Text

October 25, 2023, Master Slide Deck Ver 1.0 - Final - Incorporating Steves Mtg Comments
	ML23337A001
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/25/2023
From:	Subbaratnam R; NRC/NRR/DANU/UARP
To:	;
References
	Download: ML23337A001 (72)
	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 Applications NRC 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 Security Administration 3S (safety, security, and safeguards) Principles NRC 11:35-12:00 pm Metallic Fuel Qualification NRC 12:00-1:00 pm LUNCH BREAK 1:00 - 1:50 pm International Regulatory Efficiency NEI 2

2

Time Agenda (Connued)

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

Work on more than 35 policy issues created more than 60 guidance documents.

10 NRC/DOE MOUs focused on advanced reactor collaboration.

Canada collaboration generated more than 10 work plans, 8 NRC/CNSC joint reports.

Completed more than 10 advanced reactor design reference models to make future assessments more efficient.

Established core review teams of 8-10 technical staff per application, based on recent new reactor review experience.

Completed more than 90 topical report/white paper reviews 33% faster than the generic schedule goal.

More than 140 public engagements per year on advanced reactor-related topics Completed Kairos construction permit safety review 50%

faster than the generic schedule goal.

The NRCs strategic transformation and modernization enables the safe deployment of ADVANCED REACTORS Statistics since 2018 NRC Advanced Reactor Ready Statistics since 2018 NRCs Advanced Reactor Readiness By the Numbers 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. 16 (supporting documents for this meeting at ML23283A092) 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: 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 Standard Content 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

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 Moving forward 27

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

Front-end of the Fuel Cycle NEW FUELS Back-end of the 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 Security Safety Safeguards 31 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

NUREG/CR-7305, Fuel Assessment Using NRC NUREG-2246, Fuel Qualification for Advanced Reactors James Corson Walter Williams

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 34

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 35

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 36

Areas of Focus

Geometric Evolution

Fuel Constituent Migration

Fuel Properties

Cladding Integrity/Barrier Degradation

Fission Product Behavior/Source Term

Transients

These points were identified as the main factors for defining an operating envelope and developing an assessment criteria

Investigated through experimentation and modeling 37

Geometric Evolution

Fuel Constituent Migration

Fuel Properties Cl ddi I t it /B i

Fuel column swelling does affect reactivity, but is well known and stabilizes Radial strain largely accommodated for by smear density and thought to be predictable Large database of experiments available.

Additional work needed to illustrate model/experiment agreement or illustrate trends in the experiment data.

38

Geometric Evolution

Fuel Constituent Migration

Fuel Properties

Cladding Integrity/Barrier Degradation Redistribution is not shown to limit fuel performance.

It will affect thermal conductivity and fuel swelling, but mechanistic understanding, while available, is not yet needed for a safety case FCCI is propagated by the redistribution and is the limiting fuel performance phenomena 39

Fuel Constituent Migration

Fuel Properties

Cladding Integrity/Barrier Degradation

Fission Product Behavior/Source Term Porosity and redistribution will affect thermal conductivity (TC), yield strength, and solidus temperature TC remains favorable, even without known Na infiltration Yield strength favors fission gas release to plenum and dimensional stability with proper smear density Solidus temperature limited by FCCI rather than bulk constituents 40

Fuel Constituent Migration

Fuel Properties

Cladding Integrity/Barrier Degradation

Fission Product Behavior/Source Term Thermal expansion and Youngs modulus are well known and predictable (Further bolsters geometric stability case) 41

Fuel Properties

Cladding Integrity/Barrier Degradation

Fission Product Behavior/Source Term

Transients 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 degradation and pin failure FCCI may thin the cladding and lower eutectic melting temperature.

While not a concern for steady state below 10at.% BU, the response and behavior under transients requires more investigation 42

Cladding Integrity/Barrier Degradation

Fission Product Behavior/Source Term

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

However, source term and inventory are well known and calculated for steady state.

Transient response remains and area requiring additional research 43

Fission Product Behavior/Source Term

Transients Transient testing has been done and identified 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 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.

44

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 45

LUNCH 46

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

9. Industry will need to develop flexible designs that are both standardized and adaptable Fast Followers First Mover Success Regulatory Efficiency Siting Availability Public Engagement Supply Chain Ramp-up Workforce Development 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

1. Government policies are equitable for nuclear and fully funded

2. Policies support industrys implementation of project best practices

3. Building education and comfort in the investment community

4. Decisions that support industrys achieving de-risking milestones

5. Actions that support industrys pursuit of standardization of fleets

6. Regulatory reform and modernization

7. Congress and Parliament to enable regulatory reform

10. Governments enable early engagement of public in processes

11. Enable communities to more effectively engage the industry on advanced reactors

12. Collaborative engagement of Indigenous peoples

13. Congress and DOE establish programs to assure access to fuel

14. Government support for prototyping novel components early in design

15. Government programs support industrys action to establishes programs to recruit, train and retain workers Source: Advanced Reactor Roadmap, https://publicdownload.epri.com/PublicAttachmentDownload.svc/AttachmentId=83812 48

©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 49 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 Two Recent Reports - September 2023

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 recent experience)

The Need for Nuclear Now Source: IAEA Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power 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 52 License applications could be more than regulators can currently process Unnecessary duplication of effort in regulatory reviews for localization of previously approved designs Unnecessarily long times and high costs to license safe designs Limit regulatory throughput Inhibit ability to license in many countries 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 U.S. Licensing Durations and Costs Type1 Duration2 Cost3 DC 3 to 4 years (4 to 9)

$45M to $68M COL 2.5 to 3.5 years (4)

$28M to $30M ESP 2 years (3 to 6)

$6M to $19M 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 3)

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

=> $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 Challenges Driving Need for International Regulatory Efficiency

©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 54 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 Vision for International Regulatory Efficiency

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 Experience in Nuclear Regulatory Harmonization

©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 56 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 International Regulatory Efficiency - Learning from Experience

1) https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/international-cooperation/nrc-cnsc-moc.html

©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 57 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 Key Lessons and Successes

©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 58 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 However; Maximum Reciprocity should not be forgotten as a long-term aspiration

©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 60 Canadian and United States Regulatory Cooperation for New Nuclear Deployment: Recommendations for the Implementation of the International Regulatory Efficiency Framework

©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 61 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.

©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 62 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

1) Domestic Preparedness Potential for international efficiency is dependent on achieving domestic regulatory efficiency

1) NEI Letter to NRC, Input on Regulatory Priorities, June 7, 2022;

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

©2023 Nuclear Energy Institute 64 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 NRC Cooperation with International Regulators Consistent with NRC Mission

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

3) Assistance to Potential Host Countries

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

4) Codes and Standards Alignment of international codes and standards enables greater regulatory efficiency

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

5) Design Standardization

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)

Summary Recommendations

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 70

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.

71

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:

72

ML23337A001

Text

Enclosure:

Navigation menu

Search