ML19155A122

M190530B: Briefing on Nuclear Regulatory Research Program

ML19155A122
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/03/2019
From:	NRC/SECY
To:
Shared Package
ML19150A256	List: ML19155A122
References
M190530
Download: ML19155A122 (105)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+++++

BRIEFING ON NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM

+++++

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2019

+++++

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

+++++

The Commission met in the Commissioners Hearing Room at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, at 9:00 a.m., Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman, presiding.

COMMISSION MEMBERS:

KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, Chairman JEFF BARAN, Commissioner ANNIE CAPUTO, Commissioner DAVID A. WRIGHT, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:

ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK, Secretary of the Commission MARIAN L. ZOBLER, General Counsel

2 NRC STAFF PANEL:

RAYMOND FURSTENAU, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)

RAJ IYENGAR, Chief, Component Integrity Branch, RES JOHN NAKOSKI, Chief, Probabilistic Risk Assessment Branch, RES HO NIEH, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation KIMBERLY WEBBER, Deputy Director, Division of Safety Analysis, RES STEVE WEST, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration and Human Capital Programs EXTERNAL PANEL:

DR. TODD ALLEN, Chair and Professor, University of Michigan, Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences DR. JEREMY BUSBY, Director, Reactor & Nuclear Systems Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory DR. JENNIFER UHLE, Vice President of Operations, Nuclear Energy Institute NEIL WILMSHURST, Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Electric Power Research Institute

3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (9:01 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: And we will now open the 4 Commission's meeting this morning and briefing on nuclear regulatory 5 research programs. We will begin with a panel of external participants and 6 have a brief break and then have a second panel of NRC staff.

7 So, I would ask the presenters and participants for the first 8 panel to please come forward and take your seats.

9 And while you do that, again, I'll just say that the 10 Commission this morning, will hear from the panelists on research topics, and 11 then also the NRC Staff.

12 We do, as a Commission, hear, somewhat routinely, about 13 the research program of the NRC in the series of examination and public 14 meetings we have on various business line and project activities at the 15 Agency, but the Commission today wanted to have a somewhat singular focus 16 on research as an important, I think enabler, of many of the other missions 17 that we are required to accomplish for the American people.

18 So, since the external panelists have had a moment to get 19 themselves situation, let me just say that we will hear from four panelists.

20 And I will, I think, introduce them all.

21 It's my intention to go in the order in which you are listed on 22 the scheduling note that I think you all have seen, so, unless there's any other 23 arrangement, I'll proceed in that order.

24 So, according to that, we would begin with Dr. Jeremy 25 Busby, who is the director of reactor and nuclear systems division at Oak 26 Ridge National Laboratory. And Dr. Busby, please proceed and welcome.

4 1 DR. BUSBY: Great, thank you. Thank you very much for 2 the kind invitation to participate.

3 As you mentioned, I'm Dr. Jeremy Busby, I'm at Oak Ridge 4 National Laboratory and the director of reactor and nuclear systems, as well 5 as our fission research programs.

6 I'm excited to be here and talk a little bit about some of the 7 high impact research at the national laboratories, in support of the nuclear 8 energy.

9 Specifically, I'm going to focus on accident tolerant fuel 10 developments, advance reactor concepts. And also touch on how we've 11 been interacting with the NRC to support and accelerate the deployment of 12 some of these technologies for improved safety, economics and reliability.

13 And I don't know if you have the slides in front of you?

14 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: If you, we have them, and if you'll 15 just give a verbal cue --

16 DR. BUSBY: Fair enough.

17 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: -- they'll be brought up in the order 18 --

19 DR. BUSBY: If we'll go to the next slide. Thank you.

20 The national laboratories, there's 17 of them out of the 21 Department of Energy, have a unique role in energy research. They perform 22 both basic and fundamental research. Basic that inspires applied topics as 23 well as applied technology research that helps inspire basic energy research.

24 I think the real power here is combining the basic and 25 applied, as I mentioned, to accelerate innovation, safety and efficiency.

26 We also collaborate and partner, as well as directly support

5 1 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which provides us an avenue for 2 cost and time effective research to make meaningful impacts.

3 Before I go on I have just a few examples I'd like to walk 4 through. I want to mention, while I'm from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 5 there are 16 other national laboratories all doing important research, and I'll 6 try and highlight some of those valuable partnerships.

7 If you'll go to the next slide please. Basic-to-applied 8 research certainly has the power to advance and accelerate reactor 9 technology, development and deployment.

10 And this is a serious of small highlights from the last couple 11 of years at the national laboratories spanning light water reactors, and I'm 12 going to start in the upper left, sort of work clockwise around, as part of the 13 CASTLE program through DOE, establishing a core simulator, VERA, which 14 is now accurately predicted CRUD induced power shifts in light water reactors.

15 There has been the redevelopment and reestablishment of 16 the domestic capability test to perform loss of coolant accident testing within 17 the U.S., which is essential to understand how cladding performs in the 18 deployment of new accident tolerant clad materials.

19 There are new approaches that shorten the development 20 and qualification cycle from material such as TRISO fuel particles in the 21 development of accident tolerant claddings for light water reactor applications.

22 The example shown here is iron chrome aluminum alloy.

23 I'll talk more about that in just a little bit.

24 The exploration and development and deployment of new 25 weld repair technics to help remediate the nations aging spent nuclear fuel 26 canisters, as well as demonstrations of advance coolants and advance reactor

6 1 technologies.

2 Such as a chloride salt purification loop, which has now 3 been built. And it enables us to make larger batches of salt for testing in 4 development of validated models.

5 And if you'll go to the next slide. Molten salt reactors are 6 indeed one of the more widely discussed and actively pursued concepts in the 7 advance reactor sphere today.

8 Actually, there are four companies actively pursuing these 9 new molten salt concepts. TerraPower, Terrestrial, Flibe, and Kairos.

10 And to date, the interactions between the U.S. NRC 11 developers, stakeholders and laboratories have been positive in developing a 12 common understanding and expectations.

13 For example, in recent months in a report was issued 14 examining a gap analysis report, what data is missing for the deployment of 15 these technologies.

16 There are new capabilities that have helped developers 17 successfully develop and license MSRs, including design and licensing 18 workshops.

19 Just last week there was a large workshop at Oak Ridge 20 where stakeholders from industry, regulators, and labs met for two days to 21 discuss and decide on common initiating events that could be used for safety 22 analysis calculations.

23 We've also been working to develop MSR specific design 24 criteria through different code groups and other key regulatory bodies. And I 25 think these interactions are essential for continued development and 26 assessment of these advance technologies.

7 1 If you could go to the slide please. It's also clear that 2 modeling and simulation will be an important part of deploying these 3 technologies. I should state, modeling and simulation in conjunction with 4 experimental. These have to be validated codes.

5 Recently the national laboratories, specifically Oak Ridge 6 and Sandia, have been partnering with the U.S. NRC to extend these codes, 7 to attach them, to enable more detailed reviews of accident tolerant fuels, as 8 well as into non-light water reactor spaces.

9 So, in the example I've highlighted here, the scale code, 10 which is used for reactor physics, has been coupled with MELCOR code for 11 severe accident analysis. And Sandia has also added the MACCS offsite 12 consequence analysis.

13 And so, the coupling of these provides an opportunity to 14 explore conditions, evaluate new technologies, such as accident tolerant fuel.

15 And, again, these codes have to be validated to provide meaningful 16 understanding, mitigation, as well as helping prevent other accident scenarios.

17 If you could go to the next slide. Again, highlighting the 18 development of accident tolerant fuel, or accident tolerant fuels and claddings, 19 the national laboratories have been working via DOE since Fukushima, to 20 support and development low-TRL technology readiness level, to deployment 21 through industry support. This doesn't have to take decades.

22 In the example I've shown an activity partnering ORNL and 23 GE Hitachi, has taken a concept of accident tolerant fuel, so called FeCrAl 24 alloy, iron chrome aluminum, from concept to the development of initial data, 25 limited test reactor data, to its now sitting in the hatch plant in an actual 26 operating LWR.

8 1 This cycle took less than six years and represents the first 2 non-zirconium based fuel cladding inserted into an LWR in decades.

3 In parallel, we've developed the materials handbook, in 4 collaboration with our partners at the U.S. NRC. And this provides a good 5 avenue to help accelerate and deploy these accident tolerant materials in a 6 faster pace.

7 If you'll go to the next slide. I also want to highlight that the 8 national labs provide a forum to help develop some of the validation tools, if 9 not direct reactor technology.

10 This is a brand new capability that I'm showing in this slide, 11 actually only weeks old, where we've established a new so called mini-fuel 12 experiment to help provide insights into high-burn up performance without the 13 need for multi-million dollar, multi-decade experimental approaches.

14 In this case, a new testing capability. The very small 15 capsule is in the upper center. And that will allow us to take small fuel 16 particles, which if you can see the penny in the center, the tiny black dots lined 17 up to the edge of it are the fuel pellets that went into this experiment.

18 Miniature TRISO particles.

19 So it's placed in the high flux isotope reactor, radiated to 20 high-burn up conditions. We then took the capsule into a hot cell and we're 21 able to develop the first testing of its kind looking at fission gas release from 22 such a small volume in such a short time frame.

23 We were able to establish high-burn up relevant data in less 24 than a year.

25 These sorts of tools will help develop and validate our 26 modeling and simulation codes. Again, leading to acceleration of licensing,

9 1 validation and ultimately deployment.

2 And if you'll go to the next slide please. And if we take that 3 forward and look at other industries and other areas, there are a lot of advance 4 tools. State of the art has expanded.

5 New manufacturing technics, artificial intelligence, 6 automated sensors and controls. These provide a new direction, an 7 opportunity to expand what we can do in the state of what's possible.

8 In particular, the videos have shown are of 3D printed 9 materials, in fact, I have several here that we're free to pass around, where 10 between the advance computational tools and the ability to manufacturer 11 shapes are no longer constrained to cylinders, spheres and plate materials.

12 We can now do advanced topological shapes which maximize heat transfer, 13 minimize accident scenarios and gaps and manufacturing defects.

14 The video in the lower center is an x-ray tomography scan 15 of the smaller piece that's passing around. That is a hexagon that is silicon 16 carbide 3D printed, filled with TRISO fuel particles and then backfilled.

17 That's not a simulation, that's an actual scan of every 18 component and sub-millimeter resolution. We now have the ability to know 19 where every defect is in ever component during its manufacture.

20 Reject them when they do not meet certain criteria, or feed 21 them into a so-called digital twin where now we can apply performance models 22 and predict failure on specific components and specific conditions. It's no 23 longer a statistical approach.

24 These are new ways of doing things. They're not, there's a 25 lot of work to be done to figure out how to qualify, validate and license these 26 sort of materials and approaches in a nuclear framework.

10 1 This is also an opportunity to collaborate with industry, with 2 the U.S. NRC, to identify gaps and adoption of these technologies and 3 methodologies. And in fact, I know a new activity and partnership was just 4 established in the last few weeks that we'll begin looking in some of these 5 areas.

6 And so, if you go to the next slide. Let me just close. I've 7 gone through a number of areas very quickly, but I think there are 8 opportunities for science and technology research at the national labs, to 9 continue driving new innovation and nuclear energy, advance designs, 10 accident tolerant fuels, a wide range of other areas.

11 We can also explore state of the art technologies that may 12 help further improve safety, efficiency and economy. And engaging with the 13 regulatory partners is certainly welcome and mutually beneficial. Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much for that 15 presentation. I was scribbling a lot of notes, it was very interesting. Thank 16 you so much.

17 And next we will hear from Mr. Neil Wilmshurst, who is the 18 vice president and chief nuclear officer of the Electric Power Research 19 Institute.

20 And Neil has been kind of enough to return. We had him 21 recently presenting on another topic, so thank you very much for being here 22 today, and please proceed with your presentation.

23 MR. WILMSHURST: Again, thank you for the opportunity, 24 and very glad to be back and help my friends in NRC research with this 25 discussion.

26 If we move to the first slide please. Okay, the Commission

11 1 are probably already aware, from previous discussions, about the breadth of 2 EPRIs global participation.

3 This slide really shows the number of plants worldwide that 4 we interact with. It's virtually 80 percent of the global nuclear commercial 5 plants in the world are actually participating with EPRI.

6 Which is a wonderful business position for us to be in. But 7 what does that actually tell us?

8 Actually, if you look into the backdrop, globally R&D 9 resources are consolidating, are being shut down. And we need to make 10 sure that the existing resources are maximized in effectiveness. And they're 11 effective use of those resources is ever more important.

12 And what we're really seeing is the collaboration between 13 research entities in nuclear is more and more important as these facilities do 14 consolidate or disappear. One great example is the Halden reactor in 15 Norway which recently shut down.

16 Nuclear is in a unique place to be able to work in this 17 environment. Because of the unique culture of cross-company and cross-18 border collaboration in nuclear.

19 So, in this context, actually, what do we see. And we're 20 really seeing that the U.S. history and experience in nuclear is clearly a strong 21 differentiator why all these companies from around the world still come to 22 EPRI, a U.S. based organization for R&D.

23 So, the U.S. fleet, the U.S. research, the research done in 24 the U.S. does continue to be globally relevant.

25 So next slide please. So this slide shows the areas of 26 EPRI's nuclear research. I won't go through the list. It's basically the whole

12 1 waterfront of the nuclear enterprise for our members.

2 With a notable exception is, we very gentle touch human 3 performance aspects, leave most of that to INPO. But we do touch that from 4 the realm of human reliability analysis and the input to PRAs.

5 Our focus is to make results deployable. If we do research 6 for our members that just ends up on a shelf, that is not of value to them. Our 7 unique spot in the ecosystem is our understanding of our members plants that 8 business imperatives and the ability to connect the science with their needs.

9 We do jealously guard our independence, not objectivity.

10 But we do also manage to focus very closely on the business needs of our 11 members.

12 And we're lucky our advisors keep us strategic enough.

13 They don't drive us just to be tactical, they keep us looking over the horizon.

14 Once great example is the work on what we term long-term 15 operation, others term second license renewal. We started working on that 16 15 years ago. Before even being talked about.

17 The work we did in the background enabled utilities to come 18 to this table and discuss taking the plants out 80 years, other countries to look 19 to taking their plants out to beyond 40, beyond, out to 60 plus years.

20 Other things we started working on before they became a 21 common discussion, things like the impact of flexible operations.

22 I did want to highlight some of the things we're working on 23 today. I won't touch desperately on accident tolerant fuels, I think Jeremy has 24 covered that very well.

25 Jeremy mentioned advanced manufacturing. Imagine a 26 world where large components are made with no welds. We are working with

13 1 the national labs and with operations in Europe, on powder metallurgy.

2 We have in our facility in Charlotte a 45 percent scale, 3 NuScale vessel head. Made powder metallurgy, hot isostatic pressed so the 4 metallurgy is actually controlled, the grain size is small and there are no welds.

5 Because this is being made in a can and produced.

6 Imagine a vessel head with no welds. No welds, no 7 inspection.

8 Another thing we're working on is taking even larger 9 components, electron beam welding them together. When you've heat 10 treated those components after electronic beam welding, you can no longer 11 find the weld. If you can't find the weld, you don't need to inspect the weld.

12 So, those are some of the technology advances that are 13 being worked on in collaboration with DOE and others.

14 Another thing with DOE, looking at high-burn up spent fuel.

15 What are the long-term effects of dry store and high-burn up spent fuel in order 16 to help the industry safely store that fuel.

17 Some of the learnings there demonstrate that there is 18 significant conservatism in some of the heat limits, indicating tremendous 19 safety margins in that storage regime that we actually weren't aware of 20 previous to these experiments.

21 And then something closer to deployment, smart chemistry.

22 Imagine a world where you are constantly measuring the chemistry of the 23 water in a plant and actually able to react in a more timely fashion.

24 We've deployed skids to BWR plants, PWR plants. We 25 have them now in Canada on the CANDU plants.

26 And that will transform the ability of plants to more

14 1 appropriately manage their assets going forward, rather than just taking 2 samples every shift or every day, having samples taking every minute or less, 3 depending on what the samples are.

4 So those are some examples of work we're working on at 5 the moment.

6 Next slide please. So what is the uniqueness of the EPRI 7 approach? We do some basic research, but that is not our focus.

8 Our focus is to stay close to our members, and their 9 vendors, and understand what their needs are. And actually reach back into 10 national labs, universities, places outside of the U.S. and understand what 11 solutions are being developed in the basic technology world and then speed 12 up that deployment, either through the vendors or directly to our members, to 13 actually address their problems they have.

14 And as I've said, we really guard jealously, our 15 independence and objectivity of this as we do these analyses.

16 Next slide please. I've repeatedly talked here about 17 collaboration. This slide really just gives a snapshot to show some of our key 18 collaborators as we do this.

19 We cannot operate as a research entity supporting our 20 members without key collaborations around the world.

21 EPRI was setup, not as a complex of labs, but as a facilitator 22 of having research done. We identify the needs and then we find the best 23 people and the best facilities in the world to do that research.

24 We have work going on today in Sweden, in Japan, in 25 Korea, in China, in national labs, everything else. So it relies on this deep 26 and close collaboration.

15 1 And as I've said, the uniqueness of the nuclear industry is, 2 even with the resources of the labs globally consolidating. This collaboration, 3 I think, continues to be strong and allows this research to be done and done 4 effectively.

5 Next slide. One of the people, one of the organizations in 6 that previous slide was U.S. NRC. We have had an MOU with NRC research 7 in excess of ten years.

8 Which I understand was somewhat controversial when it 9 was initially developed. An outside entity having an MOU to do collaborative 10 research with a regulator.

11 What I can tell you today is, this is tremendously successful 12 and effective. We have routine meetings with NRC Research Staff, we 13 actually do joint research programs with NRC.

14 And the key to this is, and I apologize a typo found its way 15 into the slide somewhere, research is done, results are developed on a 16 common research plan. But those research results are then assessed 17 independently.

18 And what happens is, this industry cannot, with a reduction 19 in facilities, continue to keep doing research twice. There aren't enough 20 experts out in the facilities.

21 So, collaboration is important to make sure that the right 22 research is done in a timely manner, but then with careful arrangements like 23 this MOU, the assessment, the results, can be independently without 24 conflicting missions.

25 And final slide please. The graphic there shows capacity 26 factor. If you look earlier in that slide, capacity factors were significantly

16 1 lower.

2 And what I can tell you is, a good part of the rise, the 3 capacity factor levels today, is based on R&D results. And the snapshot here 4 shows you some of the areas where ongoing benefits from R&D will be 5 realized.

6 And the common with things, my colleagues have already 7 said, and I'm sure I'll hear it from the research team. I'll conclude my remarks 8 there.

9 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much. Next on 10 this panel we will hear from Dr. Jennifer Uhle, who is currently the vice 11 president of operations for the Nuclear Energy Institute, but certainly well-12 known to this Commission and those here in the room.

13 Jennifer, thank you so much for being here today, please 14 proceed.

15 DR. UHLE: Thanks. Good morning, Chairman, 16 Commissioners. I really appreciate the opportunity to present the industry's 17 views on the safety driven research. Or essentially the applied research 18 program of NRC.

19 Next slide please. So, I organized my presentation around 20 the specific, some of the specific elements of the research mission, overall, 21 just summarizing researches, mission has developed a technical basis in 22 general for regulatory decision making.

23 And there are three elements here that I'll talk about today 24 as they are listed. Evaluate new technical concerns that warrant attention, 25 develop and maintain needed tools, including data, computer codes and 26 evaluation technics, prepare for new industry activities, so that the agency is

17 1 ready to review them and regulate them.

2 And certainly, the industry understands the important role 3 that research plays. We, ourselves, do research, as you've heard through 4 my previous colleagues here.

5 But we do have some recommendations on how perhaps 6 the Office of Research could be more effective and efficient.

7 So next slide. So, starting with evaluating new technical 8 concerns. Certainly the safety of the fleet is, the primary responsibility is that 9 of the industry.

10 So, the industry is just as concerned about safety as is the 11 NRC. It's a shared role. So, at this point, when we have a new issue, the 12 complicating factor is really separating those issues that warrant attention 13 from those that don't.

14 And since we're talking about new issues, I'm assuming 15 they're not currently dealt with in the licensing basis or in the regulations.

16 And so, a quick way, or an effective way to separate those 17 issues would be to look at the issues through the lens of the backfit rule.

18 Certainly if an issue is not safety significant enough to require a backfit, based 19 on the Commission and Staff's input, then it's probably not safety significant 20 enough to do a very detailed research program.

21 Now, when we first take a look at a new issue we may have 22 to do some low level research to determine the safety significance. And when 23 we do so, then we should be making sure their research program is realistic 24 and prototypic of what we see across the fleet.

25 And unfortunately, we've seen cases where that's not been 26 the practice. And an example would be in the high energy arching fault area

18 1 that is currently being looked at right now.

2 So, we recommend that there be more collaboration with the 3 industry. Of course, NRC maintains its independence, as Neil has indicated.

4 And in that way, the research programs are truly realistic 5 and are representative, or truly represent the industry. And the configuration 6 of the plants.

7 Now, last point on this slide, I would say going back to 8 applicability, is that it is the industry's viewpoint that international research 9 programs that are not applicable to the industry, have very limited applicability 10 to the industry, should be off the fee based.

11 Having been in the Office of Research for over a decade or 12 more, there have been many times where there's been participation in 13 research programs, collaborative research programs through OECD, IAEA, 14 that were not applicable to the industry.

15 And that, of course, side tracks the staff and time and 16 attention of the agency away from those issues that are applicable.

17 So, next slide. Talking about the tools. Jeremy discussed 18 a number of tools DOE is developing. Neil also hit on this issue.

19 So bottom line is, there is the whole tool suit that the staff 20 develops and maintains. I was one of the developers at one point for the 21 thermal-hydraulic set, so I appreciate the fine work that gets done.

22 However, the industry has its own set and the DOE has its 23 own set. And over time the validation and the functionality of these tools have 24 overlapped. And we're certainly duplicating effort.

25 So, perhaps it's a good time as, again, Neil alluded to, to 26 take a step back and do a top to bottom review of the tool set and figure out if

19 1 there's a more efficient way through perhaps sharing of these tools.

2 Defraying the cost to the U.S. as a whole.

3 Again, independence comes up as an issue. But as we 4 indicated before, NRC would be conducting its own analyses and drawing its 5 own conclusions.

6 As in the case with any tool, using a code outside its 7 applicability range is certainly not something to do, however, we do see that 8 there are times when the staff does that. Use the example of human reliability 9 analysis tools.

10 They were developed primarily for inside the control room, 11 actions within short time frames and validated through data from the Halden 12 project through other programs inside the control room. But we used them 13 outside the control room.

14 And to give you an example, during a recent significant 15 determination process evaluation, the NRC used the HRA tools and 16 concluded that during a shutdown event, when the decay heats low and there 17 are a lot of operation staff onsite, that Clinton would not have been able to 18 restore AC power over 11, roughly an 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> time period.

19 And 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />, it was essentially how much time it would take 20 for the water level in the core to get to the top of the active fuel.

21 And this situation stemmed from a valve being 22 mispositioned after maintenance on a diesel generator. And the other diesel 23 generator was out for maintenance. And the staff postulates if there was a 24 loss of offsite power there would be no AC.

25 Now, there are three different success paths that could be 26 used to restore AC power, if this were the case. Including adjusting the valve

20 1 on the diesel, which was a very simple action, cross-tying to another available 2 diesel and relying on FLEX equipment.

3 And in fact, what is nonsensical about this situation, is that 4 the utility brought in operators from other plants and they ran through 5 simulations. And these operators were not informed of the mispositioning of 6 the valve.

7 They went through the procedures that of course they arent 8 trained on. And of the five operators, the slowest time to find the valve and 9 position it was 32 minutes.

10 They also looked at how long it would take to cross-tie to the 11 other diesel generator, and it was an hour and a half. Then there of course 12 is the FLEX equipment.

13 So these are procedures and they are trained on. And 14 through the systematic approach to training, which NRC has approved. But 15 we're not getting credit for these types of actions.

16 We're still in a situation where after spending $4 billion on 17 FLEX equipment, we don't have a clear clean path to getting credit for FLEX 18 in these types of SDP. Significance determination process cases.

19 So, instead of using a more practical approach by just say 20 looking at, hey, what did the trial runs tell us, we're using tools that are not 21 applicable.

22 So my last slide is really focused on new industry initiatives.

23 And obviously industry plans to deploy a number of new technologies, you've 24 heard from my colleagues.

25 To give an example of some, accident tolerant fuel.

26 Certainly we're getting ready for advance reactors.

21 1 And the NRC does a great job at maintaining awareness of 2 where the industry is heading. I think there could be more efficiency in 3 developing the infrastructure to be ready for the actual review and conducting 4 the review.

5 There's a bit of a cultural issue about anything new that 6 comes to the plants. That's not necessarily, or that comes to the NRC, it's 7 not necessarily associated with research, but the whole process could be 8 made much more efficient and effective. And perhaps further collaboration 9 with industry could help.

10 We've also seen numerous cases where the industry, or the 11 research program has grown beyond scope. We tend to start research and 12 continue research instead of once the original goal is achieved ask ourselves 13 what is the remaining regulatory question that needs to be answered.

14 So, again, further collaboration so that we have a whole 15 different set of eyes looking at a research program may be, may help in 16 affecting change.

17 So, to end on a good note, we do appreciate the agency's 18 research programs and infrastructure development on advance reactors and 19 we look forward to further collaboration.

20 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much, Dr. Uhle.

21 For the final presentation on this panel I will now turn to Dr. Todd Allen, who 22 is the chair and also a professor at the University of Michigan Nuclear 23 Engineering and Radiological Sciences Program.

24 Thank you very much, Dr. Allen for being here today, please 25 proceed.

26 DR. ALLEN: Great, thanks. And I appreciate the

22 1 invitation.

2 So I thought I'd use the time to try to explain the importance 3 of research by telling three short stories. Cases where we did it wrong and 4 cases where we did it right.

5 So if we can go to the first slide please. I'm going to start 6 with one where we didn't do it right. I call it the Coriou effect.

7 If you go to the next slide. I apologize to those that didn't 8 want to get too geeky this morning, but it's a simple graph and it just shows 9 that in alloy material they use to build steam generators, when you have too 10 much nickel it will crack in service. So that's to the right of the graph. And I 11 put a no there to indicate you don't want to be there.

12 If you have less, it doesn't crack. So I put a yes there to 13 make it easy to follow.

14 And in retrospect you'd say, you should operate in the yes 15 zone, not the no zone. And that seems obvious, but it turns out that we got 16 this one wrong in the early days.

17 So if you go to the next slide. It turns out that in 1959 there 18 was a scientist at the French CEA, who's in charge of their Aqueous Corrosion 19 Lab, his name was Henri Coriou, and he noticed that the alloy that everyone 20 was using for steam generators cracked.

21 And no one believed him. They thought it was a French 22 unique situation, that there was something a matter with his data and they sort 23 of ignored it.

24 In the history of this that Philippe Berge wrote, I found this 25 interesting, center statement that said, an American colleague had suspected 26 Coriou of being a KGB agent spreading false rumors to raise doubts about the

23 1 reliability of American nuclear submarines, right? So for those of you that are 2 big fans of NCIS research as a TV show, it's interesting.

3 But the point is, we ignored the indications. We didn't do 4 the research. And about ten years later, in operational service, alloy 600 5 started cracking.

6 And in the end, we ended up having to shift a lot of plants 7 over to 690. And on the French side, 52 plants were built before they decided 8 to move it over.

9 So here's a case where there were research indications that 10 were not followed, they were not believed, and it actually cost a lot of money, 11 right. And it was sort of the wrong answer because you didn't have a vigorous 12 research program to make sure you understand that, what's going on.

13 All right, so go to the next slide. The second case is, I think, 14 one where it was done right where you got the tools done in advance.

15 And if we can go to the next slide. On this parallel, it's a 16 different image, but it parallels something that Jeremy showed.

17 Which was, in the mid-'90s the NRC started to allow its 18 codes and tools to talk to each other, right. The cross-section codes and the 19 neutron flux solvers and the temperature calculations were being linked so 20 you could do more complicated analysis of what was going on in the plant.

21 I think this is the right thing to do, if you fast forward about 22 20 years, next slide please, there were questions about power rates, and could 23 we do them and still be safe.

24 And the fact that these codes had, the research had been 25 done to allow these codes to talk to each other, to build a modern platform, 26 allow these types of questions can be answered so that the Commission and

24 1 the industry could work towards moving the power higher in the plants and still 2 feel that it was safe.

3 So in this case, 20 years of advanced thinking, puts you in 4 a position where you are ready to answer important questions for the industry.

5 All right. So I'd say that was a case where it was done correctly.

6 And we'll go to my third story. And this is one that I think 7 it's the need to be forward looking.

8 And I should say, so I'm on the faculty at Michigan so I'm 9 using Michigan examples, but I don't mean to imply that these are uniquely 10 Michigan, there's lots of interesting work being done in other places.

11 But if we go to the next slide. We now have a faculty 12 member whose working on advance x-ray tomography highspeed image 13 capture that would allow you to look at flow and complex components.

14 Well, why is this important? Well, if you think about the 15 codes that I just talked about, and Jeremy mentioned the same thing, your 16 ability to validate them, take the uncertainty out of them, is very important to 17 your confidence.

18 So, building in new tools that allow you to understand, with 19 great fidelity, what's going on in a complex engineering system is very 20 important. And you're not going to get there if you don't figure out how to 21 build the advance tools.

22 And I didn't put this in my slides, but if I listen to what Jeremy 23 and Neil both said, we're not looking at things like advance manufacturing, 24 advance sensors, data analytics. This gets into questions of cyber physical 25 security, cloud computing versus edge computing.

26 There's a lot of interesting things going on where I start to

25 1 see my colleagues trying to figure out, how can we bring these advance 2 technologies into nuclear.

3 If you don't have a vigorous research program that 4 understands the implications, right, of how to use these tools, where the 5 advantages are, where the limitations might be, then you're not in a position 6 really to answer these questions and be ready to evaluate the technology.

7 And if you're not in that position, then you don't advance the field of nuclear 8 industry, which I think is important.

9 If we go one more slide. I'll just point out that, and this is 10 especially true, at least from the University perspective, that research results 11 are only part of the value.

12 So if you go to the next slide. My obligatory smiling gun 13 faces slide.

14 Research is kind of the gateway drug for a lot of people to 15 get interested in this, right? I'll go back and look at some statistics about 16 what's happened over the past two decades at the University level.

17 So around 2004 or '05, the number of students that were 18 interested in studying nuclear engineering jumped by about a factor of four.

19 And it just stayed there.

20 We have saved nuclear programs, we have started new 21 programs in places that didn't exist. We have places like Penn State, which 22 is taking its nuclear program back out of mechanical and forming a standalone 23 program.

24 There is a strong amount of interest in the students in 25 nuclear technology. We see it at the universities and it's not a blip, it is a 26 consistent trend.

26 1 And I think for a lot of students, that ability to do research at 2 the PhD level certainly, but the ability to engage in research as an 3 undergraduate gets them involved. And the pictures I showed you were 4 people who happened to jump from Michigan to the NRC. And in a lot of 5 case, it was the research that brought them in.

6 The last thing I'll point out on the people standpoint is that 7 this year was also unusual at the universities on the faculty side. We had 8 about 25 open faculty positions, which is, say, four times normal.

9 And there's this combination of growth in nuclear, along with 10 retirements. And this strong interest of people in being in nuclear that's 11 drawing people to your universities.

12 And I will end by saying, at both the student side and the 13 faculty side, that over the last two decades of success and growth, the NRC 14 programs and fellowships, which are very flexible and very helpful to us in not 15 only bringing students into the programs but keeping them in and protecting 16 that investment, as well as the support for young faculty in getting their careers 17 kicked off so they can be successful in this field, we tie a lot of that back to the 18 support that the NRC has provided.

19 So, helpfully those stories will give you an indication of why 20 research is important, in bringing both people in and advancing the field and 21 keeping nuclear technology the cutting edge. So thanks.

22 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you very much, Dr. Allen, 23 and to all the presenters. But thank you in particular for mentioning the 24 people part of this.

25 As we always say at NRC, we really can't do anything here 26 without our people, and it is the most important thing to begin and end with,

27 1 so thank you for that.

2 I want to apologize to my colleagues in the busy morning in 3 affirmation, I neglected to ask them if they wanted to make opening comments 4 at the meeting, but I'm sure that they'll have the indulgence of the Chair if they 5 want to have a little extra time in this opening round to make some background 6 commentary. And we will begin today with Commissioner Wright.

7 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Good morning. So this is 8 my one year anniversary.

9 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Is it?

10 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Today. I got sworn in, you 11 swore me in right there a year ago today. Mom held the bible, it was a big 12 day. And I talked to her this morning, she said hello.

13 (Laughter.)

14 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well thank you for that. It's 15 important to acknowledge these milestones. And I say hey back to her.

16 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes. So thank you for being 17 here. I know some of you had to travel a long way to get here and I appreciate 18 your willingness to participate on this.

19 You know, we've talked here a lot about transformation, and 20 we continue to do that. And I've said a lot. I don't want to transform just for 21 transformation sake, we got to kind of know where we're going, what we want 22 to be, what the vision is going to be.

23 So at a high level, I see that using our knowledge and our 24 expertise and our experience, you need to use it the right way to regulate more 25 efficiently. Because when it's done the right way it really works. It's very 26 effective.

28 1 And by the way, my reactor TA did some reason, Dr. Allen, 2 and found out that Clemson and Michigan have never played football against 3 each other.

4 DR. ALLEN: Lucky for Clemson.

5 (Laughter.)

6 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That's what Alabama said.

7 So, we've won about 1,700 games combined but we've never played each 8 other. I found that really astounding. Two great programs. It's just hard to 9 believe.

10 But on a more important topic for everybody here, we've 11 heard some great examples today of how good things can happen when the 12 NRC works collaboratively with organizations like IAEA and EPRI and NEA 13 and NEI and others around.

14 So my question for anybody on the panel that wants to 15 weigh in, is whether there are other organizations that we should consider 16 partnering with or doing collaboration with?

17 Anybody that we're not talking to that we should?

18 And that would be either, I guess internationally or 19 domestically. Do you have any thoughts on that?

20 DR. UHLE: I'll jump in. I'll be the sacrificial lamb here.

21 (Laughter.)

22 DR. UHLE: I think that as an industry, as a whole, we tend 23 to think that everything in nuclear, we're siloed in nuclear and so we don't 24 necessarily talk to the other industries that may be using very similar materials.

25 Perhaps in similar environments, maybe not.

26 So I think there's probably a role where the industry, as a

29 1 whole, could take a look at other industries to determine if there is something 2 we can learn.

3 I know we do a little bit of that in digital I&C. And in the 4 case of PRA. But I'll, Neil, you want to add anything there?

5 MR. WILMSHURST: Well thank you for that. And really, 6 that is what we're seeing as we interact with our members, both in the U.S.

7 and globally.

8 As there's an economic pressure on many of our members, 9 the appetite for deploying technology is increasing. And that technology is 10 being seen as having safety benefits and commercial benefits.

11 And it needs R&D in order to understand the deployment 12 challenges and the deployment issues. And in some cases, as Jennifer said, 13 other industries have already done it.

14 And we tend to quite rightly view nuclear special, but there 15 are cases where even we can maintain nuclear being special but still learn 16 from other industries.

17 And there are opportunities abound for all the research 18 operations in the nuclear industry to reach out to those other groups. For 19 example, look at the aero-engine industry and what they do with remote 20 monitoring and sensors. Tremendous lessons there for the nuclear industry.

21 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. So, in the last 22 several years we've had a number of reactors that have permanently shut 23 down.

24 So this question, are we, DOE or anyone else, doing 25 anything to study the material condition of those reactors?

26 I'm wondering if we can learn something about component

30 1 aging that we could use to help us review applications for subsequent license 2 renewal. Could this be a unique opportunity maybe to perform testing on 3 components in a way that we don't do on the operating fleet?

4 MR. WILMSHURST: I'll go first, and I see there's another 5 volunteer to follow me here.

6 So, it's a great example. And as we did the work to support 7 second license in the long-term operation, the question of concrete aging and 8 primary materials aging came up.

9 And at the time, there wasn't a plant of the right vintage in 10 the U.S., but collaboratively with DOE and NRC, we identified the Zorita Plant 11 in Spain was a valuable place to go and harvest samples. And that is just 12 what we did. We took concrete samples, material samples from Zorita Plant.

13 So, that activity is going on. At the moment, I'm not aware 14 of any activity around harvesting anything from U.S. plants, but globally that 15 is definitely an option that is being explored.

16 DR. BUSBY: There are actually, in the last year or so, 17 some more active programs on the DOE side, under specifically light water 18 reactor sustainability.

19 There has been an effort to harvest concrete core 20 specimens from the Zion Plant, as well as a section, the RPV midline, I'm 21 sorry, beltline weldments.

22 Those materials, it's complicated into the decommissioning 23 process, but we have rescued a number of high value materials. They were 24 transferred to Memphis and are now sitting at Oak Ridge.

25 There have been inquiries and explorations around 26 harvesting high value materials from San Onofre. And I think there are some

31 1 other initial discussions ongoing.

2 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. Did you have 3 any?

4 So, Neil, let me stay with you real quick in the couple of 5 minutes we've got here. Can you describe the benefits of collaborative 6 research conducted by the NRC and EPRI?

7 And you stress that our organizations reach independent 8 conclusions, and I think, Jennifer, you backed that up earlier. Are there 9 examples where NRC and EPRI have teamed up on a research project and 10 reached different conclusions, and if so, how was that handled?

11 MR. WILMSHURST: Jennifer brought up the high energy 12 arch fault. That's probably the nearest term disconnect I can talk about where 13 there's an ongoing discussion about the scope of the actual R&D plan as to 14 whether the R&D plan going into it is representative of configurations in 15 existing plants.

16 So that's an example of a disconnect. And there's ongoing 17 dialogue, and it's healthy dialogue. And is there frustration that it could be 18 resolved faster, yes, but I think we're in a better place because of the MOU to 19 have that discussion.

20 On the results of the research, I don't know that there's ever 21 been a disagreement on the results because the assessment is done 22 independently and every organization has its own right to make its own 23 conclusions.

24 So I think the front end constructive dialogue is where those 25 disagreements are worked out.

26 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. So, Dr. Allen,

32 1 I'm going to come back to you to finish up here.

2 One of the challenges that we're faced with right now is a 3 shortage of younger folks at our agency. My understanding is that we're at 4 about two percent of our workforce under the age of 30.

5 And I'm not sure exactly what the right number is, but I know 6 it's not two percent. So what are you seeing at Michigan, is this an NRC issue 7 or is there a shortage of talent elsewhere in the nuclear field?

8 And I guess to follow-up with that, in your opinion, what 9 would be the best way to attract younger people to the nuclear field?

10 DR. ALLEN: So, I think right now we're in this very 11 interesting competitive recruitment for people. So even though I said we 12 went up by a factor of four, if I look at what's happening at the universities, 13 what's happening at the national labs, there's a retirement boom that overlies 14 growth and everyone is competing for the same people.

15 Whether it's mid-careers where it's especially hard, but even 16 with younger people. So even though we've jumped up, it's pretty competitive 17 right now.

18 I do find that the people that are the most effective at 19 recruiting students out of the universities are those organizations that get to 20 know them early. So if you show up at the last second and say, hey, you just 21 are graduating now would you be interested in the NRC, they very likely have 22 other suitors.

23 And so I think it's showing up early, being visible, getting 24 them into your spaces because they talk to each other, I think is critical to all 25 of it. And I think that, yes, the people that do that well and show up well are 26 the ones that win the recruiting battles.

33 1 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. Thank you, 2 Chair.

3 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: All right, well thank you very much.

4 I will guess next with some questions. And some of these are fairly general 5 so I think if someone wants to chime in. Hopefully there will be a willing victim 6 and not a sacrificial lamb.

7 But you talked about some themes that I think are, resonate 8 strongly with me in terms of where the nuclear R&D enterprise is today, both 9 in the U.S. and globally, compared to where it was when I began my nuclear 10 career with the U.S. Department of Energy and activities associated with what 11 was then the Idaho National Engineering Lab and is now the Idaho National 12 Lab.

13 And I think that consortia is the new model and has been 14 that way for some time. I think that the more stove-piped your funded by one 15 funder to do something without other principle investigators and other 16 participants.

17 It's partly for reflection of the fact that nuclear research that 18 involves actual nuclear materials has limited locations at which it can be 19 conducted. And it's expensive because there's a lot of controls on it.

20 But I get a growing sense that if we were to contrast with 21 how the U.S. developed its early nuclear power program in Idaho, building 52 22 different prototype reactors out on the desert of Idaho, I think that now for the 23 federal investment there's an increasing imperative that work be conducted 24 with a consortia model.

25 And that, my experiences with that, not just here at NRC but 26 in other positions, and this congressional staff, has created a strong conviction

34 1 with me on the topic of independence, which a couple of you mentioned, is 2 that if collaboration and collaborators are all involved at the beginning and the 3 design of the research, it's my conviction that independent analysis decision 4 making at the end is absolutely possible. I have just a strong conviction about 5 that.

6 Now, that early part is important because you can't just be 7 handed a bunch of papers of data printouts if you don't, it's that early 8 participation. And so, I note that NRC, I think as we look at accident tolerant 9 fuels in advance reactors, is realizing that that early engagement is very 10 important, both with the vendors and designers of new technologies.

11 But just generally I think to have our independent and fully 12 informed safety conclusions at the end of the day.

13 The other firm conviction I have is that the tools and 14 progress that have been made across the research enterprise, not just in 15 nuclear but also finding utilization in nuclear, can and have enhanced safety 16 significantly.

17 I know many of your organizations are focused on 18 operations issues and other things, but NRC, at the end of the day, we want 19 to know that our safety conclusions are even more firmly rooted.

20 And the further penetration of some advance technologies 21 have a high probability, in my view, of enhancing operational safety at plants.

22 And so, I do worry a little bit about young people have a perception that 23 nuclear, it's very hard to penetrate nuclear programs with innovative and 24 advance technologies.

25 So I know that there's a shared concern across addressing 26 that perception. In some cases, it's probably a reality that that it is happening.

35 1 So, I appreciate what all of your organizations are doing.

2 And next when we hear from the NRC Staff, I think that they're doing some 3 really, really interesting and creative things as well, but we'll hear from them 4 shortly.

5 One thing though that is important, I think to anyone 6 concerned about safety, is that there are many tools. The rise in kind of 7 computing power and things has been kind of mind-blowing over the last 30 8 years.

9 But it is important that there be experiential validation 10 because you can get a lot of decimal places but is it meaningful in terms of 11 real-world phenomenology. How would any of you characterize the 12 computing power and the analytics versus the rooting it in real-world 13 phenomenology?

14 Do you think that the experimental work has kept pace?

15 That can be the more expensive thing nowadays, so how 16 would you characterize, not just the power of the tools but how well they reflect 17 reality?

18 It's a little philosophical. Maybe Oak Ridge will leap in and 19 --

20 DR. BUSBY: Yes. And let me share a caveat. I'm an 21 experimentalist --

22 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Oh.

23 DR. BUSBY: -- by training in nature who now manages 24 100 or so modeling and simulation folks.

25 I think you said it very well. Experiment and modeling have 26 to go together, hand-in-hand. And they're mutually beneficial.

36 1 Modeling and simulation can point us to the highest value 2 experiments. Experiments can point us to flaws in our modeling logic or 3 structure. They have to go together to end up with a validated tool that we 4 can trust and believe. To extrapolate out into situations when we need to do 5 that.

6 One of the, I think there's several difference levels of 7 modeling. Are we talking about atomistic modeling, are we talking about 8 engineering scale modeling.

9 And I think that the experimental engineering scale 10 experiment can keep up with the modeling and simulation. And we're at an 11 atomistic level, that's a little more challenging because we discover we don't 12 understand the physics and it takes two to three years to figure out the 13 experiment to get that fundamental materials or physical constant that goes 14 into the model to make it make sense.

15 So I think at the engineering scale, which is perhaps the 16 most relevant to rapid deployment and accelerated deployment of safety and 17 operational features, we can keep up.

18 But there's another challenge here. Is that the modeling 19 and simulation crowd and the experimental crowd speak different languages.

20 And they have a different training, a different experience.

21 And getting them to understand and appreciate, and to interact fluently with 22 each other is perhaps the bigger obstacle than funding and pace.

23 And so we're working very hard to embed and get them to 24 translate to each other.

25 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you for that. And kind of to 26 pivot a little bit, Neil, you talked about the infrastructure around the globe to

37 1 where the experiments and research can be conducted.

2 And we have seen a consolidation and a contraction.

3 We've seen university programs close their research reactors, not so much 4 now but in the '90s and early 2000s there was a wave of the U.S. lost a lot of 5 those research reactors at university programs.

6 But when we talk about consortia and kind of forcing people 7 to work together, as Jeremy was just talking about in bringing people together, 8 consolidation of the number of places at which to do something could actually 9 be beneficial to that. And it might say that we're going to have to be more 10 streamlined and we're going to have to come together for the physical 11 infrastructure that we have.

12 So there is benefits and negatives. Could you talk about 13 though, are there areas where we're going to becoming, globally the 14 enterprise is developing gaps and capability, or we have vulnerabilities and 15 weaknesses given the contraction and the physical infrastructure?

16 MR. WILMSHURST: Probably the one that comes to mind, 17 most frequent in discussions, is test reactor capability to support the global 18 efforts in maximum tolerant fuel.

19 With Holden shutting down, other capabilities being 20 constrained, that has become a priority for OECD-NEA, to try and understand 21 what capabilities are there, what their workload is and what their availability 22 is.

23 And then you throw the political dimension in there because 24 some of the key remaining facilities are in Russia, for example. And will 25 people be able to test in those facilities.

26 So, that is probably the main one that comes to mind at the

38 1 moment. Suitable reactors for testing for the accident tolerant program.

2 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Todd or Dr. Allen. I feel like since 3 I went to Michigan you could have been one of my professors a long time ago, 4 so I'll call you Dr. Allen.

5 Would you like to comment in terms of students today being 6 able to have access to hands on experimentation in nuclear?

7 DR. ALLEN: Yes. I think we do something very well and 8 others maybe not. So, maybe three comments.

9 So, the labs have generally been pretty good about 10 operating what I'll call a user facility model. Where they've got these big 11 capabilities, they know that they are the sole owners of them and they try to 12 make them available and welcoming. To faculty, to students, to other 13 research staff. I think that works out fairly well.

14 I think a second point, which is maybe a subtlety of your 15 question on consortia, that could be useful is that, typically when people go in 16 and say, well, let's do a consortia, they're thinking about a bigger team, bigger 17 member. And because of that there's an institutional commitment to longer 18 periods of engagement.

19 One of the things that I think really harms us in all of this is 20 that we whips off from one thing to the next. And you don't have the time to 21 build up the expertise to be able to bridge the gap between the modeling and 22 experiment with people because you're constantly being flung off in some 23 other direction.

24 So I think Jeremy pointed out some of the benefits of 25 consortia, which I think are obvious. But I think one of them is that there's an 26 inherent commitment to longer engagements on projects, but I think it's

39 1 actually very useful. Whether you're a young student all the way up.

2 And then I think, the third thing I'll point out is that, and this 3 actually goes back to the recruiting question, the labs that are good at 4 recruiting are also the ones that make their facilities available to students early 5 on.

6 And so, you have this conductivity that just works well. And 7 the ones that don't do that well then, they suffer on that engagement.

8 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay, thank you. And Jennifer, if 9 I may, I'll just close with this comment.

10 I appreciate your insights. Your unique insights given your 11 background about kind of linking the NRC's licensing work to the research that 12 is conducted, scoping problems and issues correctly.

13 This is kind of odd because it's the next panel, but I have an 14 awareness of what the Staff will present, and they have been making efforts 15 in recent years to improve that fidelity between the two and integrate that look 16 at it on kind of some sort of routine basis to make sure that if you scoped a 17 problem one way, is it still relevant to the regulatory outcome.

18 So I'll just maybe highlight that. That there is, I think the 19 NRC Staff has a focus on that. And I don't claim perfection and I don't think 20 the NRC Staff claims perfection either, but I think that we have an internal 21 recognition of the need to do that. Okay. All right, thank you very much.

22 Okay. And next we will hear from Commissioner Baran.

23 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks. Well, thank you all 24 for being here. I think it's been a good discussion so far.

25 Several of you mentioned, mostly briefly but with a little bit 26 more discussion, about advance manufacturing technologies. I was

40 1 interested in hearing a little bit more about that.

2 What advanced manufacturing technologies, or process, 3 are getting the most attention for potential use at nuclear power plants and 4 when do you expect those to be introduced?

5 MR. WILMSHURST: The one I mentioned was hot 6 isostatic pressing for large metal components. If you think about large valve 7 bodies, traditionally they've been cast inspected, defects discovered, defects 8 ground out, weld repairs done.

9 And if you, one of the main challenges during an outage, in 10 an existing plant, is the inspections of those components. So, there's a 11 tremendous advantage in these hot isostatic pressed components.

12 You can manage the grain size, you can actually make them 13 near-net shape and you can get them to a place where there's no weld repairs.

14 And we have been working, that is now in the ASME code.

15 And there are reactors, not in the U.S., that are actually operating now with 16 HIP material valves in place.

17 So, that is an early deployment technology. And as I 18 mentioned, the work we're doing with DOE and others around SMR vessels, 19 that could conceivably cut the time to manufacture a reactor vessel by 50 20 percent, reduce the cost by 50 percent, and then have the through life benefits 21 of reduced, maybe effectively zero inspections as well.

22 So, from the EPRI perspective, that is the technology we're 23 seeing with the biggest return at the moment.

24 COMMISSIONER BARAN: And what time frames are 25 people talking about for deployment in the U.S. of technologies like that?

26 MR. WILMSHURST: Overseas the SMR is tied to the SMR

41 1 program, which we're all aware of. For the other valves, most, it's really tied 2 to a commercial imperative for people who are getting into the business and 3 manufacturing.

4 At the moment, with the economics of the nuclear plants in 5 the U.S., there's not really a tremendous drive to change. But outside of the 6 U.S., people are picking up this technology and starting to work with it.

7 So, there are limited capabilities to reduce components in 8 these HIP vessels in the U.S.

9 DR. BUSBY: So, I was going to lead in with a similar 10 example. I think the time to deployment is a bit of a risk reward opportunity.

11 Perhaps these technologies are demonstrated on 12 components well outside the core. A valve, a pipe, any number of other 13 secondary functions, versus jumping right into 3D printed fuel. That will take 14 a little longer.

15 However, I'll also say that the national labs are working on, 16 within the next two years, printing a core structure. And within four years, 17 having that fueled and perhaps even turn it on as a demonstration of what's 18 possible.

19 That doesn't mean that it is licensed and qualified to 20 generate power for 60 years, but it's a start and an example that we can then 21 learn from, about how to take these technologies from a demonstration into 22 an industry deployment scenario.

23 DR. UHLE: If I can add quickly. At NEI we have a group 24 that's working on advance manufacturing.

25 And we've prepared a document that really is talking about 26 the regulatory pathways. And we'll begin interacting with NRC around that

42 1 here shortly. So there is a definite interest that is growing.

2 In the case of operating reactors, it would be those 3 components that they can't replace small pieces or parts. But in advance 4 reactors, small module reactors, I would say the door is wide open. Provided 5 there is the regulatory approval.

6 COMMISSIONER BARAN: What about the increased use 7 of sensors and analysis of the resulting data at nuclear power plants, where 8 do you see that heading in the next few years?

9 DR. UHLE: I can take it. So at NRC, excuse me, I still do 10 that after three years. Anyway, at NEI we have what's called delivering the 11 nuclear promise.

12 And that is coming up with ideas on ways to do things more 13 efficiently. And where recently we're looking to pivot that and get more into 14 new technologies.

15 There's activities through DOE with the LWR sustainability, 16 we're there. And EPRI plant modernization. So we're trying to get 17 everybody together.

18 Areas that are being looked at would be in the, essentially 19 machine learning area. And that could be using machine learning to take a 20 look at condition reports to determine which ones need more attention, which 21 ones don't.

22 There has been trial cases of that. And that based on your 23 learning data set, you can get a really high accuracy rate.

24 There's also being areas of remote sensing. Could remote 25 sensing replace rounds associated with rad protections with now people 26 taking samples. Could that be a more effective way of performing that same

43 1 work and making it as, ensuring safety to the same level.

2 So, those are just some ideas that are being pursued.

3 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Can you give us a sense of, 4 particular in the sensors, how far long is the thinking on that, how far along is 5 the research on that?

6 DR. UHLE: Okay.

7 COMMISSIONER BARAN: You know, if our research 8 program is trying to figure out, when would we need to be ready for people to 9 come through the door with a technology like that or a program like that?

10 Are we talking a couple years, a few years, longer term, 11 what's your sense of that?

12 DR. UHLE: I would say a year or so. Some of the 13 activities would not require regulatory approval. They would be, it's more of 14 a performance-based regulation and be at the licensees own risk using this 15 approach.

16 But others would. And in those areas that would, we will be 17 interacting with NRC to ensure that there is an awareness.

18 DR. ALLEN: And if I used a simple volume of the 19 conversation metric around this, I think there's a good comparison to what 20 Jeremy talked about relative to advance manufacturing.

21 So, the volume of conversation around advance 22 manufacturing a few years ago was a good thing. And now you're working 23 two to four years from trying to print a core, I would say the volume of 24 conversation around sensors and data analytics is about a couple years 25 behind where that was.

26 But it is becoming a much louder conversation and people

44 1 are getting very interested. And I would be very surprised if you don't hear 2 some more things about demo platforms at the labs and how you do that and 3 how it ties into cyber physical and things.

4 So, I think there's a very strong trajectory there. ARPA-E 5 just had a big workshop on that. I think it was last week or the week before.

6 COMMISSIONER BARAN: If we kind of take a step back 7 and think big picture, if you put aside accident tolerant fuel and non-light water 8 reactors, do you think that advance manufacturing and sensors data analytics 9 are probably the biggest things we should be looking at just a tad bit over the 10 horizon, I guess?

11 DR. UHLE: Yes. So, when people say sensors, you can 12 use that for data analytics and that way you're putting sensors on equipment.

13 And they do this in GE turbines in aircraft to determine vibration, to give the 14 health of the turbine in the plane. In the engine.

15 So that is being looked at. That is being discussed a lot.

16 And people have, and plants have invested money to try to start seeing if this 17 is a way to go.

18 I don't think that will be the first thing that comes in. I think 19 it will be smaller chunks, like the use of machine learning or sensors, for the 20 replacement of the particular tasks.

21 And in that way, there will be a familiarity that will build.

22 And I think a comfort level that would build. Because there is an investment 23 needed to adopt these technologies.

24 MR. WILMSHURST: And I think this is, we mentioned it 25 earlier, this is one of these areas where we all have to be cautious not to view 26 nuclear as being unique. Many of these technologies and technics are

45 1 already deployed with great rigor in other industries and we really have an 2 opportunity to learn from these other industries on what they did and how they 3 did it.

4 One example is, one of the biggest challenges in the nuclear 5 plant has always been, well, how do I get the data from the sensors back to 6 the computer. Well, there's technology developed in the '60s that used in 7 sport stadiums and large ships, which allows basically cell phone technologies 8 to be distributed around the building a lot easier than wireless.

9 And we've demonstrated that. And the coverage actually 10 is far better in large concrete structures.

11 So we're going to start seeing the enabling technologies be 12 deployed almost ahead of some of the technics. Because there's no point 13 deploying the sensors until you get the information to somewhere.

14 So we're already seeing utilities deploying this, distribute 15 their antennae system as one of those precursors to the technology arriving.

16 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thank you very much.

17 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Thank you, Commissioner Baran.

18 Commissioner Caputo.

19 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Good morning, thank you all 20 for attending. Let me just start by saying, Todd, you and I have worked 21 together in a variety of capacities during our careers, so I'd like to congratulate 22 you on your new position as department chair.

23 Question your judgment a little bit about leaving the 24 University of Wisconsin to go someplace like Michigan, go Badgers, but I 25 congratulate you, nonetheless. It's nice to see you here.

26 Dr. Uhle and Mr. Wilmshurst. I'd like to start by, I know

46 1 we've had a lot of discussion about collaboration and so on this morning, but 2 I'd like to start with a question.

3 Do you feel like you have a good transparent understanding 4 of the activities that the NRC is researching or do you think that more 5 transparency in stakeholder input could help refine our direction, our priorities, 6 focus our connections more toward regulatory decision making based on the 7 direction the industry is headed?

8 MR. WILMSHURST: I'll take this one first. What I can tell 9 you is the MOU we have with NRC research, as I said, it's over ten years old.

10 I can tell you, that relationship today, and historically, has 11 been very strong. It just goes from strengths to strength.

12 Earlier this morning we're discussing with the director or 13 research, our next face-to-face meeting where we get together at least once 14 a year and we discuss what our research priorities are and NRC research 15 discuss what their priorities are.

16 And from my view, complete transparency on what 17 programs are, what plans are. And it makes a tremendous difference to our 18 scope to be informed what those priorities are.

19 So from my perspective, it could always be better, but it's 20 actually in a very healthy place at the moment.

21 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay, Jennifer.

22 DR. UHLE: Yes, I would just echo those comments. NEI 23 looks to EPRI and to the owner's groups to, and the vendors really on the 24 research side. So we don't have direct communication with the Office of 25 Research.

26 I think there are pockets based on interactions with EPRI.

47 1 Pockets where the communication could be improved because the MOU 2 doesn't cover everything that NRC is working on.

3 And I would say I have a pet peeve, if I can just add one 4 more comment, and that would be in the international research arena, that 5 that's not as clear what's being worked on and why.

6 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So if it's, I was going to ask if 7 you could give me a couple of examples, but if it's not clear, do you know what 8 examples you could give me?

9 DR. UHLE: Okay, sorry, I'm going to be a traitor here.

10 Having been the division director in charge of this program, I think that we 11 continue to work in the area of source term. And in particular, iodine, 12 ruthenium release, cesium release and that chemistry.

13 And we continue to work in that area without a real clear 14 regulatory need. Or at least the regulatory need isn't clear to us.

15 Now, my information is probably a year old so that things 16 may have changed. But that would be an area that I think we, the NRC likes 17 to participate to support other countries programs so that when there is a 18 program that NRC wants to start, that there is support for that program.

19 And that's fine, I just don't think that the utilities should be 20 charged for that, it should be off the fee base like other international program 21 activities.

22 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. Back to you again, 23 Dr. Uhle and Mr. Wilmshurst.

24 So, for, Mr. Wilmshurst, you indicated on Slide 6 that EPRI 25 and NRC collaborate on digital I&C research. Do you feel that there has been 26 enough research and now it's time to deploy or do you think there are still

48 1 research areas that we have to finish up?

2 MR. WILMSHURST: Digital I&C, there is a very healthy 3 discussion. And one of the items in there is the whole risk informing and 4 understanding of the hazards and the system approach to digital I&C.

5 And that's an example of the healthy exchange of research 6 and understandings. Which has led us to, I believe, a very good joint 7 understanding of digital I&C, how the design processes, deployment 8 processes, should work.

9 I think we're close to being ready to deploy. I don't know 10 there's a significant amount more R&D to be done.

11 I actually think now it's more a development of the joint 12 understanding of the state we're at and the confidence that we're in the right 13 place.

14 So, to briefly recap, not significant amount of R&D. There's 15 more time to reflect on what's being done and get a joint confidence that every 16 things in the right place.

17 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay.

18 DR. UHLE: I would say that no more research is needed.

19 I think at this stage we just need to sit down and iron out some of remaining 20 positions that are not aligned.

21 And of course, NRC is the regulator. And your decisions 22 will trump any input provided by the industry.

23 However, I do think that we are talking past each. And to 24 the best approach is to sit down with some clear examples and go through 25 them and take the time in a public setting to really work through them.

26 Because I think we're really on the same page but there is still a lack of, or

49 1 there is miscommunication occurring.

2 And we are proposing that to NRR in a public setting. And 3 we're hoping that can take place soon.

4 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you. Jennifer, back 5 to you for one last question.

6 So you stated that a top to bottom assessment of NRC's tool 7 set would be timely. One of those tools, obviously, is computer codes.

8 And as you know, we spend a considerable amount of time 9 and funds maintaining and upgrading these codes. Could you just describe 10 how you think that kind of an assessment could be conducted and maybe 11 some examples of codes that may have lost their usefulness over time or 12 outlived their usefulness in some way?

13 DR. UHLE: Well, the first thing I would say is that in the 14 development of codes, or computer codes or any tools, you are also 15 developing skills of the employees. And you're retaining employees that are 16 very strong in phenomenology that is sometimes necessary for certain 17 licensee submittals.

18 And so, there can be a case where the maintenance, or a 19 little bit of development is ongoing, but it benefits the agency as a whole.

20 I do think though that, I just take a look at it from a 100,000 21 foot level and it really is a shame that DOE, industry, NRC will all sort of using 22 the same validation base and the same capabilities and yet we continue to 23 invest a lot of money.

24 But in the case of advance reactors where we're starting 25 with a clean slate and we are looking at sharing these tools and perhaps 26 developing them in concert.

50 1 Same thing in the probabilistic fraction mechanics area with 2 the extremely low probability of rupture code I think that is not as high priority 3 at this time because of 690. Alloy 690.

4 But there are some areas, I would say the SPAR models 5 would be an example. We've been looking to see if there can be a portal 6 through EPRI for NRC to get access to the utility SPAR models, or excuse 7 me, PRA models, instead of maintaining the SPAR models.

8 And that would give, hopefully, the NRC the same access to 9 what they currently get with the SPAR models.

10 I mean, it's hard to say off the top of my head what else to 11 highlight, but certain going through them and asking the question, is further 12 development needed or is this something where going forward we can 13 participate in a collaborative effort development on a new tool.

14 The downside of course is getting the Staff comfortable with 15 a new tool. And that is an investment that has to be considered.

16 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, thank you again to each of 18 our panelists for participating this morning. We will now take a five minute 19 break, until 10:30, and reset.

20 If the staff presenters could please be coming forward.

21 Thank you. We'll reconvene in five minutes.

22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record 23 at 10:26 a.m. and resumed at 10:34 a.m.)

24 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: If I could ask everyone to please 25 take their seats or begin to do so. And I appreciate we have all of the NRC 26 staff presenters at the table, but I know research is so fascinating that we've

51 1 got a rowdy crowd, so it's taking a moment for the room to come to order.

2 Okay. Silence is restored.

3 Okay. Well, thank you. Now we will hear from a 4 substantially large, for us, group of presenters from the NRC staff. So thank 5 you all for the presentations that you're going to be giving this morning. And 6 we will be led off today by Mr. Steve West. Thank you for kicking us off and, 7 after you give some opening remarks, please just hand the panel over, as you 8 all traditionally do one to the other. So please proceed.

9 MR. WEST: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, 10 Commissioners, Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to share with you 11 the latest from our Nuclear Regulatory Research Program, including current 12 activities, focus areas, challenges, and the changing environment in which we 13 carry out the program.

14 It has been a number of years since we have had a 15 Commission briefing on the research program. I think the last one was 2007.

16 And we look forward to the dialogue today.

17 During this meeting, the staff will present the strategic 18 direction of the research program, how research results are used by our 19 business lines, how the Office of Research collaborates when conducting 20 research, and how the office helps enable agency innovation through the 21 development and use of engineering and risk tools.

22 Our research program strives to prepare the NRC to be 23 ready and to enable the staff to make risk-informed decisions to support our 24 common safety and security mission as new information and technologies 25 become available. You'll hear us reinforce the Be Ready theme throughout 26 our presentations this morning.

52 1 This morning, you will also hear about the essential role of 2 research to our regulatory mission. I have seen the value that the research 3 office brings to a variety of activities, and I'll start with just a couple of examples 4 that were much different than what you heard about this morning.

5 The Office of Research provides necessary leadership to 6 maintain the transfer of knowledge management through hosting agency-wide 7 research seminars. Seminar topics help to not only provide awareness of 8 NRC activities, they also promote external awareness by providing industry 9 and academic stakeholder perspectives through their participation in our 10 seminars.

11 The Office of Research even adds value to our corporate 12 support business line. For example, value is currently being added by having 13 the Office of Research specialists with expertise in organizational sociology 14 by helping us prepare for our innovative NRC Futures Jam, which is going to 15 be held in mid-June.

16 Slide two, please. Our first speaker this morning is Ray 17 Furstenau. Ray is fairly new to the NRC and is our Director of the Office of 18 Nuclear Regulatory Research. In his short tenure, Ray has shown us new 19 ways of doing things and has made a number of positive and innovative 20 changes to the research program. This morning, he will present the strategic 21 direction of the research program. He will also discuss our outreach with 22 stakeholders, something we have been doing a better job of under Ray's 23 leadership.

24 We will also hear from Ho Nieh, the Director of the Office of 25 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, also new to your new job, and he's going to talk 26 about ongoing research activities and their benefits to the operating reactor

53 1 mission.

2 Kim Webber, the Deputy Director of the Division of Safety 3 Analysis in the Office of Research will discuss ongoing cooperation and 4 research supporting the advanced reactors and accident tolerant fuel.

5 Raj Iyengar, the Chief of the Component Integrity Branch in 6 the Division of Engineering in the Office of Research will discuss how research 7 integrates knowledge into engineering solutions.

8 And, finally, John Nakoski, the Chief of the Probabilistic Risk 9 Assessment Branch in the Division of Risk Analysis, Office of Research, will 10 discuss how risk analysis tools and methods are helping the agency 11 continuously improve our focus on our safety and security mission.

12 So with those introductions, I will turn to Ray.

13 MR. FURSTENAU: Okay. Thank you, Steve, and good 14 morning, Chairman and Commissioners. I really appreciate the opportunity 15 to talk about the research program at the NRC. I've been here for about a 16 year now, about the same time that Commissioner Wright and Commissioner 17 Caputo came onboard, and I've thoroughly enjoyed my first year at the NRC 18 and really look forward to the future.

19 And then speaking about the future, we talked about our age 20 demographics and stuff, so I'm going to contribute to raising our statistics on 21 the under-30 crowd and introduce our summer hires. Most of them are here, 22 and they volunteered to sit in the front row here so we're going to see them.

23 And they're really key to what we do in research, as well, because it takes 24 effort on their part, as well as ours, to get them involved in NRC activities.

25 But I've talked to many of the people in research who host these folks, and 26 they get as much or more out of it than the students do, I think, so it's --

54 1 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Can I just interrupt to say that it's 2 sad that it's noticeable. I noticed them there because it was a group of 3 younger individuals all in a row, but that's probably not a good thing to admit 4 that that's so noteworthy around here. Thank you and thank you for bringing 5 them.

6 MR. FURSTENAU: Oh, okay, all right. So maybe I 7 introduced that a little oddly. But, anyway, that is our future. I mean, I think 8 we all recognize that we need to do more. The last panel talked about that, 9 to get new blood interested in coming to the NRC and nuclear in general.

10 In my years, I was with DOE for about 31 years, and the far 11 majority of that time was spent in overseeing nuclear facility operations, 12 certainly not power reactors but test reactors, hot cells, that type of thing, and 13 nuclear R&D programs that the Office of Nuclear Energy managed. And 14 when I look back and compare that, one thing that really impressed me when 15 I came here at the NRC, in research in particular, is the technical capabilities 16 and competence of the people that do research and the understanding of 17 really the fundamentals of the importance of research and what we do.

18 I do think we can do more in research to really enhance or 19 better the relevance of our research and increase our engagement and 20 transparency, as there was questions with the other panel about how can we 21 do a better job of that. There is always room for improvement in that, and I 22 want to improve that and increase that transparency both internal and 23 external.

24 Just quickly on our research budget, it shows here it's close 25 to $80 million and that includes 208 FTEs. We're using FY 19 numbers here.

26 But we have about 198 - 199 folks onboard in research right now, so we have

55 1 41 million in contracts, as well as the 208 FTEs. And this number is not 2 including the $15 million for the Integrated University Program. And our 3 majority of our efforts support the decision-making in the advanced reactors, 4 as this pie chart shows, and a big reason why we're having my colleague to 5 the left talk about relevance of our research study operating reactors.

6 So regarding new technologies, Steve West mentioned 7 before our theme of being ready, and the NRC research, I think we should 8 lead the agency readiness efforts for innovative technologies and support the 9 resolution of those key technical safety and security issues that we really need 10 to get the NRC ready for new technologies, and that's an important part of 11 what the Office of Research does.

12 And without proper planning and readiness, I think NRC will 13 become critical path in licensing and agency assessment and new 14 technologies that our stakeholders will be requesting now and in the future.

15 And we don't want to be in that position. We don't want to be on critical path.

16 Important to how we prioritize research, it's important to 17 prioritize our research, what research to start, beginning research with an end 18 in mind, and when to stop it. When have we done enough research from a 19 regulatory standpoint to fit into our regulatory decision-making process? Our 20 research mission supports both forward-looking readiness and provides 21 support for licensing reviews through our confirmatory evaluations.

22 The importance of external engagement, it's been brought 23 up on the previous panel and we'll have that theme here, as well. We really 24 can't do research in isolation. It's not the right thing to do, and we can't afford 25 it. So progress is made, I think, through external engagement, collaboration 26 with knowledgeable experts across our stakeholder community, both

56 1 domestically and internationally.

2 When Congress, last fall when they passed the NEICA, 3 maybe the less well known of the NE acts, the Nuclear Energy Innovation 4 Capabilities Act, it was pretty clear that Congress expected DOE and NRC to 5 cooperate and coordinate on research activities and sharing technical 6 expertise. It was clear on this type of stuff what we wanted to spend 7 government money once, if at all possible. And I think this can be done, as 8 was mentioned before, in early-stage R&D and development programs, that 9 we can do this without jeopardizing our regulatory independence. I think 10 engaged research, NRC research, engaging early in the development process 11 is essential to ensure we're ready to assess new technologies.

12 The research program is broadening our outreach to 13 stakeholders. Outreach helps to ensure our efforts have appropriate value 14 and benefit. We really do want to take the mystery out of research done by 15 the NRC to all of our stakeholders.

16 Next slide, please. So performing research that matters.

17 We're working to improve our research process and provide better value to 18 our customers. It's our internal and external stakeholders. We're focusing 19 on research that matters and adds value. We're meeting with our business 20 lines, the ACRS. We're starting a biannual review with the ACRS just last 21 month again. They provide valuable input to the research programs. So 22 there's other interested stakeholders through our research program reviews.

23 Our strategic alignment focuses on efforts to ensure we're 24 doing the right research at the right time with the appropriate priority. And, 25 again, this includes knowing when to adjust or even when to stop ongoing 26 research programs when they no longer add value to the regulatory decision-

57 1 making process.

2 And slide eight, please. To conclude my remarks, research 3 needs to support timely and informed agency decision-making. That's really 4 what we're here for, from user needs, operating experience, experience 5 internationally as well, and partnerships with our other stakeholders internally 6 and externally.

7 Research outcomes need to enable the success of the 8 program offices, that's our main mission, and assist and the agency in 9 focusing its energy on the most important issues.

10 I think the forward-looking innovative research is about 11 finding out what we don't know and reducing uncertainties and improving 12 realism. That's what research is about.

13 And with that, I'll turn it over to Ho Nieh. He's our major 14 NRC office director/stakeholder for our research activities. Ho.

15 MR. NIEH: Okay. Thank you very much, Ray. Good 16 morning, Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm really happy to be 17 here today to tell you about some of the benefits that the operating reactor 18 business line receives from research. You know, about 80 percent of 19 Research's work is done in support of the operating reactor business line, and 20 NRC's Nuclear Regulatory Research Program can play a key role in the 21 decision-making in the operating reactors business line. And it does so by 22 giving us additional confidence in the technical evaluations that we perform, 23 and it also helps us by minimizing uncertainties in our analyses and models.

24 So my slides this morning all highlight a few examples along those lines.

25 Next slide, please. Generic safety issue 191 probably 26 brings a smile to some of us here in the room or a groan to others. But this

58 1 has been a generic issue that was opened in 1996 in response to concerns 2 over potential blockage of emergency core cooling recirculation sumps at 3 pressurized water reactors. And over the last two decades, the scope of this 4 generic safety issue had actually expanded to beyond sumps to also include 5 downstream effects and also reactor in-vessel effects.

6 Having said that, what we know today is that there have 7 been significant safety achievements that have been realized in the operating 8 PWR fleet due to installation of larger and better recirculation sump strainers, 9 implementation of containment cleanliness programs, and also removal of 10 some problematic insulating material types. And, of course, over these 11 years, we've done a lot of analysis, testing, and evaluations to help us better 12 understand phenomenology of materials that could get past the strainers and 13 the chemical effects and in-vessel effects.

14 So based on the safety gains that have been achieved 15 already and the knowledge that we've gained through research, NRR very 16 recently made a risk-informed decision and concluded that no further actions 17 are required under generic safety issue 191, and it's time to close out the GSI.

18 The Office of Research helped add confidence to that technical decision by 19 performing some supplemental analyses using the NRC's thermohydraulic 20 code TRACE. These supplemental analyses provided us with further 21 information and confidence that boric acid precipitation and the potential for 22 complete flow blockage inside the reactor vessel is no longer, not as 23 significant of a safety concern as we had once considered.

24 So with that in mind, NRR is now proceeding to finalize its 25 technical basis. We're writing a technical evaluation report that will support 26 the closure of GSI 191. We expect to have GSI 191 closed out in the July

59 1 time frame.

2 I do want to note, while GSI 191 is on a closure path, there 3 are some licensees that will still have to engage with the NRC to close out 4 their specific Generic Letter 2004-02 regarding performance of their sump.

5 And I should have mentioned, if you put this slide back up, 6 the picture on the slide just shows an example of the improved strainers that 7 have been installed. These are the strainers that are at the Palo Verde plant 8 in Arizona. In fact, Ray and I are somewhere in the white suits in the picture.

9 We had taken a trip out there. So I think it was good to have the research 10 director see some of the things that we've achieved over the regulatory 11 process on this issue.

12 Next slide, please. As you know, all U.S. operating nuclear 13 power plants today have additional mitigation capabilities installed at their site 14 to better cope with the effects of a beyond design basis event, such as those 15 that might be driven by an extreme natural hazard. And the capabilities were 16 put in place by the NRC following our response to the nuclear accident at 17 Fukushima, and the industry has implemented these mitigation capabilities in 18 what is referred to as FLEX equipment or FLEX strategies. And these FLEX 19 equipment generally consist of multiple types of portable cooling water pumps 20 and portable electric power supplies. And what's shown on the slide here are 21 actual real examples at nuclear power plants today. In the left large oval is 22 an example of a portable spent fuel pool cooling pump with its hoses. The 23 large right oval shows a portable auxiliary feedwater pump, and the smaller 24 center oval shows an example of a portable electric generator.

25 I do want to point out that the safety benefits of this FLEX 26 equipment go beyond mitigating beyond design basis events. In fact, the

60 1 FLEX equipment can provide significant risk reductions when permanently 2 installed safety equipment are unavailable during normal operations. And 3 how regulatory research is helping NRR right now is that they're doing some 4 work that will help us better characterize and model the deployment of FLEX 5 in looking at how we apply probabilistic risk assessment modeling, PRAs.

6 So research is gathering data on operating experience, 7 looking at human reliability analysis, so that we can better characterize the 8 success probability of the human actions required to deploy FLEX. This will 9 help the NRC give a more accurate and realistic assessment of the ability to 10 deploy FLEX and the success of having FLEX in achieving some risk reduction 11 in PRA space. So we're treating this as a high-priority area in the business 12 line, and the work of Research will help us better evaluate and credit FLEX in 13 PRA models going forward.

14 The last point I wanted to mention on how research benefits 15 the operating reactor business line decision-making is the work that Research 16 is doing in support of the reactor oversight process, or the ROP. Office of 17 Research continues to maintain and improve the standardized plant 18 assessment risk models, or analysis risk models, the SPAR models, and they 19 were mentioned in the earlier panel. And Research also supports us by 20 maintaining the related SAPHIRE codes. These codes and models, the 21 SPAR and SAPHIRE, I consider to be essential tools for the NRC to 22 independently assess the safety significance of findings in the ROP, plan 23 events, and also emerging issues as well. And we've heard as in the earlier 24 panel and we've heard over the years feedback from industry stakeholders 25 that have suggested that the NRC discontinue using the SPAR models and 26 instead rely on licensee PRA models.

61 1 The NRC staff believes that these SPAR models continue 2 to be improved to become more realistic and that they are a very cost-effective 3 way for us to be able to perform independent assessments of the safety 4 significance of issues. So we have no plans or intentions to discontinue using 5 the SPAR models. We use them quite often, and they're a key component to 6 our decision-making on a variety of issues even beyond the ROP.

7 The other point I wanted to mention on the slide here is that 8 the Office of Research recently helped NRR in providing information in support 9 of the ROP enhancement project. We had asked Research to do some 10 analysis and assessment on what the current level of safety is in the operating 11 fleet today, and the Research staff had gone out and looked at various safety 12 performance indicators, such as scrams, transients, events, collective dose, 13 also internal events CDF. And the insight they provided us was that, overall, 14 the level of safety in the fleet today is much better than it was 20 years ago 15 when the ROP was put in place. So that helped NRR have additional 16 confidence in formulating the recommendations that we're preparing right now 17 that we hope to send to the Commission in the June time frame on improving 18 the ROP.

19 So before I turn my part of the presentation over to Kim 20 Webber, I just want to underscore that the research does benefit decision-21 making in the operating reactors business line. There are a lot of areas 22 looking forward, such as accident tolerant fuels that were already discussed, 23 long-term operations and materials, as well as advanced manufacturing. We 24 think we would continue to derive benefit from the work of Research.

25 So thank you. And I'll turn it over to Kim Webber.

26 MS. WEBBER: Good morning. Thanks, Ho. Good

62 1 morning, Chairman and Commissioners. I'm really excited to talk to you 2 about our cooperative activities in the advanced reactor area and in accident 3 tolerant fuel. It is an exciting area for all of us, and I think, as the previous 4 speakers alluded to, we are preparing ourselves to support the Regulatory 5 Office in this case, Ho's office in both of these areas, as NRR and NRO merge.

6 So as you know, the Office of Research works closely with 7 our counterparts to identify the necessary analysis tools, expertise, and 8 capabilities that support a wide range of regulatory decision-making activities, 9 which include the development of technical basis for rulemakings, performing 10 confirmatory analysis to augment licensing activities, and conducting safety 11 studies to form the bases for regulatory decisions.

12 So could we go to the next slide, please? So we're going 13 to Be Ready. That was the theme that Ray interjected, and that's a theme I 14 think we all believe in. Although we're in an uncertain, variable, and changing 15 environment, our mission now more than ever has to be to support the 16 regulatory offices. I think we know that, and I think that we are striving to do 17 that even better than we have in the past.

18 We know we need to do our research differently and embark 19 on more Be Ready strategies. This means that we need to deliver the tools, 20 the expertise, and the information in a cost-effective manner so that the 21 advanced reactor and accident tolerant fuel licensing actions can be 22 completed on time and with the allotted resources. Thus, we've been working 23 closely with our colleagues in NRR and NRO to identify innovative ways to 24 support their needs, and one of those ways is through cooperation with 25 external organizations. This is a critical element of our Be Ready strategy.

26 So to reduce costs and duplication of efforts, we have been

63 1 investing our time and energy in building even stronger partnerships with 2 external organizations in these areas. For example, the NRC has been 3 involved in complex multinational research projects through the Nuclear 4 Energy Agency and through their bilateral or through multilateral negotiated 5 agreements.

6 Overall, those partnerships produce experimental data and 7 information that yield a significant average return of about 10 to 1 on our 8 investment. One example that I'd like to highlight is in the fuel performance 9 area. Over the last five years, we are one of ten international organizations 10 conducting research through the Studsvik Cladding Integrity project. This 11 project produced experimental data to investigate the dominant cladding and 12 fuel failure mechanisms.

13 While the total cost of the project was about $15 million, the 14 NRC's contribution was about $1.1 million, or about seven percent of the total 15 cost of that project. This is a pretty common cost arrangement when we're 16 dealing with international projects such as these, and most of the international 17 projects that we deal with are through the Nuclear Energy Agency, although 18 we do have bilateral arrangements with individual countries.

19 Domestically, through our cooperative development of 20 computer codes with the Department of Energy and even through a senior 21 executive rotation to the DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, we have been 22 building stronger, more strategic partnerships with other federal government 23 agencies, such as the DOE and with the national laboratories. We believe 24 our partnership with DOE will accelerate the development of our analytical 25 tools by not having to develop our own potentially duplicative codes. I think 26 this was a theme that was brought up in the last panel and is one that we have

64 1 been proactive in and started over two years ago to try to realize a vision that 2 I'll talk about shortly. These partnerships also help develop in-house staff 3 expertise to support licensing of advanced reactors.

4 So NRC participation, such as with those organizations 5 showed on the slide -- if you could just show the slide, please -- enable better 6 use of taxpayer dollars and also lead to cost-savings because, as I mentioned, 7 for example, we can reduce duplication of experimental programs and reduce 8 duplication of code development activities, which is new to us. Working 9 cooperatively with these external organizations but also working with the 10 public who come to the table with different perspectives will promote the 11 generation of new ideas that can result in more effective regulatory processes 12 and products.

13 Next slide. Regarding accident tolerant fuels, this is an 14 area of high interest in the industry and in the NRC as a whole. Over the last 15 few years, NRC has had numerous interactions with the fuel vendors to better 16 understand their plans for designing for testing, qualifying, and analyzing the 17 safety of those accident tolerant fuels. In advance of the licensing submittals, 18 we've been using methods like developing phenomena, identification, and 19 ranking tables which help identify the most safety-significant phenomena and 20 also developing guidance which will focus us on the most important safety 21 issues.

22 Additionally, one of the key assumptions of the accident 23 tolerant fuel project plan is that the NRC will not do its own confirmatory 24 experiments, and that is we're relying heavily on experimental data and 25 information produced by DOE, by vendors, and other organizations in a timely 26 manner to support the licensing of ATF concepts. The NRC has been

65 1 working with DOE to understand their schedules for conducting experiments 2 and producing data needed for the development of the safety basis that may 3 be used for licensing ATF.

4 Additionally, through a memorandum of understanding with 5 DOE, we hope to obtain experimental data from Idaho National Lab's 6 advanced test reactor and the Transient Reactor Test, or TREAT, facility to 7 support the validation of our computer codes that will be used to enhance and 8 focus our safety reviews on the longer-term ATF concepts. Through a 9 collaboration with the Electric Power Research Institute that began last year, 10 we will learn more about fuel fragmentation, relocation, and dispersal, which 11 is a phenomena that may affect the coolability of operating reactors under 12 certain design basis accidents. This important collaboration will provide 13 information that supports our understanding of high burnup ATF fuel behavior.

14 Additionally, a recently-issued EPRI report on the safety and 15 economic benefits of ATF gave the staff some additional insights on the safety 16 benefits and operational flexibilities associated with the use of ATF. These 17 activities have given us perspectives on the condition of ATF and the potential 18 operating conditions ATF is likely to see. This will allow us to be better 19 prepared to review industry submittals.

20 Lastly, through an international collaborative research 21 project proposed by the NRC staff and organized by the NEA, our staff is 22 gaining insights on international fuel safety criteria for near-term ATF 23 concepts, such as the Cr-coated, Cr-doped fuel, and FeCrAl clad fuels.

24 These cooperative arrangements are a part of a cost-effective strategy that 25 will help us license ATF.

26 In today's environment of smaller budgets, our Be Ready

66 1 mission needs to include more strategic research plans that transform the way 2 we conduct our research activities. Through a stronger understanding of 3 DOE's programs and the people responsible for those programs, we are 4 strategically identifying DOE and other federal agency program assets that will 5 enable us to develop the regulatory products that support the aggressive 6 licensing schedules being proposed by the advanced reactor community.

7 This is an area that we see a real opportunity to innovate 8 our research programs. We see the Nuclear Energy Innovation and 9 Capabilities Act as a strong enabler to obtain experimental data, computer 10 codes, important physics correlations, material property data, and other 11 information at lower cost to the agency than ever before. For example, with 12 substantial support from DOE, Idaho National Lab, and other national 13 laboratories, we're developing a code suite called the Comprehensive Reactor 14 Analysis Bundle. It's shown on the slide on the top right, otherwise known as 15 CRAB or the blue CRAB. And there's some humor behind the selection of 16 the name for this in that the DOE codes that are included in this vision of an 17 NRC computer code suite, they name their codes after animals, so we have 18 Bison and Pronghorn and Mammoth. So all of their codes have animal 19 names, so we thought we'd play along and call ours CRAB.

20 So this particular suite of codes combines NRC codes, 21 which is difficult to see on this slide, but, pictorially, the NRC codes are shown 22 in yellow and then the DOE codes are shown in light blue so you can see that 23 there is an intention to intercouple the NRC and the DOE codes to make them 24 fully usable for the advanced reactor licensing applications that we see ahead.

25 I think the resulting code suite that I just showed you could 26 be used for safety studies to gain insights on the most safety-significant topics

67 1 prior to the licensing applications being submitted, which is a real advantage, 2 I think, because I think that will help us focus our licensing review activities on 3 the most safety-significant things. Additionally, a code suite such as that can 4 be used to perform confirmatory analysis when we obtain the licensing 5 application at a later date, much later date.

6 Additionally, through our strong relationships with DOE, we 7 believe that we'll be able to gain access to DOE-funded experimental data to 8 validate those codes. You heard from the previous panel that validation was 9 an important part of our use of codes, and so that's what we intend to do.

10 Our recent engagement with DOE's versatile test reactor 11 program has provided us with several opportunities, including expanding our 12 understanding of and developing staff expertise in sodium fast reactor 13 technologies. Additionally, we think we will be able to gain insights and 14 lessons learned on some of our regulatory guidance through INL's use of the 15 licensing modernization plan in Draft Guide 1353 and the advanced reactor 16 design criteria found in Regulatory Guide 1.232. Additionally, if requested by 17 the department, we may provide technical and regulatory expertise to support 18 DOE's authorization of the versatile test reactor.

19 The Office of Research relies heavily on coordinated 20 research activities also through bilateral agreements for which we achieve 21 significantly leveraged benefits. One of those examples is that the NRC has 22 had substantial engagement with the United Kingdom's regulatory authority, 23 the Office of Nuclear Regulation, over the past few years and has obtained 24 significant amounts of information, data, and operational experience on 25 graphite aging and degradation. This information has led to the acceleration 26 of our own knowledge of the behavior of graphite under high-temperature and

68 1 high-radiation environments, which is typical in high-temperature gas reactors.

2 And now I'll turn the presentation over to Raj Iyengar.

3 MR. IYENGAR: Thank you, Kim. Good morning, 4 Chairman and the Commissioners. In the next few minutes, I'll present some 5 research examples that will underscore the themes and key messages here 6 from the previous speakers.

7 Most of our research work stems from the work requests 8 that we get from our customers at NRR, NMSS, and NRO. And we bring in 9 the extensive pool of in-house knowledge and expertise of our researchers to 10 accomplish, they are fully utilized to accomplish such needs and the 11 milestones that our customers need.

12 The short-term projects, you know, we have short-term 13 projects, as well as long-term projects. The short-term projects are fairly easy 14 to control and bring to a closure. The longer-term projects are a little bit more 15 complex and a little bit challenging to sunset. So what we do is we build in 16 some hold points and checkpoints on those projects to reassess the scope 17 and whether we have accomplished what we need in terms of our regulatory 18 outcome. So these are some points that will help us sunset or bring a 19 research project to closure.

20 One example is the research project on the Consequential 21 Steam Generator Tube Rupture, which is a fairly extended project. And we 22 had utilized one of the hold points to reassess and descope the project and 23 bring it to a satisfactory closure.

24 Another example is the research and the performance of 25 neutron absorber materials in spent fuel pools, and this project is set to 26 conclude in fiscal year 19 when we've accomplished the technical basis that's

69 1 needed for the regulatory outcome.

2 I also want to offer another request that came from NRR was 3 for us to perform an in-house assessment of surface stress modification 4 techniques, such as peening, to mitigate against stress corrosion cracking.

5 So after we performed the assessment, we concluded that there was no need 6 for other confirmatory research in this area and we provided a 7 recommendation to NRR. NRR agreed with our recommendation. The 8 information and operation experience we have obtained from our Japanese 9 colleagues was, in part, crucial to bring to this conclusion.

10 Our staff integrates information knowledge from a wide 11 variety of sources into useful solution that facilitates some of the risk-informed 12 decision-making. We engaged with the domestic and international technical 13 community to anticipate emerging trends, technical issues, that may have a 14 bearing on reactors safety. A case in point is provided in this slide. In 15 anticipation of potential applications of subsequent license renewal, our staff 16 coordinated with the researchers from Department of Energy and Eclectic 17 Power Research Institute to, under an applicable memorandum of 18 understanding which you heard, to proactively identify technical issues that 19 may surface during the long-term extended operations, and this effort resulted 20 in a report summarizing the major technical issues that impact extended 21 period of operation. Subsequently, the Commission identified via staff 22 recommendation requirements memorandum four of the most technical, four 23 of the most significant technical issues related to degradation of reactor 24 pressure vessel, vessel internals, concrete, and cables.

25 In response to the SRM staff worked with DOE and EPRI 26 counterparts to develop and implement giant road maps with milestones,

70 1 specific milestones for cooperative research with separate and non-2 duplicative research programs. These programs aim to better understand 3 the technical issues and potentially to solve or mitigate the effect of these 4 issues. The results of these technical activities reduced uncertainties related 5 to materials aging during extended period of operations and augmented the 6 technical basis for updating aging management programs called AMPs and 7 associated regulatory guidance.

8 We are applying risk-informed approaches to reactor 9 component integrity and material aging. Probabilistic approaches are useful 10 in incorporating the effects of uncertainties. As the cartoon in the slide 11 shows, the uncertainties in the input parameters are properly quantified and 12 propagated through a probabilistic model to yield a distributed output. And 13 for improved realism, these probabilistic models need to contain validated 14 physics-based equations or empirical equations so that you would get the said 15 outcome.

16 We had implemented the use of probabilistic fraction 17 mechanics approaches to assess component integrity and to risk inform 18 reviews of relief requests for reductions in in-service inspections. The staff's 19 effort will afford the licensee flexibility in their methods and increase efficiency 20 of regulatory reviews, as well as the predictability of regulatory outcome, when 21 probabilistic fraction mechanics is used as part of technical basis for a 22 licensing action.

23 As part of research, past research activities, we developed 24 a probabilistic fraction mechanics code called FAVOR, along with Oak Ridge 25 National Laboratory for reactor pressure vessel assessment. The use of this 26 code has yielded significant benefits. The industry has used this code a lot.

71 1 In-service inspections of reactor pressure vessel 2 circumferential welds were successfully reduced at many sites through 3 application of FAVOR-based risk-informed methodology. This code was also 4 used to conduct a thorough and timely analysis of the potential impact on U.S.

5 fleet of the hydrogen flakes, such as that found in the Belgian reactors Doel 2 6 and Tihange 3. Additionally, the use of FAVOR code enhanced the quality 7 and efficiency of the pressure temperature limit reviews for new reactor 8 applications.

9 Research and EPRI staff have jointly developed an 10 assessment tool called Extremely Low Probability of Rupture, which Dr. Uhle 11 had referred to earlier. It's a probabilistic code for piping integrity 12 assessment. This code accounts for degradation effects of fatigue and 13 primary water stress corrosion.

14 xLPR represents a first-of-a-kind in probabilistic fraction 15 mechanics technology. This flagship code represents many firsts because 16 this is the first time they partnered with EPRI on a significant software 17 development under a memorandum of understanding. This is also the first 18 time the component integrity assessment code was built to rigorous and 19 modern quality assurance standards. This was also the first of a challenging, 20 I must say, complex code distribution agreement the NRC and EPRI have 21 signed.

22 Our staff is working with NRR counterparts to develop their 23 acceptance review of the code for leak-before-break applications. They have 24 provided in-depth training on all of these codes to the agency staff, enabling 25 them to use these codes in their application reviews.

26 We are in the forefront of evaluating the applicability of new

72 1 technologies to reactor safety, thus forging the future for the agency. I will 2 provide some examples.

3 We are actively supporting the agency's readiness for 4 licensing advanced reactors. Material selection and qualification for these 5 new designs are long lead items and also design-limiting consideration. Our 6 focus here is to assess the performance needs and issues for materials and 7 component integrity and support the development of regulatory framework.

8 We are adopting a multi-prong approach expeditiously, yet judiciously, to be 9 ready. Our activities cover mining of applicable international and domestic 10 operating experience, identifying technical issues early, and facilitating a 11 resolution through active coordination with Department of Energy and EPRI 12 and developing flexible approaches to material qualification, including the 13 potential endorsement of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Section 14 III Division 5 Code, as well as alternate approaches to material qualification 15 and selection.

16 To support increasing use of risk insights, we have 17 completed reports on international operating experience on sodium fast and 18 high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and another report on the technical 19 gaps for materials issues for molten salt reactors, which we worked with Oak 20 Ridge National Lab on that.

21 We had a well-attended technical session at the 2009 22 Regulatory Information Conference on international operating experience for 23 advanced non-light water reactors. The panelists included experts from 24 France, UK, and Japan. These efforts have received positive feedback from 25 early vendors and designers, as well as our international counterparts.

26 Another area of engagement involves advanced

73 1 manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing, Hot Isostatic Pressing, 2 which you heard, and Electron Beam Welding. These technologies offer 3 great promise in producing replacement parts for the existing fleet with a very 4 short turnaround time and also new and complex parts for SMRs and 5 advanced reactors.

6 The picture on the bottom shows a thimble plug device 7 made by 3D printing. Westinghouse is planning to use this as a non-code 8 class low-risk component in the reactor water environment under 10 CFR 9 50.59. Because of the rapid technology development possible 10 implementation, our staff is engaged with NRR and NRO staff to proactively 11 position the agency to respond appropriately to industry on the safe use of 12 such components.

13 The impact of electromagnetic pulse events also has 14 received considerable attention recently. The picture on the right shows the 15 potential continental impact of an air burst nuclear EMP, as illustrated on the 16 little cartoon above the red arrow. The interaction of gamma radiation with 17 intense burst, from intense burst of energy with the earth's magnetic field lines 18 creates such strong electric fields at the earth's surface. In response to the 19 President's executive order on EMP, staff is validating a prior work indicating 20 the components needed to maintain core cooling and provide make-up water 21 to spent fuel pools and will be able to perform their safety functions. For 22 nuclear power plants, a large EMP could potentially lead to an extended 23 duration of loss of off-site power due to damage of electric grid. We will 24 continue to consider new information and identify the needed research in this 25 area.

26 In closing, I want to offer an analogy. Indian mythology

74 1 talks about a bird called Pramahansa or the Supreme Swan, which has the 2 rare ability to separate milk and water. Likewise, our researchers are very 3 skilled at sifting through the technical information, voluminous data, and 4 simulation results to extract what is needed and what's sufficient, leaving out 5 what's redundant, to meet the engineering challenge for a specific regulatory 6 outcome in mind.

7 Thank you. Now I turn over the presentation to John 8 Nakoski.

9 MR. NAKOSKI: Thanks, Raj. Good morning, Chairman 10 and Commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity this morning to share with 11 you some of the research we are doing to advance risk-informed decision-12 making consistent with the Commission's 1995 PRA policy statement.

13 We have a long history of using risk tools, tools that include 14 software like SAPHIRE, PRA models, collection and analysis of operating 15 data, research on internal and external hazards, human factors and reliability, 16 and application of probabilistic methods to more realistically understand plant 17 response from challenges to system structures and components. These 18 tools have improved our decision-making by systematically considering 19 results of scientific and engineering analysis in an integrated approach that 20 factors probabilistic information directly into the process to better characterize 21 risk.

22 Risk research has enabled us to develop the skills, 23 knowledge, and ability to make risk-informed decisions for operating new 24 reactors and to prepare us for advanced reactors. This capability supports 25 our review of licensee applications to adopt a risk-informed approach to 26 treating structures and systems and components under 10 CFR 50.69.

75 1 Further, the risk analysis we perform for the proposed 2 rulemaking on containment protection and release reduction strategies for 3 boiling water reactors supported, in part, the Commission's decision not to 4 pursue rulemaking.

5 Looking ahead, one of our objectives, what success looks 6 like, is to have the tools and skills available to risk-inform issues and areas 7 when the need arises. For example, we will use risk to prioritize reviews of 8 digital instrument and control systems and we will develop tools to credit 9 recovery of permanently-installed equipment during event response. And as 10 you heard previously from Raj, risk research supported NRC's work in the 11 materials area on fracture mechanics.

12 Research is being done to understand the benefits of 13 expanding the use of our risk tools in physical and cybersecurity. Risk has 14 been used for security, for example in establishing target sets. And many of 15 the risk concepts used in security and safety are the same. The challenge is 16 often communication.

17 Through the ASME and American Nuclear Society Joint 18 Committee on Nuclear Risk Management, or JCNRM, we are collaborating 19 with security and safety subject matter experts from the nuclear industry, 20 academia, and other federal agencies to address the communications 21 challenge and to build a consensus framework through which risk tools can 22 inform our decisions on physical and cyber security.

23 The understanding of severe accident risks is being 24 enhanced by the Level 3 PRA project. Improved insights are being 25 developed on the margins to the quantitative health objections, and we are 26 benefitting from advances in methods, models, data, and analytical tools.

76 1 These gains will be useful to us for new and advanced reactors in areas such 2 as multi-unit or multi-module risk, emergency planning zone size, and 3 integrated multi-source site risks.

4 Knowledge of severe accident progression and off-site 5 consequences is being enhanced through the State-of-the-Art Reactor 6 Consequence Analysis project, or SOARCA. Insights from this project were 7 used in the review of the APR 1400 in NuScale and in the review of severe 8 accident mitigation alternative contentions for license renewals.

9 Insights from the project are also being applied in areas like 10 the Level 3 PRA project and international cooperative research programs.

11 And we added the SOARCA source terms to the NRC's Radiological 12 Assessment System for Consequence Analysis code, or RASCAL, used in 13 incident response.

14 The use of risk tools helps us focus on issues important to 15 the NRC achieving its mission of protecting the public. For example, by 16 participating and developing and PRA standards and methods to assess PRA 17 acceptability, we support the use of the results of licensees' PRAs and 18 licensing actions. Our standards development work also supports regulatory 19 decision-making in areas such as new PRA methods, Level 1 and 2 PRAs, 20 PRAs for advanced reactors, and risk-informed approaches for external 21 hazards. Research on multi-unit and integrated site risk, dynamic PRA, and 22 human reliability for advanced control rooms helps prepare us for advanced 23 reactors and embracing new technology.

24 Knowledge management is an important piece of the 25 puzzle, enabling us to use a risk-informed approach. We hold knowledge 26 management seminars and training on risk-informing our decisions. Through

77 1 rotations, research staff gain regulatory experience and regional and program 2 office staff gain hands-on experience with our risk tools by working on the 3 Level 3 PRA project, performing risk assessments for the accident sequence 4 precursor program, and updating our PRA models.

5 NUREG/KMs have been used to document events that have 6 shaped the nuclear industry, such as the accident at Three Mile Island and 7 the Browns Ferry fire. Other NUREG/KMs document concepts that we may 8 take for granted but not fully comprehend the complex history of how we 9 ended up where we are today. For example, the NUREG/KM on defense-in-10 depth.

11 This commitment to knowledge management undergirds 12 our ability to understand the impact of changes in decision-making as we 13 move forward with expanding the use of risk insights, supports preparation for 14 advanced reactors, and provides our legacy for the future. With this 15 background, Research is working with the program offices to encourage the 16 use of our risk tools by technical staff and their work. The focus of this activity 17 is to develop a common understanding of what risk tools bring to decision-18 making that complements our traditional engendering and scientific analyses.

19 Advancing the capabilities of our risk tools supports efforts 20 to transform from relying heavily on our traditional deterministic approach to a 21 more risk-informed approach that focuses resources on issues that are most 22 important to our mission.

23 While we have made progress in using our risk tools, 24 improvements should be made in their use to make our processes better and 25 to ensure that we fairly place burden on licensees consistent with our 26 understanding of the risks. Research to improve realism supports this by

78 1 better characterizing uncertainties, margins, human reliability, and advances 2 in operational capabilities.

3 Our risk tools are more able today to account for changes in 4 plant capabilities and to account for human performance. For example, 5 SPAR models were updated to account for the improved performance of new 6 reactor coolant pump seals installed in pressurized water reactors, and, as 7 you heard earlier from Ho and others, we recognize that FLEX has 8 substantially improved the capability to respond to events and are able to 9 credit it in response to the extended loss of AC power in our PRA models.

10 Further, we expect that FLEX could be used more broadly by licensees for 11 event response and to compensate for short periods when permanently-12 installed safety-related equipment is unavailable.

13 As licensees proceduralize their approaches, show us the 14 capabilities and reliability of FLEX equipment, and that the operators can use 15 it, we will be exploring how to appropriately expand FLEX credit for other 16 events and conditions during which it may benefit safety while providing 17 improved operational flexibility.

18 We are collecting information on operator performance in 19 the control room to enhance realism in characterizing human failure. Also, 20 we are exploring approaches to better understand and, where practical, 21 provide appropriate credit for actions outside of the control room. Related to 22 this is the research on human reliability for longer-term mitigating strategies 23 that bring pre-staged equipment on site to respond to events. Success for 24 human reliability research is being able to more realistically characterize 25 operator response in our risk tools.

26 To reflect operating experience, we are conducting research

79 1 with the Electric Power Research Institute to improve realism in prior PRA 2 models. We also collect component failure data with the Institute of Nuclear 3 Power Operations, so we can develop generic component reliability 4 information used in NRC and many licensee PRA models. This data will also 5 be used to develop site-specific component information for more realistic 6 assessment of the risk from events or conditions identified by our reactor 7 oversight program.

8 Operating events have shown us that we need to 9 understand not only internal hazards but external hazards, as well. So we 10 have conducted research on hazards such as earthquakes, floods, and high 11 wind events to improve our understanding of these events and the 12 uncertainties of their effects on safety. The research we've completed on 13 earthquakes and high winds has supported incorporating seismic and high 14 wind models in many of our plant-specific PRA models. When we complete 15 the work on probabilistic flood hazard assessments in the next couple of years 16 we'll be able to do the same for external flooding.

17 Assumptions and limitations in our state of knowledge and 18 the ability to model complex systems contribute to uncertainties. We have 19 taken steps to understand the uncertainties to the extent we can and provided 20 guidance on how to consider them in decision-making. By using a systematic 21 approach to building PRA models, we better understand the uncertainties that 22 are tied to the assumptions and limitations and can clarify our understanding 23 of the margins we have.

24 Much of our risk research can be applied to new and 25 advanced reactors. Research on passive systems, understanding operator 26 response in advanced control rooms, dynamic PRA, and insights from the

80 1 Level 3 PRA project enable us to more realistically model and assess the risk 2 of advanced reactor designs.

3 Building off our risk research to refine our understanding of 4 uncertainties and improve realisms, we can continue adapting our regulatory 5 framework to assure that we achieve the mission to protect the public while 6 adjusting the regulatory burden to be consistent with our evolving 7 understanding of the risks.

8 Thank you for your attention. And with that, I'll turn it over 9 to Steve West to continue your presentation.

10 MR. WEST: Thank you, John. Chairman and 11 Commissioners, as you heard this morning, our research program 12 emphasizes a Be Ready approach to future regulatory activities by developing 13 and delivering tools and technical solutions for the staff. These activities 14 support all aspects of our agency from research technical staff who support 15 licensing reviews and oversight activities to research staff who facilitate the 16 preservation of knowledge and assist with knowledge transfer.

17 Our overarching goal for our research program is to 18 continue the focus on the most important activities in support of our safety and 19 security mission. We continue to assess and adjust our research strategy 20 with the goal of positioning ourselves for the future while maintaining our core 21 technical capabilities to carry out our work.

22 In closing, I thank the staff throughout the agency who 23 support our research program and who contributed to the research and 24 regulatory activities we highlighted this morning in our presentations this 25 morning. This concludes our presentation, and we are ready to address any 26 questions that you have for us.

81 1 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, thank you again to each of 2 the presenters and to the teams that work for you and with you and that 3 contributed to the materials that you presented here today. We will begin 4 again with Commissioner Wright.

5 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. Good morning.

6 Thank you for your presentation. I think it's the first time that I've seen six 7 people at the table. I know we've gone five before, but six is a lot and a lot of 8 information.

9 So I guess, Ray, I'm going to go with you. In the first panel, 10 I think Neil Wilmshurst talked about the arch fault issue in response to a 11 question I had. So what I want to ask you how that research is going. My 12 understanding and the reason I ask that question is that there were some 13 strong differences of opinion between the NRC and the industry on whether 14 the testing was realistic. So have we been able to work through those 15 differences, and what differences remained? And what's the path forward?

16 MR. FURSTENAU: Thank you for the question, 17 Commissioner. As obvious from the last panel, you know, the HEAF and the 18 consequences of HEAF are a popular topic, let's say. And there were areas 19 of disagreement. I think we're working through those. I think anytime where 20 you have testing that you might get some results of the testing that maybe 21 weren't expected that you then, okay, what does that mean and what do you 22 have to subsequently do to develop, adjust your test plan to be more realistic?

23 And I think that's where we're at now.

24 I think, in any of these type of things where you have issues 25 like that, communications is a key to that. And I think my team, as well as 26 EPRI and industry, in the past several months have gotten together more often

82 1 in public meetings to discuss what issues remain with HEAF testing and the 2 subsequent stages of that. And I think we had tests that were completed in 3 September '18. There's more tests planned for September of '19. And all 4 along the way since those initial tests we had involvement. I think Neil 5 acknowledged with EPRI, as well with others, about how do we make these 6 tests as realistic as possible and reflect real plant conditions? And a lot of 7 that centers around defining the zone of influence.

8 So I think we certainly haven't reached any conclusions yet 9 at this point with regard to any type of regulatory action. We're just not there 10 yet on that. But I do think the communications has gotten much better. We 11 are incorporating it into future test plans that reflect industry, as well as EPRI's 12 input to that.

13 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So aligning everybody's 14 interests, you all are really getting into that a little bit better now?

15 MR. FURSTENAU: Yes, I think so. I think it's gotten 16 much better.

17 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. I guess I'll stay with 18 you, but anybody else can pitch in if you want to at all. But do you have a 19 sense of how much money the NRC is spending versus what the industry is 20 spending on research? And then do we have a sense for how much other 21 regulatory agencies, like the FDA or FAA, are spending relative to the 22 industries that they regulate? Do you have any --

23 MR. FURSTENAU: I don't have an answer for that directly.

24 I'd be only guessing. I would, from my experience, I'll relate my experience 25 with DOE on this one.

26 When I came to the NRC, and I'm going to be a little

83 1 sarcastic here because I'm kind of dry sometimes, but I came and started 2 looking at the research budget. I said there's got to be a zero missing here 3 somewhere. And, obviously, you know, DOE is more of a promotional of just 4 the R&D budgets and the Office of Nuclear Energy, they probably put forward 5 about 450 million just for maintaining facilities and another 500 - 600 million 6 or more on R&D activities.

7 So they're quite large, quite large budgets. But we have a 8 different role to play I think. I'm not really, I really haven't judged yet whether 9 our budget is too much or too little. I think we need to obviously focus on 10 what's in demand from our users, our main users. But looking ahead, I think 11 we, for more forward-looking research, I think we could do more in that area.

12 It's part of our Be Ready theme. But I think being driven by user need for the 13 most part has worked pretty well for the near term and maybe short-term need.

14 The longer-term needs maybe not so much, and we might need something in 15 that area.

16 MR. WEST: If I can just add a little fine point. You know, 17 since Ray has come onboard here at the NRC, he has started making some 18 changes in the research program. And one of the things he has started to do 19 is having program reviews with the business line leads. I went to the first 20 meeting, which happened to be with Ho, and they have an opportunity there 21 to kind of get some of the questions today about talking about what is the real 22 research being done, how is it going to be used. And in that meeting at least, 23 there was a lot of very transparent and open discussion about the research 24 needs, and I think some things were being questioned. But I could just see, 25 you know, over time, that that's going to help shape the research program to 26 where really what the business line leaders are saying they need is what's

84 1 going to be getting done and other things may fall off the plate.

2 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. So I guess, 3 again, the next question, anyone can weigh in, if you want to here. So what 4 are some specific steps that regulators should take to maintain an 5 understanding of emerging technologies? And my concern is that we stay 6 abreast and develop some of these areas but have limited money and many 7 technologies that may or may not be pursued. So I know that the NRC, the 8 staff and managers, they attend various conferences and workshops, but are 9 they finding things that we should be doing in this area that we're not doing, 10 or are there things that we're doing that we may want to stop doing because 11 they're not adding value? Do you have any insights?

12 MR. FURSTENAU: I want to then start and then Ho can 13 correct me or add to it. But I think the kind of the external awareness, I think, 14 is important. NRC just can't stay in a vacuum. We got to pay attention to 15 what's going on around us. In some respects, you know, we have to follow 16 the money. Where is money being spent?

17 I think all of those areas and many of the areas that were 18 talked about by Dr. Busby and Neil and Jennifer, you know, are some of those 19 things we recognize. We've got to go forward, we've got to pay attention, and 20 that's some of the more longer-term research that we ought to be doing from 21 a regulatory standpoint. As we see those technologies developing, what are 22 the issues we're seeing with respect to regulatory issues? And we need to 23 share those early on. We ought to not sit back and wait for some sort of a 24 licensing action to occur before we start thinking about it, and that's the point 25 of research many times for the longer-term issues.

26 MR. NIEH: I'll add to it. I'm not going to correct him

85 1 because there's nothing to correct there. So as Steve mentioned, I'm new 2 but I'm not new. I've been with NRC for a long time. But I've only been back 3 eight months, and for a little over three years before returning I was working 4 at the Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris, France, which is part of the OECD.

5 And in my portfolio there, I was responsible for a lot of the multilateral joint 6 safety research projects.

7 So one specific step that I think the NRC can do, building on 8 what Ray said, is to maintain our external awareness and really work with our 9 international partners to leverage these joint multilateral research efforts 10 because they really give us a lot of bang for the buck. The leveraging aspect 11 and partnering with other countries to share the resource costs are pretty 12 significant, I think.

13 From working at NEA and the projects I've seen, one thing I 14 would advocate for when we participate in these things is make sure that the 15 projects we're participating in are projects we want to get something out. I 16 mean, there are a lot of projects that we've been going on years and years 17 with and we have to stop and ask ourselves do we still need more data from 18 this research project? Is there another area that perhaps could be more 19 relevant for us to move on?

20 For example, at NEA, we were trying to get a lot of things 21 going with accident tolerant fuels. I think another area that's kind of ripe is 22 looking at advanced manufacturing. There's not an existing project that's 23 currently being developed right now with the NEA in that area, but it could be 24 as other countries also are going to be perhaps using products coming from 25 vendors that are going to be made using advanced manufacturing 26 technologies.

86 1 As Neil mentioned in his presentation, you know, EPRI has 2 a very robust network of engagements with other organizations. I think the 3 Chairman, you mentioned early on in your remarks about early collaboration 4 and still being able to achieve regulatory independence. That's the model 5 that's happening in the rest of the world. You have regulators, industry, 6 research organizations getting together up-front so there are no surprises in 7 the end when the regulators got to make an independent decision.

8 So I think that model is happening elsewhere in the world, 9 and I suggest the NRC continue to leverage that approach.

10 COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you so much.

11 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Well, thank you again. I get so 12 geeked up about the research stuff, so I confess that, you know, prior to 13 coming to NRC, my work was always in and around federal research 14 initiatives, whether it be for the U.S. military or for DOE. And, Ray, I've known 15 you almost 30 years, so I'm just going to say I know that you didn't come here 16 chasing zeros. And the sobering thought is that, whatever the size of NRC's 17 research portfolio, the rest of it can't be successful if we don't have what we 18 need to make the independent safety conclusions and have the input and be 19 able to convey that confidence to the American public, whether it be for 20 currently-operating reactors or for novel technologies that we see. So the 21 effectiveness of whatever the dollar amount is, is pivotal to the rest of the 22 enterprise.

23 And so there has been, I was kind of deciding whether to 24 make this comment or not, but there have been a few comments about, you 25 know, declining resources and budgets and things like that. I just want to be 26 clear that, from my standpoint, if there are things that we need for NRC's

87 1 unique role, an investment that we need to make, yes, we need to be 2 collaborative, yes, we need to participate up-front, but I'm counting on all of 3 you, the licensing organizations and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory 4 Research, I'm counting on you in that early engagement to be fierce advocates 5 for, at the end of the day, we have to make really important sober decisions 6 about the safety of things. And, you know, we shouldn't be timid in the up-7 front. We need to show up. We need to be outspoken about what we need, 8 but our obligation is to advocate for that.

9 And so as this budget, if it gets smaller, if it needs to get 10 bigger, but pivotal in securing those funds, so I'll be an advocate for you, but 11 pivotal to the success of doing that will be the exquisite case we can make for 12 how it relates to what we ultimately have to do. So, you know, I think there 13 may be other research enterprises where you can kind of indulge your 14 intellectual stimulation a little bit more. Here there is a discipline around doing 15 that, but I'm confident that, if we can tie it to our mission, that I think there 16 would be broad support for us getting what we need.

17 So I want to be clear: it is true that there is an increased look 18 at leveraging the federal investment, but, you know, that shouldn't be a reason 19 why we aren't kind of, we need to look over that horizon for what we need.

20 And I felt really compelled to say that.

21 I had some other cheeky comments. Kim, I appreciate you 22 telling me why CRAB, because I noticed the proliferation of the Intermountain 23 West mammals. The other thing is that I think swan, I think we ought to be 24 base it on the Supreme Swan because crabs are kind of in aqueous 25 environments maybe. Maybe that's the way we need to go.

26 But I do appreciate the discussion and even the diagram,

88 1 which was difficult to see, but how NRC model development and we can be 2 part of an integrated whole, and I kind of want to pivot to the SPAR models.

3 I'm agnostic; I don't know. But we heard Ho come in and take a fresh look 4 and say, wait a second, you know, we have unique reliance, they're useful, 5 they're our product, they're cost effective. We heard on the previous panel 6 someone at least questioning whether or not the maintenance and the use of 7 those by the regulator over the longer term, I don't think it was a retribution of 8 the past, but, you know, is that really sustainable, is that the best way for the 9 regulatory to have risk insights?

10 And since I don't really know any better, I guess I would ask 11 the question of Ho is part of the cost effectiveness of the SPAR models it that 12 it is the model we have and use? And I think Jennifer acknowledged that you 13 would have to train and get people really conversant and confident, and NRC 14 staff would have to learn something new. There's a cost to that. And so is 15 that some of the cost effectiveness?

16 And the other thing is that there was mention of could NRC 17 have access to the licensee PRA through an EPRI portal or something else 18 about what's being conceptualized in that area. But going forward, as 19 industry PRA models become more sophisticated, is it something that, you 20 know, not today or two years from now, but, if you looked 15 years in the 21 future, could NRC have a more pronounced problem in that what SPAR and 22 the evolution of SPAR, I was tempted to call it the son of SPAR but that sounds 23 like a sci-fi movie, you know, whatever we had or the spawn of spar or 24 something like that. I don't know what we would have in the future. But 25 would that, like, is there a potential that would be an inferior tool to us because, 26 you know, at some point, there are things where you need to pivot and just do

89 1 things fundamentally differently.

2 So I'm a little bit curious about that and if the answer could 3 be in a way, you know, most of what I know about PRA I actually used from 4 CJ Fong when I was sitting in the audience here, but he was willing to talk to 5 me about PRA in a way that acknowledges that I am not a PRA analyst. I 6 know that PRA people love what they do, but a lot of us are not in that 7 priesthood of PRA. So anyone who would like to kind of address that.

8 MR. NIEH: There's a lot there, so I'll take a stab at that.

9 At the SPAR. I think maybe the most compelling reason, in my mind 10 Chairman, about using SPAR is really the independence aspect.

11 And you know, that's a prominent principal of good 12 regulation we have. We've got to be able to make independent regulatory 13 decisions based on an independent look at the safety significance of an issue.

14 You know, when I think about SPAR, yes, there is the 15 element of keeping the skill sets and the muscles strong in applying PRA 16 models. There are some differences certainly in terminology that licensees 17 have in their PRA models.

18 We get some efficiencies because in all our models use the 19 same terminology. I would say our inspectors are trained on it. So there's 20 an efficiency there.

21 And furthermore, there have been instances where our 22 SPAR models have found errors in licensing models. And I think that's a 23 pretty important thing for us to have the ability to do. To have that sort of 24 second check.

25 So, the question, you know, could it be one day that our 26 models are -- maybe becomes really less sophisticated then a licensee's

90 1 SPAR model, or perhaps inferior? I suppose so.

2 But our maintenance costs I think help keep the realism in 3 updating as we're learning more information. I mean, I kind of look at the --

4 the analogy that comes into my mind with SPAR is like SPAR is like a shotgun 5 and the licensee PRA model is like a sniper rifle.

6 They'll both hit the target. You know, maybe the licensee's 7 models are really super precise. But we get pretty darn close.

8 And then what I see the problem occurring now in the actual 9 implementation stage, is we're debating the decimal points. I think somebody 10 mentioned that in their early part of their process.

11 And then of course, you know, there's -- we have a role.

12 Industry has a function as well. And when we're trying to analyze a safety 13 significance, obviously if we come to a big delta, then that's where the rub lies.

14 And we're trying to zero in on the decimal points to get it to, 15 you know, where industry wants it, where we see it.

16 So, I think the model serves its purpose very well for NRC's 17 functions both in the oversight program and how we respond to events. And 18 how we access what to do when an emergent issue comes.

19 So, I think the research work will help us stay ahead of the 20 obsolescence issue that you're sort of pointing at with SPAR. That's my view 21 on that.

22 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. Thank you very much.

23 That's actually very helpful to kind of step back in that way.

24 Kim, on accident tolerant fuels, you talked a little bit about 25 the use of PIRT there. And I've heard very favorable things from other 26 participants in this process.

91 1 But it strikes me that our success is really depending on that 2 being the right tool and going well. Is there any assessment you can give?

3 I know we're still kind of in early stages. But, how is it going 4 so far?

5 MS. WEBBER: Well, so I think we just completed the 6 chrome-coated PIRT panel. And so a report will be coming out soon on that.

7 We still have a couple other PIRTs that are being planned.

8 One for, I think, fresh fuel. One for high burn up in-vessel PIRT.

9 So the PIRTs are moving along very well. And I think they 10 are adding some, you know, understanding of the phenomena that are 11 important for safety.

12 And so we'll use that information to update our codes as 13 appropriate.

14 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: So the selection of PIRT is kind of 15 a primary approach for eliciting the right phenomenologies and then their 16 relative importance and things like that?

17 You would give an assessment that we seem to have a 18 sense that this was the right approach?

19 MS. WEBBER: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay.

21 MS. WEBBER: That would be my conclusion.

22 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. Thank you on that. And 23 then it's interesting to hear about the -- the kind of performance reviews that 24 are being done now with the business lines from -- by the Office of Research.

25 I think again, that helps to create this nexus and connection 26 to the relevance of an issue, and how it was initially scoped. Versus where

92 1 we are today.

2 And as Raj talked about, kind of the sorting through the milk 3 and the water. And figuring out what the relevance is to the regulatory 4 decision that we need to make, and the information that we need to support 5 that decision.

6 One other element though is that the ACRS has provided 7 the Commission a review of the research program on a regular basis. And I 8 know that ACRS has struggled to try to make that the most useful type of 9 review tool for the Commission's needs.

10 I think in the past they've even met with individual members 11 of the Commission. And said, is the review we're providing beneficial?

12 It would be interesting as the staff makes additional efforts 13 in terms of its periodic assessment of research and its support. I know we 14 have NRR here today.

15 But for NRO and NMSS, you know, as well, looking at the 16 fidelity of the research program supporting the mission space.

17 It might be good at some point to kind of loop back through 18 and think about how could the ACRS then either leverage off that? Or benefit 19 from that?

20 And maybe provide an even more targeted and strategic 21 assessment for the Commission. I think that at some point, I'm not saying 22 that that's relevant today.

23 But I think that intrigues me as you bring more governance 24 tools into what you're doing. That might be something to think about.

25 And with that, I will turn to Commissioner Baran.

26 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Thanks. Well, thank you for

93 1 your presentations and for all your work. Ray, I want to start with a couple of 2 bigger picture questions for you.

3 Can you talk a little bit about your vision for striking the right 4 balance between user need research and anticipatory or more forward looking 5 research?

6 What is your sense about how much of NRC's research 7 should be anticipatory?

8 MR. FURSTENAU: On that question, when I first came 9 here, the terminology of confirmatory versus anticipatory, and I've been 10 struggling okay, where is -- what falls under which line?

11 And I guess going back and putting a number on it, I think 12 the -- we had some folks look at when was the last time that was done to try 13 to draw that line?

14 And maybe in the early 2000s. And anticipatory was 15 maybe 20 percent of the research budget.

16 But I think maybe looking ahead, another way to look at it is, 17 I think user needs are actually pretty good. Our program plan is pretty good 18 for near term, you know.

19 Or what's in front of us with regards to licensing decisions.

20 And even for ATF, you know you could argue maybe ATF is anticipatory 21 research.

22 But, we're looking short term, you know, one to three years 23 on that. And I think that methodology works pretty good.

24 But, where I think we fall short, is the beyond. You know 25 the four or five years and beyond that.

26 I think a nominal amount needs to be dedicated to keeping

94 1 us aware of what's going on. So we can look at, from a regulatory standpoint, 2 what -- how are these new technologies?

3 How are these new fuels going to affect us in the long term 4 from a regulatory standpoint? That's where I -- that's the separation point for 5 me.

6 COMMISSIONER BARAN: And how -- I mean, it sounds 7 like you think we're not doing that much in that area right now.

8 MR. FURSTENAU: No 9 COMMISSIONER BARAN: I mean, how do you, you know, 10 and your colleagues figure out, what are the areas we need to be looking at 11 for four or five years in the future?

12 And how much of that work should be done? And what are 13 the gaps we should be thinking about filling now?

14 So, as you kind of termed it, we don't become the critical 15 path a few years from now when something comes in the door.

16 And we say wow, this -- we really need research in this area 17 that's going to take five years. Wouldn't it be great if we had started that five 18 years ago?

19 MR. FURSTENAU: Yes.

20 COMMISSIONER BARAN: I mean, how do -- that seems 21 kind of tough to figure out where you -- what to do there. But pretty important 22 too, to figure that out.

23 MR. FURSTENAU: Yes. I think it is too. You know, and 24 I think a lot of the areas that were mentioned, you know, maybe how much do 25 we use modeling and simulation in lieu of testing?

26 I mean, that comes up in the short term as well. They

95 1 talked about AI, big data, that sort of stuff.

2 And lots of it's, you know phrases right now. What does it 3 mean to everybody? What do we see coming on the horizon?

4 I haven't had, you know, a lot of detailed discussions on that 5 with our customers in the business lines. But, I think that's important to do.

6 I of course again, supporting licensing actions, the near 7 term, that's the top priority. But to be ready, we need to think more about 8 what do we need to put some, you know, reasonable amount of resources on 9 the more forward looking innovative stuff.

10 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Well, I could just see there 11 would be a certain amount of tension there, right? Because there's always 12 going to be pressing needs.

13 MR. FURSTENAU: Yes.

14 COMMISSIONER BARAN: And it's easy to see them just 15 kind of squeezing out anything that's more, you know, forward looking or over 16 -- a little bit over the horizon.

17 And you know, if we're not intentional about that, it just 18 seems like that part's just going to get dropped off, right? In the face of kind 19 of present day needs.

20 MR. NIEH: It's a great question. And the gears were 21 turning in my mind when you asked it. And that had been something I had 22 been thinking about.

23 And I'm glad that Ray's taking some initiatives with research 24 looking at the big picture. And I do think what you point out is an important 25 aspect.

26 And I think if we did have a systematic process in the agency

96 1 where we're building on our external awareness. I know we don't have crystal 2 balls.

3 But we -- what you're getting at is, we need to be ready for 4 disruptive technologies that may have legs in the market. And that we don't 5 want to be in the way.

6 So, we'd like to do those things in advance to understand 7 what's maybe coming down the road. And that's kind of hard to do, as you 8 sort of pointed out.

9 But I could in my mind, envision a systematic approach that 10 the agency could take in getting information from organizations like EPRI, or 11 NEI, and the industry. Or perhaps even other.

12 Look at what's happened. What technology is being 13 brought into other industries that could benefit the industry that we're 14 regulating.

15 So, in my mind, being let's say a recipient of the work of 16 research. Like obviously there's user needs that I'd need on an immediate 17 basis if there's a gap for a decision I need to make.

18 And I don't have that information. But, I think we do, we 19 should look at how we could have something systematic in place to anticipate 20 things that might really disrupt us in the future if we're not ready.

21 COMMISSIONER BARAN: On the first panel we heard a 22 fair bit about advanced manufacturing, and sensors, and data analytics. Or 23 just sensors and that's maybe separate from data analytics, or with it.

24 How much are we doing in those areas? What are we 25 doing there? And are we doing enough?

26 MR. FURSTENAU: Not a whole lot. Data analytics, we

97 1 have started in research kind of looking at, you know, literature searches.

2 Stuff with working on. Also with CIO on how -- what's out 3 there? What could data analytics do to help us?

4 What's going -- what are the trends in data analytics? And 5 how should we play a part in that with our missions as well?

6 Not a lot. But we have started looking into that.

7 COMMISSIONER BARAN: In specialized areas of our 8 work, there are times when the workload is low. How do you think we should 9 maintain core technical capabilities in specialized areas during those periods?

10 How do you approach that question?

11 MR. FURSTENAU: Um-hum. Well, I'll give you my 12 perspective, Commissioner. I think core capabilities are an important.

13 I think the last time the, maybe the NRC looked at it formally 14 in research was maybe in the 1998, 2000 time frame. So it's been a while.

15 I expect a lot of those core capabilities are still valid. But I 16 do think it's part of what we're doing with the strategic workforce planning, and 17 looking at the future.

18 That kind of gets inherent in that. So, I'm not sure we need 19 another dedicated effort in that. But, we've rolled it into the strategic 20 workforce planning.

21 And how to maintain for those, there's -- we look when we 22 maybe lose expertise. We look at, should we replace that internally? Do we 23 still need it? Do we buy it versus make it ourselves sort of thing?

24 And that's what I think, you know, like myself and my 25 directors, division directors, we need to be constantly, constantly looking at 26 that. What do we need to maintain internally?

98 1 And some of that maybe available in the -- in the business 2 lines as well. And that's where you get the importance of doing rotations from 3 research into the business lines, and vice versa.

4 External assignments help with that. It ought to keep 5 people interested in what they're doing. And I think that's an important part 6 too in core competencies.

7 You've got to -- you have to have interesting work. And to 8 maintain top talent as well in your core competencies.

9 COMMISSIONER BARAN: You and your team took a stab 10 at prioritizing all the different NRC research activities. Which I imagine was 11 pretty challenging.

12 When I look at some of the items listed as lower priority, 13 there are some very significant efforts there, including research related to 14 post-Fukushima seismic assessments, dry cask integrity, alkali-silica reaction, 15 an ongoing effort to stay current on the science of natural hazards.

16 What does it mean for an item to be characterized as lower 17 priority? Does it mean that it's work we don't need to do?

18 MR. FURSTENAU: No. I would look at, you know, a 19 prioritization system in all judgements.

20 You can have a prioritization system that comes up with a 21 number, but you're still relying on judgements of people on what the --

22 whatever categories you came up with.

23 So, but we had a process. And we looked at, you know, 24 from that process, where would these activities fit?

25 We did that within research. And then -- and then worked 26 with business lines to do a sanity check. Does this make sense from what

99 1 they're referring to?

2 But, I wouldn't take it as meaning low that it's not necessary 3 to do. But when you're looking at budgets, whatever the budget is, whether 4 it's not enough, or it is enough, what we're -- what are you -- what's most 5 important?

6 What's going to affect the Agency's mission the most? And 7 so you focus on those based on availability resources, whether it's dollars or 8 people.

9 So, I guess it doesn't mean that they're not important. It 10 just means the priority of the work.

11 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Okay. I'll stop there.

12 Thanks.

13 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Great. Thank you.

14 Commissioner Caputo?

15 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Well good morning. Thank 16 you all for your work in preparing for today. It's quite an amazing amount of 17 information to take in.

18 Steve, you observed that the Commission hadn't had a 19 meeting on research in quite a while. Given the caliber of discussion today, 20 and the importance of research in support of the mission, I believe that it would 21 be useful for the Commission to have a meeting annually with research.

22 Just to stay abreast of the changes that are coming. And 23 the work that is being done.

24 So, just to follow on, I think, a little bit with Commissioner 25 Baran's question on setting priorities. Is it perhaps also a factor for some 26 things that may be listed as low priority, that they're -- that the level of priority

100 1 given at a particular point in time may be reflective of the fact that a large body 2 of work has been done fairly recently on the subject?

3 And therefore is perhaps not as important as other issues at 4 this time, based on the caliber of work that's recently been completed?

5 MR. FURSTENAU: Yes, Commissioner. I think that's a 6 fair -- a fair point. That that, it is a factor in the relative priorities.

7 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. Thank you. Ray, 8 last summer when both of us were new, in my trying to gain an understanding 9 of the nature of the work going on in the Office of Research, I talked with you 10 about the importance of having -- of the Research Office being able to 11 articulate and produce a list simply of the projects that are underway.

12 I just want to say that the list I've seen so far, I think reflects 13 a considerable amount of effort and thought. It's a -- I commend you for the 14 effort.

15 I think there is probably a lot of staff work that went into that.

16 And my compliments to you and your staff for that hard work.

17 I'd also like to commend you for your commitment to 18 external engagement, outreach transparency in an effort to forward the work 19 of the Research Office. I think that's also very important.

20 So, and I will shift gears a little bit. One characteristic I 21 think of a healthy research organization is knowing when to close out a 22 research project and be able to redirect resources to advance knowledge in a 23 new or different area.

24 So, I noticed earlier this year the IG completed an audit of 25 our processes for developing and coordinating research activities. So, one 26 of their recommendations was earlier involvement of senior managers in

101 1 developing research requests.

2 I know that you are stepping up efforts to coordinate with the 3 business units in an effort to have those sorts of discussions. I definitely 4 compliment you on that.

5 I think that's probably going to be extremely fruitful. The 6 part of the response to the IG recommendation was to improve facilitating 7 alignment on the priority strategic outcomes schedule and proposed budget 8 for research activities.

9 So I guess my question from that is just this effort to pursue 10 alignment, will it also include what constitutes completion of a research 11 request so that there's a clear understanding of when that research project 12 has reached its conclusion and can be terminated in favor of redirecting those 13 resources to a new activity?

14 MR. FURSTENAU: And I'll start it. And then maybe Ho, if 15 you can help from your perspective.

16 I think, you know, the IG's observation is -- I agree with it. I 17 think in developing user needs let's say in developing those, I think it's 18 important.

19 You know, research sometimes you don't know what you 20 don't know. And you're trying to figure that out.

21 So, you've got to be flexible in that standpoint to develop a 22 user need based on a -- on some unknown or some uncertainty that the user 23 office wants to address and wants research to address.

24 I think it's important to develop, you know, milestones that 25 okay, at this point we're going to relook at the scope.

26 Maybe off ramps if you want to call them that, in developing

102 1 that there's checks and balances along the way, so it just doesn't become an 2 endless research project.

3 Again, we have to have the end in mind. So, I think that's 4 important in developing the user needs that research gets from the business 5 line.

6 And that I pay attention to that when I sign off on them, as 7 well as the business leads. And I also think it's part of what we do in the 8 program reviews.

9 To give a perspective of what's going on in this particular 10 activity. And is it getting the business lines what they need?

11 And the advantage of a program review is you're less, less 12 siloed if you will. That you have maybe a bigger picture look at across the 13 business line, the research that's being done, and where the priority.

14 And we may say, or maybe say, hey enough. We don't 15 need any more of this from a -- from a decision making, a regulatory decision 16 making point of view.

17 It might be nice research, but let somebody else do that.

18 We're done.

19 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: So, given your list of 20 activities and the program reviews that are going on, do you have a feel for, 21 or are you getting a feel for how many of these user needs, activities have sort 22 of outlived what was originally envisioned in the user need request?

23 MR. FURSTENAU: I'm really not at that point yet. I think 24 getting the list of activities, getting a look at what we've spent on them, what 25 we're getting out of them.

26 I personally, I haven't made judgements yet on the value of

103 1 these. But I think that has to happen.

2 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Fair enough.

3 MR. FURSTENAU: Yeah.

4 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Fair enough. Mr. Nakoski, 5 on slide 22, I talked about how knowledge of severe accident progression and 6 offsite consequences is enhanced through state of the art reactor 7 consequence analysis, or SOARCA.

8 And this is work that's gone on for a number of years. I 9 know this was particularly timely in the wake of the Fukushima accident.

10 My understanding is that we now have three separate 11 NUREGs on SOARCA. And that the Office of Research is now working to 12 develop a NUREG that combines all three.

13 I guess my question is, is it really necessary? How much 14 time and resources end up dedicated to simply taking three documents that 15 already exist, and combining them into one document?

16 And is there a benefit to doing that, that really warrants the 17 time and effort?

18 MR. NAKOSKI: I'm actually going to defer to Kim.

19 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay.

20 MR. NAKOSKI: Because she's got the -- more knowledge 21 on that than I do.

22 MS. WEBBER: Yes. So you're right. The severe -- the 23 SOARCA analysis and the project itself has been around for quite a long time.

24 And out of that we've produced quite a number of reports 25 about severe accidents and their consequences.

26 As far as I understand, the last particular NUREG that is

104 1 being completed now on the severe uncertainty analysis, is going to be sent 2 up to the Commission in June.

3 And then the remaining activity is to produce a summary 4 report of all of these uncertainty analysis and deterministic analysis for the 5 three different plant designs that were evaluated.

6 There's a lot of material in each of those individual studies.

7 And for anyone to wade through all of the material that is there, it's pretty 8 heavy technical material.

9 And so the intent of this summary report is to bring it up at a 10 higher level so that people like me, who aren't experts in those fields, can 11 understand the outcomes and the ramifications of the results, and insights that 12 were found through those studies.

13 So in my mind, it would be a tool that would enable other 14 people to understand those insights.

15 COMMISSIONER CAPUTO: Okay. I'd like to compliment 16 you on your focus and your presentation on the Be Ready mindset.

17 I think that's hugely timely given all the advanced 18 technologies that are coming down the pike. And I think it reflects a huge 19 amount of leadership by everyone here, and all the staff, to recognize that.

20 Because I think that stands in a striking contrast to items 21 that were also raised today, like GSI-191. I think there was a mention of 22 neutron absorbers and spent fuel pools.

23 I remember that being discussed my first year out of college 24 in 1997. So, I think the shift in mind set, the shift in culture toward a be ready 25 mind set, and preparing to tackle sort of a broader range of new challenges, I 26 think is enormously important.

105 1 And I think reflects a significant amount of leadership. So, 2 I commend you all for that. And with that, I have nothing further.

3 CHAIRMAN SVINICKI: Okay. Well, on behalf of the 4 Commission, thank you all again. I think this was a good discussion, and 5 informative.

6 There was a lot of content. So, I think it was a lot to take 7 in. And it was very, very helpful.

8 So, thank you all again. And with that, we are adjourned.

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record 10 at 12:14 p.m.)