Advanced Reactor Landscape: Current Status and Moving Forward (Public Meeting) 7/21/2026

Good morning. We'll call this meeting to order. Today's commission meeting, we will examine the advanced reactor landscape, including projects that are moving toward commercialization and the NRC's readiness to accelerate the safe and secure deployment of these advanced reactor technologies. I want to thank our external panelists for joining the discussion today. [snorts] Worldwide, the interest in advanced reactor technologies is at an all-time high. Yet, actual deployment is only limited to a few countries. In the Western Hemisphere, the lead commercial project is under construction at the General Electric Vernova BWRx 300 construction project at the Darlington site. And in the United States, we have the largest nuclear innovation ecosystem, including Department of Energy pilot programs, Department of War initiatives, as well as the work being conducted by the companies represented at the table here today. In America, the question is about execution. Can we deploy at scale, on schedule, and at lower cost? And that's where the NRC matters. Our safety decisions have to be credible, predictable, and timely. As such, we are undergoing the most comprehensive regulatory reform in nearly 50 years. And throughout this period of change, safety remains our top priority. That has not changed. What is changing is how we work. And I want to recognize the outstanding work of the NRC staff during this moment. We've prepared and published several draft executive order rulemakings to support deployment. We have uh issued licensing decisions ahead of schedule and we conducted a major reorganization. In the second part of the panel, we'll be hearing from the brand new leadership team in the NRC's Office of Advanced Reactors. So before we begin our presentations, let me ask my fellow commissioners if you have any comments you'd like to make. Nope. >> Okay. With that, we'll proceed to our first presenter. I believe that is uh Mr. Ted Garish from the Department of Energy. >> Mr. Chairman, thank you. Uh it's a pleasure to be here. Thank the commission for the opportunity to talk about uh advanced reactors and some of our innovation work. [clears throat] Advanced reactors uh for the department have really provided a number of benefits for us really uh this is the enhanced safety of the product. The small footprints for these pilot projects and some of the special applications where these can be used. [snorts] This all started last year in May. uh when the president ordered the department of energy to start from scratch to build three reactors and have them critical by the 4th of July of this year, our 250th anniversary. At the time that sounded impossible and I think we all looked at each other and said, "How are we going to do this?" And what has happened since then has been really quite remarkable. The industry responded. We sent out an application request for an applicant uh to submit their ideas to the department and 11 companies responded which that was initially u sort of mindboggling that 11 thought that they could do this. Out of that we accepted them all. They said if you think that you can do this you're in the program. Let's let's work with you to make this happen. So the industry really went to work and our crews really went to work with them and our objective was to help them principally keep safety as their number one priority in this process. We had at the time a relatively antiquated system for approval and we had to get our shop in order too which meant that we had to streamline and modernize our procedures. We always in the process maintain safety as our number one priority. But one of the things that we did that really helped us is we eliminated incredible amounts of duplication that were in our in our process and that was really essential for us moving forward. Then the other thing that was really helpful is we worked with the industry to help them understand what they needed to do. that is they needed to understand our process. They needed to understand the safety culture and in some of these instances the individuals we're working with were not as at as adept at this area and did not understand the safety culture that was needed. And this was a very involved process. And what they did is they went through um and really understood where we were, understood the process and we worked with them at every step of the way and together uh we s succeeded with a number of them and it's more than I'm going to talk about four but there are a number of them in fact some of the folks here uh Breita Baron Walls is representing another one of our participants that was not within the floor but had very important contributions. So let's review the four and if we could and if I could put those slides up. The first slide was Antar's the [clears throat] nuclear mark zero became the first advanced reactor to go critical under the reactor pilot program on June 4th. So they were very early at Idaho National Laboratory. The ant's concept is a sodium heat pipe cooled micro reactor which uses very robust tricoof fuel and then beyond the initial criticality through the pilot program. They plan to deploy uh their mark one electricity producing uh nuclear test in 27 to demonstrate an integrated performance. So if you could go to the next slide. The next is Valor Atomics Ward 250 micro reactor and it achieved criticality at the Utah San Rafale energy lab on June 18th and that was almost a month before uh the 4th of July marking the first DOE authorized reactor built outside of the national laboratory. The Ward 250 is a high temperature gas cooled reactor which uses robust trico fuel and beyond their initial criticality through the reactor pilot program. Valor has additional [clears throat] high power demonstrations planned on the road to commercializing their technology. I should note um during their initial criticality test they also demonstrated that they can produce electricity and powered a chip that um that ran a website. So although small it was a significant step. The next slide please which is deployable energies demonstration reactor unity. It successfully completed a zero power fueled criticality demonstrated at Idaho National Lab on June 30th. Their concept was [clears throat] a nuclear battery micro reactor. And then finally, the next slide. At about 1219, we're getting down to the wire. On July 4th, Alo atomics test reactor, Aloex, successfully completed a zero power fuel criticality demonstration. The Aloex X reactor is a liquid metal cooled micro reactor which uses the same fuel as the current fleet of lightwater reactors. [clears throat] Beyond their July 4th criticality, Aloe uh has a full power test planned for 27. The first commercial pod of micro reactors is planned for 28. [clears throat] Now in addition we've also begun uh our fuel line pilot program which is similar to a reactor program and that we established a fuel line uh pilot program and that supports the reactor pilot program and establishes a domestic nuclear fuel supply chain for testing new reactors. There are four companies in active uh in the active fuel line program and the first company is standard nuclear and that was authorized to begin production at of a high assay lowenriched uranium at its facite in Oakidge Tennessee. So these have been the initial um pilot programs. Now I might say that there are others waiting in line and for instance Rita Baron Wall here will talk about uh Radiant and some of the companies determined to not go to the July 4th date uh and decided to concentrate on the technology and the tests that they needed to perform. So it was a mix of different results. I think um there has been so much interest in this project that this has led to us institutionalizing something called the the launchpad which we have begun uh at Idaho National Laboratory and these projects will continue and many will prove their ability to generate electricity in the next phase of this activity. I [clears throat] just want to say in conclusion just a word about safety and some of the activities uh to assure that the commission of what our priorities are in this program. What we learned and what I think the companies learned that being safety-minded was the best approach possible. What we found was the companies that learned our regs, understood the nuclear culture and adopted on their day-to-day activities and utilize the resources that were available. We had resources from the nuclear regulatory commission that came over on detail. We had 12 individuals and they were extremely helpful in helping these companies uh along with our staff in helping these companies uh to really do their work. The ones that that that listened, the ones that followed the regulations were the ones that move the quickest and it really demonstrates that there is no substitute for safety. And if you want speed, the best way to do it is to do it safely and do it according to the regulations. cutting corners uh did not work. So in this end um [clears throat] no one was authorized until they they did this right and did it correctly. I also have to acknowledge not only the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's help in assigning folks to this project for us and we they came as as our employees. They were detailed but also the the NNSA provided additional um employees to us to also do the same. So this was a a very extremely important exercise that demonstrated uh that this was possible and the thing I think that it demonstrated and what it's created is tremendous enthusiasm to the fact that it is possible for the nuclear industry to move forward and they can move forward with these new products and do it in a way in which uh is really going to be successful and I think the commission has also demonstrated its ability to sort of streamline line is rags with an emphasis on safety and I think together we've been able to demonstrate that this is really going to be a new era. So thank you very much for the opportunity to come today and talk to the commission. >> Thank you very much Ted and we'll continue with our next presenter uh Miss Beth from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. >> Good morning commission and members of the public. My name is Beth Barry. I'm the acting director general of the directorate of advanced reactor technologies at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I'm here today to share the benefits of international collaboration from the CNC's point of view with respect to advanced reactors. Next slide. Through the presentation outlined here, I'll focus on how international collaboration contributes to our our uh commitment to be an effective and efficient regulator. And I'll highlight the benefits that these relationships deliver. Next slide. The CNC is Canada's nuclear regulator. Our mandate is to protect the health, safety, and security of people in Canada and to protect the environment through independent, transparent, and effective regulatory oversight of Canada's nuclear sector. Next slide. We achieve our mandate by taking an effective and efficient approach to regulation through international collaboration. The CNC streng strengthens our regulatory effectiveness and efficiency while protecting people and the environment. Next slide. So how do we do this? The CNC collaborates with international partners through two primary means. Regulator collaboration and international partnerships. For regulator collaboration, the CNC establishes agreements directly with counterpart regulators. This allows us to exchange expertise, share lessons learned and address common technical regulatory challenges more effectively and efficiently. The second means is engagement through international partnerships. For example, we actively participate in key NEA, which is Nuclear Energy Agency and IAEA, which is International Atomic Energy Agency committees, forums, and technical meetings, specifically the ones that support our priorities. Through these partnerships, we can monitor the regulatory approaches that are being adopted by our counterparts and assess the relevance to our context. We can share Canadian regulatory expertise with emerging nuclear countries, influence the development of international regulatory practices, and support global nuclear safety and Canadian international commitments. Next slide. Let's look a little more closely at a reg regulator cooperation agreement first established in 2019. The now trilateral memorandum of cooperation between the CNC, the US NRC, and the United Kingdom's ONR facilitates collaboration between these three regulators, specifically on small, modular, and advanced reactors. The objective of establishing this memorandum of cooperation was to bring regulators together to tackle the common challenges that arise when licensing akind technology. Next slide. In 2022, the CNC and NRC formed a working group to assess the BWX300 design. There were several projects and joint reviews that were established and completed. There's a list of them on the slide. [snorts] Um, looking at one of them in more detail, the the last one on the list, the fuel verification and validation, we credit an estimated 8-week reduction in the CNC's assessment of this topic for the the Ontario Power Generations application, license application due to the collaboration that we had on this topic. Next slide. Looking further at other benefits, a direct benefit from the collaboration on the BDRX 300 is that it positioned the CNSE to complete the assessment of Ontario Power Generations license to construct application for the BDX 300 in 26 months as opposed to our 32-month uh service standard without comp compromising safety or security. Additional benefits include strengthening transparency, enhanced training opportunities, improved knowledge sharing and identification and development of administrative tools for continued collaboration together. These outcomes support timely, rigorous regulatory reviews and the effective delivery of our mandate. This collaboration is ongoing as well. Next slide. I'll skip this one. I'll go to the last one. In closing, international collaboration is an important tool that helps the CNC remain an effective and efficient regulator. It strengthens regulatory decision-m, reduces unnecessary duplication of effort, enhances our capabilities, and supports timely and rigorous regulatory reviews. Thank you for your attention, and I'll pass it back to the chairman. >> Thank you very much, Beth. George, welcome back to the NRC. We're going to hear from Mr. George Wilson here from Ter Terrap Power. >> Thank you commission for inviting me here. Um slides please. >> Next slide please. So I want to talk about how we evaluated how we started KER unit one. We really focused on pre-application engagements. We had over 60 pre-application engagements with the NRC because we wanted to derisk the regulatory process including writing a bunch of uh topical reports. We had 15 topical reports and so our strategy was not just deployment within the US but it's also global deployment outside of the United States. So using the topical reports has a benchmark with more detail for other regulators to look at. So these uh pre-application engagements that we had including several training sessions with the NRC staff. the better the staff was prepared to do our review, the more they knew, the faster the reviews went. Um, we also took the feedback, if you look at it, we volunteered for a pre-application readiness assessment and the NRC staff identified no A gaps. So, it shows that the pre-application meetings paid off because we didn't have to add anything additional. So, just make sure that you're listening, do open communications. Next slide, please. So, Kim unit one, right now we're still focusing on the operating license, uh, which we will submit in March of 28. We're doing the same approach. We've submitted a pre-application engagement plan. Uh, we're starting to have, uh, pre-application meetings focusing on the potential issues. Operator licensing will be the first to go through the operator licensing, looking at some of the fire protection stuff. The additional things that we're looking at is any of the new rulemakings that are coming out from the NRC part 53, part 57, how could we utilize it? What would would we potentially potentially shift to it? You know, looking at the pros and cons of those rulemakings, can we adopt different portions of it in the part 50? So, we are looking at that. The other thing that we're doing is all those uh topical reports that was approved by the NRC and the construction permit that was issued, we're using that as a basis to do our international deployment. We're actually actively involved in the generic design assessment uh in the UK with ONR and EA and NWS and we're actually starting to look at some of the other countries and we use the basis for the NRC approved documents to start teaching the other regulators how we did the licensing and then show how the NRC does it. So that collaboration is really working well as we look at global deployment. Next slide please. One of the other things that we did was we very proactive in the oversight of the construction and vendor assessment. We developed a regulatory oversight group that will actively go out and do uh NRC type inspections for all the construction NRC type inspections for all the vendors and we'll continue doing that. Um it is our expectations that our pre-insspections will be harder than any one that the NRC will give us so that we hopefully we identify and fix things on our own. An example of this recently is we did a pre-NRC inspection of the QA inspection by the NRC. We were the first reactor advanced reactor to have a full-blown NRC QA inspection and there was no findings identified based on that preassessment. It also allows us to show that we have a very active and proactive corrective action program to identify and fix our own things which feeds into some of the safety culture. Next slide please. This is the construction job layout of a recent photo. So you can see that the test and fill facility is fully up. We're starting to do excavations in the reactor fabrication building and starting to do trenchments. You can see where the layown area, the base for the training center. So this is the current status right now at Kimmer unit one. Next slide. And when Kimmer U1 is uh fully built, this will actually be the drawing. This shows you the nuclear island energy island separation. Um and this will be the plant. That's all I got. Okay, thank you George. And next we'll go to Dr. Rita Baronwall from Radiant. >> Great. Thank you, chairman, and thank you to the commission for uh having Radiant here to speak to you. I'm Rita Baronal, chief nuclear officer. Uh and I want to start out by thanking both the commission as well as the DOE for the collaborative work that we have seen thus far. Um we've seen really thoughtful and detailed reviews of our design. um had very robust discussions from everyone at headquarters and the national laboratory. So very appreciative for that effort from the beginning. Um slides please. Next slide. So Radiant um is a company that is focused singularly on one mission. We are the first to test a full power reactor through DOE authorization and then through NRC licensing. We're working through the really complex questions first and in great great depth positioning us to transition faster to commercial deployment. Next slide. Um Kidos uh is the name of our reactor. It's a 1 megawatt electric reactor 3 and a half megawatts thermal. Um you can see a few renderings of the reactor itself here inside its operational shielding. Um it's it's got a very tight footprint. uh one reactor requires just 1500 square feet. Uh the fence line and the shielding allow for it to be located adjacent to um you know the the public in urban areas uh as well as remote communities. Co-generation of heat uh allows it to be used for building HVAC operations or other industrial processes. I want to note that there's zero on-site waste and this is really attractive to many clients. um there's no fuel that's left on site and there's also no water that's used in these operations. So, we've got a variety of different benefits that we can offer to clients with this design. And finally, when the reactor has gone through its design life of 20 years, the site is returned to green field within two years. That's a very it's another attractive uh feature for our clients that are looking um at this uh reactor design. Next slide, please. So, Radiant uh I'm really proud is a company of firsts. Uh Assistant Secretary Garish mentioned us uh in his remarks. Um we are the first reactor to be tested in Dome. Dome is the demonstration of micro reactor experiments at Idaho National Lab. We were selected competitively by the DOE. We are also the first to uh have a full-scale and full power operations. We're also the first to have a contract to be the first to deliver to the military and we're the first to offer an end-to-end solution. We have 84 acres of purchased land that are going to that's going to house our manufacturing facilities and I'll get into that in a moment. Next slide, please. Um, chairman and commission, I have to mention that your your team operates a very tight ship on getting these slides uh in for this meeting. Um, I ideally would have liked to have the picture in the bottom right be replaced with the one of the chairman and our president Tori Shivvenand on the scissor lift looking in the reactor, but we couldn't get that uh by the deadline for these slides. So, you have here a few pictures of our operation. Um, the reactor itself. Um, we had the White House chief technology officer visit our facilities as well as the Secretary of the Air Force. Next slide. Um, Assistant Secretary Garish mentioned that um, we are uh, you know, we didn't meet the the first four criticalities uh, by July 4th. Uh, and the reason for that is that we are the only company that is following a very detailed reactor deployment plan. We have a five-phase plan. The first is to ship and fuel the reactor at dome. The second is to achieve zero power criticality. The third step is to operate at one megawatt thermal. The fourth step is to ramp up to full power and full temperature. And the fifth step, the most important in this deployment schedule is to operate for 150 hours continuously without any operator intervention. So standard power ascension test for a new nuclear power plant. This is really important to Radiant because we do intend to deploy these reactors commercially. All of these phases will be completed this year in the dome at Idaho National Laboratory. We're testing fuel that matches that of our commercial deployments. Uh the first Toronto fuel has already been shipped and received by Idaho National Lab. Uh and then we're also testing the control and safety systems at full power, including how this system handles heat. Next slide. So, so this just dep shows you um the dome itself and our team setting up uh the dome for our prototype campaign. What you see with these two folks here in the foreground is our heat rejection system that is located just outside of dome. Next slide. So, we are the first and only micro reactor company that is working to fuel our own reactors under the part 70 review by the NRC. We have construction that is underway with with our teams working six days a week. Uh and you can see some of that uh in the upper left image. Um and then if you jump to the image that's in the lower right, this is the completed 300,000 square foot facility that will be commissioned in 2028. Um our fueling facility uh will be complete earlier uh by early next year uh under the NRC part 70 license that we we are um working with your team on. Next slide. We will be the first to power customers. So first we go to full power in dome this year. Then we turn on at our first customer which is at Buckley Space Force Base in 2028. And then beyond that, we'll be the first to achieve scale thanks to that part 70 license that um we are uh eagerly anticipating um by January of next year. So let me talk um for a minute about the DOE authorization and the NRC licensing plan. So, we very much appreciate um the collaboration that we have seen with NRC and we've we we know especially uh as as assistant secretary Garish mentioned um that many of your team have been detailed to the DOE and we at Radiant have actually appreciated the um observations that we have seen from the members of your staff for our preliminary design review and I know a lot of work has been going on in the background for the review of our our uh design uh documented safety um analysis as well. So the challenge is that DOE and NRC use different regulations, terminology and licensing formats and without coordination the same safety analyses, QA evidence and readiness activities may be reformatted and reviewed multiple times. So the objective uh that I think all of the agencies are uh in line with and was outlined in the executive orders uh 14300 is to have one safety case to have independent regulatory decisions without any unnecessary duplication. So there's some commonalities. You've got the DS DOE DSA and the NRC joint uh construction permit operating license FSAR. You've got a DOE readiness review. Uh that is an analog to the NRC's operational readiness review. Common QA process programs across design, manufacturing, testing, and operations. And then NRC observation of DOE authorized assembly, testing, readiness, and operations. So a proposed approach as we all move forward um in leveraging the DOE authorization in our NRC licensing uh activities as we move uh ahead is to develop one comprehensive safety case for all regulations to maintain one accident analysis one QA program one design basis and a supporting technical record it's to use regulator specific appendices to crosswalk DOE NRC and DO O requirements and it's to allow each regulator to focus on uni unique requirements and independent statutory findings. So I'm going to end with uh an example of a review model and that would be something like DOE performs the initial review for first deployment. NRC and DOW observe key meetings, audits, inspections and operational activities. DOE's safety evaluation later informs or informs later reviews. NRC and DOW reference prior technical findings were appropriate and focus on regulatory differences rather than repeating the full analysis. So, thank you for your time. Appreciate the opportunity to present to you today. >> Thank Thank you very much, Rita. And welcome another former NRC back to staffer back here, Nater Mameish from Westinghouse. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to discuss Westinghouse's plans to support deployment of the AP-1000 plant design. [clears throat] Next slide. Momentum continues to build for new nuclear deployment in support of Executive Order 14302. And today I will discuss Westinghouse's efforts to enable safe, efficient, and repeatable AP-1000 deployment. Specifically, I will highlight our initiatives to enhance licensing efficiency for future applicants in the NRC to strengthen and expand our supply chain capabilities and identify policy areas where additional regulatory certainty could further support efficient deployment. Together, these efforts position Westinghouse to support deployment levels that could exceed the goals outlined in Executive Order 14302. Next slide. As you know, Westinghouse submitted revision 20 of the AP-1000 DCD to the NRC on March 27th, and the NRC accepted the application for review the following month. Revision 20 aligns the certified design with the Vogal unit 4 plant and reflects the successful resolution of the firstofakind construction and operational challenges. Because the changes incorporated into Vogal unit 4 plant were implemented through an NRC approved licensing process. Revision 20 primarily serves to codify these approved changes into the certified design. We appreciate the NRC's consideration and recognition of this maturity and its efforts to pursue an efficient review process. Consistent with that approach, Westinghouse believes that revision 20 is well suited for incorporation into the regulations through a direct final rule making reflecting the maturity, stability, and proven performance of the design. Once approved, revision 20 will provide the licensing foundation for deployment of an AP-1000 fleet by incorporating lessons learned from Vogle. Revision 20 should enable future combined license reviews to focus primarily on sight specific and safety significant considerations. Because the NRC remains the global benchmark for nuclear safety, the benefits of revision 20 of the AP-1000 design certification extend beyond the United States. An updated AP-1000 design certification will not only reinforce US nuclear leadership, but also facilitate international deployment efforts consistent with the Advance Act, Executive Order 14302, and broader US foreign policy objectives. Next slide. The AP-1000 benefits from mature and established supply chains supported in large part by the stability and standardization of the plant design. Building on the recently announced DOE Office of Energy Dominance conditional loan commitment, Westinghouse is expanding supply chain capabilities to support largescale AP-1000 fleet deployment. Our strategy focuses on three areas. people, process, and partnership. A resilient supply chain requires both qualified suppliers and a skilled workforce. Westinghouse is investing in workforce development through internal training programs and partnerships with educational institutions to strengthen the nuclear talent pipeline. Our buy where we build approach combines local sourcing with global supplier network, enhancing supply chain resilience, strengthening project execution and leveraging advanced technologies to enhance efficiency, safety, and quality. In addition, Westinghouse is strengthening supplier capabilities and long-term partnerships to promote nuclear safety, quality, and trust throughout the industry. Next slide. Following DOE's conditional loan commitment announcement, Westinghouse is actively preparing to support deployment of an AP-1000 fleet consistent with the objectives of Executive Order 14302. Regulatory clarity is a critical enabler of successful nuclear projects because it allows licences, investors, and suppliers to better understand, manage, and reduce project risk. We appreciate the NRC's efforts to develop advanced reactor construction oversight uh process um or AROP and its decision to extend the AROP uh applicability to AP-1000 projects. or a mature design such as the AP-1000. Additional guidance regarding construction activities would provide greater certainty and improve project execution. For its part, Westinghouse is applying lessons learned from the e from the construction of Vogle units three and four to drive standardization, continuity, and improved execution across AP-1000 projects. Construction flexibility remains important and tier 2 star information continues to constrain the efficient implementation of improvements. We appreciate the commission's ongoing efforts to modernize and improve the regulatory framework, including parts 53 and 57. Westinghouse believes that a mature part 52 certified designs such as the AP-1000 should benefit from the riskinformed change processes and that removing tier 2 star categories would increase flexibility and enable efficient implementation of construction improvements across a fleet of projects. Next slide. Westinghouse is committed to working with the NRC to leverage the proven AP-1000 design, a mature supply chain, and a modernized regulatory framework to enable the safe, efficient, and repeatable deployment of a new generation of nuclear power plants. Thank you for your attention and I'm be pleased to take any of your questions. >> Thank you, Nater. And then we'll conclude our external panel with Miss Jennifer Wheeler from Xen Energy or Yes, X Energy. >> Yes, both. [laughter] All the above. Thank you for the invitation to be here um to talk with you today. So, if we could go to the slides, I'll try to be very efficient. I have lots of pictures. Next slide. Okay. So, we have three US deployments that we're working on right now. The first is the project that I'm directly involved with. Um, TRISOX is a wholly owned subsidiary of X Energy and is the fuel company uh to fuel the XC100 reactors. Uh, we are um constructing in Tennessee and I have some more pictures of that in a minute. Um, and I'm happy to share that we just received an 11 million economic development grant from the state of Tennessee that was announced last week. Um, that goes towards our first several projects in Tennessee related to fuel. Um the second project is um part of what um we are working with the department of energy for both the fuel project and project longmott in Texas uh under the advanced reactor demonstration program. Thank you very much. Um our 50-50 partnership is very important to both of these projects. Um and we are in the CPA phase uh for project long I believe and uh working towards our final STER um in the next few months and then on towards uh CPA. Uh the third project uh is with Amazon and they are looking to add uh reactors on a multi-year phased approach. The first of which would be cited in Washington state. Next slide. We also have uh one international deployment that we signed an agreement last fall with Centrica and Energy Utility in the UK and we are in early stages working with them on projects that they may want to develop that may include both reactors and fuel. Next slide. So just a reminder Trico fuel we have based our fuel product uh for the XC 100 on the decades of work done by the department of energy. So we are very much like the AGR uh product and the work that went with that testing included. We felt [clears throat] that was very important to go with that out of the gate um because there's a lot of work behind it. So we are we are trying to commercialize what you know what the goal of the DOE work was. Next slide. So this is the project that I'm directly working on. Um our team in Oakidge is working on construction. This picture was from last week. Um so even between when uh Commissioner Marzano visited in February and Commissioner Wright visited in November, uh we have a building now, [laughter] which is very exciting. Um we don't have anything inside yet, but even walking inside is exciting. Uh so we did start construction uh for site prep in October of 2024. We moved to uh begin vertical construction I think actually right after commissioner Wright's visit last fall um and our license was approved by your staff in February. So we are in the construction phase. Next slide. This is an uh aerial view. In the upper left is the campus for our first commercial building um that was licensed by your staff. The lower right is actually a laboratory facility which I'll talk about in a minute. So our campus is separated by some green space but on the same street. So pretty pretty nice location wise. Next slide. So where we're headed from here on the main campus TX1 is the first production building. That's what we're working on right now. Um that capacity annually is five u metric tons uranium of product. um which is roughly 715,000 pebbles a year that supports 11 XC100 reactors in steady state. TX2 is about four times as big. Uh both of these facilities are covered under our current NR NRC license. Uh we were able to plan ahead for that. So thank you. Um second building is 20 MTU um roughly three million pebbles a year and that supports 44 XC 100 reactors. We are very quickly moving towards when you add in Amazon their full what may their full order may be and Centrica we're we're going to be beyond TX1 and TX2 at some point sooner than later. So we'll see where that goes. Next slide. So this is just an aerial view of what I was showing you. The the left hand side is our main campus and our laboratory is is right in the middle of this of this slide. Roughly moving ourselves with all three of these facilities close to 1700 jobs in the next uh four to five years if everything stays on schedule. Uh last slide. So our our laboratory facility we have been in leased space at Oakidge National Lab since 2016 doing research and development that's um done refining of the work that DOE did in the AGR program. Um and we're looking to site a permanent home for that facility. So, we were able to buy another 15 or 20 acres down the street from ourselves and uh are working towards building the facility on the righthand side where we will then be able to move our equipment that is at ONL over to this facility and continue a very important fuel research and development for ourselves um but also others as as they may desire. Thank you very much. >> Okay, thank you Jennifer. Now we will proceed to uh questions from the commission and commissioner Wright, you get to start first. >> I get to start today. Very good. Well, thank you very much. Good morning. Um and let me um extend my warmest welcomes for me and my commissioners, my colleagues here um to have this distinguished panel here. This is uh it's good to see several of you again. Um meet you for the very first time, Beth. And um it's always good to see Nater uh come back in the building. Um I can't imagine they give you a key. I don't thank you. So um the work that you're doing to advance the safe deployment of advanced reactor technology. Um it's going to shape this nation for years to come. We all we all know. We recognize that and we're all working very hard to make that a reality. It's a it's a great it's a great day. um and it's going to impact the world for many years. So, I really appreciate your insights here because y'all been on the front line uh from the beginning on this. Um Jennifer, I'm going to start with you this morning. Um you know, fuel is big then it it doesn't matter what kind of designs we have. If we can't provide the fuel for it, it just doesn't matter. So um uh so a strong domestic fuel cycle is going to be foundational for any revival here in the United States or anything um else. I mean enriched capacity, advanced fuel designs and and the back end. We're going to need workable solutions for all of it. Um I'm kind of interested to um because we've been engaged for a long time with you. um what's your view of the NRC's evolution over the last 5 yearsish um when it comes to the safe and efficient licensing of fuel facilities, you know, how how has it evolved? Well, that's a good question and I I could even go back to say let's talk about 26 years because that's my time with I've only ever worked with an MSS staff and while people have changed over the years, you know, the regulations for part 70 have been largely the same through that whole time frame. Um, but I think really if you focus on the last few years, you know, anybody who came first with a new fuel facility, and ours, you know, was the first new fuel facility licensed in 50 years, um, was going to have a challenge um to prepare the information that NRC needed, but then also for NRC to kind of revive the the muscle memory of how to do an extensive review. you know, while there were several enrichment facility licenses that came in in the 2005ish plus or minus time frame, um it had been a while. So, we went in with that in mind. We hired very experienced people from fuel cycle facilities to our team, me included, but not me by myself. uh for the purpose of making sure that we were preparing a very quality product that we knew had worked at the various fuel cycle facilities we we had worked at and worked with NRC staff so that that hopefully gave NRC a leg up on at least okay we've got something good to work with here then let's work through the review. Um, I think that there are a couple of issues that we're still working together on. Anybody that comes after us, hopefully we'll have a little bit more efficiency of review because we're all back in the practice of what it is we need to talk about. Um, I think that this rule making is um a chance to memorialize some of the things that happened with our review, some of the exemptions that several facilities had gotten through time and not having to recreate that wheel again. Uh, so I think, you know, we're we're headed in a good direction. >> Okay. Thank you so much. um because you have been very very involved and you've been unafraid to to share u things that we needed to hear and I I thank you for that over the years. Um George, I'm going to come to you next and I'm going to finish I hope with if I have time with Ted and Rita for a second. Um so it's been a privilege to watch everything that's been going on with Natrium. Um it's, you know, I've had several of our commissioners have already been out there. I haven't been there yet, but I'm I'm I'm coming soon. And I hope um and I'd like to hear a little bit and one some of the things that you said. I wanted to get to this first. The importance of pre-application engagement. I I really would love to hear um a little bit about how long you're you're you thought that part was for you and how it changed over time. Um can you give me a little bit about that? >> Yeah. So we um when I evaluated the licensing strategy, we looked at first of a kinds or we thought crosswalks cuz we were doing a brand new technology um a sodium fast reactor. Um so um we developed a strategy um the NRC had a roadmap that had hey you should talk about certain things uh for pre-application engagement have these papers in and then we expounded on it. Um the first thing I wanted to do was to give the basis of the staff how our plant worked so that they could when we started the uh interactions. Um they would have to have a basis and we could get questions. The NRC made comments, we wrote those comments down um if we the pre-application meeting didn't end well, then we would schedule another one. Um and then we kept building on those. Uh we were the first ones to get a separation of the energy island nuclear island volcanic hazards um a gerb isolator that the vessel sets in. First one to use the cloud to doing safety analysis cases. So the pre-lication meetings worked well. Um the NRC would tell us concerns. we would address those concerns and then we would use an electronic reading room uh to put the submittals up so that they could look at them and then we would submit them and then I'll open questions with with with the public. So I plan on doing that with the O. We have some areas that go through. I'm still doing I had a lot of pre-application meetings. So to be honest with you, I'm still looking was it cost effective because my bosses are making me evaluate was it cost effective? Um, but I think we got out of it what, you know, I needed to. So, if the, you know, one of the good things is when you walk out of that pre-application meeting of the second or third, we have a joint understanding of what the NRC staff wants and what I want or things that we're going to stand in. So, they were very beneficial. I plan on continuing to do them. And I actually took that over to ONR and started pre-application gap assessments with the UK regulator because I think they're a great tool. And I hope you've seen improvement from our side as this progressed from the start. >> Yes. And we we actually shared lessons learned with your staff. I did a lessons learned from the uh CP issuance and we actually stared lessons learned from pre-application agreement and and through the reviews with your staff. >> Thank you. And one of one other thing that you talked about and I was going to ask you about this are others um other designers or other potential applicants here you know radiant anybody else um are are they asking you about your um defense and depth approach that that you have implemented? >> We'll we'll we'll share as long as it's not commercial sensitive we'll share around the approach that we do if someone comes. I know um there's a lot of XNRC people now out in the industry. So they call and I do give mentoring advice. So yeah, we'll share on how on the process that we do that and show the charts because it makes it very easy if I if you have a chart to show, hey, if this breaks, I have this, I have this. So we'll share if they come and ask. um the fact that you shared it here today is gonna I mean it sounds like a really good idea potentially and you know thank you for sharing that because if it's working that's great you know um so thank you. So I got time to come to Ted. Ted it's great to see you again. Um I I can't imagine how you sleep at all because you're just busy 247 365 right now. Um uh and Rita it's good to see you here as well. Um I'm gonna both both of you may participate in this part of it here. So NRC and DOE interaction on the pilot program uh is um something I've been invested in since you know last year when I was chair um and and I think that in my opinion we position both organizations well to succeed in in our respective roles. So, um Ted, now that we've had some runtime with this with you, um I'd love to hear your thoughts on how you think that shared vision has been realized and are anything that we need to do going forward to improve on it. >> Well, I I think when I think [clears throat] back when we started and where we are today, I I think we made substantial progress and a couple things have happened. I think we've learned more about the process of authorization and hopefully the folks at the NRC have looked at us and seen some of the advantages of why we can be helpful in some of the work that they're doing. Um I do think um the thing that has helped us the most is it really challenged our people and our people really stood up to the challenge. The thing that's important to me is when I look at at the lab, this coalesed the lab for us. I think it really made them a better uh organization in terms of being able to do these kinds of tasks. So I think it was really good from from that standpoint and it also made the um the joint relationship between us and the labs stronger and I think that that has really been good and when I look at look at the various labs I think Idaho has really excelled in in this process. Uh I'm hopeful that the folks that have come back uh that are about to come back that have learned uh more about us uh so that they can understand what we're doing. To me, I I I think I feel the same as I did originally. When we do work, let's try not to duplicate it again. In other words, let's try to take advantage of that as you go forward. But the thing I think that's been most helpful is I think that the companies have learned what it is that they need to do to do a better job when they get to see you. I mean, I think that that that process, what we have done is basically help educate the industry as to what it needs to do. And this was was a group that's not the traditional utility industry. These are this is a different crowd and it's different people and they're extremely good at what they do but they're not used to the nuclear culture and what has to be done to make this go forward. So I think the the biggest advantage is that we've taken people that want to get into this business and I think we've helped train them as to what is needed and how to do this and to do it now in a bigger sense when they get to you and and really do it right. So that's that's a good part. I'm going to ask my fellow commissioners just to indulge me here. Don't want Rita to follow up. So given that you're on the applicant side of this, um is there anything you'd like to add to what maybe Ted said or maybe what your experience has been like? >> Sure. So So I will supplement um what what assistant secretary Garrett said because there there are some of us who have been in the industry for decades. Um and but we are I I would agree that we are an exception. Um and so we do understand the nuclear culture and we do understand what is expected of us when we come to the regulator. Uh we radiant is very appreciative of the patience that DOE and the embedded uh detailed NRC uh experts and the national laboratories have exhibited when working with us through our application uh process. Um it has helped Radiant grow and become more robust as a company. So very very appreciative for that. Uh as we look forward and extend that experience to continuing to work with the NRC and the DOW, um I'll emphasize that we're looking forward to not duplicating efforts unnecessarily. And we do feel since we are already working with those three agencies that we at Radiant can use Kidos as this poster child to lead the way and demonstrate to the industry that this actually can be done and is more than just something that's written in an executive order. >> Thank Thank you so much. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Wright, Commissioner Coh. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for being here this morning. Um, it's been an enjoyable presentation and got my my mind working in many different ways. More than my time will allow to get into a couple comments off the top and then I hope to get through maybe five questions with you all. Um, first welcome to Jody Martin who's his first uh commission meeting as Secretary of the Commission u the true NRC Glenn for punishment. Thank you for all that you've done and in various capacities around here. Uh and second and and and I speak somewhat on behalf of of uh Commissioner Wright, but I but everyone just wanted to just note the passage of Senator Graham, who is obviously a big supporter of nuclear. I think probably everyone in here has worked with him and his office in various capacities, including myself. It in in in uh pleasant ways and in less pleasant ways. And I'll just say X to Ted and others who know what I'm talking about. Uh but I found um uh he and his staff always acted with uh honesty and integrity and professionalism and that is somewhat of a lost art these days and he will be missed in that regard. That being said um uh this is Secretary Gar. I can start with with you. Um help me uh help all of us kind of explain to those who are listening the public and otherwise um can you put criticality in context of uh the milestones reached uh with the four reactor developers? um what what does criticality mean to the average person? Um because it's not electrons on the grid. So could you put explain that? >> Well, I'm [clears throat] not sure that the average person really does under understand what we're doing. The the thing though that what I I believe it should mean is this is the first time that we expose expose the environment to uh full operation. even though it may be small in this particular case but this is this [clears throat] is really the essential first step in full operation and I you know there's then from there it's application so this is really to me is is really the the full operation of of the reactor >> um with that in mind can you help uh maybe enlighten all of us uh how DOE's PDSA and DSA they compare to NRC licensing milestones. Um I know this lot some people seem to be under the impression that they are the same uh in from different agencies. Can you help provide a little bit of um uh distinction? >> Well, they're not not the same and they're not as complete. In other words, we do um we do have a more practical approach, I think, to to making these these work. And I think the the important thing is these are tests. These this is research. This is not full operation of a large 300 megawatt or a,000 megawatt reactor. So that is a very different sort of consideration. In other words, we are sort of preliminarily determining that there is sufficient uh safety in these that we we can move forward. and and I think it is a different thing and we really need to recognize that and we need to recognize as important as criticality is in other words it demonstrates that the ability to do this these reactors that were started were relatively modest in terms of size and I think um in other words we understand that that in a couple of instances when we determined how we were going to prove a particular point we really reduced the power. So that there was it was done with the idea of how can you demonstrate this safely and we do it in a manner in which uh it's done with with the the least power that's necessary to demonstrate the point and then there's a series of tests to go on as as we be become more confident in this reactor to move it into a larger setting and I think that that's what we do with and that's the help that we can provide and so it's a different sort of thing that we're doing. In other words, we're helping I think we're helping the reactor companies understand the reactor and the reactions of the reactor to the to the physics and moving it forward in a way that then can lead to the larger work that you do. But to to be clear, uh there are safety significant factors outside or above and beyond the DOE's uh uh documenting safety analysis that are necessary before a reactor moves to commercial operation. Correct. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Um I'm going to stick with you for a second here. Um what is the role of either you as assistant secretary of nuclear energy office nuclear energy or other leadership at the department in ensuring that corners were not cut and um uh all you know regulations were applied appropriately. You mentioned that you feel confident that that is that's the case. Um how do you know you know what do you do to ensure that from your your position? >> [clears throat] >> We have federal employees that I work with on a daily basis and my staff works with on a daily daily basis, the reactor division, and they live with these these folks in in Idaho. Uh so they know exactly what's going on. In other words, this is not a distant relationship. It is Idaho and we're in Washington and they report back to me and tell me exactly what what's going on, but they actually live with these folks. So this is this is a hands-on operation. Uh and it is in in many senses sometimes I hear about it the reactions are negative from the companies. They say we are too manipulative in terms of what we're suggesting and requiring. So I hear that more than I hear any other activity. I hear a lot of positives from the from the folks. But what I hear the most are [clears throat] the complaints from the companies. And to me that is a sign that this is working. And it also to me is a sign of the the independent thinking of the folks that are in this job. The the people that we have in this job I have tremendous confidence in will not do anything for the sake of just because some reactor company wants to do it. They they have integrity beyond belief in in my judgment. Sometimes almost too much. In other words, these are test reactors, but I have to tell you, I I've just been incredibly impressed with with the folks on this, and they tell me what they believe. And in a nuclear culture, the person on the ground is who you have to believe. >> Thank you. >> I'm not I'm not going to override them. Uh because because if they're making a judgment on the safety of that reactor, they are on the ground. They understand it. I don't. So, I I have to rely on them. But I have the highest confidence in these people. >> Yeah. And given your your background, both the technical background and and legal background, you're well suited to to make sure all the eyes were doted and tees were crossed. So, thank you for for what you do. >> [snorts] >> Um, uh, George, I'm not going to ask you a question, but I will tell you that, uh, I'm not an economist, but I could probably guarantee you that the, um, cost-effective evaluation of pre-lication activity is going to show that it is, um, definitely more cost-effective than not doing pre-application. [snorts] Um, uh, Dr. Veronal. Um, first I'm going to uh sheepishly admit that I've been pronouncing your last name wrong for a long time without the an in the middle. So, I'll correct that going forward. Um, uh, you know, your your guys technology is is uh is very promising and and interesting. Um, thank you for all that you're doing to to help bring that to to um fruition safely. Um, you mentioned in your presentation that there's no waste left on site. Um so where what is the waste profile of of um the project and where does the waste go and and and take me through the back end of your fuel cycle. >> So so our current model is that we refuel every about every 5 years. Um and in that the reactor is returned to our facility in Oakidge, Tennessee. Um and we refuel it there and we store the used fuel in dry casks at that facility. So, it's returned to the facility with irradiated fuel still in the reactor and then it's um dispositioned there into some sort of dry cast. You were correct. Um and and without getting too technical, how does the waste profile stack up to traditional um uh waste from large lightwater reactors? >> Um in terms of volume, it is much much smaller. We're we're a one megawatt. >> Yeah. How about how about in radioactivity? >> Um I am not prepared to share that at the at the moment. >> Um I I do say just in general I think it's an area that would uh from NRCD or whoever's perspective a lot more uh work is needed to look at what the um waste profiles of advanced reactors are. Um and yes there's a volume benefit um be for a variety of obvious reasons but um the the radioactivity and the best uh disposition be it dry cask intermediate well you know a permanent disposal we need to understand those things so we can figure out the path forward um for for anyone here and I'll I'll make this my last question but you know outside and Beth I apologize But outside of Canada and the UK, uh what is what have been recent experiences working with international regulators um in terms of their perspective on what the uh US uh be via the NRC or DOE is doing to um reform and modernize the um reactor licensing process and make the deployment process more uh efficient while maintaining safety. are um uh are there concerns from some of our traditional partners um either because they don't fully understand what's going what we're what we're undertaking or it's too voluminous or they're the politics gets in the way. It's just I just looking for some anecdotal experience of working with international regulators. George. >> Yeah, [snorts] we've started working with um the South Korean regulators >> and um and I've reached out to OIP and NR OR I'm no um whatever I'm sorry the new acronyms of the advanced reactors to try to develop a correlation and a relationship with the South Korean regulators and the NRC regulators because it's going to be crucial for deployment. they don't fully understand um some of the new methodologies like NEI1804. So there has to be training and collaboration done so that the other regulators can fully understand the processes and where the NRC is going. I and you know we're pushing for that and we're actually doing crosswalks and training. Um but they are looking to see are there relaxations, where are they coming from? Um, but it's going to be key to develop the relationships with the NRC and the other regulators so if they feel comfortable because it is our plan to use the NRC's licensing for like our construction permit as a basis and in the O. So that collaboration just like with Canada and the UK becomes critical. >> Anybody else have anything that they want to add? Don't feel obligated but nater please. >> Yeah, thank you uh commissioner. Certainly uh we've been working with uh PAA through uh the Polish regulator uh through PEJ our our Polish uh client. Uh we've um conducted some training for PAA uh involving the AP-1000 safety uh features. Uh I've been led to believe that uh PAA is continuing to monitor the NRC's um changes to its regulations and we've supported them [clears throat] and supported BJ as appropriate to help them understand some of the changes. >> Yeah. Right. Thank you. And thank you to my colleagues for the extra time, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Cole. Commissioner Barzano. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. and I am very pleased to have this group here especially um each of you who brings a unique perspective to the advanced reactor landscape conversation we're having today. So the ambitious targets in uh and both domestically and internationally for new nuclear energy uh have catalyzed unprecedented innovation across technologies, business models and deployment strategies as we have heard today. Uh yet the scale and urgency of these ambitions also mean that each of us representing our distinct roles within the industry must respond in ways that are equally unprecedented. Achieving our stated goals demands an all hands-on deck approach where we must embrace collaboration, cooperation while upholding the sta highest standards of safety and public confidence. So I really appreciate Rita Ted mentioning just how important that is to the pilot program and will be moving forward. Um, success in my opinion will not only be defined by the number of projects that move forward, but whether they do so without compromising the principles that define our industry's credibility and trustworthiness. So, the NRC is now close to uh finalizing the full suite or issuing the uh the full suite of rulemaking proposals that we began under in response to EO 14300. uh and many of these efforts will directly impact each of you at the table uh shaping the future regulatory environment in which you operate. So I appreciate hearing your insights on how our innovation is shaping your strategies and how early interactions have helped guide your progress and what challenges or opportunities you see on the horizon as we move forward. Um so actually I do want to kind of really hone in real quick on some of the innovations that we have been um you know kind of pursuing here uh particularly uh under part 50. Um and so I kind of you know had it as a goal in mind to really communicate how each of the licensing pathways that we pursued uh changes under uh should be used um and kind of establish some guidance there. So, in particular, uh, George, I want to talk to you about part 50 licensing. Um, so the part 50 process being a two-step process, what we've seen play out, um, is that there is an early milestone that you can be that can be achieved, uh, as the design matures and the project moves forward. Um, you know, some of the changes in part 50, what we've done is to make part 50 more technology neutral. uh is to remove the prescriptive requirements for lightwater re large lightwater reactors such that this two-step process uh can better serve advanced reactors um that may cut down on some of that pre-lication uh engagement that may be required um other than you know kind of familiarizing our staff. I am very interested to hear what those cost savings were by the way. Um so but aside from that um from your perspective you know how should we think about our current regulatory frameworks from part 50 to part 57 um and how are these structured in a way that supports the kind of design evolution that's going to continue uh with these first of a kind projects? >> Yeah. So we've actually evaluated the not so much part 57 because I can't use part 57 because I have too much fuel. um unless you remove that constraint and I'll relook at a little harder. But so we look at the rules and look at the pros and cons. I also look at the regulatory basis that's in the rule to see if I can adopt it and where I'm at. So we we're really looking hard at part 53 because we use the LMP process which is actually the backbone of part 53. And I do, you know, I do pros and cons and I look at that um because there there's, you know, there are some fleet approaches to part 53 that, you know, you got to look longterm and you've got to look short term. Um so it's evaluated. I think there's some plus and minuses. Um I also know we were the industry leaders for going through the LMP process and so the staff learns as we learn, right? It's a new process. all the regulatory documents are not ready, the guidance documents. And so it's very key that you do lessons learned and then you go back and incorporate those lessons learned and make it more efficient and more effective. Um that's key. That's the reason we shared our lessons learned with the staff. So hopefully they'll look at that and they'll take some of the guidance documents. So and some of the rulemakings like with part 53 and example, there's a chemical hazard association, but there's no guidance for that yet. So you would have to work through it. So you know, you know, we evaluate them. I see I look to see if there's efficiencies and effectiveness. Can I try to adapt that one thing and bring it into where I'm at or would it make sense to holistically just change my licensing process and swap over to part 53. So um it's a long I have lots of spreadsheets. I still like paper and I do pros [clears throat] and cons when I go through it. So I can give I can give you the pros and cons. Not not here. But we are working with the staff on that. So I do evaluate everything that you do. And then you know even look at like with part 51 some of the changes might make the states the long pole in the tent to do environmental licensing. It will no longer be the NRC. It will actually be the state regulation. So we look all of it and I have to not only look at deployment for the US, I actually look at deployment globally because it is our country, our company's goal to deploy globally. So some of the changes would not potentially be good for me globally uh that were done. So I would look at it and say no, I want to keep what you're doing because I need that NRC base review to go to another country. >> Yeah, I I really appreciate some of those insights and Rita, I do want to hear your your perspective. Again, you know, we are we are working towards issuing and changing uh our core licensing processes without compromising safety, but you know, to some of the process efficiencies. I think that the Department of Energy has been able to achieve. So, um your your perspective. >> So, so I'll speak to our um eager anticipation of part 57 being issued as a as a final rule. Um I've told a few of you um that we feel that much of the language and the proposed part 57 rule has been taken straight out of Radiance's playbook. Um, so we're very appreciative to see the feedback that we provided in preparation um to of that rule coming out as a proposed rule to to see that in in writing. Um, very much appreciative of it addressing the fact that there is a different pathway that is needed for lowdose consequence reactors. um and that there are um uh considerations for a reactor that is going to be mobile uh and and can be transported as long as it has features to prevent criticality. So, we're very appreciative of seeing all of that in this proposed rule. I think it's going to benefit um all of the micro reactor sector and um we actually right after uh this meeting we're we're starting um our pre-application conversations um in anticipation again of of what that uh rule is going to look like. >> Excellent. Yeah, stay tuned on that one. Um well, I'm fortunate to have Beth and George here, these uh two panelists that we uh for um a panel that we h held at the Rick on construction efficiency. Uh and so maybe it's a good opportunity to kind of check in from where you know that discussion to now. Uh Beth, especially with the with the Darlington project kind of uh starting to move uh a pace. So um if there's any learnings that I think are important to share in this forum right now, I invite you to do so, please. >> Thank you very much. Thanks for having me again. Good to see you. Uh the Darlington new nuclear project is progressing. We have released the first whole point of three first of three have been released. Um so the construction continues. That first whole point allowed for the installation of the basemat for the reactor building and the subsequent construction of the of the containment. So the when I understand that there's uh some folks from the the commission going to site next week. So you'll be able to see the latest progress there. It's very impressive. Um and um we'll continue to work on the verification that the subsequent whole points are ready for release. >> Was there anything unexpected to come out of that whole point review? Um was there any kind of specific challenge that uh you know >> uh it was fairly straightforward. It's um I guess it is the aspect of it that is maybe perhaps a bit different for us is that um the construction timeline does change you know as things happen on site the schedule gets adjusted and so being adaptable to um to the schedule and when that basemat would be ready to be installed was something that we uh worked with on power generation to understand the timing of that. Um, so that was one new aspect I would say. Yeah. >> Well, along the the lines of construction, uh, Jennifer, I appreciate the invite and it's very impressive to see the progress that's out there. Um, you know, speaking to some of the programs going on at Department of Energy. Um, you know, it is the reactor pilots and and how those are going to progress through the launchpad, but we have the fuel pilot project as well. Um, so there is a, you know, concept here where those facilities will become NRC licensed. So based on your experience now having been in construction, you know, what are some of the things that those folks should be thinking about in anticipation of uh um NRC licensing? >> Uh the expectations for the level of licency oversight of construction are very high as they should be. I think we underestimated how much oversight we needed to provide of our contractors and uh that's a lesson everybody needs to know and and hear it again and again and again. We we are hearing it again and again again to ourselves. Um, you know, contractors have their job to do. Um, but ultimately it's the lency's responsibility to make sure that we are meeting the commitments that we've made um through the licensing process. Um, you know, meet the design requirements, do the inspections that are required, document all the above, be ready for NRC to come in and inspect um, and meet those needs. So, >> well, I'm running low on time. I just want to make one quick uh, point here. Um, you know, Congress has long recognized the from a bipartisan perspective kind of some of the gaps, structural gaps in in in the way that our, you know, we've been approaching nuclear energy in this country. Uh, so the passage of both the nuclear energy innovation capabilities act and nuclear energy innovation modernization act really kind of set the groundwork for uh what is happening right now and the pilot program and everything that the department along with our help uh has has really put that vision into practice. Uh it is truly remarkable that we've been able to achieve what we have in such a short time. Uh I think that needs to continue. Um I think our cooperation of the NRC in these activities needs to continue. Yes, I think we will continue to have an observation role, but I have concern about again getting our folks down into the details. Um you know, managing conflicts of interest when things come back, when those folks return to us. uh but in an effort to avoid duplication you know I think that we really need to be paying attention to the certification of the tests the data the experiments uh that are underpinning you know the analyses that are going into that so you know I think what I'd like to do and kind of how we pointed out what or how Jennifer or what Jennifer just mentioned about uh the fuel line pilots um is our continued cooperation but in a in a in a much more kind of wholesome way uh similar to how uh we've had our folks uh help support review. So, I think that's very important. And lastly, I'll say I appreciate um you know, our international collaboration, Beth. Uh I think it's well worth the investment and I hope that we can continue to do it. Um it's just again for the technologies that are coming when the countries can kind of combine their capacities, we can see some real savings and and and good results that come from that process. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rosan. Commissioner Weaver. [clears throat] >> Thank you, Chairman. U I want to thank all of the panelists for coming this morning. Uh also congratulate you. Every one of you has had a number of successes and for those companies that aren't represented was also had a number of successes. Um some of my colleagues have already talked about the pace of innovation and some of the really fabulous things that are happening. Um, I'm when I first heard about this idea last spring of four reactors going critical or whatever the target was, I was pretty skeptical and just Ted as you suggested, maybe you were as well. But looking beyond that now and I guess I'm going to ask Rita and then maybe uh Ted if you want to uh chime in as well. The the role and importance of testing at power in support of that transition to commercial operation and deployment. Um could could you speak to that a little bit? So our plan at Radiant had always been to test at full power and full temperature in dome. We wanted to use that test bed to um its full capacity. Um but more importantly it was very um crucial to the company to be able to test the thing that we are going to commercialize. I mentioned that um we are going to deploy at Buckley Space Force Base and it is important that they receive a reactor that is that has been robust whose design has been robustly tested. Um DOM allows us to do that. And while I do not want to at all minimize the accomplishments um of those that have achieved all of their milestones um to date, it's a it's a huge huge um accomplishment for the industry. It is great progress. Um, and huge kudos to the leadership at DOE and the entire team within uh DOE, the Idaho National Lab and uh the NRC team that has been detailed to them. But it is very important to our company that we demonstrate the prototypic reactor that we are going to deliver to our customers. It is um it's imperative that we do that. So we are testing our prototypic fuel in our prototypic coolant at our prototypic power. All three are going to be demonstrated in dome this summer >> before you submit a license to the NRC license application. >> Yes. >> Did you want to add anything? Well, what I would tell you is I agree totally with what Rita just explained and I think Dome is one of our our really critical assets that we have available and um Radiant will do their testing and then they'll move on and we're going to then open that up to other reactors and this is a very important point in terms of the process and that's as full power for these smaller reactors. Really important. So, u that's our plan. That's what we're going to do. And um we're about to come out with asking applicants now to come in and tell us and we'll select some to move on to to our next stage. Very important. I agree totally with what Rita just said. >> Yeah. I I think it's important that they um you know, test that power. I'm I'm sure they're going to learn some things. >> Yeah. >> Right. and may have to tweak their design before they submit an application to the NRC. So, um, thank you. Um, Beth, you you talked a little bit about some of the savings and efficiencies that have gained through through our collaboration. If you look into the future, um, ho how far how far can we go? >> Well, looking into the future, we are a life cycle regulator. So we do foresee this uh international collaboration with the NRC to continue for the life cycle of the plant. Um there's a lot of potential there um given that we now have experience with the uh inspection uh during construction. So we'll be sharing that with the uh memorandum of cooperation team shortly. Um so there's the collaborations get identified as they become relevant. So it's hard to say exactly what uh future collaborations will look like. At the moment some future collaborations are like I said the construction inspections um and potentially um other technologies that that present themselves through our uh license to prepare site applications that we have in front of us. Uh today we have three licensed to prepare site applications that are um they have not selected their technology yet. They're using a bounding approach with a plant parameter envelope that um is based on a certain um subset of technologies that they're considering but they have not yet selected the technology. Once that does happen then we may then propose some additional collaborations with the NRC. >> Thank you. Um, George, I gonna turn to you for a moment. Um, as your company's gone through licensing and and and into construction, um, I actually have two questions for you. One, I want I'd like to hear your thoughts on how you develop and maintain a strong nuclear safety culture uh through that process. And then you had mentioned uh some of the oversight that the company is providing and ahead of NR NRC oversight and you particularly mentioned that you'd looked at did some vendor check on on your vendors. If you could speak to what did you find? Are they generally in good shape need a lot of work? You know what what's the status of that supply chain out there? >> So um um which would you like me to answer first? So I'll do with I'll do I'll do with the safety culture. So safety culture for a company starts from the CEO down or from the board down. So they have to, you know, they have to stress it and they have to push it. There has to be, hey, I'm willing to raise concerns. I'm willing to raise comments. There has to be a low threshold to enter stuff into corrective action program. We have a very robust uh employee concerns program, a safety conscious work environment program at Terara Power. Um it's actually ran by some XNRC people that comes in. We do pulse checks. We evaluate all the condition reports. We'd have uh screening criteria that goes on there where we'll look and do trends to see if something comes up. We have anonymous ways that they can uh put concerns there and then we get that. We also tie looking forward to construction. We're going to tie all the corrective action programs together so that we can see that there's some lessons learned to where some of the corrective action programs and previous constructions didn't talk to each other and that ended up in causing the NRC to do some enforcement actions. So, we actually with like Bectal, we talked to their ECP uh people. We'll run the corrective action program. So there's a tight link between training um safety culture and continuous improvement in a corrective action program. Terra power we actually have guiding principles that mirror um the inpost safety trait. So that's in that's born and bred down into our our country. We will take and excuse me into our company. We will take that to the construction. Our subcontractors have to have that. So we'll go back and we'll look at that. That like I said we do proactive pulse checks. We do proactive interviews and then we take lessons learned and feedback. If we see that there's an issue, we'll actually sit down and have talks with that group if we see there's some concerns or trends coming up to make sure that there's still openness in that group to raise concerns. Going to the second question, we just now started some of the vendor inspections and what you know, like I said, one of our goals is to ensure that our inspections are harder than what they'll get from the NRC. So, we can identify issues at our vendors, they can correct them, and they can put them back into their program. Um, and so, same way when we do construction oversight, I expect our inspections to be harder. In fact, I most of my uh construction oversight inspectors are actually XNRC inspectors from the 70s and the 80s that actually did a lot of the construction oversight inspections along along with working. So, um we're finding some things that were missed. Um you know, like I said, we're very uh intrusive when we go back and and we look at it. We've only done one. We're going to really focus on some as with us. We we have some brand new vendors that just now established some appendix B programs. The NRC's never looked at them. So, we're going to go over there. Part of it will be training and part of it will be a very intrusive uh inspection and then it'll be additional training to make sure they can bring their programs up. So, I'm getting high quality uh components back. So, um, if you give me about another 6 months and you ask that question, you come out and visit the site, I'll be able to give you a little bit more in depth, but we did go to an established vendor and we did identify some things and they are going to have to correct that. And that's a vendor that's had a lot of inspections to it. So, um, I I think it's paying off. It's showing that we're having an impact and improving the quality and the safety, and that's what it's for. >> Thank you, Nater. I can't let you off the hook, my friend. Um, so you you talked about a number of things Westinghouse is doing to improve the supply chain situation. So what what's your what's what's the capacity? I mean, how many AP1000s can we build without being supply constrained? We can build as many as uh customers [laughter] would like us to build. I mean, obviously, we're uh gearing up. We've been working very very hard with the staff and and my compliments uh to to Jeremy and and his staff uh to put together uh some initiatives to um safety enhancements that would be in a topical report where um potential customers could pick and choose what they want to take out of that topical report so that we can be prepared prepared to you can be prepared to license as many reactors as possible. We want to keep the any design changes to a minimum, but we want to provide flexibility to our potential uh customers and uh streamline the licensing reviews for the staff. >> Jennifer, I'm out of time, but we'll we'll talk another time. Thank Thank you, Chairman. >> Thank you, Commissioner Weaver. get to go last and I'm going to take a play piece of out of the out of I'm going to take a piece out of the FIFA World Cup playbook and I've been tallying up the extra time that my colleagues on the commission have been acrewing and I'm going to add it to my own time. I like that. [laughter] >> No flopping at the table. Uh look, I great presentations. Thank you so much for being here and I really appreciate the thoughtful questions from my colleagues on the commission. I I want to step back and I hope that the NRC's audience takes away that this is an incredible story of American innovation in nuclear energy with a focus on safety. It also represents a deliberate and coordinated effort with the Department of Energy and the NRC. Two agencies working in their independent lanes but heading to the same destination of America safely deploying new technologies and reestablishing the United States as a leader in nuclear energy. All of your companies are are part of that. I' I've been to several of them already and again through the work of the department of energy investing in the ind industrial base around the entire nuclear life cycle including you know on the front end with with fuel as well as uh investments from the energy dominance financing for long lead time components for AP-1000 the advanced reactor demo thi this is nuclear innovation in motion in the United States of America and we are doing it safely so appreciate that as well as our our work with our Canadian counterparts in uh international cooperation. I want to just make a few comments on some points I heard today. Um and then I have a couple questions, but I'm going to fire them quickly. Uh George, you you made some comments about training for the NRC on the terror power design as well as extending that to the Office of Nuclear Regulation, that's ONR in the UK. That that's really fantastic. My message to all of you that are uh in the new entrant community, uh I I think you ought to replicate that process with the NRC staff is is do the training on the designs that that will really help us learn together uh with these new technologies. Uh Jennifer, you made a comment. I I picked up on it where you talked about uh you went into this with the first mover challenges in mind. And I I've seen in my career in this industry that as far as engaging with the regulator goes, no one there's no first mover advantage. Everybody wants to be first to be second. And this is maybe more for the NRC staff. We that's what we have to change right through the engagement in the process that we have. George I I would really love for Terap Power to be able to share that your your costbenefit analysis on pre-application engagement because going forward we are making all these reforms at the NRC. We just cannot be living in a world where you are planning for problems in your application. That's what we have to fix. That's why continuous improvement is really so important for this agency. So, uh, the other thought that was going through my mind in listening to your experiences thus far, I think, um, NRC from what I'm seeing now is being very flexible in getting the feedback in the interactions we're having either through the DTLE process over at DOE or some preapp activities. I I think the vendors need to demonstrate that same level of flexibility as well. Give us some grace. We're learning new behaviors. um maybe we could communicate better some of the feedback we're giving you. So please, you know, allow time for those discussions to unfold. I assure you the NRC will not be an impediment to this moment and we will, you know, ensure that we are focused on safety. So safety, I want to start with my first question. Ted, I really appreciate you emphasizing the point on safety because safety is what unifies us all here at this table today. uh what role do you see that uh the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations might be able to play with the the different crowd that you mentioned that's in the new entrant community today? >> Well, they're obviously an excellent organization and they they really exemplify safety uh like none other. Um I think it really depends a little bit on the role that they have been extremely effective in the commercial industry helping the commercial industry make sure that they're they're basically ahead of the nuclear regulatory commission in terms of of so that they know in advance the industry knows I see that they might be able to participate by providing workshops for some of the the newcomers into into the industry because this is a different type of without being utilities. There's a little different type of industry that's coming and it's smaller groups and and folks that aren't quite they don't have the established uh work forces the way the utility industry does. They might be able to help in in providing workshops of some type uh on a volunteer basis. If they if they were willing to do that, that would be the one area. Uh the the problem is as much as I'd like to see them in this business is what's the role, right? how the role would fit in and and that but um if we could get them involved, I'd love to have them. >> Okay. Uh any other presenters at the table on any views on on INPO and kind of how you see their role? I know they're coming at it from kind of the what they've been doing with the large lightwater reactors operating today. But, you know, they have training programs as well that uh help meet the NRC's training rule, but any any perspectives you all might want to share? >> Yeah, we uh we started out as a supply with input. we're going to become a full member. Uh we're in the process. We we see a lot of benefit especially with Oppy peer checks where they can bring people um it you know just with startup they had people that evaluated the Vogal startups they evaluated some of the Chinese company startups. So even though our reactor is a little bit different they can bring that expertise and give us hints on how to do here B how to do more efficient make sure we're more reliable. So I I see benefits that they need to re-evaluate some of the structures but they're working with the advanced reactors and new reactor communities to do that to actually have like an alocart service. So I see a lot of benefit. >> Rita, anything? >> Yeah, I I would agree with what's been said that um it needs to be um uh reformed a bit for the small for the especially for the micro reactor community. Um and we really need to assess what the role would be. But alakart is a perfect way to describe it. um that uh if we can pick and choose uh the optionality of where we um work with INPO um that would be greatly appreciated. >> Great. Thank thank you both. Okay. Uh Beth uh to international cooperation. So I I worked at both of the international organizations you you referenced in your materials and there was a vision in one project that I was involved with at the nuclear energy agency for really taking the international cooperation way further than we are today. So tell me what would it take to be able to have countries issue an approval for a design barring uh sight specific u environmental things or nationally specific security and emergency prepared emergency preparedness requirements. what would it really take to really achieve what what I believe is I think is possible but to have true multilateral licensing so it's just one review one license can be substantially done by multiple countries what what would that take thank you for the question it's a tough one actually um but uh a good ambition with what I've seen on uh our collaboration with the NRC a key factor is to understand each other's regulatory framework and and to know what the differences are and what the similarities are. I think at this point um we Canada is not at the point of adopting for example a standard plant approved by the NRC. However, we have experienced leveraging aspects of that. So, we're getting there. Um there is definitely progress that's happening. There are differences with our regulatory framework that we would need to understand um how those impact the the um more broad approval um I'll call it for instance um criteria for design basis accident uh is different between countries and these are legal requirements that that that need to be met and we need to assure that they are met. So um that is one of the barriers left to to uh >> can can you tell me how big the barrier is or how big the gap is to close in terms of things that may be legal requirements in your framework visav NRC's framework. Um there we've recently done a review where we looked at what are these key aspects that that uh need to be um shown demonstrated that are met in for the Canadian framework and it's it's not a long list. There are it is a handful of key aspects like the design basis accident criteria for instance is one of them. Um so um I can't speak to exactly all the off the top of my head but um those would be the areas that we would focus on should we uh want to leverage the NRC's uh standard plant approval. We could categorize the different aspects of that application. So some aspects we could rely and leverage the NRC's approval. other aspects we would need a little bit more review and then those key ones would need to be our main focus. So we would really um focus on that area from a risk based point of view. >> Thank you. My last question to Nater $17.5 billion long lead time components for AP-1000. What what what time frame should NRC be thinking about for applications coming in? So, as discussions and negotiations are continuing with uh potential clients, uh Westinghouse is continuing to work with the staff to streamline um licensing for the future. Um, while the licensing of future reactors are going to be primarily driven by our customers, I can tell you that Westinghouse is working very, very hard to make it as easy as possible for our clients and for the NRC to license future reactors. I would say that by the end of this year, first quarter of next year, the agency should see a couple of applications. >> Okay. >> That's dependent on Rev 20. No pressure. >> Okay. Okay. [laughter] Okay. But as you as you point out, Rev 20 includes a lot of what NRC has seen in other regulatory processes as well. Okay. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm out of time. Uh thank you for the presentations again. Thank you all for the questions. We are going to uh take a 5m minute break to reset the table and then we'll return with this NRC staff presentations. Thank you. Okay, welcome back everybody and we're going to continue the commission meeting today now with the staff's presentation. You heard a lot from uh the external panelists and now we get to hear about the staff's readiness in this moment. Uh any fellow commissioners have any comments they want to make before the staff's presentations? Okay, turn it over to the exe NRC's executive director for operations, Mike King. >> Thank you, chairman and commissioners, uh, for the opportunity to cram hour and a half discussion into one hour. Um, uh, with all joking aside, uh, I I wanted to begin by echoing the comments that many of you have made that the remarkable progress we've made together as an agency. Uh we're in one of the most conu uh con consequential periods in NRC history and our collective efforts are positioning us to meet the anticipated surge in new and advanced re workload with confidence and with excellence. Next slide, please. Over the past year, we've taken bold steps to modernize our operations and regulations and aligned our agency structure with the rapidly evolving nuclear landscape. Last month, we implemented an agencywide reorganization that streamlines decision-making, consolidates functions, and aligns the NRC structure with national goals for efficient licensing and adoption of innovative nuclear technology. Establishing the Office of Advanced Reactors is a direct investment in our mission, strengthening our ability to provide safe, secure, and predictable licensing as new technologies move toward deployment. This change empowers our workforce, strengthens technical credibility, and creates clearer development pathways. Through these changes, we're keeping safety as our northstar and our principles of good regulation front and center. Alongside these structural changes, we're launching the leadership excellence, accountability, and discipline framework or lead framework. And I I briefly introduced this at at the Rick earlier this year, and it's evolved since that time. The framework is designed to drive a culture of accountability and continuous improvement in a sustainable way. It embeds clear expectations, ownership of results, and continuous learning into our daily operations, ensuring that the improvements we're make today endure long after everybody at the table here today is gone. The lead framework is is not more bureaucracy. It's how high-erforming nuclear organizations sustain excellence. It focuses our energy on what matters most for safety, removes friction, gives our people the clarity they need to act. It calls on us to set clear direction and high standards, develop our people, remain self-aware and self-correcting, and continuously learn and improve. Our agencywide efforts from the organizational realignment to the lead framework are designed to support and amplify the work you'll hear about from the panel members here today. Simply put, the agency is doubling down on our commitment to sustained operational excellence and our progress is already seeing tangible benefits and measurable results. Review schedules and re resource targets are consistently being met even as we tackle increasingly complex first-of-akind reviews without being an unnecessary barrier to first movers that we discussed in the earlier panel. Now, let me turn it over to the director of office of advanced reactors, Jeremy Bowen. Next slide. >> All right. Thanks, Mike. Uh, good morning, chairman, commissioners. Uh we appreciate the opportunity to highlight the recent accomplishments of the advanced reactor program and to share with you our vision for continued success. Uh development of a navigable licensing framework and completion of timely cost-effective reviews continues to be driven by proactive and deliberating deliberative engagement with the advanced reactive community. Next slide please. The advance act and executive order 14300 were introduced to enable regulatory modernization. They provided us with direction on how to achieve our statutory requirements along with the necessary tools to evolve our processes. The advanced reactor staff have embraced this direction and leaned into the to the principles of these mandates. First and foremost, NRC advanced reactor reviews have leveraged the capabilities of these new technologies, acknowledging the enhanced safety benefits and expanded features. Pre-application engagement has been particularly successful in allowing for early understanding, opportunity for feedback, and timely resolution of technical or policy issues. Christian Aragus, OAR's deputy director for engineering and science, will discuss pre-application in more detail. Environmental reviews have been a focus area for advanced reactor applicants, and the NRC staff have made a priority to streamline this aspect of our work. This includes reduced documentation, expanded opportunities to credit prior activities and cooperative engagements, and benchmarking with other federal agencies and the Council for Environmental Quality. Kimyata Seavoy, the NRC's executive champion for environmental will provide additional information regarding the staff's work in this area. As part of the larger federal family, we've strengthened and expanded our relationship with the Department of Energy and the Department of War to further accelerate the testing and deployment of safe advanced reactor technologies. These partnerships broaden our expertise, improve review quality, and help align expectations across the advanced reactor ecosystem. Michelle Samson, OAR's deputy director for licensing and programs, will provide more information on these activities. Going beyond technical reviews, streamlined engagement with the advisory committee on reactor safeguards, along with changes to the contested and mandatory hearing processes are instrumental to our ability to meet aggressive licensing timelines. Changes here allow all parties to focus on the unique, novel, and most important issues impacting a licensing decision. We're also expanding the ability of advanced reactor developers to expedite construction activities that have negligible impacts on safety. And the advanced reactor construction oversight proc program is expected to provide the necessary focus to bring this aspect of regulatory engagement in line with the lower risk profiles of these technologies. Michelle will also provide some additional details on these activities. Overall, our top priority continues to be delivering highquality safety reviews on schedule and within cost estimates. The NRC staff are committed to accommodating various business models and we are aligned with enabling safe high volume licensing and rapid deployment of standardized designs. Next slide, please. We recognize that planned improvements need to be supported by demonstrable results. Over the past several years, we have consistently met review schedules and resource targets while conducting increasingly complex first-of-akind reviews. These successes are repeatable and they are not isolated cases. Thus far, we have completed our reviews in an average of 16 months and at a cost of $6.5 million. The two most recent reviews were for Terra Power's Nature Reactor at the Chem site and G. Renova Hitachi's BWX300 reactor at the Tennessee Valley Authorities Clinch River site. The camera review marked numerous historical firsts, including being the first application to use a fully riskinformed performance-based licensing approach. This approach aligns with the NRC's recently issued Part 53 licensing framework. The Clinch River Review demonstrated our ability to transfer recent lessons from the non-lightwater reactor reviews and apply those efficiencies to our assessment of advanced LWR technologies. Established schedules and and resource estimates for projects that are ongoing or that were recently initiated reflects our commitment to continuous improvement. We expect to gain further efficiencies as we implement additional le learnings and leverage the benefits of the NRC's recent reorganization. Applicants can also expect to see reduced costs in the near term through the advanced act provisions to incentivize advanced nuclear development. The NRC is ready to enable the next generation safe nuclear power. However, clarity of the landscape and active participation by the entire advanced reactor community is critical to our success. A major strength of the program continues to be pre-application engagement and we are seeing an increase in the number of requests for interaction. Our goal is to offer clear and consistent guidance and to help potential applicants understand when their materials are well positioned for submitt. Readiness reviews can be especially helpful in identifying any remaining gaps and refining regulatory engagement plans so that applications enable timely reviews. Next slide, please. These predictable and timely reviews result from both efficient NRC processes and applicants having a clear understanding of the regulatory expectations, the licensing pathways and the review status. So therefore, transparency and accountability remain core pillars of the advanced reactor program and we have made significant improvements to our applicant facing resources. These include online dashboards and applicant specific websites that provide real-time data and clarity on how our reviews are progressing to support new entrance and to help applicants prepare more effectively. We previously created a prospective applicant guide and dedicated link to connect with us on questions or to begin engagement. The structured approach outlined in this guide is intended to strengthen opportunities for early issue identification and open communication. Recognizing the spectrum of technology readiness, variations in knowledge of the regulatory process, and an everchanging landscape, we do have plans to enhance this guide and its use. Our vision is to create a more user-friendly step-wise process to help companies learn about our licensing framework, including potential overlaps with the Department of Energy and Department of War authorizations, develop initial thoughts on how they would like to proceed, and then come to us to for pre-application engagements prepared with sufficiently detailed materials and targeted questions that will allow us to collectively move forward in a meaningful and logical manner. Part of the redevelopment of this this guide includes the production of three short videos that are targeted at strengthening this understanding. One of these videos will highlight the licensing process and efficiencies which have improved clarity, predictability, and review timelines. Another will summarize the modernized advanced reactor framework, including the variations between parts 50, 52, 53, and 57. And the third video will describe how the Department of Energy or Department of War authorization coupled with early NRC engagement can support future commercial licensing. We also plan to hold a series of workshops later this summer on these and various other topics. But now we'd like to to share with you a clip of the first video. After that, I'll turn it over to Christian. If we get the next slide in the video, please. The NRC is committed to safe, effective, and efficient licensing, and recent improvements are already making a meaningful impact. Across the agency, teams are working together to modernize how we review applications while maintaining our uncompromising focus on safety. >> Licensing efficiency matters because it helps us deliver clearer expectations, more predictable schedules, and better alignment with applicants, all while maintaining our high safety standards. >> [music] >> The NRC continuously evaluates our processes to identify areas which provide limited or no safety benefit in [music] an effort to reduce the administrative burden on both staff and applicants. One of the biggest improvements has been streamlining the review process [music] to reduce redundancy without reducing technical rigor. >> Here's how recent improvements are making a meaningful impact. The core team approach was used [music] for the camera review where the environmental team and the safety team worked together on overlapping topics to [music] expedite the review process. We did a readiness assessment of TVA's draft [music] application for the Clinch River nuclear site and we were able to give written feedback on areas where we saw they had regulatory and [music] technical gaps in their application and allowed TVA to develop a more complete application and allow a timely [music] review. With collaboration, transparency, and innovation, we're building a licensing process [music] that works better for everyone while keeping safety at the center of everything we do. >> All right. Good morning, chairman and commissioners. Uh we hope you enjoyed that short clip from a longer video that we expect to publish uh in full later this week. The remaining two videos are still under production and will be shared publicly in the coming months. Next slide, please. So, pre-lication engagement uh continues to be one of the strongest contributors to our recent successes. Uh proactive pre-application interactions allow the NRC and applicants to identify technical, environmental, and regulatory issues long before they become schedule risks. In fiscal year 2025 alone, the staff delivered 26 advanced reactor pre-lication products. That volume demonstrates not only the level of industry interest, but also how effective early dialogue has become in shaping higher quality applications and supporting review schedules that are both timely and predictable. At the higher end, topical report safety evaluations are incorporated by reference in licenses, providing early clarity to applicants and directly enabling the efficient licensing of these first-of-akind technologies. For example, the safety evaluation for the Kemer unit one construction permit incorporated 16 different topical reports enabling earlier deployment of that technology. Industry signals continue to point toward rapid largescale deployment of advanced reactors. That means the NRC must evolve from supporting primarily first-of-akind licensing to managing a high volume of applications. Early engagement is essential for this transition. It helps us understand each applicant's technology, deployment model, and timelines. It also gives us the insights we need to plan our internal resources, understand workforce needs, uh, and make accurate budget decisions. These conversations are becoming a critical input into our long-term readiness. We've also seen the value of structured stakeholder forums such as public meetings. These sessions bring together industry community representatives and technical experts to identify challenges early, exchange information and gain alignment on regulatory priorities. Ongoing discussions on micro reactor licensing, environmental reviews, and applicant prepared documents are helping us refine our approaches in real time. Supporting tools like dashboards, public document libraries, and clear communication channels further promote early issue resolution, regatory stability, and application readiness. Together, these efforts enable applicants to understand expectations well before submitting a license application. Next slide. Turning to recent reviews, uh we've continued to deliver strong results, often completing licensing reviews on or ahead of schedule and at or under budget. These accomplishments directly advance core mission delivery and enable the deployment of nuclear power in the United States, demonstrating that efficiency and safety can go hand in hand. The staff continually identify opportunities to refine workflows, shorten timelines, and remove unnecessary administrative steps without compromising technical rigor. Process improvements such as the core team model, expanded audits, streamlined documentation, and riskinformed datadriven decision-making are yielding measurable results. Recent changes to the advisory committee on reactor safeguards interactions, mandatory and contested hearing processes, and management reviews have further reduced waiting periods and administrative delay. These changes shift engagements early in the review and create additional meaningful opportunities for stakeholders to engage while supporting timely highquality outcomes. These steps maintain our same high safety standards while removing steps that did not add regatory value. Foundational to maintaining these successes is a focus on workforce retention and attrition. Increased licensing activity requires a stable, highly skilled staff, and we continue to invest in developing talent in line with our expectation to continuously learn and grow future leaders. There has been a high amount of staff turnover in the last year. Uh the tools and processes like the core team approach being developed and implemented in conjunction with the new reorganization are essential for maintaining continuity of review regardless of personnel changes. We are also strengthening our metrics framework. Uh agency level indicators cascade down through business lines and branches reinforcing performance and accountability. These metrics help us monitor schedule predictability, resource usage, and review quality, enabling timely adjustments as volume increase. Next slide. Finally, I' I'd like to highlight updates uh related to the advanced reactor regulatory framework. Uh the PAR 53 final rule was signed on March 25th, 2026. a major milestone for establishing a a modern riskinformed structure that supports safe and secure use of emerging technologies. In parallel, development of part 57 remains on track with the final rule scheduled for commission consideration later this year. Both of these parts include provisions to enable the deployment of new and novel features such as remote monitoring and operations. Uh together part 53 and 57 reflect our commitment to develop a flexible technologyincin inclusive regulatory framework to provide clear long-term direction while maintaining the safety foundation that underpins our mission. We are also advancing innovative proposals to update parts 50 and 52 including a predictable path to pursue well-defined alternatives to certain part 50 and 52 requirements. This improves regatory flexibility without reducing rigor. Uh aligning with our focus on performance and accountability and our emphasis on enabling the safe use of nuclear technology. Early feedback indicates that industry sees this as a meaningful step toward enabling deployment while maintaining NRC safety standards. In alignment with the Advance Act and Executive Order 14300, we are moving forward with targeted updates to the definition of construction and refining oversight during reactor buildout. These improvements allow more activities to occur prior to licensing, establishing clearer thresholds for design changes and focus inspections on risk significant areas. This approach allows staff to concentrate their technical expertise on the areas of greatest safety significance while building experience with the technologies entering the pipeline. Early industry feedback has been positive uh recognizing that this modernization enhances predictability while preserving the necessary safety controls. And with that, I will now turn it over to Michelle Samson. >> Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. Christian touched on the programmatic and regulatory enhancements that are driving efficiency in our licensing reviews. I want to share with you some of the other activities we have ongoing that complement these regulatory changes and further support our ability to provide safe, secure, and predictable oversight as new technologies move toward deployment. Next slide, please. I'd like to begin by highlighting our work with international partners, which continues to play an essential role in strengthening advanced reactor licensing under the memorandum of cooperation with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation and under our recently renewed bilateral memorandum of understanding with ONR. We are seeing real benefits from these long-standing relationships. The collaboration between our staff and the staff at CNC and ONR has allowed us to engage productively on technical issues and to support design consistency across countries. Although each of our regulatory frameworks has unique requirements, we share the same fundamental objective ensuring that core safety functions are fully addressed in each review. These engagements have been most effective when regulatory reviews are occurring on a similar timeline in each country. A good example is the GE Renova Hitachi BWRx300 small modular reactor. NRC and CNC reviewed a series of technical issues in parallel and issued joint publications that clearly captured where the design meets each country's regulatory requirements in similar ways and where the approaches diverge. These joint documents have strengthened transparency and provided a solid foundation for consistent interpretation across jurisdictions. The QR code on the screen provides the publicly available link where our joint reports can be found. Collaboration becomes even more impactful when applicants and reactor designers are active participants in the multilateral effort. the sixparty engagement on the BWX300 which includes GE Venova Hitachi TVA as a US applicant Ontario power generation as a Canadian applicant and the C NRC CNC and ONR has created an important forum for direct communication among senior leaders. This group has been instrumental in providing strategic direction, aligning on the value of joint work products, and reinforcing the importance of design consistency across national boundaries. Construction on the BWX300 reactor is well underway in Canada, and we anticipate issuance of the construction permit to TVA early this fall. Next slide, please. In addition to our international partnerships, we continue to strengthen coordination with federal partners here in the United States, particularly the Department of Energy and the Department of War, leveraging a whole of government approach to accelerate the development and safe deployment of advanced nuclear technologies. The NRC has been working closely with both departments to share insights on designs under development and to engage with technology developers early in the process. This early dialogue allows us to identify potential licensing challenges long before an application is submitted and it helps us find opportunities to streamline reviews efficiently while preserving safety. I'd like to take a moment to recognize the NRC staff who have been detailed to the Department of Energy. Those staff members from the Office of Research, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and OAR have been invaluable to the department, and we will benefit from their experience as they return to the agency later this year. To further support this work, the NRC issued a proposed rule that would establish a clear regulatory pathway for leveraging design information from DOE and DOW demonstration projects. When vendors follow well- definfined approaches during the design and authorization process, the NRC intends to rely on this information to the fullest extent practicable, provided it remains applicable to the specific site and project. When vendors pursue novel approaches, insights gained through early engagement and through observing DOE and DOW activities will strengthen our ability to review those applications efficiently. Test facilities authorized by DOE and DO will provide critical safety data that can be leveraged in a future commercial license application. The staff is coordinating closely with DOE, DOW, and the various developers to identify the similarities and differences between the processes and where there is overlap that can be utilized. It is important to remember that the two processes are established to provide different outcomes and do not directly align. For example, the demonstration approvals are typically for limited operations, while the NRC considers operation of the reactor for a four-year license term. These differences may require additional information on materials, fuel and equipment qualification, component reliability, and used fuel management to be incorporated into the applicant's submittal to the NRC. In all cases, we expect to significantly utilize the information gained from the demonstration projects. The forthcoming video Jeremy mentioned and a companion infographic will provide additional insights to how these DOE and DOW activities can provide a bridge to efficient commercial licensing. Communication among NRC DOE or DOW and potential applicants will be essential. Initial goals, criticality tests, and early technology demonstrations will be important steps in preparing for future commercial NRC applications. We expect substantial learning from these efforts and will continue to adapt our program as new insights emerge. Next slide. Lastly, I'd like to highlight the work we have been doing to support future construction oversight activities as we prepare for an increasingly diverse and high volume advanced reactor landscape. The advanced reactor construction oversight program, AROP, is one of the most significant shifts in our oversight approach. AROP moves us away from a rigid sightspecific model and toward a life cycle approach that focuses on core safety cornerstones reactivity, heat and containment. This allows the NRC to scale its oversight footprint to match the risk profile of each design, supporting factory fabricated micro reactors, other advanced technologies, and the next generation of large lightwater reactors. We also recognize that supply chain readiness is a critical part of successful construction. We're working closely with the office of research to develop guidance that will support endorsement of codec case N883, which allows certain components to be constructed before the formal establishment of an ASME section 3 owner. This endorsement will be incorporated through future rulemaking and will help industry maintain project schedules while ensuring appropriate quality assurance. Early planning for oversight implementation has already shown measurable benefits. By prioritizing activities with the greatest safety significance, we anticipate roughly a 40% reduction in the planned direct inspection hours in some areas with up to 65% reduction in resources expected for future large lightwater construction oversight. This approach minimizes administrative burden and direct staff effort toward the areas of highest technical importance and safety significance. To support this approach, inspection matrices are under development for the Natrium, AP-1000, BWX300, and XC100 designs. We also anticipate applying lessons learned from the ongoing construction oversight activities that CNC is conducting for the BWX300 at Ontario Power Generation. Just as we coordinated closely during technical reviews, we are continuing those conversations now to support our future oversight of the TVA project. This alignment strengthens the quality of our inspections and supports design consistency across borders. I will now turn over to Kimyatta Seavoy, the executive champion for environmental. Next slide, please. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to share an update on how we're refining and streamlining the NRC's environmental review process. Next slide. This slide highlights how we developed our streamline review framework by relying on datadriven insights, lessons learned, and consistent use of modernization tools. Recent advanced reactor reviews and other work across the agency's business lines um gave staff practical real-time experience implementing these improvements. The slide also shows the scope of our work since 2019. 71 environmental reviews and more than 7,400 pages. It also highlights trends in two representative areas. The number of days required to complete environmental assessments and environmental impact statements and overall page counts. Both show a downward trajectory and incre improve consistency as our streamline practices take hold. Several key practices as shown on the slide contributed to these trends. upfront schedule and resource modeling to support more predictable reviews. Stronger pre-application engagement and early alignment, use of open audits with focus rais more concise, better targeted environmental documents and streamlining comment resolution and also increasing the use of environmental assessments when appropriate. We also strengthened our framework through the recently published categorical exclusion and new reactor new nuclear reactors generic environmental impact statement or NI in our GIS final rules. The categorical exclusion rule identifies categories of actions that do not have a significant effect on the human environment allowing staff to complete their analysis in a short document. The NRGS reflects an intensive technology neutral evaluation that examined a broad set of plant and sight parameters to determine which environmental impacts are common across many new reactor projects and which require project specific analysis. The final rule integrates this extensive an analysis into a generic bounding framework supporting a more predictable and efficient review process while maintaining transparency and national environmental policy act or NEPA compliance. Both of these approaches allow staff to prioritize their effort on what matters the most and the the projects that have the greatest likelihood for significant environmental impacts. Finally, we continue to improve internal coordination by applying lessons from the NRC's mission statement implementation plan, reinforcing licensing best practices, and using agency's clarity versus consulting guidance. These steps help us focus early on the issues that matter the most for each project and support more predictable, higher quality outcomes. Next slide. Next slide, please. Oh, sorry. You're okay. This slide builds on the outcomes we just discussed by showing how our environmental review process functions as an integrated modernized framework. The tile shown at the at on this slide illustrates study decreases in schedule and resource needs across multiple projects as measured AC against both the historical and NRG schedule and resource models. Over time, we have refined our resource and schedule models to reflect real time streaming streamlining efficiencies. As staff use this framework under the adjusted models, reviews are completed with more predictability and with greater consistency. The framework also shows and supports continuous learning. As staff complete more advanced reactor reviews, they feed real real-time insights back into the processes and models. That experience directly sharpens how we scope environmental issues, conduct audits, coordinate with other agencies, and select appropriate NEPA approaches. Each completed review provides new quantifiable evidence of how specific efficiencies translate into measurable savings. This is a major reason why our reviews are becoming more predictable and why efficiencies are now repeating across different technologies and applicant types. Staff are also piloting new review approaches such as the applicant prepared NRC supervised NEPA documents which are expected to yield additional efficiencies that are being monitored and quantified in real time and refined future estimates. We are also anticipate that post part 51 revision schedules and resource templates will reflect further reduced models. Finally, this integral integrated approach is aligned with recent NEPA changes under the fiscal responsibility act, the advanced act and executive order 14300 by building modernization into the structure of the review itself. The staff is now positioned to scale efficiently as the number of applications grow. We now have a cohesent cohesive environmental review framework. One that supports efficient, timely, highquality reviews and continues to improve with every project we complete. Next slide. As we look ahead, this slide highlights three areas that will shape the future direction of environmental reviews within the advanced reactor business line and across the agency. Regulatory updates, organizational transition, and digital tools tools. Each area brings challenges and we are taking concrete actions to address them. First, we have several key regulatory updates underway, including the part 51 proposed rulemaking which was just published for public comment on July 7th, 2026 and continued implementation of the categorical exclusion and new new re new nuclear reactor GC final rulemakings. Once the part 51 final rule is finalized in late 2026, these rules will provide a clearer, more predictable framework for environmental reviews. A key challenge is implementing multiple major rulemaking simultaneous simultaneously while maintaining consistent interpretation and adequate staff training. To address this, we are sequencing implementation guidance, coordinating crossoff training, and establishing review support checklist to ensure consistent application across business lines. Second, we secondly, we recently transitioned from the east environmental center of expertise to the business line owner model. This structure strengthens collaboration between safety and environmental staff and provides clearer accountability for end toend review outcomes. The challenge is that the workloads are shifting unevenly. In response, we are implementing structured train change management activities, expanding targeted training, standing up cross office support teams to balance workload, and piloting new workforce planning and surge support models to ensure no office carries the transition burden alone. As the executive champion for the environmental program during the transition, my focus is on actively identifying gaps early, coordinating resources across business lines and ensuring consistency and quality as responsibilities are redistributed. Finally, we are expanding our digital tools enhancements such as the NRC's NEPA dashboard, federal permit related AI tools such as permit AI and the environmental digital portal portal will automate routine tasks, improve review and increase transparency. The challenge is integrating the tools into established processes while maintaining data quality and minimizing disruption to ongoing reviews. To ensure success, we are redefining data governance protocols, conducting user focused pilot testing before full deployment and providing practical training sessions to ensure staff can adopt and trust the tools from day one. I will now turn back over to Mike King. >> Thanks, Kimata. And uh before we open up to questions, I just wanted to thank the panelists for all their preparations for the the meeting today and express you know a great deal of appreciation to the dedicated talented staff across the agency who have just been putting their heart and soul into the reforms we've been making as an agency to ensure we are prepared for the flood of applications that we're going to do and to ensure that we do so safely. Um so uh subject to that look look forward to your questions. >> Okay, Commissioner Wright. Thank you. And Mike, I'm just going to piggyback right on top of what you just said. It's, you know, one to uh first welcome to you and your entire team. Um and thank you for your leadership um for the staff and and thank as well the staff for everything they're doing every day. it because it's been it's been a wild ride here in the last year or so, but it seems to um people seem to be doing okay and and y'all seem to look like you're getting a little sleep, right? So, uh thank you for what you do. Um the uh I mean the advanced reactor team has stepped up big time here um in in ways to meet this moment and I really like the fact that you've got that on the pin. Um they think about Kimmer Hermes uh the new scale SDA part 53 final rule as just a few of the big big things that that are coming through. These are major right. I the number of major things that are coming through this agency are incredible and and again thank you and um uh let us [snorts] know what we can do to help you keep it up. Um Jeremy I have been a fan of yours. uh publicly for at least two years now. Um uh you know your slides address culture and uh that's a good thing because you have led a culture change here at the agency even before the advance act was passed and adopted. Um I appreciate how you personally cultivated culture yourself um to foster safe efficient regulation of advanced reactors. Um, your office is constantly breaking new ground as you review and innovate designs and um with with review these innovative designs and and you're um you're employing innovative ways to get things done. And the industry knows this. The vendors, the people who were before you, they recognize this and they appreciate it. And I can tell you as one commissioner, and I'm sure I speak for all five, it's it's it's noticed and very appreciated, and you should feel really really good about what you've done uh to help move this agency forward. um as that culture change evolves and I'm assuming it's still evolving um uh as you gain experience, can you maybe share a little bit about how you're moving forward uh you know building on the success that you've had the last couple of years? >> Sure. Thanks. Thanks, Commissioner. I appreciate the comments and uh I do have to credit it. It's it's a team effort and um you know it's it's a lot of work but working with people that you enjoy interacting with and knowing that everybody's got your back that that definitely helps. So, it's I think that's been the biggest thing that we've seen coming out of the reorganization is um you know there's been individual projects and groups of of activities that have been going on and everybody felt cohesion in those individual the you know projects but once we formed the office it definitely I I felt a a step change and everybody's enthusiasm um we can see it in our all hands meetings I can see it in the hallways and the interactions with that have with folks. Uh there's a lot of support that everybody has for each other. I I think that's primary thing is like we have a team that's very solutionoriented, very enthusiastic about the work they do, but they know that they've got support and it's not just the folks sitting at this table. It's the first line supervisors. It's the person sitting next to them. And um so I I think that's the that's the biggest thing I'm seeing is that is that step change and like the the level of enthusiasm. And so it's it's exciting to be part of. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Um Christian, I'm gonna come to you. Um I appreciate your comments on the the whole pre-application engagement process. I mean, I get it all the time um from my interactions with with stakeholders out there. They've got, you know, they've got big plans, they've got big ideas, they want to do things new and novel. Um uh but they want to stay within that safety envelope. Um and our you know I our regulatory reforms are making room for novel approaches and on the other hand your folks are tasked right with executing a thorough efficient review. Um I mean personally I I see pre-application that whole process is it's essential as we move forward uh for for both sides for us and for the industry and I'm glad that you highlighted it this morning. Do you feel uh that stakeholders are getting the message on pre-application engagement and and I'm going to build on that. How how are our technical staff adjusting to this new paradigm? Right. And um are there ways that we can still improve? >> So thank you commissioner for the question and and uh you know it's interesting. I I caught George during the break and I said you you kind of stole my thunder. You're you're the poster child for you know the pitch on on the value of pre-application. And and so I'll tell you, you know, I've been in the role now for 5 weeks. Lesson for me, don't take vacation when you start a new job. Uh but in the three weeks effectively that I've been working, we've had probably about a dozen dropins with companies, some that have regulatory engagement plans in house, uh some that don't. But the common thread in those discussions is they they recognize the value. They want to engage with us. And I think it's been incumbent upon us during those discussions to to really lean forward and say, "Hey, we we really want to work with you. We want to enable, you know, your plans. Come talk to us. Let us know what your business plans are. We'll help direct you on what the right licensing pathway is." And then that'll help drive sort of where those engagements are. And so I I think there's tremendous value in in pre-application. I think, you know, to the point the chairman made, you know, we want to be careful about not driving not driving too much work early on, right? But I think what I'm envisioning is you kind of get stability in in what you want to do in pre-lication space for first of a kind and then you would expect some of that to really t table off or trail off as you start getting n of a kind right and I think what'll always be important particularly in pre-lication is some of what you heard in the previous panel where getting acclimated to those designs early right and and particularly as everybody's learning you know you got two new frameworks in place. I think everyone's kind of learning both on both sides of the table of how this is going to work. And so I think having those interactions early will help you know derisk when an application comes in. >> So I want to go back and continue on this pre-application part. We've got what how many 25 people in front of us right now in pre-application some >> roughly. >> But there's a whole bunch more that are still out there, right? What do we got to do to and and I've had two I know of this year, Mike, I believe I've had two people contact me about, hey, we're thinking about something down the road. We're, you know, we want to engage the NRC and we're planning on doing X by certain. And I said, have you engaged yet? And they said, no. And I was like, well, why are you not getting the memo? You need to get in touch with our people. Um, how do we get that message out there to those people that we know are out there, but they're they just haven't come yet because they're going to get behind the eight-ball if they're not careful. I can I can start. So, I I think um part of the answer is is I think what Jeremy talked about early on in his presentation, right? Building out the the framework um that we can point applicants to uh which is our perspectus, you know, website where we'll have lots of material there. But I think to get to the root of like how do you drive those individuals? And I think a lot of what we can do is in our public meetings, you know, we we talked about we're going to have workshops over the next several months. I think as we talk about issues, as we talk about the various frameworks, I think that's our opportunity to really underscore the value and and coming to talk with us. So it's not just a you know a company by company of message that you're getting but you're getting that broader feedback out in these se in these settings where you're getting a lot of attendance and a lot of interest. >> Yeah. Do you have anything else to add? >> Yeah, maybe Christian said the the key thing I want to touch on is those are the tools to help communicate the information but the uh the driving the the customer to the tool. That's I think that's what you're getting at sir is um yeah every meet everybody we talk to I think there's his some of the historical reservation of speaking to the regulator too soon and so we encourage folks that if they have a good experience with us and talk about positive like hey tell a friend you know make sure you get it out there and tell somebody like what the value you got out of early engagement and uh we've been partnering with the office of public affairs as well to try and put out more of like we want to be helpful we want to provide assistance early on to kind of help move forward. We have a job to do as an independent regulator, but that doesn't mean we can't still be helpful. >> Mike, >> I could add on a little bit. Um, you know, in addition to developing the external communications to help inform, you know, what what is our pre-lication process about um the discussion that was had earlier about what is and wonder under what circumstances does it provide value, you know, and at what stage of development as a potential applicant. Um so us being really clear with people about hey you know having that initial touch point to at least talk to us about what you're thinking makes a lot of sense and then we can help you determine okay at what next phase does it make sense to really have substance engagement because we do have a lot of work before us and we have to be thoughtful about applying our resources where it matters and so we can help uh inform applicants about when's the right stage to come to us so you can really get the most out of it. Thank you. We just did that just the last five minutes here. So, thank you for making it public. Um, thank you, Commissioner Cole. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the presenters today. I appreciate it. It's uh very helpful to have both industry and staff panels come and and and uh engage commission at the same time. Um, my questions aren't necessarily going to have a a theme. team. They're going to be a little bit random, but I I do plan to get them done without using any um added time. Mr. Chair, uh and and uh for Mike and Jeremy, please, you know, jump ball or direct these questions where they they deserve to be uh answered best. um either for applications we're considering or applications we expect. Are we are there applicants what does the world look like of applicants who hope to use Halo enriched beyond 10%. >> That's that's a good question commissioner. Um, I don't know if I have a number off the top of my head right now. Um, >> multiple >> more than we've ever seen before. >> Yeah, I'd say yes. More than we've interacted with to date. But I I don't I don't have a number because quite honestly that's not been an area that's of I would say has been of concern to us at this stage. But we we keep uh you know is there a stage at which it becomes a concern because it is something that needs to be noted and managed without getting too deep into this topic. But I mean what's the plan? How how I mean are you are we prepared to to manage that dynamic from a safety and security perspective? Jeremy. Hi. So, one of the real benefits of the office of advanced reactors is we have moved the security staff that are focused on advanced reactors into the office and we are having those integrated discussions today. I mean, we have one particular applicant that has proposed to use HU. Well, that's going to be a gamecher for how we've licensed reactors in the past. We are having those internal discussions today and and this is it's an entity that hasn't even had their first pre-application engagement with us, but we've started having those discussions today because we know that there is planning and work that we're going to have to do to be ready for it. And I think we've been integrated very closely with our NMSSS counterparts in um the fuel cycle area to really understand and watch them to see you know what are the leading indicators that that fuel cycle that enriched you know slightly enriched enrichment is going to be coming to us so that we can have the engagements at the right time. >> Yeah. And I'm not saying it's a it's a good bad or or or otherwise. It's just something that is different than we've done before and has carries more safety and security risks and we need to be cognizant of it and manage it appropriately. um for whomever or multiple folks, for the benefit of those listening to this meeting today and myself quite frankly, can you try and give some color or examples of of gaps that have been uh identified or we expect to identify that the NRC will have to focus on that aren't incorporated uh in a uh DOE review or another federal agency's review? >> Sure. I I can start. Um, appreciate that. And that's actually, you know, one area where we're starting to shift a lot more focus on is is that, you know, there was, you secretary Garish about the the July 4th timelines and trying to get the the push for for meeting those deadlines. Um, but now we're starting to to coordinate a little bit more on exactly what does that mean to go from the test to commercial operation and and deployment. Um and understanding I think the first question is what is your licensing pathway like what what are you trying to what what are you trying to accomplish what what's your licensing pathway and then based on that what information can you take from the DOE authorization to move into NRC licensing um you know obviously depending on licensing pathway you might need certain information might not might not um and also what are you actually testing you know you heard from the the first panel there's a variety of activities that are going on some just simple criticality tests to prove their their neutronics modeling and and information to that effect. Um, others are testing uh viability of of systems and structures and components to make sure that they actually perform the functions as they envision. Others are going full scale operation and then they want to convert that same facility to an NRC commercial license. So we're we're trying to understand the full spectrum and it figure out each one what are how do we transition from that specific activity to commercial licensing. So there are some things where there is a clear you know the the DOE's process they're looking at a test. You heard from the assistant secretary it is a test in most cases of what they're going commercial operation. We we're trying to look and understand well um how long is the is the DOE looking at approving this? Are are they finding uh validation of information for x number of days or months where we're going to have to issue a license a commercial license for 40 years. Um so trying to understand what that time frame is, how much information they have on um material qualification for the duration of the operation. Um there is a you know difference in emergency planning. Uh in the cases where the facilities are operating on the national labs they're using a lot of the infrastructure on the labs for emergency response fire protection that sort of information whereas a commercial deployment they need to provide that on their own. So it really really depends on the specific activity and you know so we we have some kind of generic guidance out there um but we're starting to work with several of the developers to okay what specifically does that look like for your situation and each one of those is going to allow us to provide more details for the next round that goes through and certainly the >> so as these things mature we as the process matures we'll get more uh color on this stuff and I and I appreciate you just keeping us informed of that so we have a good sense of of of what those gaps that are being identified um somewhat of a non-secator here, but um I'm looking at the chart, Jeremy, that you used on meeting demand, saving timely licensing, and and I noticed the uh a 15-mon schedule for an early sight permit. Um what what is the value of an early sight permit given the time it takes? >> You want? >> Yeah. So the value of an early site permit is for an entity that knows which site they want to use, but they have not yet selected a technology. If you know everything you want to do, come in for your cola or your combin your uh construction permit. But if you know which site you want to use and you haven't yet selected your technology, you can do your site characterization and get NRC approval of that site that can be provide finality and be referenced in that other application. getting a big piece of what really is a large part of the the review out of the way while you're making those other decisions. >> What if an ESP takes 15 months? Is it worth that given that we're trying to do full nuts soup to nuts reviews in not much more time than that? >> So, [snorts] we have um our first uh sort of new ESP in quite a while in house today, which is the Blues Creek review. And you know, we're making really positive progress through that review. And so I'll be interested to see at the end of it if it really takes us the full 15 months. It it might move faster than that. And we're are learning lessons as we're completing the review. We also have some regulatory changes in place that will help us accelerate because of course the environmental portion is a big piece of that schedule and as Kimiana mentioned, we have a lot of enhancements in that area as well. So yeah. Um >> and I think you know I also understand that you know um applicants or prospective applicants um may have their own rationale non-safety or NRC related why they may want to pursue an ESP. Um, Mike, my [clears throat] last question to you because I, as I was listening and reading, I uh connected some dots and I'm curious to to know how this matches up, but everybody's presentation here at the table today mentioned lessons learned in some capacity and yet the commission is currently considering a recommendation from the EDO to get rid of the lessons learned program. How do we square how do you square these things for me? [snorts] >> Yeah. And what the recommendations the commission is is one of several different types of lessons learned program. Um so we have in particularly with launching of the lead framework there are a number of different uh processes that we use to make sure we're self-aware and self-correcting. And so we're constantly learning developing lessons. One of them is a rapid lessons learned process which we've adopted from uh and our benchmarking against IMPO. Um, and that's embedded in our framework. We're about to, you know, roll that out in in earnest over the coming months. We've got a lot of other uh lessons learned program, our internal control programs, which are governmentwide as you're aware. Um, you know, so it's there are several other things we do in the context of lessons learned. And so our recommendation the commission is that additional program is not necessary. Uh we're going to do the lessons learned as part of our process. That was just an additional layer that's unnecessary from the staff's perspective. >> Okay. Thank you. And that's all I have, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Cole, Commissioner Morzano. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and thank you, staff, uh, for your presentations and all the work that you put into preparing for these meetings. Um, I'm always grateful for these efforts to make sure that, uh, we make the most of them. Uh, which has become even more important as of late as we've scaled back our public engagement. And I hope that we can reverse this trend once we make it past these 14300 uh, rulemaking deadlines. So that is why I am very grateful to have the opportunity for staff to show the significant progress that you've made in preparing for this rapidly expanding advanced reactor landscape. The staff should be incredibly proud of the hard work that has brought us to our current readiness posture. Uh but I think we've seen today it is also a reminder of just how much activity we expect in the coming years. In light of these projections, I want to emphasize that we have a limited window to scrutinize the sustainability of our current pace of reviews before our workload reaches levels we have not seen in a generation. That is why I appreciate the discussion of how early engagement has helped prospective applicants uh and the communication of ongoing reforms will help manage future workload. However, we certainly have more work to do to provide the transparency and predictability that our principles of good regulation compel us to. And so, in an effort to continue this uh showcasing, um I was hoping we can throw slide 12 up again on the screen real quick. And for those of you watching, uh, take out your phones, take a picture of this slide, uh, because I think it's a really, really crucial tool and visualization, um, to understand what we've been doing and how our licensing processes work, uh, between, uh, for whatever need an applicant may come. And I see it's not up there yet. Hopefully, we can get it up there. Um, but I want to ask a question on this slide and and go to you, Christian. So, one of one of the uh in the vote for Part 53, I kind of I called on a tool like this uh because I think I've heard from a lot of applicants that, you know, especially as we're uh rolling out these new licensing process, how do I use these? There's lots of options. What is the best uh for my particular case? And so, we have this really great slide. I really love this slide. Um so can you talk a little bit more about how we communicate um why or for what purposes these licensing process exists depending on your stage of design maturity etc. And just uh would open up the panel to comment on on this and I'll have some follow-up questions as well. >> Yep. So thanks for the question and I got to give uh proper kudos to the chairman for sort of initiating that visual first and and getting us to refine it in a way that it's something we could use publicly. Um so again thanks for the question. I think you know the the way we're envisioning is that there's there's interplay among all of the various frameworks. You know we wanted to have something separate and distinct for for where you are relative to your design maturity. So take 57 for example, you know, we wanted to have something that was carved out for micro reactors and low consequence facilities, but for those facilities that are ready with complete design details today. And that's why we structured it where you you are required to submit a you know a joint construction permit and operating license application. The thought being you you have all of that information that we can get through a very quick review, issue the construction permit, allow for quick construction timelines because we're anticipating simple designs to be, you know, coming into the rule. Um, and then position us to quickly issue the operating license and all that to to uh to occur relatively, you know, 12 months timeline, potentially sooner as we start getting into nth of a kind. you know, some of the feedback we're seeing in in um the public comments is, well, you know, we we we really don't like the the joint CP, we really want the the the more 50 framework, which is come in with a construction permit and then separately an operating license. And I think for us, the way we're thinking it is, hey, that that exists today. You know, if you can be a micro and you can go under part 50, you know, get your first of a kind. If you're not ready with the complete details, come in for a construction permit and once you have, you know, you've issued, we've been issu we issue the operating license, um, you get some runtime, you want to start going through fleetwide deployment, you can come in under part 57. And we and we thought about that in the rule. We actually have enabling language on issue finality that talks about, you know, the fact that the NRC is not going to relook at generic design, you know, parts of of those various um, submitts. we're only going to look at the the the effectively the site um because you know expect that to change. So in my mind you look at it and say it's it's really incumbent upon what the the applicant wants. You know do they want a more riskinformed approach for identifying their licensing basis events? Then you're coming in under part 53, right? Um 52 you're kind of looking at more it's standardized. It does talk about fleetwide deployment. You're thinking that more for large lightwater reactors. Uh so I think there's an identity for each of the rules and I think you know some of the communications we've had particularly with um those companies that are interested in part 57 is hey if you're not ready for 57 there are a number of different pathways that are going to give you streamlined processes under predictable timelines and I would argue you know we we've already gotten a number of runtime with 50 right so to me that that's already sort of derisked in for a number of entities to think about becoming a first of a kind there and then pursuing you know 57 later >> and when I look at some of the work that we've done with the power to grid rule and everything else I think that we're getting even closer to part 50 as being this true kind of first of a kind if you don't have the design maturity is a really good option so I appreciate that um not don't want to necessarily get into this too much but I think we've heard a lot about interoperability maybe something that we have to address in the future and think about if you're not already um So turning now um you know so we have the tool you know one of the things concepts that I have uh thought would be a good idea here and as commissioner Wright has has has said already uh we need a front door to the agency um you know somebody some type of office or some type of uh function within the NRC that can really be the receiving uh uh you know office uh for these folks that haven't come to engage uh with us because I still think it is quite opaque take uh when you're going to our website and trying to navigate to find how do I even how do I even begin? So, I'll just leave that right there. Um I know we talked a lot about this already, but I want to turn to pre-lication engagement. You know, we mentioned uh you know, some of the maybe reluctance for folks to dive in. You know, one of the things we we mentioned it it's a concerns about engaging with the regulator too early. You know, I think that cost is another part of that uh because once they start engaging with us, you know, uh they we start charging them time. Um and that's what the advance act really tried to address. And so um you know, there are some requirements um to qualify for the reduced hourly rate. Um we are also capable of recovering uh fee uh off the feebased money for those types of reviews. Uh so I want to get your sense of how the advanced act portion of this is helping controlling cost and really what I want to get at is you know how do we make sure that the pre-lication uh process is a all-encompassing environment to have the candid you know wholesome discussions between applicants and reviewers that we need to really deliver uh on those savings come time for the license application. >> Thanks. Thanks, Commissioner. I'll start and if others want to jump in. Yes. The Advance Act has been tremendously helpful in encouraging um with the reduced fees, encouraging applicants to >> Could you really quick just what do you need in order to qualify for that reduced rate? >> Yeah. And help me with the specific terminology, Michelle, because I don't remember it, but >> Sure. So, so the um you must be an advanced reactor uh in accordance with the NEMA definition and a design that has enhancements over reactors that were in construction at the time that NEMA was passed. And so we have found uh working with the office of the chief financial officer and our office of general counsel that we have very broadly been able to include the majority of Gen 3 plus designs and of course all of the Gen 4 designs into the reduced fee category. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Oh, I was going to offer up I I think probably the single biggest thing that's changed and our ability to really uh realize benefits of pre-lication is a change of our culture and a mindset enabling mindset. You know, we issued some guidance to the staff delivering results through effective communications with my stakeholder interactions. That's that's yielding benefits across the board. you know, not just in pre-lication engagements and the staff's true willingness to engage fully in substantive living to get the most out of those discussions, but in inspections oversightes across the board. So, in addition to the uh the fee benefits, I think there's other benefits the advance act provided. >> Great. Um, so I think that this is all very good to hear. I want to make sure that the folks are listening understand what the what the tools available uh that are available for them. Um real quick, I just want to touch on our DOE collaboration. Michelle, can you talk a little bit about and then Jeremy and Christian, please weigh in the difference between NRC observation and you know having details folks that are involved in the review. Um I think that we have to balance resources. We have to optimize resources for the work that we're going to have and then looking ahead to what DOE is doing. So, can you talk about how you're thinking about balancing those resources, optimizing uh including having some of our folks maybe continue that that kind of more uh detailed look? >> Yeah, sure. I I'll start. Uh yes, Commissioner. We we've seen tremendous benefit of the details like like Michelle mentioned. Um you know, lots of conversations with with that team. It is trying to balance our resources and make sure that we've we're we're focusing where we we have those resources assigned and budgeted. Um the the difference between the detailees is that they are assigned as DOE employees essentially. So we are not inserting oursel they you know different agency different purpose you know we we have our independent function. So we are we are not inserting ourselves into their into their decision-m process. the observation we have had pretty much all of the vendors or all the developers ask us in pre-application space to also observe the activities that are going on. So from that standpoint we're we're doing our own parallel independent observation seeing what the interactions that are going on. So we're um we've been having interactions with the applicants. We've also been interacting with DOE. We have routine interactions with our DOE colleagues and and have if we have a question or concern, we're providing both of them that that feedback. We've actually been recently having conversations with the Department of Energy about how we need to start having three-way communication, three-party communications to make sure that we're all rather than trying, you know, one conversation here, one here, one this way, just all at the same time. Um, just making sure that we again recognize where the lines are. Well, to the point about collaborating to get all of this done, you know, I encourage that to continue to happen. Thank you very much. And thank you for the extra time, Chairman, Commissioner Weaver. >> Okay. Thank you, Chairman. >> Well, thank you panelists and uh you know, I want to endorse the comments you made, Mike, earlier about the staff's efforts. It's my sincere desire that we're accomplishing some of these things by working smarter, not just working harder, because I think that will get to the sustainability of some of the things you're trying to do. Um, so I I guess I'll start with Jeremy. Um, in this question about level of detail. So during the first renaissance, right, folks were doing a CO and a designert at the same time and uh staff is curious. It was a lot of how much information do we really need to license something was a big question because in some cases it didn't exist yet and folks felt well it wasn't really not even needed but we were asking for it. Now, we're looking at potentially having complete design information because the thing's been operated at full power for some period of time. And so, I'm I'm interested in your perspective on one, how do we stop the staff from asking for everything because potentially everything is available. Um, or you know, and how do you how do you balance what's the right level of information needed to make our regulatory decisions? I I appreciate that question, Commissioner, and I um just want to make sure I understand. Are you asking more broadly or specifically about um you mentioned operating for a long time? Are you asking about the AP 10000 design? >> No. No. I'm talking about folks who haven't come in yet. >> Okay. >> Who may have they've been operating some of the DOE facilities potentially down the the ones that DOE is facilitating down the road. Uh yeah, so the audit process has been it's been a gamecher. I think we you know we we've always had an audit process but I think it has evolved over the last decade sign at the end significantly over the last decade at the NRC. We are leveraging that to the point now where we actually I say we have true conversations. We're not sitting there asking a question, waiting for a response and then sitting there with a blank look on our face and they have no the the you know the applicant the lency on the other side of the table has no idea what we're thinking. They're we the staff identifies questions areas where there might be interest or lack of understanding and we provide that information so that we can they facilitate the conversation and have the dialogue. That dialogue back and forth enables us to figure out, okay, what do we actually need? And I think that was probably one of the the most beneficial things that we identified in the Terrap Power review is that there were a lot of conversations and interactions where we just simply it was a new design to us and once we were educated and had the knowledge, it was like, okay, we don't need information on this. We don't need information material in the docket or this one little piece. Can you add this add this sentence for clarification for us? those conversations allowed us to get to that spot as opposed to like I said here's a question we wait 30 days for response and then we don't even remember why we asked the question. So the audit process I'd say has been the defining piece that has helped us move forward with that. >> Thank you. >> Um if you could call up slide 18 if I'm curious and this had to do with Kamyatta your discussion about improvements in environmental reviews. So just if we take that uh graph on the left and just looking the environmental assessment went down from a thousand days to 200 days 80% drop that's pretty pretty dramatic and of course that obviously started before there was an advance act before there were executive orders etc. And on that slide, you see some things on the bottom there that I think the staff is crediting that allowed those types of improvements. I I would say there's another one that maybe isn't listed on that slide, and and that's a desire to improve. For a long time, I think staff in some cases was very comfortable with status quo. And so to move off of that and to to desire to improve is maybe the fundamental change. And as I think about what I hope to achieve in in my time on the commission is to institutionalize that desire to change and to continue to get better. So Mike, if I your thoughts on that. >> I I couldn't agree more. I mean the tremendous progress we've made as an agency over the past year and a half, two years. Um what what what's most important now going forward besides delivering results and following through on the the rule, making sure we do a thoughtful review of all the comments we're getting um is making all these changes and efforts and culture focus sustainable for the long term. And that's why the lead framework is so critically important. In fact, yesterday uh uh Sabrina attack Caroline Kerosone and I met with the latest cohort of the nuclear regulator regulator apprenticeship network which is our entry level program for new we had 29 new faces at the table and key part of that discussion is you need to understand the lead framework you need to understand what risk informed technology neutral uh you need to understand that we have to be self-aware self-correcting in how we do business in the long term. Um, so all of that we it takes leadership at all levels across the agency and we got to be committed to ensure that that we ingrain that into our day-to-day business. And so that's a very important aspect going forward. >> Thank you. Um, Christian, I'm not going to let you off the hook. Three weeks, five weeks, whatever. Um so you spoke about lessons learned and process improvements that are helping you know reduce the level of effort and the time to get licenses uh or or construction permits approved. And then of course um there's new rules that hopefully will be final some this year maybe some early next year. So if I if I think about where we are and I think you know are there more process improve is there more uh benefit in terms of process improvements and if I factor in then new rules what should I expect to see in terms of where we are today in terms of level of effort for a review versus the future let's say you know a year from now when the rules are all finalized. >> Yeah. So I'll start and then I'll have others sort of chime in. I think, you know, just kind of hitting on your process improvements focus. I think as I'm learning, I think we have the right processes in place. I think what's going to be key for us is being able to scale to the new office. You know, you have um under under the Danu and under Jeremy's leadership within within Danu, they establish the the core team model. Uh and that's a fundamentally different approach that we've taken to doing reviews for advanced reactor designs particularly where you are establishing a uh not only the project manager or project lead but you're having a technical lead that's responsible for the entire application and pulling in the subject matter experts as needed. So it's not 20 differentmemes going off doing 20 different reviews you know without the bigger picture in mind. So I think for for us what I want to see is is successfully scaling that approach uh in a way that we can do and continue to be successful in the reviews that we execute. Um you know as far as the timelines the the 15 16 months um you know it's going to vary by by licensing pathway. You know I think we we have uh a vision for 57 for for doing it about as fast as you can possibly do. you know, I think I think Jeremy would probably kick me under the table saying, you know, I probably can do that, you know, equally as fast under under some of the other frameworks. So, I think >> that Yeah. >> Yeah. [laughter] So, so I think um for for us it's it's doubling down on the process that we have to to achieve success and then looking at where we need to put out you know additional I'd say guidance or or instructions to the staff particularly as as we're you know trying new uh new frameworks and making sure that they're set up for success with that let us try add in >> if if I could just give a couple thoughts and examples like I think we've been looking the last few years at the the big chunks the big chunks of time the big chunks of effort and finding ways to to to get that back if you will. So I I look at terap power review. We you know we did that review nine months shorter than we initially planned and the initial schedule we thought was really aggressive but the the nine months was really because we were able to look at engagement with the ACRS differently interactions with our partners and in the office of the general counsel the management review it was like we just we we reframed how we thought about stuff and it resulted in a huge chunk of time and resources savings. Uh same thing with I think with the that will happen with the contested hearing and the mandatory hearing process like that's going to result in a large chunk of time that we're able to get back. I think eventually your to your question commissioner we get to that point. I'm looking for when we get past the this chunk of time comes off the the schedule and why didn't we think of that before? Now it's all right. We've thought of a different way to ask this question and you know we review something a little quicker and we're not we're looking at weeks not months of time coming off the schedule. I'm I'm optimistic we're getting close to that point. Um but I think that's when I feel like we've we'll have gotten a better feel for what what can we give as a better estimate upfront. >> Thank thank you all. Thank you chairman. >> Thank you Commissioner Weaver. Hey, thank you all for what you're doing and thank you to your teammates in the office of advanced reactors as well as the cross functional work that you have going on with other offices at the agency. I I at a personal level, I want to say how proud I am of you all and what you've accomplished. I've worked with all of you at some point along the time in your careers and my careers and several of you very very closely when we were fledgling regulators uh way way back when and I am so proud to see you sitting in the roles that you occupy at the agency today in this really comprehensive con consequential moment in our agency's history and thank you for the work that you're doing. Uh I also want to say I I love working with my fellow colleagues on the commission. You know, I think we've established some new norms and how we're delivering in this moment in terms of not having any undue lay undue delays in our decision-m and not compromising rigor and collegiality in our reviews. And I and I think that really is important. When I think of the story of the NRC in this moment, I see it less of a story of new technologies and new frameworks and I see it more as a story about the institution. It's come up in several of the lines of question already and we can develop all the best frameworks possible and all these new rules and new licensing approaches but if we cannot deliver safety decisions with efficiency and disciplined execution it doesn't matter anymore. So it's my belief that the lead framework Mike that you referenced and thank you for really leaning into that with your deputy executive directors and developing it. I I think this is probably the single most important thing that we can do here as an agency in promoting how we do business going forward. We have to be able to execute to these frameworks that we're we're developing. And I really appreciate what you've done so far to effect the culture change. And when I think about this culture change, I think about being a nuclear geek leadership K effective has to be greater than or equal to one. every leader in this organization has to develop at least one other leader to be an effective example in implementing the the lead model. So um let me ask uh a few targeted questions here um and these are in in no particular order anybody can answer here. Uh so DOE DOW coordination right it's very clear for those that aren't aware that the pathway to commercialization is through the DOE pilots through some demonstration at the Department of War and then to NRC um commercial licensing. What is the biggest challenge right now to expedite that pathway? >> I'll start and and let others jump in. I think we're learning some really important lessons early on with some of these early movers and I think uh the recent rule draft proposed rule making on how we will do those transition uh and the proposed initial guidance um there's a real opportunity near-term and a need for us to clarify and provide more detail predictability on how that the handoff would occur what will make it successful. you know, been some great questions on exactly how what areas have you identified of where there's differences. We're learning those lessons now. We need to provide more predictability into what that processes look like. So, we just had discussions a couple days ago about coordinating with DOE do on the next revision to that draft guidance to provide clarity on what is the purpose of the DOE or DOW authorization? How is that different than the purpose and underlying assumptions with uh commercial license that you get from the NRC? So people understand there are some differences and what's grounded in those difference to help them better inform what anticipate what information they're going to need. Um and internally what can we do based on our lesson so far to better coordinate should we have these three party meetings you know so that all the parties are involved to have those discussions. Uh I love the idea that Dr. Rita Barnwwell proposed of hey, how could we leverage even the exact same paperwork that comes in and just take the pieces needed for DOE and the piece of so that that we really we minimize the administrative burden of different formats, different packages of paperwork, those sorts of discussions we're talking about now. Yeah, I I agree with Mike and I just want to maybe acknowledge the thirst for more clarity from the community that, you know, all the developers going through it and everybody that's interested in potentially pursuing this through Launchpad. Um, we we have that same desire. I guess I just want to make sure that that's clear to everybody. We have that desire to provide that clarity. As Mike said, it's it's we're learning more. And I think the biggest challenge to your question, chairman, is we're trying to make sure we provide that clarity for the spectrum that's out there right now. And we just and so I really appreciate the uh the developers and the companies that have stepped up to help us with okay, this specific example and this category or this specific example and this category that will allow us to get to that that level of additional detail. And again, we we share that desire to get there, too. >> Great. I I see this as a top priority especially for the micro reactors that are moving through these developmental pathways. Um in in a similar vein, uh I'm observing what's going on because that's what I do. All right? I wouldn't be doing my job if I'm not watching the work of the staff. And I've noticed that there have been some technical discussions happening around topics such as seismic design classification, natural phenomenon hazard considerations as um just to to name a few. Al also um the other one that I've I've picked up recently is how to apply the maximum hypothetical accident maximum credible accident. Um there's no question here but just a suggestion you have to keep a ledger of some of these issues that are coming up now and make sure that you have a a clarity is is what you said Jeremy. make sure we have clarity for our application applicants so they understand what the expectations are so that we're not going through over and over again Groundhog Day like with with the same issues and I know you're working on it I know you've got that but I just really want to stress the important because these first movers again going back to the comment that Miss Wheeler made we we cannot create that impression anymore going forward right you get the lead model in place fast forward 20 years later you got new people sitting at the table here I'd love the story to be Hey, we know how to work with the regulator. We're not planning for there to be huge difficulties if we're a first mover. Um, hey, tell me about Oh, go ahead, Mike. >> I was just going to say, and this is where the rapid lessons learned that we're doing for lead framework and all the other lessons learned programs that we have is so critically important. We're taking these lessons and we're not losing opportunities to bake those into informing how we're going to implement these new new changes that we're making. >> Yes. And and I'm aligned with uh Commissioner Cole. I think it's an important thing we have to do and and I think we the commission can talk through and how it formulates its direction to the staff how much detail we want to you know dictate in in how you go about doing it. So that's um currently underway here. Hey tell me a little bit about prioritization. I know we've got well over 20 that you're engaging with here and I read an article this morning that said should there be a fifth executive order issued and the the theme of this opinion it was just an opinion piece about down selecting right? How do how do you really focus on on what's most important? So, can can you give the commission and and our audience here how you're making those decisions on where you're spending your limited time? >> Sure. I I appreciate that question, Chairman, and uh it [clears throat] is it is accurate. It is a challenge for us to kind of make sure that we're prioritizing resources and we're we're appropriately resourced for everything that we're doing. We do have very detailed kind of um budget models and we've informed them from data from previous reviews. uh helps us understand exactly how we're going forward. Um and then that also informs how are we able to take on new work and prioritize new work. And then I I hate to continue to beat the drum on pre-application engagement, but it's it's a large umbrella. I use that term kind of loosely, but the more an applicant talks to us, the more we understand where they are, their business model, their timelines, that allows us to be in a position best to to support them. It might be that oh they're you know somebody's coming in and they're really enthusiastic but their their timeline for engagement is several years out. Okay well we can we can work with them we can but we can shift some prioritization elsewhere. Um we do a we do other have consider other factors in in our determination when we provide >> Yeah. So thank you Jeremy and I and I've seen the dashboards that you had referenced in your presentation and I know you're working across offices but I just want to say it here in a public setting you know make sure that the other program offices NMSS and RR are benefiting from a lot of the uh work that's happening here and how they prioritize. I know we have a very discreet issue in fuel cycle that the commission has been working on in terms of how they prioritize their work and and ask for uh budgeted resources there. Uh, last question. I'm going to drill down to N883. Okay. What's the safety concern with that? I'm a familiar with the issue about the owner, but what is the safety concern? >> So, the the staff has no safety concern with um components being constructed in advance of an owner as long as there are appropriate controls in place to ensure that the quality of that component is equivalent to the quality that would have been in place if an owner was involved. and also the assurance that that component meets the owner's design needs. And so we see N883 as a bridge to provide the framework to ensure that um particularly of course it's associated with ASME code components that those code requirements are in place. We're going to provide guidance for the ultimate lens eee owner to help them to be able to visualize what that quality record looks like so that everyone is on an equal footing and knows what's expected for those components. >> Okay. Now, I know it's been going on a little while, so I could ask the question, why is it taking so long? But I'm not going to ask it. I'm going to ask it differently. When's it going to be resolved? >> So, we um we have our staff guidance ready to go. Of course, ASME is our partner and the code case which includes all of the um the latest version of the code case was expected to be voted out of ASME in June. It actually ran into a little bit of a hiccup. Uh it received some negative votes uh from industry and so we are a little delayed uh but we expect that that could be voted out by early this fall. We're going to have a public meeting actually Thursday of this week. We're going to lay out our plans and as soon as ASME can get the code case issued, we are ready to go. >> Okay, great. Okay, that Mike, did you have something? >> Yeah, and since you opened the door, we we recognize that's not our brightest moment. Um, it's taken us too long to get to where we're at. Um, and I would just say in general going forward, what you can expect in our expectation is anytime we're faced with these issues where there is no significant safety issue at play, but we find that we're spending a lot of time to resolving the expectation of leadership and this is the expectation we're driving across the board is we elevate those issues. Same with inspection, with licensing, with these sorts of decisions. We have to be attuned to all of us of how much time we're spending on them and escalate them so that we resolve them. >> Okay. Thank you, Mike. Um, so that that concludes my portion of the questions. I think this was a very uh productive meeting on a very important and interesting topic. Do any of my fellow commissioners have any final comments before we adjourn? Okay. Thank you very much. End the meeting.