POLICY ISSUE

(INFORMATION) 

August 12, 2011 SECY-11-0112

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: Michael R. Johnson, Director /RA/ 

Office of New Reactors 

SUBJECT: STAFF ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED SMALL MODULAR REACTOR 

ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN SECY-10-0034 

PURPOSE: 

This paper informs the Commission of the results of the staff’s assessment of several potential 

licensing issues and key technical issues for small modular reactors (SMRs) that were identified 

in SECY-10-0034, “Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small Modular 

Nuclear Reactor Designs,” dated March 28, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML093290268). The assessments in this paper 

apply to integral pressurized-water reactors (iPWRs) and nonlight water SMRs, including the 

Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). This paper does not address any new commitments or 

resource implications. 

BACKGROUND: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff developed SECY-10-0034 after early 

interactions with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), SMR designers, preapplicants, 

representatives of the nuclear industry, and other stakeholders to describe potential issues 

resulting from the early review of SMRs.1

 The NRC staff identified topics in categories such as 

CONTACTS: Thomas Boyle, NRO/ARP 

 (301) 415-7673 

Arlon Costa, NRO/ARP 

 (301) 415-6402 

 

1

 See Attachment 1 to Enclosure 1 of SECY-10-0034 for a description of these SMRs. 
The Commission 2 

 

licensing process issues, design issues, operational issues, and financial issues. The NRC staff 

identified matters that had either previously been identified as, or had the potential of being, 

policy issues, which would warrant Commission attention, and potential licensing and key 

technical matters that might develop into policy issues depending on the actual designs, 

associated business plans, and possible licensing options pursued by SMR designers or 

potential applicants. The NRC staff did not intend to designate all of the potential issues listed 

in SECY-10-0034 as policy issues requiring Commission attention. 

The NRC staff has developed and implemented issue resolution plans for each issue discussed 

in SECY-10-0034 taking into account factors such as the following: 

• whether the item was a potential policy, licensing, or key technical issue 

• whether the resolution of the issue is critical to the development of iPWR designs or the 

NGNP 

• the number of affected technology groups and design centers 

• the potential effect on design decisions 

• the potential need for legislation, rulemaking, or policy changes 

• the potential need for confirmatory research 

• the participation and cooperation of applicants, other Government agencies, professional 

societies, and other stakeholders 

• the potential effect on the schedule for prototype plants or commercial deployment 

• the dependency of the issue on other policy, licensing, or technical issues 

The NRC staff stated that it would refine the resolution plans for each issue as it received 

additional information from DOE, preapplicants, or other sources in fiscal years (FYs) 2010 and 

2011. As discussed in SECY-10-0034, the NRC staff uses the Office of New Reactors (NRO) 

quarterly status reports to update the Commission on its activities and progress on resolving the 

policy issues. The NRC staff submitted the latest status report, “Quarterly Report on the Status 

of New Reactor Licensing Activities – April 1 – June 30, 2011,” on July 19, 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML111940602). In addition, the staff has addressed activities related to several 

issues not discussed in this paper, but discussed in SECY-10-0034, in separate 

communications such as SECY-11-0024, “Use of Risk Insights to Enhance the Safety Focus of 

Small Modular Reactor Reviews,” dated February 18, 2011 (ADAMS Accession Nos. 

ML110110691 and ML110110701) and SECY-11-0079, “License Structure for Multi Module 

Facilities Related to Small Modular Nuclear Power Reactors,” dated June 12, 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML110620459). 
The Commissioners 3 

DISCUSSION: 

As a result of the NRC staff’s development and implementation of resolution plans and 

discussions with representatives of the nuclear industry and other stakeholders, the NRC staff 

has concluded that certain issues documented in SECY-10-0034 are not expected to require 

rulemaking or changes to existing Commission policies for SMRs planned for near-term 

deployment. Specifically, the NRC staff has reached this conclusion for issues related to 

licensing of prototype reactors, operation programs for small or multimodule facilities, 

installation of reactor modules during operation for multimodule facilities, industrial facilities 

using nuclear-generated process heat, and aircraft impact assessments for small modular 

reactors. Enclosures 1-5 to this paper elaborate the basis for the staff’s current assessment 

and conclusion. 

In general, the NRC staff’s current assessment is that these issues do not warrant Commission 

attention in the foreseeable future because they can be addressed within the existing regulatory 

policy and framework, or they do not apply to SMRs planned for near-term deployment (in 

accordance with stated business plans). Some of the issues identified in SECY-10-0034 may 

be policy issues for advanced nonlight-water reactors that may be deployed at a later time, but 

the NRC staff must receive and evaluate more detailed design information not currently 

available before moving forward to propose their resolution. The NRC staff will continue to 

pursue these matters within its licensing-related interactions with stakeholders. The NRC staff 

will notify the Commission if policy issues emerge after SMR designs and industry positions on 

these matters are further developed, issues are better defined, or nuclear industry 

representatives express an interest to engage in detailed discussions of these matters. 

The NRC staff has recently identified specific potential policy issues for the iPWRs associated 

with decommissioning funding, insurance and liability, and manufacturing licenses. These 

potential policy issues will be further developed, or a basis for their exclusion identified and 

reported to the Commission in subsequent papers. The staff will determine whether these 

potential issues require rulemaking or changers to existing Commission policy and notify the 

Commission of the staff’s determination, and the basis for that determination, in a future paper. 
The Commission 4 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. 

 

 /RA/ 

Michael R. Johnson, Director 

Office of New Reactors 

Enclosures: 

1. License for Prototype Reactors 

2. Operational Programs for Small or 

Multi Module Facilities 

3. Installation of Reactor Modules During 

Operation for Multi Module Facilities 

4. Industrial Facilities Using Nuclear-Generated 

Process Heat 

5. Aircraft Impact Assessments for Small 

Modular Reactors 
The Commission 4 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. 

 /RA/ 

Michael R. Johnson, Director 

Office of New Reactors 

Enclosures: 

1. License for Prototype Reactors 

2. Operational Programs for Small or 

Multi Module Facilities 

3. Installation of Reactor Modules During 

Operation for Multi Module Facilities 

4. Industrial Facilities Using Nuclear-Generated 

Process Heat 

5. Aircraft Impact Assessments for Small 

Modular Reactors 

WITS201100167/EDATS: SECY-2011-0348 

ADAMS Accession Number: ML110460434 *via e-mail SECY-012 

OFFICE PM:NRO/ARP/ARB1 BC:NRO/ARP/ARB1 D:NRO/DSER D:NRO/PMDA 

NAME TBoyle TKevern SFlanders BGusack 

(CSchum for) 

DATE 7/18/11 7/18/11 8/12/11 7/20/11 

OFFICE D:NRO/DE D:NRO/DSRA Tech Editor* D:NRO/ARP 

NAME TBergman (MShuaibi 

for) 

CAder JDougherty MMayfield 

DATE 8/5/11 8/02/11 8/8/11 8/10/11 

OFFICE RES * OGC (NLO) D:NRO 

NAME BSheron (JUhle for) SVrahoretis MJohnson 

DATE 8/5/11 8/12/11 8/ 12 /11 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure 1 

License for Prototype Reactors 

Background 

In SECY-10-0034, “Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small Modular 

Nuclear Reactor Designs,” dated March 28, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML093290268), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff states that the use of prototype license provisions in the Commission’s 

regulations could involve potential policy issues requiring Commission input. Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.43(e) and, by reference, 10 CFR 52.79(a)(24) state in 

part that for proposed reactor designs that differ significantly from certain light-water reactors 

(LWR) designs, one way that the NRC will approve a design certification, combined license, 

manufacturing license, or operating license is if there has been acceptable testing of a prototype 

plant over a sufficient range of normal operating conditions, transient conditions, and specified 

accident sequences, including equilibrium core conditions. If a prototype plant is used to 

comply with the testing requirements, the NRC may impose additional requirements on siting, 

safety features, or operational conditions for the prototype plant to protect the public and the 

plant staff from the possible consequences of accidents during the testing period.1

 For 

example, license conditions might be imposed to limit the plant to less than full power, place 

restrictions on operational temperature, or require more extensive startup or operational testing. 

Assessment 

During the development of the NRC staff’s resolution plan for this issue, the NRC staff 

concluded that, although the identification of specific requirements and license conditions for 

prototype reactors may be challenging because applicants and the NRC have not yet used the 

provisions defined in 10 CFR 50.43(e), the NRC staff expects to be able to approve a design 

certification or develop a license for a prototype reactor using existing regulations and regulatory 

guidance. Therefore, the NRC staff’s current assessment is that rulemaking for 

10 CFR 52.47(c)(2), 10 CFR 50.43(e), and 10 CFR 52.79(a)(24) or changes to existing 

Commission policies will not be needed to address licensing or technical issues that may arise 

for prototype reactors. The NRC staff will determine requirements for acceptable testing for a 

prototype plant of the type described in 10 CFR 50.43(e)(2) based on the design, location, size, 

and other characteristics of the proposed reactor. The NRC staff has not identified any policy 

issues with the regulation or its implementation and believes that if the NRC receives a design 

certification or license application for a prototype reactor, the NRC staff will be able to determine 

the appropriate provisions in 10 CFR 50.43(e) to use during the design certification or licensing 

review. 

In the responses to NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2011-02, “Licensing Submittal Information 

and Design Development Activities for Small Modular Reactor Designs,” dated February 2, 

2011, no small modular reactor (SMR) designer or potential applicant has indicated that it 

intends to submit a design certification or license application in the near term that includes plans 

for a prototype reactor. However, in one response, a reactor designer indicated that it considers 

that its first reactor will be a prototype, but the designer does not specify the type of license an 

 

1

 10 CFR 50.43(e)(2) 
2 

applicant proposing to construct and operate this reactor will actually request. Although the 

U.S. Department of Energy and the NRC recommend in “Next Generation Nuclear Plant 

Licensing Strategy”, dated August 14, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML082290017), that Next 

Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) license applicant submit a license application for a prototype 

nuclear power plant (using 10 CFR 50.43(e)) in order to meet a fiscal year 2021 startup date, 

there is nothing binding in this licensing strategy. The NRC staff does not know what type of 

license an applicant proposing to construct and operate the Next Generation Nuclear Plant will 

actually request and, should the applicant submit a licensing application for a prototype nuclear 

power plant, whether policy issues will result. 

Because the NRC staff expects to be able to approve a design certification or develop a license 

for a prototype reactor using existing regulations and regulatory guidance, and no potential 

applicant has expressed interest in engaging in detailed discussions with the NRC staff about a 

design certification license application for a prototype SMR planned for near-term deployment, 

the NRC staff does not plan to pursue this matter. Therefore, the NRC staff does not plan to 

address this issue in its future updates on the status of the resolution of issues identified in 

SECY-10-0034. 
Enclosure 2 

Operational Programs for Small or MultiModule Facilities

Background 

In SECY-10-0034, “Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small Modular 

Nuclear Reactor Designs,” dated March 28, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML093290268), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff states that policy issues may be identified during the development of 

operational programs such as inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST) programs for 

small modular reactors (SMRs).1

 The unique design of select SMR safety-related components, 

such as helical steam generators, may present challenges and limitations in the ability to 

conduct thorough inspections and tests. Additionally, the introduction of new technologies and 

design features may require the development of operational programs that are new or 

significantly different from those of current generation large light-water reactors (LWRs). The 

NRC staff also indicated in SECY-10-0034 that on-line refueling and the proposed increased 

time period between refuelings for certain integral pressurized-water reactors and non-LWRs 

(from 4 to as many as 30 years between refueling outages) may introduce policy issues 

concerning longer time intervals between periodic inspections and tests. 

NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Report for Nuclear 

Power Plants LWR Edition,” and SECY-05-0197, “Review of Operational Programs in a 

Combined License Application and General Emergency Planning Inspections, Tests, Analyses, 

and Acceptance Criteria,” dated October 28, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052770257), list 

operational programs to be developed for large LWR nuclear power plants. The Commission 

provided policy guidance related to operational programs for new large LWR plants in a series 

of Commission papers and staff requirements memoranda (e.g., SECY-90-016, “Evolutionary 

Light Water Reactor (LWR) Certification Issues and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory 

Requirements,” dated January 12, 1990; SECY-93-087, “Policy, Technical, and Licensing 

Issues Pertaining to Evolutionary and Advanced Light-Water Reactor (ALWR) Designs,” dated 

April 2, 1993; SECY-94-084, “Policy and Technical Issues Associated with the Regulatory 

Treatment of Non-Safety Systems in Passive Plant Designs,” dated March 28, 1994; and 

SECY-95-132, “Policy and Technical Issues Associated with the Regulatory Treatment of 

Non-Safety Systems (RTNSS) in Passive Plant Designs (SECY-94-084),” dated May 22, 1995). 

Assessment 

During the development and implementation of the NRC staff’s resolution plan for this issue, the 

NRC staff concluded that although SMR design differences will likely introduce technical issues 

that must be addressed through operational programs, such efforts will likely involve technical 

matters that can be addressed during the NRC staff’s review of a license application using the 

guidance in NUREG-0800 or SECY-05-0197 (including the Commission direction discussed 

previously as appropriate). For example, where SMRs might operate for extended periods 

between refueling outages, new operational programs might be appropriate for the incorporation 

of on-line monitoring instrumentation to provide reasonable assurance that SMR equipment will 

 

1

 See attachment to Section 13.4, “Conduct of Operations,” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review 

of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” March, 2007, and Table 13.4-1 of Regulatory 

Guide 1.206, “Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition),” June 2007, for a list of 

operational programs required for LWRs. 
2 

perform its design function over the long operating cycle with equipment-specific diagnostic 

testing, and recalibration of on-line monitoring instrumentation during maintenance and refueling 

outages. Therefore, the NRC staff’s current assessment is that rulemaking or changes to 

existing Commission policy will not be needed to address the licensing or technical issues that 

may arise for SMRs planned for near-term deployment. 

For non LWR SMRs that may be deployed at a later time, the many innovative design features 

and materials associated with these reactor technologies may require the development of new 

operational programs that are not applicable to, or needed, for LWRs. For example, matters 

concerning on-line refueling (e.g., for pebble bed gas-cooled reactor designs) and ISI and IST 

programs of unique or innovative features of advanced non-LWR designs could involve policy 

issues. As the NRC staff receives and evaluates more detailed information on these designs 

and the technical basis for the safety performance of these reactor designs and innovative 

technologies, the NRC staff will be able to identify any specific potential policy issues 

concerning operational programs for non-LWR technologies. Accordingly, at this time, the NRC 

staff does not plan to pursue this matter for non-LWR designs until they are further developed 

and more design information is available, or until SMR designers or applicants express interest 

in engaging in detailed discussions on this matter. 

In the staff requirements memorandum to SECY-05-0197, the NRC staff was directed to inform 

the Commission of the addition of operational programs for combined license applications 

beyond those identified in SECY-05-0197 and related guidance, such as Regulatory 

Guide 1.206, “Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition).” 

Similarly, the NRC staff will inform the Commission if the staff determines that additional 

operational programs are necessary for SMRs beyond those identified in RG 1.206 under Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52 or those identified in NUREG-0800 

under 10 CFR Part 50. At this time, the NRC staff does not foresee the need to request 

Commission direction on matters concerning operational programs. Therefore, the NRC staff 

does not plan to address this matter in its future updates on the status of the resolution of issues 

identified in SECY-10-0034. 
Enclosure 3 

Installation of Reactor Modules During Operation for MultiModule Facilities 

Background 

The multimodule aspect of certain small modular reactor (SMR) designs may allow modules to 

be constructed and placed into operation while other previously installed adjacent modules are 

operating. In SECY-10-0034, “Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small 

Modular Nuclear Reactor Designs,” dated March 28, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System Accession No. ML093290268), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff stated that this type of evolution and possible effects on systems and structures 

could raise policy issues requiring Commission consideration before the agency makes final 

decisions regarding the acceptability of a design or issuance of a license. For example, there 

may be concerns regarding the movement of heavy loads near operating modules, changes in 

the boundary conditions associated with the seismic analysis of an existing operating module 

during the construction and installation of a new adjacent module, and some related common 

mode failures resulting from initiating events affecting more than one module. 

Assessment 

During the development and implementation of the NRC staff’s resolution plan for this issue, the 

NRC staff concluded that, although SMR design differences will likely introduce technical issues 

and possibly the need to revise or develop handling procedures for heavy loads near an 

operating reactor that are unique to SMRs affected by this issue, such efforts will likely involve 

technical matters that can be addressed during the NRC staff’s review of a design certification 

or license application. Therefore, the NRC staff’s current assessment is that rulemaking or 

changes to existing Commission policy and past regulatory practice (e.g., handling procedures 

for the movement of heavy loads in the containment of current-generation large light-water 

reactors) will not be needed to address licensing or technical issues associated with the 

installation of reactor modules of SMRs planned for near term deployment. The NRC staff 

concludes that the matters associated with the installation of new reactor modules are expected 

to be issues for which an applicant will have to assess the safety impact to the operating reactor 

modules and associated safety-related equipment. 

At this time, the NRC staff does not foresee the need to request Commission direction on 

matters concerning the installation of new reactor modules near an existing operating module. 

Therefore, the NRC staff does not plan to address this matter in its future updates on the status 

of the resolution of issues identified in SECY-10-0034.
Enclosure 4 

Industrial Facilities Using Nuclear-Generated Process Heat 

Background 

In SECY-10-0034, “Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small Modular 

Nuclear Reactor Designs,” dated March 28, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System Accession No. ML093290268), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff states that small modular reactors (SMRs) are being considered for industrial use in 

remote areas to produce process heat for chemical plants, refineries, desalinization plants, 

hydrogen production facilities, and bitumen recovery from oil sands. The U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff indicated that the close coupling of the nuclear and process 

facilities raises concerns involving interface requirements and regulatory jurisdiction issues. 

Effects of the reactor on the commercial product of the industrial facility during normal operation 

must also be considered. Resolution of these issues will require interfacing with other 

government agencies and the NRC staff indicated that Commission input may be needed to 

determine whether the design and ultimate use of the product are acceptable. 

Assessment 

During development of the NRC staff’s resolution plan for this issue, the NRC staff concluded 

that, with the possible exception of insurance and liability matters,1

 although SMR designs will 

likely introduce technical issues concerning the interface between the nuclear plant and 

connected industrial facility, such issues will likely involve technical matters that can be 

addressed during the NRC staff’s review of a design certification or license application. 

Therefore, the staff’s current assessment is that rulemaking or changes to existing Commission 

policies will not be needed to address licensing or technical issues that may arise. As the NRC 

staff receives and evaluates more detailed information on these designs, the NRC staff will be 

able to more firmly identify specific potential policy issues. However, until the staff knows more 

about the design of a connected facility and how the SMR might interface with the industrial 

facility, the NRC staff will not be able to identify specific issues in this matter. The applicant will 

have to ensure that the commercial product of the industrial facility (such as hydrogen) complies 

with those applicable regulations under the purview of the NRC, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, and possibly other agencies. Additionally, any effects of the industrial facility on the 

reactor will be addressed as part of the NRC staff’s review, for example, as part of the offsite 

hazards analysis. 

In their responses to NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2011-02, no potential applicant has 

indicated that it intends to submit a license application for an SMR facility to produce process 

heat for industrial use. Although the Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifies that the Next 

Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) shall be used to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, or 

generate electricity and produce hydrogen, the NRC staff does not yet know with certainty what 

type of license an applicant to construct and operate the NGNP will actually request and, should 

an applicant submit a request for a license to operate a nuclear facility to generate process 

heat, whether policy issues will result. 

 

1

 Insurance and liability matters for nuclear facilities providing process heat for industrial facilities will be addressed in 

a separate Commission paper. 
2 

Because no potential applicant has expressed interest in engaging in detailed discussions with 

the NRC staff regarding a license for SMRs planned for near-term deployment to produce 

process heat for industrial use, the NRC staff does not intend to pursue this matter outside of its 

continuing interactions related to the NGNP. Therefore, the NRC staff does not plan to address 

this matter in its future updates on the status of the resolution of issues identified in 

SECY-10-0034. 
Enclosure 5 

Aircraft Impact Assessments for Small Modular Reactors 

Background 

In accordance with the aircraft impact assessment rule, “Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for 

New Nuclear Power Reactors,” dated June 12, 2009 (74 FR 28112), all future nuclear power 

plants will need aircraft impact assessments. This regulation (Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) 50.150, “Aircraft impact assessment”) requires design and license 

applicants for new nuclear power reactors to perform a realistic design-specific assessment of 

their designs to identify design features and functional capabilities that could provide additional 

inherent protection to avoid or mitigate the effects of the impact of a large commercial aircraft.

Using realistic analyses, new power reactor design and license applicants are required to 

identify and incorporate into the design those design features and functional capabilities that 

avoid or mitigate, with reduced reliance on operator actions, the effects of an aircraft impact on 

key safety functions described in 10 CFR 50.150. Specifically, the applicant must show that, 

with reduced operator actions, the reactor core remains cooled or the containment remains 

intact, and spent fuel pool cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. These acceptance 

criteria focus on the functions of core cooling capability, containment, spent fuel pool capability, 

and spent fuel pool integrity following the aircraft impact (74 FR 28130–28131). In the 

statement of considerations for the aircraft impact assessment rule, the Commission stated that 

these four functions are applicable to light-water reactors (LWRs), and each may not be 

applicable to non-LWR designs, or may have to be supplemented by other key functions for 

non-LWR designs (74 FR 28131). The Commission also stated that its regulatory approach for 

reviewing non-LWR designs will begin with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) 

evaluation of the applicability of the acceptance criteria in the aircraft impact assessment rule, 

and the possible need for other acceptance criteria for non-LWR designs. The Commission 

stated that it may issue exemptions or impose additional acceptance criteria to be used in the 

aircraft impact assessment for non-LWR designs, in order to ensure that non-LWR designs will 

also be designed against large, commercial aircraft impacts. 

In SECY-10-0034, “Potential Policy, Licensing, and Key Technical Issues for Small Modular 

Nuclear Reactor Designs,” dated March 28, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System Accession No. ML093290268), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff stated that additional aircraft impact assessment issues may have to be addressed 

for industrial facilities that are using nuclear-generated process heat. The staff also noted that 

proposed resolutions of aircraft impact assessment issues for small modular reactor (SMR) 

designs may require Commission input to determine whether the design approach is in keeping 

with Commission policy on this issue. 

Assessment 

During the development and implementation of the NRC staff’s resolution plan for this issue, the 

NRC staff did not identify any policy issues. The staff’s current assessment is that, although 

design differences among integral pressurized-water reactor SMRs and the current-generation 

large LWRs may introduce technical issues concerning the effect of an aircraft impact on the 

reactor, the containment, and spent fuel pool cooling or spent fuel pool integrity, the staff’s 
2 

review efforts are expected to only involve licensing and technical matters that can be resolved 

as part of the design certification and licensing reviews. 

For non-LWR SMR designs (which may be deployed at a later time), as discussed in 

SECY-10-0034, acceptance criteria that focus on the functions of core cooling capability, 

containment, spent fuel pool capability, and spent fuel pool integrity following the aircraft impact 

may not be applicable, or may have to be supplemented by other acceptance criteria or key 

functions. However, at this time, the staff has insufficient information on these non-LWR 

designs to support the near-term identification of potential policy, licensing, and key technical 

issues concerning aircraft impact assessments. When reviewing non-LWR designs, the NRC 

staff will evaluate the applicability of the acceptance criteria set forth in the aircraft impact 

assessment rule and the possible need for other criteria. If necessary, the NRC may issue 

exemptions and impose supplemental criteria in to be used in the aircraft impact assessment. 

The NRC staff will pursue these matters for non-LWR designs when they are further developed 

and more design information is available, or until SMR designers or applicants express interest 

in engaging in detailed discussions on this matter. 

Additionally, while the primary focus of 10 CFR 50.150 is to assess the effects of an aircraft 

impact on a nuclear facility, the NRC staff’s review of a design certification or license application 

for an SMR facility to produce process heat for industrial use will include the impacts resulting 

from events at the industrial facility associated with the SMR, including aircraft impacts, as part 

of the external hazards analysis and the siting evaluation. As discussed in the preceding 

section, no potential applicant has indicated that it intends to submit a license application for an 

SMR facility to produce process heat for industrial use. Until the staff knows more about the 

design of a connected facility and how the SMR might interface with the industrial facility, the 

NRC staff will not be able to identify specific licensing, technical or policy issues concerning 

aircraft impact assessments for SMRs used in industrial applications. 

The NRC staff does not plan to address aircraft impact assessments in its future updates on the 

status of the resolution of issues identified in SECY-10-0034.