ML23346A231
| ML23346A231 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/19/2023 |
| From: | NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML23346A231 (1) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+++++
HEARING ON CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR KAIROS POWER TESTING FACILITY (HERMES): SECTION 189A OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT PROCEEDING (Public Meeting)
+++++
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2023
+++++
The Commission met in the Commissioners' Hearing Room, at 9:00 a.m. EDT, Christopher T. Hanson, Chair, presiding.
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
CHRISTOPHER T. HANSON, Chair DAVID A. WRIGHT, Commissioner ANNIE CAPUTO, Commissioner (by Video Teleconference)
BRADLEY R. CROWELL, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:
TOMAS HERRERA, Acting Secretary to the Commission BROOKE CLARK, General Counsel
2 NRC STAFF:
JEREMY BOWEN, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
ALEXANDER CHERESKIN, NRR PEYTON DOUB, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)
TAMSEN DOZIER, NMSS KENNETH ERWIN, NMSS MICHELLE HART, NRR ED HELVENSTON, NRR WILLIAM JESSUP, NRR DONALD PALMROSE, NMSS CHRISTOPHER REGAN, NMSS MOHAMED SHAMS, NRR ALEXANDRA SIWY, NRR ROBERT TAYLOR, NRR CHRIS VAN WERT, NRR MEGAN WRIGHT, Office of the General Counsel ALSO PRESENT:
ED BLANDFORD, Kairos Power LLC PETER HASTINGS, Kairos Power LLC MIKE LAUFER, Kairos Power LLC RYAN LIGHTY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius PER PETERSON, Kairos Power LLC
3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 8:57 a.m.
3 CHAIR HANSON: I call this hearing to order. I want to 4 welcome the applicant, Kairos Power, LLC, the NRC staff, members of the 5 public in the room with us, and those who are observing remotely.
6 I'd like to welcome Commissioner Caputo, as well. She's 7 going to be joining us remotely, and participating throughout the day.
8 And I'm glad to see that one of the legacies of the pandemic 9 is the agility and nimbleness in the use of technology in this regard. And, I'm 10 glad that she's able to join us in this way.
11 The Commission convenes today to conduct an evidentiary 12 hearing on Kairos' application for a construction permit for the Hermes Test 13 Reactor.
14 The construction permit if approved, would authorize the 15 construction of the Hermes Test Reactor, a fluoride, salt-cooled high 16 temperature reactor using TRi-structural isotopic, or TRISO fuel in pebble form, 17 at the East Tennessee Technology Park, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
18 The construction permit does not authorize operation of the 19 reactor. That will require a subsequent operating license application.
20 This hearing is required under Section 189(a) of the Atomic 21 Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Commission also will be reviewing the 22 adequacy of the NRC staff's environmental impact analysis, under the National 23 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, otherwise known as NEPA.
24 For those tuning in today, mandatory hearings represent a 25 long history of commitment to transparency at the NRC.
4 1 They were made a statutory requirement by Congress, and 2 implemented by the NRC to assure that the public is aware of, and engaged in 3 agency decision making on major projects under our jurisdiction.
4 Today, the Commission will question witnesses involved in 5 the design, and review of this test reactor, and deliberate openly on key topics 6 concerning the construction permit application.
7 The general order of the hearing is as follows. First, I will 8 address procedural matters associated with the swearing in of witnesses, and 9 the admission into the record of the parties' exhibits.
10 Kairos and the NRC staff will then provide testimony in 11 witness panels, that provide an overview of the application, as well as address 12 safety and environmental topics associated with its review, with Commission 13 questions following each panel.
14 The Commission expects to issue a decision after the hearing 15 promptly, with due regard to the complexity of the issues.
16 In order to issue a construction permit, the Commission must 17 make certain specific safety and environmental findings.
18 With regard to safety, the Commission will determine in 19 accordance with 10 CFR 50.35(a), first whether the applicant has described the 20 proposed design of the facility, including the principle architectural and 21 engineering criteria for the design.
22 And, whether the applicant has identified the major features, 23 or components, incorporated therein, for the protection of health and safety of 24 the public.
25 Second, whether such further technical or design information
5 1 as may be required to complete the safety analysis, and which can be 2 reasonably left for later consideration, will be supplied in the final safety 3 analysis report.
4 Third, whether safety features or components, if any, that 5 require research and development, have been described by the applicant, and 6 the applicant has identified, and there will be conducted a research and 7 development program, reasonably designed to resolve any safety questions 8 associated with such features, or components.
9 And fourth, whether on the basis of the foregoing, there is 10 reasonable assurance that such safety questions will be satisfactorily resolved 11 at or before the latest, the latest date stated in the application for completion of 12 the construction of the proposed facility.
13 And, taking into consideration the site criteria contained in 10 14 CFR Part 100, the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the 15 proposed location, without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
16 In making these findings, the Commission will also be guided 17 by the considerations in 10 CFR Section 50.40, which include the Commission's 18 opinion as to whether the issuance of the construction permit will not be inimical 19 to the common defense of security, or to the health and safety of the public.
20 With regard to environmental considerations, in 10 CFR 21 51.105(a), the Commission will first determine whether the requirements of the 22 National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, Sections 102(2)(a), 8, and (e),
23 and the applicable regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, have been met.
24 Second, independently consider the final balance among 25 conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding, with a view to
6 1 determining then appropriate action to be taken.
2 Third, determine after weighing the environmental economic, 3 technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and 4 considering reasonable alternatives, whether the construction permit should, on 5 the basis of the environmental review be issued, denied, or appropriately 6 conditioned.
7 And fourth, determine whether the NEPA review conducted 8 by the NRC staff has been adequate.
9 This meeting is open to the public, and we do not anticipate 10 the need to close the meeting to discuss non-public information.
11 If a party believes that the response to a question may require 12 reference to non-public information, then that party should answer the question 13 to the extent practicable, with information in the publicly available record, and 14 file any non-public response promptly after the hearing on the non-public 15 docket.
16 I would now ask whether my fellow commissioners have any 17 opening remarks they'd like to make.
18 Commissioner Wright?
19 Commissioner Caputo?
20 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: No.
21 Commissioner Crowell?
22 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: No.
23 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you.
24 We will now proceed to the swearing in of witnesses, 25 beginning with Kairos. Would the Kairos and NRC counsel please come to the
7 1 table?
2 (Pause.)
3 Kairos counsel, please introduce yourself.
4 MR. LIGHTY: Good morning, Chair Hanson and 5 Commissioners. My name is Ryan Lighty, with the law firm of Morgan Lewis 6 and Bockius, appearing as counsel of record for Kairos Power.
7 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you.
8 Mr. Lighty, would you please read the names of Kairos' 9 witnesses? Each witness should stand as his or her name is read, and remain 10 standing.
11 MR. LIGHTY: Yes, we present the following witnesses in 12 alphabetical order.
13 Steve R.
14 Edward Blandford.
15 Martin Bryan.
16 Anthony Silia.
17 Matthew Denman.
18 Oded Duron.
19 Antonio Fernandez.
20 Darrell Gardner.
21 Laurie Gross.
22 Micah Hackett.
23 Jordan Hageman.
24 Peter Hastings.
25 Brandon Haw.
8 1 Alan Crizenga.
2 Mike Laufer.
3 Drew Peebles.
4 Per Peterson.
5 Nader Satba.
6 Brian Song.
7 Kevin Taylor.
8 And, Nicholas Zwibab.
9 Thank you.
10 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you.
11 Would you please all raise your right hand while I read the 12 oath?
13 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will provide in 14 this proceeding, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
15 Thank you. Are there any witnesses who did not take the 16 oath?
17 All right, thank you. You all may be seated.
18 NRC counsel, are there any objections to including the 19 witness list as part of the record?
20 MS. WRIGHT: No objections.
21 CHAIR HANSON: Excellent. In the absence of objections, 22 the witness list is admitted into the record.
23 Next, we'll turn to Kairos' exhibits. Kairos counsel, are there 24 any changes to the previously supplied exhibit list?
25 MR. LIGHTY: No changes to the exhibit list.
9 1 CHAIR HANSON: Excellent.
2 Please read the range of numbers of the exhibits to be 3 admitted.
4 MR. LIGHTY: As shown on Kairos' October 12, 2023 Exhibit 5 List, Kairos submitted Exhibits KRS-001 through KRS-006.
6 CHAIR HANSON: Excellent, thank you.
7 Is there a motion to admit the exhibits into the record?
8 MR. LIGHTY: Yes, Kairos moves to admit Exhibits KRS-001 9 through KRS-006 into the hearing record.
10 CHAIR HANSON: Excellent.
11 NRC counsel, are there any objections to the admission of the 12 exhibits, and the exhibit list as part of the record?
13 MS. WRIGHT: No objections from staff.
14 CHAIR HANSON: In the absence of the objections, the 15 exhibits and the exhibit list are admitted into the record.
16 (Whereupon, the above-referred to documents were received 17 into the record as Kairos Exhibit Nos. KRS-001 through KRS-006.)
18 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you.
19 We'll now turn to the presentation and the NRC staff's 20 witnesses. NRC counsel, please introduce yourself.
21 MS. WRIGHT: Good morning, I'm Megan Wright, counsel for 22 NRC staff.
23 CHAIR HANSON: Please read the names of the staff's 24 witnesses. Each witness should stand as his or her name is read, and remain 25 standing.
10 1 MS. WRIGHT: Susan Ani, Suzanne Ani.
3 Odinio Ayabusi.
4 Andrew Biellen.
5 Jeremy Bowen.
6 Alexander Churaskin.
7 Kevin Chung.
8 Samuel Quadrato de Jesus.
9 Amitava Gosh.
10 Michelle Hart.
11 Sean Harwell.
12 Edward Halvinston.
13 Matthew Heiser.
14 William Jessup.
15 Twan Lei.
16 Kenneth Mott.
17 Jay Robinson.
18 Prabin Sawant.
19 Jason Chapparell.
20 Kenneth Si.
21 Mohammed Shams.
22 Alexander Sewi.
23 Sara Tibetiby.
24 Robert Taylor.
25 Chris Van Wort.
11 1 Jason White.
2 Peyton Daub.
3 Tammy Dozier.
4 Kenneth Irwin.
5 Joseph Jacinto.
7 And, Christopher Regan.
8 CHAIR HANSON: Please raise your right hand while I, while I 9 read the oath.
10 Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will provide in 11 this proceeding, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
12 Okay. Are there any witnesses who did not take the oath?
13 Okay, thank you, you may be seated.
14 Kairos counsel, are there any objections to including the 15 witness list as part of the record?
16 MR. LIGHTY: No objections.
17 CHAIR HANSON: In the absence of the objections, the 18 witness list is admitted into the record.
19 Now we'll turn to the staff's exhibits. Counsel, are there any 20 changes to your exhibit list?
21 MS. WRIGHT: No changes.
22 CHAIR HANSON: Please read the range of numbers of the 23 exhibits to be admitted.
24 MS. WRIGHT: Okay, NRC 001 through NRC 011.
25 CHAIR HANSON: Is there a motion to admit the exhibits into
12 1 the record?
2 MS. WRIGHT: So moved.
3 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you.
4 Kairos counsel, are there any objections to the admission of 5 the exhibits, and the exhibit list into the record?
6 MR. LIGHTY: No objections.
7 CHAIR HANSON: In the absence of the objections, the 8 exhibits and the exhibit list are admitted into the record.
9 (Whereupon, the above-referred to documents were received 10 into the record as NRC Staff Exhibit Nos. NRC 001 through NRC 011.)
11 CHAIR HANSON: For our first, and I think that brings us to 12 the end of the formalities. It's all a formality, I suppose, but.
13 MS. WRIGHT: Thank you.
14 CHAIR HANSON: Or, it's formal, in any event. So, thank you 15 both, counsel.
16 For our first presentation, Kairos will provide an overview of 17 it's application. Next, the staff will provide an overview of their review and key 18 regulatory findings.
19 After each overview panel, we will have a round of questions 20 from the Commissioners. For the two subsequent presentations, the safety 21 panel and the environmental panel, first Kairos and then the staff will testify, 22 followed by an opportunity for the Commission to pose questions to both 23 parties.
24 The Commissioners will have an opportunity to bank their 25 time as they see fit, to focus on particular questions.
13 1 And, we will rotate the order of questioning throughout the 2 day.
3 I will remind witnesses of this panel, and other panels who will 4 appear before us throughout the day, that they remain under oath, and that the 5 Commission is familiar with the pre-hearing filings.
6 As a general comment to all panels, if an individual comes to 7 the podium to respond to a question or otherwise speak, approach the podium 8 and wait to be recognized.
9 And to be sworn in, if not previously sworn.
10 Thank you.
11 I'll now as the panelists from Kairos, to please introduce 12 themselves. Please proceed.
13 MR. LAUFER: All right, good morning. Do we have the 14 slides, or just do introductions?
15 Sure, my name is Mike Laufer. I'm the CEO and co-founder 16 of Kairos Power.
17 MR. BLANDFORD: Good morning, my name is Ed Blandford.
18 I'm the co-founder's Chief Technology Officer.
19 MR. PETERSON: Good morning, I am Per Peterson. I am 20 the Chief Nuclear Officer. And a co-founder.
21 MR. HASTINGS: And, I am Peter Hastings, Vice-President, 22 Regulatory Affairs and Quality.
23 CHAIR HANSON: You can proceed with your overview 24 presentation.
25 MR. LAUFER: Very good.
14 1 Good morning, thank you Chair Hanson, and thank you 2 Commissioners for the opportunity to present the overview of Kairos Power.
3 And, it's an exciting day to be here for this hearing.
4 We just introduced ourselves, so I'll be presenting an 5 overview of Kairos Power, our vision, and in particular, how the Hermes 6 Reactor fits into our broader goal of commercializing our technology.
7 Are the slides available? Here we go.
8 All right, next slide, please.
9 At Kairos, we have a habit of beginning every presentation 10 with our mission statement. That mission is to enable to world to transition to 11 clean energy, with the ultimate goal of dramatically improving people's quality of 12 life, while protecting the environment.
13 It's what everyone in the company is focused on every day.
14 And, at a high level, it keeps us focused on making sure that we're working on 15 the technology, which is both affordable and safe, as we believe that those are 16 the attributes that are necessary for technology to be scalable, and to enable 17 that clean energy transition.
18 Next slide, please.
19 This is a brief overview of some of the important high-level 20 characteristics of Kairos Power.
21 So, we are a growing company in terms of both scope, and 22 size. But we are focused on engineering, design, manufacturing, and testing of 23 one, technology, and that is the fluoride, salt-cooled high temperature reactor.
24 As mentioned, it's a novel combination of TRISO coated 25 particle fuel, as well as molten salt coolant, specifically FLiBe.
15 1 We were founded in late 2016. We're coming up on seven 2 years of operation, so we're relatively newcomer to the space, but we have 3 been growing quickly.
4 We're over 360 employees, and the vast majority are focused 5 on engineering and technology development within the company.
6 In terms of our approach, we believe that a novel approach to 7 developing nuclear technology for both speed and reducing cost, is necessary.
8 And so, we've looked at other examples and as part of that 9 process, we've incorporated two aspects, which we think are fundamental to 10 our development effort, and they permeate through everything that we do.
11 And those are really a focus on iterative hardware 12 demonstrations that works at all scales from the specific component level 13 development, all the way through the large-scale systems such as the Hermes 14 Reactor.
15 And combining that with a strong development of in-house 16 manufacturing, and vertical integration.
17 And those two strategies are very much complimentary, and 18 we believe provide a huge number of advantages both in terms of the ability to 19 accelerate development, as well as reduce the cost of the system, which we 20 believe are necessary to achieve our mission.
21 In terms of our commercial objectives, we are focused on the 22 U.S. electricity market in the long term. And, our goal is to be competitive with 23 natural gas in that market.
24 All right, next slide, please.
25 Kairos Power, in order enable that development approach,
16 1 requires a novel set of infrastructure and facilities.
2 And so we've been investing heavily over the past seven 3 years, to build that infrastructure. And, this is the current geographic footprint of 4 Kairos Power.
5 So, working from west to east, our headquarters are in 6 Alameda, California. We have a large engineering staff there, as well as two of 7 our laboratory facilities.
8 The R Lab, or Rapid Lab, which is focused on rapid, iterative 9 development with simulant fluids.
10 We also have the S Lab, which is the first modern facility 11 working with FLiBe. And that facility is focused on chemistry tests, as well as 12 material testing at smaller scale.
13 We also have manufacturing capabilities there supporting 14 both the local testing activities, as well as producing larger scale components 15 for our testing facilities in other locations.
16 And, will be producing components for the Hermes Reactor 17 itself.
18 Continuing east, our facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico, KP 19 Southwest location. We have large scale testing and manufacturing facilities in 20 that location, including the engineering test unit, which is currently in hot 21 operations and is the largest FLiBe system ever built and operated, that we 22 have at that facility there.
23 We also have a growing capability in the manufacturing side 24 at the location, and that campus will be producing a significant portion of the 25 components and modular assemblies, that will be used for the construction of
17 1 the Hermes Reactor.
2 Moving east, we have Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which is of 3 course, the site of the Hermes Reactor at East Tennessee Technology Park.
4 We also have a small office in Charlotte, which is focused on 5 licensing activities.
6 With Materion, we have a partnership with them. They're our 7 supplier of beryllium fluoride for our salt.
8 We have a facility there which is producing FLiBe for our 9 testing facilities, which is operational today. Then we also have a small lab 10 focused on instrumentation development in Rexford, New York.
11 Next slide, please.
12 So, in a grand sense what Kairos is working on in terms of our 13 specific work streams and how they connect to our commercial strategy, the 14 main product that Kairos is producing right now is not a commercial reactor, as 15 the Hermes Reactor is a test reactor.
16 But the Hermes Reactor serves a very important role in our 17 commercial strategy, and that's primarily to establish costs around the 18 technology basis.
19 And so, we're very focused on systematically reducing the set 20 of risks that we feel provide a significant amount of cost uncertainty in the 21 space.
22 And, the Hermes Reactor is just a very important role to 23 resolving that.
24 So, it is our core belief that there are four components that 25 play a very important role in introducing cost certainty into a project.
18 1 They include technology certainty, licensing certainty, supply 2 chain and manufacturing uncertainty, and as well as build uncertainty.
3 And it's our core belief that any one of these has the capability 4 to sink a project, and have a project fail in terms of the ability to control costs.
5 And so, we're focused on managing costs and risks across all 6 of these activities.
7 In terms of Kairos' work streams on the left side, we're 8 focused on five major areas. We have our FHR design process and 9 engineering programs, and our testing program.
10 This is a design build test process which I'll describe in a 11 moment, focused on iterative development.
12 We have our licensing activity, so obviously that's a focus 13 here of the hearing today. And we have parallel development for fuel 14 production and salt development, as well.
15 Next slide, please.
16 So, this is a slide which is fundamental to essentially 17 everything that Kairos is doing, and permeates the company not just on the 18 technical side, but also through all of our programs.
19 So, we do believe fundamentally, that we need to take a novel 20 approach to how we develop and implement nuclear technology.
21 This is, the top of the slide shows what we view as kind of the 22 conventional nuclear development cycle.
23 It's this very long, very expensive plan-design-build cycle.
24 And, the unfortunate reality is that in this long capital intensive cycle, the ability 25 to get the test experience back and use that to improve the technology, is very
19 1 slow, and only happens a few times over the course of generations.
2 So, Kairos is very much focused on reducing both the time 3 scales, and the cost associated with getting that test experience back, and 4 having it feed back in.
5 And, the Hermes Reactor is the culmination of a lot of smaller 6 iterative development loops around the component development, system 7 development, as well as significant non-nuclear tests to achieve that.
8 So, this is working at many different scales, but it really 9 permeates virtually everything that Kairos is doing.
10 And, we have a number of strategies to help enable it. It's 11 also complimented by the in-house manufacturing that we're establishing as 12 well.
13 That's a key accelerant for this process, and one that we've 14 found to be invaluable.
15 Next slide, please.
16 So as I mentioned, the iterative development process 17 operates at many different scales from individual components, all the way up to 18 the large scale hardware systems.
19 This is Kairos' roadmap, and a description of all the facilities 20 that we plan to develop on our pathway to our first commercial plant.
21 On the upper right, we call that the KP-X. But starting down 22 from the bottom left, we have a series of non-nuclear engineering test units, 23 ETU 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0.
24 This was foundational for our strategy that in order to move 25 quickly with hardware development, we needed to do this with non-nuclear
20 1 systems.
2 And scaling those up to larger scale systems to prove their, 3 both their functionality and reliability.
4 So ETU 1.0 as I mentioned, it's currently in hot operations in 5 Albuquerque, New Mexico, at our testing facility.
6 And as I said, it is the largest FLiBe system ever built and 7 operated. Larger, more salt than any facility used by Oak Ridge historically 8 back in the 60s.
9 ETU 2.0 is currently in the build phase where we're making 10 components for that system, as well as starting to assemble modules.
11 It will be installed in the same facility as ETU 1.0 after we 12 decommission that facility next year.
13 ETU 3.0 is in the planning phases. Right now the high level 14 objectives for that facility are really to provide a platform for the integration of 15 the reactor systems, as well as the civil structural components, in order to build 16 that confidence in the ability to construct the facility.
17 And it's currently in the planning phases.
18 After the ETU sequence, we'll proceed to the Hermes Reactor 19 series. Hermes is the focus of this hearing today, but we also plan to build on 20 that experience with the Hermes 2 Reactor.
21 We submitted a construction permit for that facility this 22 summer. It's been accepted and docketed, and it's starting the review process, 23 which we hope will be very efficient and build on the experience of the Hermes 24 1.
25 Also just set important precedent for confidence both for
21 1 Kairos, and for our future customers.
2 Following the Hermes Reactor series, we'll repeat that series 3 going back to the scale up of the technology at the non-nuclear level for our U 4 facility, which will serve a lot of the same functions of the ETU series, but for the 5 larger scale commercial reactors.
6 And eventually our goal to deploy commercial reactors as 7 close to 2030 as possible, so we can be ready to scale for commercial 8 deployment in the 2030s.
9 All right, next slide, please.
10 I'll now hand the mic over to Per Peterson, our Chief Nuclear 11 Officer, who will describe a bit more about the, the Hermes Reactor technology.
12 MR. PETERSON: Thank you, Mike, and thank you 13 Commissioners for the opportunity to present an overview of Hermes.
14 My name is Per Peterson, and I am the Chief Nuclear Officer 15 at Kairos Power. I will start off with a discussion of the purpose of the Hermes 16 Reactor.
17 Kairos is deploying Hermes to demonstrate the capability to 18 deliver low-cost nuclear heat using a low-power demonstration reactor.
19 The graphic on the right shows the approximate scale 20 comparison of the ETU series that Mike has discussed, and the Hermes versus 21 the size of a full scale commercial reactor.
22 You can see that Hermes is a much smaller system and it is, 23 it is intentionally the smallest you can make in FHR.
24 The rapid development approach that Mike just expanded on, 25 will help us use this reactor facility to demonstrate cost certainty, which we
22 1 establish a little more with each of our learning cycles.
2 Hermes will also allow us to exercise and initiate our supply 3 chain, for the first nuclear iteration of our development path.
4 Along the way, the design and testing iterations are retiring 5 significant amounts of technology risk for the commercial reactor.
6 This also applies to licensing and also very importantly, to 7 operations. The successful licensing of Hermes will provide a KP-FHR 8 precedent, and facilitate licensing certainty for the commercial scale reactor.
9 The Hermes facility will also demonstrate the operation of a 10 KP-FHR facility, including nuclear function such as reactor physics, fuel and 11 structural materials irradiation, and radiological controls.
12 Next slide, please.
13 This slide provides a high level overview of the Hermes 14 facility. The reactor is a KP-FHR that uses a fluoride salt as a reactor coolant, 15 which when combined with its robust fuel design, can be operated at high 16 temperatures and low pressures.
17 Specifically, the coolant operates at an approximate range of 18 temperature of 550 degrees C, to 650 degrees C. This is a much higher 19 temperature than the 320 degrees C of typical water-cooled reactors.
20 Moreover, water-cooled reactors operate at high pressure, 21 and this coolant is intrinsically low pressure, which means that the vessel can 22 be of thin-wall construction, which provides significant improvement and safety.
23 The fuel design consists of TRi-structural isotropic fuel 24 particles, also known as TRISO fuel, that are located in an annular region of a 25 graphite pebble.
23 1 TRISO fuel performance has been demonstrated in the DOE 2 advance gas reactor program, and is capable of retaining fission products up to 3 temperatures of 1,600 degrees C.
4 That's well above the melting temperature of typical metallic 5 structural materials, including steel.
6 The combination of this fuel and salt design provides a 7 significant margin-to-fuel failure, that allows a KP-FHR facility to take advantage 8 of different approaches to the design of structures, systems, and components, 9 which we'll be discussing on the safety panel later.
10 We plan to operate Hermes at 35 megawatts-thermal, with a 11 coolant operating temperature of around 600 degrees C. The reactor vessel is 12 316 stainless steel.
13 Hermes relies on passive safety systems to ensure the 14 fundamental safety functions are met, which includes the shutdown elements, 15 which insert by gravity, and a decay heat removal system, which does not rely 16 on active components but instead, relies on natural phenomena, such as 17 natural circulation, to remove decay heat.
18 Next slide, please.
19 The Hermes site is located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, within 20 the East Tennessee Technology Park. The Hermes facility will be located on 21 the former Department of Energy Gaseous Diffusion Plant, or K-33 building site.
22 This makes it a brown field.
23 Kairos chose this site because it had been previously been 24 disturbed, still has existing infrastructure, and is well characterized by the DOE.
25 And I should also mention, there's a fantastic work force
24 1 available in the area, and it's directly adjacent to one of our nation's very best 2 national labs.
3 Peter will discuss this further in the environmental panel.
4 The site boundary encompasses approximately 185 acres, 5 only 30 of which would be permanently disturbed for the operation of Hermes.
6 Next slide, please.
7 This slide provides a quick overview of the Hermes 8 construction permit application. Kairos developed the application using the 9 NRC guidance for non-power reactor applications in NUREG-1537.
10 The application was submitted in two parts, which is permitted 11 by 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5).
12 The first part of the application was the preliminary safety 13 analysis report, or PSAR, which we submitted in September of 2021. That 14 doesn't seem that long ago.
15 The second part was the Hermes environmental report, or 16 ER, which we submitted a month later in October of 2021.
17 During the staff's review of the construction permit application, 18 Kairos made several changes to the application content that ultimately resulted 19 in Revision 1 of the ER, which was submitted in March of this year.
20 And a Revision 3 of the PSAR, which was submitted in May of 21 this year.
22 The NRC staff issued an FSER on the PSAR in June of 2023, 23 and an FEIS on the ER in August of 2023.
24 This concludes our prepared remarks for the overview panel, 25 and we will be happy to take any questions from the Commission.
25 1 Thank you.
2 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you very much Mike and Per, and 3 everyone.
4 We're going to begin the order of questions this morning for 5 this panel. We'll begin with me, Commissioner Wright. We'll go to 6 Commissioner Caputo, and then Commissioner Crowell for this.
7 I'd like to start out asking some questions kind of about the, 8 along the lines of the technology development and iteration process, Mr. Laufer, 9 that you mentioned.
10 The duration of the Hermes license, operating license, would 11 only be four years. And, this is one of two testing facilities you've identified as 12 part of the Hermes demo series in your presentation.
13 How will you be utilizing the information from the actual 14 construction of the first Hermes, this, the one under consideration now, if the 15 facility is part of the kind of iterative approach that you outlined?
16 MR. LAUFER: Thank you, Chair Hanson.
17 So, over the period of Kairos' operations, we've gained a lot of 18 insights into how to effectively do the iterative process.
19 One of the most important components is to define the scope 20 very clearly in the objectives, for each major iteration.
21 And then to be disciplined to not let it creep and become 22 much more, which is something that happens pretty commonly in the nuclear 23 space.
24 So, some of those major decisions are like, or such as the 25 power level, what duration, the scope of testing for the facility.
26 1 So, for the Hermes Reactor, it's the first Hermes Reactor 2 we've made a number of deliberate decisions to simplify the scope of that 3 system, including what is the minimum lifetime that we need to achieve our 4 primary commercial and technical objectives for that facility.
5 We've determined that four years is an adequate time period 6 to achieve those operational goals.
7 And then, simplifying the architecture of the system, to simply 8 the technology development of different structure systems and components that 9 are necessary to deliver.
10 So, we've simplified the scope of Hermes 1. The operational 11 mission for Hermes 1 really comes from both the full life cycle of the facility.
12 So, there's the design, the licensing, and the build experience.
13 We do anticipate that there will be significant overlap in the construction 14 experience from Hermes 1 to Hermes 2.
15 They share a site. Part of the motivation to pursue the 16 construction permit application quickly for Hermes 2, was so that we can 17 mobilize appropriately between the projects, even though Hermes 2 is in a 18 much earlier state in terms of its development life cycle.
19 So, we do anticipate significant learning from the construction 20 between the two facilities. And in fact, it's kind of the other side.
21 ETU-3 which is in the planning stages, we expect to actually 22 it's fully merged with the Hermes work stream right now.
23 And so, we'll be working in parallel on ETU-3 build and 24 Hermes build, so that we have that parallel experience from that project to the 25 next one.
27 1 So, it's kind of working from the left side of the development 2 cycle, rather than from the right side of the development cycle.
3 CHAIR HANSON: Okay.
4 Well, your comment about scope creep I thought actually 5 leads into my next question I think fairly well, which from kind of both a 6 technology development standpoint and a regulatory standpoint, I guess.
7 I was interested in how, what advantages you saw or how 8 your thinking developed around anticipating building a new Hermes 2 right, that 9 would be a, to test electrical power production, rather than kind of build Hermes 10 1 and then add that, those systems on to that facility.
11 MR. LAUFER: Sure, so as I mentioned previously, part of the 12 process requires discipline to say no to things, and limit the scope.
13 And, part of that was, and also to change the plan when, 14 when something doesn't make sense, to eliminate it.
15 So, as probably people are aware, the initial application for 16 the Hermes preliminary safety analysis report, did include an intermediate loop.
17 And we subsequently submitted an amendment to remove 18 that. Part of that was simplifying the architecture of the system.
19 Not that it's a challenge that we don't think that we can, we 20 can accomplish in terms of establishing the systems that will work, but reducing 21 the scope allows our change to say focus on the most pressing development 22 needs.
23 And, that's really focused on the reactor system. So keeping 24 the developments on you know, as close to the reactor system as possible has 25 been our focus.
28 1 And as we work out from that, it's essentially that the 2 technology of it becomes more conventional.
3 So we're really focused on what are, what is unique about the 4 system.
5 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you.
6 And then finally, with the Hermes 1 and potentially Hermes 2 7 then, how are you thinking about, or anticipating the need to address multi-unit 8 risk as you move through this process?
9 MR. LAUFER: So, the approach to multi-unit risk between 10 Hermes 1 and Hermes 2, so there's multiple reactors at a site, but then there's 11 also multiple reactors that are connected to the same plant.
12 CHAIR HANSON: Uh huh.
13 MR. LAUFER: And so, in terms of the multiple reactors at the 14 site, the impact and the risk profile of each reactor individually, is quite small.
15 And so, I think that in the context of a historical understanding 16 of cumulative risk at the site, that's appropriate.
17 So, there's not much difference between having a small risk 18 profile for one reactor. It's a fairly logical extension to understand the risk 19 profile for multiple reactors.
20 In terms of the shared systems for multiple reactors, that's a 21 process that's under development.
22 For the Hermes 2 project, we've decided again to simplify and 23 keep any systems that would add complexity in terms of merging, or having 24 shared system between the sites. Or particularly around safety functions.
25 We've kept them separate and independent.
29 1 So, the Hermes 2 is essentially two copies of the Hermes 1 2 reactor and all of the associated safety systems.
3 And then there are a few systems which are logical to share, 4 and relatively simple to do so, and the arguments around the safety implications 5 of those are minor.
6 So we've integrated those systems. But one thing that's 7 important about the architecture of the system, the profile of the architecture 8 which is safety significant, or important to safety, is relatively small.
9 And so, moving out to the power conversion system, we have 10 very low safety significance for those systems.
11 And so, the ability to use the same fundamental safety case 12 from the Hermes 1 application to the Hermes 2 application, was a relatively 13 simple process because it wasn't changing really anything about the 14 fundamental safety case of the reactor system.
15 CHAIR HANSON: Got it. Thank you very much.
16 Mr. Peterson?
17 MR. PETERSON: If I might, the additional advantages of the 18 multi-unit configuration derive from the manufacturing side.
19 Because doing a series of three ETUs, and then three 20 Hermes reactors drives one towards a manufacturing set of processes, which 21 are focused on serial production.
22 Therefore, if your goal is to enable the world's transition to 23 clean energy, that involves manufacturing large numbers of reactors.
24 The ability to stand up manufacturing that is capable of that 25 type of serial production, rather than one-off customized hardware, which would
30 1 be normally what You're doing for a test reactor, is another major benefit of this 2 approach.
3 CHAIR HANSON: All right, thank you very, very much.
4 Commissioner Wright?
5 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, good morning to you.
6 So, the Chair just asked the question and I just to drill just a 7 little bit more on the iterative process stuff.
8 The whole purpose of this is to improve your, the construction 9 process for you in the end, right, I'm assuming?
10 And, is this helping also on your in-house manufacturing 11 techniques, too?
12 MR. LAUFER: Yes.
13 So, the iterative process applies not just to the hardware 14 demonstrations, but also to the manufacturing capabilities to deliver that.
15 So, through the ETU sequence, we are taking on an 16 increasing fraction of in-house manufactured components and modules.
17 So, this is something we track internally. Our targets for ETU-18 2 are 80 percent of the procurement should be raw materials are off the shelf.
19 And so, that requires a significant increase in the 20 manufacturing capabilities. And, the decision about what Kairos is bringing in-21 house, is really determined by three factors.
22 There's essentially the technology development required for 23 those, those components, the safety significance of those components, as well 24 as the kind of the importance of safety.
25 So, the quality requirements over laid on those are three of
31 1 the criteria that we use to determine what we'll take in-house.
2 And then, that's compared against the data that we have from 3 the ETUs in terms of what are significant drivers for costs, and schedules.
4 So, those are the factors that we use to determine. But our 5 manufacturing capabilities, as well as the quality programs, are kind of 6 increasing in capability all throughout that entire sequence.
7 And at this point, we'll be confident that the full capabilities, as 8 well as the quality programs, will be where they need to be for supporting 9 Hermes construction.
10 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Mr. Laufer, you also had a slide I 11 think earlier, that you kind of said that Hermes will ultimately demonstrate 12 whether the U.S. and by that, the NRC, has the aptitude to license an advanced 13 reactor, right? And in a timely manner.
14 So, given what you've seen so far in the construction 15 permitting process, do you, how do you feel about the operating license part of 16 it?
17 MR. LAUFER: So, I'm highly encouraged by the success that 18 I think both Kairos, and the NRC has had in this review process.
19 It's been a highly constructive technical dialogue between the 20 two, and I think we value the feedback and the questions from the staff.
21 And, in the review process for the construction permit, both 22 sides have been important to note important issues that we know will need to 23 be addressed when we get to the operating license phase.
24 So, at this point, I believe that we have a good understanding 25 about where we need to progress to the point of being ready to submit the
32 1 operating license, and are prepared to do so.
2 And we're working though the process to get there.
3 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Very good, thank you.
4 Per, you mentioned NUREG-1537 earlier. And apparently 5 we've used it for many types of reactors.
6 In your opinion, I guess, and Mike too, I guess, is it suitable, 7 has it been suitable for Hermes, or has there been any hiccups, or problems?
8 MR. PETERSON: Could I actually ask Peter to cover that 9 question?
10 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, so we believe it's been very successful.
11 And in fact, prior to our pivot to a test reactor as part of our deployment cycle, 12 we worked with the staff on what format and content for a non-light water 13 reactor would look like.
14 And, because it was in no one's interest to try to repurpose 15 NUREG-0800 to spend a lot of time within the review justify why You're not 16 addressing light water things that simply don't apply, we ended up with a 17 notional format and content structure for the commercial reactor, that actually 18 ended up looking a lot like NUREG-1537 does.
19 So when we pivoted to the test reactor, that transition was, 20 was virtually seamless. And, we believe it's been very efficient and has gone 21 very well.
22 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Very good, thank you for that.
23 So ahead of the hearing today, we got a letter from the City of 24 Oak Ridge, and it was complimenting both the NRC and Kairos for their 25 engagement on everything from permitting issues, to site characterizations.
33 1 And also, outreach during the environmental process.
2 So, based on what they feel and that letter what it said, I 3 mean, are there any best practices that You're going to be looking to continue 4 moving forward working with the city, and others?
5 MR. LAUFER: Sure.
6 So I'll also compliment our neighbors in Oak Ridge, as well as 7 the city and all of the officials there. They've been both very welcoming, and 8 also giving us lots of good questions.
9 So, we've been, well, I think that we've been following what 10 makes sense to us in terms of community engagement. Not just in Oak Ridge, 11 but at all of Kairos' locations where were operate.
12 We think that operating transparently and with the trust of the 13 local community is essential.
14 In Oak Ridge in particular, we've been engaging for I think 15 about two years basically just prior to the submittal of the application.
16 We've had a series of both, well, through the pandemic mostly 17 virtual, but also in-person meetings primarily focused on the nearest neighbors.
18 People who are in closest proximity to the site, as well as the 19 broader community.
20 And, the engagement has great. I think to date, we've 21 answered all questions. And in that community, you get a lot of very specific 22 technical questions given the connections to the lab, and we enjoy those.
23 But also the general questions broadly about what's, what are 24 we building, and what are we doing.
25 And I think that in general, the sense of the local community is
34 1 a lot of excitement about what Kairos is bringing, as well as how quickly we're 2 moving to, to get to that process.
3 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you very much. Mr.
4 Chair, I'm done.
5 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.
6 Commissioner Caputo?
7 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Good morning, thank you all for 8 being here, and thank you for the overview.
9 As I'm sure many of you are aware, the statutory 10 requirements to conduct an uncontested or mandatory hearing, predates the 11 creation of the NRC.
12 The value of these uncontested mandatory hearings has been 13 debated since they were first proposed.
14 For example, during a 1961 Joint Committee on Atomic 15 Energy hearing on radiation safety and regulation, Senator Anderson noted that 16 public mandatory hearings quote, furnish an inducement to the applicant and 17 the staff, to formulate their positions in terms as susceptible to the lay 18 understanding as possible, end quote.
19 And that doing so requires quote, the applicant and the staff 20 to sharpen up their thinking, end quote.
21 In response, the witness stated that quote, in large part, the 22 same purposes would be accomplished by the publication of the Atomic Energy 23 Commission staff analysis, end quote.
24 He went on to say quote, preparation of the AEC staff 25 analysis will force careful and complete thinking about the hazards, end quote.
35 1 A recent news article discussing NRC's mandatory hearing 2 process cited several sources that conclude that the mandatory hearings add 3 little value.
4 That said, it remains a legal requirement regardless of the 5 history of the mandatory hearings, or whether they have been overtaken by 6 subsequent events, such as increased transparency and agency activities 7 including robust public communication and meetings, and the differential, the 8 differing professional opinion and non-concurrence processes for agency staff.
9 Given the thoroughness of the staff's review, I find myself 10 without many questions to ask today, which as the staff will note, is unusual for 11 me.
12 I know that it takes a lot of work for both the applicant and the 13 staff not only to conduct a review, but in addition, to prepare for these 14 mandatory hearings. And, I would like to thank you for your preparation and for 15 being here today.
16 I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the written 17 statement from the interim city manager of the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 18 that Commissioner Wright mentioned, and thank him for his time in submitting 19 that statement to share the city's positive views.
20 Mr. Hastings, Kairos Power submitted a second application 21 for the two additional test reactors, Hermes 2, as has already been mentioned 22 today, which would be similar to the Hermes test reactor that's the subject of 23 this hearing.
24 Those reactors would also be located on the same site. Can 25 you talk about what if any, lessons learned from this application review, were
36 1 incorporated into that second application?
2 For example, if the staff requested additional information on a 3 topic in the review of this application, was that information proactively included 4 in the submission for Hermes 2?
5 MR. HASTINGS: Thank you, great question.
6 The short answer is yes. We did include many of the lessons 7 learned from the Hermes review, into the Hermes 2 application.
8 In fact, we worked with the staff on the specific format of the 9 Hermes 2 application, to make it as clear as possible what the differences are 10 between Hermes and Hermes 2, so as to facilitate an even more efficient 11 review for Hermes 2, than we have enjoyed for Hermes 1.
12 And, we look forward to working with the staff to make sure 13 that that process remains as efficient as possible by for example, the use of the 14 audit environment and a much quicker turnaround on responses to NRC staff 15 questions, than the more sort of bureaucratic RAI process.
16 That's one of the things that we helped the staff to pilot on the 17 Hermes application, with remarkable success.
18 So, we think that the efficiencies from Hermes will carry 19 forward into Hermes 2, to great effect.
20 And, we've seen that already with the staff's projection of a 21 fairly ambitious review schedule for the Hermes 2 application.
22 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you.
23 Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions for this panel. I'd 24 like to reserve my time for subsequent panels.
25 CHAIR HANSON: Of course. Thank you, Commissioner
37 1 Caputo.
2 Commissioner Crowell?
3 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank 4 you to everyone for being here today.
5 I'm going to kind of build off of Commissioner Caputo's 6 opening before she asked her questions about mandatory hearings.
7 And I, for the most part, I agree with her and think we need to 8 consider how we communicate, and the value of certain functions that have 9 historically been conducted at the NRC, and are required by the Atomic Energy 10 Act.
11 That said, I think the portion that gives me the most concern 12 is providing a layperson's understanding of these proceedings. And that, I 13 think, is a threshold we all still need to collectively work to achieve.
14 You have an advantage in doing your project in Oak Ridge, 15 with a fairly informed community. You know, at least compared to others that 16 don't have the history that Oak Ridge has.
17 So, Mr. Laufer, I'm going to ask you what sounds like a 18 softball question but is important that is answered well.
19 If You're speaking to an average citizen not in Oak Ridge, and 20 maybe one that's not living in a community that's had nuclear power, or are 21 familiar with these issues.
22 What would you say to assure them that your project is not 23 going to impact their public health, or their environment?
24 MR. LAUFER: Thank you, Commissioner.
25 It is a very important question, and one that as I said, is
38 1 important to be transparent and open in our communications with all the 2 communities we're engaged.
3 So, I think that for Kairos, the specific selection of this reactor, 4 which is different from conventional light water reaction technologies, really 5 comes down to the selection of the fuel and the coolant.
6 And they create a, what we believe is a uniquely robust, 7 intrinsic safety case for the reactor.
8 Essentially, that combination dramatically reduces the 9 possibility of the scope of bad things that can happen in the system.
10 And so, our safety objective is to maintain the integrity of that 11 combination. And if we do so, we have extremely high confidence that 12 essentially, there will be no consequences for the site.
13 And therefore, our obligation is actually not just as the reactor 14 developer, but as the owner-operator for the reliable operation of the plant. And 15 most importantly, for the protection of the plant operators.
16 And so, our perspective is the things that we need to do to 17 protect the investment, and to protect the operators, fully envelopes everything 18 that we need to do to ensure that the health and safety of the public is 19 protected.
20 And that's a core, that sense of responsibility is a core tenant 21 of Kairos itself. And I think is reflected in kind of our unique position not just as 22 the developer of the technology, but also as the owner and operator for the 23 Hermes facility.
24 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Understood, and I think that's 25 a decent explanation. I'm not sure my mom would understand it, so we could
39 1 probably sharpen it up a little bit.
2 But one thing I would add if you feel it's true, is that you know, 3 the government agency, the NRC charged with you know, ensuring that these, 4 that it's the public health and safety is protected, has kicked the tires on it every 5 which way and is in agreement upon it.
6 And I think that kind of belt and suspenders, that the entity 7 doing it, you guys and the regulator, have really done their due diligence is 8 important to emphasize, to the average person.
9 For whoever on the panel, one more question and whoever is 10 most appropriate. If you had to identify one major or most likely challenge to 11 completing construction, what do you think that would be today?
12 Is there something out there that gives you the most 13 heartburn?
14 MR. LAUFER: Sure.
15 So, I think for where we are today, I showed the geographic 16 footprint of where, where Kairos is operating. That only scratches the surface 17 of the full scope of activities that we're doing.
18 And, I think maybe looking back seven years ago in terms of 19 where we were then, and where we are now, I think we have full confidence in 20 our process, in our approach, in the technology.
21 And, we're confident that we can get to an answer to any 22 technical solution. I think the major challenge is the volume of work that needs 23 to be done.
24 So, I had mentioned the major work streams of what Kairos is 25 doing. We're committed to delivering reliable technology with significant cost
40 1 reductions.
2 And, we've taken on the responsibility to take on ourselves, 3 what is necessary to do that. And we've determined that it's necessary to take 4 on a lot.
5 And so, it's not that there's any single aspect of the path 6 which is challenging or daunting in itself, but the combination of everything, 7 which is probably our biggest challenge.
8 And of course everything, all of that has to come together for 9 Hermes, and in our perspective, doing it for a test reactor is a much simpler, 10 much more cheap of a process than trying to go up to a large scale commercial 11 facility for our first critical facility.
12 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Agreed, I think your business 13 models makes a lot of sense, and is probably going to be a big contributor to 14 your success, for the things that are within your control.
15 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
16 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell. Thank 17 you all very much from the Kairos panel on this overview.
18 I will now invite the staff to come to the table, and for their 19 overview of the application of the summary of their regulatory findings.
20 (Pause.)
21 CHAIR HANSON: Okay, I'd ask the panelists to please 22 introduce themselves.
23 MR. TAYLOR: Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. I'm 24 Rob Taylor, the Deputy Director for the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for 25 New Reactors.
41 1 MR. SHAMS: Good morning Chair and Commissioners.
2 Mohammed Shams, the Division Director for the Advanced Reactor Non-Power 3 Production Realization Facilities, NRR.
4 MR. REGAN: Good morning Chair and Commissioners, my 5 name is Christopher Regan. I'm the Director of the Division of Rulemaking 6 Environmental and Financial Support, in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety 7 and Safeguards.
8 MR. BOWEN: Morning Chair, Commissioners. My name's 9 Jeremy Bowen, I'm the Deputy Director for the Division of Advanced Reactors 10 Non-Power Production Utilization Facilities, and the NRR.
11 CHAIR HANSON: That's a mouthful.
12 MR. BOWEN: A mouthful.
13 CHAIR HANSON: All right, please proceed with your 14 presentation.
15 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. Next slide, please.
16 (Pause.)
17 MR. TAYLOR: Next slide.
18 Maybe we'll get going and the slides will catch up to us.
19 So, good morning Chair Hanson and Commissioners. I'm 20 grateful for the opportunity to be here today before you on the staff's review of 21 the Kairos Hermes construction permit application.
22 Next slide, please, slide 3.
23 With me at the table this morning are Mo Shams, Jeremy 24 Bowen, and Christopher Regan. This panel will discuss the NRC staff's 25 approach and findings for the safety and environmental review of the
42 1 application, and introduce the unique aspects of the review that will be 2 discussed further in the panels to follow.
3 Next slide, please.
4 In September 2021, Kairos Power submitted a construction 5 permit, or CP application under 10 CFR Part 50, for a non-power testing facility 6 known as Hermes.
7 Hermes is a molten salt-cooled pebble bed reactor designed 8 to demonstrate the Kairos Power fluoride high temperature reactor, or FHR, 9 technology.
10 Hermes would not produce electricity, but is designed to 11 operate for four years at a power level of 35 megawatts-thermal, to provide 12 insights into the design, construction, and operation of this novel technology.
13 Kairos intends to build this test reactor on the former site of 14 the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Tennessee.
15 Kairos is pursuing an iterative approach to designing and 16 demonstrating its FHR technology, through a series of planned non-nuclear and 17 nuclear test units.
18 This approach is designed to build experience, and reduce 19 commercial risk as Kairos progresses towards an eventual commercial design.
20 The Hermes reactor is Kairos' first nuclear test unit. In July 21 Kairos submitted a construction permit application for Hermes 2, which would 22 further advance demonstration of the FHR technology, and integrate electricity 23 production into the design.
24 From a safety perspective, the staff recognizes this is a 25 prudent approach to incrementally increase experience with, and knowledge of,
43 1 the technology while moving along the path to a full-scale power reactor.
2 Next slide, please.
3 The Hermes construction permit review represents a 4 significant achievement for the staff in the context of advanced reactor 5 technology development, commercialization, and licensing.
6 If the Commission grants the permit, Hermes would be the 7 first non-light water reactor to receive a permit or license, since 1973.
8 And from the staff's perspective, this review represents a 9 culmination of significant efforts to ready the agency for new and advanced 10 reactor applications.
11 The staff developed new modeling and simulation capabilities 12 to independently confirm the safety of these new designs, created new project 13 management, and communication tools to enhance the efficiency and openness 14 of the reviews.
15 Establish risks informed review guidance, and approaches to 16 enable safety focused reviews, assembled dedicated review teams to enable 17 timely and holistic reviews, and implemented agile management oversight at all 18 levels to sharpen focus on early resolution of issues.
19 These efforts were vile to the efficient and effective review of 20 the Hermes application, and the insights and lessons learned are being 21 incorporated in the current licensing reviews, and pre-application engagement 22 with potential future applicants.
23 For example, the staff is increasing management engagement 24 with the applicant to resolve outstanding questions for the Abilene Christian 25 University application, developing approaches to streamline the documentation
44 1 for the Hermes 2 review, and continuing to leverage risk insights to progress the 2 review of the NuScale standard design application.
3 As the interest in new and advanced reactors continues to 4 expand domestically, and internationally, the staff has committed to applying 5 experience from the Hermes review, to continuous self-improvement.
6 Likewise, the industry should benefit from assessing and 7 applying insights from the Hermes experience, to optimize future advance 8 reactor applications.
9 Next slide, please.
10 The Hermes review has provided the staff with valuable 11 experience in effectively applying Part 50 to advanced test reactor review.
12 The staff implemented its advance reactor licensing approach 13 and a risk informed manner, with the right safety focus.
14 The effectiveness of the staff safety review was confirmed by 15 the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, or ACRS, which 16 recommended issuance of the construction permit.
17 The staff's environmental review likewise, was thorough and 18 efficient in implementing the requirements of NEPA, and other environmental 19 laws and regulations.
20 The Hermes application review highlights that the NRC is 21 ready to license new and advanced reactors.
22 Our preparation has enabled us to docket a high quality 23 application, and complete a timely and cost effective review ahead of an 24 aggressive schedule, without compromising safety.
25 This remarkable performance is a result of dedicated staff
45 1 efforts, and a team that is ready and eager to continue to refine and optimize its 2 review strategies, as it approaches other licensing actions - applications.
3 Next slide, please.
4 This concludes my opening remarks, and Mo Shams will now 5 discuss the approach the staff used to review the Hermes construction permit 6 application.
7 MR. SHAMS: Thank you, Rob. Good morning, Chair Hanson 8 and Commissioners. It is my pleasure to be here today to share with you some 9 insights into the staff's review of the Hermes construction permit application. In 10 my remarks, I will provide an overview of the staff's review approach and will 11 discuss the drivers that enabled an efficient and effective review of this 12 application. Next slide, please.
13 Consistent with Kairos' request for a construction permit 14 under 10 CFR Part 50 regulations, the staff conducted the Hermes application 15 review in accordance with this regulatory framework. This process includes an 16 acceptance review, safety and environmental evaluations, a independent 17 assessment by the ACRS, and hearings. All are performed in support of the 18 Commission decision on a requested permit.
19 Upon the receipt of the application, and guided by the NRC's 20 principles of good regulation, the staff conducted a thorough acceptance 21 review. Which is, an objective initial assessment of the application to ensure it 22 contains sufficient information to perform an efficient and predictable licensing 23 review. The acceptance review are a key step in the process of new and 24 advanced reactor reviews, in that they underpin our best estimate for a review 25 schedule and needed resources. They also ensure the NRC staff has focused
46 1 it's resources on high quality applications.
2 Based on the Hermes acceptance review, the staff docketed 3 the application and established a 21-month schedule to issue the safety 4 evaluation and environmental impact statement. Both documents were officially 5 completed and issued ahead of the fast-track schedule, with the safety 6 evaluation published in June, followed by the environmental impact statement in 7 August of this year. Next slide, please.
8 In conducting an efficient and safety-focused review, the staff 9 leveraged established agency processes, augmented with new technologies, 10 and ensured the review effectively reflected the specific attributes of the 11 Hermes application and associated regulatory requirements. In that regard, the 12 staff focused it's review on ensuring the application provided the level of 13 information required for a test reactor at the construction permit stage, and 14 identified information needed in an operating license application to support 15 approving the design features and specifications.
16 In addition, the safety-focused review also guided the staff to 17 give specific special attention to design and operating characteristics, unusual 18 or novel design features, and principle safety considerations unique to the 19 application. Those included first-of-a-kind features, like the use of functional 20 containment, the application of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' 21 code provisions for high temperature materials, and the use of buoyant fuel 22 pebbles in the molten salt coolant.
23 Throughout review, when faced with novel issues, the staff 24 consistently embraced an entrepreneurial mind set and a solution-oriented 25 posture, raising questions early, seeking acceptable alternatives, identifying
47 1 flexibilities, and adapting past experiences to address the challenges.
2 For stakeholder engagement, the staff held several public 3 briefings with the ACRS to facilitate the Committee's independent review, 4 responding to questions, and highlighting key aspects of the review. In 5 addition, the staff ensured the public was kept informed of the progress of the 6 review by holding public meetings to support the engagements on both, the 7 safety and environmental reviews, updated the project dashboard to reflect the 8 status of the review, and assembled project documents to add a convenient 9 access on the Agency's public website.
10 The staff also leveraged it's safety evaluation and 11 environmental impact statement to modernize it's documentation of the review 12 and the regulatory findings, ensuring optimal balance between clarity and 13 conciseness. Next slide, please.
14 The Hermes application did not only encompass a review of a 15 novel reactor design, but it also afforded the staff the opportunity to implement a 16 number of best practices that enabled the staff to complete the review ahead of 17 schedule, and below the budget estimate. Central to the review efficiency is the 18 use of a core team approach. This approach empowers a group of experts to 19 focus their review on the greatest safety aspects of the design to enable timely, 20 efficient, and effective reviews. Indeed, the core team is supported by subject 21 matter experts from around the Agency, as needed to ensure a comprehensive 22 review of the application.
23 Another key factor in conducting an agile review is robust pre-24 application engagement with the applicant. Kairos engaged the staff in 25 extensive pre-application efforts, enabling the staff to review and approve 11
48 1 topical reports addressing critical topics, such as fuel performance and high 2 temperature material qualification. The staff also sought to optimize and 3 maximize the value of our communications with the applicant. In that regard, 4 the staff leveraged the audit process to engage directly with Kairos' technical 5 experts, supporting timely and effective exchange of information.
6 Equally important is the applicant responsiveness, and Kairos 7 was exemplary in that regard providing not only timely but complete responses 8 to staff questions. Well coordinated and appropriately focused engagements 9 with the Office of General Counsel and the ACRS are also critical to optimal 10 review schedules. Both groups demonstrated remarkable flexibility reviewing 11 material -- reviewing draft material, shifting schedules to support a dynamic 12 review, and enabling parallel activities to facilitate progress.
13 These strategies and others pay dividends in completing the 14 Hermes construction permit under an optimal schedule and cost control, and 15 they are forming the staff's approach for conducting agile reviews for other 16 advanced reactor technologies. The Hermes review also reinforces the critical 17 role of both, a high quality applicant and application in the success of a review.
18 Above all, the success of this review would not have been realized without the 19 remarkable effort of the exemplary group staff throughout the Agency, that 20 completed this review with commitment and dedication. And I'm immensely 21 humbled to be part of this team. Next slide, please.
22 This concludes my remarks. I will now turn the presentation 23 over to Jeremy Bowen, to provide additional insights into the staff's safety 24 review approach.
25 MR. BOWEN: Thanks, Mo. Good morning, again, Chair
49 1 Hanson and Commissioners. Next slide, please.
2 As you heard from Rob and Mo, the staff sought to optimize 3 the safety review of Kairos' application. One fundamental approach was to 4 consider the key design features of the Hermes test reactor in the future power 5 reactor design. Many of the features are significantly different from the 6 currently operating fleet of light-water reactors, and they provide additional 7 margin safety. Hermes is a pebble-bed reactor that uses a lithium, fluoride, 8 beryllium molten salt mixture as the primary coolant and heat transfer fluid.
9 This salt is commonly referred to as FliBe.
10 FliBe is chemically stable and has a high capacity for both, 11 transferring heat and retaining fission products. The fuel itself is compromised 12 of tri-structural isotropic, or TRISO, particles, which are designed and 13 manufactured to prevent the release of fission products. Individual TRISO 14 particles are embedded into a fuel layer within graphite fuel pebbles. These 15 fuel pebbles circulate through the core, and as they complete this transit they 16 are removed and inspected. This periodic pebble inspection not only allows for 17 analysis and confirmation of fuel burnup, it also provides an additional 18 mechanism to monitor for any safety concerns or pebble damage.
19 The picture on the right side of the screen shows a cross-20 section of a fuel pebble, and the picture on the left displays a cross-section of 21 the Hermes reactor and the flow path of the coolant. Regarding heat transfer, 22 although the reactor's normal operating temperature range is approximately 600 23 degrees Celsius, FliBe has a very high boiling point that is well above 1000 24 degrees Celsius. This enables the use of a low-pressure primary system which 25 significantly changes the characteristics and impacts of a loss-of-coolant
50 1 accident, essentially eliminating some of the concerns associated with the 2 energetic aspects of these accidents that are considered for light-water reactor 3 designs.
4 Furthermore, the heat transfer system and ultimate heat sink 5 for Hermes is simplified, and not required to be safety-related. After the FLiBe 6 passes through the core, it is circulated to an air-cooled radiator that rejects 7 heat to the atmosphere. In the event of an accident, Hermes has a safety-8 related, passive water-cooled heat decay removal system located in the reactor 9 cavity just outside the vessel. Each of these unique features will be discussed 10 in greater detail in safety panel later. Next slide, please.
11 In addition to considering the unique aspects of the Hermes 12 reactor, the staff approached the safety review from both, a risk-informed and a 13 holistic perspective. The scope and depth of the staff's evaluation of specific 14 structure systems and components was commensurate with their applicable 15 function in the Hermes design, and the associated regulatory requirements.
16 But, the staff also approached, and maintained, a big-picture safety perspective.
17 Considering the collective interplay of the systems, recognition of the size of 18 Hermes, and the relevant standards for a non-power reactor construction 19 permit.
20 To provide structure to the review, the staff started with the 21 guidance contained in NUREG-1537. As discussed earlier, NUREG-1537 is the 22 standard review plan for the diverse set of non-power reactors, and considers 23 the differences between these types of facilities and large light-water reactors.
24 Although the NUREG is intended to be technology-neutral, the staff also 25 considered the unique aspects of the Hermes design in applying the guidance
51 1 and acceptance criteria that's included in the document.
2 One example was the staff's evaluation of the Hermes 3 functional containment approach, which is not explicitly addressed in NUREG-4 1537. Furthermore, NUREG-1537 does not differentiate between a 5 construction permit and an operating license. So, the staff also exercised 6 further judgement, focusing it's review on preliminary design information and 7 analyses that would support a regulatory finding to issue a construction permit.
8 The staff evaluated the descriptions of the Hermes structures, 9 systems, and components, focusing on the design and operating 10 characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and safety considerations.
11 The preliminary design information was evaluated in short conformance with the 12 regulation and the principal design criteria. Staff also assessed whether there 13 was reasonable assurance that the anticipated final Hermes design will conform 14 to these design bases. Confirmation of these findings, and a review of the final 15 design, will be completed during the staff's review of the operating license 16 application. Next slide, please.
17 Along with this review approach, the staff engaged with 18 Kairos through a series of real-time audits, assessing the safety basis of the 19 facility and closing documentation gaps necessary to support issuance of the 20 construction permit. These interactions were highly productive and Kairos was 21 very responsive, providing requested information or revising it's application 22 when necessary or appropriate.
23 I'd also like to emphasize the point that Mo made about the 24 value of extensive pre-application engagement by Kairos. This enabled the 25 staff to perform an accelerated review, because of the knowledge gained
52 1 through these earlier interactions or by leveraging prior regulatory decisions that 2 were captured in topical reports or other documentation.
3 In the end, the staff completed its independent review and 4 was able to make the findings outlined in the regulations. First, that the facility 5 has been sufficiently described and the major features, for the protection of 6 public health and safety, have been identified. This includes the principal 7 architectural and engineering criteria.
8 Second, that further technical or design information may be 9 reasonably left for the final safety analysis report. Areas where additional 10 information is needed are identified in the staff's safety evaluation report.
11 Kairos has indicated they will provide the information necessary with the 12 operating license application, and the staff will verify these items during that 13 review.
14 Third, Kairos has appropriately identified the safety features 15 or components that require additional research and development. Examples 16 include validation of computer codes, confirmation of fuel pebble behavior, and 17 qualification and surveillance of high temperature materials.
18 Finally, any safety concerns and questions will be resolved 19 prior to the completion of construction, and the Hermes facility can be 20 constructed without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
21 Although the focus of today's hearing is on the Hermes test 22 reactor, we would like to note that the staff recently accepted the Hermes 2 23 construction permit application for review. As mentioned earlier, the Hermes 2 24 facility is an evolution of the Hermes design, and many of the structures, 25 systems, and components are similar, if not identical. Therefore, the staff does
53 1 intend to leverage the knowledge and experience from the Hermes review to 2 enhance the efficiency and timeliness of the Hermes 2 review. Lessons learned 3 from that exercise will be applied to future regulatory engagements with both, 4 Kairos and with the advanced reactor community as a whole.
5 I'll now turn it over to Chris Regan to discuss the staff's 6 environmental review. Thank you.
7 MR. REGAN: Thank you, Jeremy. Good morning, Chair 8 Hanson and Commissioners. Next slide, please.
9 The environmental review of the Kairos Hermes construction 10 permit application was performed in accordance with the National 11 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, commonly referred to as NEPA. NEPA 12 requires that agency decision-making include the consideration of the 13 environmental impacts of federal actions. NEPA also requires federal agencies 14 to follow a systematic approach in evaluating potential impacts, and to assess 15 alternatives to those actions. The NEPA process involves public participation 16 during prescribed periods, and public disclosure.
17 The staff also ensures compliance with many other laws, 18 regulations, and processes as part of it's NEPA process. Some examples of 19 these are the National Historic Preservation Act and the Endangered Species 20 Act, and the Commission's 2004 environmental justice policy statement. The 21 NRC regulations implementing NEPA are set forth in 10 CFR Part 51, these 22 regulations describe when the staff should prepare an environmental impact 23 statement or an environmental assessment. NRC regulations specify the 24 preparation of an environmental impact statement for the issuance of a Part 50 25 construction permit for a testing facility.
54 1 As previously mentioned, the environmental review evaluates 2 the environmental impacts of constructing the proposed facility, and the impacts 3 of the connected actions of operating and decommissioning the facility. The 4 environmental impact statement also presents the evaluation of alternatives to 5 the proposed action. In combination with the safety review, the environmental 6 review informs the staff recommendation to the Commission on whether to 7 issue the construction permit.
8 For this review, the staff conducted a high level of public 9 engagement. For example, the staff issued letters to state, local, and tribal 10 stakeholders during comment periods and when issuing the final EIS. The staff 11 also completed two public outreach meetings, one of which was a hybrid 12 meeting that offered both, virtual and in-person attendance. There were also 13 very high levels of outreach for those activities at the project management level, 14 including such items as newspaper ads, public web pages and dashboards, and 15 public meeting summaries. Next slide, please.
16 Kairos proposes to build the Hermes facility on land formerly 17 owned by the US Department of Energy. The site was formerly occupied by the 18 Department of Energy buildings K-31 and K-33 which were both part of the Oak 19 Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which ceased operations in 1986. Both 20 buildings were demolished and the land environmentally remediated and 21 released for industrial reuse, with restrictions.
22 Surface soils were subject to decades of heavy grading to 23 prepare the site to build and operate buildings K-31 and K-33, to raise the 24 buildings and remediate the land for subsequent industrial redevelopment.
25 Many concrete remnants of pads and building footings remain dispersed today
55 1 on the site and in the surface soils of the site, some of which can be seen in the 2 image shown. Next slide, please.
3 The environmental review process for preparing an 4 environmental impact statement was conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 5 Part 51. As depicted on the slide, in the bottom row in the blue boxed area, 6 there was a scoping period to gather input from the public, other government 7 agencies, and tribes regarding the scope of the environmental impact 8 statement. The staff conducted an audit on the Applicant's environmental 9 report, and met with the Kairos technical specialists who had developed the 10 environmental report.
11 As a result of audit interactions and follow-up requests for 12 confirmatory information, Kairos provided additional information to supplement 13 it's application. The staff also used independent information sources in it's 14 analyses. For example, information from the Department of Energy, reports 15 from the Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation, and 16 information from the recently completed Clinch River early site permit 17 environmental review.
18 Based on this information and the staff's independent review, 19 the staff published the draft environmental impact statement for public comment 20 in September of 2022. In August 2023, the staff published the final 21 environmental impact statement and responded to all the comments it received.
22 The staff concluded in that document that the potential impacts to all 23 environmental resources would be small.
24 During the comment period for the draft environmental impact 25 statement, government-to-government consultation was initiated by a federally
56 1 recognized tribe, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
2 The tribe requested that a cultural resources survey be conducted for the 3 proposed project, and that their office be included in the development of the 4 archaeological resource monitoring and unanticipated discovery plan.
5 Following this, the federally recognized tribe and the Applicant 6 agreed to a path forward to support NRC Section 106 consultations. In this, 7 Kairos agreed to work with a geoarchaeologist to develop a methodology for a 8 reconnaissance field investigation, and make appropriate updates to the 9 monitoring plan. Kairos completed the requested field investigation in early 10 August, and used the information to update it's monitoring plan.
11 In recent weeks, Kairos incorporated staff and tribal input into 12 the report and the monitoring plan. And the staff is preparing a letter 13 summarizing the consultation, and plans to incorporate tribal input into the 14 close-out letter. Once the tribe has concurred with the staff summary of 15 consultations within it's letter, the staff will provide an update to the Tennessee 16 Historical Commission and will inform the NRC Commission of consultation 17 closure. Next slide, please.
18 The staff prepared a draft summary of record of decision, 19 which is referenced in SECY-23-0074. This document states, the decision 20 being made identifies all alternatives considered in reaching the decision, and 21 discusses preferences among those alternatives. The staff -- the draft 22 summary record of decision also states that the Commission has taken all 23 practical measures, within it's jurisdiction, to avoid or minimize environmental 24 harm from the alternative selected.
25 Upon completion of the National Historic Preservation Act
57 1 consultations with the federally recognized tribe, the staff will update the 2 summary of record to document consultation closure. Next slide, please.
3 10 CFR 51.105(a) lists the four environmental findings that 4 the Commission must make to support the issuance of the construction permit 5 for the Kairos project. For the first finding, in accordance with NEPA Section 6 1022(a), the staff's environmental review used a systematic, interdisciplinary 7 approach to integrate information from many fields. Including, the natural and 8 social sciences, as well as the environmental sciences.
9 In accordance with NEPA Section 10228, the environmental 10 impact statement for the Kairos Hermes construction permit addresses the 11 environmental impact from the proposed action, any unavoidable adverse 12 environmental impacts, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship 13 between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 14 enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable 15 commitments of federal resources that would be involved in the proposed 16 action, should it be implemented.
17 Also, as supported by the documentation included in the final 18 environmental impact statement, regarding the status of the consultations and 19 the plan for consultation closure, the staff concludes that it has fulfilled the 20 requirement of NEPA Section 10228 by engaging in consultation with, and 21 obtaining comments from other federal, state, and local agencies with 22 jurisdiction by law or special expertise.
23 The NRC staff also concludes that the final environmental 24 impact statement demonstrates that the NRC staff adequately considered 25 alternatives to the proposed action, and did not identify any unresolved conflicts
58 1 concerning alternatives, uses of available resources, consistent with the 2 requirements of NEPA Section 1022(e). The range of reasonable alternatives 3 considered in detail in the final environmental impact statement includes the no-4 action alternative and building the Hermes test reactor at an alternative site.
5 For all these reasons, the staff's review complies with NRC's 6 requirements in subsection -- Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. The staff 7 concludes that the findings in the final environmental impact statement 8 constitute the hard look required by NEPA, and are supported by logic and fact.
9 For the second finding required by 10 CFR 51.105(a), the 10 staff considered the final balance among conflicting factors for determining the 11 action to be taken, that being the issuance of the construction permit.
12 For the third finding, the NRC staff considered the cost, 13 benefit balancing, as well as reasonable alternatives. Based on that analysis, 14 the NRC staff recommends that the construction permit be issued once the 15 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process is complete.
16 The NRC staff based it's recommendation on the Kairos 17 Hermes test reactor environmental report submitted as part of it's construction 18 permit application, information gathered during the environmental audit and 19 responses to request for confirmatory information, consultation with federal, 20 state, and local agencies and federally recognized tribes, the staff's 21 independent review, the staff's consideration of public comments related to the 22 environmental review, and the assessment summarized in the environmental 23 impact statement, including potential mitigation measures identified.
24 For the fourth finding under 10 CFR 51.105(a), the staff 25 concludes that the Commission will be able to find, after this hearing, that the
59 1 NEPA review performed by the staff is adequate. As will be discussed in more 2 detail during the environmental panel later today, the staff performed a thorough 3 and complete environmental review sufficient to meet the requirements of 4 NEPA, and that is adequate to inform the Commission's action on approval of 5 the construction permit. Next slide, please.
6 Robert Taylor will now introduce the Safety Environmental 7 Review Panels, and conclude the staff's overview presentation.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Chris. In the panels that follow, 9 Kairos and the staff will discuss their respective analyses, and reviews of the 10 safety and environmental aspects of the Hermes construction permit 11 application. The Safety Panel will cover Kairos' preliminary safety analysis 12 report, and the staff's safety evaluation and conclusions. Including, the 13 licensing process and approach, as well as the proposed construction permit 14 conditions.
15 The panel will focus primarily on the unique technical 16 considerations associated with the review of the proposed Hermes facility, 17 including TRISO fuel, molten salt coolant, high temperature materials, functional 18 containment, and passive accident response. The information presented in this 19 panel is described in greater detail in the staff's safety evaluation.
20 The Environmental Panel will provide a summary of the staff's 21 environmental review, including public outreach, impact evaluations, 22 alternatives considered, and the status of NHPA consultations.
23 This concludes the staff's Overview Panel. We are prepared 24 to respond to any questions that you may have at this time. Thank you.
25 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Rob, to you and the other
60 1 panelists.
2 We're going to begin questions on this panel with 3 Commissioner Wright.
4 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair.
5 Good morning, and thank you for your presentations. And I 6 know it took a lot of work and you all have done a lot as has the applicant. And 7 it has not gone unnoticed. And so, thank you for all the lead to prep for this.
8 I guess maybe, Rob and Mo, maybe this question is going to 9 go to you all.
10 So, as we look forward, you mentioned safety features and 11 components requiring research, right, that some had been identified.
12 Can you go a little bit more into detail about what those areas 13 are?
14 And then, I addition, as like an add on, what do you see as 15 the most challenging aspect of this research going forward? And how are we 16 planning for it?
17 MR. SHAMS: Thanks, Commissioner Wright. Good morning.
18 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Good morning.
19 MR. SHAMS: So, as was mentioned on the prior panel, the 20 SER, Kairos, in their application, provided a listing of the different research 21 activities that they're planning on conducting.
22 A number of areas focused primarily on the performance of 23 some their features that they're considering, source term assumptions that are 24 made into that, instrumentation that will be able to be used to monitor the 25 systems and how they work, qualifications of material.
61 1 We mentioned earlier that the use of high temperature 2 materials is unique and it's novel for this system.
3 They're using new systems like seismic isolations as well.
4 That needs to also looked at, tested.
5 So, the totality of the research being done is non-trivial, but 6 nonetheless, it's also well established, well laid out.
7 We've been visiting with Kairos, seeing their activities.
8 We're also looking at the literature on many of the 9 technologies that they're using, have been used elsewhere in different ways or 10 others.
11 So, the integrated testing, the way to, you know, accomplish 12 all this, this becomes the challenge for them, as how to be able to do it timely, 13 get it done prior to the completion of construction as required by the regulations.
14 But we don't particularly feel that there's any unique items in 15 there that they may not be able to attain.
16 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Do you have any comment?
17 MR. TAYLOR: I think the most important thing, it's to Kairos 18 to figure out how to finish the testing and the analysis.
19 When we come to review this at the operating license stage, 20 our focus should be on the fission product retention capabilities.
21 Because those, ultimately, drive the safety case of the facility.
22 So, there's a need for good testing and data analysis related 23 to those.
24 And then, based on the risk significance of other areas, the 25 scale and depth of the testing and analysis can be adjusted to reflect the risk
62 1 and safety perspectives and profile of the facility.
2 So, we're going to take that graded approach to each of those 3 aspects. And we've had a lot of conversation with Kairos already on their plans 4 related to that and it seems like they have good plan.
5 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: All right.
6 I guess I'll stay with you two. I'm guessing that you all can 7 certainly pitch in if you feel like you need to.
8 So, this is -- and probably, you discovered this is like a Class 9 104 license and the Atomic Energy Act directs the NRC use the minimum 10 amount of regulation needed to meet the safety and common defense 11 obligations, right, while permitting, at the same time, wide spread and diverse 12 research and development.
13 So, can -- what practical implication does that direction have 14 or has it had on your review?
15 And can you maybe give me -- help identify some areas 16 where we've actually tailored our review?
17 MR. TAYLOR: Maybe I'll start and then, Mo can jump in.
18 So, fundamentally, first and foremost, NUREG 1537 is built 19 with the concept of Section 104 in mind because it was built originally for 20 research and test reactors.
21 So, in adapting and applying that guidance, we start from a 22 fundamental foundation of what is the minimum necessary to make our 23 regulatory finding, and we've built it that way.
24 Then, we took, as was discussed earlier, that guidance and 25 said, what's really needed for Kairos? And had a lot of discussion with them on
63 1 the scope and depth of their application before they came in.
2 I think Kairos's pre-application was incredibly valuable in 3 defining what that was so that Kairos didn't over prepare their application and 4 the staff didn't have to review things that weren't really necessary for the 5 findings that we have to make.
6 So, from a big picture perspective, we started with the right 7 guidance and the right structure in place that allowed us to make those 8 informed decisions.
9 And maybe Mo can give you a couple practical examples, too.
10 MR. SHAMS: Yes, as Rob indicated, I tried to start this 11 conversation with saying, what's in the regulations is sufficient to make sure 12 that the facility is safe.
13 We're not favoring to a place where we're just, you know, 14 we're not particularly looking. We are looking exactly where we need to look.
15 Fuel needs to be safe. The safety case needs to be made.
16 But there are practical areas where the look is different. And 17 there are specific regulations that are applicable only to power reactors, 18 maintenance rules being one, and particular aspects of emergency 19 preparedness, particular aspects of licensed operator qualifications.
20 And those are areas and security requirements, those are 21 different. And these are the areas where we actually taper our look based on 22 what the -- where the regulations guide us.
23 And I don't want to give an impression that they're less.
24 They're appropriate to the level of risk that the facility poses. You know?
25 So, that's where we taper our activities and our focus in this
64 1 review.
2 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes, I like the way you worded 3 that. That's good.
4 Thank you.
5 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.
6 Commissioner Caputo?
7 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thanks to the staff for that 8 review presentation and for setting its table and helping us understand the 9 scope of your preparations for today's hearing.
10 Mr. Taylor, on slide 18, the flow chart shows the safety 11 evaluation report is an input to mandatory hearing.
12 It also shows that the environmental review is an input to the 13 Commission decision, but not the mandatory hearing.
14 As the Chair noted in his opening, and as Commissioner 15 Crowell and I mentioned on the previous panel, the Commission will determine 16 as part of its decision on the application whether the requirements of NEPA 17 have been met.
18 But it does not appear that the environmental review is a 19 necessary input to the mandatory hearing itself.
20 And I know that we've recently had to delay progress on 21 several environmental reviews and other licensing applications due to the 22 workload that the agency currently has in environmental reviews.
23 So, given the staff's sensible position that the environmental 24 review is not a necessary input to the mandatory hearing, wouldn't it be more 25 appropriate to focus future mandatory hearings on the safety review?
65 1 In other words, wouldn't it be appropriate to eliminate the 2 environmental discussion as part of these hearings?
3 This is not necessarily a question we need to answer for 4 today's hearing, as noted by the staff, it's not relevant to the technical content of 5 the application before us.
6 But I'd like to ask the staff to consider whether this is an area 7 where we can make efficiency gains in the same way that the Section 106 --
8 completion of Section 106 review was not necessary for today, I believe the 9 same logic applies to the environmental review itself which would make this 10 hearing -- the conduct of this hearing much more efficient both for the 11 Commission's time and the staff and the applicant's time to compare.
12 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Commissioner.
13 As you indicated, I think that's an interesting idea of 14 something that we could pursue as a potential efficiency opportunity.
15 I think we would want to take it back and work with our Office 16 of General Counsel, the Office of the Secretary to make sure we continue to 17 meet the Commission's expectations and needs for these mandatory hearings 18 to make sure you have the fulsome information necessary to make your 19 decision.
20 But there are many ways to ensure that we can give you that 21 information.
22 So, we're certainly happy to take that back and look at it for 23 preparation for future hearings.
24 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you.
25 Mr. Shams, on slide 10, you mentioned that there was
66 1 substantial pre-application engagement.
2 And I know this is always a staple of agency discussions on 3 reviewing reactor applications, ensuring and encouraging very substantial pre-4 application engagement with applicants.
5 I'd like to get a better understanding of how much this actually 6 improved the efficiency of the overall process.
7 So, you discussed a couple minutes ago how the pre-8 application review tailored the scope of the application and review in response 9 to Commissioner Wright.
10 Could you, for me, discuss the extent to which the staff is able 11 to rely on conclusions it reached in topical reports and the overall effect on 12 review time given the engagement in developing and improving those topical 13 reports?
14 Can you give me specific examples of efficiencies that were 15 gained or other benefits that the application -- that the applicant gained through 16 that process?
17 MR. SHAMS: Thanks for the question, Commissioner.
18 Yes, I can point to a couple of examples.
19 So, pre-application comes in different forms for us. Some are 20 informal discussions and feedback, others are formal.
21 What Kairos has done with us is primarily formal pre-22 applications in terms of topical reports. So, those are a strong vehicle for 23 establishing staff positions, reviews, going through General Counsel's Office, 24 going through ACRS.
25 So, those are already reviewed and closed areas. And we
67 1 can leverage them directly in the application.
2 The examples I'll provide is the work that was done for a 3 mechanical -- mechanistic source term. This is an incredibly relevant area, 4 what kind of radionuclides are expected at what temperature levels.
5 We used that directly into assessing the bounding accidents 6 for the design, the ability to have that foundation already established allowed us 7 to go through this discussion specifically just for the events selected as 8 opposed to their consequences and sort of focusing more on just the events 9 themselves and the selection of the event.
10 So, that -- as far as in terms of measurable outcome, I'd say 11 our ability to finish the review in 18 months and publish the SE is a measurable 12 outcome for that.
13 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Could you --
14 MR. BOWEN: Commissioner, if I could -- sorry.
15 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Sure, go ahead.
16 MR. BOWEN: I was going to add just some data, if it helps.
17 Kairos has 11 approved topical that were achieved through 18 pre-application engagement. They referenced eight of those in the applications.
19 So, I'd have to go back and look at the application and the 20 stats to see specifically for like numbers, how much it saved.
21 But there's certainly notated areas that essentially minimized 22 the staff's review necessary in those eight areas.
23 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So, is the staff bound by 24 conclusions that were reached in those topical reviews?
25 MR. BOWEN: They're -- yes, the answer to that is yes.
68 1 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay.
2 So, that's it for my questions on this panel.
3 Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for 4 subsequent panels.
5 CHAIR HANSON: Of course, thank you, Commissioner 6 Caputo.
7 Commissioner Crowell?
8 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9 I'm going to build off some comments that Commissioner 10 Caputo made as well with regard to the role of the environmental NEPA review 11 and the mandatory hearing process. I think it's worth looking at.
12 I can, off the cuff, I can think of pros and cons. But with some 13 information, Rob, as you said you'd get, maybe we can look at it holistically and 14 determine what is prudent or not in that regard.
15 But it may well be an area where efficiencies can be gained.
16 Looking at the balance of the hearing process, and the 17 context of a mandatory, uncontested hearing, I think it's also important to note 18 that, you know, ACRS, our Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, has 19 also, you know, signed off on this and recommended approval.
20 And that's a -- it's not a minor thing. It's a big note and a 21 reassurance to the public that this thing has been reviewed by experts 22 independent as well as the agency and that's what's informing our view on the 23 recommendation.
24 So, something to think about in the backdrop of the 25 mandatory and contested hearings.
69 1 With that said, Rob, I'll give this one to you. I'm going to ask 2 you the same question I asked Mr. Laufer.
3 What's your 30-second elevator pitch on why we are 4 adequately protecting public health and safety in this license application 5 review?
6 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you for the question, Commissioner.
7 How I look at it is, the Kairos design incorporates a number of 8 advanced safety features and capabilities over the current generation of 9 reactors that just enhanced the amount of margin to risks to public health and 10 safety that make this essentially like a commercial facility elsewhere in the 11 country.
12 So, putting this near populated centers doesn't pose a risk to 13 the public health and safety. And that's the conclusion we're making at the 14 construction permit stage.
15 We'll have to finish the review at the operating license stage 16 and confirm all of that, but we have a high degree of confidence this is a very 17 safe reactor design that we can put near local populations without undue risk 18 and provide clean and reliable and safe energy to those populations.
19 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And I think it's an important 20 caveat is that this will be looked at again in the operating context. And so, 21 there's additional assurances.
22 I'm interested in this topic of efficiencies that could be gained 23 between review from Phase I and Hermes II.
24 I like the idea, but efficiencies apply when you have 25 similarities.
70 1 And if I'm a layperson looking at this, the major dissimilarity I 2 see is that Hermes II will produce power and be connected to the grid.
3 Why or why not is that a material difference in terms of 4 efficiencies of review and similarities between the two, Hermes I and II?
5 MR. TAYLOR: That's an absolutely great question, and one 6 we've already started looking really hard at.
7 What are the deltas between Hermes II and the Hermes that 8 we're talking about today?
9 So, as we go to prepare our safety review for this -- for the 10 Hermes II, we have made safety findings on a number of aspects related to 11 Hermes already.
12 We're going to look at the conclusions we already made and 13 ask ourselves the question, do any of the proposed design changes alter or 14 cause us to need to re-look at those?
15 If they don't, we're going to accept the conclusions we already 16 made related to that.
17 But we're not going to gloss over it. It's going to be a 18 confirmatory look, but we're going to make sure that there's no adverse effect 19 from the new aspects of the Hermes II design.
20 But we believe there's a lot that we can accept that we've 21 already done and not have to go in depth into those aspects of the review 22 again.
23 And so, essentially, we're going to incorporate by reference 24 parts of the conclusions we've already into the Hermes II, which is going to 25 allow us to streamline the documentation and streamline the amount of
71 1 resources we have to apply.
2 But we have already identified a number of the design 3 changes that we're going to look at.
4 And one of them is the electricity production and does it have 5 an effect on the reactor's performance and capabilities?
6 And we will scope the review to what are the specific aspects 7 and effect to that? And only go there and accept the prior conclusions we 8 already made as appropriate.
9 We think that's the key in almost every technology that's going 10 to come before us as we go through the first of a kind. We're going to have to 11 an in depth, detailed review to confirm safety.
12 But if standardization is truly achieved, then there are aspects 13 of the review we won't have to do in the second through the nth of a kind. Only 14 if changes in the design are made should we take a detailed look in those 15 specific areas.
16 So, we're building that concept already. We met just last 17 week to talk about how we're going to do second through nth of a kind and 18 shorten schedules and focus on what is really changing and what's really 19 important.
20 And You're going to find that in a lot of those cases, it's going 21 to be environmental, external hazards, and siding aspects that are unique from 22 second through nth of a kind that we're going to have to focus on and we're 23 going to be able to accept the prior safety conclusions we reached on the 24 reactor's performance and safety features.
25 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thanks, that was worth me
72 1 burning an extra minute on because it's an important point.
2 The last comment I'll make is that, Chris, your flowchart on 3 the review process is the best I've seen yet. It's the most clear, so thank you for 4 that.
5 MR. REGAN: Thank you, sir.
6 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And then, Mr. Chair, that's all I 7 have.
8 Thanks.
9 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell.
10 I'd just like to start by congratulating the staff, again, on an 11 efficient and effective review on this.
12 As you noted multiple times, Rob and Mo, that it takes two to 13 tango, as the old song goes.
14 And that having a high quality application and a very 15 responsive applicant was also key here.
16 So, I'd like to recognize all the parties involved and express 17 my appreciation to the staff, to the amount of focus and dedication that went 18 into this effort over the last, well, the review took 18 months, but even since 19 then.
20 So, I want to just ask a couple of questions here.
21 So, this is really is kind of a first of a kind. We haven't done 22 much in this agency on non-light water reactors, certainly in a very, very long 23 time, dating back to the kind of the early days of the Atomic Energy 24 Commission.
25 And I'm curious how much we were able to glean from some
73 1 of those legacy records and if this leaves us with a knowledge management 2 lesson for the future?
3 MR. TAYLOR: Maybe I'll start and then, Mo can jump in.
4 We haven't done a non-light water reactor licensing in a very 5 long time in the United States. But that doesn't mean there isn't a ton of 6 research analysis and data out there.
7 From the legacy of the work that the national labs have done 8 and the facilities that have operated on national lab, basically, is that the 9 Department of Energy license that we didn't particularly license as well as some 10 that we did license early in the days of the AEC and NRC.
11 So, that data is still good data. That is very valuable. We 12 want to use that data.
13 The key for the applicants is to say, and tell us, why that data 14 is applicable to their design. How are they going to use it and why is the 15 verification and validation of that data in their design sufficient to support the 16 safety case?
17 So, some folks have a misimpression that there's not much 18 information out there. There is a wealth of information out there in a lot of these 19 areas.
20 There's places where they're going to have to do testing and 21 analysis specific to their design, but we want to leverage all that information that 22 already exists and give credit for it as appropriate.
23 Mo, you want to add anything?
24 MR. SHAMS: I wouldn't add much more than what Rob said 25 other than perhaps just a little specific.
74 1 We were able to go to some of the experiments that were 2 done by DOE at molten salt reactor experiments, the work that was done on 3 AFT, advanced gas reactors.
4 This where we got information on just the molten salts, their 5 behaviors, got information on TRISO, how that behaves.
6 And that's what we built the case on.
7 I want to also point to that in the administrative aspects of 8 developing the license writing, the construction permit, we're able to look at also 9 these activities in the past and what was done, what was traditionally included 10 in the license versus and on the permit, for that matter, versus not.
11 So, yes, we definitely were able to build on that and 12 acknowledge it in there.
13 CHAIR HANSON: Great, thank you.
14 I have kind of a similar question.
15 You know, a lot of the experience in the agency over the last 16 10 or 12 or 14 years has really been in Part 52. You know?
17 I think people recognize that we issued combined operating 18 licenses for Vogtle and Summer, but there were probably another seven or 19 eight that we also issued during that time in addition to all of the early site 20 permits, et cetera.
21 So, I guess I'm -- my question, really, for you all is, you know, 22 what have learned from our term from all of that time working almost exclusively 23 with Part 52?
24 And how is that experience, then, helped us make Part -- you 25 know, now, we're back in Part 50 space which we haven't done in a long time,
75 1 how is that kind of made Part 50 reviews more efficient?
2 MR. TAYLOR: It's a great question.
3 We haven't exercised the Part 50 regulatory muscle as much 4 recently. We did it with SHINE. We did it with Watts Bar 2. And we issued the 5 operating license there.
6 So, yes, we have a lot of experience in Part 52 which is 7 focused on a more complete design, right, when they come to us at the design 8 certification or the combined license state.
9 When we recognize that the industry was looking at using the 10 Part 50 process more because of the ability to start construction earlier in the 11 process, we actually stepped back and said, we haven't done this very much.
12 We -- a lot of the staff who are here today haven't gotten a 13 chance to use this process. They're familiar with the Part 52 process.
14 So, we put a lot of emphasis into what are the findings we 15 have to make in the two step process? Each step?
16 And started talking to the staff about the scope of the reviews 17 and the depth of information we needed at a construction permit stage, 18 recognizing that it's just one step in the process.
19 So, we put up -- we front loaded a lot of our effort with the 20 staff and the teams we were building to talk about the scope and depth of these 21 reviews that we actually had to accomplish so that we didn't start with the Part 22 52 mind set of a complete design. Right?
23 There are things that we're not going to have at the 24 construction permit stage and that's okay. We'll address it and we'll resolve 25 those at the operating license stage.
76 1 That doesn't mean it's a deficient or an incomplete 2 application, that just means they have to have a plan to address it. And do they 3 have a reasonable plan that we have confidence in?
4 So, I think Kairos gave us a great opportunity as a first one of 5 the gate here to really do that. And I think we're going to take those lessons 6 learned, apply them to Hermes II, apply them to TerraPower, apply them to X-7 Energy that as they go through the Part 50 process.
8 Now, we have a model for how to do it.
9 CHAIR HANSON: Okay, thank you.
10 So, Rob, I think both you and Kairos, in the course of this 11 review, have set the bar pretty high for not only what comes after with this 12 particular applicant, but a lot of other applicants as well.
13 And you know, not only presuming that the Commission, you 14 know, approves the issuance of the construction permit in this case, you've got 15 another construction permit now in house.
16 The construction will proceed on Hermes I that will also be 17 overseen by the NRC, to say nothing of the dozens of topical reports from other 18 applicants in pre-application engagements and, ultimately, applications from 19 those folks.
20 So, how is the staff -- that seems, to me, to be a significant 21 management and resource allocation schedule for, as I said, you've set the bar 22 high in this in terms of expectations both internally and externally.
23 So, talk to me about how You're going to continue to manage 24 resources and continue to kind of meet or exceed schedules given all of the 25 work going on?
77 1 MR. TAYLOR: That's an absolutely great question.
2 The next six months are going to see potentially a number of 3 applications come in to us. And that is a significant workload challenge for us.
4 We have already started building and staffing out our concept 5 of what the teams are going to look like for each of those reviews to make sure 6 that we have the resources dedicated and capable and that we're leveraging 7 the experience on certain technologies and future reviews as well.
8 So, we're going to have to manage all those issues and we're 9 going to have to drive resolution of complex issues very early in the process 10 very quickly.
11 We can't let them sit because they will continue to consume 12 and chew up resources and time that we won't get back at the end of the day.
13 So, we're going to have to engage when complex issues 14 come up and we're going to need the applicants to work constructively with us 15 to put those issues to bed quickly, make regulatory decisions, make safety 16 decisions, and move on so that we can focus on the next one.
17 Not that we're going to short circuit the decision that we make 18 or make a lesser decision, just make it in a timely manner.
19 So, it's going to be a significant effort. But what Kairos has 20 shown is we have the right project management tools. I think we have the right 21 mind set in the staff right now to do this.
22 We've invested a lot in changing our perception in the staff of 23 how to do these reviews, how to accomplish safety in a timely and cost effective 24 manner that all those pieces matter at the end of the day.
25 So, I think we have ourselves set up. Do I think it's a
78 1 volumental challenge for the people sitting at this table as well as many others 2 in the agency? Yes, but we have to rise to it. We're going to have to prove 3 ourselves. Right?
4 And we've proved ourselves in Kairos. We're going to have to 5 continue to prove ourselves through execution on these future projects.
6 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, well said.
7 I don't have anything to add to that.
8 With that, we are now at a ten minute break. We will 9 reconvene at 10:58.
10 Thank you all.
11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 12 10:47 a.m. and resumed at 11:02 a.m.)
13 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. I call the hearing back to order.
14 This is the Safety Panel. The parties will address relevant sections of the 15 application and the Final Safety Evaluation with particular focus on the unique 16 features of the Hermes facility and novel issues raised by the application, 17 including the tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel, molten salt coolant, functional 18 containment, high temperature materials, and passive accident response.
19 I will ask the panelists representing Kairos to please introduce 20 themselves again.
21 (Laughter.)
22 MR. BLANDFORD: Thank you, Chair Hanson, and thank 23 you, Commissioners, for this opportunity to present at today's hearing.
24 My name is Ed Blandford and I am the Chief Technology 25 Officer of Kairos Power. I will be providing an overview of the Hermes safety
79 1 case.
2 Next slide, please. As Mike mentioned in the overview 3 presentation we would like to begin every presentation at Kairos by reiterating 4 our mission statement, which is to enable the world's transition to clean energy 5 with the ultimate goal of dramatically improving people's quality of life while 6 protecting the environment. We can only improve people's quality of life if the 7 technology we deploy is safe.
8 Next slide, please. I am going to cover a little bit of the 9 inherent safety features of the Hermes reactor.
10 The Hermes facility leverages inherent safety features that 11 are fundamental to FHR technology. Many of those features can be traced 12 back to the original choice of fuel and the coolant.
13 The fuel as mentioned, is a tri-structural isotropic particle 14 design with three coating layers that retain radionuclides within the fuel. As Per 15 mentioned in the overview panel, these particle layers have been demonstrated 16 to perform successfully in temperatures well above those postulated up to 1600 17 degrees Celsius.
18 This provides significant margin for any temperature 19 transients the fuel could experience. These particles are in a graphite pebble, 20 shown on the left, which is buoyant to the molten salt, allowing for continuous 21 online de-fueling and re-fueling.
22 This provides a unique opportunity to inspect the fuel during 23 operations. As Mike stated, the reactor coolant is a lithium fluoride-beryllium 24 fluoride molten salt that we call Flibe.
25 It's operating characteristics, such as the high melting and
80 1 boiling points and its large heat capacity, make it ideal for Hermes to operate 2 safely in low pressure, high temperature conditions.
3 Next slide, please. The safety case for our KP-FHR is based 4 on the technology I described in the previous slide. The fuel and salt coolant 5 allow us to take advantage of a functional containment approach in the Hermes 6 safety case.
7 The performance and characteristic of the TRISO fuel when 8 combined with the low pressure operation of the salt results in a design with 9 significant safety margins that do not rely on traditional confinement barriers, 10 such as reactor coolant piping or a leak-tight reactor containment building.
11 The majority of the radioactive material at risk for release is 12 held within the TRISO fuel. Instead of relying on building confinement in a 13 postulated event, the TRISO fuel design keeps the radioactive material in the 14 fuel.
15 The Flibe acts as a secondary barrier to the three layers 16 coating the TRISO fuel particles. The functional containment approach for 17 Hermes is consistent with the functional containment approach approved by the 18 NRC in SRM-SECY-180096.
19 Next slide, please. Structures, systems, and components of 20 Hermes that are relied upon in the safety analysis to mitigate the consequences 21 of postulated events serve one or more of the three fundamental safety 22 functions listed on this slide, preventing the uncontrolled release of 23 radionuclides, removing decay heat, and controlling reactivity in the reactor 24 core.
25 To prevent the uncontrolled release of radionuclides the
81 1 Hermes design relies on functional containment that I described in the previous 2 slide. In order to maintain that functional containment the active fuel must 3 remain covered by coolant.
4 The safety-related reactor vessel and internals ensures that 5 the Flibe level remains above the active fuel and maintains a natural circulation 6 flow path to support the decay heat removal function.
7 Although the integrity of coolant piping is not credited in the 8 safety case, those non-safety-related fluid systems are designed to ASME 9 Section VIII, B31.1/B31.3, or applicable API standards.
10 The Hermes decay heat removal system along with natural 11 circulation in the core is relied upon to perform the decay heat removal 12 functions. The decay heat removal system has no active components and 13 passively rejects heat to the atmosphere.
14 Finally, the reactivity in the core is controlled by the reactivity 15 control and shutdown system. The control portion of the system is non-safety-16 related and controls reactivity during normal operation.
17 The shutdown portion of the system is safety-related and can 18 maintain safe shutdown of the core without the non-safety control elements.
19 Next slide, please. The Hermes safety case uses a Maximum 20 Hypothetical Accident, or MHA, to determine the preliminary design meets the 21 siting dose criteria.
22 Consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1537, the MHA is a 23 non-physical event with hypothetical conservatisms that overestimates potential 24 off-site dose consequence.
25 Because the Hermes design relies on functional containment
82 1 the MHA is designed to challenge that functional containment with conservative 2 assumptions about the performance of the fuel and salt coolant.
3 The MHA utilizes the source term methodology approved by 4 the NRC in Topical Report KPTR-012-PA, KP-FHR Mechanistic Source Term 5 Methodology.
6 A comprehensive set of events were postulated for the 7 Hermes design to ensure that the MHA will remain bounding. Those postulated 8 events are organized by event group consistent with the guidance in NUREG-9 1537 and are described in Chapter 13 of the PSAR.
10 The resulting dose consequences estimated from the 11 conservative non-physical MHA are still less than one rem at the site boundary.
12 This meets the siting dose limits in 10 CFR Part 100 with significant margin.
13 That concludes our prepared remarks for the safety panel.
14 We will be happy to answer any Commissioner questions.
15 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Blandford. I would know 16 invite the Staff panel to come to the table.
17 (Pause.)
18 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. And perhaps you could go down 19 and introduce yourselves.
20 MR. JESSUP: Sure. I'll start. Bill Jessup, Chief Advanced 21 Reactor Licensing Branch I in the Division of Reactors and Non-Power 22 Production and Utilization Facilities, or DANU, in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 23 Regulation.
24 MR. HELVENSTON: I am Ed Helvenston. I am a Project 25 Manager in the Non-Power Reactors Licensing Branch, same division as Bill.
83 1 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you.
2 MR. CHERESKIN: I am Alex Chereskin. I am a Materials 3 Engineer in Advanced Reactor Technical Branch II in the same division, DANU.
4 MS. HART: Good morning. I am Michelle Hart. I am a 5 Senior Reactor Engineer in Advanced Reactor Technical Branch II, also in the 6 same division.
7 MS. SIWY: Good morning. I am Alex Siwy. I am a Senior 8 Nuclear Engineer in the same branch, Advanced Reactor Technical Branch 9 Number II in DANU.
10 MR. van WERT: Good morning. My name is Chris van Wert.
11 I am the Senior Technical Advisor Reactor Fuel and I snuck in from the 12 Division of Safety Systems.
13 (Laughter.)
14 CHAIR HANSON: Well, welcome anyway.
15 MR. van WERT: Thank you.
16 CHAIR HANSON: All right. Please proceed with your 17 presentation.
18 MR. JESSUP: Okay. Great. Good morning again, Chair 19 Hanson and Commissioners. As I said, my name is Bill Jessup. Can we go to 20 Slide 3, please, since we have already gone through introductions. Okay, 21 great.
22 Our panel this morning will discuss the Staff's safety review of 23 the proposed Kairos Hermes facility construction permit application.
24 I will be providing an introduction to the safety review and 25 licensing process and approach. Ed Helvenston will discuss the proposed
84 1 permit conditions and summarize the Staff's interactions with ACRS.
2 Chris van Wert, Alex Chereskin, Michelle Hart, and Alex Siwy 3 will discuss the Staff's review of novel technical aspects of Hermes.
4 Next slide, please. Great. The regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 5 define a testing facility in general as a nuclear reactor that is useful in the 6 conduct of research and development and would be licensed under Section 104 7 of the Atomic Energy Act for operation at a thermal power in excess of 10 8 megawatts.
9 Kairos seeks to construct a non-power reactor known as 10 Hermes that would be licensed as a testing facility under 10 CFR Part 50.
11 The Hermes facility would be used to demonstrate the Kairos 12 power fluoride salt cooled high temperature reactor technology or KP-FHR 13 advanced reactor technology.
14 The construction permit licensing requirements relevant to th 15 safety review for the proposed Hermes facility are similar to those for other non-16 power facilities licensed under Section 104 of the Atomic Energy Act and 10 17 CFR Part 50, such as research reactors.
18 However, there are some differences in the safety review 19 requirements for a testing facility versus a research reactor. For example, the 20 Hermes testing facility construction permit application is subject to an 21 independent review by the ACRS and a mandatory hearing.
22 Further, as we'll describe later in this panel, the Staff 23 encountered several novel technical issues during its reviews of the Hermes 24 construction permit application.
25 Next slide, please. To conduct its review and determine
85 1 appropriate acceptance criteria the Staff used the guidance in NUREG-1537, 2 Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-3 Power Reactors.
4 In applying this guidance the Staff determined the extent to 5 which this guidance was relevant to the Hermes construction permit application.
6 Although the guidance is technology neutral, it was originally developed 7 primarily with light-water non-power reactors in mind.
8 The Staff expects that this experience and applying existing 9 guidance to review novel designs can inform future reviews of advanced reactor 10 applications, including the advanced power reactor reviews using guidance 11 such as the NRC's Standard Review Plan in NUREG-0800.
12 While it is the responsibility of Kairos and other applicants to 13 demonstrate the safety of their designs, the Staff is also responsible for 14 performing an efficient and effective independent safety review of the 15 application.
16 To that end, the Staff performed the Hermes safety review in 17 a risk-informed manner focusing on matters that they determined to most safety 18 significant to ensure the best use of Staff and applicant resources.
19 To further support an efficient and effective review the Staff 20 assembled a core review team which included several project managers and 21 technical reviewers in DANU.
22 The core team members devoted a significant portion of their 23 time to the Hermes application review activities for the duration of the review.
24 In the core team approach DANU technical reviewers with 25 advanced reactor technology expertise take responsibility for broad portions of
86 1 the application and gain a holistic understanding of the design in lieu of dividing 2 specific review areas among a broader group of technical reviewers.
3 Technical topics reviewed by the DANU core team include 4 thermal hydraulics, fuel and core design, and accident analyses.
5 Next slide, please. Next slide, please. We'll continue on. Ed 6 Helvenston will now discuss the proposed permit conditions and the Staff's 7 interactions with the ACRS.
8 MR. HELVENSTON: Thank you, Bill. Provided that the 9 requirements for the issuance of the construction permit are satisfied, the 10 regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 generally allow the design to mature from a 11 preliminary design in a construction permit application to a final design.
12 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.35 a construction permit does not 13 constitute the NRC approval of the safety of any design feature unless the 14 applicant specifically makes this request.
15 Kairos did not request any such approvals. Instead, the 16 approval of the safety of design features would be made during the Staff review 17 of a final design submitted in an operating license application.
18 The Staff determined that construction permit conditions 19 regarding site characteristics and quality assurance were necessary to confirm 20 adequate design bases and assure quality.
21 Based on the Staff's review of Kairos' description and safety 22 assessment of the proposed Hermes site the site determined that Kairos 23 provided information on the geologic features at the site in sufficient detail and 24 in a form to be integrated acceptably into design bases for the reactor 25 consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34(a).
87 1 However, to ensure the foundation rock under the site has no 2 evidence of karstic dissolution, such as voids or sinkholes, that could indicate 3 the potential for future surface deformation, Kairos stated that it will inspect the 4 exposed bedrock prior to foundation preparation for the Hermes facility.
5 The Staff recommends that the Hermes construction permit 6 be conditioned to require that Kairos perform these inspections and to notify the 7 Staff once excavations for safety-related structures are opened for examination 8 by Staff.
9 The results of the inspections would confirm the adequacy of 10 the Hermes facility design basis as appropriate and as appropriate would inform 11 the Staff Construction Inspection Program.
12 In addition, to provide reasonable assurance that the 13 regulatory requirements and Kairos' commitments for quality assurance are 14 adequately implemented during construction, the Staff recommends that the 15 Hermes construction permit include a quality assurance condition similar to the 16 requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(f) which apply to nuclear power plant and fuel 17 reprocessing plant construction permit holders.
18 The proposed condition would require Kairos to implement its 19 quality assurance program as described in its PSAR and includes requirements 20 for changes to the program to be submitted to the NRC.
21 I guess we're on Slide 8 if those are up. I'll just keep going.
22 The Staff presented the results of its safety review at seven ACRS 23 subcommittee meetings last March and April and to the Full Committee on May 24 3, 2023.
25 The ACRS' approach to the Hermes review included early
88 1 review of chapters of the Staff safety evaluation as they were completed and 2 focused on the safety significant aspects of the design significantly 3 complimenting the Staff's efforts to optimize the review schedule and helping 4 ensure the review was efficient was thorough.
5 The ACRS recommended the issuance of a construction 6 permit in its letter dated May 16, 2023, which is contained in Appendix C of the 7 Staff safety evaluation on the Hermes review.
8 The ACRS noted three topics that it recommended being 9 addressed during the Staff's evaluation of a Hermes operating license 10 application, first, combustible gas generation associated with graphite air 11 oxidation for air ingress events, second, levels of tritium released from the 12 facility, and, third, the management of airborne beryllium and tritium in the 13 facility to less than regulatory limits and to protect the safety of workers.
14 The Staff will consider these areas as appropriate in its review 15 of a future operating license application for Hermes.
16 Next slide, please. The Staff encountered several novel 17 technical issues during its review of the Hermes construction permit application.
18 These related to the use of TRISO fuel and molten salt coolant as part of the 19 Hermes design, the use of high temperature materials in accordance with the 20 American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code, Section 3, Division 5, the 21 application of the functional containment concept, and the passive accident 22 response.
23 Next slide, please. Chris van Wert will now discuss the Staff's 24 technical review as it pertains to the use of TRISO fuel in Hermes.
25 MR. van WERT: Thank you, Ed. Good morning, Chair and
89 1 Commissioners. Next slide, please. Over the next few slides I will discuss the 2 Hermes TRISO fuel design, the Staff's review approach, and actions the 3 Applicant and the NRC Staff took to overcome a technical challenge related to 4 fuel performance.
5 The Kairos Hermes fuel design uses TRISO particles 6 imbedded in a carbon matrix pebble. For scale, a fuel pebble is roughly the 7 size of a golf ball, while the TRISO particles are roughly the size of poppy 8 seeds.
9 Each fuel pebble contains approximately 16,000 TRISO 10 particles. These TRISO particles follow the specifications of the Department of 11 Energy Advanced Gas Reactor, or AGR, Program.
12 The TRISO particle design forms four of the five fission 13 product barriers credited for functional containment in the Hermes design.
14 What differentiates the Kairos fuel pebbles from more traditional pebble bed 15 reactor fuel designs is that the Kairos TRISO particles are arranged in an 16 annulus near the surface of the pebble surrounding a low-density graphite 17 center.
18 This allows for low-density pebbles that are buoyant and 19 travel upwards through the core in the molten salt coolant.
20 Next slide, please. The fuel system design and analysis in 21 the Hermes CP application relies heavily upon the previously-approved Kairos 22 fuel qualification topical report.
23 The approach presented in that topical report, as well as the 24 Staff's review, centered on two main evaluations. The Staff first evaluated the 25 Kairos TRISO particle design to confirm that it met the physical specifications
90 1 previously reviewed in an approved EPRI, or Electric Power Research Institute, 2 TRISO fuel performance topical report based on the DOE AGR program.
3 The Staff also confirmed that the Hermes operating conditions 4 were within the parameters covered in the EPRI topical report.
5 By ensuring that the physical specifications and the operating 6 conditions meet the range of applicability of the EPRI TRISO fuel performance 7 report the Staff found the data and conclusions in the EPRI topical report to be 8 applicable to the Kairos Hermes design.
9 After reviewing the Kairos TRISO particle the Staff evaluated 10 the fuel pebble design and testing plan. This review included the planned fuel 11 pebble laboratory and a radiation test to ensure that the fuel pebble behavior 12 was understood for the expected conditions.
13 The Staff's review ensured that the breadth of testing, both 14 non-irradiated and irradiated, covered aspects of the fuel design that did not 15 already have sufficient data to support regulatory findings.
16 It is worth noting that the Kairos fuel qualification topical 17 report is the methodology to be used for fuel qualification and not the 18 qualification of the fuel itself. The topical report includes criteria for the various 19 tests that must be met to complete the fuel qualification process.
20 Next slide, please. While the EPRI TRISO fuel performance 21 topical report provided significant particle irradiation test data used in support of 22 the Kairos Hermes application, the AGR program was centered around steady 23 state and some anticipated operational occurrence conditions.
24 Therefore, the AGR data did not include testing that included 25 a large insertion of excess reactivity. As such, the Staff's evaluation of the
91 1 Kairos fuel qualification topical report included a limitation that future license 2 applications for non-power KP-FHRs, such as the Hermes CP application, 3 would need to provide justification for expected fuel integrity during an 4 overpower transient.
5 In compliance with the topical report limitation the Hermes CP 6 application addressed the overpower transient condition. The Hermes design 7 precludes a control rod ejection event by maintaining a low-differential pressure, 8 therefore, a control element withdraw event at its maximum rate provides the 9 limiting rate of reactivity insertion.
10 Based on the analysis of this event provided in the application 11 the energy deposition and particle heat-up caused by the transient would not 12 result in kernel melt which prevents volumetric expansion pressures capable of 13 leading to TRISO particle failures.
14 Next slide, please. Thank you. I will now turn it over to Alex 15 Chereskin who will be presenting the Staff's technical review of the Hermes 16 reactor coolant and high temperature materials.
17 MR. CHERESKIN: Thank you, Chris. Next slide, please.
18 Hermes will use a molten salt reactor coolant which is a mixture of lithium 19 fluoride and beryllium fluoride, as known as Flibe.
20 Flibe has desirable heat transfer characteristics that make it a 21 suitable coolant for the Hermes design. In addition, Flibe is stable at the 22 expected temperature and radiation conditions of the Hermes reactor.
23 Flibe contains beryllium which requires controls to mitigate 24 potential worker exposure. The NRC Staff recognizes the potential beryllium 25 hazard and will consider its ability to impact operations or accident response
92 1 accordingly during an OL application review.
2 Another consideration for use of this coolant is that 3 transmutation of lithium in the salt will generate tritium. This could be mitigated 4 via tritium control strategies.
5 The Hermes design contains a tritium management system 6 and the PSAR contains analyses to address tritium generation and control. The 7 NRC Staff will review the final methods and systems to control tritium during an 8 OL application review.
9 Next slide, please. Another feature of using Flibe as a reactor 10 coolant is its ability to retain radionuclides that either escape from the TRISO 11 fuel or are borne in the reactor coolant.
12 This is a stated safety function of Flibe in the Hermes PSAR.
13 This ability is supported by National Lab operating experience and was 14 independently considered in the context of Kairos' technology to the NRC 15 Staff's review of Kairos' topical report on mechanistic source term.
16 This approved topical report provides the methodology to 17 determine the quantity of radionuclides that remain the salt during a postulated 18 event.
19 The NRC Staff evaluation of Flibe's capacity to retain 20 radionuclides supports its role as a layer in a functional containment. Further 21 information on Hermes functional containment approach will be provided later in 22 this presentation.
23 Another safety feature of Flibe is its low vapor pressure which 24 allows the reactor to operate at near-atmospheric pressures and mitigate the 25 potential for energetic releases or bulk boiling of the coolant under postulated
93 1 accident scenarios.
2 Flibe composition influences its properties so it is important to 3 maintain the composition within specified limits. The compositional 4 specification for the reactor coolant is found in an approved Kairos topical 5 report.
6 The Hermes test reactor will also contain a chemistry control 7 system that will be able to support maintaining required coolant chemistry.
8 In conclusion, the NRC Staff determined that it would be 9 acceptable to credit Flibe as a fission product barrier and that composition 10 controls would ensure the Flibe maintains its expected characteristics.
11 I will now present on aspects of the high temperature 12 materials review. Next slide, please. Many Hermes components will operate at 13 a significantly higher temperature than LWRs.
14 The figure on this slide shows safety-related components and 15 their locations in the reactor. The design uses 316H stainless steel and ER-16 1682 weld filler material for safety-related metallic components and ET-10 for 17 graphite reflector components.
18 The CP application included the use of ASME Code Section 19 3, Division 5, which the NRC Staff endorsed in Regulatory Guide 1.87, Revision 20 II. The NRC Staff review of the Hermes test reactor included applicability of 21 portions of the Code for both metallic materials.
22 The Staff used Section 3, Division 5, in the review of the 23 safety-related metallic components as it provides material properties, such as 24 allowable stresses based on creep damage, for the metallic materials at the 25 times and temperatures the Hermes reactor components will experience.
94 1 It also provides rules for other aspects important to 2 component integrity, such as pre-Service inspection, design, and fabrication 3 rules. The use of Section 3, Division 5, supports the use of 316H stainless steel 4 for safety-related components in the Hermes reactor and will help ensure 5 structural and mechanical integrity of safety-related metallic components.
6 For graphite components the Hermes PSAR cited an 7 approved topical report for qualification of the ET-10 graphite. The NRC Staff's 8 review focused on evaluating the qualification program and the CP against 9 applicable requirements from Section 3, Division 5, including obtaining 10 properties of graphite when unirradiated, irradiated, oxidized and exposed to 11 molten salt.
12 Additionally, the NRC Staff can verify implementation of Code 13 design rules and evaluate the impact of graphite oxidation on combustible gas 14 generation during an OL application review.
15 Qualification and design of graphite material to Section 3, 16 Division 5 requirements supports the safety-related graphite components in the 17 Hermes reactor because it follows an applicable NRC-endorsed methodology.
18 This helps to ensure that safety-related graphite components can support safety 19 functions.
20 Next slide, please. One unique aspect of this design that the 21 ASME Code does not address is the interactions between the environment and 22 the metallic structural materials.
23 In addition to the rules in ASME Code Section 3, Division 5, 24 Kairos will qualify the 316H stainless steel and its associated weld filler metal 25 for use in the Hermes environment.
95 1 The Hermes qualification program for metallic materials is 2 found in a previously-approved topical report. The qualification program 3 considers the environmental effects of temperature, irradiation, stresses and 4 strains, the coolant, potential impurities in the coolant, and combinations of 5 these effects, which is shown in the figure on this slide.
6 The program provides a method to evaluate the effects of the 7 environment in combinations of different factors on multiple degradation 8 mechanisms that are applicable to 316H stainless steel in the Hermes reactor 9 design.
10 It will also be used to address materials reliability and 11 environmental compatibility in the Hermes reactor via design as well as 12 inspection and surveillance as appropriate.
13 The qualification of 316H stainless steel in the Flibe coolant 14 supports the Hermes test reactor because it provides information on applicable 15 degradation mechanisms to inform design of components and any mitigating 16 measures to ensure these components can perform their functions during their 17 lifetimes.
18 In conclusion, based on the use of portions of ASME Code, 19 Section 3, Division 5, and the proposed materials qualification programs, the 20 NRC Staff determined the PSAR provided adequate information to support the 21 ability of safety-related components to maintain structural and mechanical 22 integrity needed to perform their design functions.
23 Next slide, please. Michelle Hart will now discuss the Staff's 24 technical review as it pertains to functional containment in the Hermes design.
25 MS. HART: Thank you, Alex. Next slide, please. Kairos
96 1 Power uses a functional containment approach instead of a traditional 2 containment structure for the Hermes test reactor.
3 The Commission has approved evaluating a non-light-water 4 reactor design's capability for providing retention of radionuclides through 5 various SSCs in place of a leak-tight containment.
6 The approved Staff Paper describing this concept, SECY 7 0096, defines functional containment as a barrier or a set of barriers taken 8 together that effectively limits the physical transport of radioactive materials to 9 the environment.
10 As alluded to by Chris and Alex, the barriers that are credited 11 as functional containment in Hermes consist of the TRISO fuel particle layers 12 and the Flibe molten salt coolant.
13 Other factors that contribute to the Hermes functional 14 containment approach include the operating conditions, fuel form, and coolant 15 design. The primary system operates at near-atmospheric pressure limiting the 16 driving force for escape of radionuclides.
17 The TRISO fuel is very robust with a design temperature of 18 1600 degrees Celsius and provides radionuclide retention capabilities even for 19 conditions in excess of that temperature.
20 In addition, the reactor will be operated to ensure a large 21 margin to the TRISO fuel design temperature. Flibe also has favorable 22 radionuclide retention properties.
23 The ultimate acceptability of this functional containment 24 approach is demonstrated by meeting accident analysis requirements, including 25 the 10 CFR 100.11 offsite dose acceptance criteria as described in PSAR
97 1 Chapter 13, Accident Analyses.
2 Next slide, please. The postulated accident radiological 3 consequence analysis also assesses the fission product and radionuclide 4 retention capabilities of a nuclear reactor design, including the functional 5 containment approach.
6 For a testing facility the citing requirements in 10 CFR 100.11 7 describe a consequence analysis to be used as an aid in evaluating a reposed 8 site.
9 The analysis should assume the expected demonstrable 10 containment leak rate and should be based upon a postulated or hypothetical 11 major accident that would result in potential hazards not exceeded by those 12 from any accident considered credible.
13 The Hermes PSAR identifies events consistent with a 14 maximum hypothetical accident, or MHA, approach as described in the Non-15 Power Reactor Standard Review Plan Guidance in NUREG-1537.
16 The Hermes MHA describes radiological releases based on a 17 postulated temperature-over-time profile to result in consequences that are 18 bounding for all postulated events. It is not a specific accident scenario.
19 The radiologic consequence analysis evaluated the 20 radionuclide retention within and transport across each of the barriers that 21 together provide the functional containment function to estimate the total 22 release to the environment and subsequent offsite doses for the Hermes MHA.
23 Kairos' commitments for testing of the fuel prior to its use, fuel 24 surveillance during operation, and continuing assessment of fission product 25 concentrations in the coolant and cover gas during reactor operation support
98 1 the analysis assumptions on radiological release as being the expected 2 demonstrable leak rate from the functional containment.
3 Based on this information the Staff found that the PSAR 4 analysis of the MHA provided an acceptable analysis of the overall capability of 5 the Hermes design, including the SSCs that provide the radionuclide 6 containment function.
7 Next slide, please. The Hermes PSAR describes the 8 components and operating conditions that define the functional containment. It 9 also identifies key performance criteria for specific SSCs to ensure the MHA 10 remains bounding for postulated accidents, such as specified acceptable 11 system radionuclide release design limits for the fuel and circulating activity 12 limits for the Flibe coolant.
13 These performance criteria are included in the PSAR 14 description of technical specifications for which specific values are to be 15 provided in the OL application.
16 In total, the acceptability of the functional containment is 17 demonstrated through design and analysis of the individual features of the 18 functional containment as well as their combined capability.
19 Next slide, please. Alex Siwy will now discuss the Staff's 20 technical review as it pertains to passive accident response in the Hermes 21 design.
22 MS. SIWY: Thank you, Michelle. Next slide, please. I'll just 23 continue and they'll catch up.
24 The Hermes facility is designed to mitigate postulated events 25 in a passive manner eliminating the need for active components, electrical
99 1 power, and operator actions for those events within the design basis.
2 The shutdown function is fulfilled by a reactor trip and 3 subsequent insertion of three safety-related shutdown elements into the core.
4 The reactor trip signal removes power from an electromagnetic clutch and the 5 elements fall by gravity into the core.
6 The shutdown elements can shutdown the reactor and 7 maintain it in a shutdown condition assuming the highest worst shutdown 8 element is stuck out of the core.
9 Although not credited in the accident analyses, the design 10 also includes four control elements that insert into the reflector providing 11 defense in depth.
12 The decay heat removal system, or DHRS, provides the 13 safety related means of heat removal for the Hermes design. The DHRS 14 operates continuously during normal and off-normal conditions above the 15 threshold reactor power level.
16 The always-on nature of the DHRS ensures that no 17 component needs to change state to activate the DHRS when it is needed to 18 mitigate a postulated event.
19 The DHRS has sufficient capacity to passively operate for up 20 to seven days to mitigate a postulated event when normal cooling is 21 unavailable.
22 Next slide, please. Given its importance for maintaining 23 adequate temperatures during a postulated event and its fundamental 24 differences relative to currently-operating reactors, the DHRS was a major 25 focus of Staff review.
100 1 This slide provides a diagram of the DHRS. The NRC Staff 2 ensured that the DHRS has the capacity and redundancy needed to provide 3 adequate cooling in the event of a single failure, the most extreme of which is 4 failure of an entire DHRS train.
5 In addition, the NRC Staff identified several phenomena with 6 the potential to affect DHRS performance. Examples include the two-phase 7 flow dynamics associated with the initial startup of the DHRS, overfilling of the 8 steam separator, and fouling of the DHRS. Kairos plans to address these and 9 other phenomena through qualification testing for the DHRS.
10 The NRC Staff also identified a potential for the DHRS to 11 overcool the reactor under ceratin conditions and cause Flibe to freeze.
12 Therefore, the Staff will ensure that the final DHRS design submitted as part of 13 an OL application provides adequate heat removal for both high- and low-14 residual decay heat loads.
15 Next slide, please. The NRC Staff reviewed the design and 16 performance of each of the systems involved in the passive response to 17 accidents as well as their integral response as demonstrated in example 18 calculations Kairos provided in a technical report.
19 In addition, the NRC Staff performed independent scoping 20 analyses to gain insights on the responses to transients and compared our 21 results against those of the Applicant.
22 These scoping analyses helped the Staff to inform our 23 questions to Kairos during the review and provided additional confidence in the 24 acceptability of the preliminary design.
25 To support an OL application Kairos would need to
101 1 demonstrate that certain SSCs will perform as assumed in the accident 2 analyses. Kairos plans to perform a variety of tests as part of this 3 demonstration.
4 Examples include shutdown element insertion into the pebble 5 bed, development and testing of the fluidic diode device that ensures natural 6 circulation when forced coolant flow is lost, and various aspects of DHRS 7 performance.
8 This concludes the safety panel presentation. We are 9 prepared to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
10 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Thank you to both panels. We will 11 begin questions now with Commissioner Caputo.
12 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank for the presentations. It's 13 very technical but clearly reflects the significant amount of work for many offices 14 across the agency and it documents the Staff's detailed and thorough review of 15 Kairos' construction permit application.
16 So thank you very much for the work that has led us to this 17 point and for participating in today's hearing.
18 Mr. Jessup, I would like to ask you a question related to the 19 Staff's response to Commission Pre-Hearing Question Number 14.
20 The Staff response to Question 14 relies on a divination of the 21 intent of the Commission's regulations being to a limited definition of "safety-22 related structure systems and components" in 10 CFR 50.2 limiting that 23 definition to power reactors.
24 However, the introductory phrase in 10 CFR 50.2 contains no 25 such limitation and indicates that the meanings provided in the subsequent
102 1 definitions apply as used in this Part, referring to Part 50.
2 This would seem to indicate that the definition of the safety-3 related structure systems and components provided in 50.2 applies to every 4 use of the phrase "in the regulations of Part 50."
5 So it strikes me that while Kairos would like to use a different 6 definition of the phrase in its preliminary safety analysis report, an exemption to 7 the definition would only be necessary if there were any regulations in Part 50 8 that are applicable to the construction permit application and used that phrase.
9 Bill, can you confirm whether the phrase "safety-related 10 structure systems and components" is used in any of the regulations in Part 50 11 that are applicable to this construction permit for Hermes, a non-power --
12 MR. JESSUP: Good morning, Commissioner Caputo. I think 13 I got the end of your question there. And so I'll answer it the best I can.
14 A couple of thoughts I would have, the first relative to the 15 response that was prepared to Question 14 for the pre-hearing question set, I 16 would say what the staff tried to do there is offer a bit of a history of how that 17 term has been treated for non-power production utilization facilities. So I think, 18 you know, that is part of what you saw in response to that question.
19 I would offer a couple of other thoughts too. I agree with your 20 underlying assumption there that if the term in question is not used in the 21 regulatory requirement, the underlying regulatory requirement, then it wouldn't 22 apply.
23 And so again, embedded in there is the thought that we 24 wouldn't necessarily accept or expect exemptions from the definition 25 themselves but rather the underlying requirements. So I think I agree with the
103 1 assumption there.
2 It is possible that there are, if you look at the suite of 3 requirements in Part 50 and perhaps elsewhere, that are applicable to the 4 Kairos-Hermes construction permit application, that none of those requirements 5 would include that term. And that is possible.
6 And I think you heard Mo Shams in the Overview Panel, in 7 response to a question from Commissioner Wright, discussing that part of the 8 staff's review. So that was a key part of the staff's review, is evaluating the 9 regulatory applicability of requirements to Hermes.
10 That being said, relative to the matter as a whole, I think it 11 would be, it's a great question, I think it might would be worth taking back and 12 exploring, doing a more comprehensive assessment to determine where that 13 term specifically shows up and build on the work that we've already done with 14 the regulatory applicability to Hermes. So I do think there would be value in 15 that for future applications for similar designs.
16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. I agree, particularly 17 given the expectation that Kairos will ultimately submit an application to build a 18 power reactor. I agree this is worth exploring further, because it doesn't make 19 sense to attempt to issue an exemption for a definition in order to give -- to 20 construction restrictions, so thank you for that.
21 Bill, I do have another question for you. The staff anticipated 22 preparation for this hearing would entail approximately 1,500 staff hours which, 23 given our current hourly rate, equals nearly a half a million dollars that we will 24 bill to the applicant.
25 I would expect an additional impact given there is likely some
104 1 overlap between the staff that contributed to preparing for and participating in 2 today's hearing, rather than spending their time on other reviews like the 3 Hermes 2 application.
4 In your view, has the statutory mandatory hearing 5 requirement impacted the staff's ability to execute the review schedule that was 6 set for Hermes 2, the construction permit application?
7 MR. JESSUP: Thank you again for the questioning, 8 Commissioner Caputo.
9 I would agree that there is overlap between the technical 10 reviewers and project management staff that are working on Hermes 2 that 11 worked on Hermes 1. That's actually a asset to the project, is to maintain that 12 continuity.
13 That being said, I do not think, particularly because we're 14 early in the review of the Hermes construction permit, the Hermes 2 15 construction permit application, we haven't seen a detrimental affect on the 16 schedule.
17 We have an ambitious schedule that we're confident we're 18 going to meet. But there absolutely is overlap between the staff working on the 19 hearing efforts and those working on Hermes 2.
20 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So in other words, to the extent 21 that resources are directed to prepare for the hearing, staff is spending their 22 time on the mandatory hearing rather than other applications that may be 23 pending before the agency, whether it's Hermes 2, or any other applications.
24 We're diverting their time away from those reviews in order to conduct a 25 mandatory hearing. Do I have that --
105 1 MR. JESSUP: Commissioner Caputo --
2 (Simultaneous speaking.)
3 MR. JESSUP: -- I guess I agree in the sense that if they're 4 working on Hermes 1 mandatory hearing preparation activities, they're not 5 billing to the Hermes 2 construction permit application review.
6 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you.
7 Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions for this panel.
8 CHAIR HANSON: Okay, thank you, Commissioner Caputo.
9 Commissioner Crowell?
10 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've 11 really learned to enjoy going after Commissioner Caputo in the questions, 12 because I usually learn something from her questions as well. It informs mine.
13 You know, as we continue to ruminate on this value 14 proposition for mandatory hearings, you know, there's multiple ways to look at 15 it.
16 I would just add to that discussion rhetorically here, it's not a 17 question for anyone, but when we're looking at, even in a mandatory 18 uncontested setting, when it's a first of a kind technology that the agency hasn't 19 previously looked at and signed off on, I do think there's still value in it. I know 20 it's a very heavy lift, but I think there's value in it.
21 And it's not just value for this room, it's value for the public in 22 knowing that they can trust the review process and that any efficiencies we gain 23 going forward can be trusted as well. So it is a heavy lift on the front end, but I 24 do think there's value.
25 Alexandra, how do you pronounce your last name?
106 1 MS. SIWY: Siwy.
2 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Siwy, okay. Ms. Siwy, this 3 may be a little bit of an uninformed question, but when you were talking about 4 the testing that will have to be done of the passive safety systems to 5 demonstrate the effectiveness is that -- are those tests physically done? And I 6 guess I could ask the Kairos folks too, or is it done on models and analytics?
7 MS. SIWY: I was referring specifically to tests that are 8 physically performed. But I'm sure they do modeling to inform their design, and 9 they have results that they think they're going to get, and they would compare 10 the two.
11 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Okay. And the essence of my 12 question is I think there's a measure of comfort that comes from knowing that 13 tests were done, or demonstrated physically as well. That's just analytically.
14 So thank you.
15 And my last question may be similar or picking up on 16 Commissioner Caputo's first question. But she's way smarter than I am, so I'm 17 going to ask it in a different way.
18 I'm thinking about these issues that the ACRS raised. And 19 this is probably to Bill or Ed. And I guess my first question is are they all 20 design-related issues, or are they more operating-related issues?
21 MR. JESSUP: Yes, I would say that they are operating-22 related issues, generally, that we, you know, we took a look at -- we certainly 23 considered carefully what was in the ACRS's letter and whether this was 24 something that we needed to go back to the applicant and get more information 25 at the CP stage. But I felt we were comfortable that, you know, these were
107 1 primarily operating issues that we felt that we could take a look at these again 2 as appropriate during the operating license.
3 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And within that, this set of 4 ACRS concerns, are they safety-related, or are they environmental-related 5 issues?
6 MR. JESSUP: I'd say they are primarily safety-related issues.
7 You know, they could have impacts on the environmental review as well. I 8 know, for example, the issue with our tritium release, you know, that's 9 something that even if it's -- it could have some impacts on safety. But it 10 certainly could impact the environmental review as well, you know, the 11 radionuclide release rates from the facility.
12 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And then, Bill, I think I heard 13 you say that these issues will be considered as appropriate. How is that 14 appropriateness consideration made?
15 MR. JESSUP: You're referring to the ACRS issues. Well, the 16 ACRS has outlined issues that they felt like were of concern and should be 17 addressed in the operating license application.
18 As appropriate, I think, means that we will evaluate them once 19 an operating license application comes in. We will make sure that, you know, 20 we revisit what the ACRS has said.
21 We also have a list of items that Kairos has committed to do 22 in the operating license application as well that we're tracking in Section(a)(2) of 23 the safety evaluation.
24 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Okay. It's not that you'll make 25 some determination on your own about whether they're considered or not, it's
108 1 just it'll be at the stage of the operating license?
2 MR. JESSUP: That's correct.
3 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, that's all I have.
4 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell. I 5 would like to get back to this issue of safety-related, but I'm going to ask it of 6 Kairos, and recognizing the staff's response to pre-hearing Question 14 and 7 everything.
8 But we know that the classification of system structures and 9 components is kind of one of the major building blocks of any licensing 10 application in front of the NRC. And, you know, you've explained why there's a 11 change in the definition of safety-related for your application, mainly because of 12 reactor coolant and pressure boundary.
13 Because the reactor coolant pressure boundary, except for 14 the reactor vessel, is not credited for fission product retention like the reactor 15 coolant pressure boundary is in a light water reactor.
16 So the application, and the staff safety evaluation, and the 17 ACRS summarize and explained the deviation kind of based on the design. But 18 I'm curious to hear about your process you used to identify a need for this 19 change and then kind of successfully pursue it within the NRC's framework?
20 MR. HASTINGS: Thank you for the question. So we 21 approached it from the fundamentals of what the safety functions were for the 22 design. And obviously the recognition that we have a low pressure system, we 23 don't have reactor coolant pressure boundary to begin with, and the concept of 24 functional containment, led us to sort of a performance-based definition of 25 safety related, if you will.
109 1 And so the distinction between the definition in 50.2 and our 2 definition really is just as simple as removing the pressure boundary 3 component from the definition.
4 CHAIR HANSON: Mr. Blandford, I don't know if you want to 5 jump in. You were nodding --
6 MR. BLANDFORD: No, I was just agreeing with --
7 CHAIR HANSON: Okay.
8 (Laughter.)
9 CHAIR HANSON: All right. No, it's very helpful, kind of how 10 you thought about, again, starting with functional containment as a concept and 11 then moving down from there for that performance-base. I do want to 12 talk about function containment, but I've got a question for the staff on that 13 which I think is one of the novel aspects of this.
14 And certainly, as I think numerous people have noted, in 15 SECY-18-0096 and the SRM that followed, as kind of an overall policy 16 statement, it's one thing to kind of put that in policy back in 2018, but it's 17 another thing entirely to actually -- for you all to go through that process.
18 So how did, you know, overall, and Bill or Alex, I'm not sure, 19 or Michelle, who this question really goes to, but how did the staff kind of 20 approach this novel review of the functional containment of the design? And 21 what's left to consider in the context of an operating license application?
22 MS. HART: So in general, in the functional containment, you 23 would look at each of the barriers. And it's very related to source term 24 development. And so there's, like, some double-counting you can do there.
25 You're already evaluating that.
110 1 And so the major difference in how you look at functional 2 containment versus what we've looked at for power reactors in the past, is that 3 you have that final barrier, that containment structure that You're paying a lot of 4 attention to. Instead, we focus that or we disburse that focus across the 5 different SSCs that they're crediting for that functional containment.
6 And so at the operating license stage, I mean, we have the 7 preliminary analysis, and we have this MHA concept that they've used for a 8 non-power reactor.
9 CHAIR HANSON: Maximum hypothetical accident.
10 MS. HART: Yes.
11 CHAIR HANSON: Yes.
12 MS. HART: Yes, thank you. And so when we get to the 13 operating license stage, we'll verify that maximum hypothetical accident is still 14 bounding of all the events and that they still continue to show that the functional 15 containment is operating as they assume it would in the context of the analysis.
16 CHAIR HANSON: I see. So it sounds like some of the 17 groundwork that's been laid in the functional containment concept that you guys 18 have already done will then kind of serve both the staff and Kairos well at the 19 operating license stage then 20 MS. HART: I think it's fair to say that.
21 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Yes, very good. Thank you. That's 22 it for me. Commissioner Wright?
23 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair. It's still good 24 morning. Thank you for your presentations.
25 And I didn't really know where to put this question today, so
111 1 I'm going to ask it now. I've got a lot of you all on a panel right now. And I'm 2 going to address it to Mike first at Kairos. But then I think it's going to, Ed, 3 maybe it might come back to you too for maybe some add-on, or response, or 4 anything.
5 So during this whole review process, Kairos has, and rightly 6 so, been cited as a positive example, right, for both how they're going about 7 stuff and how the staff is going about stuff. And it's a good-news story.
8 But there are some out there who've countered by saying, 9 yes, but it's just a test reactor, right. How would respond to that?
10 MR. LAUFER: Thank you, Commissioner Wright, for the 11 question. Let me first start maybe by providing a little bit of a historical context 12 on how we got to the decision to do Hermes in the first place. Because it was 13 actually a pivot for the company and not part of our original plan.
14 As I said, part of the iterative development process that we're 15 relying on is kind of constantly questioning how far you need to go on being 16 disciplined to scale back on going to the minimum to get what you need in 17 terms of results.
18 So maybe not intuitively, we showed the scale of the 19 engineering testing at Hermes compared to our commercial reactor. But the 20 decision to pursue the engineering testing actually preceded the decision to do 21 the Hermes reactor in the first place.
22 And the scale of Hermes was actually informed by our 23 understanding and detailed engineering progress at the scale of the 24 engineering testing. And it gave us the confidence that we could pursue that 25 technology more quickly and demonstrate the fundamental aspects of
112 1 technology in an architecture that basically is essentially identical to the 2 commercial reactor and probably, most significantly, relies on the same 3 fundamental safety case as a commercial reactor.
4 So building on the process for Hermes and Hermes 2, we 5 would expect essentially the same safety case to be made with a slightly larger 6 system for the commercial reactor. But establishing that confidence in the 7 licensing process is extremely valuable for our future commercial case. And so 8 being able to do it faster and with a smaller system provides significant 9 advantage.
10 The other thing I'll say, and Peter had mentioned, we had 11 previously been using 1537 as the model for our planned application at the 12 commercial scale. I think there's a lot of value in the non-power reactor 13 approach which allows for a lot of flexibility and fundamentally is about smaller 14 reactors that have more intrinsic safety and lower risk profiles. I would say that 15 generally applies to many advanced reactor concepts.
16 But conceptually, in the non-power reactor space and the 17 104 license space, you start with the minimum requirements, and then you add 18 requirements based on the risk profile of the facility.
19 That's, I think, a much more attractive process in licensing 20 rather than starting with the full set of power reactor regulations and having to 21 justify what doesn't apply across the board. So everything that is in there has 22 been validated that provides value for the safety case.
23 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, if I might, I want to add to that as well.
24 First of all, I obviously agree with everything that Mike said. But I get this 25 question a lot as well. We've had a lot of success in pre-application space and
113 1 a lot of success during the review. And a lot of people will say, you know, it's 2 only a power reactor.
3 But to amplify a point that Rob Taylor made earlier about the 4 Section 104, which implies a lower regulatory burden, that does not mean this 5 was a de minimis review. This was a comprehensive, thorough review that 6 was focused on what it needed to focus on.
7 And to the point that Mo Shams made, the main delta is the 8 set of power reactor requirements that simply don't apply to us. We understand 9 how to do all of that. It's not trivial, it's real work, but it's just work.
10 There's nothing about the power reactor requirements that, if 11 we were licensing a power reactor we somehow don't know how to do it, that it's 12 a mystery to us. And I think our pursuit of a test reactor is a real testament to 13 the value of the iteration cycle.
14 It's not only in hardware but also in, licensing space. It really 15 gives all of us an opportunity to flex those muscles so that, when we do get to 16 the power reactor stage, a lot of that work has already been done.
17 And to the point that Mike just made, while its not a subject of 18 this proceeding, we do expect the safety case to be largely the same for the 19 commercial reactor as it is for the power reactor.
20 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. Do you have any --
21 MR. HELVENSTON: Yes. I can give some staff perspective 22 on that. I mean, I don't think the fact that this is a test reactor really, you know, 23 takes away from the accomplishment of being able to successfully license 24 something like this at all.
25 You know, I think even though the set of regulations might be
114 1 different, I think there are still a lot of lessons learned, I think, in good practices 2 from the processes we use in this review that would apply to any review of a 3 power reactor or anything else.
4 You know, the staff using flexibility in how we apply guidance 5 and, you know, being willing to be creative and think outside the box in how 6 we're doing these reviews, I think some of the process things, like the use of 7 audits that I think was mentioned before, was very successful in this review.
8 So, you know, I certainly think that everything we did or most 9 of what we did in this certainly can apply in future reviews as well.
10 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you very much. That's 11 very helpful. I wanted to have that discussion. I though it was an appropriate 12 question for today. Earlier in the previous panel and then I think as well here, 13 we talked about core team approach which, obviously, I think is smart.
14 Ballpark-wise, how many people were part of the review of the core team, you 15 know, and how is maybe this approach different in this regard from other 16 application reviews that we've been doing? Anybody? Bill?
17 MR. JESSUP: I'll offer more than a ballpark. The number 18 was 12.
19 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: wow.
20 MR. JESSUP: Six were what we would call nearly full-time, 21 six -- the other six were part-time core team members so. And to answer the 22 second part of your question, the way I think about this is -- I've thought about 23 this a lot -- you could look at a pie chart and perhaps traditionally, you would 24 see 100 percent in that pie chart divided up into 25 percent increments. Here --
25 and I'm over generalizing a bit, maybe it's five 20 percent increments relative to
115 1 the individuals providing most of the input to the project, and that has a lot of 2 benefits so.
3 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Good. Thank you. I got one 4 other question I'm going to end up with and Ed, you brought it up earlier in your 5 -- or you referred to part of this. So as part of the prehearing questions the 6 Commission asked staff about the proposed license condition related to the 7 quality assurance program, okay, staff noted that because Hermes is neither a 8 nuclear power plant nor a fuel, you know, reprocessing plant, that these 9 requirements don't apply, right? So, therefore, you recommended including a 10 permit condition related to Kairos's QA program.
11 I guess my question is, is this concern -- because now we're 12 going into the construction process a little more flexible, right -- is this concern 13 something that is specific to this type of reactor specifically, or is it a more 14 generic issue? And I guess how does it compare, for example, to a vendor 15 supplying components for a COL who might not have a similar requirement?
16 MR. HELVENSTON: So I can speak a little bit to what our 17 thinking was with this condition. You know, we did acknowledge that, you 18 know, the requirements in 50.55(f) about implementation of a QA program do 19 not apply to a testing facility. They call out power reactors and fuel 20 reprocessing facilities, like you said. You know, our intention with this condition 21 was, you know, because there wasn't anything either sort of in the regulations 22 that called out explicitly, we wanted to add regulatory clarity by putting 23 something in the permit, you know, explicitly made clear, you know, what the 24 requirements were, you know, to support our construction inspection program.
25 You know, having clarity on what you need to do is good.
116 1 Another aspect of it was adding -- having that change control 2 process in there. You know, if we didn't have a permit like this sort of permitting 3 this change control process similar to what the 50.55(f) allows, you know, you 4 could potentially have a need for construction permit amendments that might be 5 something that's minor or administrative so, you know, we're hopefully saving 6 that administrative burden by working that part of that -- that aspect into the 7 permit.
8 With regard to -- I can't really speak to how that would work 9 with COL or manufacturing licenses specifically, but it seems that there's -- I 10 think it's a similar theme to, you know, it's good to have sort of regulatory clarity 11 and flexibility, and if there's a way that we can work that into a permit or license, 12 I think that's beneficial.
13 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. Thank you so much.
14 That's a lot.
15 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright. That 16 brings us to the end of the Safety Panel. I want to thank both Kairos and the 17 staff for their presentations. We are way ahead of schedule by about 40 18 minutes actually and so look, in the spirit of cost-saving and efficiency and 19 innovation, we will begin lunch now and we had scheduled the lunch period for 20 about 75 minutes. We will then -- so we will reconvene at 1:20 instead of 2:00.
21 I'll ask SECY to kind of post that on the website so that folks tuning in from 22 outside can see that -- should they tune into the NRC's website, that they can 23 see that we're going to start about 40 minutes early and with the environmental 24 panel and look forward to seeing you all back here. With that, we are in recess.
25 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at
117 1 12:04 p.m. and resumed at 1:20 p.m.)
2 CHAIR HANSON: All right. Call this hearing to order once 3 again. This is the Environmental Panel. The parties will address the 4 environmental review performed in connection with the construction permit 5 application including relevant sections of the Final Environmental Impact 6 Statement. I remind the witnesses that they remain under oath and that the 7 commission is familiar with their prehearing filings. I'd ask the -- Kairos once 8 again is going to present first. I would ask the panelists representing Kairos to 9 please introduce themselves. Please proceed.
10 MR. HASTINGS: Thank you, Chair Hanson, and 11 Commissioners for the opportunity to present at today's hearing. I'm Peter 12 Hastings. I'm the Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Quality for Kairos. I'll 13 be providing an overview of the Hermes environmental review.
14 Before I do that, though, I want to correct the transcript. In 15 the Safety Panel Q and A, I believe I inadvertently referred to Hermes as a 16 power reactor. I believe everybody knows but just to confirm the record, it is a 17 test reactor.
18 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. We'll make sure -- we'll figure out a 19 way to make that clarification in the record. Thank you.
20 MR. HASTINGS: Thank you. Are the slides up? Yes. Next 21 slide, please. So as you've heard a couple of times, we begin ever presentation 22 at Kairos by reiterating our mission to enable the world's transition to clean 23 energy. You will hear in this presentation how we're protecting the environment 24 by doing a thorough evaluation of the impacts to the environment from the 25 Hermes project. Next slide, please.
118 1 The regulatory bases for the environmental report were taken 2 from the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, NRC implementing 3 regulations for NEPA and others in the form of 10 CFR Parts 51 and 50, and 4 the interim staff guidance augmenting NUREG-1537 Parts 1 and 2 for format 5 and content and stand review plan and acceptance criteria respectively. Next 6 slide.
7 This slide illustrates our site selection process which focused 8 on our site selection business objectives that included the facilitation of rapid 9 deployment of a non power reaction to support Kairos Power's iterative 10 development approach; providing for a site that has sufficient high-quality site 11 data for licensing and design; and for proximity to DOE national labs to support 12 near term and future testing.
13 We identified out of the region of interest five sub-regions to 14 be considered in our sight selection process, and you see them listed here. We 15 used sub-regional screening criteria, one of which was the availability of the site 16 for access, characterization, and use within the schedule for Hermes 17 deployment. Based on this selection process, we down-selected to two 18 candidate sites, one in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and one in Eagle Rock, Idaho.
19 Oak Ridge ended up as the preferred site. Eagle Rock ended up as the 20 alternative site.
21 Once Oak Ridge was chosen for the Hermes site, we've 22 actively sought to engage and support local communities in the Oak Ridge 23 area, as you heard described earlier. We also take this same approach, as I 24 think Mike indicated, for all of our facilities in all the communities where we're a 25 presence, nuclear or otherwise.
119 1 We've worked very hard to build trusting relationships with our 2 neighbors through meaningful outreach activities, through answering their 3 questions, and ensuring concerns are addressed. These activities have 4 included virtual and in-person community meetings, an online virtual meeting 5 space for community education. This can be found at 6 kairospower.consultation.ai. It's a publicly available site and Commissioner 7 Crowell speaks directly to your concerns about public engagement, particularly 8 at the layperson level for arcane and complex topics such as what we're dealing 9 with.
10 We've conducted informational discussions, informational 11 mailings to nearby neighbors. We hosted an eat and greet at the Hermes site 12 for nearby neighbors as well as state and local representatives at the nearby K-13 25 history center, and we work closely with community and non-governmental 14 organizations both locally and nationally. Next slide.
15 As discussed on a previous slide, Oak Ridge, Tennessee was 16 chosen as the candidate site. Specifically within Oak Ridge, the site of the 17 former K-33 and K-31 Gaseous Diffusion Plants was chosen. As we'll show on 18 the next slide, this area was previously very heavily disturbed and well-19 characterized which met some of the selection criteria for our site. The overall 20 property is approximately 185 acres, and the temporarily-disturbed area is 21 approximately 138 acres. And you heard earlier the permanently disturbed site 22 for Hermes is approximately 30 acres. You can see the proposed location of 23 the Hermes facility in the southeast corner of the former K-33 facility. This site 24 has the advantage of significant existing infrastructure including roads and utility 25 connections. Next slide.
120 1 This slide gives a good visual indication of how the site was 2 previously disturbed. The pictures on the left show ground preparation for K-31 3 and K-33 building construction. The picture on the top right shows K-31 and K-4 33 when they were in operation. K-33 is the larger of the two facilities, and to 5 give you a feel for the scale, this building was approximately 85 feet tall and 6 covered over 30 acres. You can't see it well in this picture, but there are power 7 poles that aren't as high as the building. You can still see most of those power 8 poles on site today. It gives you a good feel for the size of the facility that was 9 there. And then the photo in the bottom right shows K-33 during demolition. So 10 you can see the site has been previously very heavily disturbed. Next slide.
11 This is an overview of the Hermes environmental report 12 contents. The key takeaway from this slide is that the impacts of construction, 13 operations, and decommissioning were all determined to be small.
14 This includes our proposed remarks for the Environmental 15 Panel and at the appropriate time, we'll be happy to take the Commissioner's 16 questions. Thank you.
17 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Hastings. Now 18 I'll invite the staff panel to join us at the table here. Okay. Panelists for the 19 staff, please introduce yourselves.
20 MR. ERWIN: Good afternoon, Chair Hanson. My name is 21 Ken Erwin. I'm the Branch Chief of the Environmental Review New Reactors 22 Branch in the Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support in 23 the Office of NMSS.
24 MS. DOZIER: Yes. I am Tamsen Dozier. I am the Project 25 Manager in the New Reactors Branch, Environmental Review Division of
121 1 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support in NMSS.
2 MR. DOUB: Peyton Doub. I'm an environmental scientist in 3 the department with Tam and Ken.
4 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. Thank you very much. Please 5 proceed with your presentation.
6 MR. ERWIN: Can we go to slide 3? On behalf of the 7 environmental team, the three of us will present to you this afternoon a 8 summary of the process staff used for developing the Environmental Impact 9 Statement, or EIS, including the identification and analysis of alternatives, a 10 summary of the environmental impacts at the Hermes site, any additional 11 notable information regarding the review, and the conclusions and 12 recommendations presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, or 13 FEIS. Next slide, please.
14 My team completed the environmental review of the Kairos 15 construction permit in parallel with the safety review that you heard about this 16 morning. You also heard that the staff's NEPA process and how it fits in with 17 the safety review earlier during the Overview Panel. In doing the safety review, 18 the staff followed its normal environmental review process for preparing an 19 environmental impact described in 10 CFR Part 51 and the guidance in interim 20 staff guidance augmenting NUREG-1537.
21 Additionally, the staff implemented the outcomes of its recent 22 environmental transformation effort during its review. For example, the staff 23 significantly revised the NEPA documentation in order to reduce redundancy, 24 make the document clearer, and better focus the staff's review effort on impacts 25 to the environment that were the most notable. The staff also incorporated
122 1 information by reference from the recently-completed Clinch River Early Site 2 Permit, or ESP, because the Clinch River and Hermes sites are geographically 3 close to each other and share a number of similarities.
4 Another result of this effort is that the page count for the 5 document is only 116 pages of analytical texts. This is consistent with the 6 Counsel on Environmental Quality recommendation that an EIS for a simple 7 project be up to 150 pages and meets the Fiscal Responsibility Act changes to 8 NEPA which directs that in general, an EIS shall not exceed 150 pages, not 9 including any citations or appendices. In comparison, the Clinch River ESP EIS 10 published in April 2019 was 607 pages of analytical text. This is an 11 approximately 80 percent decrease.
12 Staff achieved its outcome while still completing an 13 exhaustive NEPA review implementing a very high level of public and 14 stakeholder engagement and ensuring most importantly that the NRC's NEPA 15 obligations and related laws, regulations, and processes were met. Next slide, 16 please.
17 Tamsen Dozier will now provide an overview of the 18 environmental review process.
19 MS. DOZIER: Thank you, Ken. Next slide, please. The 20 proposed federal action for the Kairos Hermes application is the issuance of a 21 construction permit authorizing the construction of the Hermes reactor. A 22 construction permit does not authorize the operation of a nuclear facility.
23 However, as mentioned in the Overview Panel this morning, the EIS presents 24 the staff's evaluation of the impacts from construction, operation, and 25 decommissioning of the facility at the proposed site.
123 1 The purpose and need for the agency's action is informed by 2 the applicant's purpose and need for the project. Kairos proposes to build and 3 operate their Hermes facility to demonstrate key elements of the Kairos Power 4 fluoride salt-cooled high temperature technology for future commercial 5 deployment. As previously mentioned, the operation of the Hermes reactor 6 would not generate any power for sale or distribution. Next slide, please.
7 The environmental review team followed a systematic 8 approach to evaluate the impacts expected to occur from the proposed federal 9 action. During it's 60-day scoping period, the staff contacted federal, state, and 10 local agencies along with federally-recognized tribes to solicit comments.
11 In conducting its environmental review, the review team 12 carried out independent analyses and evaluation based on information provided 13 by the applicant which included supplemental or clarifying information submitted 14 during the review in response to interactions during one full-scope 15 environmental audit and requests for confirmatory information.
16 During the 60-day comment period on the draft EIS, the NRC 17 received numerous comments through a public meeting and from letters and 18 emails containing written comments. All comments received were considered 19 in preparing the final EIS which was issued in August of 2023. Next slide, 20 please.
21 The NRC's environmental review offered several opportunities 22 for members of the public to learn about and participate in the review. While 23 the March 2022 public outreach and scoping meeting was held virtually due to 24 COVID restrictions, the staff took out multiple-day news ads in both local and 25 regional news services and worked with our contacts in the area to get the word
124 1 out regarding the meeting. These ads also provided information regarding how 2 to submit written comments to the NRC on the scope of the environmental 3 review. Thirty-seven members of the public joined the meeting.
4 The November 2022 meeting held during the draft EIS 5 comment period in Oak Ridge was similarly publicized. The meeting also 6 included the option for participants to join virtually via a computer or by phone 7 line, and over 75 members of the public participated in the draft EIS meeting.
8 In November 2022, the staff also met in person with local 9 government officials including city and county officials and local representatives 10 from state agencies. This meeting was to hear any feedback or concerns about 11 the project from those entities in a government-to-government forum.
12 Other public outreach efforts included improved access to key 13 safety and environmental review documents and regularly updated review 14 status via the construction permit review page on the NRC's website. The staff 15 shared the project review webpage link via the meeting newspaper ads, press 16 releases, and other interactions with the public. Next slide, please.
17 I will now turn the presentation over to Peyton Doub who will 18 discuss the results of the staff's review.
19 MR. DOUB: Thank you, Tammy. Next slide, please. The 20 staff considered a range of reasonable alternatives. Traditionally, the staff has 21 considered a no-action alternative, alternative sites, alternative energy 22 generation sources, and alternative system designs. But because the purpose 23 of Hermes is to test and demonstrate a specific new technology, alternatives 24 involving other fuels or designs would not meet the purpose and need. Kairos 25 did, however, follow a systematic process for identifying possible alternative
125 1 sites. The staff considered only alternatives that were technically and 2 economically feasible. Next slide, please.
3 In Section 4.2 of the EIS, the staff reviews the iterative 4 process used by Kairos to identify alternative sites. The screening criteria 5 reflect the combination of site characteristics need to develop and operate 6 Hermes. The screening process identified two reasonable sites for detailed 7 evaluation, the proposed site in Oak Ridge and a tract of vacant agricultural 8 land near Idaho Falls, Idaho termed the Eagle Rock site. Next slide, please.
9 Chapter 3 of the EIS evaluates potential direct, indirect, and 10 cumulative impacts to 12 distinct environmental resources as shown on this 11 slide. Chapter 4 of the EIS evaluates impacts to the same categories of 12 environmental resource by the alternatives including the no-action alternative 13 and the Eagle Rock site alternative. Next slide, please.
14 The staff concludes that the potential direct, indirect, and 15 cumulative impacts would be small. The staff defines "small impacts" as not 16 detectable or so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any 17 important attribute of the resource. Even though the proposed construction 18 permit would authorize only construction of Hermes, the staff also considered 19 the potential environmental impacts from the full reactor life cycle including 20 operation and decommissioning. The small conclusions presented in the EIS 21 reflect the full life cycle. The staff would supplement the EIS and update the 22 analysis for later life cycle stages should the applicant apply for future licenses 23 for Hermes.
24 The staff finished writing the EIS before Kairos submitted an 25 application for licensing two additional test reactors termed Hermes 2 for
126 1 development on the same site as Hermes. The staff prepared a new and 2 significant evaluation concluding that the contribution of Hermes 2 to the 3 cumulative impacts from Hermes would not be significant. Next slide, please.
4 Section 4.4 of the EIS compares the environmental impacts 5 from each alternative. The no-action alternative does not meet the purpose and 6 need. The environmentally preferable action that does meet the purpose and 7 need is the proposed action at Oak Ridge which would have small 8 environmental impacts. Although the Eagle Rock alternative would also meet 9 the purpose and need, it could result in noticeable impacts to land use and 10 visual resources, ecological resources, and historic and cultural resources.
11 Building the reactor at Oak Ridge would disturb only previously-disturbed lands 12 in an existing industrial setting. In contrast, building the reactor at Eagle Rock 13 would alter the rural aesthetics of the surrounding landscape, disturb 14 agricultural land and natural vegetation, and disturb natural surface soils 15 potentially containing archeological resources. Next slide, please.
16 In addition to writing an EIS to comply with NEPA, the staff 17 also performed consultations required under Section 7 of the Endangered 18 Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The 19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred, in writing, with the staff that the 20 Hermes reactor may affect but is not likely to adversely affect, threaten, or 21 endanger a species. For Section 106, the staff communicated with 18 22 American Indian tribes, the Tennessee Council on Historic Preservation, the 23 National Parks Service, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
24 The Tennessee Council on Historic Preservation serves as 25 the state historic preservation officer for Tennessee and had no concerns. Of
127 1 the American Indian tribes consulted, only one requested to formally act as a 2 consulting party under Section 106. They requested additional information 3 about archeological resources potentially present at the site and asked to 4 participate in development of an archeological monitoring and discovery plan.
5 The staff is presently completing the consultation process with that tribe. I will 6 now turn the presentation back to Ken to wrap things up.
7 MR. ERWIN: Sorry. Thanks. Yes, slide 16, please? Thank 8 you. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.105(a), the staff weighed the 9 environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against the 10 environmental and other costs and considered reasonable alternatives to the 11 prosed action. Based on small environmental impacts associated with the 12 proposed Kairos facility and the societal and economic benefits associated, the 13 staff determined that the benefits outweigh the small environmental cost.
14 Therefore, the staff recommends the issuance of a construction permit to Kairos 15 once NHPA consultations have concluded. Next slide, please.
16 The issuance of an operating license is a separate action 17 from the issuance of a construction permit. If Kairos were to submit an 18 application for an operating license for a 10 CFR Part 50 production and 19 utilization facility, the staff would implement its NEPA process in accordance 20 with 10 CFR Part 51. The actions undertaken as part of this process would 21 update the environmental review by discussing relevant issues or topics not 22 included in the FEIS and any different and new significant information regarding 23 matters discussed in the FEIS. As part of the operating license application, 24 Kairos would be required to submit a supplemental environmental report, and 25 staff would independently evaluate the information provided in the supplemental
128 1 environmental report and would conduct its own independent review to 2 determine if any different and significant new information has become available 3 since publication of the FEIS. The staff would follow the environmental review 4 process described in 10 CFR Part 51 in preparing any new NEPA 5 documentation required and updating that documentation based on public 6 comments as received as appropriate.
7 This concludes the Environmental Panel presentation. We 8 are prepared to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
9 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you. Thank you to both panels for 10 your presentations. We'll begin the questions on this round with Commissioner 11 Crowell.
12 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and 13 thank you to the presenters. I think my first question is going to be to the Kairos 14 folks, either to Mr. Hastings or potentially Mr. Laufer as I want to talk about 15 public outreach and how questions and comments were addressed. And, you 16 know, for people who may be listening in today who aren't from the area or 17 didn't participate in those forum, can you give some examples of some of the 18 questions and concerns raised by the community and how they were addressed 19 and satisfied? And we'll start there.
20 MR. LAUFER: Sure. Thank you for the question, 21 Commissioner. So as Peter mentioned, starting about two years ago, we 22 started engagement specifically with the Oak Ridge community, although due to 23 pandemic restrictions, most of those initial meetings were virtual, and so they 24 were actually open to a broader network of stakeholders given that opportunity 25 for virtual engagement.
129 1 In each of those meetings, there was an opportunity for 2 questions to be submitted, and I believe that all questions asked in the forum 3 were addressed, and they covered a pretty wide range of topics ranging from 4 specifics of the technology to the safety case to kind of the future development 5 needs of Kairos. So I think there was -- basically, any question was fair game 6 for those meetings, and I was there, well, virtually to address them directly.
7 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Was the nature of the 8 questions initial concern or skepticism that had to be adequately addressed, or 9 was the level of, you know, in that community where folks are a little bit more 10 familiar with this stuff better? I'm just -- and what I'm trying to get at here is, you 11 know, is this an uncontested license and maybe this outreach contributed to it.
12 I'm trying to sort that out.
13 MR. LAUFER: So I would say that I can't recall any specific 14 critical or kind of loaded questions that came from those forums. I do recall 15 questions along the lines of how can you go faster and indicating, you know, 16 significant community and local support. We did engage in a number of 17 outreach efforts specifically with mailers to all residents within a certain distance 18 of the facility as well as outreach to specifically communities that may not be 19 within the network or may not be aware of nuclear activities in the area. So we 20 did have specific outreach activities to broader communities, not just those who 21 were going to be more interested in technical issues associated with the lab. In 22 Oak Ridge, there are a lot of people who are very closely connected to the lab.
23 But we did have broader outreach.
24 And then I think really the key was the mailer campaign that 25 we had for every resident within a certain distance of the facility. We've had
130 1 multiple mailers. Then we have virtual mailing lists that people can join to see 2 our progress and track us. But there were outreach efforts not just to the 3 community that was interested but also to try and cover a broader set of local 4 stakeholders.
5 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you. My next question, 6 I'm not sure if it's for the applicant or for staff or maybe both, but I want to delve 7 into this outstanding 106 consultation that is happening. And I think it's worth 8 hearing a little bit more about why that process isn't complete yet, whether 9 that's a timing issue or an issue that needs attention or concern and mostly, I'd 10 like to hear why it's not premature to be having this discussion and potentially a 11 decision on this license application before that consultation is complete.
12 MR. ERWIN: Thank you, Commissioner, for that question. I'll 13 take that. I think it is a question for the staff because we are the lead for 14 consultation. It's a federal responsibility, Section 106. So I'll just say the very 15 end of your question, I don't believe you're allowed to make a decision until 16 consultations are closed. We are working to try to make sure consultations are 17 closed. We do have an update on that. In terms of why it was appropriate to 18 support having the hearing while consultations were ongoing, so all the 19 consulting parties were working together.
20 I think there was a lot of agreement ongoing in terms of what 21 was happening and what Kairos was proposing is a very heavily industrialized 22 site. We believe the risks of any kind of discovery are very low and on top of 23 that, the applicant has this archeological resource monitoring and discovery 24 plan. And so if you take the combination of those, all the consulting parties, 25 including the Tennessee SHPO and the tribe and the applicant themselves, all
131 1 were in really a good strong path towards alignment where we thought it was 2 appropriate to move forward with supporting the timing of this hearing. And so 3 I'll also ask Tammy or Peyton if you have anything you want to add related to 4 that?
5 MS. DOZIER: So, yes, I can add something. So the timing, 6 you mentioned specifically about the time. So the scoping period, there were 7 some questions and information was provided to the consulting tribe. And -- but 8 as it turned out, they did want more information, so on the DEIS comment 9 period was when we first received their request for additional information and to 10 participate in the monitoring plan so things proceeded along. And Section 106 11 is a process and interactions back and forth on tech time, so -- and, you know, 12 we have a pretty aggressive schedule here, so as Ken said, it was appropriate 13 for, we believe, because of the agreement that the parties had reached to 14 conclude consultations was on a good path, and we felt that it would be 15 appropriate to proceed.
16 MR. ERWIN: Yes. I just wanted to emphasize that part, the 17 agreement in principle really is what helped us make that decision to move 18 forward.
19 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: And let me try and offer 20 maybe some additional clarification on that. By referring to the agreement, is 21 that to say that if the tribe that's requested consultation were here today, they 22 would agree with what has been said and that they're okay with this process 23 and status?
24 MR. ERWIN: I'm a little bit nervous speaking for a tribe, but I 25 believe, based on my interaction, and Tammy has had a lot of interaction as
132 1 well, that they would agree with everything I've said, yes, sir.
2 MS. DOZIER: they do understand the process. Yes, we've 3 made very sure. In fact, even got a written -- something written back from them 4 that they confirm the process. We worked with the SECY office to make sure 5 that things were explained to them appropriately.
6 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Okay. And they fully 7 understand that the Commission won't make a final decision until the 8 consultation is complete?
9 MS. DOZIER: Correct.
10 MR. ERWIN: Yes, sir.
11 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you. Switching gears 12 and again, not sure if the applicant or staff wants to field this first, but I want to 13 talk a little bit about tritium releases and how those assumptions were included 14 in the application review and how they were bounded specifically. This is an 15 issue that ACRS raised and is of interest to me. I'm still struggling to determine 16 whether it is more an environmental or a safety issue, and I'm happy to hear 17 any views on that. But can whoever appropriate tell me a little bit more about 18 how tritium releases were considered and bounded?
19 MR. ERWIN: So we did look at those releases as part of our 20 radioactive health section of the EIS and in order to provide a little bit more 21 information, I'd like to call on the senior staff nuclear engineer who did that 22 review. Don, if you would?
23 MR. PALMROSE: Good afternoon, Commissioner.
24 CHAIR HANSON: Can you introduce yourself?
25 MR. PALMROSE: My name is Donald Palmrose. I'm a
133 1 Senior Reactor Engineer, Environmental Center of Expertise, and I have been 2 sworn in as a witness.
3 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you.
4 MR. PALMROSE: Yes. I was the lead for this review on the 5 environmental side. And so we did a review in coordination --
6 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: You may need to speak in the 7 microphone so people online can hear.
8 MR. PALMROSE: All right. We did the review in coordination 9 with the safety review to ensure that what -- the information we received from 10 Kairos was bounding and conservative. In particular for the tritium case, they 11 did provide values for us, and those were used in the code that is -- that the 12 staff applies for this. It's under the package name of NRC Dose and a sub 13 program in that is called GASPAR. And so the thing to keep in mind the case of 14 this tritium is that it is being released as a gaseous form rather than the typical 15 form as a -- in a water molecule that we're more used to from light water 16 reactors. So if there's any parc information you want as far as how the code 17 would handle those, a gaseous form of that, I'd have to take that in writing and 18 get back to you for additional details if that's the direction of your question.
19 MR. PALMROSE: No. But say here because you may have 20 my follow-up in your wheelhouse. So did the assumptions assume that the 21 tritium management system was operating or was failed or not operating? How 22 was that?
23 MR. PALMROSE: Could you clarify that as far as the during 24 the operation of the reactor? So --
25 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: I'm told that the EIS discusses
134 1 that the tritium management system used to capture tritium, Section 39 --
2 3.9.2.3 something, and do the bounding assumptions take the TMS into 3 consideration, or do they assume failure of the TMS?
4 MR. PALMROSE: The failure of the TMS system would be 5 covered under possibly the accident section, and so as I recall, that would be 6 covered under the maximum hypothetical accident. I don't think that that 7 release was the bounding case for the maximum hypothetical accident, but I'd 8 have to refer to the safety staff for that aspect of it.
9 MR. PALMROSE: Okay. And I'd be happy to hear from 10 anyone on this, because my concern is that there's a lot of -- in my short time 11 on the Commission, I've noticed in different instances a lot of confusion on 12 behalf of the public about the relative harm of tritium being an effluent and a 13 gas, and it can quickly, you know, get blown out of proportion, but sometimes 14 it's very much a relevant and concerning issue. So I just want to make sure 15 we're clear on this and Mr. Hastings, please, go ahead.
16 MR. HASTINGS: Yes. I think I may be able to clarify cause 17 it's a two-part answer. What Mr. Palmrose has indicated in terms of tritium as 18 an effluent is absolutely correct and that effluent stream is governed by the 19 limits on gaseous effluent in 10 CFR 20. The tritium inventory collected b the 20 tritium management system, which is not a safety-related system, is monitored 21 under tech specs to make sure that the available inventory for potential release 22 in an accident scenario is below that assumed in the MHA. So it's not -- it 23 doesn't end up as a bounding isotope in the accident release because of those 24 tech specs.
25 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you. That's helpful.
135 1 Appreciate.
2 MR. ERWIN: Yes. And I just want to add, just building on 3 that point, we do -- you know, we do normal release of radiation and accident, 4 and we do very complicated dose rate analyses using very complicated 5 computer codes. And they come to the conclusion that the releases are below 6 the limits in Part 20. So I think that's very important to make sure that we have 7 on the record that we do do those analyses and that the results are below 8 where they need to be.
9 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, 10 that's all I have.
11 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell, very 12 much. I guess the -- my first question I think is for Kairos and it's getting back 13 to the Section 106 process question. And I guess it's just do you have anything 14 you'd like to share about your experiences with NRC Section 106 consultation 15 process?
16 MR. HASTINGS: Sure. So a little bit of background may be 17 useful as well. As a result of deed restrictions put in place by the Department of 18 Energy associated with the turnover of this property to private industrial 19 development, we were always obligated to have a monitoring program in the 20 unlikely event of discovery of artifacts. So the good news is when the tribe 21 raised the question, that plan was already under development. The tribe asked 22 some questions about the details about how we developed the input to that 23 plan, and we found that the survey that was requested by the tribe largely 24 substantiated our plan, did add some details, added some details that were 25 helpful.
136 1 And to the question that Commissioner Crowell asked, from 2 our perspective, it was almost exclusively a matter of timing, not some 3 contention. We found ourselves in good agreement, but it took time to develop 4 the details. Because it was a government-to-government consultation, the tribe 5 requested anonymity. We fully respect that request and have honored it. And 6 so it's a little bit clunky to communicate back and forth just because of the time 7 frames involved. But overall, we're pleased with the outcome. We're happy 8 that we think we have been able to accommodate the tribe's request and 9 address their questions, and we look forward to closure of the consultation.
10 CHAIR HANSON: Great. Thank you very much, really 11 appreciate it. This question's for the staff, I think. So for the environmental 12 justice analysis, Kairos used a five-mile radius for identifying environmental just 13 communities and concluded there were no minority populations to be 14 considered as environmental justice communities within that radius. Staff did 15 not agree with that five-mile radius, instead going back to the Clinch River EIS, 16 which included a 50-mile radius. But then -- and apparently, that's what was 17 used in LIC-203 which I assume is the early site permit for Clinch River.
18 But ultimately, the staff then concluded that there were no 19 environmental justice communities or no environmental justice impacts in part 20 because the closest potential environmental justice community was eight miles 21 away, which is only, by my calculations, only slightly farther than the five miles 22 maybe than Kairos considered. So can you talk a little bit about that process 23 and that decision and if, for example, there was no what if there were not kind 24 of recently prepared EIS in this case, right? With the Clinch River sitting out 25 there, you could refer to it, etcetera, that analysis had been done. If that hadn't
137 1 been done with the 50-mile radius, would five have been sufficient, or would the 2 staff have advocated for some other kind of radius in that case?
3 MR. ERWIN: So thank you for the question. That's a very 4 good question. I'll start off. So I was actually part of the Clinch River ESP 5 environmental just analysis. It was extremely comprehensive. You know, we 6 started off at the census level. We drilled down into these various levels, 7 regional and then local level, and you do your analysis. And then we 8 supplemented that by actually going out to the site for a week, and I actually 9 went out with the reviewer, and we drove around to all kinds of various locations 10 that we had -- that the reviewer had looked up ahead of time, you know, 11 religious leaders, local leaders, chamber of commerce, and we really did that 12 boots on the ground review. And we put all that in the Clinch River ESP, and 13 that was fairly recent. That was 2019.
14 So when we got this review, you know, we wanted to use our 15 best practices and incorporating by reference as much as we could, and that 16 was really one of the best things we had available and had just fairly recently 17 been done. So the reviewer updated his review based on the conclusions he 18 had made, and we ended up incorporating that into the Kairos review. And I 19 guess, I don't know, Peyton, if you want to add anything to that?
20 MR. DOUB: Yes. I'll just that another factor in the small 21 conclusion for socioeconomics and environmental justice was the small size of 22 the project, so that combined with the fact that there was an eight-mile distance 23 between the nearest EJ-recognized community jointly provided a way to 24 evidence support for our small conclusion and that socioeconomics and 25 environmental just were not driving factors in our overall recommendation
138 1 among the alternatives.
2 CHAIR HANSON: I think that makes sense, Peyton. I'm glad 3 you brought up the small size of the project; right? I mean the --
4 MR. ERWIN: Right.
5 CHAIR HANSON: -- Clinch River project was a large, at least 6 one or more large light water reactor units you're talking about, the 50-mile 7 thing being in a jet stream pathway zone, etcetera; right? There are 8 connections there. But in a way, though, it was a small project. It was 9 reasonably low-risk in terms of offsite release or impacts to environmental 10 justice communities. Kairos proposed a five-mile radius. You said, No. We've 11 got this thing that looks at 50, but kind of in the end, five miles, it sounds to me 12 like was about right in terms of the size and scale of the project and the 13 impacts. Is that fair? Am I stretching there?
14 MR. ERWIN: I think that's fair. You know, incorporating by 15 reference a big 50-mile analysis is one thing, but you do need to look at the 16 individual project --
17 CHAIR HANSON: Yes.
18 MR. ERWIN: -- itself. So I think that's important, yes.
19 CHAIR HANSON: It is a big balance.
20 MR. ERWIN: Yes. It's a big balance, yes.
21 CHAIR HANSON: Okay. All right. Great. Just with the 22 remaining time I have, I'm really interested in this idea of -- you know, we talked 23 a little bit about the Clinch River EIS obviously being a really key source of input 24 and how that may have helped streamline the overall EIS that you all did. But 25 the other part of this is that it's a brownfield and, of course, you know, there's a
139 1 lot of interest in turning brownfields, whether they're former coal plants or other 2 industrial sites, into nuclear sites. And I guess I'm interested to hear from both 3 Kairos and the staff to what extent was the fact that this was a brownfield, did it 4 make the environmental analysis easier or harder or a little bit of both or what 5 have you?
6 MR. ERWIN: I guess I'll start and then, you know, Tammy 7 and Peyton and then Kairos can add. I think the fact that it was a brownfield, 8 we -- I mean we still followed the NEPA process, and we still completed that 9 process, and we still made our findings, and we still ensured that the NRC's 10 NEPA obligations were met. I do think we -- the reason I'm hesitating a little bit 11 is because we had a big transformation effort in the middle of that, and so we 12 realized a lot of efficiencies there as well. But I do think the fact that it was a 13 brownfield process -- a brownfield site made the process easier and more 14 efficient, yes.
15 CHAIR HANSON: Okay.
16 MS. DOZIER: Yes. I would add that maybe in the Section 17 106, it wasn't so much about the brownfield site. It was just the lack of the --
18 back in the 1940's, for instance, there was not a lot of records about how deep 19 some of the previous disturbance was. And so that might have been -- and 20 Kairos can probably add to this. That might have -- you know, there was a little 21 bit more work to just -- which the report definitely has.
22 MR. ERWIN: Yes. That's a good point.
23 MS. DOZIER: Yes.
24 MR. DOUB: I would additionally add that the fact that it was a 25 brownfield definitely contributed greatly to our ability to conclude small impacts.
140 1 However, the analysis itself still requires a certain amount of procedure. So the 2 fact that we achieved streamlining in the EIS was not just because of the 3 brownfield site but because of efforts that we consciously took to develop a new 4 outline that reduced redundance, summarization, and used more incorporation 5 by reference for descriptive material and established page targets for the 6 authors before starting. So it's more those efforts that allowed us to achieve the 7 page count than just the fact that the project's on a brownfield.
8 CHAIR HANSON: Fair enough. Mr. Hastings?
9 MR. HASTINGS: So I would agree with Peyton's conclusions 10 certainly. It also depends depending on the brownfield site. If it's a legacy site 11 with a lot of contamination, that makes baselining potentially harder. It can 12 make mitigating actions more difficult. But on balance, I think you're going to 13 find that brownfield sites are easier for data collection, certainly if they have 14 existing data particularly on our site where we have lots of existing that we were 15 able to take advantage of. And maybe more importantly, looking forward to 16 other brownfield sites such as coal conversion, for example, the existence of 17 infrastructure that can be repurposed is really important and also not only 18 makes it easier to develop the site but also makes that component of the 19 potential adverse impact much, much easier.
20 CHAIR HANSON: Great. Thank you very much.
21 Commissioner Wright.
22 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair. I'm going to 23 kind of drill a little bit further, too, on this cause I had almost an identical 24 question so.
25 CHAIR HANSON: Great minds.
141 1 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: I know. The -- so this is for 2 staff. To follow-up a little but in a different -- maybe a different kind of direction.
3 When you were looking -- completing the review, were there specific resource 4 areas that you can identify maybe that because it was a previously used site, it 5 had fewer impacts than you would have expected otherwise?
6 MR. DOUB: Definitely land-based resources such as land 7 use, ecology, and to a certain extent culture resources, although as we found 8 with cultural resources, we had to move from a two-dimensional mind set to a 9 three-dimensional mind set to examine the potential for significant resources 10 deep in the soil column, which we did. And if you want more details on that, I 11 will refer you to Tammy.
12 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Sure.
13 MR. ERWIN: Yes. And just to add, you know, they're not 14 clearing large swaths of land. They're not clearing wetlands. There's already a 15 T-line, right. They not running a big T-line and cutting down a bunch of forest 16 that's going to impact, you know, Endangered Species Act analysis.
17 MS. DOZIER: Right. I would add that, yes, just this previous 18 disturbed site is actually the project itself had few environmental interfaces.
19 And so that was a significant help to speed things along.
20 MR. DOUB: Plus it had existing infrastructure for an 21 established park, so there wasn't a question of building a lot of access roads 22 and new transmission lines and things like that.
23 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So I guess in a way, each one 24 of these brownfield sites stands kind of on its own, right, could -- they're not all 25 going to be the same, that's for sure.
142 1 MR. ERWIN: Every site's specific, yes. Every site is site-2 specific and there could be other things you need to take into account at 3 different sites, right, so we're aware of other sites where there may be, you 4 know, coal ash or local, you know, barracks nearby, for example, right, so.
5 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So from a lessons learned 6 standpoint, if we -- if you -- things that you've identified and we're looking 7 forward in this whole environmental review process, how do you -- I guess how 8 do you strike the balance right now between engagement and this project with 9 the urgency that we're hearing to get some of these things done?
10 MR. ERWIN: Well, I look to the NRC's mission, right, and so 11 we protect the public health and safety, the common defense and security and 12 the environment, and it's right there in the environment. You know, it's right 13 there in the mission.
14 And we also have NEPA, which is a federal responsibility on 15 this agency and on the staff, and so we will follow that process as much as we 16 need to to make our conclusions and document our findings and ensure the 17 NRC's NEPA obligations are covered. And we'll use all the best practices we 18 have. We'll use all the previous experience. We'll use project management, 19 professional best practices, and we'll do all that.
20 But at the end of the day, we are not going to recommend 21 moving forward unless we are sure that we've completed the NEPA process in 22 the manner that it needs to be completed.
23 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: It's nice to get that on the 24 record. Yes. So thank you. And I have one last question. So recently, you 25 know, we have some new requirements have come out of the Fiscal
143 1 Responsibility Act and specifically Section 102 of NEPA. One of those changes 2 has been an updated requirement to look at irreversible and irretrievable 3 commitments of federal resources which would be involved if agency action is 4 required. Can you talk a little bit about that, and did staff consider the 5 expenditure of federal resources?
6 MR. ERWIN: So I'll start real quick and then Peyton can add 7 on to this one. So yes, we did. You know, Fiscal Responsibility Act came, I 8 think it was in June, and it didn't have any kind of implementation period, so it 9 was immediately required for the staff to take that into account in its FEIS. I 10 think we did that successfully, and I believe we met all of the requirements of 11 the Fiscal Responsibility Act and, you know, we relate it to the irretrievable 12 commitment of federal resources. I think, Peyton, you can.
13 MR. DOUB: Yes. It's not so much that the Fiscal 14 Responsibility Act added additional requirements. It's that it said from this point 15 on, you can focus your analysis of irreversible and irretrievable resources on 16 federal resources. Now we looked at the totality of resources including but not 17 limited to federal resources. So our coverage was more than adequate.
18 MR. ERWIN: Yes. And I guess the one thing I'll add is, you 19 know, I think even CEQ is still looking at the impacts of that law. We are very 20 engaged across the federal government with CEQ and all the FAST-41.
21 Everything the environmental federal team is doing, we are very heavily 22 involved and we are looking at them and working with our partners in OGC to 23 make sure we understand fully all the requirements of FRA going forward.
24 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. Thank you so much.
25 Thank you.
144 1 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.
2 Commissioner Caputo?
3 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you for these 4 presentations. One advantage and one of the challenges of going last is most 5 of the questions have been asked by my colleagues, so the fact that I'm running 6 out of questions really speaks that the work of the staff did in documenting its 7 thorough and complete review of the application, so thank you for that.
8 I also want to commend the staff on its approaches for 9 streamlining the Environmental Impact Statement. The result of this approach 10 is a much more concise and focused Environmental Impact Statement. I would 11 also like to note that one of the many less-often recognized or articulated 12 benefits of this effort is that executing the review efficiently and timely allows 13 those staff resources to be redeployed elsewhere, which is incredibly important 14 given the current workload facing our environmental staff.
15 So Ken, I'm going to follow on the Chairman's question about 16 environmental justice communities. I applaud your initiative for literally going 17 out and cruising around, and I think that's really creative and I commend you for 18 that. As an additional resource, though, I'm curious. I believe there are efforts 19 within DOE to map environmental justice communities, and I believe there's 20 even an effort going on or one that has been done at the National Reactor 21 Innovation Center out at Idaho National Lab. Did the staff consult any of those 22 resources?
23 MR. ERWIN: So we are -- we have a lot of resources for all 24 areas of our reviews. Actually, I am aware that there are various global 25 information systems from different agencies. There's the census. There's
145 1 DOE. In known NREC has done a lot of work to try and put things together, 2 and we do use all those resources, you know, appropriately during our review.
3 Specifically, if you want to know if we specifically used a particular system from 4 DOE, I would take that one to get back to you in writing on that one.
5 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: No. I don't need a specific 6 answer.
7 MR. ERWIN: Okay.
8 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: I just -- I know that these efforts 9 are, you know, recent in the last --
10 MR. ERWIN: Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: -- couple years. In an effort to 12 be efficient and not reinvent the wheel, I'm hoping that some of those resources 13 are useful to our staff --
14 MR. ERWIN: Right.
15 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: -- and, you know, make their job 16 a little easier perhaps in identifying environmental justice communities.
17 MR. ERWIN: Absolutely. They are very useful and we stay 18 abreast of that through, you know, venues like CEQ. There's quarterly federal 19 NEPA awareness meetings, and there's also 50 and all the stuff around FAST-20 41 that brings everyone together to share information and best practices and 21 tools that are available to use for some of these NEPA resource reviews.
22 Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: All right. So you talked about a 24 streamlined approach in the EIS and some best practices that the staff realized 25 using this approach. Could you just describe a little bit more detail on how you
146 1 think what you've accomplished here could be carried forward in the future 2 reviews?
3 MR. ERWIN: Yes, absolutely. So one of the biggest things, I 4 think, is using the core team. I think that's a huge gain and, you know, my 5 counterpart, Mr. Jessup, talked about that this morning. I think we're already 6 doing that. We're using a very similar group of folks for the Kairos 2 application 7 and then, you know, we have a lot of -- like we basically revised the whole 8 template. I mean I brought the -- the document's like a half an inch thick; right?
9 These used to be, you know, half -- you know, it used to be a foot tall. And so I 10 think that was a big deal, getting the -- get the table of contents revised, getting 11 the focused -- get the writing focused on impacts that matter. I think -- you 12 know, they talked about it this morning. The audit process has really helped us 13 a lot bring the technical reviewer with a technical counterpart from the applicant.
14 I think those are the big three from my perspective. I don't know, Tammy has a 15 lot of great experience and.
16 MS. DOZIER: Right. So you basically mentioned it, that the 17 processes we used to make the audit more efficient is definite -- we're definitely 18 getting more practice on that. We've been doing it a while, but we're getting 19 better at it. And so together with the NRR safety people as well, we're 20 -- I think that is definitely helping us.
21 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Well, more practice is likely on 22 the way.
23 MR. ERWIN: We're well aware --
24 (Simultaneous speaking.)
25 MR. ERWIN: -- of -- yes, trust me.
147 1 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: In that vein, Mr. Hastings, I'd 2 like to highlight a comment you made on the draft EIS stating your commitment 3 to working with the industry and the staff to help identify efficiencies in the 4 review process both on the applicant side and on the regulator side, so I thank 5 you for that. If there are any efficiencies you'd like to describe today, I'd like to 6 give you an opportunity to do so.
7 MR. HASTINGS: Thanks for the opportunity. I think we've 8 discussed most of what I would offer in terms of lessons learned from this 9 process. The one sort of -- without any diminishment of the importance of the 10 106 process, it is unfortunate that it took the time that it took. It's nobody's fault 11 but it does mask the performance on the environmental review more broadly, 12 which was very efficient and very timely, and we appreciate that.
13 I think just to re-highlight the audit process both on the safety 14 side and the environmental side has been spectacularly successful, so I would 15 encourage the continued use of that. And we look forward to identifying other 16 opportunities for future applications as well.
17 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay, thank you.
18 I'd like to close my comments today by stating my agreement 19 with Mr. Crowell that today's type of hearing may be useful in situation where 20 the Commission and the agency is conducting a first of a kind review or a novel 21 technology.
22 That is why I believe the decision whether to conduct such a 23 hearing should really rest with the Commission rather than continue as a legally 24 mandated requirement.
25 While that would require a legislative change, I believe
148 1 Commission discretion on the issue would be beneficial.
2 In 2007, an NRC task force recommended and the 3 Commission agreed, that the Commission request legislative authority from 4 Congress to eliminate the statutory requirement for uncontested hearings.
5 Reasons for that recommendation included that the goals of 6 the mandatory hearing requirement are being met in a variety of other ways 7 such as Government in the Sunshine Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and 8 the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
9 Additionally, when the NRC was established in 1974, it was 10 not given the promotional responsibilities that had previously been held by the 11 Atomic Energy Commission.
12 External stakeholders are estimating the development of 13 significant numbers of reactors over the next couple decades.
14 Given the current bipartisan focus on the agency's ability to 15 officially manage forthcoming reviews, this would be an opportune time for the 16 Commission to, again, request that Congress either eliminate the requirement 17 or provide the Commission with discretion in an effort to streamline our reviews.
18 With that, I conclude my questions.
19 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Caputo, for 21 your questions and your remarks.
22 We have on the schedule now a ten minute break. We'll 23 reconvene here at about 2:27 for the closing remarks and the wrap up of this 24 hearing.
25 Thank you all.
149 1 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 2 2:18 p.m. and resumed at 2:29 p.m.)
3 CHAIR HANSON: All right, it is now time for closing 4 statements.
5 I'd like to offer each party the opportunity to make a closing 6 statement, beginning with Kairos.
7 MR. LAUFER: Very good.
8 Thank you, Chair Hanson, and thank you, Commissioners, for 9 the opportunity to provide closing remarks on behalf of Kairos Power and for the 10 very thoughtful discussion and questions today.
11 I would like to start by thanking the NRC staff for their diligent 12 review.
13 Frequent open communication between the NRC and Kairos 14 has ensured that the review remained on schedule and focus on application 15 content most closely tied with the safety and environmental effects of Hermes.
16 I do hope that we can take these lessons that I'm confident 17 from the discussions today that we will be able to inform future reviews and 18 carry them forward to improve the process based on this experience today.
19 We believe that the staff's review of the construction permit 20 application for Hermes was thorough and sufficient to make findings required in 21 their safety -- Final Safety Evaluation Report and their Final Environmental 22 Impact Statement.
23 We agree with the staff's conclusion that the FSER and the 24 FEIS that the Commission should issue the construction permit for Hermes.
25 If the Commission identifies any post-hearing questions, we
150 1 will respond promptly as we have to any inbound requests from the NRC.
2 We request that the Commission take the matter to vote 3 shortly after any remaining responses are provided and the National Historic 4 Preservation Act Section 106 consultations are closed.
5 We do think there's an opportunity for closing of a highly 6 efficient review process here and are in the home stretch.
7 We do also want to recognize the many local stakeholders 8 and thank them for their support.
9 We want to extend our deepest thanks to the local community 10 of Oak Ridge for welcoming Kairos Power to their community.
11 We do value deeply our relationships with our neighbors and 12 seek to be a good community partner that brings value to the region.
13 It is an honor for us to follow the historical legacy of nuclear 14 development in Oak Ridge as we leverage proven technologies with historical 15 roots in that location as well as other locations in the country.
16 But to a large degree, we do feel there's a natural historic 17 continuation from the original days of the Secret City to the effort that Kairos is 18 continuing in Oak Ridge today.
19 Again, I would like to thank the Commission for the 20 opportunity to present on behalf of Kairos today. And I look forward to your 21 decision on the construction permit for the Hermes reactor.
22 Thank you.
23 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Laufer.
24 I'll invite Rob Taylor from the staff to give his closing 25 statement.
151 1 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Chair and Commissioners.
2 Today's discussion is rightfully focused on safety and 3 efficiency as we execute our responsibility to license the safe use of nuclear 4 technologies.
5 In that theme, I'll try to keep my remarks brief.
6 The staff review of the Hermes construction permit application 7 supports the NRC's efforts to enable safe use of advanced non-light water 8 reactors.
9 The Hermes review presented a number of unique technical 10 and licensing considerations for the staff.
11 The timely completion of this review required the expertise, 12 cooperation, and dedication of staff throughout the agency and a constructive 13 and active engagement from the applicant.
14 Based on its evaluation of the Hermes preliminary design, the 15 staff found that there is reasonable assurance that the final design will conform 16 to the design bases with adequate margin of safety to prevent or mitigate 17 potential accidents and protect the health and safety of the public and workers.
18 The objective of the staff evaluation was to assess the 19 sufficiency of information contained in the Hermes application for the issuance 20 of a construction permit.
21 As such, the staff evaluation of the preliminary design and 22 analysis of the proposed Hermes test reactor facility does not constitute 23 approval of the safety of any design feature or specification.
24 Such approval would be made following the evaluation of the 25 final design of the facility as described in the final safety analysis report as part
152 1 of the Hermes operating license application.
2 The staff also considered the potential environmental impacts 3 of the proposed facility in accordance with the National Environmental Policy 4 Act.
5 Based on the findings of the staff review, as documented in 6 the Safety Evaluation Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, and in 7 accordance with the 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51, the staff concludes that there is 8 sufficient information for the Commission to issue the subject Part 50 9 construction permit with certain conditions to Kairos Power for the Hermes test 10 reactor once the Section 106 consultation process is completed.
11 On behalf of the staff, this concludes our prepared remarks 12 for today.
13 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you very much, Rob, I appreciate 14 that very much.
15 Before we proceed to the Commissioner's closing remarks, I 16 would ask my fellow Commissioners whether they have any further questions 17 associated with the parties' closing statements or otherwise?
18 Commissioner Wright?
19 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: No.
20 CHAIR HANSON: Commissioner Caputo?
21 I'm sorry, you broke up just a second there.
22 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: No, thank you.
23 CHAIR HANSON: Okay, thank you.
24 Commissioner Crowell?
25 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: No.
153 1 CHAIR HANSON: Okay, very good.
2 We will now proceed with closing statements, starting with 3 Commissioner Wright.
4 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you, Chair.
5 So, first, I'd like to thank everybody, NRC staff, Kairos, and 6 everyone who had anything to do with putting this hearing together.
7 It was a heavy lift, but it was very, very, very well done, very 8 well put together, very well presented.
9 With this application, we had the opportunity to be innovative, 10 to be risk informed, and demonstrate excellence, and I think we achieved that.
11 This was all built on a sturdy foundation of openness and 12 collaboration as well.
13 It can't be overstated how significant the pre-application 14 engagements are, especially demonstrating it here for everyone coming in after.
15 They've helped produce a submittal that was clear. It's 16 concise. And it's complete. You know?
17 And while there were some very focused questions that were 18 asked, Kairos responded very quickly and in a very timely way as well. So, we 19 thank you for that.
20 You know, this was an outstanding demonstration of our 21 ability, our staff's ability to move faster than they've ever moved before, more, 22 you know, it appears without sacrificing anything.
23 Didn't sacrifice quality or depth of our safety and 24 environmental reviews, reasonable assurance of adequate protection is our 25 standard. It's our mandate.
154 1 And to work in a baseball reference, it's our strike zone over 2 home plate.
3 And I think we met the mark here.
4 We're anticipating this to be the first of many new applications 5 for advanced reactors. So, it was crucial that our review process be agile and 6 reliable.
7 And I think that's been proven out by everyone who has been 8 presenting today.
9 So, again, thank you for your hard. I thank the NRC staff for 10 their hard work. And thank Kairos for their diligent work as well and to getting 11 us to the point that we are today.
12 It's an exciting time to be at the NRC and doing the kind of 13 work that we're doing.
14 So, you all thoroughly prepared today and it shows and it's 15 appreciated.
16 So, thank you very much.
17 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Wright.
18 Commissioner Caputo?
19 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Well, let me just associate 20 myself with Commissioner Wright's remarks. He pretty much said everything 21 that I was going to say.
22 Because our focus on this hearing is on a construction permit 23 application and the staff conducted such a detailed and thorough review and 24 documented it so well, and in addition to the preparation today and the 25 statements today, I really had few questions.
155 1 And most of the ones that I did have were focused on 2 potential process improvements and lessons learned rather than the application 3 itself because of their thorough and diligent effort.
4 And I think that really speaks to the nature of the quality of the 5 work done here and the high level of performance.
6 And I do think that this stands as an example going forward of 7 the work that the staff can achieve in handling a first of a kind technology.
8 So, I commend staff for their hard work and for Kairos being 9 diligent and responsive as an applicant.
10 Thank you for all you've achieved.
11 Mr. Chairman?
12 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Caputo.
13 Commissioner Crowell?
14 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
15 I've been on the Commission just over a year now and this is 16 my first hearing for a construction application. And it's been enlightening on a 17 number of fronts.
18 I want to express my appreciation to the staff. This is a 19 notable occasion for you all in addressing critics on all sides, be it that we move 20 too slow or that we don't adequately protect safety. You have addressed all 21 those things admirably today.
22 And if anyone who was watching today didn't take that from 23 the hearing itself, I would say, well, I'll point you back to the Advisory 24 Committee on Reactor Safeguards and their view of this proposal and 25 recommendation to approve.
156 1 So, I think it's an important turning point today.
2 Mr. Laufer, I was thinking about the historical arc or narrative 3 of the proposed location for your test reactor at Oak Ridge.
4 And, you know, it is, you know, Oak Ridge being the -- one of 5 the main birth places of the Manhattan Project and the advent of nuclear 6 weapons and that you are going to be first mover on using nuclear technologies 7 to make the world a better place in terms of clean energy and addressing 8 climate change is very notable in terms of these -- of the technology in Oak 9 Ridge.
10 So, I just want to say, thanks for indulging my questions 11 today. This is the right way to do things.
12 And I hope it is the first of many.
13 So, thank you, Mr. Chair.
14 CHAIR HANSON: Thank you, Commissioner Crowell. Don't 15 worry, this is my first mandatory hearing, too.
16 (Laughter.)
17 COMMISSIONER CROWELL: You guys made it sound like 18 these things happen all the time and they're annoying.
19 CHAIR HANSON: No, that's in part what's remarkable about 20 this is that they don't happen all the time.
21 And look, it's a great pleasure for me to echo and associate 22 myself with the sentiments and, certainly, the statements of my colleagues.
23 I want to express my thanks, again, for Kairos joining us 24 today, providing an overview of their technology, answering our questions, 25 giving us insight on their journey towards commercial application, and providing
157 1 feedback that we can continue to learn from.
2 You know, one of the things I'm most proud of being here at 3 the NRC is thinking about the tremendous amount of learning and improvement 4 that's happened on the part of the staff, not just in the last couple of years, 5 certainly, on this Kairos project.
6 But if you go back and even think about the last 10 or 15 7 years and all the things we've done, we talked about all the COLs and ESPs 8 that we issued, you know, NuScale, all of these other things, and you know, I 9 think a point of pride for me is, at every point, we've taken a step back and said, 10 what can we learn from this? How can we do this better?
11 I think we're seeing some of the fruits of that on the Kairos 12 review today. I think we're going to continue to see that.
13 And let me just say, you know, I look forward to engaging with 14 my colleagues to think about how the Commission can, you know, execute our 15 responsibilities with mandatory hearings in a way that balances the public's 16 interest and need for information but also in a way that is more efficient and it 17 doesn't unnecessarily burden the staff or applicants.
18 And so, I look forward to joining them.
19 On this specific review, you know, although I think someone --
20 one of my colleagues said earlier, although only for a construction permit, right, 21 at this juncture, the review really encompassed multiple complex and novel 22 considerations.
23 Our staff has, once again, demonstrated that they are not only 24 incredibly knowledgeable, adaptable, and committed to our health and safety 25 mission, but up to the challenge of reviewing an application which includes
158 1 several innovative features.
2 Again, I'm incredibly proud to be a part of this agency and I'm 3 grateful to the staff for their dedication.
4 In closing, and for the information of the parties, we're getting 5 back to the administrative stuff here, the deadline for responses to any post-6 hearing questions will be November 2, 2023.
7 Unless the Commission directs otherwise, the Secretary plans 8 to issue an order with post-hearing questions, if any, by October 26th.
9 The deadline for transcript corrections will be October 31, 10 2023, noting that we already have a correction due to the record, thank you, Mr.
11 Hastings.
12 The Secretary plans to issue an order requesting proposed 13 transcript corrections by October 24th.
14 As I mentioned this morning, the Commission expects to 15 issue a final decision promptly with due regard to the complexity of the issues.
16 This hearing is adjourned.
17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 18 2:42 p.m.)