Text

Draft White Paper on Factory-Fabricated Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations
	ML23236A598
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/29/2023
From:	William Kennedy; NRC/NRR/DANU/UARP
To:	;
References
	Download: ML23236A598 (19)
	v • d • e

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

NRC Staff Prepared White Paper Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations:

Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory August 2023 Draft - Released to Support ACRS Interaction

THIS NRC STAFF WHITE PAPER HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS BEING RELEASED TO SUPPORT INTERACTIONS WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS (ACRS). THIS PAPER HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO NRC MANAGEMENT AND LEGAL REVIEWS AND APPROVALS, AND ITS CONTENTS SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS OFFICIAL AGENCY POSITIONS.

SUBJECT:

Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this paper is to support upcoming interactions w ith the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguard (ACRS) on options for regulating the fuel loa ding and operational testing of commercial factory-fabricated micro-reactors.

BACKGROUND:

For licensing purposes, micro-reactors are commercial power rea ctors licensed under Section 103, Commercial Licenses, of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a s amended (AEA). Micro-reactors are expected to use non-light-water reactor technologi es1, have thermal power levels on the order of several megawatts to a few tens of megawatts, h ave small site footprints, and have low radiological consequences from potential radiological releases by virtue of radionuclide inventories that would be about one percent or les s than those for typical large light-water reactors. Micro-reactors may also have an increased reliance on passive systems and inherent characteristics to control power and heat removal.

In SECY-20-0093, Policy and Licensing Considerations Related t o Micro-Reactors (ML20129J985), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) staff identified several topics that should be addressed to support t he licensing and regulation of micro-reactors including security; emergency preparedness; staf fing, training, and personnel qualification; autonomous operations and remote operations; reg ulatory oversight; aircraft impact assessment; annual fee structure; manufacturing licenses and transportation; population-related siting considerations; and environmental con siderations. Since the issuance of SECY-20-0093, the staff has developed approaches to resolvin g several of these topics through work on rulemaking efforts including Title 10, Energy, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 53, Risk Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulat ory Frameworks for Commercial Nuclear Plants (SECY-23-0021 (ML21162A095)); Altern ative Physical Security Requirements for Advanced Reactors (SECY-22-0072 (ML21334A003)) ; Emergency

1 See NRC Vision and Strategy: Safely Achieving Effective and Efficient Non-Light Water Reactor Mission Readiness, (ML16356A670) for discussion of non-light-water reactor technologies. Non-light-water reactors are a subset of advanced reactors, as defined by the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act of 2019 (Public Law 115-439).

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

2

Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technolog ies (SECY-22-0001 (ML21200A055)); and the Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Enviro nmental Impact Statement (SECY-21-0098 (ML21222A053)). These technology-inclusive rulema kings include provisions that are scalable commensurate with the design features and ris ks posed by various technologies and propose approaches that could be applied to mi cro-reactors. The staff also issued the FY2023 fee rule (88 FR 39120) to provide fair and eq uitable fees for small modular reactors including non-light-water reactors which established n ew minimum and variable fees in recognition of the size and anticipated level of oversight for smaller reactors including micro-reactors. Other initiatives are underway such as the developmen t of the Advanced Reactors Construction Oversight Program as discussed in SECY-23-0048, V ision for the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advanced Reactor Construction Oversight Program (ML23061A086),

which will consider a range of plant designs, including micro-r eactor designs, to inform and scale the scope of construction oversight for advanced reactors.

DISCUSSION:

As the advanced reactor landscape continues to evolve, stakehol der interest in the deployment of factory-fabricated micro-reactors is increasing. The NRC sta ff is currently in pre-application engagements with several factory-fabricated micro-reactor devel opers that are considering novel deployment models that include loading fuel at a factory, operating the reactor for testing at a factory prior to deployment, and transporting fueled react ors. The NRC staff is prioritizing development of strategies to provide for the predictable and ef ficient licensing and regulation of these designs and operational models, and the identification an d resolution of associated policy issues.

The NRC staff is cognizant that some topics and policy issues a re more broadly relevant to the deployment of all types of micro-reactors and other reactor tec hnologies, such as light-water small modular reactors and larger non-light-water reactors. Alt hough not explicitly addressed in this paper, the NRC staff will account for any such situations, as appropriate.

The NRC staff engaged with stakehol ders through the periodic advanced reactor stakeholders meetings in March and July 2023. The NRC staff presented the to pics proposed to be included in the paper during the meeting in March and provided prelimina ry information about the options under consideration by the NRC sta ff during the meeting in July. Stakeholders provided oral feedback during these meetings which the NRC staff considered d uring development of the paper. The NRC staff also engaged with other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy.

Factory-Fabricated Micro-Reactors

Factory-fabricated micro-reactors are a subset of micro-reactor s that are expected to rely heavily on standardization of design features and mass producti on to simplify licensing and deployment. Some factory-fabricated micro-reactor designs may b e self-contained in that they would incorporate the reactor, shielding, and balance of plant in one or several transportable containers and require minimal site preparation or construction activities at the deployment site 2.

2 See 10 CFR 50.10, License required; limited work authorization, for the activities considered to be construction and requiring a permit or license issued by the Commission.

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

3

Other designs may comprise a core module consisting of the co re, reactor vessel, control elements, and other systems and components that is fabricated i n a factory and then incorporated into or connected to permanent structures and syst ems constructed at the deployment site, such as a reac tor building and power conversio n equipment. This paper uses the term factory-fabricated module to generically refer to th e part of the eventual micro-reactor nuclear power plant that would be fabricated in a factory and t hat may be of either a self-contained design (i.e., a complete facility) or a core module design.

Factory-Fabricated Micro-Reactor Deployment Model

Conceptually, the deployment model for factory-fabricated micro -reactors will include various activities requiring NRC licensing, certification, or approval. These may include design of reactors, fabrication at a factory, loading fuel at a factory, operating the reactors for testing at a factory, transporting fueled reactors to deployment sites (whet her loaded with unirradiated or irradiated fuel), operating the reactors for the production of electrical or heat energy at the deployment sites, replacing reactors at the deployment sites, t ransporting reactors away from the deployment sites at the end of their useful lives, decommis sioning or refurbishing and refueling reactors at locations away from the deployment sites, and re-deploying refurbished reactors to deployment sites. Figure 1 depicts the generic depl oyment model considered by the NRC staff in this paper and the enclosure, which incorporates d evelopers publicly available information and stakeholder feedback. In contrast to this deplo yment model, some factory-fabricated micro-reactor developers may propose deployment mode ls in which loading fuel or performing operational testing or both would occur at the deplo yment site, rather than a factory.

Figure 1: Generic factory-fabricated micro-reactor deployment m odel.

Deployment models could involve se veral other unique concepts n ot depicted in Figure 1.

These include construction activities at the deployment site th at could be completed in days to weeks to a few months depending on the design, the arrival of p re-fueled reactors at the

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

4

deployment site, remote reactor operations with few or no on-si te reactor operators, autonomous reactor operation 3, and siting reactors in densely populated locations. The enclosure to this paper describes these aspects and the NRC staffs near-term strategies and next steps to address them.

Deployment models rely on the concept of a factory where module s would be fabricated, loaded with fuel, and potentially operated for testing. Based on early stakeholder feedback, the NRC staff assumes that a manufacturing license would be issued purs uant to Subpart F, Manufacturing Licenses, of 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifi cations, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, for the factory-fabricated modules due t o the desired high degree of standardization and plans for mass production. The manufacturin g license would approve the design of the factory-fabricated modules and manufacturing proc esses to be used at the factory.

Specifically, 10 CFR 52.157, Contents of applications; technic al information in final safety analysis report, requires a manufacturing license application to describe the applicants proposed means of assuring that the manufacturing conforms to t he design and to reach a final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design[. ] The manufacturing license would also authorize possession of the modules at the factory a nd include provisions for transferring the modules to licensees authorized to receive the m. Matters resolved in the manufacturing license proceeding would have finality in accorda nce with 10 CFR 52.171, Finality of manufacturing licenses; information requests. If the manufacturer also seeks licenses to operate the reactors at the factory (e.g., for test ing), then the design issues that must be resolved for operation at the factory would largely overlap with the design issues to be resolved in a manufacturing license. The manufacturing license would satisfy the statutory requirements in AEA Section 101, License Required, that a lic ense issued pursuant to AEA Section 103 is required to manufacture, transfer, or possess an y utilization facility.

Under the current regulatory framework, a facility operating li cense issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Faci lities, or a combined license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52 for a power reactor would be required to load fuel and perform operational testing. In these cases, construction of th e factory or at least the portions of the factory that are relied on to ensure the safety of fuel loa ding or operational testing of the modules as described in the Part 50 or 52 license application, would be considered construction activities requiring a license under the regulations in 10 CFR 50.10(a). This paper presents an option where fuel could be loaded into a module under a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, with out a 10 CFR Part 50 or 52 license. Under this option, the portions of the factory support ing fuel loading would be subject to requirements in 10 CFR Part 70.

Deployment models envision mass production of factory-fabricate d modules on the order of tens of modules per year or more. Under the current regulatory frame work, each module would need

3 As discussed in detail in the enclosure, the term autonomous operation lacks a consistent definition across the various domains and contexts in which it is used. For the purposes of this paper, autonomous systems are considered those able to perform their task and achieve their functions independently (of the human operator), perform well under significant uncertainties for extended periods of time with limited or nonexistent communication, with the ability to compensate for failures, all without external intervention." (M. R. Endsley, From here to autonomy: lessons learned from human-automation research, Human factors, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 5-27, 2017.)

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

5

to be covered by a facility operating license or combined licen se. The NRC staff previously assessed alternatives for the structure of the licenses that co uld be issued for multi-module facilities under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 in SECY-11-0079, Licen se Structure for Multi-module Facilities Related to Small Modular Nuclear Power Reactors, da ted June 12, 2011 (ML110620459). One alternative is to issue a single license for a facility consisting of one or more modular reactor units. This alternative may not be practic al for all modules to be manufactured, fueled, and operated for testing over the life of a factory because all the modules to be covered under a single license would have to be construct ed before issuance of the operating license or the authorization to operate under a combi ned license4. However, a single license may be useful for licensing fuel loading or operational testing of several modules that would be manufactured at about the same time. Another alternati ve assessed in SECY-11-0079 is to issue a separate license for each reactor module 5. The NRC staff also assessed a possible hybrid of the single facility license and individual module lic ense that would take the form of a master facility license and individual reactor module licenses. The NRC staff noted in SECY 0079 that, the NRC would need to develop processes and possibl y new regulations to define how the master facility license would fit within the existing t echnical and legal requirements.

Under these strategies an applicant could also combine licensin g requests for numerous modules in a single application, possibly to include modules in tended to be refurbished, refueled, and potentially retested at the factory. These strate gies are further discussed in the enclosure to this paper as they relate to licensing replacement reactors at deployment sites.

Legislative and Regulatory Considerations

The NRC staff assessed the current regulatory framework in 10 C FR Ch. I and the AEA. The options described in this paper are potential regulatory approa ches to fuel loading and operational testing of factory-fabricated modules that do not i nvolve rulemaking. The draft proposed rule package for 10 CFR Part 53 discusses and suggests requests for comments on fuel loading and operational testing and may result in rulemaki ng that provides longer-term ways to address these issues for micro-reactors and other reactor te chnologies. In this paper, the NRC staff is considering near-term non-rulemaking options that could be available ahead of finalization of rulemaking.

A fundamental subject of this paper is whether the Commissions historical position that considers fuel load as part of operation of the reactor is appl icable to factory-fabricated modules6. As an outgrowth from this position, each factory-fabricated m icro-reactor module that is fueled in the factory would be required to have a facility o perating license or a combined license, regardless of whether or not it is operated for testin g at the factory. This position also means that a factory-fabricated module would be considered to b e in operation when loaded with fuel. The NRCs current regulatory framework does not prov ide for authorizing

4 AEA Section 185a. requires a finding that the facility was constructed as required prior to issuing an operating license, and AEA Section 185b. requires a preoperational finding that the acceptance criteria in the combined license are met, where meeting the acceptance criteria shows that the facility was constructed as required.

5 These licenses might reference shared common elements (e.g., technical specifications), but such an approach could become complicated if there are design changes during manufacturing.

6 See Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants; Final Rule, 72 FR 49351 and 49390 (August 28, 2007) which stated, The NRC has historically viewed operation as including loading of fuel into the reactor.

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

6

transportation of utilization facilities that are in operation, meaning that a factory-fabricated module could not be transported to a deployment site when loade d with fuel at a factory. This paper includes an option under which a factory-fabricated modul e with features to preclude criticality would not be in operation when loaded with fuel.

This paper does not address physical security requirements for the factory, the deployment site, a decommissioning or refurbishment and refueling facility, or t ransportation. As mentioned above, in SECY-20-0093 the NRC staff identified security requir ements as a topic that should be addressed for micro-reactors. The NRC staff recognizes that deployment models for factory-fabricated micro-reactors raise additional potential security c onsiderations not discussed in SECY-20-0093, such as transportation security for fueled factor y-fabricated modules. The NRC staff has separate ongoing activities related to physical secur ity that would apply to micro-reactors, such as SECY-18-0076, Options for Physical Security for Light-Water Small Modular Reactors and Non-Light-Water Reactors, dated August 1, 2018 (M L18170A051), SECY 0072, and SECY-23-0021. Based on Commission direction on the op tions in this paper, other ongoing activities, and further stakeholder engagement, the NRC staff will consider whether additional Commission engagement is needed related to physical security requirements for factory-fabricated micro-reactor licensing and deployment.

Options for Features to Preclude Criticality, Fuel Loading at a Factory, and Operational Testing at a Factory

The NRC staff identified fuel loadi ng and operational testing at a factory as near-term policy issues because they are key front-end aspects of micro-reactor deployment models. As mentioned above, features to preclude criticality that would al low the NRC staff to consider a factory-fabricated module as not in operation when loaded wit h fuel are integral to the viability of several of the options presented in this paper. Stakeholders are engaged in pre-application discussions with the NRC staff on these issues and have request ed clarity on what options are available as they develop licensing documents over the next several years to support deployment before 2030. The NRC staff notes that the options fo r fuel loading and operational testing are not mutually exclusive, and the Commission could di rect the NRC staff to pursue more than one.

Topic 1: Features to Preclude Criticality

Features to preclude criticality would effectively prevent oper ation of a factory-fabricated module by rendering it incapable of sustaining a nuclear chain reactio n under any conditions, including single failures and common-cause failures. Such features could include, for example, bolts, locks, or welds to fix control elements in place; decoupling of control element drives; and additional fixed neutron absorbers. The installation and remova l of these features would entail significant modifications to the module. The features to preclu de criticality would be described in the design of the factory-fabricated module, which would be inc luded in an application for a manufacturing license, standard des ign certification, or other permit or license.

Option 1aStatus quo

Under this option, the NRC would apply the Commissions histori cal position that operation of a reactor includes the loading of fuel (regardless of whether fea tures to preclude criticality are

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

7

installed) and consider a factory-fabricated module to be in o peration when loaded with fuel.

This would require the fabricator to hold a facility operating license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 or a combined license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52 that authorizes operation in order to load fuel. Also, because the NRCs current regulatory framework does not provide for authorizing transportation of utilization facilities that are in operation, under this option a factory-fabricated module could not be transported when loaded with fuel.

Implementation

This option would not necessarily require staff action to imple ment. However, to implement the options below under which fuel would be loaded at a factory, th e NRC staff would need to develop alternative approaches to authorizing transportation of fueled modules, which might include rulemaking. The NRC staff did not consider rulemaking i n the development of this paper because this paper focuses on options that could be implemented in the near term (1-2 years) with fewer resources than those that would be required for rule making.

Advantages

This option would not require NRC staff resources to develop g uidance for features to preclude criticality.

This option would maintain a consistent approach to licensing of all new reactors where fuel load is considered part of operation.

Disadvantages

This option would present significant challenges to deployment models that include fuel loading in a factory because it would require compliance with t he regulations for an operating reactor during transportation of a fueled module from a factory to a deployment site. The regulations for operating reactors are based on opera tion at a fixed site and would not be practical to implement for modules that are considered t o be in operation during transport.

This option would require the fabricator to obtain a facility operating license or a combined license to load fuel into the reactor at the factory, even if t he reactor is not further operated at the factory. There is a high regulatory burden associated wi th such a licenses, which may not accord with the level of risk posed by fuel loading.

Option 1b A factory-fabricated module with features to preclud e criticality is not in operation when loaded with fuel

Under this option, a factory-fabricated module that included fe atures to preclude criticality would not be in operation when loaded with fuel. However, the facto ry-fabricated module would still be considered a utilization facility and require, at a minimum, a 10 CFR Part 52 Subpart F manufacturing license to satisfy the statutory requirement in A EA Section 101 that a license issued pursuant to AEA Section 103 is required to manufacture o r possess any commercial utilization facility.

The Commission has historically v iewed operation as including l oading of fuel into the reactor. It

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

8

took this view for reasons of safety based on recognition that loading fuel into and initial testing of a reactor involves a nuclear risk which would not otherwise be present7. In 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) proposed a new regulation in 10 CFR 50. 35, Issuance of construction permits, to authorize the initial loading of nucl ear fuel in the reactor core, without attainment of a critical reaction, under a construction permit 8. The AEC cited the minimal hazards associated with the loading of unexposed (unirradiated) fuel to justify the proposal. The final rule issued in 1971 did not include the authority to load fuel under the construction permit because the comments received and further study by the Commissi on indicated that it would have little effect in reducing the time required for the comple tion of the licensing process and might result in complications with respect to AEC licensing pro cedures9.

Features to preclude criticality would ensure that a factory-fa bricated module would not attain criticality and that the potential hazard associated with loadi ng fuel would be even less than the minimal hazards for fuel loading of reactors without such fea tures that were previously considered by the AEC as a potential justification for authoriz ing fuel loading without an operating license. Further, with features to preclude criticali ty, the presence of fuel in the module would not create a nuclear hazard different than the presence o f the same fuel in a storage location or container licensed under 10 CFR Part 70therefore, licensing fuel load at the factory under 10 CFR Part 70 would adequately protect safety, a s discussed below in the options for loading fuel at a factory. The NRC staff also notes that in contrast to the AECs reasons for ultimately not authorizing fuel load under a constr uction permit, loading fuel in a factory without an operating license or combined license could improve regulatory efficiency of licensing and deployment of factory-fabricated micro-reactors w ithout a reduction in safety. In addition, the ability to transport factory-fabricated modules a fter fuel loading and operational testing at a factory could have overall safety benefits for fac tory-fabricated micro-reactor deployment. These might include handling fuel in the controlled environment of the factory as opposed to the various deployment sites and the ability to iden tify and correct defects or operational issues at the factory to avoid having to transport modules back and forth between the deployment site and the factory.

The NRC staff also considered potential complications with the current licensing procedures and regulations. Certain regulations in 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 use initial fuel load as a regulatory milestone. There are potential complications caused by a factor y-fabricated module arriving at the deployment site already loaded with fuel. However, these po tential complications would exist whether fuel loading at the factory is licensed under 10 CFR Part 70 or licensed under 10 CFR Parts 50 or 52. Also, as discussed in the enclosure to this paper, the NRC staff has strategies for addressing these complications.

When features to preclude criticality are present, the NRC staf f is considering whether it would be appropriate that operation would begin with the removal of t hose features. Removing criticality preclusion features may be the best analogue to ini tial loading of fuel for reactors

7 AEC-R 2/15, Proposed Revision of 10 CFR, Part 50, Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities (ML21237A274), July 15, 1960. In this paper the AEC staff explained why it did not agree with a comment on the proposed rule suggesting that fuel loading and initial operational testing be authorized under a construction permitthe commenters suggesti on was not adopted by the Commission.

8 See the proposed rule at 35 FR 16687, October 28, 1970.

9 See the final rule at 36 FR 8861, May 14, 1971.

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

9

without such features because both are distinct actions that pu t a fully constructed utilization facility in a position to sustain a nuclear chain reaction, and in both cases, the utilization facility cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction (for lack of sufficient reactivity) until the action takes place.

Several of the options below for fuel loading at a factory and operational testing at a factory are predicated on the inclusion of features to preclude criticality. Under one option, the holder of a manufacturing license could load fuel in a module that included features to preclude criticality under a 10 CFR Part 70 license without obtaining a 10 CFR Part 50 operating license or a 10 CFR Part 52 combined license. Under options for operational tes ting at a factory, the installation of features to preclude criticality would take the module out o f operation and allow for transportation of the fueled module.

Features to preclude criticality would allow for transportation of a fueled module under the current regulations because the module would not be in operati on during transport. The module could be covered by provisions in the manufacturing lice nse that allow for transfer to a licensee authorized to acquire the module, while the radioactiv e material in the module would be controlled by materials licenses and the existing transportatio n regulations in 10 CFR Part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material. The enc losure to this paper describes the NRC staffs near-term strategy for reviewing packages for t he transport of factory-fabricated modules that are loaded with fuel under 10 CFR Part 71. In acco rdance with the NRC and the Department of Transportation regulations, the package contents would be under the responsibility of the shipper (factory licensee) until receipt by the deployment site licensee.

The draft proposed 10 CFR Part 53 rulemaking package discusses and requests comments on an alternative theory for dispensing with an operating license or combined license for factory fuel loading under which the module would not be considered a u tilization facility. The NRC staff is not pursuing this alternative in this paper under the curren t regulatory framework.

Implementation

The NRC staff would implement this option using the existing re gulations for utilization facilities by developing guidance for including features to preclude criti cality in factory-fabricated modules. Some exemptions may be required to implement this approach. For example, there are regulations that use initial fuel load or other activitie s or events as the milestones by which certain operational programs must be implemented or reports sub mitted. Exemptions or other appropriate regulatory vehicles may be needed to substitute oth er activities or events, such as the removal of features to preclude criticality, for the curren t milestones in the regulations.

Advantages

This option would allow for novel approaches for licensing fue l loading in a factory-fabricated module without requiring a facility operating license or combin ed license and for regulating the safe transport of fueled modules without a rulemaking to es tablish requirements for transportation of utilization facilities that are in operation.

This option would provide a predictable regulatory framework f or fuel loading and transport of fueled factory-fabricated modules that could be available fo r use by developers in the near-term.

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

10

Disadvantages

The NRC staff would need to develop technology-inclusive guida nce on the use of features to preclude criticality for fuel loading in the factory and tra nsportation of fueled modules.

Topic 2: Fuel Loading at a Factory

Some factory-fabricated micro-reactor developers have indicated that fuel loading at the factory and transportation of fueled modules to the deployment sites ma y be essential for their deployment models. Depending on the reactor design, fuel loadin g and any subsequent fabrication steps, such as closing the reactor vessel, may requ ire expertise and specialized equipment that would be inefficient or impractical to make avai lable at each deployment site.

Option 2aAuthorize only fuel loading at the factory under a po wer reactor license

This option would be consistent with the Commissions historica l position that operation of a reactor includes the loading of fuel. Under the current regulat ory framework and this historical position, each factory-fabricated module that would be loaded w ith fuel at the factory would be required to have a facility operating license or combined licen se issued pursuant to Section 103 of the AEA before loading fuel. A manufacturing license would a llow the manufacture of unfueled reactors, but it would not authorize fuel load or any other aspect of operation or the possession of special nuclear material.

Option 2a would designate each factory-fabricated module and po tentially certain portions of the factory as a utilization facility and require the fabricator to obtain a facility operating license or a combined license for a nuclear power reactor and to have approp riate licensed personnel to load fuel. To issue a combined license under 10 CFR Part 52, th e NRC staff would need to prepare a safety evaluation report and an environmental impact statement (EIS), the ACRS would have to review the application, and the mandatory hearing and any contested hearing would need to be held. For each of these steps, the NRC could c onsider all contemplated combined licenses together in one application. Comparable activ ities are required for the issuance of a facility construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50, which could cover multiple reactors.

For a 10 CFR Part 52 combined license, the AEA requires that th e NRC find that the acceptance criteria in the inspections, tests, analysis, and ac ceptance criteria (ITAAC) for that reactor are met before the reactor may begin operation. The NRC must also provide an opportunity for hearing on conformance with the acceptance crit eria at least 180 days before scheduled initial fuel load. Because modules may be fabricated in much less than 180 days, this hearing opportunity may be noticed prior to beginning the fabri cation of the subject module. To issue a 10 CFR Part 50 operating license under the current regu latory framework, the NRC staff would need to prepare a safety evaluation report and a suppleme ntal EIS, the ACRS would have to review the application, and any contested hearing would need to be held. As described in the enclosure to this paper, the timeframe to complete a con tested hearing and environmental review for issuance of a 10 CFR Part 50 operating license could be 24 months or less, but these actions could be initiated upon submission of each operating li cense application well in advance

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

11

of beginning construction of each module. To some degree, these activities could be consolidated for several or all modules contemplated by the fab ricator using the multi-module licensing strategies in SECY-11-0079 previously described in th is paper.

Whether licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 or 52, the licensee would need to implement operational programs for matters such as security, emergency pr eparedness, fitness for duty, and operator training and qualification. As described in SECY-2 0-0093, the Commission could use regulatory vehicles including exemptions, hearing orders, o r rules of particular applicability to scale the amount of information to be submitted in a license application and adjust the NRC staff review accordingly to issue a license that authorizes fue l load but not additional operation.

For example, for a factory-fabricated module that is not author ized to undertake operational activities beyond fuel loading, it may not be necessary for the licensee to implement certain operational programs and technical specifications. However, the AEA mandates certain requirements such as hearings, ITAAC, and review by the ACRS ev en for a factory-fabricated module that is only authorized to load fuel.

Implementation

The NRC staff could appropriately scale reviews and develop pro cesses for efficient reviews of applications for licenses that would only authorize fuel load a nd not additional operation of factory-fabricated modules. The specific reviews supporting fac tory-fabricated modules could take advantage of other actions on the subject design such as a related manufacturing license and, where applicable, other certifications and approvals. Impl ementation of this approach may include additional Commission engagement, particularly if heari ng orders or rules of particular applicability are used.

Advantages

This option relies on established processes for the licensing of nuclear reactors and could largely use existing guidance on appropriately scaling reviews to address the specific risks associated with loading fuel at the factory.

The existing requirements in 10 CFR Part 70 and associated gui dance could be used to facilitate the licensing of fuel loading under this approach.

Disadvantages

There could be a high regulatory burden associated with requir ing the reactor manufacturer to obtain a facility operating license or a combined license fo r the sole purpose of fuel load in light of the minimal risk posed by that activity alone.

Manufacturers will likely seek to accelerate the timeframes fo r authorization to load fuel under a 10 CFR Part 52 combined license by submitting the notif ications and schedules related to ITAAC completion required by 10 CFR 52.99, Inspecti on during construction; ITAAC schedules and notifications; NRC notices, as early as po ssible for each factory-fabricated module. This could result in noticing intended opera tion and the related hearing opportunity prior to the start of fabrication of a module. Simi larly, a manufacturer might submit a 10 CFR Part 50 operating license application and the N RC issue the related notice of opportunity for hearing before beginning construction of a m odule.

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

12

Option 2bAuthorize only fuel loading at the factory under a Pa rt 70 license

This option would provide an approach for loading fuel at the f actory without requiring a facility operating license under 10 CFR Part 50 or a combined license un der 10 CFR Part 52 for a factory-fabricated module. Instead, a manufacturing license wou ld authorize possession of the module and loading fuel would be authorized and conducted solel y under a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70 for possession of special nuclear ma terial. This option relies on the use of features to preclude criticality so a factory-fabricated module would not be in operation when loaded with fuel and would not require a facility operatin g license or combined license to load fuel.

Under this option, a manufacturer could combine an application for a 10 CFR Part 70 license with an application for a 10 CFR Part 52 manufacturing license consistent with 10 CFR 52.8, Combining licenses; elimination of repetition. Guidance on th e contents of a 10 CFR Part 70 license application is available in a draft standard review pla n, Standard Review Plan for Applications for 10 CFR Part 70 Licenses for Possession and Use of Special Nuclear Materials of Critical Mass but Not Subject to the Requirements in 10 CFR Part 70, Subpart H - Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-2212) (ML22335A087), that the NRC st aff currently plans to issue as final in the summer of 2024 10. The application would include the information required by 10 CFR 70. 22, Contents of applications, including the tec hnical qualifications of the manufacturer to engage in fuel loading activities in accordance with applicable regulations and a description of the equipment and facilities and the proposed pr ocedures which will be used to protect health and minimize danger to life or property.

The 10 CFR Part 70 license (or 10 CFR Part 70 conditions includ ed in the manufacturing license) would specify the quantity and form of special nuclear material allowed to be possessed and include the appropriate conditions in 10 CFR 70.32, Condit ions of licenses. The manufacturing license would include the final design informatio n for the factory-fabricated module and the features to preclude criticality. Whereas a manu facturing license focuses on the reactor design and manufacturing process and has not traditiona lly been thought to include conditions related to radiological safety at the manufacturing facility itself, the Part 70 license would place requirements on areas, structures, and equipment wi thin the manufacturing facility where the fuel is handled and stored. Therefore, the applicant for or holder of the manufacturing license may benefit from approval of the Part 70 license prior to building the manufacturing facility.

The regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Re gulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, require the NRC to perform environmental reviews in connection with issuance of the 10 CFR Part 70 licen se and the 10 CFR Part 52 manufacturing license. The environmental review for the 10 CFR Part 70 license could require

10 Loading fuel into a micro-reactor under this option is not encompassed by the enumerated activities in 10 CFR 70.60, Applicability, that are subject to 10 CFR 70 Subpart H, Additional Requirements for Certain Licensees Authorized To Possess a Critical Mass of Special Nuclear Material, and is not an activity meeting the 10 CFR 70.60 criterion could significantly affect public health and safety because it lacks the significant hazards associated with the enrichment, conversion, and fabrication activities that are subject to the requirements of Subpart H, provided that measures to preclude criticality as described in Option 1b approach are correctly implemented.

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

13

an EIS, an environmental assessment, or it could qualify for a categorical exclusion, depending on the activities to be authorized, and the NRC staff would det ermine the appropriate environmental review on a case-by-case basis. The NRC staff wou ld perform an environmental assessment in accordance with 10 CFR 51.30(e) in connection wit h the manufacturing license.

This environmental assessment woul d be limited to the considera tion of the costs and benefits of severe accident mitigation des ign alternatives and the bases for not incorporating severe accident mitigation design alter natives in the design. Additional environmental reviews would be performed for each deployment site consistent with the regulati ons for issuance of permits and licenses under 10 CFR Parts 50 or 52.

Under this option, there may be a potential regulatory gap in f inancial protection requirements.

The regulations in 10 CFR 140.11, Amounts of financial protect ion for certain reactors, and 10 CFR 140.12, Amount of financial protection required for other reactors, address financial protection for reactors in operation. As such, these requiremen ts would not be applicable to factory-fabricated modules that included features to preclude c riticality that would only be loaded with fuel and not operated at a manufacturing facility. In addition, holders of construction permits prior to issuance of an operating license and holders o f combined licenses prior to the Commissions 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding who also hold a license u nder 10 CFR Part 70 authorizing ownership, possession and storage only of special n uclear material must have and maintain financial protection in the amount of $1,000,000. Addi tional financial protection requirements are provided in 10 CFR 140.13a, Amount of financi al protection required of certain holders of construction permits and combined licenses u nder 10 CFR part 52, and 10 CFR 140.13b, Amount of financial protection required for pluto nium processing and fuel fabrication plants, for 10 CFR Part 70 licensees; however thes e requirements are limited to licensees authorized to possess and use plutonium at a plutoniu m processing and fuel fabrication plant or licensees for enrichment facilities. There are no financial protection regulations explicitly addressing fuel loading under a manufact uring license and 10 CFR Part 70 license. The NRC staff would cons ider the use of license conditions or another appropriate regulatory vehicle to ensure financial protection during the pe riod before issuance of the operating license or before the Commission makes the finding un der 10 CFR 52.103(g).

Implementation

If the Commission directs the NRC staff to pursue this option, the NRC staff would develop guidance for an application for a 10 CFR Part 70 license in con junction with a manufacturing license to authorize fuel loading at the factory. The NRC staff would also consider developing guidance or pursuing other means for ensuring adequate financia l protection and establishing indemnity agreements, as appropriate.

Advantages

The requirements for 10 CFR Part 70 licenses may better match the technical and safety aspects of activities involving the possession only of special nuclear material than the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 that apply to an operati ng utilization facility.

The NRC staff could implement this option in the timeframes be ing considered by micro-reactor developers for deployment of factory-fabricated modules.

Compared to Option 2a, this approach could reduce the number o f administrative requirements and legal proceedings for individual modules, whic h would likely improve the

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

14

efficiency and timeliness of licensing and deployment.

Disadvantages

The NRC staff has not used 10 CFR Part 70 licensing in conjunc tion with a manufacturing license for this purpose and the staff would need to develop re lated guidance, including on features to preclude criticality that would be specified in the manufacturing license and provide criticality prevention required by the 10 CFR Part 70 l icense.

Under this option, the NRC staff may have to develop guidance or pursue other regulatory vehicles to ensure licensees establish and maintain adequate fi nancial protection and indemnity agreements.

Topic 3: Operational Testing at a Factory

Some factory-fabricated micro-reactor deployment models include operational testing of factory-fabricated modules at the factory prior to delivery to the depl oyment site. In one scenario, the factory-fabricated module would be operated at low power levels for the purpose of physics testing. In another scenario, which would more likely apply to self-contained designs, the factory-fabricated module would be operated at full power in or der to verify that all systems function as designed.

Operational testing at a factory would require the fabricator t o obtain a facility operating license or combined license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 or Part 5 2, respectively, and comply with all relevant regulatory requirements for each factory-fabr icated module and any other structures or systems that would be necessary to construct at t he factory to conduct operational testing (e.g., cooling systems, shielding, and ventilation). Af ter completion of operational testing, the licensee would install features to preclude criticality to take the reactor out of operation in addition to ensuring all other necessary measures are taken to protect personnel and maintain the module in a safe condition prior to shipment. The factory-f abricated module would be covered under the manufacturing license holders Part 30 and Pa rt 70 licenses authorizing the possession of the byproduct and special nuclear material contai ned in the module. The manufacturing license would also continue to authorize possessi on of the factory-fabricated module until its receipt by a licensee authorized to acquire it at the deployment site under a separate Part 50 or 52 license.

The options below would cover both fuel loading and operational testing at the factory.

Option 3aAuthorize operation for testing under a power reactor license

Under this option, the fabricator would need a power reactor fa cility operating license or combined license to operate each factory-fabricated module as a commercial micro-reactor for operational testing at the factory. The regulatory processes fo r obtaining the necessary permits and licenses would be the same as those described in Option 2a, above, including the use of the multi-module licensing approaches in SECY-11-0079. The fabr icator could submit a single application that included the application for the manufacturing license and applications for combined licenses for operational testing of each factory-fabri cated module intended to be tested over the life of the factory. Also, the ITAAC closure an d hearing processes for each module could potentially be coordinated for both the factory an d deployment site if the

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

15

deployment site is known at the time of licensing for operation al testing at the factory. The NRC staffs review of applications for permits and licenses for ope rational testing would rely on the prior approval of the reactor design in the manufacturing licen se (and any other prior approvals).

In order to perform operational testing, the factory site licen see would need to establish adequate operational programs for matters such as security, eme rgency preparedness, fitness for duty, radiation protection, and operator training and quali fication. As stated in SECY 0093, micro-reactors differ significantly from large light-wate r reactors and operational requirements in the regulations that were developed with large light-water reactor facilities in mind may be more extensive than micro-reactors require to opera te safely. SECY-20-0093 also states that, [p]rovided a micro-reactor applicant can demonstr ate the safety and security of its design and show the facility represents a low risk, the [NRC] s taff recognizes that different licensing and regulatory approaches are appropriate for such fa cilities. Operational testing at a factory would generally further reduce the risk associated with operation of a micro-reactor by imposing limitations on the maximum power level or cumulative o perating time or both through license conditions. Such limitations would result in a lower ra dionuclide inventory and correspondingly reduce the potential radiological hazards to th e public in the unlikely event of an accident to a very small fraction of those considered for exten ded operation of large light-water reactors. Also, limitations on the power level and duration of operation could, for example simplify operational programs for radiation protection during a nd after operation due to smaller amounts of radioactive effluents and lower radiation fields. Fo r these reasons and others, compliance with all requirements (e.g., those related to operat ional programs) in 10 CFR Part 50 or Part 52 might not be commensurate with the expected lower risk associated with operational testing at the factory. Depending on the specifics of the operational testing program, it may be possible to use existing guidance and appropriate reg ulatory vehicles to scale the NRC staff review necessary to iss ue a license that authorizes operational testing. However, certain requirements such as hearings, ITAAC, and ACRS review a re mandated by the AEA. In addition, if operational programs were scaled for testing at a factory, those programs would likely not be adequate for full power extended operation at dep loyment sites and would have to be reviewed as part of the application for the facility operati ng license or combined license at the deployment site.

Implementation

The NRC staff would implement this option by applying the curre nt regulations for power reactor licensing and the guidance for appropriately scaling reviews of applications for licenses that would authorize operational testing of micro-reactors at a fact ory. The NRC staff would consider whether license conditions, exemptions, hearing orders, rules o f particular applicability, or other regulatory vehicles would also be appropriate to use for scalin g reviews.

Advantages

This option relies on established processes for the licensing of nuclear reactors and could use existing guidance on appropriately scaling reviews to addre ss the specific risks associated with operational testing at the factory. Where the f abricator has a final design already approved by the NRC with maximum standardization (such as in a manufacturing license), the scope of review for licensing operational testing could be focused on operational programs.

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

16

This option could facilitate combining applications for a manu facturing license, licenses for operational testing of modules at a factory, and possibly combi ned licenses at the deployment site. This could enhanc e efficiency of the NRC staff reviews of the applications and other related regulatory processes, such as hearings.

Disadvantages

There is a high regulatory burden on the manufacturer and NRC staff associated with requiring a power reactor facility operating license or a combi ned license for the sole purpose of operational testing in light of the expected short d uration and low risk posed by that activity.

The staff would need to appropriately scale power reactor requ irements for the review of a factory-fabricated module that would be licensed only for opera tional testing. Although relevant guidance exists, this c ould require substantial NRC staff resources compared to Option 3b, below, that would apply the non-power reactor regula tions to operational testing at the factory. In addition, operational programs that were sca led for testing at a factory would likely not support licensing at the deployment site.

Option 3bApply the regulations for non-power reactors to autho rize fuel loading and operational testing at a factory

This option would provide a second regulatory pathway for appli cants under Part 50 that would apply the regulations for non-power reactors to licensing of fu el loading and operational testing at a factory. Under this option, the factory-fabricated modules would be manufactured in accordance with a manufacturing license issued pursuant to 10 C FR Part 52 that includes an approved nuclear power reactor design. The alternatives in SECY 0079 for licensing multi-module sites under 10 CFR Part 50 would be the same as for the Part 50 licensing approaches under Options 2a and 3a. However, instead of applying the regul ations for power reactors, the NRC staff would apply the regulations for non-power reactors to the review of the construction permit application and operating license application(s). In con trast to the regulations for nuclear power reactors which were developed largely for large light-wat er reactors, the regulations for non-power reactors are generally performance-based and include far fewer and less prescriptive requirements. The NRC staff notes that this option and Option 3a are not mutually exclusive. If the Commission dire cts the NRC staff to pursue both options, it would be up to the manufacturer to decide if the approach described in this option would be advantageous for their deployment model.

The operational characteristics of and safety considerations fo r commercial micro-reactors operated at the factory only for testing would be similar to mo st currently licensed non-power reactors. The NRC staff expects that operational testing could be done in a few days of operation or less at power levels between a few kilowatts to se veral tens of megawatts.

Operational testing at a factory should have low potential radi ological consequences because the radionuclide inventories generated during operational testi ng would be comparable to those for existing non-power reactors and a fraction of a percent of those generated by extended operation of large light-water reactors. Similar to currently l icensed non-power reactors, the commercial micro-reactors operated for testing in a factory und er this option may also have fewer and simpler systems and operating procedures, require les s cooling during and after

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

17

operation, rely less on active safety features, and generate ve ry small amounts of radioactive effluents compared to large light-water reactors. The non-power reactor regulations have been applied to dozens of facilities with a wide range of operationa l and safety characteristics that encompass those expected for operational testing of micro-react ors. For these reasons, the non-power reactor regulations would be a better fit than the po wer reactor regulations for making the required findings and reasonable assurance determina tions for issuing permits and licenses for operational testing of commercial micro-reactors a t a factory.

However, the current definition of non-power reactor in 10 CF R 50.2 is for research and test reactor[s] for research and development. In SECY-19-0062, F inal Rule: Non-power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal (ML18031A00 0), the NRC staff recommended a revised definition of non-power reactor that incl udes a commercial or industrial reactor licensed under 10 CFR 50.22, Class 103 licenses; for c ommercial and industrial facilities, as a distinct category of non-power reactors. The NRC staff recommended this change in definition to account for commercial facilities that would be operated for commercial or industrial purposes, such as commercial medical isotope prod uction or industrial radiography (or in the case of this paper, operational testing), and not th e production of electrical or thermal energy for use. The NRC staff also recommended conforming chang es to other regulations in 10 CFR Ch. I that currently refer to non-power reactors, resear ch and test reactors, or facilities licensed under 10 CFR 50.22 that are not nuclear power reactors to cover commercial and industrial non-power reactors. These proposed conforming change s recognize that commercial or industrial non-power reactors would have risk profiles and o perational characteristics similar to non-power reactors currently licensed as research and develo pment facilities. If the NRC staff identifies any gaps in the non-power reactor regulations when a pplying them to licensing operational testing of commercial micro-reactors at a factory, the NRC staff would consider the recommended rule changes in SECY-19-0062 (if the draft final ru le remains under Commission consideration at that time) and use an appropriate regulatory v ehicle to address the gaps.

Under option 3b, the applicant would prepare its construction p ermit and operating license applications and the NRC staff would conduct its reviews primar ily using the guidance in NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Application s for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, dated February 1996 (ML042430055 and ML0424300 48). Commercial and industrial non-power reactors considered in SECY-19-0062 and th e commercial micro-reactors operated for testing under this option would generally be adequ ately covered by the existing non-power reactor licensing guidance in NUREG-1537. The NRC sta ff would rely on the approval of the design in the manufacturing license in its safe ty evaluations related to operational testing. The NRC staff w ould focus its reviews on operational programs and any unique considerations for non-power reactors not covered in the approval of the design in the manufacturing license. The regulations and guidance for operati onal programs for non-power reactors provide for applicants and licensees to appropriately scale operational programs to account for a wide variety of designs and operational character istics. Under this option, the applicant should also describe the number of commercial reactor s proposed to be constructed at the factory, the number to be operated simultaneously, and t he total number of fueled reactors proposed to be located at the site at one time. The NR C staff would need this information to appropriately consider the cumulative risk assoc iated with the licensed activities at the factory in its safety evaluation supporting issuance of the construction permit and operating licenses. This information would also be necessary fo r the NRC staff to make other

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

18

determinations, such as the appropriate environmental review an d the amount of financial protection required by 10 CFR 140.11 and 10 CFR 140.12.

Option 3b would require the Commission to agree as a matter of policy that a factory-fabricated module could be licensed for operational testing at the factory by applying the regulations for non-power reactors even though the module would have been manuf actured and constructed as a power reactor at the factory and would ultimately be opera ted as a power reactor at a deployment site. The NRC staffs practice has been to apply pow er reactor regulations throughout the lifecycle of a power reactor and this option wou ld be a departure from that practice. This option would also require the fabricator to seek an exemption from compliance with the regulations for power reactors in the license applicat ion for operational testing. In addition, licensing operational testing at a factory by applyin g the non-power reactor regulations would limit the ability to combine licensing proceedings at the factory with licensing proceedings at deployment sites because different regulatory requirements w ould apply to each proceeding.

The NRCs regulations for power reactors appear in different pa rts of 10 CFR, Ch. I, and the applicant would need to address the pertinent exemption criteri a for the regulations in each part.

For example, exemptions from regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 must satisfy 10 CFR 50.12, Specific exemptions, which requires that exemptions be author ized by law, not present an undue risk to the public health and safety and be consistent wi th the common defense and security. The NRC staff notes that such an exemption is consist ent with AEA Section 103, which provides for licensing commercial utilization facilities whethe r or not they are power reactors.

Further, as discussed above, the fabricator would likely be abl e to show that appropriate application of the non-power reactor regulations to operational testing at the factory would provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public h ealth and safety and the common defense and security. This is based on the NRC staffs e xpectation that the operational and safety characteristics of factory-fabricated modules when o perated for testing at a factory will be similar to those of non-power reactors currently licens ed for operation.

The regulations in 10 CFR 50.12 also specify that the Commissio n will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. For operati onal testing of factory-fabricated modules, the applicant may be able to show that spec ial circumstances are present such as those described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) which state, [a]pplication of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying pur pose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. As di scussed in this option, application of the 10 CFR Part 50 power reactor regulations may not be necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of those rules if the applicant can demo nstrate that the non-power reactor regulations are adequate to accomplish those purposes. In any case, the fabricator would be responsible for demonstrating that special circumstanc es exist, as specified in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), in its justification for a request for an exemptio n from the power reactor regulations.

An EIS or a supplement to an EIS is required by 10 CFR 51.20(b) for construction permit and full power operating license applications for power reactors an d testing facilities, but an EIS is not automatically required for a construction permit or operati ng license application for non-power reactors other than testing facilities. An exemption from the EIS requirements for power reactors in 10 CFR Part 51 might be appropriate for application s to operate factory-fabricated modules only for testing. Any suc h exemptions must satisfy 10 CFR 51.6, Specific exemptions.

Because EISs are required for testing facilities, the NRC staff would, in deciding whether to

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

19

grant such exemptions, consider whether the technical character istics of the factory-fabricated module when operated for testing at a factory might otherwise f all within the definition of "testing facility" in 10 CFR 50.2, as well as the number of modules to b e constructed and operated at the factory and the proposed scope of operational testing. If the N RC staff determines that an exemption from the requirements for an EIS is warranted, the st aff would prepare an environmental assessment. If the staff makes a finding of no si gnificant impact after preparing the environmental assessment, then an EIS would not be required.

Implementation

If the Commission directs the NRC staff to pursue this option, the NRC staff would implement it through the current regulatory framework for licensing non-powe r reactors and use license conditions, exemptions, hearing orders, rules of particular app licability, or other regulatory vehicles, as appropriate. The NRC staff would also consider dev eloping additional guidance, as necessary, related to applying non-power reactor regulations to the preparation and review of construction permit and operating license applications for oper ational testing of factory-fabricated modules at a factory, including those that reference a power reactor design approved in a manufacturing license.

Advantages

This option would eliminate the need to tailor the power react or regulations on a case-by-case basis for authorizing operational testing at a factory bec ause the regulations for non-power reactors are well established and are generally adequate for authorizing operational testing of factory-fabricated modules.

Compared to Option 3a, the operational programs required for o perational testing under this option could be more commensurate with the risks associated wit h the limited scope and duration of operational testing envisioned by factory-fabricate d micro-reactor developers and reduce the associated regulatory burden while maintaining adequ ate protection of public health and safety and the common defense and security.

The environmental review would also be simplified compared to Option 3a if licensing of the factory-fabricated module for operational testing at a factory could be appropriately covered by an environmental assessment rather than an EIS.

Disadvantages

It may not be possible to combine the proceedings for issuing the facility operating licenses at the factory with the proceedings associated with power react or licenses at the deployment sites (as would be the case under Option 3a) because the regula tions for non-power reactors would be applied at the factory and the regulations fo r power reactors would be applied at the deployment site.

Enclosure:

Technical, Licensing, and Policy Considerations for Factory-Fabricated Micro-Reactors

Preliminary White Paper - Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations: Fuel Loading and Operational Testing at a Factory (August 2023)

ML23236A598

Text

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

Navigation menu

Search