 Well good morning everyone there. There we go our very cool slides today are thanks to Elise Bolger who I'll be introducing in a minute So if you like the slides as I do thanks to Elise, so Good morning to all of you. I'm Teresa Clark I'm a deputy division director in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and I'm the executive lead for our fusion rulemaking and I'm delighted to be with you to Introduce our panel discussion for today and also to congratulate all of you for coming here and not to my buddy's advanced reactor session So he's gonna be over there complaining about the time slot. I'm over here crowing that I stole his audience so that's great and Appreciate all of you taking the time today to hear about a topic that's really capturing a lot of people's imagination is keeping us excited and interested in how we're building the foundations for potential new industry here and And there's a lot going on as you'll hear about from a several diverse perspectives on our panel today So like I said, I'm here from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission But these fusion activities are going on in regulatory perspectives in private industry in government funded research And in a lot of different ways and you'll hear all of those perspectives So I think our next slide, which I have the ability to control I'll introduce our panelists. I'm sure they'll say a little bit about themselves in their own presentations But just to give you a flavor for what you'll be hearing First up is Andrew Holland who's the CEO of the fusion industry association and as he'll say That's a collective of a lot of private groups that are interested in developing fusion across the country And beyond then we'll hear from dr. Scott shoe who works for the Department of Energy Which is supporting a lot of those research activities our own Elise Bolger is gonna talk about our Fusion rulemaking activities, which are super underway. We have another in our series of public meetings this Monday So cross promote for that And I'm sure she will as well She's one of the technical leads for that rulemaking project and then Because we are regulating fusion under the byproduct materials framework that means that we get to leverage our Partnerships with the agreement states so 39 out of 50 states in the US or agreement states Which means they share regulatory authority with us on regulating byproduct materials And so that's already underway nationwide for over 17,000 licensees Using Applications as diverse as smoke detectors to huge commercial irradiators that sterilize medical equipment and food to gauges to nuclear medicine and all kinds of different applications and it's this variety and Different scale across the country that gives us a lot of confidence that we can scale up in fusion as well So Beth Shelton is representing the organization of agreement states, which is the collective of those 39 states As well as perhaps a little bit from her role in Tennessee so really looking forward to hearing from all of these panelists and We'll turn it over to them. Thank you All right, well, thank you everybody Great to be here last panel of the session So I I appreciate you all staying instead of catching the early flight home Hopefully we can entertain you enough and give you enough to mull over About what's happening in fusion and where everything's coming to make it worth your while I am CEO of the fusion industry association and We're gonna I'll talk a little bit here today about the Building the safety and regulatory certainty for the fusion industry our work with the NRC and And going forward elsewhere So what what is the FIA we are the unified voice of the private fusion industry We have 37 member companies from around the world 24 of those companies are here in the United States We bring people together I Like to say that the FIA does that the background work of herding the cats to make sure that we can all talk In one voice we think it's especially useful to talk in one voice Towards the NRC and to regulators around the world Fusion is by no means a Single technology that the technology technology subset here is extremely diverse So getting every everybody on the same page is oftentimes a challenge and we appreciate the the NRC's willingness to engage in this educational process over multiple years Our companies are that the the fusion developers and our and we have affiliate members from around the world who represent everything from the supply chain to the law firms to the NGOs to the And users and utilities that will be Distributing the power our goal is to accelerate fusion energy simply put our goal We think fusion is so so important that we should do everything we can Right now so that we can get it onto the grid as fast as possible and then we can scale it once we get to that point This is our membership here as I said we have 37 member companies all around the world a Broad and diverse group across multiple technologies So where are we today? We do an annual report on the state of the fusion industry this this report is from Released in July of last year So it's it is about nine months old and and in a new industry you'd expect things to change quickly. So We'll be putting out our our next report in July and we're just about to start the survey To see where things are but but this is the best Best detailed knowledge of where things are in the fusion industry $6.2 billion in investment into fusion companies around the world 43 verified private fusion companies and those those range in scale from you know hundreds of people 500 600 employees and Over a billion dollars two billion dollars in investment down to companies that are Little more than a good idea on paper and and have raised a couple hundred thousand dollars. It diverse diverse set Our companies are increasingly optimistic on time scales. You'd think you know given the experience in From both our cousins in the nuclear fission world and also Experience in the fusion world that that sometimes those the reputation is those time horizons go further on but in in fact What we've seen is that as we've done this survey over three years now Companies are increasingly optimistic that they're going to get to that That goal of having fusion energy Onto the grid in the 2030s or before this is really important And the other the other key thing that came out of this report that was really new Was there a growing interest from governments around the world in public private partnerships? Over I think it was 18 companies within those 43 were engaged in some form of public-private partnership and The total dollars that were invested in these you know government public-private partnerships doubled in in in that last year from 150 something million to Nearly 300 million So why is this why is this happening now? And I'm not going to read the whole slide mostly because I don't have my glasses on and can't can't read it there But but but basically and and actually I'll give credit to to Scott next to me here For putting together this this chart which shows the historical progress towards fusion energy I think that there's often this you all have probably heard the bad joke I'm not even going to repeat it, but there's there's enough Feeling and understanding from people in the energy world and the fission world that says well, what have you done? You know it it you've you've been working on fusion and you haven't gotten there Well, what this slide shows is that there is continuous progress on a logarithmic scale over time towards that break-even moment That's really important to say that what that means what that slide means is that and what all of the combination of all of these Applying these these new technologies high-speed computing AI all this sort of stuff to fusion What that means is that we're confident our companies are confident then when they build the next thing it will work And that's new in fusion the fact that you can say we're going to build this thing And it's going to work is really important unlocks a lot of investment And allows us to iterate faster move faster So that leads us to where where we are on industry's timeline I talked about kind of the the excitement and understanding of this so so where we stand today is We've got it. We've we're at this transition moment from 60 years of research into Company multiple companies building the scientific proof of concept last I checked it's 2024 so to me that that's the mid 2020s So we have multiple companies right now Building their scientific proof of concept machine. These are the machines that will show that fusion can be produced at a at a commercially relevant scale and You know it it these are not pilot plants to be clear These are the step before pilot plants and of course we've we already saw this a year and a bit ago at Lawrence Livermore National Lab when the the NIF fired fired a shot that showed that You know you could get to that break breakthrough break even moment and now they've they've repeated at multiple times And so so the analogy here is that we are if you look at the aerospace industry We're post 1903 the Wright brothers have already flown their airplane doesn't mean they're selling anything yet But we the Wright brothers have flown their airplane People are starting to realize that this is coming and it could change everything So as you think through timelines here once you get the scientific proof of concept Then you move swiftly into designing and building pilot plants Then as you do that you're operating the pilot plants in the early 2030s and then in the mid 2030s and before this is about Rapid scale up and global deployment now to be clear This doesn't just happen on its own each of these steps Requires pretty significant investment pretty significant capital pretty significant scale up But at each of these steps, it's also about reducing risk. So that that in that investment becomes more certain and the ability of Investors to feel confidence grows So let's talk about regulation The FIA since we were founded we were we were founded as a small initiative in 2018 before becoming a Spin-off into a a full-fledged association in 2021 But even before then we put out a white paper in the summer of 2020 outlining Where and how fusion should be regulated in the United States? And I'm gonna read this because I think it's important because because we outlined what we thought was was important from the start We need a regulatory framework that explicitly and permanently removes fusion energy from the regulatory approaches that the federal government Has taken towards few fission power plants That's what we mean when we say regulatory certainty and what we mean when we say that Regulations should be fit for purpose. The truth is is that fission doesn't fit for fusion the safety risks are completely different So to talk a little bit and this is again Small writing so I'm not gonna read it all But the scope of the commercial fusion power plants in the United States This is from a survey we did during this NRC process To give you kind of an outline and and we'll probably hear more from Elise on on what the processes looked like But you know, we've been engaged with the NRC here since 2020 so over three years of really good detailed engagement So so a couple of things that that we we put out based on our survey here Of course, no usage of special new nuclear materials no uranium or plutonium So that means that you know, it's appropriate to be out of that utilization facility approach You know the those two bullets in the middle What that means is that the failure mode for fusion is it turns off Automatically and that's that's fundamentally what may what we think makes fusion safe And why it's why it's important the other thing that I want you all to take away from here is that the commercial companies are Almost a hundred percent looking to build fusion power plants that are of a smaller size and scale Then the fusion power plants that then the current existing fleet of nuclear power plants and the fusion power plants that were originally thought of in the The government demo scale which were thought to be you know up to three gigawatts electric That's not what what companies are looking for companies are building things that are more on the scale of combined cycle Gas power plants 200 300 megawatts up to 500 megawatts But you know when you talk to your customers turns out that's what they want and Then the scope of hazards to again, you'll have this and you can you can look at this online Under normal operation the hazards are clear. It's it is a Fusion produces a lot of neutrons and so you have to protect your workers and you have to shield it And then fusion materials become activated. So there is there is a waste stream produced and that that waste has to be Has to be safely dealt with and disposed of in low-level waste repositories accidents the maximum Credible accident is a loss of vacuum and you know, it's pretty hard to get to a loss of vacuum But the maximum credible is is a loss of vacuum and and so what that means is the if if the containment vessel breaks and and air rushes in then the the maximum Radialogical dose is the amount of fuel and activated material within the chamber So it's limited by the very small amount that's within that chamber Of course, we know that we have to we know that there's tritium in many of these devices and we know how to deal with tritium But we have to do it you have to do the work and the regulators have to make sure that we aren't doing the work So we're excited about the the vote last year to by a Bipartisan five five to zero unanimous majority to initiate the rulemaking under the byproduct materials regulatory regime We think it's not only the You know that the right choice for encouraging innovation among the fusion industry but also It's the right choice to ensure safety and security of the public And so what's next I want to kind of finish here what With you know saying thank you to the nrc for for the good Engagement we have we have another meeting coming up Monday There's going to be more and we're gonna get a final final rulemaking and and New reg out you know within the year so so we're starting to think about what's next well We look around the world. It's what's next is in international harmonization The IAA of course is getting more and more engaged and we're having to send people over there and you know We were just talking Teresa and Scott or you know have been over there and involved But we think it's really important to start thinking about what is the the way that we harmonize all together I put here If you look at that the logos German UK health and safety executive US nrc the EU Regulators Japanese regulator and Canadian CNS CNSC put these all together I think you can achieve a regulatory Harmonization among those groups and then go work with the IAA and show that that's the way that you regulate fusion and and how you deploy it around the world and then also we're really pleased to have have Beth here from the From Tennessee and and we were already engaging with agreement states around the world to make sure that they have the capacity here to Regulate this and and get it done in in an important way And then the other thing that I'd kind of encourage folks to think about on what's next is about scale You know How do we make sure that as companies are getting there are moving towards? Not just a pilot plant, but beyond our companies have really ambitious Plans to scale and to as soon as they they figure this out to start moving these through an assembly line process And getting them out as fast as possible How can we ensure that the nrc agreement states are able to scale this out? I think that's it. That's a really interesting challenge to make sure that that this is we don't want You know a regulatory process to slow it down, but we also want to make sure that the regular regulatory process is Clear and and shows that there is public shows the public that it is safe So with that I'm going to close and say these are our affiliate members right now You can see you know, many of them are are involved in In in the broader nuclear industry If you don't see your company's name on here and you want to get involved shoot me a line Fusion industry association.org We we think membership is a good cost benefit. So so come join us and and look forward to to your questions afterwards Thanks Andrew really appreciate that and Since you cross promoted our Meeting next week. I'll cross promote your meeting the fusion industry association has their annual meeting next week as well So next up is Scott. So pleased to hear your remarks good Okay, greetings everyone. I am Scott shoe a senior advisor to the DOE undersecretary for science and innovation Dr. Geraldine Richmond and also DOE's lead fusion coordinator. I'm really happy to be here today I I think you know reach some new faces and new audience today, which is great I often speak more to to fusion advocates So speaking amongst ourselves a little more often so great to speak to some new folks Also in this talk, I'd like to talk about the US bold Decadal vision for commercial fusion energy on the session organizers Teresa Duncan and Alice kind of asked me to talk about What the US government and also what the DOE is doing right now for for fusion energy Accelerating our efforts in fusion energy research and development and Yeah, so so that's what I'll do and also give some kind of higher level of remarks about fusion too Just because like I said, there may be some new audience members here to fusion So I'll just start at the at the top here fusion has the potential to be a safe on-demand Abundant non-carbon emitting and globally scalable energy source that that's why we're here. That's why we're excited about it The potential uses of course everyone looks at electricity generation But I do want to point out that the fusion could be used for industrial processes production of transportation fuels desalination Really it can it could do a lot of other things The potential benefits, you know, many of you probably heard but I'll just repeat here It's it's firm on-demand and no carbon emissions. It's globally scalable Low land use could potentially site it near cities And it has manageable risks relating to both radioactive waste and to nuclear proliferation concerns Of course, and I'm glad Andrew already talked about this a little bit But you know, we want to be very honest and transparent about the safety Considerations and the risks of fusion. So there is mildly radioactive tritium in the DT Fusion designs at least There are short-lived neutron activated structural materials. So you do need a waste a disposition strategy And of course it has the conventional risks of any large industrial facility So strong technical progress and private investments in recent years, you know over the past decade or so I would say especially a warranted new US strategy for fusion research development and demonstration Andrew showed this plot. This is showing the figure of merit. We call the triple product It's the fuel density times the ion temperature times how long you can confine your energy in your fusion system NT tau And so you see that over the decades that we have pursued fusion R&D Really a dramatic progress is made and a lot of people like to cite that the initial rise in the Tokamak That first line that gets up toward scientific break even occurred over just a couple of decades You know four plus orders of magnitude increase in that figure of merit and of course most recently as Andrew mentioned The National Ignition Facility achieved for the very first time what we call scientific energy break even meaning that the fusion energy Release exceeded the laser input energy used to initiate and to heat the reactions So that's an example of you know a level of maturity in the scientific Ability our scientific ability in in fusion energy But similarly also building on many decades of public investments in fusion the enabling technologies for fusion have also advanced and one very good example recently is the demonstration of a 20 Tesla fusion scale magnet using high-temperature superconducting technology by common well fusion systems and While that was an incredible Technological achievement in its own right. I thought the real exciting thing is that opens up new pathways toward smaller designs for magnetic confinement systems including Tokamax and this plot prepared by my colleague at Arpa E. Sam Rosell Shows over the past decade or so how the private sector funding Especially the three and five year averages have started to exceed the DOE funding to the fusion energy sciences program And so that is very important in terms of how we think about our national strategy moving forward So in part due to those developments in March 2022 the White House held a summit Called developing a bold decadal vision for commercial fusion energy The discussions there and the and the follow-on activities from that event are very much guided by a 2021 National Academies report entitled bringing fusion to the US grid And I'll just mention some key abbreviated recommendations from that report That DOE in the private sector should demonstrate net electricity and a fusion pilot plant in the 2030s Do we should move forward now via public-private partnerships to resolve key scientific and technological Challenges needed to bring fusion to commercial viability and that urgent investments, of course are needed by DOE and the private industry So what is the bold decadal vision in a single slide? I'll first say that the bold decadal vision is an element of the White House's innovation agenda to help meet 2050 climate goals a fusion was recognized as one of five priorities in their net zero game-changers initiative and So we think about working backwards I mean the White House basically reached out and and challenged all of us at the DOE and in the fusion ecosystem To think about what will it take? So that we can impact mid-century climate targets You know with fusion able to contribute to that so what that means is Well, I should have started from backwards what that means is in the 2040s We would like to be able to be in a position to be deploying Commercial fusion and so working backwards from there in the 2030s We would like to be operating pilot plants and hopefully first-of-a-kind commercial plants And that gives us the remainder of this decade into the early 30s to really resolve those key remaining S&T challenges energy gain by the commercially relevant systems So well as tackling a number of still daunting challenges relating to materials fuel cycle and other enabling technologies And the other thing I'll point out is because of this aggressive timeline We don't want to wait until technical viability is demonstrated in order to prepare that path to commercialization And we very much want fusion to be a leader in supporting an equitable clean energy transition So would like to credit this slide to Dr. John Paula Lawn who's our new associate director of science for fusion energy Sciences at the DOE It's imperative for the US to remain a fusion energy world leader You know since the White House event in 2022 Many other countries are recognizing the same opportunities a partnership with the private sector To accelerate their own efforts To bring fusion to the grid and there are just some examples of new investment amounts announced by various nations around the world And also of course China is not sitting still and is really Putting a lot of resources To our fusion as well So we are at an inflection point today between fusion science and fusion energy development However yet Significant R&D challenges do remain and this plot is intended to show You know kind of the three pillars of S&T Challenges needed to get to a viable fusion pilot plant The top one is the fusion source itself the plasma physics of reaching net gain conditions And that's what the world has really been focused on since the beginning of fusion R&D in the 1950s And so that's Understandably at the highest TRL level and as I mentioned of both Andrew and I mentioned and NIF did Demonstrate scientific energy gain in December 2022. So this is about predicting controlling and sustaining a burning plasma And we still need to get from that scientific queue of one up to much higher values to be needed in a commercially attractive system But secondly you need You know a plant structure or surrounding that can survive the extreme heat and the radiation flux at the first wall of a fusion system So that is largely a materials problem, but it is also You know a problem of creativity. Maybe there are ways to use liquid or other Phases of materials to try to help solve that challenge as well. And then finally closing the fuel cycle Especially for DT systems a tritium reading processing and containment. So those have lower TRLs and Both the National Academy's report as well as a recent fusion energy sciences advisory committee report really emphasize the need for us to Redouble our efforts and make larger investments, especially in those second two pieces in order to resolve those challenges in a timely fashion and So also credit JP Alon for this slide So he has recently announced a new vision for a balance and bold fusion energy sciences program within the DOE And I'll just point out that kind of repeating what I just said Fulfilling the fusion energy mission demands a shift in the balance of research toward fusion materials and technology and and so they are Underway working with the fusion community to develop a fusion science and technology roadmap Of how to get there in terms of resolving those S&T challenges But also supporting public-private partnerships to accelerate those efforts as well as leveraging international Collaborations which I'll talk a little bit more about in a moment Let me skip that in the interest of time also for the benefit of maybe some new members in the audience to fusion. I just want to mention there are Kind of three overall classes of fusion approaches that are being pursued pretty seriously We are in a period of fertile innovation that benefit from decades of public investments on the left is magnetic Confinement fusion probably the best well known to most of you here. It's the basis of Eater Tokamak is the leading magnetic confinement concept. There are many many companies Listed below there pursuing some form of magnetic confinement on the right-hand side is inertial confinement kind of at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of the the fuel density and The National Ignition Facility is an inertial confinement fusion approach There are companies there too, especially galvanized by the NIF result and then in the middle something called magneto inertial fusion And there are several companies there too. I Want to mention the DOE milestone based fusion development program? This is a centerpiece and first step of the bold Decadal vision for realizing an operating fusion pilot plant in the 2030s and in this program awardees will deliver fusion pilot plant preconceptual designs and technology roadmaps within 18 months They and their partners including national labs and universities will pursue the R&D to resolve S&T challenges and issues up to delivering fusion pilot plant preliminary designs. Oh, I don't know why this is a Okay over five years They will receive federal fixed payments and upon milestone completion While bringing their own very significant private funding well over 50% of their total project costs They will also implement community benefit plans. You know, we want them to engage Their local communities early To build a social license Though there's the logos of the eight teams I just want to emphasize that this is a diversified portfolio of companies fusion concepts as well as commercialization approaches In conjunction with resolving the remaining S&T challenges DOE and the US government seek to partner broadly with fusion Stakeholders to enable timely fusion commercialization Don't want to read the whole list, but you see, you know, none of these things are surprising But we have to You know kind of lay the groundwork for all of those areas for successful future fusion deployment And just kind of you'll have access to these slides and I'm just kind of pointing out some of the various Activities that we have pursued both within the DOE and with our interagency partners To kind of push these broader areas that go beyond just pursuing the R&D for a fusion pilot plant And I'll Do want to emphasize That we are also Have announced a new us fusion international strategy That focuses our R&D collaborations, you know, we've had long time R&D collaborations with partner countries You know for many many decades, but this new strategy focuses those collaborations and also expands into new activities That support the eventual commercialization and so there's five pillars there Secretary former secretary John Kerry Announced this strategy at COP 28 last December and then also just before that We announced a US-UK strategic partnership and there'll be more international activities coming And I'll close by saying, you know DOE very much supports the NRC's fusion rulemaking efforts under the byproduct materials framework We coordinate with the NRC on our international engagements, for example with the IAEA Definitely support the idea of international harmonization for fusion regulatory frameworks We seek to support the safety and security of eventual fusion Deployment through expanded materials and fuel cycle R&D This includes development of codes and tools that will underpin fusion plant designs accident analysis Estimates of tritium inventory and waste generation and future licensing applications DOE stands ready to provide objective technical information and expertise on fusion including from our experts at our national laboratories And also I'll just finish by saying DOE encourages broad public engagement on fusion rulemaking And that will help facilitate public trust and a social license for commercial fusion deployment Thank you, and I look forward to our discussion and in a moment Thank You Scott really appreciate the Where'd you go? DOE's partnership on these issues and and look forward to our discussion So next up is my buddy Elise to talk about our rulemaking. So take it away Elise Thanks Teresa. Good morning everyone. Thank you for attending this last session of the Rick I am Elise Bolger. I am an intergovernmental liaison program manager with the NRC's office of nuclear material safety and safeguards And as Teresa mentioned earlier, I'm also one of the technical leads for the the fusion room making That we are doing at the NRC currently. So so far this morning. We've heard Andrew provide the perspectives from the industry providing some Where their progress is and their challenges and then we just heard dr. Xu provide the federal government's promotional activities for commercial fusion power and I will now go on to describe the the basis and background for the NRC's fusion rulemaking Activities as well as the the process by which we are revising our current regulatory framework To make the way for fusion So this all started with the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act or NEMA Which was enacted on January 14th, 2019 NEMA directs the NRC to develop a regulatory Infrastructure to support the development and commercialization of advanced nuclear reactors And by this this definition of advanced nuclear reactors includes both fission and fusion reactors NEMA additionally requires the NRC to complete a rulemaking to establish a technology Inclusive regulatory framework by December 31st, 2027 in response to NEMA and Due to continued development of the commercial Fusion technologies in 2020 the Commission directed the NRC staff to consider appropriate treatment of fusion reactor designs in our regulatory Structure by developing options for the Commission to consider on licensing and regulating fusion on January 3rd, 2023 NRC staff sent the Commission Secchi 23-001 Options for licensing and regulating fusion energy systems This paper presented three options to support the development of a regulatory framework for fusion systems The first option was to regulate fusion under a utilization facility framework Option number two was to regulate under a byproduct material framework And the third and final option was to use a hybrid approach that would initially regulate fusion under a byproduct material framework and Introduced decision criteria to license and regulate fusion under a utilization facility framework based on an assessment of potential hazards On April 13th, 2023 the Commission approved the implementation of option two which would Regulate near-term fusion systems under the byproduct material framework Specifically staff were directed to perform limited scope rulemaking to revise part 30 of the NRC regulations as well as associated regulations NRC staff were also directed to account for existing fusion systems that are licensed and regulated by agreement states develop a new volume of the new reg 1556 consolidated guidance about materials licenses dedicated to fusion systems and Evaluate whether controls by design approaches export controls or other controls are necessary for near-term fusion systems Additionally, the the Commission directed that if a determination is made that an anticipated fusion design Presents hazards significantly Beyond those of a near-term fusion technology NRC staff should notify the Commission and make recommendations for taking appropriate action as needed I'll just note that fusion is being regulated under the by as it's being regulated under the byproduct material framework We have started using the term fusion system In our our discussions Okay, so what is the byproduct materials framework part 30 and the the associated regulations that are included in parts? 31 through 37 as well as part 39 Provide a framework for licensing byproduct materials This framework is used to regulate a plethora of uses and quantities of byproduct materials Ranging from portable nuclear density gauges to nuclear medicine to commercial radiators The byproduct material Regulations are scalable provide a comprehensive list of technical and regulatory Areas required for licensing and have been used to regulate the potential hazards and risks risks from an Extensive spectrum of uses of byproduct material This framework ensures that access to and use of radioactive materials is limited that only Individuals with appropriate training and qualifications handle and use radioactive materials an adequate level of safety and security is Maintained that it is flexible to encompass the diverse uses of radioactive materials and reasonable instructions are imposed on licensees One aspect of regulating fusion systems under the byproduct materials framework is that agreement states will be able to regulate fusion under their purview To become an agreement state a state enters into an agreement with the NRC upon which the NRC Relinquishes portions of its regulatory authority to the state This typically includes authority to license and regulate byproduct materials Currently there are 39 agreement states which are indicated on the map in the darker blue states the remaining states are and US territories fall under NRC jurisdiction as indicated by the lighter blue and the green states Those three green states Connecticut, Indiana and West Virginia Have been coded differently since they are currently Have submitted their intent to become agreement states And we expect next year for Connecticut and Indiana to be agreement states with West Virginia a little bit farther down the road Additionally while Wyoming is an agreement state their agreement is limited to uranium milling activities Covered under part 40 and therefore NRC still remains regulatory authority for by-product materials in that state It is of a particular interest to note that of the 25 commercial fusion companies headquartered in the US All are in agreement states as indicated on the map. There are eight companies headquartered in California Four in New Jersey. There are three companies both in Wisconsin and Washington Two each in Massachusetts, Virginia and Colorado and one in Texas. At least this was current July of 2023 with the fusion industry report So therefore as you can see all these are located in agreement states And therefore it's been very important for this rulemaking that the NRC works closely with our agreement state partners And they have been actively participating in the the fusion systems rulemaking from the very beginning When the NRC discontinues and the state assumes regulatory authority Agreement state programs are required to provide reasonable assurance of protection of public health and safety In the regulation of radioactive materials further agreement state programs must have regulations procedures and guidance that are compatible with the NRC's Agreement state compatibility ensures that with 40 different regulatory authorities a cohesive national materials program exists Oversight of the agreement state programs as well as the NRC's materials program is Performed via the integrated materials performance evaluation program or IMPEP Additionally the NRC reviews state regulations and other legally binding requirements to ensure that the program elements remain adequate to protect public health and safety and Compatible with the NRC's requirements following revisions to federal rules rulemaking All right, so as far as the current status of the fusion rulemaking the NRC is currently in the process of drafting the proposed rule and guidance So as you can see shown in this graphic where we're still at the initial stages of the rulemaking process Our next step will be to send our draft proposed rule to the Commission for review and publication in the federal register for public comment This public comment period will be at least 60 days After evaluation of public comments the NRC will revise the rule and guidance as needed and provide the draft final rule for commission approval Following approval of the rule it will be published in the federal register and come into effect Typically agreement state programs have three years to adopt new regulations Following the Commission's decision to regulate fusion systems under by product under the byproduct materials framework the NRC established a rulemaking working group comprised of both NRC and agreement state staff the rulemaking working group has been very active with stakeholder engagement Since the onset of rulemaking activities the NRC has held six Public meetings and several government government meetings during these meetings We have shared preliminary draft versions of the rulemaking language and guided and the guidance document members of industry academia state and tribal governments as well as the public have participated in private feedback during these meetings Additionally the NRC has been building our capabilities and knowledge through participation in both international and domestic fusion related conferences and meetings With all the unknowns in the design of fusion systems the working group has focused on designing a flexible and resilient regulatory Framework that will allow for the diversity of fusion technologies will identify radiological hazards and will encompass safety significant designs and programmatic elements Regarding the changes to the NRC regulations the draft proposed rule would add a new definition for fusion system in parts 20 and 30 and Would update the definition of particle accelerator in parts 20 30 and 110 The proposed rule would also add technology inclusive contents of application requirements supportive of a performance based approach to regulating fusion systems the contents of application section Would provide the requirements for licensing a fusion system that would be supplemental Supplemented by the current general regulatory requirements in terms and conditions for licensees already contained in part 30 Specifically the draft proposed rule would add a new paragraph to section 30 32 Application for specific licenses this new paragraph would require the applicants for a fusion system license to provide General description of the system and facility description and scope of operating and emergency procedures the organizational structure information on training inspection and maintenance programs and The material inventory processes Considering the possibility that fusion systems will generate activation products that are not included in the waste Classification tables in part 61 NRC staff were also proposing to expand a section of 20 point 2008 A new paragraph of 20 2008 would require that disposal sites that accept Fusion system weights waste complete a site specific assessment to demonstrate protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion Based on the waste acceptance criteria for the disposal site as much as the byproduct material framework is as much as the Right product material framework is covered in guidance NRC staff have also been working to develop a new new reg 1556 volume which will provide licensing guidance for fusion system applicants. This guidance is being developed to include fusion systems for Research and development as well as commercial deployment. The guidance is technology neutral and focuses on byproduct material and associated raising radiation hazards Leveraging information contained in other new reg 1556 volumes the working group has worked to develop guidance that emphasizes the handling and control of radioactive material to protect radiation workers members of the public and the environment Consistent with the byproduct framework a fusion licensee will be a license will be limited to the specific Components such as the fusion device Tritium handling systems and breeding blanket And we recently have completed and made publicly available the preliminary draft licensing guidance this slide shows the topics that are covered in the new rike 1556 guidance Which includes the types and forms of radioactive material to be used possessed and produced Purposes for which the license material will be used This could include tritium as the fusion system fuel as well as activation products that will be produced inadvertently due to the fusion reactions Qualifications for radiation safety officer as well as individuals responsible for the radiation safety program training for those individuals that will be working in restricted areas fusion facility and equipment descriptions radiation protection programs such as Dyssymetry and contamination controls as well as waste management Regarding our upcoming milestones Next month the NRC will begin our internal review of the draft proposed rule and guidance as well as provide Advanced copies to the agreement states for review We will then be on track to provide the draft proposed rule with the new rike 1556 volume to the commission in September of this year To ensure that we meet the December 31st 2027 NEMA guideline deadline We will be planning to have the proposed rule published in the federal register in the spring of 2025 And then to provide the final rule to the commission in the summer of 2026 by meeting these milestones the final rule is expected to be published in the federal register in the spring of 2027 and I'll just Also announced that next week will on Monday March 18th at 1 p.m. We will be hosting another public meeting This will be discussing our preliminary draft guidance Which we made publicly available last week as well as some recent changes to the proposed definitions of fusion system and Accelerator so you can find that on our public a meeting notice website Thank you, and if you have questions about our rulemaking you can contact me Duncan or Dennis and you can find more information on our public website as well as on regulations.gov Thanks very much for that Elise and for promoting our other meetings and we'll go next to our regulatory partner Beth Shelton from the state of Tennessee Good morning everybody So like Teresa said, I'm Beth Shelton with the division of radiological health in the state of Tennessee. I'm the director there I'm also the chair elect for the organization of agreement states. We'll get into a little bit more about that in a few minutes So when I was asked to do this presentation back in January I was like well, I mean why me we don't have a fusion facility in Tennessee They're like, oh, but you can do it on the OAS perspective Well now we have someone coming to Tennessee. So for a month and a half now I have changed my way of thinking about this presentation. So you're gonna hear it on both sides So we have two national organizations that are really there to help support the agreement states One of them is the organization of agreement states and that is one that I'm chair-elect right now And the purpose of OAS is to provide a mechanism for these agreement states to work with each other and the nuclear Regulatory Commission on regulatory issues One of the big things that we do is we Work with the NRC on different working groups when the NRC needs somebody from a state to be on a working group We reach out to the states to try to find someone that has that expertise Another thing that we do is we we send in many comment letters about any kind of regulation amendments or Guidance documents that are coming out we'll collect those comments from the states and try to give it a little bit more to get it to NRC and Then we also if there's a state that's kind of in need of something if they're struggling For instance fusion or something and they need help from another state We try to help get those states the contact information that they need and or reach out to the NRC and get help So then there's also the Conference of Radiation Control program directors CRCPD and they Do a lot of the same things that the OAS does But they also include x-ray in their their duties and So one of their big things they're a lot larger than OAS and have a lot more resources But they have right now at least 70 working groups that are working on any kind of Guidance and one of the big things that they release is the suggested state regulations when NRC You know has regulations that come out It's it's in y'all's language It's in the NRC language and so the states have to put it into state language and the suggested state regulations that the CRCPD Right can help us get to that language a little bit easier and faster So I think the big thing that has come out I've been I've been with the state of Tennessee for almost 25 years now and in the past it wasn't so cooperative and Just a lovely relationship Partnership kind of situation, but I would say the last I don't know ten years eight ten years It has been a real partnership and working in you know hand-in-hand with the NRC and a lot of that comes in when we started talking about the national materials program and What the mission for the NMP is to create a genuine partnership between the NRC in the agreement states That will ensure the protection of public health safety security and the environment from the hazards associated with radioactive materials Really the big thing is we we need each other The states a lot of times see technologies before the NRC season because we licensed so many people so many more Different types especially medical when medical comes in we're seeing them a lot faster than the NRC And so we need each other and the NMP allows that it allows the states to be in there from the beginning at the ground level so Like at least said there are certain states that are already dealing with fusion facilities and regulating them across the US not very many but a few and You know they a lot of them they have either they're working on licensing for research and development activities Or they have the license for research and development activities Another big aspect that a lot of people Don't think about is you also have to Register do a certified registration for the particle accelerator for a fusion facility So that kind of brings in like for Tennessee our X-ray and our materials are on separate With same division, but different programs Well, we're gonna have to bring that together to do to license and register this type of facility So we're kind of going through the thought process on that Okay, so that's really small and I forgot my glasses at home in Tennessee So Fusion fusion system rulemaking expectations at least did a great job of explaining what was gonna be happening with the rulemaking coming out And I can tell you from a state that is now Knowing that we're gonna have a fusion facility. I'm very happy to hear all of that information I think that is gonna be very helpful. It's gonna enable the applicants to have Some consistent guidance and it's gonna make everything predictable and reliable across the entire NMP So I've already kind of been into this a little bit, but there is a policy statement agreement state policy program pop Agreement state program policy statement. This is also very small NRC and agreement states will cooperate in the development of both new and revised regulations and policies Agreement states will have early and substantive involvement in the development of regulations affecting protection of public health and safety That's key as long as we are, you know working together and Which we are I think that's gonna help everybody we can all I think agree on that So currently there are a lot of activities going on at least mentioned some that the NRC is participating in as far as fusion Last year during the 2023 OAS annual meeting. I'll do a plug. It's very interesting meeting if you ever want to come out This year's is in August in California so We last year's meeting we had a fusion day. It was an entire day specified for fusion the morning was a panel of Agreement state people NRC and the industry people and it really went into detail what What is what's happening right now as far as how the states are regulating it? And it also gave us the perspective of the technologies out there from the industry Then we actually got to tour Helion because we were in Seattle So it was I think a very productive day and a lot of people got a lot of information out of it The CRCPD currently has their e47 committee Working on developing a white paper that will outline the risk-based Approach for state regulation and commercial fusion facilities. I think I can't wait to read that one I'm hoping to get a copy. I know it's draft right now. I think so hopefully we'll be getting that soon So this is probably the most important slide for me right now and it really shouldn't be like this It really probably needs to be like the top of my brain and it just like question marks and like just things shooting out of it Because that's kind of how I feel right now as an agreement state I know there's there's all kinds of information out there and people to help but when you're first getting into a new technology and Trying to figure out where to go next. It's it's a little overwhelming. So some of the things that have come to mind Training, you know, the NRC gives us amazing training for the agreement state staff and I know they're developing Training for fusion, but I'm not sure when it's gonna be available and I'm not sure when it will be able to get Everybody in the US and into this training class. So so that's a little bit of a worry to me and it's kind of made me try to Think outside the box and try to figure out another way to get training for my staff until we can get the NRC training licensing assistance, I think the big challenge there and We've already started reaching out to the other states that have fusion facilities. So that's good And most of them have been very willing to talk to us and meet with us even offered for us to come there and visit So that's that's huge having that licensing assistance and when the new reg and the regs come out that will be very helpful One thing that came up this week that I didn't I hadn't heard about until not this week The fusion design specific registry. I think it's probably a good idea I haven't you know heard too much into it, but it would be where It would make it easier for a fusion facility a fusion device particular device to be put on a registry that If someone in Tennessee was licensing the same type of device where I mean you're still gonna have to do site site specific and You know analysis, but it could if that same device is Being used in Wisconsin then it would make the The licensing process faster most likely So it's something to think about and I think it's just in the early stages of thought, but I think it would be a good idea Emergency preparedness we don't really know yet what we're gonna have to do and what how much resources are gonna have to be Made available for emergency preparedness. I don't think it would be anything like a nuclear power plant exercise Where our entire staff is out in the field all day long I don't think it's anything like that But it's something we think about and when I'm trying to do a workload analysis and figure out if we need extra people Just thoughts in my head One thing that's not up here that I would suggest for other states Even you know even licensees We what we do it's in our regs that we will do environmental sampling around these types of facilities It has really helped us With public with the public when they come to us and say oh We don't believe what so-and-so is saying they're getting and we're able to say well Here's our our sampling and so it gives a little bit of credibility for the licensee and it helps with you know, it just Helps with that public outreach type of stuff. So I would suggest that for anybody that Any other state or in our city And that's all I have So thanks so much Beth and thanks to the whole panel see you had plenty to say even though you weren't sure you'd what you're gonna say But we knew that you would have a lot of great perspectives And I think that that mindset of I don't know I don't have any fusion in my house Oh wait, here's a whole bunch of fusion is something that we're gonna all be seeing over the next few years It's something you know, there's really a moment right now and we're all adapting to it So I appreciate getting these different perspectives across the panel We are starting to get a number of questions online any of you Or as well as the people out in cyberspace can add questions and we'll prioritize them here in the queue We may not get to them all but I'll try to combine them up a little bit and we have Quite a decent amount of time. Thank you all for staying on schedule even though. I didn't use the hook So I'll toss the first question to Andrew at my right Andrea you use this this metaphor of the Wright brothers and kind of getting off the ground and and what did you see as Fusion first taking flight and how are you defining that flight and kind of what the next steps are? Yeah When I said that the Wright brothers plane took off it was the National Ignition Facility it was when when the NIF in December of 2022 announced that they'd gotten more energy out than in now some of the scientists will tell me well Actually, they got a ignition a whole year earlier. So it was the scientific regime was already there and but you know They it's we get it but we we now have it in in one technology type and Like I said multiple companies are building in their own technology type So, you know to to extend and maybe torture the analogy of Aviation a little bit, you know, the right flyer was the first but it wasn't wasn't necessarily the one that was commercialized It doesn't mean but you know, Wright brothers, you know became a significant supplier to first the military and and also to You know mail The Air mail sort of stuff. So there is we we are now in this moment You know, I just read a the the the great biography of the Wright brothers And and one of the really interesting things was from that December 1903 moment until basically like 1908 1909 people didn't really believe them until they saw it and so so that's one of the really interesting things that We have to do now is we have to go out and demonstrate to the To the public to you all to the regulators to the government that this is happening and this is coming sooner than you think and so So that's you know, partly my role partly, you know, our companies and scientists out there, you know Getting the the awareness out there, you know a pretty soon These things will be coming in for for license applications will be coming in to, you know, other regulators for you know Grid hook up the applications and all that sort of stuff. So we got to make sure of these ready That's the again tortured analogy, but I think it it helps on the mindset Thanks, and it helps with that kind of spirit of imagination that we're all feeling here, too so Beth mentioned environmental sampling and that Collected with a couple of questions here about environmental reviews in general for fusion and how we're planning to handle those Elise can you speak to that a little bit? Yeah, sure. So Currently we have for some environmental rules reviews under part 51 of our regulations For research and development. We have a categorical exemption for that. So that means that they would not have to go through an environmental review Which at this point is what I see, you know, most fusion applications coming in as But once we go towards the the commercialization aspect of fusion systems Those will have to go through probably some sort of environmental review at this time That being said that states do not have the same NEPA requirements So they may have their up their own imposed rules or they may not have anything So it will vary from location to location what you're going to see as far as an environmental review And best did you want to add to that at all for Tennessee regs? Well, we don't deal with NEPA in my division. So So I really don't have much to add there. I think it is something that we've talked a lot about here and something we want to definitely bring up at OAS and see where What we need to do as far as because it will depend state to state Thanks, and this is a hot topic that we're talking about in our role-making process as well just to add to what Elise said of Those 17,000 materials licensees that are out there Many of them given the decades of experience that we have with them do fall into these categorical exclusions from doing a formal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. However fusion doesn't have that experience basis yet So we're anticipating doing those part 51 environmental reviews in the near term and kind of see how things go from there I'm trying to prioritize these a little bit. I Think let me throw a couple of international questions Scott's way So there's a couple of different internationally related questions About how we're harmonizing internationally and then what process progress is being made at the international level Do you have maybe from our research or funding perspective opinions to share? Yeah, so in term the first one in terms of the harmonization I mean we have bilateral discussions, you know with our with many partner countries on on these types of topics, you know on the regulatory frameworks on Approaches to non-proliferation and things like that and and of course through the IAEA as well The IAEA is ramping up their level of activities around fusion There's many ongoing studies and they're gonna be putting out reports and things like that. So that's one avenue Where the harmonization discussions are occurring a couple of avenues? in terms of the more broader international engagements and implementation of the US strategy again it is through Many separate bilateral Discussions right now We've announced publicly the US-UK strategic partnership. There's a couple of other At least from our perspective priority partnerships that we would also like to roll out, you know in the near future And I didn't have a chance in my talk to go over those five pillars But first and foremost is still to you know find ways that we can work together to resolve those S&T challenges You know there's many costly test facilities and we want to be able to find a way to part You know with our close allies and partners not have to do all of them by ourselves So that's that's one area But in all these other commercialization areas too, we would like to be able to work with our partners You know certainly at bilateral levels and potentially even in some multilateral levels Can I add on that too? You know we increasingly see that yes, there is it is really important that there's cooperation And there's a long history of cooperation internationally infusion But I can also report that there is Increasingly kind of a geopolitical competition happening here infusion the reason maybe I'm a little more tired than I usually would be is I was on a roundtable this morning with the European Commission the Commissioner for Research she hosted a high-level roundtable and so I was up at five o'clock this morning participating in that virtually and and They categorically stated we want the first pilot plant to be built in Europe I've heard the same thing from the Germans, which of course would be Europe heard the same thing from the UK so Very clearly countries want to work together and there's there's really important things that that we can work together on But we need to be aware that that people are racing towards this and Scott had the roadmap that the Chinese put together We see very significant movement from from the Chinese government towards Figuring out how they're going to commercialize fusion energy as well Thanks, and I think I'll stick with you for a second Andrew So there's a question in the queue that was directed at us, but I'm gonna spin it at you So when we wrote the commission paper that Elise mentioned We described this phrase called near term designs And there's a lot of information in in the paper and it's a closures that talks about what we meant when we said near term It's things, you know, no off-site doses, you know No use of special nuclear materials the sorts of things that you were talking about Andrew as well Are you seeing anything on the horizon that's not near term? And what what sort of what sort of things do you have in your mind as an industry to approach that? Well, Teresa, thanks for for bringing up the area where we disagree with you Fundamentally the FIA does not see anything On the horizon from our members that would not not fit in under that that near term Categorization we we think that it's it's important to build the regulatory certainty here for the industry, you know We and so when we when we sometimes say this. Oh, you're only doing near term and I hear this from from NRC or others and you know, we want to leave the options open It's like we get it the options are always open the commission can always impose a utilization Facility approach on anything they see coming and anything they see coming in To date we don't see anything Proposed for the United States put it that way There is of course, you know murmurings every so often that that pop out of China or Russia on some sort of fusion fission hybrid But that we don't think would be a challenge at all. I think fundamentally it because it has special nuclear material a fusion fission hybrid would obviously fit under your utilization facility approach and Second on that, you know the regulator can always just say no And so we don't see anything like that coming in the United States and or you know similarly like like-minded countries I think you know, it's important to to be able to build that turn the short term into long term Thanks for that and I agree in the short term We'll see about the future That's great. Thanks for providing that perspective Beth you talked a little bit about the design registry and that that opened up something that I think our audience Which may have more of a nuclear power background, you know I mentioned in our intro and Elise also mentioned the tremendous number of Licenses under the materials framework and so when folks are talking about scale up What sorts of things do you think we already have in the materials framework that enables scale up and consistency? I think you can kind of use like the sealed source and device registry for instance to We could use something like that Really to Design something like this. I will say one thing. I It would be nice to just it would be nice to have it and be able to Take that part of the regular of regulating it Sorry, I'm just it to me It's the sealed source and device with is what came to mind when I read about it and then also on the x-ray side It just with us and having to look up new types of x-ray devices Having something like that for x-ray. I mean, I know that x-ray is not what we're talking about here But it's something we do every day for new types of Technology and it would make it so much easier if there was something out there We could easily look at and so that comes to mind it would be Like we would be able to say oh type one energy. This is the type of Device you're gonna bring into the state of Tennessee. Let's look on this registry and it's already been approved in some manner Whether it's NRC agreement states organization of grant series to be whatever but it's just really kind of put out there as Rest frosty is another example of that. I'm sorry all over the place, but yeah, I think those are definitely Thanks, Beth. I wanted that to come out of the mouth other than mine because I talk about this stuff a lot too Medicals another example where you know, we license medical nationwide and have consistent licensing guidance that's used So this is a strategy piece that the NRC is thinking about and it's gonna be working more with the states on After we can take a breath from getting this chunk of the rulemaking out. So Scott I'll come back to you. I think so What one of the questions for you is quite loaded about whether the US government should significantly increase its support of fusion You can decide whether or not to answer that but another piece is more concretely. What are you planning on? D-risking technology and helping Bring that to market because that's a big challenge in first of a kind generation Thanks, well, I can easily say I don't have the power to do Do anything about either of those questions, but but I will say You know, I mentioned how fusion is at an inflection point And I think it is a matter of our collective will and investment on that will determine How quickly we can get there. So, you know, we are working Certainly on the DOE side To have those conversations, you know throughout government to try to build the support. That's what we can do In terms of the de-risking, I mean we do want to do the most we have Most with what we have of what Congress gives us And I mentioned we have a new associate director for fusion energy sciences and he is Doing a great job. I'm trying to look ahead and how to realign our fusion energy sciences program with de-risking those remaining S&T challenges and doing it in a way that Leverages, you know, our partnerships with the private sector and with international partners, etc. So that that's what we're going to be Really trying to do in the in the very near future at the DOE Thanks for that. So Andrew you might offer some industry perspectives on this in in the Vision Never get that word right in my brain community We talk a lot about the front and the back end of the fuel cycle and there's a couple of questions here about Fuel infusion perspective where you're gonna get the tritium that you need and then What do you see the waste streams being? You know, you mentioned low-level waste in your talk And I know some of this is under active discussion in the rulemaking, but your perspectives in those sides, okay? I I always tell people here, and I'm not a scientist, but I sometimes play one on TV so when this is a challenge for me because there is so many different technologies within the FIA and Honestly, everybody has a different way that they want to do it and you know the science isn't there yet So tritium at this point the main sources of tritium for FIA member companies are Canadian can-do reactors There is as I understand it certain, you know possibilities to Actually increase tritium production from them in the future, but obviously that's also a a finite source And so I can report that that some actually of our member companies are looking at the possibility of becoming Tritium fuel producers before they they move into power plants Interesting, you know tritium is actually really expensive $30,000 a gram or something right like that right now So it's so there's a market the market if if somebody's a buyer, you know So you can figure out a way to to buy it. So, you know, we actually don't think it's a huge Worry sometimes see extrapolate. Yeah, there was a news report a couple of years ago That said oh the world is gonna run out of tritium in 2045. Well, you know all things being equal You know maybe but all things aren't equal and things change in 20 years. So We think we think that this is there there is going to be enough tritium. It's not physically impossible to make it So it will be, you know, we'll find that of course as Scott was talking about there is a lot of uncertain science here and in the fuel fuel systems and How much tritium any particular power plant is going to need for startup is going to be an open question But fundamentally I think for the the fission audience to know Once the power plant to start it up. It needs to be self-sufficient in in tritium So in actuality when you'd say, you know traditionally like what is the fuel source isn't isn't actually going to be deuterium and tritium It's going to be deuterium and lithium because the lithium is what? The tritium is generated and it's the lithium blanket the neutrons hit the lithium Creates tritium you cycle that back into the into the power plant So yes, you need you need to have some some tritium for startup But you need to be self-sufficient in that So I hope that answers that question second question on on waste disposal Yeah, of course the waste disposal is fundamentally a choice about design, right? So that's why having the Regulations in place early so we we can know how to You know design these these power plants design the the plasma-facing materials to be able to ensure that these can be you know, we can have the the irradiated irradiated materials go into a Regime that that does fit into that low-level waste easily disposed of regime is important and we can plan that out so Yeah, every company is going to have to have its long-term waste management plan and where it's going to go I can say that that we've talked to the the low-level waste Repositories in the United States. They're eager for the business. So All right, thanks for that So the the remaining few questions in here are about our regulatory framework that we're actively developing and so Elise I'm going to give you the last question as kind of a softball If somebody out there in the audience here or online Wants to get involved. You said we already had a handful of public meetings. Is it too late for them to get involved? What's what's the next step and and how can they participate and learn more about what we're doing? Yeah, absolutely Thanks for that question So as I mentioned, we do have an upcoming public meeting on This upcoming Monday you can find out information about that on our public website Additionally You can see We have information on our public website additionally about what's happened in the past you can go and you can find The Adams links to all the documents and past presentations And I think we had one of our meetings was transcribed to so that'll be in there we've if you would Like to provide public comments during our public comment period that one you see it posted in the federal Register, we would be glad to accept all of those comments that you have So yeah, it just we have all those documents to review We just made publicly available the draft version of our proposed new right licensing guidance That's a bit of a beast of a document several hundred pages So if you wanted some something to put you to sleep at night But you can go through that and we would appreciate any feedback and insights into that and how we can make that document You know the best it can be We definitely see this rulemaking as an iterative process as you know things are more refined I think we're going to see changes that will have to once we narrow down different technologies that become more prevalent So continue to be involved with our ongoing activities to keep us informed and give us your feedback Great, thanks Lisa's definitely not too late is the answer there and don't be scared by the couple hundred pages It's not a couple hundred pages of fusion stuff It's a couple hundred pages that includes all of our standard content for every type of license like we're to mail your application And don't forget to have a radiation safety officer and that kind of stuff So you can flip over those parts if you like So I'll just close by really thanking our panel. I appreciate all the engagement of everyone You know the regulatory process is a tight collaboration between us and the agreement states and then we really benefit from the Industry and the interagency Input to those processes as well So I know we plan to continue that and there's a lot of people behind the scenes who helped make this session happen At least herself as well as our question answers and clickers out there in the audience So I really appreciate all of that and I will get you to launch two whole minutes early Thanks for coming to the Rick and we really are glad to have you all with us here at online. So thank you