Licensing Options for the First US Demonstration Fusion Power Plant S. Abdel-Khalik

1. Licensing Options for the First US Demonstration Fusion Power Plant S. Abdel-Khalik ARIES Meeting, San Diego (February 3, 2008) G. W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering Atlanta, GA 30332–0405 USA

2. Outline • Current Licensing Options • Applicability to First US Demonstration Fusion Power Plant • Conclusions/Observation

3. Licensing Alternatives • 10 CFR Part 50: • Preliminary Design at Construction Permit (CP) stage • Final Design at Operating License (OL) stage • More detailed information can be provided at CP stage • 10 CFR Part 52: • Combined License (COL) • Early Site Permit (ESP) & COL • Design Certification & COL • ESP, Design Certification, and COL

4. 10 CFR Part 50 Processes • Preliminary Design at CP; Final Design at OL: • Could start construction sooner • Providing preliminary design will result in greater licensing and financial risk, but applicant may provide final design information under 10 CFR 50.35(b) to reduce risk • There is reduced predictability on construction verification because Part 50 does not provide for Inspections, Tests, Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)

5. 10 CFR Part 52 Processes • COL: • Reduced Licensing & Financial Risk; 1 mandatory hearing; 1 opportunity for hearing on ITAAC • Design Certification & COL: • Longer review duration; Design certification of prototype may not be desirable;1 mandatory hearing; 1 opportunity for hearing on ITAAC • ESP & COL: • Location on remote government property reduces need for ESP; 2 mandatory hearings; 1 opportunity for hearing on ITAAC • ESP, Design Certification & COL: • Longer review duration; design certification of prototype may not be desirable; 2 mandatory hearings; 1 opportunity for hearing on ITAAC

6. Applicability to Demonstration Fusion Power Plant • Optimum Approach: • First Demonstration Fusion Power Plant Applicant should submit a COL application under 10 CFR Part 52 for a prototype reactor. • Results in shortest review duration • Reduced licensing risk • Lowest resource expenditure • NRC review would likely require a minimum of 5 years.

7. Potential Policy Issues • Defense-in Depth • Use of PRA in the Licensing Process • Source Term • Containment Functional Performance

8. Potential Needs/Gaps in Licensing • Phenomena Relevant to Fusion Power Plant Safety • Assessment of Knowledge base for important Phenomena • Assessment of data gaps and adequacy of analytical tools • Development needs for analytical tools • Confirmatory Analysis Tools in Various Technical Areas • Modify/adapt existing tools for fusion reactor applications; supplement with special purpose tools as necessary • Using tools and data from domestic and international programs to the maximum extent possible while maintaining independence of the analysis

9. Other Infrastructure Needs/Gaps • Technical Basis Infrastructure • Development of Codes and Standards • Technical Basis to support development of Tech Spec Requirements • Licensing Review Infrastructure • Regulatory guidance • Staff training and skill development

10. Conclusions/Observation • Current US Licensing Processes may impose significant constraints on the timeline for development/commissioning of the first demonstration fusion reactor • Staffing needs and methods development to assure thoroughness and independence of the regulatory review may result in significant delays • Technical Bases to support development of Tech Spec Requirements • Early discussions with (and involvement of) the US NRC in technology development process will be vital to successful commercialization of fusion power reactors