Text

Presentation Slides - Periodic Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting 10/25/2023
	ML23297A267
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/24/2023
From:	Subbaratnam R; NRC/NRR/DANU/UARP
To:	;
References
	Download: ML23297A267 (1)
	v • d • e

Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Public Meeting October 25, 2023 Microsoft Teams Meeting Bridgeline: 301-576-2978 Conference ID: 435 901 348#

1

Time Agenda Speaker 10:00 am - 10:10 am Opening Remarks NRC 10:10 am - 10:15 am Advanced Reactor Integrated Schedule NRC 10:15 - 10:45 am Status of Draft Seismic Regulatory Guides DG-1410 and DG-1307 NRC 10:45 - 11:15 am Standard Design Approvals for Construction Permit and Operating License NRC Applications 11:15-11:20 am Fuel Cycle Activities Supporting Advanced Reactor Deployment NRC 11:20-11:30 am BREAK 11:30-11:35 am Upcoming Regulatory Information Conference Workshop on National Nuclear NRC Security Administration 3S (safety, security, and safeguards) Principles 11:35-12:00 pm Metallic Fuel Qualification NRC 12:00-1:00 pm LUNCH BREAK 1:00 - 1:50 pm International Regulatory Efficiency 2 NEI 2

Time Agenda (Continued) Speaker 1:50-2:00 pm Announcement on ASME Section III Executive Strategic Advisory Counsel NEI 2:00-2:10pm Public Comments 2:10-2:15 pm Planning for Next Meeting and Closing Remarks NRC 2:15 pm Adjourn 3

NRCs Advanced Reactor Readiness By the Numbers NRC Advanced Reactor Ready Statistics since 2018 Statistics since 2018 Completed more Work on more than Completed more than than 90 topical 35 policy issues 10 advanced reactor report/white paper created more than design reference models to reviews 60 guidance documents. make future assessments 33% faster than the more efficient.

generic schedule goal.

Completed 10 NRC/DOE Kairos MOUs construction focused on permit safety advanced reactor review 50%

collaboration. Established core faster than review teams of the generic More than 140 public schedule Canada collaboration generated 8-10 technical staff engagements per per application, goal.

more than 10 work plans, year on advanced 8 NRC/CNSC joint reports. based on recent reactor-related topics new reactor review experience.

The NRCs strategic transformation and modernization enables the safe deployment of ADVANCED REACTORS 4

Advanced Reactor Integrated Schedule of Activities (Slide 1 of 2)

Micro-Reactor Policy Updated draft white paper, Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory, released to public on Sept. 27 (Revised Draft White Paper: ML23264A802,

Enclosure:

ML23264A803) prior to ACRS briefing held on Oct. 3 SECY paper publication expected in the near future Material Compatibility Interim Staff Guidance - publication of final version expected this calendar year Draft Regulatory Guide (DG)-4034 (RG 4.7, Rev. 4), General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations Publication on Oct. 12 (ML23123A090) & related public meeting on Oct. 27 Federal Register Notice for public comment published on Oct. 18, with comments due by Nov. 17, 2023 5

Advanced Reactor Integrated Schedule of Activities (Slide 2 of 2)

Kairos Power, LLC (Kairos) Hermes 1 Construction Permit Application Review -

hearing on Oct. 19 Kairos Power, LLC Hermes 2 Construction Permit Application Review Application Docketing Decision Letter issued/Acceptance Review complete on Sept. 11 SECY-23-0080, Environmental Review Approach for the Kairos Power, LLC Hermes 2 Construction Permit Application released to public on Sept. 27 Advanced Reactor Content of Application Project (ARCAP)/Technology Inclusive Content of Application Project (TICAP) Guidance Documents -

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) briefing on Nov. 17 6

Periodic Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting: Status of Draft Regulatory Guides DG 1410 and DG 1307 Dr. John Stamatakos Institute Scientist at Southwest Research Institute October 25, 2023 7 7

Overview Changes since March 2023 Periodic Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting

DG 1410 (RG 1.251) Technology Inclusive, Risk Informed, And Performance Based Methodology for Seismic Design of Commercial Nuclear Plants

- Current version addresses both Framework A and Framework B, consistent with the most recent version of 10 CFR Part 53

- Three seismic design options for each Framework

- Appendix A and Appendix B, each provides an example for Option 2 and Option 3 implementation, respectively

DG 1307 (RG 1.252) Seismically Isolated Nuclear Power Plants

- Minor changes

Guides are in the NRC process for publication and for public comments.

Future plans and summary 8

DG 1410 (RG 1.251) Technology Inclusive, Risk Informed, And Performance Based Methodology for Seismic Design of Commercial Nuclear Plants 9

Three Options 10

Appendix A: Example for Option 2 Implementation

Licensing Modernization Project (LMP)/American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Structural Engineering Institute (SEI)

Integration Approach

The example in Appendix A provides one approach to determine seismic design categories and design limit states for structures, systems, and components

Follows Research Information Letter (RIL) 2021-04, Feasibility Study on a Potential Consequence Based Seismic Design Approach for Nuclear Facilities, issued April 2021 11 11

Appendix B: Example for Option 3 Implementation

Option 3 allows for a broader range of analyses to demonstrate seismic safety, including combinations of deterministic and probabilistic analyses based on realistic, approximate, bounding, or conservative analyses mixed with quantitative risk information

Option 3 thus provides the most flexibility of all three options described in RG 1410 to determine and evaluate seismic design, performance, and risk in meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Part 53

An important component in Option 3 is the application of an integrated decision-making process (IDP) that is performance-based and risk-informed 12

DG 1307 (RG 1.252) Seismically Isolated Nuclear Power Plants

- Technical considerations:

Use the same technical approach as described in DG1410 (3 options)

Focus on addressing SI specific criteria for each of the 3 options

Guidance relies on ASCE 43-19 and ASCE 4-16 as well as available literature 13 13

Plans and Schedule

Both Draft RGs are undergoing NRC regulatory guide publication process, with planned publication for public comments in Q2 of FY24

A NUREG/CR that documents the technical basis and implementation considerations is under preparation. This will be a companion document to RIL 2021 - 04.

14 14

NRC Staff Draft White Paper Development of New Reactor Application Standard Content to Support Timely, Efficient, and Effective Reviews of Subsequent Applications Presenter: Joseph Colaccino Other Contributors: Belkys Sosa, Joseph Sebrosky, Nanette Valliere, John Segala, Amy Cubbage, Steve Lynch, Michelle Hayes, NRC OGC 25 Oct 2023 15 15

Purpose

Provide draft high-level guidance for the development of standard content for future applications for reactor licenses

Identify standard content in the OL FSAR and migrating that information to a standard design approval application

Use the design centered review approach to effectively develop applications that will contain standard content that has been approved in a previous NRC review Site-specific environmental review is not discussed in the draft white paper 16

Standard Content

Standard content: design information that will be identical at every site

Construction permit: preliminary design and site-specific information

Operating license: final safety analysis report

Standard design approval: final safety analysis report that describes facility, design bases and limits on operation, safety analysis of structures, systems and components or major portions 17 17

18 19 Using the Final Safety Analysis Report Approved in the Operating License as the Basis for the Standard Design Approval

Version of the Updated FSAR (UFSAR) for a facility for which the Commission has granted an OL in effect six months before submission of the SDA application

Scope of the standard design approval all the SSCs that would be identical at every facility constructed, including the interfaces between the standard design and the balance of the nuclear power plant site information, such as postulated site parameters to determine if the approved design can be located at a specific site 20

The Design-Centered Review Approach (DCRA)

Formation of an industry-led design center working group comprising the vendor of a reactor design and prospective entities developing licensing applications

Engaged design center has the potential to efficiently identify standard content and effectively migrate this information into subsequent applications

Regulatory Guide 1.206, Revision 1, section C.2.7, provides guidance for implementing the DCRA

Referencing approach associated with the DCRA involves the use of left-margin annotations in the FSAR Design Center can develop their own preferred approach 21

Using the Design-Centered Review Approach for a Reference Construction Permit and Operating License

Vendor and prospective applicants should inform the NRC as early as possible that they are going to form a design center

Upon OL issuance, the standard information in the FSAR becomes the basis for development of the standard design approval application

Associated licensing activities could be done in series or parallel

Design center can decide to forgo development of a standard design approval Next 3 slides provide examples of scenarios discussed above 22 22

23 24 25 Conclusion

FSAR version available at the time the OL for the facility is issued contains a set of standard information on the design that can be used in the development of a standard design approval application

Identification of standard information and its migration to a standard design approval application should be focused on the scope of the standard design and migrating the exact language from the version of the OL FSAR, to the extent practicable

Engaged design center has the potential to facilitate a more effective, efficient, and timely review benefiting all applicants and the NRC by improving regulatory consistency and minimizing the resources needed to conduct both the standard design approval and subsequent reviews referencing it 26

Moving forward Items the staff is still looking at include:

Finality of operational programs in a standard design approval

Use of Appendix N

Stakeholder Feedback

Update current guidance, or issue a related generic communication, based on the white paper

Request public comments 27

Updates from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)

NEW FUELS Front-end of Back-end of the the Fuel Cycle Fuel Cycle 28

10 min BREAK 29

Future Focused Research:

Integration of Safety, Security, &

Safeguards During Design and Operations Advanced Reactors Stakeholder Meeting October 25, 2023 30

Safety-Security-Safeguards FFR

Project will use case studies to explore the interfaces between the 3 Ss during design and operations

Identify modeling and simulation tools and approaches that may be used to address these interfaces

Identify potential synergies and conflicts among the interfaces Safety Security Safeguards 31

Objectives:

Facilitate exchange of knowledge and best practices for design and operations of advanced reactors and fuel cycle facilities using an integrated safety, security, and safeguards (3S) approach.

Foster information exchange of research and development activities and potential applications of 3S.

Identify 3S M&S tools and applications.

December 5 and 6, 2023 (Virtual) 32

Motivation: apply NUREG-2246, Fuel Qualification for Advanced Reactors, to U-Pu-Zr/U-Zr fuel

Work performed by INL

Similar work at PNNL and ORNL for TRISO and molten salt fuel

Primary supporting data originated from EBR-II and FFTF 33

NUREG-2246: Fuel Qualification for Advanced Reactors

Identifies criteria to support fuel qualification

Addresses accelerated fuel qualification

Emphasizes

Identification of key manufacturing parameters

Specification of fuel performance envelope

Use of evaluation models

Assessment of experimental data used to validate models and to develop safety criteria 34

Design Parameters Parameter Value Nominal fuel composition U-10Zr Fuel theoretical density 16.2 g/cm3 Fuel slug smeared density 75%

Plenum-to-fuel volume ratio 1.4 Fuel height 91 cm Fuel outer diameter 0.5 cm Cladding outer diameter 0.69 cm Cladding inner diameter 0.57 cm Fuel-cladding bond Na Cladding material HT9 35

Areas of Focus

Geometric Evolution

Fuel Constituent

These points were identified as the Migration main factors for defining an

Fuel Properties operating envelope and developing

Cladding Integrity/Barrier an assessment criteria Degradation

Investigated through

Fission Product Behavior/Source Term experimentation and modeling

Transients 36

Fuel column swelling does affect reactivity, but is well known and stabilizes

Radial strain largely accommodated for by smear density and thought to be

Geometric Evolution predictable

Large database of experiments available.

Additional work needed to illustrate

Fuel Constituent model/experiment agreement or illustrate Migration trends in the experiment data.

Fuel Properties 37

Geometric Evolution

Redistribution is not shown to limit fuel performance.

It will affect thermal conductivity and fuel swelling, but mechanistic understanding, while

Fuel Constituent available, is not yet needed for a safety case Migration

FCCI is propagated by the redistribution and is the limiting fuel performance phenomena

Fuel Properties

Cladding Integrity/Barrier Degradation 38

Fuel Constituent Migration

Porosity and redistribution will affect thermal conductivity (TC), yield strength, and solidus temperature

TC remains favorable, even without known Na infiltration

Fuel Properties

Yield strength favors fission gas release to plenum and dimensional stability with proper smear density

Solidus temperature limited by FCCI rather

Cladding Integrity/Barrier than bulk constituents Degradation

Fission Product Behavior/Source Term 39

Fuel Constituent Migration

Thermal expansion and Youngs modulus are well known and predictable

(Further bolsters geometric stability case)

Fuel Properties

Cladding Integrity/Barrier Degradation

Fission Product Behavior/Source Term 40

Fuel Properties

Swelling is not a concern in HT-9 clad U-Zr fuel with 75% smear density up to 10at.% BU.

FCCI is the primary source for cladding

Cladding degradation and pin failure Integrity/Barrier

FCCI may thin the cladding and lower eutectic Degradation melting temperature.

While not a concern for steady state below 10at.% BU, the response and behavior under transients requires more investigation

Fission Product Behavior/Source Term

Transients 41

Degradation

As source term and fission product retention/release is highly subjective to conditions, there is an inherent difficulty to summarize.

Fission Product

However, source term and inventory are well Behavior/Source Term known and calculated for steady state.

Transient response remains and area requiring additional research

Transients 42

Transient testing has been done and identified Behavior/Source Term FCCI to be the primary failure mode

Fuel has been shown to survive a 0.1%/s overpower transient to ~40% overpower without cladding breach

Transients

There remains a need for additional testing to better illustrate the extent that FCCI degrades the barrier and how that barrier responds to said conditions and develop an improved operation envelope.

43

Bulk Findings

Geometric stability: well known and favorable below 10at% BU.

Intrinsic loss of power and heat generation due to swelling

Known and accommodated for with smear density

Coolability: fuel retains favorable thermal conductivity throughout all cases

Transient response: area needing more research or representation

While FCCI is known to be the limiting factor, the barrier response and fission product retention under transients is not well described at this time.

Operation envelope (steady state and transient, e.g., time at temperature allowances) should be better illustrated

Final finding was fuel design and geometry must be decided upon for a final fuel qualification case.

Successful test of NUREG-2246 with no changes in the document requested 44

LUNCH 45

Enhancing International Regulatory Efficiency NRC Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Meeting October 25, 2023 Marc Nichol Executive Director, New Nuclear

Advanced Reactor Enablers and Opportunities

1. Government policies are equitable for nuclear and fully funded 01 First Mover Success 2. Policies support industrys implementation of project best practices

3. Building education and comfort in the investment community 02 Fast Followers

4. Decisions that support industrys achieving de-risking milestones

5. Actions that support industrys pursuit of standardization of fleets 03 Regulatory Efficiency

6. Regulatory reform and modernization

7. Congress and Parliament to enable regulatory reform

8. Rapid decision making to enable designs that are capable of being deployed in a wide 04 Siting Availability range of site conditions

9. Industry will need to develop flexible designs that are both standardized and adaptable

10. Governments enable early engagement of public in processes 05 Public Engagement 11. Enable communities to more effectively engage the industry on advanced reactors

12. Collaborative engagement of Indigenous peoples 06 Supply Chain Ramp-up 13. Congress and DOE establish programs to assure access to fuel

14. Government support for prototyping novel components early in design 07 Workforce Development

15. Government programs support industrys action to establishes programs to recruit, train and retain workers

Two Recent Reports - September 2023 A Framework for International Regulatory Efficiency to Accelerate Nuclear Deployment, World Nuclear Association, Canadian Nuclear Association and Nuclear Energy Institute Canadian and United States Regulatory Cooperation for New Nuclear Deployment: Recommendations for the Implementation of the International Regulatory Efficiency Framework, Canadian Nuclear Association and Nuclear Energy Institute

A Framework for International Regulatory Efficiency to Accelerate Nuclear Deployment

The Need for Nuclear Now Increasing urgency for carbon reduction (electric and non-electric)

Path to zero-carbon must be reliable and affordable Nuclear energy must be meaningful part of future energy portfolio Advanced reactor deployment plans increasing rapidly and more urgently Up to 40 GWe of new nuclear added every year for the next 25 years (6x Source: IAEA Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power recent experience) Estimates for the Period up to 2050, September 2022 Note: Other sources estimate a need of up to 1,250 GWe by 2050 (WNA and IPCC), these estimates do not include non-electric applications ©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 50

The Need for a New Approach Regulatory efficiency is needed so that society can enable safe advanced reactors to provide benefits that meet energy, climate, environmental, economic and security goals License applications could be more than U.S. Licensing Durations and Costs regulators can currently process Type1 Duration2 Cost3 Unnecessary duplication of effort in regulatory reviews for localization of DC 3 to 4 years (4 to 9) $45M to $68M previously approved designs Unnecessarily long times and high costs to COL 2.5 to 3.5 years (4) $28M to $30M license safe designs ESP 2 years (3 to 6) $6M to $19M

Limit regulatory throughput

Inhibit ability to license in many countries OL 3 to 3.5 years (8) $42M

1) DC = Design Certification, COL = Combined Operating License, ESP = Early Site Permit, OL = Operating License

2) NRC Generic Schedules: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/generic-schedules.html; () reflects historical performance which has exceeded generic schedules, in some cases by more than double; these generic and historical schedules do not include pre-application, acceptance, commission approval and hearings/rulemakings which adds 1 to 3 years to the actual schedule ©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 51

3) NRC Letter to Senator Inhofe April 7, 2015 (ML1508A361), costs of more recent reviews are even higher on an inflation adjusted basis

Challenges Driving Need for International Regulatory Efficiency Costs (Regulatory Fees and Vendor Support) for reviews that do not leverage approval in another country

=> $1B to approve in 4 countries Duplicating reviews of the same design

Capital required constrains deployment to other countries

Regulatory resources slows market adoption Differences (real or perceived) in regulatory approaches

Influence design changes specific to each country

Reduce ability of operators to share experience

Vision for International Regulatory Efficiency Licensing of nuclear reactors measurably more efficiently than in the past

Continue to ensure nuclear safety, security and safeguards

Minimize time and cost for approving a design already approved by another regulator

Experienced regulators support embarking regulators

One regulator leveraging all or part of the outputs from another regulator

Regulators collaborating to review different aspects, incorporating outputs from each other

Accepting design reviews by other regulators without repeating full review

Policy and mechanisms to enable multilateral regulatory reviews

Regulators expectations (requirements and inputs/outputs) are clear for industry and other stakeholders

Synergies among countries regulatory frameworks promote design standardization

Industry is able to utilize large parts of the same supply chain across countries

Experience in Nuclear Regulatory Harmonization Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP)

Western European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA)

International Regulators Association (INRA)

IAEA Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative (NHSI)

European SMR Pre-Partnership Joint European early review of NUWARD CNSC and NRC Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC)

Canadian and Policy regulator SMR Collaboration

International Regulatory Efficiency - Learning from Experience International Harmonization is tough

Many regulators lead to exponential differences in requirements

Resistance to modify requirements to align internationally

Risks slowing down regulatory approvals if not managed carefully Bi-lateral efforts appear to be easier (US/Canada)1

2019 MOC - Shared review approaches, pre-application collaboration, research and training (ML19275D578)

NRC/CNSC joint reviews - Terrestrial, X-energy, NuScale and GEH

NRC/CNSC harmonization - High Temperature Vessel Code (ML2116A294) and Risk-Informed Licensing (ML21225A101)

BWR X-300 - Charter for collaboration

Key Lessons and Successes Vision - strategic goals, common objectives, desired outcomes Resources - sufficient and dedicated for duration of initiative Stakeholders - industry, public, government should be included Scope - start small and grow, specific and carefully considered Management - mechanism for incorporating outputs into regulatory frameworks Outcomes - different regulators can develop common positions, can achieve greater clarity in shorter period of time

However; Maximum Reciprocity should not be forgotten as a long-term aspiration Maximum Reciprocity: Approved once, accepted everywhere

Provides maximum benefit of international cooperation

Has been proven feasible in other industries Aviation Example

Design: Bi-Lateral Safety Agreement (reciprocal) U.S. has agreement with 50 countries

Articles: Reciprocal Acceptance between U.S. FAA, TCCA and EASA Pharmaceuticals Example

Began in Europe in 1970s, ICH guidelines since 1990 (20 members)

Nuclear material transport - IAEA Requirements - since 1960s

Regulatory Efficiency Proposed Framework

Canadian and United States Regulatory Cooperation for New Nuclear Deployment: Recommendations for the Implementation of the International Regulatory Efficiency Framework

Goals for Strategic U.S./Canada Regulatory Cooperation Enhance confidence in safety through collaboration Successful large-scale deployment of new nuclear energy is needed to meet the nations energy, climate, environmental, economic and security goals.

Efficient regulatory pathways are needed to achieve this goal.

1) Domestic Preparedness Potential for international efficiency is dependent on achieving domestic regulatory efficiency Goal: Regulate safe nuclear energy as efficiently as possible Regulatory objectives1

Timely and cost-efficient review processes

Resolution of key generic technical and policy issues before applications are submitted

Changes to regulations for longer-term regulatory framework modernization Recommendations:

Regulator: Establish more reasonable licensing schedules and costs

Regulator: Improving efficiency in the review process

Regulator: Apply requirements appropriate to the technology

Industry: Articulate how safety enhancements enable efficient regulation

Government: Provide sufficient resources to regulators

2) Regulatory Cooperation Agreements Goal: Provide immediate benefits to near-term applicants, while working toward greater long-term efficiencies Recommendations for NRC/CNSC Establish long range plan to enable 4-star and 5-star cooperation Expand cooperation through Joint review of additional designs Include other countries in cooperation Establish mechanism for greater discussion with industry and other stakeholders on long-term cooperation goals and plans

NRC Cooperation with International Regulators Consistent with NRC Mission In the U.S., the Atomic Energy Act designates the NRC as the U.S. Regulatory Authority

Sole authority for making decisions and issuing licenses in U.S. on matters of nuclear safety Nothing in the AEA precludes the NRC from relying on information from a regulatory authority in another country for making decisions and issuing licenses

The NRC is required to have a reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety - thus there would need to be reasonable assurance in the information from another regulator that serves as the basis for the safety finding

Analogies with NRC current practice of relying on technical work from contractors There are examples of this in the nuclear field, for example in transport of nuclear materials (NRC Part 71 and IAEA SSR-6)

Other types of regulators are able to collaborate and rely on decisions from regulatory authorities in other countries: Example: FAA and FDA

3) Assistance to Potential Host Countries The goal of Canadian and U.S. assistance to potential host countries is to accelerate the safe deployment of nuclear energy in host countries.

Significantly improve the global achievement of carbon reduction and energy security goals.

Spread high standards for nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation

Increase diplomatic ties and create economic benefits in the supplier and host countries Recommendations

NRC/CNSC: Expand international regulatory cooperation and assistance to regulators in potential host countries to maximum extent possible Prioritize countries with near-term deployment of U.S./Canada designs Ensure appropriate support for countries seeking to build regulatory capacity Transfer expertise and experience in regulatory framework for advanced reactors

Governments: Establish relationships with potential host countries Inform them of the regulatory cooperation and assistance that is available Understand the host countries regulatory assistance needs Facilitate US/Canadian support for development of nuclear energy and adoption of advanced reactor technologies ©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 64

4) Codes and Standards Alignment of international codes and standards enables greater regulatory efficiency The goal of codes and standards alignment is to minimize the differences between codes and standards endorsed by cooperating regulators.

Minimization of differences between C&S accepted by international regulators

Reciprocity in acceptance of other countrys codes and standards

Joint development of C&S between countries (e.g., ANS and CSA)

Utilization of international standards (e.g., ISO-9001)

Recommendations

SDOs: Establish a forum for standards development organizations (SDOs), industry and regulators Centered around US/Canada; includes other countries (e.g., Europe, Asia)

Identify gaps, establish priorities and plans for developing codes and standards (C&S)

Already underway, led by ASME, CSA and ANS

Regulators: Engage with cooperating regulators, industry, SDOs to endorse aligned C&S

Developers: Engage with SDOs and regulators to identify priorities and approaches that maximize alignment of C&S

5) Design Standardization The goal of design standardization is establishment of a stable design, for the portion of the plant that requires regulatory approval, that benefits from requirements that are streamlined between two or more regulators to the extent practicable.

No, or minimal, design changes from one country to another

Compliant with requirements in all countries of anticipated deployment

Compliant with relevant codes and standards in all countries of anticipated deployment Enablers of design standardization

Clarifying the alignment of requirements and expectations (among collaborating regulators) early in the design

Crediting the equivalent outcomes of requirements between regulators to avoid the need for a summation of the most conservative version of the requirements

Only requiring scope and detail of design for review that is necessary for safety decisions Recommendations

Regulators: Guidance on similarities and differences between regulatory requirements of cooperating regulators

Developers: Design with safety profiles that enable the portion of the design reviewed by regulators Stable with no anticipated changes for site conditions or technology advancements Aligned with requirements across cooperating countries

Summary Recommendations

1. NRC/CNSC with industry, SDOs and other stakeholders: continue discussions on the pursuit of the 5 long-term goals and 13 near-term actions

2. U.S. and Canadian Governments: provide resources to expand international regulatory efficiency

3. Inform international efforts for advanced reactors (e.g., IAEA NHSI)

DISCUSSION

Executive Strategic Advisory Council (ESAC)

ESAC provides stakeholder recommendations to BPV III Standards Committee and its Executive Committee regarding the strategic direction and development across all divisions of Section III

- Provides input on overall BPV III direction, focus, and priorities

- Conduit between the Standards Committee and stakeholder senior management

- Information on key nuclear facility construction issues

- Conducts periodic meetings with BPV III leadership (every 9 to 12 months)

Membership

- Currently about 25 members

- N Certificate Holders

- Advanced Reactor Vendors

- Organizations (EPRI & NEI)

ESAC is always interested in new members

- Feel fee to discuss membership with us

- Interested in International Participation 69

Future Meeting Planning

The next periodic stakeholder meetings are scheduled for December 7, 2023, and January 24, 2024.

Potential topics for our next meeting include Selection of a Seismic Scenario for an EPZ Boundary Determination, and Final Rule on Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies.

If you have suggested topics, please reach out to Ramachandran Subbaratnam at Ramachandran.Subbaratnam@nrc.gov.

70

How Did We Do?

Click link to NRC public meeting information:

https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details&Code=20230810

Then, click link to NRC public feedback form:

71

ML23297A267

Text

Enclosure:

Navigation menu

Search