Irradiation in a Power Reactor The draft white paper states that spent fuel must be cooled for at least 1 year prior to being stored in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) regulated under 10 CFR Part 72. However, the Part 72 definition (consistent with Part 71 as well) states that spent fuel is fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation. If a micro-reactor were to allow the spent fuel to cool down in the reactor module for 1 year after operation (but the fuel remains in the reactor module), would this require an exemption to the definition of spent fuel?

We recommend NRC consider revisiting this requirement and establishing a technology-neutral baseline criteria rather than a storage timeframe based on irradiated LWR fuel.

Comments on Enclosure to Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory 14 Topic 7 - Decommissioning Process and Decommission Funding Assurance, top of page 27 The NRC notes that they expect an applicant to make use of exemptions to address decommissioning funding.

Relying on language in the proposed Part 53 is not viable given the lack of Commission direction on that proposed rule and anticipated deployment schedules.

Given the lack of industry experience in developing and NRC reviewing such cost estimates for non-light-water reactors, we recommend developing guidance for near-term applicants.

15 Topic 7 - Decommissioning Process and Decommission Funding Assurance, top of page 28 In the near-term strategy the NRC states the staff will review license applications in accordance with current Commission policy that allows alternative population-related siting but precludes siting a commercial power reactor, no matter the size or type of reactor, within a populated center of 25,000 residents or more. These siting requirements are neither risk-informed nor performance-based. This could create a challenge to some deployment strategies. The siting requirements should be based on potential threat to public health and safety rather than on requirements developed for large light-water reactors.

We recommend that the NRC update these requirements, consistent with the recent developments associated with Emergency Planning Zone sizing based on risk information and reactor performance.

16 Topic 11 - Commercial Mobile Micro-Reactors In the discussion of Near-Term Strategy at the top of page 32, the staff states they do not intend to take actions in the near term to address changes to the regulatory framework that may be needed to support mobile micro-reactor licensing. This needs to be reconsidered and worked on in concert with or in quick succession to the near-term pathways to capitalize on the learnings of the near-term regulatory pathways and enable deployment of micro-reactors.

We recommend that staff begin identifying the needed long-term actions, start including those in prioritization plans provided to the Commission and promptly schedule those based on Commission feedback.

Comments on Enclosure to Draft White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory