Text

Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Public Meeting 15 January 2026
	ML26013A048
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/13/2026
From:	; NRC/NRR/DANU
To:	;
References
	Download: ML26013A048 (0)
	v • d • e

Advanced Reactor Stakeholder Public Meeting January 15, 2026 Bridge line: 301-576-2978 Conference ID: 516 771 56#

Time Topic Speaker 10:00 - 10:15 am Opening Remarks NRC 10:15 - 10:45 am NRC staff engagement with developers planning to reference DOE and DOW authorizations NRC 10:45 - 11:30 am Nuclear Energy Maritime Organization (NEMO) Introduction NEMO 11:30 - 12:00 pm Pilot Program for an applicant prepared Environmental Document NRC 12:00 - 1:00 pm Lunch Break 1:00 - 1:45 pm Graded Seismic Site Characterization Approach NEI 1:45 - 2:10 pm Risk-Informed Technical Specifications NEI 2:10 - 2:30 pm Public Comment Period Public 2:30 pm Closing Remarks/Adjourn

Opening Remarks

Advanced Reactor Program Highlights Updates and Recent Accomplishments:

September 17, 2025 - Public Meeting to discuss staff feedback on NEIs White Paper Selection of a Seismic Scenario for an EPZ Boundary Determination.

December 1, 2025 - Approval of the final Safety Evaluation for TerraPowers Kemmerer Unit 1, which represents a series of firsts for the NRC including the first ever approval of a commercial sodium-cooled fast reactor, the first approval of a functional-containment design, and our first non-light water reactor approved in the last 50 years. The Kemmerer Unit 1 review was completed in 18 months, 9 months ahead of schedule and 11% under budget.

December 9, 2025 - NRC staff issued a draft white paper describing preliminary staff views on high-level strategies and guidance for the oversight framework for microreactors during the operations phase to facilitate staff discussions with stakeholders on those topics.

December 11, 2025 - The Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) issued a memo to provide expectations around NRC staff involvement with prospective applicants planning to utilize a prior Department of Energy (DOE) or Department of War (DOW) reactor facility authorization when pursuing NRC licensing of a same or similar design.

December 16, 2025 - NRC staff delivered SECY-25-103 Update on Development of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advanced Reactor Construction Oversight Program, which updates the Commission on NRC staffs development of the Advanced Reactor Construction Oversight Program (ARCOP).

NRC Staff Engagement with Developers Planning to Reference DOE or DOW Authorizations (ML25322A208)

Key Messages

DOE and DOW are taking actions to authorize reactor pilot projects under their respective statutory authorities.

NRC is taking action to enable leveraging information from DOE and DOW authorizations in future NRC licensing activities.

Participants in DOE/DOW authorization programs may choose to seek early engagement with the NRC to ensure they are positioned to appropriately leverage these authorizations.

Similar to other forms of pre-application engagement, expectation is that early interactions with the NRC will yield significant benefits, including increased efficiency and reduced review durations.

Background:

EO 14300, Ordering the Reform of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, section 5(d), requires the NRC to establish an expedited pathway to approve reactor designs that the DOE or the DOE have tested and have demonstrated the ability to function safely.

EO 14301, Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy, section 5, directs the DOE to start a new pilot program to expedite the testing of advanced reactor designs.

EO 14299, Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security, directs the DOW to commence operation of an Army-regulated nuclear reactor at a domestic military instillation

Purpose of Memo:

Provide NRC staff with background information on the DOE authorization process and direction on expected stakeholder engagement.

Clarify roles and responsibilities -

NRC is not party to the decision-making involved in the DOE authorization process.

NRC can observe selected portions of the process at the prospective applicants election, with the intent of achieving greater efficiency in subsequent NRC licensing proceeding.

Expectations for NRC staff Observations

Formalize NRC staff observation and align on an understanding of the expected outcome and any specific feedback requested.

oNRC project managers should engage with prospective applicants to understand whether they intend to leverage DOE/DOW authorizations in future NRC licensing.

oRegulatory engagement plan or standalone letter can communicate intentions.

NRC PM should work with prospective applicants to identify points where NRC staff observation would yield the most benefit.

Summary

Proactive engagement with prospective applicants supports establishing an expedited pathway to approve reactor designs that the DOW or the DOE have authorized and that have demonstrated the ability to function safely.

NRC staff OBSERVATION of DOE or DOW authorization processes and the opportunity to gain technical insights on the associated designs are expected to yield tangible benefits for future NRC licensing of those designs.

References

DOE Reactor Pilot Program:

https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-announces-initial-selections-new-reactor-pilot-program

DOW Janus Program:

https://www.army.mil/article/289074/army_announces_next_steps_on_janus_

program_for_next_generation_nuclear_energy

NEICA MOU:

Addendum 9 to the MOU Between US NRC and DOE on Nuclear Energy Innovation(ML25303A288)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advanced Reactor Stakeholders Meeting January 15, 2026

Introducing NEMO

1. History

2. Why are we here?

3. Who is NEMO?

4. What is NEMO doing?

5. Role of Classification Societies

1. History of Maritime Nuclear

Maritime Nuclear History

70+ years of maritime nuclear Nuclear Navies primarily Nuclear Icebreakers State-supported Floating Nuclear Power Plants (FNPPs)

In those cases, National Governments have operated the assets

NS Savannah

Initial nuclear-powered merchant ship, built as part of US President Eisenhowers Atoms for Peace initiative

Launched in 1959 and delivered in 1962

Served as a passenger liner from 1962-65, and as a cargo vessel until 1971, when she was deactivated

Visited 32 domestic and 45 foreign ports, transited the Panama Canal, although excluded from several countries

Currently owned by MARAD and located in Baltimore Harbor, USA

2. Why are we here?

Maritime Nuclear Coming Attractions

FNPPs are coming soon Power to the Grid and Behind the Meter Data Centers Alternative Fuel Production (E-Fuels)

Desalination Natural Resources Extraction Port Electrification Other Uses

Nuclear Propulsion for Commercial Ships is also coming

Floating Nuclear Environments 4 x main environments for floating nuclear power:

1. In ports and waterways, directly attached to shore-based infrastructure.

2. In nearshore environments, within the exclusive economic zones of countries.

3. Deep offshore or in international waters.

4. Nuclear powered ships.

Different combinations of rules and regulations will apply:

- Modular construction and repeatability.

- Type-approved containment for insurance.

- Central manufacturing, effective workforce.

Likely Maritime Operational Approaches

Modular Construction in Different Locations Bulk of the ship/barge/floating platform likely to be constructed in a traditional, non-nuclear shipyard Nuclear reactor constructed in a dedicated nuclear facility Potential for nuclear technology and platforms to be designed in different countries, and built in yet another country

Nuclear Shipyard Final Assembly, where ship/barge/floating platform and nuclear reactor are fit-up Fueling and Commissioning likely, but not required, to occur here Refueling and decommissioning also likely to occur here

Used Fuel Storage Potential for used fuel storage on the barge/floating platform or support ship Long-term storage at Nuclear Shipyard possible, although that will depend on operating model

3. Who is NEMO?

NEMO Membership Summary Nuclear tech developers and vendors / project managers Shipowners/operators Shipyards Port Authorities Class Societies Insurance Maritime & Energy Law Power off-takers / end-users 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8

4. What is NEMO doing?

NEMOs Mission Represent interests of members in an Intl maritime nuclear community Focus on regulatory and standards development at IGOs Engagement with Government Departments at National Level Advance the safe, secure and sustainable integration of nuclear technology into maritime Work as a recognized NGO at IMO and IAEA.

Help create future-oriented standards and rules for deployment of floating nuclear

NEMOs First 21 Months

56 International Members

NGO status at IAEA and IMO

Representation at the 69th IAEA General Conference, International Forums and Working Groups

Presentations in international conferences and webinars

Workshops - Safeguards by Design and Security by Design - with more to come in 2026

Prominent role on upcoming IAEA Atomic Technology Licensed for Applications at Sea (ATLAS) Initiative

Formation of 3 active Working Groups with 11 Task Forces, including:

- Maritime Regulatory mapping exercise undertaken

- Revision for the update of the Safety Considerations in the Use of Ports by Nuclear Merchant Ships (1968)

- Gap analysis of Nuclear Liability conventions and agreements, with the proposal development of new ones

International S, S & S standards for nuclear in maritime ATLAS Safety -

MSC New SOLAS Ch. 8 Res. A.491(XII) 2030 IMO - SDC Sub committee

1. IAEA Safety Standards

2. A.491.XII (IMO)

3. Legal and Regulatory Framework (Liability)

4. Maritime Classification

5. Nuclear Safeguards

6. Security

7. Technology Deployment, Fuel Cycle and Infrastructure

Creating the conditions for civil nuclear ships Insurance:

Unified standards developed as a foundation for Liability Convention.

Nuclear:

IAEA begins preparing standards for floating nuclear, as the ATLAS initiative develops.

Maritime:

IMO revises Nuclear Code in dialogue with the IAEA.

Delivery:

Fit-for-purpose technology is deployed in early 2030s.

Demonstration projects:

Member states adopt rules for floating nuclear to enter and operate in waterways and make port calls.

Some of the Issues to Overcome

Outdated Maritime Regulations for Nuclear Power Plants and Propulsion, where any exist

Nuclear Regulations written for Fixed Terrestrial Facilities, focusing on lifecycle phases:

Siting Design Manufacturing and Construction Commissioning Shipping/Transport Operations Fueling and Refueling Maintenance Decommissioning

Working Groups:

Overview Looking at the application of Nuclear technology within Maritime, in particular, regulatory development at IMO and supporting Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships update.

1 Maritime Regulations (Nautilus WG)

Looking at the challenges and opportunities of maritime deployment from the perspective of Nuclear regulatory bodies. Supporting progress of FNPP and civil nuclear propulsion developments through IAEA.

2 Nuclear Safety, Security

& Safeguards (Savannah WG)

Future WG potential development:

WG4 = Seafarer Training Regimes WG5 = Ports and Interfaces 3

Maritime Nuclear Liability (Annorax WG)

Looking at the concept of commercial insurability and the development of a suitable liability convention for floating nuclear, in the context of the 1962 Brussels Convention.

Working Group #1 Nautilus Activities

Supporting update to IMO Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships

Detailed discussion to follow

Four Task Forces

1. FNPP Focus Group - develop definitions applicable to FNPPs

2. INF Code Study - recommend what parts of INF Code should apply to nuclear propulsion

3. Training and Certification - review of IMO STCW Code for maritime nuclear potential changes

4. Regulatory Scenarios - regulatory mapping exercise for specific scenarios

Working Group #2 Savannah Activities

Supporting update to IMO Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships

Support to IAEA ATLAS Initiative when commenced

Workshops for members with IAEA, IMO, national regulators, and industry Safeguards by Design in March 2025 Security by Design in October 2025 Nuclear Safety in April 2026

Three Task Forces

1. Security Mapping - analyze security requirement differences for maritime vs. terrestrial faciliites

2. Update to 1968 IAEA/IMO Safety Considerations in the Use of Ports and Approaches by Nuclear Merchant Ships

3. Assessment of recommended changes to IAEA Safety Analysis Report guidance for nuclear ships at sea

Working Group #3 Annorax Activities

Focused on developing internationally harmonized rules and guidance for nuclear liability in maritime operations, bridging gaps between existing conventions and emerging technologies.

Four Focus Areas/Sub-Groups

1. Align International Conventions: Integrate principles from the Paris and Vienna Conventions on nuclear liability with maritime law under the IMO framework.

2. Define Operator Responsibility: Establish clear liability limits and insurance requirements for shipowners, operators, and technology providers.

3. Support Regulatory Development: Provide input to IMO and IAEA initiatives, including the ATLAS program, to ensure liability frameworks evolve alongside technical standards.

4. Facilitate Industry Adoption: Create practical guidance for classification societies, insurers, and governments to enable safe and commercially viable deployment of nuclear-powered vessels and FNPPs.

NAUTILUS Project Team Role of Classification Societies Meg Dowling, Lloyds Register NEMO WG1 Nautilus Chair

International Maritime Regulatory Developments MSC 110 (June 2025)

Agreed to start revision of Nuclear Code (Res. A.491),

and provided instructions to the SDC sub-committee for undertaking the work SDC 12 (Jan 2026)

SDC 12, instructed by MSC 110, to develop a workplan and begin revision of Nuclear Code. In updating the Nuclear Code, ensure that it:

Accounts for advances in technology

Is technology neutral and not limited to PWRs

Accounts for the All-Electric Ship concept

Takes relevant IAEA standards into consideration 35 IMO GHG reduction strategy 2023 IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships targets net-zero GHG emissions by or around 2050 SDC - Safe Design & Construction Subcommittee MSC - Maritime Safety Committee IMO - International Maritime Organization GHG - Greenhouse gas

NEMO NEDLAND Project Team Objectives Organize NEMOs position related to proposals at SDC12 Prepare and submit proposals and information to IMO SDC12 for the update of the Nuclear Code Attend SDC12 with NEMO to support update of the Nuclear Code Report on key takeaways from SDC12 Align NEMOs participation with IAEA ATLAS NEMO Position Aligns with US Submission to form Working Group Will support an intersessional correspondence group For topics outside of the IMOs remit, NEMO will continue to support:

Liability and Insurance Security Safeguards

The Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships Assembly Resolution A.491

Supplement to SOLAS Chapter VIII, adopted in 1981

Prescribes requirements for ships using early designs of PWRs and a direct steam cycle propulsion system

Represented a barrier to positive technology developments

Needs revision to align with updated IAEA standards SOLAS - International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea

Introduction to Classification Societies

39 History of Classification History Class originated at Lloyds coffee house in London, 1760, where merchants and shipowners discussed trade.

Subscriptions for the Societys annual Register Book, begun in 1764, funded surveyors to list, rate and class the condition of vessels.

A sketch of a 18th century Lloyd's Register surveyor as imagined by Harry Cornish (1839-1928)

Growing technical expertise Edward Lloyds Coffee House Lloyds hired experts to inspect and classify vessels calling into London.

Over time, this practice documented ship quality and informed the market interests related to ship safety, merchant insurance and investments.

40 Classification Today Standards for ship safety Develop, publish and implement rules for quality, safety and reliability of ships Owners and operators look to classification societies to survey and verify the assets compliance with Classification Rules and national (Statutory) Regulations International alignment Safety and operational efficiency are essential for the global shipping and offshore industries Internationally recognized classification ensures ships are built to uniform standards, can operate effectively and safely, comply with maritime and environmental regulations Marine focus Typical maritime safety includes:

structural strength and hull integrity safety and reliability of the main propulsion and steering systems environmental impact of operations fire protection and lifesaving equipment Most Classification Societies are accredited as Recognized Organizations (ROs), which allows Class to perform delegated services on behalf of maritime authorities, including surveys and inspection activities.

Contact Nuclear Energy Maritime Organization Ltd.

Building 5, Chiswick Business Park London W4 5YF, United Kingdom Email: secretariat@nemo.ngo Tel: +44 20 4542 8804 Virginia Crosbie, Managing Director Dr Mamdouh el Shanawany, Chairman www.nemo.ngo www.linkedin.com/company/nemo-nuclear-energy-in-maritime-organisation/

NRC Maritime Nuclear Efforts

Organized a cross-office team of experts focused on maritime nuclear

Coordinating efforts across the U.S. Government Participating in the Department of Energys Maritime Nuclear Applications Group (MNAG)

Developing memoranda of understanding with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

Engaging internationally Participating in the International Atomic Energy Agencys ATLAS (Atomic Technologies Licensed for Applications at Sea) project Supporting the USCG at the International Maritime Organization

Building on work underway for transportable microreactors as well as historical experience*

Early engagement with the NRC is essential for interested stakeholders

Contact:

Alec.Neller@nrc.gov

Available Offshore Power Systems licensing documents: ML20119A462, ML24152A289, ML19242D918, ML19242D919, ML19284A856, ML20031C715, ML20070J215

Applicant-Prepared Draft Environmental Documents Streamlining NEPA Reviews for New Reactors January 15, 2026

Agenda

Legislative Drivers

Applicant-Prepared Environmental Documents

Process and Guidance Development

Expected Benefits

NRCs Pilot Project 44

Legislative Drivers The FRA and ADVANCE Act Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act):

Signed into law in July 2024.

Submit report to Congress (January 2025) on efforts to facilitate efficient, timely, and predictable environmental reviews of applications.

Assess licensing review process for new nuclear facilities at former fossil-fuel power and brownfield sites.

Develop strategies and guidance for microreactors.

45 Together, these acts empower NRC to streamline NEPA reviews, reduce timelines, and support advanced nuclear deployment.

Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA):

Signed into law on June 3, 2023.

Mandatory deadlines and page limits for EAs and EISs.

Defined roles of lead, participating, and cooperating agencies.

FRA and ADVANCE Act: Enabling Applicant-Prepared NEPA Documents

Fiscal Responsibility Act-encourages NRC to allow applicants to prepare Draft NEPA documents with agency oversight and responsibility.

42 CFR 4336a(f) (FRA Amended NEPA regs)- Approve applicant developed NEPA docs under agency supervision. Agency to establish procedure, provide guidance throughout and retain independent evaluation and legal responsibility.

SRM-24-0046 (7/28/25)- Approves NRC oversight of applicant developed draft NEPA doc and directs development of standardized guidance to ensure consistency, efficiency and reduce overlap.

ADVANCE Act 506(J)- requires NRC to report on authorizing the use of an applicants environmental impact statement as the Commissions draft environmental impact statement, consistent with section 107(f) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336a(f)).

46

Status

Revisions to NRCs NEPA Implementing Regulations (10 CFR Part 51): Among other changes, adds process for applicant-prepared draft environmental documents,.

Process and Guidance Development: Staff established the applicant-prepared draft environmental document process and guidance by benchmarking practices from other Federal agencies, including DOE, DoD, and FERC.

Applicant-Prepared Draft EIS - Pilot: A pilot initiative is underway to implement and evaluate the applicant-prepared draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process.

47

Process and Expected Benefits Expected Benefits:

Efficiency: Reduces duplication of efforts. (One NEPA document instead of two).

Resource Savings: NRC focuses on oversight rather than document preparation.

Time Savings: Fewer steps/faster reviews.

48 Applicant Develop ER Application Submittal and Acceptanc e

Draft NEPA Document Developm ent Issue Draft Finalize Draft (Public Comment

Process, consultation s)

Issue Final NEPA Document Applicant/N RC Developed Draft (before or after Acceptance)

Issue Draft Finalize Draft (Public Comment

Process, consultatio ns)

Issue Final NEPA Document Current Process Proposed Process Consolidated Steps

NRC Pilot Program for Applicant-Prepared NEPA Documents

Purpose:

Advancing the review of new reactor license applications and piloting of applicant-prepared Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Pilot Program Objectives:

Promote innovation and transparency in environmental stewardship.

Ensure a timely, efficient, and compliant environmental review process.

Strengthen collaboration between NRC, applicants, and applicant-hired contractors.

49

Responsibilities Outlined 50 NRC:

Regulatory Compliance: NEPA, ESA, NHPA, and related statutes.

Level of NEPA Review: Determine level of NEPA Review Guidance & Oversight: Work with applicant to define project purpose and need and develop reasonable range of alternatives; provide technical direction and oversight.

Schedule Management: Establish and monitor timelines per NEPA FRA.

Focused Analysis: Prioritize areas with potential significant environmental impacts.

Consultation: Engage Tribal, Federal, State, and local entities early and effectively.

Document Integrity: Independently review, validate, and approve NEPA documents.

Responsibilities Outlined 51 Applicant &

Contractor:

Qualified Resources: Employ experienced contractors; disclose conflicts of interest.

Information Sharing: Provide timely, accurate scientific and technical data.

Transparency: Identify document preparers and their qualifications.

Responsiveness: Replace contractors or adjust approach if NRC deems document insufficient.

Administrative Record: Maintain and deliver complete documentation upon request, with sensitive data clearly marked.

Thank you 52

Lunch Break Meeting will resume at 1:00 PM ET January 15, 2026 Bridge line: 301-576-2978 Conference ID: 516 771 56#

©2026 Nuclear Energy Institute 54 Jon Facemire Senior Project Manager, New Nuclear January 15, 2026 NEI 25-08 Graded Approach to Seismic Hazard Analysis and Corresponding Site Investigations for Licensing Nuclear Power Plants

Seismic aspects of site characterization for NPPs is resource-intensive in time and cost

Current regulatory guidance was based on prescriptive, not performance-based

New NPPs may come in all shapes and sizes:

Different reactor technologies and power output

Different sensitivity to seismic shaking

Different quantity of radiological materials

Different potential consequences in the event of failure Industry desires confidence in using alternative approaches where the scope of work scales with the seismic risk significance of the facility

applicability to the wide range of NPPs currently contemplated makes most use of existing and easily collected data scales based on relative safety/risk of various NPPs scales based on site seismicity and NPP seismic capacity Use an initial screening/scoping step to inform what additional should be done to support NPP licensing.

1. Compute a Seismic Index that represents the importance of seismic hazard on plant design for a given site

2. Compute a Consequence Index that reflects the consequences of a radiological release from a facility.

3. Identify the appropriate Gradation Tier based on combination of Seismic Index and Consequence Index

4. Characterize appropriate details for site characterization methodology, and seismic hazard analysis methodology, for the applicable Gradation Tier

Target Seismic Capacity: A horizontal ground motion spectrum defined in the preliminary plant design criteria representing the minimum level for which certain structures, systems, and components will be designed to remain functional.

Scoping Seismic Demand: The response spectrum used for the initial screening assessment to represent potential ground shaking at the site. It is developed from existing and readily available information for the site, including a preliminary estimate of the sites seismic hazard according to the USGS NSHM.

Existing Site Information: Site location and site subsurface information adequate to assign site class per ASCE 7 Ch. 20 (or supporting site-specific procedures per Ch.

21)

Seismic Index: 1 thru 4 as a function of multiple characteristics [1=high importance]

Seismic Screening Margin: Ratio of DRS to MCER; higher ratio relates to higher index

Hazard: Relative amplitude of MCER; higher amplitude relates to lower index

Confidence: Uncertainty in DRS and/or MCER; lower confidence relates to lower index Map combination of Margin, Hazard, and Confidence to Seismic Index:

Consequence Index: 1 thru 4 as a function of consequence-based accident analysis [1=high significance]

Multiple options to accommodate various safety analysis strategies.

Each option has different consequence metric and threshold.

Intending to be aligned with other parallel industry efforts for risk-informing requirements.

CI Unmitigated Dose*

DBA Dose**

PEP EPZ***

4

< 0.25 Sv (25 rem TEDE)

<0.1 rem TEDE No PEP EPZ 3

0.25 - 1 Sv (25 - 100 rem TEDE) 0.1 - 1 rem TEDE EPZ at Site Boundary 2

1 - 5 Sv (100 - 500 rem TEDE) 1 - 10 rem TEDE EPZ outside of Site Boundary but less than 10 mi 1

> 5 Sv (500 rem TEDE) 10 - 25 rem TEDE 10 mile (traditional)

TEDE at EAB over 4 days consistent with ANS 2.26

- Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) at EAB over two 2-hour periods following the onset of the postulated fission product release for bounding DBA with credited SSCs to have reasonable confidence of having seismic capacity at least that considered in Seismic Index

- - Outcome of safety analysis used to define graded plume exposure pathway EPZ size (10 CFR 50.160)

Gradation Tiers - Seismic and Consequence Index Mapping

Tier A: Sufficiently low consequence such that commercial standards apply. Examples - Microreactors or SMRs w/ low hazard and high seismic screening margin

Tier B: Low consequence coupled with sufficiently low seismic importance to justify only limited seismic hazard analysis Examples -Robust Passively safe plant with a High Seismic Screening Margin but more than Low Hazard.

LLWR w/ low seismic hazard & high margin

Tier C: Moderate consequence or moderate seismic importance to warrant moderate effort in seismic hazard analysis Examples - Passively safe plant with a Low Seismic Screening Margin and High Hazard, LLWR with a Moderate Seismic Screening Margin and Hazard

Tier D: Sufficiently high consequence and seismic importance to warrant a detailed seismic hazard analysis Example - LLWR with High Seismic Screening Margin and High Hazard

Tier E: Unique conditions warranting case-specific considerations.

Example - LLWR with a Low Seismic Screening Margin and High Hazard

Tabletop with AR Stakeholders - Oklo & NuScale tabletops, feedback worked into report

Member Review (Siting Task Force, NNLWG, NNEWG) incorporated into report Next Steps

NRC Engagement proposed for Q2 2026 to solicit feedback, updates to reflect wholesale rulemaking revision if needed.

Final Methodology incorporating industry and NRC feedback submitted to NRC

Goal is RG endorsing graded seismic characterization in 2026.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulation

CT - Completion Time

DANU - Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities

EP - Expert Panel

IDP - Integrated Decision-Making Process (or Panel)

IDPP - Integrated Decision-Making Process Panel

ISG - Interim Staff Guidance

LCO - Limiting Condition of Operation

LMP - Licensing Modernization Project

LWRs - Light Water Reactors

MANDEEP - Monitoring and NonDestructive Evaluation Expert Panel

MREP - Maintenance Rule Expert Panel

NEI - Nuclear Energy Institute

NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission

PRA - Probabilistic Risk Assessment

RG - Regulatory Guide

RICT - Risk Informed Completion Times

RIMEP - Reliability Integrity Management Expert Panel

RITS - Risk Informed Technical Specification

SFCP - Surveillance Frequency Control Program

STS - Standard Technical Specifications

TS - Technical Specifications

DANU-ISG-2022-08 provides guidance for RITS and has statements such as:

Applicants may propose to locate time-based surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program, called the surveillance frequency control program (SFCP), and add the SFCP to the administrative controls section of TS.

ISG references NEI 04-10, Standard Technical Specification (STS), RG 1.177, RG 1.174, RG 1.200

Much of the guidance referenced above was written for operating reactors or specifically for LWRs. Need to provide clarity on:

PRA expectations referencing RG 1.247 instead of RG 1.200

Alternative risk metrics and acceptance guidelines

Interface of NEI 18-04 IDP and RITS guidance. Efficiencies between NEI 18-04 IDPP and SFCP IDP? Other EPs, like RIMEP, MANDEEP, MREP

Existing guidance assumes Tech Specs are being modified, does not provide information on setting initial SFs or LCO completion times.

NRC Rulemaking - Regulatory Enhancements for Reactor Licensing, Decommissioning, and Operational Oversight identifies 10 CFR 50.36 as a regulation expected to be amended. Is this informed by NRC-2024-0173?

From DANU-ISG-2022-08: In some cases, this correlation may be inconsistent with the regulation text as applied to a particular design, in which case the applicant should include an exemption request as part of its application.

Part of the proposed project scope was to provide further guidance on anticipated exemptions to 10 CFR 50.36. Should we wait on Proposed Rule Language prior to working on this guidance?

Is there anything else in the proposed project that may conflict with the planned rulemakings?

Any scope missing from NRC perspective?

Supplement NEI 04-10 guidance for SFCP to 1) Use a technology-inclusive risk metric 2) Establish initial surveillances instead of updating existing frequencies 3)

Update references and define interface with NEI 18-04, RG 1.247, RIM, etc.

Supplement NEI 06-09 guidance for Risk-Informed Completion Times (RICT) to 1) Use a technology-inclusive risk metric 2)

Establish initial completion times (CTs) instead of updating existing CTs 3) Update references and define interface with NEI 18-04, RG 1.247, etc.

Provide clear guidelines for exemptions to 10 CFR 50.36 and /

or feedback to NRC wholesale revision rulemaking.

Verify no further guidance is needed for setpoint control program Any other needs identified by future licensees.

1. Purpose - Provide guidance to meet the 10 CFR 50.36 regulation with anticipated exemptions / rules of particular applicability (ROPA) if needed.

2. Background - 10 CFR 50.36, NEI 18-04/RG 1.233, DANU-ISG-2022-08, NEI 04-10, NEI 06-09, RG 1.105, Part 53, Part 57

3. Surveillance Frequency Control Program - NEI 04-10 Supplement

4. Risk-Informed Completion Times - NEI 06-09 Supplement

5. Other Miscellaneous Guidance needed for Tech Spec Development

Will planned rulemakings significantly impact project scope?

Any NRC concern with planned path forward?

For Industry

Any interest in joining RITS working group?

For Anyone

Any scope missing?

Feedback on Technology-Inclusive vs guidance based on reactor type

ML26013A048

Contents

Text

Background:

Contact:

Purpose:

Navigation menu

ML26013A048

Text

Background:

Contact:

Purpose:

Navigation menu

Search