ENCLOSURE 

Responses to Requests for Information 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Letter dated March 24, 2016 

1. Please explain how NRC will work with DOE and any other entities to understand 

and navigate the regulatory process for licensing new reactor technology in 

accordance with President Obama's GAIN initiative. 

Under the GAIN initiative, the NRC is tasked to provide the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) with accurate, current information about the NRC’s regulations and licensing 

processes, which is consistent with its role as an independent safety and security regulator. 

The NRC staff has been working with the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy staff to develop a 

process for providing this information, with the objective of providing timely, accurate, and 

“on-the-record” responses. We are currently developing a Memorandum of Understanding 

with DOE that will formalize and implement the information sharing process. We anticipate 

completing that Memorandum of Understanding by the end of this calendar year. 

 

2. In 2015 congressional testimony, you explained that there may be challenges and 

knowledge gaps within NRC and the prospective applicants if NRC were to receive an 

advanced reactor application within the next five years. Please describe the challenges 

related to research and modeling work in both the technical issues and code 

development for non-light-water reactor designs. 

To date, advanced non-light-water reactor (LWR) research has not been a high priority for the 

NRC because the current fleet consists solely of light water reactor design plants and there has 

been limited industry activity on non-LWR designs. Thus, only a limited amount of regulatory 

research has been performed in this area. Recognizing that because certain codes and 

methodologies that were developed for the analysis of light water reactors may not be generally 

applicable to advanced non-LWR reactors, targeted regulatory research might be warranted to 

adapt those codes and methodologies to particular advanced designs. Modeling the physical 

phenomena in advanced non-LWR accidents, including unique initiators such as fire for sodiumbased designs, is a challenge due to the limited number of experimental facilities worldwide. 

These facilities would be needed by both the staff and the technology developers to test safety 

system performance that would likely be necessary for code development and licensing. 

The determination of what research should be performed for advanced non-LWRs is 

complicated by the number and wide variety of designs under consideration. Advanced nonLWR designs have been proposed that utilize several types of working fluids – liquid metals, 

molten salts, and high temperature gas – each with a unique set of safety related 

considerations. 

The NRC will approach the code development and modelling challenges by tailoring the efforts 

to be commensurate with the complexity and potential risks to public health and safety of the 

various technologies. These activities will build, to the extent practical, on the efforts of DOE, 

the advanced reactor community (via efforts by the Electric Power Research Institute), and the 

international community. The NRC will continue to interact with these entities to gain access to 

the relevant codes, modelling, and supporting experimental data. 
2 

3. In the guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Advanced Reactors, DOE 

indicated six different advanced reactor technologies to consider for creating 

regulations for licensing innovative technologies. Please describe whether there is a 

critical skills gap at NRC to address the non-light-water reactor design research and 

modeling work in order to be able to consider an application for an advanced nuclear 

reactor. 

Because of our historical focus on LWR licensing activities, the NRC has a relatively limited 

number of experienced nuclear engineers and other technical experts who are knowledgeable 

of some of the more advanced designs for non-LWR technologies being pursued today. 

Of the six types of reactors indicated in the DOE report, the NRC has the most experience with 

the modular high temperature gas reactor design and sodium fast reactor design, which is a 

subset of the general class of liquid metal reactors. The NRC has performed pre-application 

reviews on reactor designs in these two categories. For the remaining four reactor categories, 

no vendor has engaged the NRC recently. As a result, the NRC does not have significant 

experience with those designs. Thus, a skill gap exists for some technical disciplines in the 

areas of research and regulatory support. 

The NRC does have access to the significant capabilities of the national laboratories, which 

can provide additional technical expertise and research capabilities. These capabilities 

include both confirmatory experimental research and analytical capabilities, such as code 

development. It is important to note that, as the DOE labs continue to form development 

relationships with the non-LWR industry, there is a greater potential for conflicts of interest to 

emerge that might limit NRC access to lab expertise. The NRC is working with DOE to 

develop mitigation measures to manage this potential conflict of interest issue. 

NRC recognizes the need to enhance our technical capabilities and to establish relationships 

with the national laboratories and other contractors with the requisite knowledge and 

experience. We have already undertaken some training activities, supported by the DOE, and 

are continuing to make use of training opportunities as they emerge. 

However, the constraints in our previous budgets, coupled with the early stage of development 

of most of the advanced non-LWR reactor technologies, have dictated a very measured 

approach to training and expanding NRC staff capabilities. As with our other activities, the 

NRC is currently pacing its training and capability building activities to be consistent with: 1) 

the pace of technology development, 2) the maturity of the advanced reactor designs being 

discussed today, and 3) the NRC’s budget for advanced reactor activities. 

Expanded budget authority and specific off-fee base funding for non-LWR preparation to 

expand our activities would provide flexibility to maintain pace with industry and accelerate our 

preparations, especially in long-lead research and development areas. 

 

4. According to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, NRC’s budget must 

provide for 90 percent fee recovery less the amounts appropriated for generic 

homeland security activities and waste incidental to reprocessing activities. Please 

explain how this impacts NRC's ability to meet staffing and resource priorities for 

addressing advanced non-light water technology. 
3 

The NRC’s budget for addressing advanced non-LWR technology is not directly impacted by 

the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90) fee recovery requirement. 

However, due to the OBRA-90 requirement, increases in NRC budgets for advanced nonLWR technologies result in increases in annual fees charged to current NRC licensees. This 

raises a fairness and equity concern regarding current NRC licensees’ funding activities that 

are not attributable to them. 

Previous and current budget constraints have limited our activities addressing advanced nonLWR technology. By design, our activities have been at a sufficiently low level that they do 

not represent an appreciable contribution to the operating reactor fee base. This has limited 

the extent of our preparations and outreach to vendors. Thus far, our activities have been 

focused on generic enhancements to our regulatory processes and guidance. 

5. Does the NRC need any additional authority or funding outside of the OBRA90 fee recovery requirement to expand its technical staff and make more use of 

other government affiliated research organization to create new standards for 

advanced reactors? 

Yes. In light of the current budget environment and recent developments indicating an 

acceleration in the pace of activities by the advanced non-LWR vendor community, additional 

funding would add significant flexibility to the NRC’s preparations for non-LWR licensing 

reviews. The current budget environment is severely limiting the NRC’s preparations. The 

operating reactor fleet does not benefit from NRC staff training on non-LWR technologies, or 

from staff resources to develop standards and regulatory guidance for non-LWR technologies. 

Additional authority and funding outside of OBRA-90 would provide the necessary flexibility to 

the NRC to direct resources to enhance our regulatory infrastructure for timely and efficient 

reviews of non-LWR technologies. Further, funding excluded from the OBRA-90 fee 

requirement would address the fee recovery fairness and equity concern that this work is not 

attributable to current NRC licensees. There are many items on our list of preparatory activities 

that are long-lead activities and need to be established in the near-term to be fully prepared 

when advanced reactor vendors are ready to engage the NRC. Additionally, the NRC 

recognizes the urgency to support current activities, such as development of American Nuclear 

Society and American Society of Mechanical Engineers consensus code standards, which are 

needed today for vendors to design reactors. However, the current budget limits the NRC’s 

ability to participate on some of these committees. The NRC also recognizes the urgency to 

enhance our own infrastructure now to reduce regulatory uncertainty for vendors and increase 

our own efficiency. 

6. How does the NRC interface with the Department of Energy and industry so 

the regulatory uncertainties and corresponding business risk associated with 

commercialization of advanced nuclear energy technologies are reduced? 

The first level of interface between and among the NRC, DOE, and the industry comes through 

frequent and open communication to clarify and explain NRC’s processes and requirements as 

they relate to advanced reactors, and to share plans and activities relevant to resolving both real 

and perceived regulatory uncertainties. The NRC is actively pursuing and supporting a variety 

of opportunities to build relationships in order for the NRC and DOE to better understand the 
4 

needs of industry, and for industry to better understand the roles and needs of the NRC and 

DOE. 

The NRC is implementing a three-prong strategy to address NRC and industry needs relative to 

ensuring an efficient process for reviewing advanced reactor technologies. The first element of 

the strategy is to refine and revise NRC’s regulatory framework to provide an efficient review 

process for advanced reactor technologies and to implement regulatory criteria specific to these 

technologies that will help reduce regulatory uncertainties. A specific example of this effort is 

the joint NRC and DOE effort to develop advanced reactor design criteria, based on the existing 

general design criteria in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, that are specific to non-LWR 

technologies. DOE worked with representatives from the national laboratories and from the 

non-LWR community to develop proposed advanced reactor design criteria for these 

technologies. The NRC reviewed the DOE report and made use of it in preparing draft 

advanced reactor design criteria that were then made available for informal public comment on 

April 8, 2016. The NRC will consider comments received in developing formal regulatory 

guidance that will provide these important advanced reactor design criteria for use by the nonLWR technology developers. 

Engagements with non-LWR technology developers and their financial backers have yielded 

recurring requests for NRC to develop two specific processes: (1) a process for providing a 

general assessment of a specific nuclear power plant design at a conceptual stage to provide 

early feedback on any foreseeable regulatory obstacles to the eventual regulatory approval of 

that design; and (2) a process that provides for regulatory review of portions of a specific reactor 

or nuclear power plant design that are at a final design stage, which could later be incorporated 

into the NRC review of the complete application. The NRC staff is currently developing 

proposals for both of these processes, which will be discussed with the public, including the 

vendor community, and subsequently provided to the Commission for its approval. 

The advanced reactor design criteria activity and the effort to develop these two new processes 

are examples of where NRC’s interface with DOE and the advanced reactor community has led 

NRC to pursue changes to our regulatory framework to reduce uncertainties and business risks. 

The second element of NRC’s strategy is technical preparation, to ensure that the staff is 

adequately familiar with the technologies and has access to the analysis tools and experimental 

facilities needed to support regulatory reviews of the non-LWR technologies. Aspects of the 

analysis tools and experimental facilities were addressed earlier in response to your second 

question. 

The NRC has worked with DOE to provide general informational training courses to our staff on 

high-temperature gas reactor and sodium-cooled fast reactor technology. NRC is pursuing 

other staff training opportunities on molten salt reactors. The staff also is engaged with U.S. 

consensus standards bodies and international organizations that have activities supportive of 

NRC’s technical preparation in this area. 

The third element of NRC’s strategy is outreach to the technical community, DOE, and other 

interested stakeholders. The NRC staff participates in key conferences and technical meetings 

to both provide information on NRC activities and processes, and to gain insights into the 

challenges and concerns of the non-LWR community. 
5 

One key aspect of our outreach activities comes from the joint NRC and DOE engagement with 

the advanced non-LWR community and interested stakeholders through workshops to address 

advanced non-LWR technologies and licensing related topics. The first workshop was held in 

September of 2015 and was attended by over 300 people. The second workshop, scheduled 

for June 7-8, 2016, will address NRC, DOE, and industry visions for how advanced non-LWR 

technologies and licensing activities may unfold over the next several years, along with a 

focused discussion on fuels, which have been a topic of intense discussion for regulatory 

review. This workshop series is planned to be held every 6 months with different focus areas of 

industry interest. 

Another important aspect of our outreach activities is engagement with the technology 

development community, to ensure that the NRC staff clearly understands the challenges faced 

by that community and what actions might reduce regulatory uncertainty and associated 

business risks. The NRC staff and Commission have met with representatives of the 

technology developers on numerous occasions. During 2015, the NRC staff met with over a 

dozen developers of various technologies. 

In summary, over the last few years, NRC’s interface with DOE and the non-LWR community 

has led the NRC to develop a strategy for readying the NRC to conduct efficient reviews of nonLWR designs as they are submitted. Implementing this strategy is leading to specific changes 

to regulatory processes, technical development, and outreach activities that are directly related 

to reducing regulatory uncertainties and business risks. 

 

7. The NRC has taken many steps to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and agility 

of NRC by 2020 through Project Aim. The report indicates NRC's internal process for 

responding to changes by transferring resources makes it difficult to respond quickly 

to changes. Would the NRC require organizational changes to enable responsiveness 

to advanced non-light-water design research, technical work, and licensing? 

The NRC would not require organizational changes to enable responsiveness to advanced 

non-LWR design research, technical work, and licensing. The NRC’s efforts related to 

advanced non-LWRs are being led by our Office of New Reactors (NRO), but it is an agencywide initiative. NRO engages other NRC offices as their areas of expertise and responsibility 

are needed to address specific issues. Specifically, NRO will reach out to the following 

offices: 

• Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research for all research activities. 

• Office of Nuclear Materials, Safety, and Safeguards to address fuel fabrication and 

transportation related activities. 

• Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response for security and emergency 

preparedness activities. 

• Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for research and test reactor related activities. 

• Office of the General Counsel to provide overall legal support. 

8. In the 2017 budget request, NRC prioritized funding for the development of a 

regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor technologies. Please indicate 

which offices are responsible for developing the regulatory infrastructure for advanced 

nuclear technologies and their respective roles. 
6 

NRC’s activities related to advanced reactors are being planned and implemented as an 

agency-wide effort. 

NRO provides the overall development and leadership for NRC’s activities related to advanced 

non-LWRs. NRO reaches out to other offices with specific areas of expertise, as discussed in 

response to Question 7. This provides regulatory consistency for the vendors and applicants 

when dealing with the NRC. The efforts being led by NRO include developing proposals to the 

Commission to address key policy issues facing both advanced non-LWRs and small modular 

reactors. These issues include possible changes to emergency preparedness approaches, 

reactor siting considerations, licensing for multi-module designs, and insurance and liability 

considerations for these new technologies. 

In addition, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards plays an important role in advising 

the Commission on the viability and technical sufficiency of staff guidance and reviews. 

In short, the efforts to ensure that the NRC is fully prepared to engage in the timely and 

efficient regulatory review of advanced reactors represent a coordinated agency-wide effort.