 Yeah, if everyone could take their seats, please welcome back from the break. I Wonder remind everybody in the in the audience here about the QR codes for the sessions. That's the way we get the People who are here in person to submit questions for the plenary sessions and the same will be done for the technical sessions So please take note of that as we as we get started so it's it's my pleasure to Introduce the Honorable Jeff Barron He was nominated by the President Obama and sworn in as a commissioner in October of 2014 and his he is currently serving a term ending on June 30th of this year During this tenure on the commission commissioner Barron's priorities have included Maintaining a strong focus on safety and security of the operating reactor fleet promoting environmental justice and Preparing to review and oversee the safety of new technology Since joining the commission commissioner Barron has visited dozens of NRC licensed facilities as well as several sites abroad Before serving on the commission commissioner Barron worked for the US House of Representatives for over 11 years Originally from the Chicago area Commissioner Barron earned a bachelor's degree and master's degree in political science from Ohio University He also holds a law degree from Harvard Law School And with that commissioner Barron where we look forward to your remarks I'll be trusted with people's papers Well, thanks Ray. Good morning everyone. It's great to be here for our first hybrid Rick This is a terrific opportunity for face-to-face discussions after a few years of not being able to get together in person It also offers a convenient way for stakeholders from across the country and around the world to concentrate their Rick participation on their areas of interest without the need for travel Whether you're participating in person or virtually this conference is a chance to hear about what's happening at the agency and to discuss current technical and policy Issues with thousands of others who are focused on nuclear I'm excited to welcome our international regulator partners back to the Rick I think we've all missed this week of engagement in recent times We are honored to be joined by chairman Karkov of the state nuclear regulatory inspector of Ukraine We stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and with you and your colleagues who are working every day to ensure nuclear safety under incredibly perilous and stressful conditions as I embark on my eighth Rick. I've been reflecting on the major changes. I've seen since 2014 a lot has changed We've seen major shifts in NRC's workload budget staff size hiring and overall outlook for the future When I arrived on the commission these factors were all on a downward slope Our workload was shrinking our staff and budget were shrinking We had the project aim effort to reduce costs narrowly avoided layoffs and essentially had a hiring freeze for some time Nuclear power plants were shutting down Back then there was little talk of new construction beyond Vogel There was some interest in small modular reactors, but almost no real discussion of advanced non-lightwater reactors Today we're in a very different situation Policymakers and the public are increasingly focused on climate change and on dramatically reducing carbon emissions President Biden has made it a priority to put the United States on a path to eliminate carbon emissions in the electric sector by 2035 and achieve a net-zero economy by 2050 Many states and utilities have adopted similar targets The urgency and scale of the climate challenge have led to a growing consensus among policymakers that meeting ambitious climate goals Will involve nuclear power including new reactors The inflation reduction act makes huge investments to drive this transition Including through the clean electricity production tax credit and funding for a domestic high essay low-enriched uranium supply chain Few if any nuclear power plants are expected to close in the US anytime soon with more potential applications for advanced reactors Small modular reactors subsequent license renewal new fuel designs power upgrades and risk informed programs expected and our sees overall workload is increasing We're hiring again and our budget has stabilized or even expanded a bit to allow us to do this new work The outlook for nuclear has markedly changed and it is an exciting time to be doing our important work NRC has a key role to play in tackling the climate crisis It's our job to ensure the safety and security of nuclear power in the US energy mix and that means we need to be ready When utilities and vendors tell us that we should expect numerous designs new designs and reactor applications We need to be ready with sufficient Resources and the right expertise To review them and an efficient and effective licensing process that can handle whatever volume comes our way That's an important NRC responsibility in this period of change NRC also needs to be open to and ready for new technologies that could improve safety whether it's digital instrumentation and control Accident tolerant fuels sensors advanced manufacturing techniques Or artificial intelligence. We need to establish a reliable regulatory framework for reviewing these technologies While ensuring that they are adopted safely without introducing any unacceptable risks NRC has the major task of establishing the regulatory framework for the review and safe operation of advanced reactor designs The most prominent piece of this framework is the part 53 rulemaking NRC's current power reactor regulations were written for non light or for light water reactors rather So it makes sense to update those requirements to address different technologies New reactor designs have the potential to be even safer than existing designs We need to recognize the value of new safety attributes while maintaining a prudent degree of defense in depth over the course of multiple drafts and countless public meetings the NRC staff and many of you have been Grappling with a range of complex issues such as the appropriate performance standard the role of the Lara the facility safety program Framework be in micro reactors We've all discovered together that it isn't easy to create a risk-informed performance based Technology neutral framework that can work for molten salt reactors and high-temperature gas cooled reactors Micro reactors and gigawatt reactors The staff has also worked to shape the rule to accommodate applications in which probabilistic risk assessment Would play a leading role as well as applications where PRA would not be as central to this to the safety case I think it made sense for the staff to take the additional time to develop a more deterministic pathway option It's good to allow for different types of safety cases in the end I think everyone agrees that we need a rule that offers this kind of flexibility While including enough detail to avoid the problem of evaluating custom safety cases in a way that results in uncertainty About what NRC will find acceptable The Commission has begun reviewing and digesting the draft proposed rule and I look forward to hearing your views about it The part 53 rulemaking is extremely important. There are of course other pieces of the framework for new reactors Establishing a complete regulatory framework requires the Commission to resolve related policy issues The Commission recently addressed the question of how proximity to population centers should be considered in citing advanced reactors We will be looking at other key policy issues including emergency preparedness Security and the generic environmental impact statement for advanced reactors Many of the early mover applicant applicants are planning to use part 50 or part 52 because those regulations are already on the books There is another important rulemaking underway to get parts 50 and 52 better prepared for new reactor applications While keeping two distinct licensing processes that offer different advantages The rulemaking would more closely align the two regulations so that equivalent design applications submitted for NRC review Under part 50 or 52 would be assessed against consistent technical standards and would yield equivalent demonstrations of safety security and environmental protection In addition the rule were reflect lessons learned from previous licensed reviews in reactor construction projects For example the draft proposed rule currently before the Commission includes many lessons learned from the AP 1000 construction projects on topics like operator licensing Simulators fitness for duty and change processes these kinds of updates are going to improve parts 50 and 52 for near-term applicants Nonpower reactors will also play an expanding role in developing and demonstrating advanced reactor technologies The applications for Kairos's Hermes test reactor and Abilene Christian University's molten salt research reactor are already being reviewed By the NRC staff and future applications are expected Another draft final rule under Commission review is focused specifically on nonpower utilization facilities or NPUFs The two most significant regulatory changes in the draft final rule are linked The rule would eliminate license terms for research reactors while requiring all NPUF Licensees to submit final safety analysis report updates to NRC every five years under this approach Research reactors would no longer need to obtain renewed licenses every 20 years But would instead be required to regularly provide FSR updates to NRC. I Think this new approach will provide an overall safety benefit Over the years the NRC staff has found that the licensed renewal process for research reactors Has an identified significant aging management issues Periodic FSR updates submittals However should provide substantial safety benefits by ensuring timely licensee documentation of changes to the licensing basis of a facility This should improve the effectiveness of NRC inspections and licensee training and knowledge management The NRC staff has found that because NPUFs are frequently located at college campuses Staff turnover and limited staffing resources at an NPUF often contribute to a lack of historical knowledge of the development of the Licensees FSR and changes to the FSR the final rules requirement for regular FSR updates submittals will help maintain Continuity of knowledge for both the licensees and NRC If you're interested in hearing more about the licensing of nonpower advanced reactors Please join me for a session on moderating tomorrow at 3 30 p.m We have an impressive lineup of panelists from DOE NRC industry and academia should be a great discussion When we're talking about the potential of new technologies new nuclear technologies to help address climate change Fusion is now part of the conversation with recent Advances in the research and development of fusion energy systems now is the time to begin establishing a regulatory framework for this technology Although the precise contours of an operational fusion energy system are still being set There is broad technical agreement on the likely characteristics design characteristics and the potential hazards to consider Currently proposed fusion energy systems would not use uranium plutonium or thorium would not produce high-level waste Would not shut that would Would not present the possibility of a self-sustaining new neutron chain reaction and would shut down on their own during accident scenarios The NRC staff therefore expects that the safety focus of fusion energy systems will be on the control Confinement and shielding of radioactive material present at the site rather than on the performance and control of the device For these reasons the NRC staff agreement states International counterpart regulators and many other stakeholders believe that near-term fusion energy systems are more appropriately regulated under the part 30 byproduct material framework rather than the part 50 Utilization facility framework used for fission reactors. I agree a Byproduct material approach will involve a limited scope rulemaking that would mostly consist of definitions related to fusion energy systems In a description of what is required in a fusion application The rule could make changes to part 30 to facilitate fusion reviews or create a new standalone fusion sub part The remaining question is whether the rule should also establish decision criteria to determine whether larger higher hazard commercial fusion energy systems That differ from the characteristics of near-term facilities should be licensed under part 30 or part 50 The staff recommends this hybrid approach on the other hand There is widespread technical agreement that the near-term technologies of the coming years would more appropriately fit in the part 30 framework In my view a substantial drawback of the hybrid option is that it creates regulatory uncertainty for these near-term designs about whether they They could unexpectedly end up in the part 50 framework at the conclusion of the rulemaking This would dramatically impact the applicable regulatory requirements And even who is doing the regulating as agreement states could license fusion energy systems under part 30, but not part 50 Rather than have decision criteria as an open question in the limited scope rulemaking I think it'll be better to focus on what is needed to review near-term designs I therefore support regulating fusion energy systems under a byproduct material framework As you can see NRC is busy preparing the regulatory framework for new reactors of all types and Reviewing applications that have already been submitted and we need to be ready for much more new reactor work in the coming years At the same time and our C will continue to play our long-standing critical role with the current operating fleet For the operation of existing nuclear power plants now and into the future NRC's job is to provide strong safety and security standards and rigorous independent oversight This goes to the very core of the agency's mission I want to highlight a couple important issues related to the operating fleet this morning The first is subsequent license renewal which allows nuclear power plants to operate for up to 80 years As I said last year the review of subsequent license renewal applications has been and continues to be a High-priority for NRC to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and ensure that subsequent license renewal decisions rest on a firm legal foundation It is essential that NRC update the generic environmental impact statement to examine the 60 to 80 year subsequent license renewal period The license renewal regulation must also be revised so that the guys findings can then apply to subsequent license renewal applications The Commission adopted an aggressive schedule to get this work done and excellent progress is being made The Commission recently approved publication of a proposed rule and accompanying draft Geis Which take the necessary steps so that NRC can move forward expeditiously with subsequent license renewal reviews The draft Geis also includes new analyses of greenhouse gas impacts on climate change and climate change impacts on environmental resources I look forward to reviewing stakeholder feedback on the proposed rule and draft Geis and appreciate the NRC staff's diligent work NRC is also focused on digital instrumentation and control technologies and the last few years the agency has made significant progress in Establishing a reliable and predictable regulatory framework for reviewing digital updates Upgrades while ensuring that digital technology is adopted safely Addressing the possibility of common cause failures in digital instrumentation and control systems has proven to be one of the trickier issues to resolve The staff recently proposed a way forward The staff recommended revising the Commission's 1993 policy on common cause failure in digital instrumentation and control to create a new risk informed option as an Alternative to the existing defense in depth and diversity assessment I agree with the advisory committee on reactor safeguards that this is a reasonable approach The staff's proposed changes to the policy will provide additional flexibility in demonstrating that common cause failure vulnerabilities have been Identified and addressed this paves the way for fully digital control rooms such as those included in the AP 1000 and new scale designs Another priority at the forefront of NRC's work is the pursuit of environmental justice Environmental justice is about the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people with an interest in NRC's vital public health and safety mission NRC can best serve the public when it ensures equal access to the agency's decision-making process for all stakeholders and avoids disproportionate adverse health and environmental impacts on any communities To make meaningful progress on these goals NRC must be open to the voices of disadvantaged communities We cannot settle for doing things the way they have always been done We need to ask tough questions about our programs and procedures to understand if they are serving disadvantaged communities Or instead creating barriers for them to overcome Beginning in April 2021 the NRC staff performed a systematic review of NRC's programs policies and activities The staff team engaged a broad range of stakeholders as it developed recommendations to improve how the agency pursues environmental justice This effort produced several constructive and well supported recommendations for strengthening NRC's focus on environmental justice Taken together with some additional steps I believe the recommendations will put NRC in a position to achieve significant tangible results on environmental justice The staff's first recommendation is to revise the Commission's policy statement on environmental justice I agree that a substantial revision is needed. The policy statement has not been updated since it was originally issued in 2004 at that time some stakeholders thought the approach announced by the policy statement was too narrow 19 years later the documents limitations are even more apparent as the NRC staff explains the language and tone are very legal in nature Discussing case law legal requirements and the limits of the NRC's authority During its outreach the staff heard both internally from NRC staff and externally from stakeholders that the EJ policy statement Does not use plain language and focuses too much on what the Commission cannot do instead of what it can do Similarly the staff recommends revising NRC's environmental justice strategy the 1995 strategy has never been updated. I Agree that the NRC staff should provide a proposed updated strategy for the Commission's review I also support the staff suggestion to revitalize the agency's environmental justice coordinator position, which has not been active for many years Filling this position will facilitate NRC's future participation in the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council in attendance at White House Environmental Justice Advisory Committee meetings Another key recommendation is for NRC to establish a federal advisory committee for environmental justice I see this step is critical to implementing the agency's environmental justice initiatives a Representative advisory committee composed of external EJ professionals and community leaders Would help identify shape and provide advice from an informed outside perspective to the NRC and on EJ related programs policies and activities As the staff explained many comment here many commenters expressed frustration with not having a seat at the table Or with not being provided an opportunity or a way to provide meaningful input or participate in the NRC's decisions and affect regulatory outcomes In fact the desire for such an advisory committee was a repeating theme of the comments from a wide range of stakeholders I agree with the staff that we should follow other agencies in establishing a federal advisory committee focused on environmental justice I also agree with the other staff recommendations including adoption of a more comprehensive and robust outreach effort With a focus on identifying EJ communities and tribal nations earlier in the process Identifying the needs of these communities and initiating early communication such as offering further outreach or government-to-government Consultation with federally recognized tribes. This would involve new environmental justice outreach positions and improve procedures and guidance To build on these valuable efforts and make NRC's environmental justice aspirations a reality The agency should establish an office of tribal affairs environmental justice and public engagement This foundational step has been taken by other federal agencies. It was suggested by many commenters The office would provide information and assistance to stakeholders and help them navigate NRC's resources and processes NRC serves the public to fulfill its mission the agency must be equally accessible to all communities and provide the same level of protection to everyone I am confident that the agency's environmental justice initiatives will improve the way the agency operates and benefit all stakeholders As NRC does its work the agency is focused on its workforce. We're facing a significant hiring challenge We have a large number of employees who are eligible for retirement With higher employee attrition the agency's efforts on external hiring are crucial Significant external hiring is necessary for the agency to do the work We have in front of us now and to be ready for the work ahead of us in the future last fiscal year NRC recruited and brought 270 external hires into the agency's pipeline the aspiration Aspirational hiring goal for this fiscal year is 400 external hires Compared to the last several years. That is a lot of hiring. It is a formidable task But it presents a huge opportunity to boost our inclusion efforts by reaching a diverse pool of applicants and Welcoming people into the agency who bring a wide variety of backgrounds experiences and perspectives As you can tell we have a lot of work ahead of us And I'm excited about the opportunities to efficiently and effectively review new technologies to tackle climate change To promote environmental justice and to maintain a strong focus on protecting public health and safety I'm also enthusiastic about having face-to-face conversations to hear your thoughts and feedback I've had the chance to visit several plants in recent months I want to thank those of you who have hosted me at your sites as always I look forward to getting out to additional sites during the coming months with that I'm happy to answer your questions. Thank you as Punishment for stealing my papers Ray will have to stand with the questions That would be just fine. So we we have we'll get to as many questions as we can I think we'll start with the first one. You talked about Licensing new applications coming in licensing under part 50 and 52 also about what's going on with Part 53 You mentioned that near-term applicants For new non-light water reactors are using or planning to use part 50 or fifth part 52 For licensing given that why why even bother with part 53? Well, I think I think We have to think about this long-term and short-term right in the short term We have a couple tasks here We have near-term applications that are already coming in and many many more that are in pre-application We need to be ready for those and the regulations we have on the books are part 50 and 52 So we'll obviously be using those processes for those applications And as I refer to we have some efforts underway policy decisions that will be made this part 50 52 Alignment lessons learned rulemaking that I see is optimizing as much as possible those those parts for Advanced reactor new reactor applicants. So I think that's great But I think we also want to have something that's going to be more effective and efficient long-term, right? We have on the books now and part 50 and 52 regulations that were really premised on light water Reactor applications and so there's a lot of inefficiencies and basically going through all of the prescriptive requirements that we have in part 50 and Determining which would or would not apply to a particular reactor type of a different technology Getting to something that is more technology neutral and performance based I think therefore makes a lot of sense and so This does require us to to walk and chew gum and really walk chew gum and do something else Whatever the third thing might be because we have applications under review. We have the optimization of the Regulations we have right now part 50s and 50 and 2 and we've got to do this huge task Of getting the framework ready in part 53 But I do think it's worthwhile And as chair Hanson mentioned is as much efforts that has gone into this and as long as we've been working on part 53 We still have a ways to go and there's still a lot more engagement ahead of us It's just only recently come up with the commission We're working through it. There's a lot of a lot of issues to work through and figure out But even after all that we're going to be at a proposed rule stage and it's going to go out for formal public comment That's normally the first time we have stakeholders really engaging on a rule In this process we've had The luxury I guess of really having interaction throughout with just dozens of public meetings and drafts out there and You know, it's I'm optimistic about part 53. I'm optimistic that we're going to create a terrific product There's the reality that all the sausage making has been kind of out there for everyone to look at and there's a lot to to consider and a Lot of issues and everyone can find something they like everyone can find something they dislike So there's more to do there, but I think in the end that's good. That's an important piece of the puzzle I think having something that's going to be Ready for light water or non light water reactors advanced reactors But from the very beginning is premised on being technology neutral performance based risk-informed I think is going to add value to our The options we have and going forward. That's what we'll end up with we'll end up with Multiple options that applicants would have and they could choose the option. They want to pursue Okay Thank you Next question you to also talked about subsequent license renewal And I think this question is more on subsequent subsequent license renewal Can can reactors do you think reactors can operate safely for a hundred years or what changes would you? From your your standpoint be needed to to enable plants to operate for a hundred years Well, the short answer to that question is I don't know there would be a lot of technical a lot technical work That we need to be done. So in the in the run-up Just subsequent the first subsequent license renewal being considered the 60 to 80 year period There was a substantial amount of research and technical work that needed to be done over the years by licensees by DOE efforts By EPRI and so that built and by of course the energy staff that built the technical case For safety out to 80 years that work has not yet been done For a period of 80 to 100 Right now. I I'm focused on subsequent relays since renewal and 60 to 80. I think it's been astonishing to me That with the legislation that passed Congress how quickly that Really transformed the thinking I think about subsequent license rule There were obviously quite a few plants that were contemplating or interested in subsequent license renewal 60 to 80 Prior to the inflation reduction act after it. It's just an overwhelming amount of interest and From my point of view it's important for NRC to keep its eye on the ball here we're going to have a lot of applications coming in now in the next few years for subsequent license renewal and That's a that is a lot of work to do. It's a lot of work on the environmental side But hopefully with this guys, we won't have the situation where we'll need site specific Environmental reviews to the extent that we did Without it. So there's a lot of work to do. I want to make sure NRC is ready for that work I don't want a situation where we find ourselves in triage mode I want to be able to process Applications for as much demand as there is but it's very helpful for those of you who are Interested in in subsequent license renewal at utilities Please let us know as early as possible what your plans are because we want to make sure we have the resources ready the personnel ready To address those applications as they come in It's it's a pretty significant shift. I think in just a relatively short amount of time, but just how much Overwhelming interest there is in 60 to 80 Okay, thank you next question. What kind of investments do you think the NRC and the agreement state partners should begin making to start to accommodate? Licensing applications for fusion energy systems. Yeah, it's it's already started, right? I mean we have I shouldn't say we have there are private fusion companies around the country and And and because of the similarity of a lot of these near-term technologies Particle accelerators are already a lot of interactions between these these vendors And the agreement states where they where they are situated So I've been very impressed in my interactions with the agreement states Who are just at the forefront of a lot of thinking on this and a lot of the engagement? Whether it's California or Washington State, Wisconsin others there are Several agreement states that are already kind of the vanguard of thinking through these regulatory issues and that's going to be really valuable to us because as we do If the Commission decides to go ahead with a with a part 30 byproduct material framework and we go forward with a limited scope Rulemaking we're going to need those partners who have already been engaging with the various technologies and the Companies to help us work through That rulemaking I don't see it as something that's going to be an overly complex rulemaking as I as I mentioned My remarks. I think it's largely definitional and about what what it would need to be in an application So that it's kind of fine-tuned for fusion applications rather than the ones we've seen under part 30 historically But that's going to be valuable engagement and and we want to get that framework ready There's there's always questions about when are we going to need it is it it's too early I don't think so. I think I think now is the time and We may find ourselves surprised at just how quickly we start having Pre-application discussions or even applications filed with us or with agreement states Okay, thank you. This one's on SMRs. How do you see the security? priorities changing regarding the the deployment of SMRs and newer technologies versus the the large commercial light-water reactors we have now Yeah, well that that is one of the issues that we're all kind of delving into that's pending before the Commission is Security and I don't know that I fully know the answer now I think one one premise that we we all had and I hope we'll see is more security by design right this was one of the the ideas behind new reactor designs whether they're small modular or non-light-water reactor designs was would we see vendors Designers try to build the security into the design in a way that wasn't done for like large light-water reactors And I think that holds a lot of promise And part of our regulatory regime around security I think it's gonna have to account for that and And value that to the extent it's done and and to the extent it's not we're gonna have to think through the issues there We've just really started doing so on the Commission to start thinking through You know, what's an appropriate framework? It gets tough to me. I think one of the hardest things about some of these Pieces of the new reactor framework is not just the variation in designs, but variation in size, right? I mean, it's What you think about for security on a thousand megawatt reactor? It's gonna be very different if you're talking about a few megawatts and those are the kinds of Issues that we have to tackle and make sure we have a framework that fits the full range It's not always easy and security. I think it can be tricky in that regard, but we're working on it We don't have the answer yet, but it's it's on our important list of key policy issues to resolve Okay, we have time for one last question Great, and how do you propose that the agency attract native Americans to work at the agency to help with With this the potential new activities going on for the US NRC to be successful with native communities It helps to have people who represent native Americans culture I absolutely agree and you know that as we've seen a return to more hiring by the agency We're being more aggressive in terms of our outreach And thinking through what are the educational institutions? That are gonna we should be we should be tapping and accessing to give us the full range of a diverse pool of applicants And that definitely includes native Americans. I have a hope too that as we get more Engaged on environmental justice as we start doing more in that area as we improve our I think actually in recent years We've made a lot of strides in our Tribal engagement as we improve that even further And we do more of it and we engage more with communities I'm hopeful that too will bring us in contact with a lot of additional folks who may be interested in working here Because I agree with you. I think or the person asking the question That that that's a real value for the agency As chair Hansen said earlier, you know when you just have a diversity of backgrounds of opinion of experience, that's what you want In a safety regulator and the and the staff of a safety regulator You want people with a questioning attitude you want people bringing a new perspective to these tough issues We're all trying to tackle and in whether it's native Americans or other groups segments of of The population we want to make sure we're just bringing as much of that in for diverse Opinions and experiences and backgrounds as we can Okay. Well, thank you commissioner bearer for taking the questions and With that I'll close this session. We have a little bit of time for a stretch break But we're gonna get started promptly at 11 with commissioner rights remarks. So thank you again. Thanks everyone