 Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening everyone. I am Dan Dorman executive director for operations at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission And I have the distinct honor to serve as the chair for this technical session on global approaches to small modular reactor and advanced reactor Licensing I'm pleased to be accompanied by four of my distinguished international colleagues who will each bring their unique perspective to offer on this topic As we know many people believe that small modular reactors and advanced reactors which I will collectively refer to as SMRs are seen as the next big thing in the nuclear energy industry As such vendors in many countries are developing new technologies and submitting them to regulatory bodies for their review In an effort to become a more modern risk informed regulator the NRC is identifying ways to review these new designs more effectively and efficiently while continuing to prioritize nuclear safety and security In an effort to be more transparent we are engaging more frequently with applicants gaining additional insights into their regulatory approaches We have been more transformative through our international regulatory cooperation including increasing our collaboration with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on SMRs Through this expanded cooperation the NRC and the CNSC have issued three joint reports and plan to issue additional reports that are generally applicable to advanced reactor developers and designers The NRC and the CNSC also plan to issue targeted reports addressing specific technical aspects for individual vendors or potential applicants This bilateral work has been mutually beneficial enabling both of our agencies to identify efficiencies in our respective processes by sharing resources and technical expertise and identifying important lessons learned I want to acknowledge that there are many opportunities for enhancing collaboration in this area without compromising a national regulator's sovereign and independent decision making authority Increased cooperation with our international partners provides unique perspectives and regulatory approaches with positive impacts on nuclear safety We can become more efficient as we continue to share resources and expertise Without further ado I'd like to welcome our four highly esteemed panelists Mr. Ramsey Jamal is the Executive Vice President and Chief Regulatory Operations Officer at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Mr. Jamal has over 35 years of experience in the nuclear industry combining management skills with scientific experience Additionally he represents the CNSC in various international activities which include co-chairing the IAEA Fukushima Report Leading Canadian delegations to the Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and on Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Mr. Jamal also sits on the IAEA Commission on Safety Standards Mr. Mark Foy is the Chief Executive and Chief Nuclear Inspector at the United Kingdom's Office for Nuclear Regulation In this role he has successfully led ONR's regulation across various sectors of the nuclear industry Securing improvements in safety performance of operational facilities and leading the design assessment and licensing of new reactor technologies seeking deployment in the UK Mr. Foy's 35 years of experience in the United Kingdom's civil and defense nuclear industry combined with extensive international experience Including various senior roles within the international regulatory community Enable him to provide authoritative leadership and advice on nuclear safety and its regulation Unfortunately Deputy Director General Lydia Everard of IAEA is unable to participate in our session today However, we're very pleased to have Ms. Anna Bradford from the IAEA here to step in and provide IAEA's perspective Ms. Bradford is Director of the Division of Nuclear Installation Safety in the IAEA's Department of Nuclear Safety and Security and has been in this position since September 2021 Prior to joining the IAEA she had a distinguished career at the U.S. NRC for over 20 years Most recently as Director of the Division of New and Renewed Licenses in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Additionally Ms. Bradford was Chair of the IAEA SMR Regulators Forum for three years Ms. Sama Bilbao Ileon is the Director General of the World Nuclear Association She has more than 20 years of experience in nuclear engineering and energy policy Ms. Bilbao Ileon has worked in the nuclear industry, in academia, and in international organizations Including as Head of the Division of Nuclear Technology Development and Economics at the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Head of the Technical Secretariat for the Generation IV International Forum And Head of Watercooled Reactors Technology Development Unit at the IAEA I thank each of you for being here to support this session Especially considering the events going on in the world and your leadership roles And the time differences between where you are in the United States Before I begin my presentation I will note that there will be a question and answer session Following all of the panelists presentations and we have two polls for this session So please feel free to enter your questions in the chat box provided on the screen And be ready to answer the polls when we get to that point And we will get to as many questions as possible at the end of the session So I will now begin with my brief presentation about the NRC's global approaches to SMR and advanced reactor licensing There is significant interest in momentum toward deploying new advanced reactor technologies to meet future national energy needs Regulatory preparedness is critical to support that deployment In January of 2019 the United States Congress enacted the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act or NEMA And directed the NRC to establish a new regulatory framework for commercial advanced nuclear reactors The NRC has been preparing for the regulation of advanced reactors for many years We are enhancing our analytical tools and capabilities Endorsing new standards for advanced reactors Resolving key policy and technical issues And progressing and completing a variety of rulemaking activities We have several ongoing rulemakings aimed at aligning our licensing processes Implementing lessons learned from recent new reactor licensing And developing our regulatory requirements for new advanced reactor technologies The NRC is working to transform the regulatory framework for advanced reactors into a modern risk-informed and technology-inclusive approach The centerpiece of which is the Part 53 rulemaking While staff efforts continue to modernize the regulatory framework, we are also actively conducting licensing reviews Supporting pre-application activities and hosting public meetings with interested stakeholders Next slide, please NRC's regulations allow different regulatory pathways, which licensees may choose based on their commercial interests and business strategy The first process is the Part 50 licensing process, which prescribes a two-step process involving issuance of a construction permit Followed by an operating license After the NRC reviews the construction permit application and is satisfied that all requirements have been met with respect to the safety of the preliminary plant design And the suitability of the prospective site The agency issues a construction permit that allows an applicant or utility to begin building the plant The final design information and plans for operation are developed during the construction phase Because of the potential risks that could arise after construction has started, this process is more unpredictable, less efficient, and has no protection from backfitting Or having the operator license denied by the NRC if the applicant does not meet applicable requirements The current fleet of reactors operating in the U.S. were all licensed under the Part 50 process The second process is the Part 52 licensing process, which is a single-step licensing process NRC established new alternatives, which describe a combined license process, an early site permit process, and a standard plant design certification process An application for a combined license may incorporate by reference a standard design certification and early site permit both or neither This approach allows for early resolution of safety and environmental issues before construction begins The issues resolved by the design certification rulemaking process and during the early site permit hearing process are not reconsidered during the combined license application review Therefore, this process is more predictable since it resolves the safety and environmental issues before authorizing construction The NRC staff would then only need to review site-specific design characteristics in the combined license application The Part 52 process also allows for meaningful public participation throughout the review process Because the Part 52 process encourages standardization of nuclear reactor designs, it reduces financial risk for nuclear power plant licensees As of today, the NRC has issued five early site permits, certified five reactor designs, and issued 12 combined licenses at seven different sites under the Part 52 process Part 53 represents a new licensing approach which I'll speak about in more detail on the next slide if I could have the next slide, please The NRC staff is committed to our vision of developing an innovative, predictable, and appropriately flexible framework to enable an efficient licensing process for advanced reactors The enactment of NEMA reinforced the need to develop this new regulatory framework Part 53 will provide the same degree of protection of public health and safety as required for the current generation of light water reactors licensed under Part 50 and Part 52 It will move away from the prescriptive nature of the current requirements and instead will use a technology inclusive, risk informed, and performance-based framework In addition, Part 53 will help implement commission policy on the use of PRA technology and the goal of increasing the use of PRA in all regulatory matters to the extent supported by the state of the art And in a manner that complements the NRC's deterministic approach and defense and depth philosophy Part 53 leverages the transformative methodology for licensing novel and non-light water reactor technologies discussed in the licensing modernization project The NRC staff is engaging in very extensive stakeholder outreach during the rulemaking process and has received diverse and significant input In October 2021, the NRC staff requested a nine month extension to the current schedule for Part 53 The staff requested this extension based on consideration of stakeholder requests for an option that includes a more traditional deterministic licensing framework for advanced reactors In addition, the NRC staff recognized that more time would support further engagement with stakeholders including the advisory committee on reactor safeguards and further iteration on rule language before sending a proposed rule to the commission On November 23, 2021, the commission approved the staff's extension request This extension will provide additional time for the staff to continue efforts to reach alignment with external stakeholders on the scope of the rulemaking and further develop the rule language It will allow additional time for external stakeholders to participate constructively in the rulemaking process and ensure better coordination with other NRC advanced reactor activities If approved by the commission, Part 53 is now expected to be published as a final rule by July 2025 Next slide, please Part 53 builds on a strong foundation of commission rules, policies, and decisions on performance-based and risk-informed regulations The rule embodies a risk-informed framework that capitalizes on the progress in the state of the art and probabilistic risk assessment Additionally, the rule modernizes the licensing basis change process into a risk-informed approach that leverages the design margin to afford operators greater flexibility Moreover, Part 53 features a consequence-oriented regulatory framework by leveraging alternative graded emergency preparedness and security requirements that reflect a facility's potential risk to public health and safety Principally, Part 53 affords designers and operators enhanced flexibility by enabling reactor design with demonstrated safety attributes to leverage the safety margin in gaining operational flexibility Additional flexibility will be offered in the Part 53 rulemaking by including alternative approaches to establishing the safety case of a design Overall, Part 53 strives to strike an optimal balance between flexibility and predictability by providing clear and specific performance-based requirements to ensure an efficient and effective licensing process for advanced reactor designs Next slide, please Whatever licensing pathway a potential application follows, NRC places a great deal of importance on what we refer to as pre-application activities Generally, pre-application activities refer to the exchange of plans, information, and analyses prior to the formal submittal of an application, some examples of which are listed on this slide The intent of pre-application engagement is to improve the timeliness and predictability of licensing reviews, which is to the advantage of both NRC and the applicants and the public The categories of information that we encourage potential applicants to share include their proposed licensing schedule, the identification of novel or unusually complex policy issues, and plant design information In part, this helps the NRC to align our resources and improve our readiness to perform the review Potential applicants may provide information in regulatory engagement plans, topical reports, and white papers. Staff provide feedback in various forms depending on the type of information This may be provided as written feedback, such as safety evaluation reports for topical reports, as well as in public meetings Both NRC and industry have developed guidance to systematize and standardize pre-application engagements and continue to apply the lessons we are learning from lead actors to further refine the process Next slide please With respect to small modular reactors, the NRC is engaged in pre-application activities covering standard design approvals, combined license applications, and construction permits for small modular reactor designs Specifically, the NRC is engaged in pre-application activities with new scale power to support a future standard design approval application for the new scale power module NPM-20 reactor design We're in activities with carbon free power project for a future combined license application referencing the new scale NPM-20 small modular reactor design We're in discussions with GE Hitachi on its BWR-X300 small modular reactor design And with Tennessee Valley Authority for a construction permit and future operating license application for the Clinch River site in Tennessee And with SMR, a subsidiary of Holtec International on its SMR-160 small modular reactor design The NRC completed its safety review of the new scale standard plant design and is currently engaged in rulemaking activities to certify this design Based on recent experiences with the licensing activities under part 52, the NRC is engaging in rulemaking activities to align the requirements for license applications submitted under parts 50 and part 52 Next slide please Over the last year, we have seen the landscape for advanced nuclear technologies steadily evolving and we are adapting and changing with it This interest is driven in part by strong congressional and executive branch support for deploying advanced nuclear technologies Perhaps the first observation on this very busy slide is the diversity of technologies including liquid metal, gas cooled and molten salt designs We're seeing strong pre-application engagement from many vendors and we continue to encourage that Our focus remains on early engagement to identify and address the technical and regulatory aspects of the novel designs, features and methods inherent in these technologies We are seeing interest in a class of reactors that is called microreactors, these are small reactors producing less than 50 megawatts thermal Some vendors envision deployment of microreactors in remote areas and some are considering reactors that could be transported back and forth to a factory for refueling or between sites as the need may be However, the Atomic Energy Act requires a national environmental policy review of all sites limiting the potential for as needed deployment Several universities and private entities are considering constructing and operating non-power reactors that use advanced reactor technology to perform research and development And the NRC staff is currently reviewing a construction permit application for the Hermes test reactor, which will be used by Kairos to further develop their high temperature salt cooled power reactor design This slide also highlights the names and the diversity of designs that are awarded funds from the Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Development or Demonstration Program This gives credence to the technology inclusive framework that we are building in part 53 I'd note also the orange or red highlighted boxes, these are full scale power reactors aiming to be built by 2027 The slide also shows the introduction of tristructural isotopic or trisofuel in commercial reactor designs The NRC staff is engaging with several vendors through topical reports and white papers on issues related to trisofuel such as fuel qualification, fuel performance and source term Next slide please One very important element that must not go unnoticed and is central to this session is the importance of our international relations We realize that focusing on our international collaborations is as important as our collaborations domestically There is a lot of momentum and interest worldwide in small modular reactors and advanced reactors and keeping abreast of these activities will ensure that our advanced reactor vision is successful We want to continue international cooperation efforts, share lessons and consider that safety decisions taken in one country can inform safety decisions in another country Therefore we participate in international organizations like the IAEA and the nuclear energy agency And in these settings we are generally involved in establishing safety guidance documents As part of the small modular reactor regulators forum we align with the international community on important topics such as fundamental safety functions and defense in depth The position papers produced by this forum and exposure to other regulatory approaches allows us to leverage international experience for developing NRC regulations and guidance We are also actively collaborating in the nuclear energy agency's working group on the safety of advanced reactors, development of guidance for fuel qualification The NRC has taken advantage of expertise from the international community to inform our product We expect the same benefits from ongoing collaborations on analytical codes and methods and a recently initiated project on material qualification And we envision that this type of harmonization with the international community will help vendors considering licensing in more than one country As a regulator we also cooperate bilaterally with key countries to gain insights and best practices For example we signed a memorandum of cooperation with Canada which is allowing us to create joint technical exchanges and pre-application reviews We have worked constructively with various advanced reactor vendors to identify projects and establish a framework that would support coordinated safety reviews of key design aspects for some advanced technologies Most recently we issued two joint reports. The first report documents the CNSC and USNRC position about the X-Energy XE100 reactor pressure vessel construction code assessment And the second one documents the results of a broad overview of the NRC and CNSC regulatory frameworks and provides a specific comparison of the NRC's licensing modernization project with the CNSC approach This concludes my prepared remarks. I'll now turn the floor over to Ramsey Jamal. Ramsey? Thank you Dan. More anger afternoon colleagues. I'll start by letting you know that I am presenting talking to you today from the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Shibiragi peoples Next slide please. A few years back many of us were getting together looking at the future of nuclear and in specific innovative technology in SMR Back then was a futuristic discussions. Today we are in it. So what we're looking for is where are we now? Where are we going to be next five years? Definitely domestic and global fleet will be the new paradigm of the industry and with respect to the preparedness associated with the ability of regulating SMR So where do we go from here right now? With respect to the fact that regulators must be ready and prepared in order to address regulatory innovations Next slide please. From a CNSC perspective we continue to take a life cycle approach for SMRs And we are applying through a graduated approach a risk informed decision making by applying what we call a rolling progressive regulatory decisions As a matter of fact in 2019 the RS mission gave us a good practice with respect to the CNSC readiness in order to regulate SMRs International cooperation and collaboration is key for such success And we continue to invest in our regulatory improvements and to ensure that effectiveness and efficiency of the regulator will be maintained at all times Next slide please. I would like to discuss with you what is an effective and efficient regulatory from a Canadian perspective We start by enhancing our internal safety culture The fact that we will be collaborating internationally we will be conducting joint reviews with other regulators The transformation and the culture within the CNSC from our technical experts will have to be, will have to change What does this mean? The international collaboration let it be national or international is not an erosion of the knowledge and technical capability of our staff It is confirmation that the science does exist and has no borders but at the same time there is no erosion to the regulatory decision making nationally And it will not take away at all the sovereignty with respect to the decision making What we need to do is continue to strengthen international collaboration Again mentioned our collaboration with our colleagues in USNRC, these steps have demonstrated that international collaboration has benefit And this beneficial outcome helps us to provide technical information again for regulatory decision at the national level without compromise to safety We are working with our colleagues from the UK and in specific the UNR in order to take on the lessons learned from the USNRC and improve such collaboration So what does it mean from effective and inefficiency from a regulatory perspective? Well, I'll start with we must work with industry. We cannot be isolated from industry or the governments We have to work together and finding answers and providing assurance to the public that safety is paramount for all of us collectively regulators and industry We are obligated to disseminate scientific and technical information to the public and we need to engage with indigenous nations and communities Especially as we speak today with the invasion to the Ukraine and the threat of nuclear disasters that has become the focus currently in the public in the media Of the risk of the nuclear ignoring the fact the beneficial element of nuclear and the fight of climate change Our work has to increase in order to commit for transparency and build trust of the public, especially in the current situation Next slide please What is our role with respect to advanced reactors? The slide is self-explanatory. I'm just going to pick on a couple things actually bit more than couple things just to address the fact that our staff capability and agility has been demonstrated We did transform and reform the directorate for innovation to become what we call the dark D a R T which is the directorate of the advanced reactors and technologies We will be objective based and performance based regulatory framework as we always were We will be applying the risk and form decision making process to determine how safe is safe and I would like to leave you with the fact that we will be applying a role in a regulatory decisions We will continue to support such decisions by regulatory research and international collaboration Next slide please The industry has changed. We are facing new industry, new paradigm and specific for the deployment of the SMRs There will be small micro reactors as mentioned by them. There will be a shorter construction timelines, communities will be accepting it or not accepting it The outcome will be from what we hear from industry if fleet approach both naturally and internationally As a regulator we are prepared for the new technologies. From our perspective we have demonstrated that our regulatory framework is flexible and transformed in order to face this new paradigm We continue to look at enhancement from counterparts and colleagues so that we are not missing any points with respect to the deployment of SMR Next slide please We are applying the multifaceted approach On the international scene, regulatory collaboration is a must. We cannot continue internationally to say we have one of a kind even though it's a non-technology or the only kind that we have The regulatory philosophy and collaboration has to change in order to make sure that there is international governments and harmonization with the safe deployment of SMRs What does international harmonization mean collaboration? Very much possible in the future that regulatory decisions from Canada or the US can be transported to other countries or emerging countries in order to ensure that consistency is being present and support is being provided Domestically in Canada we're working with our industry in order to harmonize and ensuring harmonization of the standards We are supporting global harmonization and deployment by interacting with WNA, WANO and other organizations The key point here is the technical part is easy, is controlled because it's still within the nuclear bubble However, engagement with stakeholders is key. Let it be proponents, we need to build trust and transparency with the public so they can understand that the culture for safety is applicable at all levels in Canada from the governments to the regulators and to the industry Next slide please I will put emphasis on international collaboration It is key for an effective and efficient regulation and it is one of the major steps in transforming the regulatory decision making through international collaboration and through the science Many of you heard me before I'm going to sound like a broken record, the fact that the neutrons in the US will be the same as neutrons in Canada or the same neutrons in the UK We cooperate and share information with many of our countries, sorry of our country like minded countries and organizations and advanced reactor technologies And we start with the fact that our president, she is the chair of the CSS and the IA has a key strong role in order to make sure that the readiness of deployment of SMR will not be impeded by lack of clarity, lack of regulatory decisions We continue to lead and participate with the IEA, with the OECD and IA with respect to reactor designs and we continue to work with the working group both trilaterally, bilaterally and collectively internationally As mentioned by Dan, we have US and RC memorandum of cooperation, this work has been a success and we will make sure it can be a success And we did the same thing with our colleagues from the UK in order to make sure that the collaboration will continue for the deployment of SMRs From our experience of the international collaboration, there are a lot of commonalities that we can bank on and we can work towards In conclusion, successful deployment of SMR is not only on the shoulders of the regulator industry has a role to play Putting safety first, domestic and global harmonization and deployment is key success to combat the fight against changes in the climate changes But we should not forget the public trust because they are at the end, sorry I'm on the conclusion slide Public trust is key for the communities and the public to accept our decision making process through transparent and open discussions with the public answering all of their questions I am on the last slide, sorry colleagues, any information will be available to answer any questions, sorry Dan got excited, didn't say next slide Thank you Ramsey for that comprehensive view from our neighbours to the north, now we'll turn across the ocean and get the perspective from the United Kingdom, Mark the floor is yours Thank you very much Dan, hello everyone from the UK, I'll wait for my slides to come up, next slide please So society wants clean energy that is both safe and secure but also is optimal cost to the national economies And in the UK the government has identified nuclear energy as a key player in our low carbon economy That commitment was signalled back in 2018 in what in the UK we call the nuclear sector deal and that's been reaffirmed since in various publications that you can see here on this slide In the UK at the moment we've got the EPR under construction at Hingley Point C and size well C a further EPR is going through site licensing and we've just completed our generic design assessment of the Chinese HPR 1000 Coming up we've got the Rolls Royce small module reactor design that's due to commence generic design assessment at the start of next month and we're also supporting the government and its desire to develop an HTGR demonstrator But what I've sensed in even just the last few weeks is a keen appetite for more nuclear deployment and that deployment is to be sooner rather than later But to realise these opportunities there's got to be a constructive environment for new technologies to be readily deployed and developed Next slide please Regulators have got a critical role in helping industry to work in ways that are safe, sustainable and which do offer best value but also acting in the best interests of public safety But regulation can be both an unnecessary barrier to growth for many businesses and a catalyst for investment in new sectors But regulation is ineffective, it can be expensive and difficult to implement But a well designed regulatory system provides certainty to reduce investment risk and good regulation can be a vital part of any infrastructure supporting growth, encouraging innovation and creating consumer confidence And it enables the rapid and safe adoption of new technologies As a regulator, O&R knows it has an important role in creating and sustaining the conditions where these new build projects can flourish Next slide please In turn of our approach, our enabling regulation philosophy means that we engage early and constructively with vendors and associated stakeholders Pre-application work has been turned by others, it creates that collaborative environment focused on a common purpose where new projects can thrive and deliver effectively against clear prioritised outcomes that all are agreed upon In practice it's meant working with industry in a stable and progressive regulatory environment And the aim is being to reduce that regulatory uncertainty and avoid undue burden based on a proportionate and as Dan has said previously a risk informed approach During early engagement, the range of SMR and AMR technologies listed here on this slide, we've had to do various things But really at the simplest form, we've even just had to put the UK context to these vendors of these technology, setting out retro expectations Being clear that inherent safety still needs to be justified and that small does not necessarily mean a reduction in standards Regulatory processes are also often cited as a barrier to innovation, but O&R and other fellow national regulators are here to support industry's ambitions So long as the required standards of safety and security are being achieved But as an independent regulator, public safety will always come first But to the extent that it's possible, we will be agile and will be responsive to the needs of the industries that we are regulating Next slide please There are various challenges that we face There's a need to work together better as regulators, as vendors of these technologies and designers of the wide ranges of technologies that are being considered To be more open and honest with each other, realistic in ambition and seeing what the challenges are and how they can become overcome by working together There's also a whole variety of industry standards and regulatory requirements out there An effort will be needed to rationalise these, achieve convergence and realise the benefits that they will bring And also sovereign regulatory systems pervade We've got to be open-minded and adopt a strategic outlook Learning lessons saved from aviation, radioactive materials transport and non-proliferation frameworks Well common approaches have been established, but they don't erode sovereign decision-making Regatry and legal frameworks have got to evolve And new technologies may need new approaches to regulation, new legislation and new standards In the UK, we've actually revised our generic design assessment process to better align with the varying maturities of reactor designs that are coming forward Providing flexibility to the vendors Resources will also be a real challenge for both industry and regulators that will only be sold by working together But it will also be aided by the international regulatory cooperation that's been indicated by Ramsey and by Dan Stakeholder public trust and confidence is also essential, and we've all got a part to play in building that Developing engagement strategies that help stakeholders understand nuclear, that it's safe, secure and reliable energy for society But we've got to use language that they can relate to, that they are comfortable with and will understand And that is all part of moving forward with the new build agenda Next slide please Looking at the global context, you'd be no surprise that we do work closely with fellow national regulators across the globe Multilateral and bilateral cooperation through agencies such the IAEA and the NEA And that's focused on global nuclear safety standards and good practice that we all look to actually comply with and achieve Gen4 Forum, the working group on safety, advanced reactors and others But we also strive to work with our fellow national regulators in bilateral and trilateral arrangements such as USNRC, Canada's CNSC ASN in France, stuck in Finland and others on technological developments to learn and show how they are being approached And understand how they can be regulated effectively It enables benchmarking, identification of good practice and where we could do better and collaborate more I know that many in the industry are keen to see harmonisation of standards And there's an appetite from ONR and several night-blinded national regulators to work towards establishing these harmonised approaches to licensing and assessment of new reactor technologies We are keen to achieve the benefits that it will provide I'll also highlight the opportunity that's going to be presented by the IAEA in looking at establishing a harmonisation initiative to standardise regulatory and industry approaches That is a much-needed initiative Next slide, please In terms of the future, I think what we need to do is to see the industry working effectively together where vendors are honest with each other, the wider industry and governments And with regulators of what is credible, what is unrealistic in terms of maturity and deliverability We've got to avoid making the mistakes of the past of over-promising and under-delivering Greater cooperation has got to be evident and making better use of industry groups That future has also got to see greater international collaboration between national regulatory bodies It's got to be commonplace, established harmonised approaches to licensing and assessment of those new technologies and the benefits it will provide Such as common standards, reduced assessment times and convergence of reactor design being deployed globally We're embarking nations, they will be entering the nuclear age where they are appropriately supported by those mature regulators And helping them to put in place robust legal and regulatory frameworks All that hopefully will come together to achieve the Nirvana, a fleet deployment to safe and secure common reactor designs on a global scale Next slide, please In terms of getting it right, you should be seeing strong, risk-informed regulatory frameworks with degrees of commonality across assessment and licensing A global industry delivering evident, high standards of safety and security performance, ensuring the protection of society And that technologies are being deployed efficiently, effectively, safely and securely Next slide, please In conclusion, from an O&R perspective, we will remain agile and supportive and we will work with the industry in a targeted, proportionate, risk-informed way To ensure the safe and secure deployment of these reactor technologies We'll also continue to pursue international harmonisation of regulatory requirements And we'd look to optimise all of our processes, including the making use of pre-existing assessments from other regulatory bodies where it's appropriate to do so But again emphasise that we don't exist to prevent the adoption of modern reactor technologies We are here to facilitate it so long as it can be done safely and securely Modern reactor technologies should actually enhance nuclear safety and security And all of us need to work together to ensure that it's achieved safely to the overall benefit of the societies that we serve Thank you very much Thank you, Mark So now we have perspectives from three nations and bilateral and trilateral engagements As well as seeing the importance of a broader international perspective and engagement And so now we'll turn to the International Atomic Energy Agency for a broader perspective on harmonising standards and so forth So Anna Bradford, the floor is yours, thank you Thank you, Dan. Can you confirm you can hear me okay? Yes, we hear you fine Great, thank you. And let me send the apologies of DDG Everard I know she wanted to be here today to participate in this discussion This topic is very important to her and to our agency So I'm glad to be here today to talk about it on part of the agency So my presentation, if you could go to the next slide please It will be threefold. I'm going to start with an overview of the IEA work on small modular reactors and non-watercool technologies Then I'll focus on the challenges and then I will end with some views for the future Next slide please So there are in particular four major activities that the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security is currently undertaken related to the safety of these novel technologies that I'd like to discuss today There's the work conducted by the SMR regulator's forum, which has already been mentioned once or twice The review of the applicability of safety standards to SMRs and non-watercooled reactors The development of several documents with the purpose to provide examples of practical application of safety standards and also gathering member states experience And fourth, the development of a repository of knowledge and I'll come back more on all of these topics Our departmental activities are also part of the agency-wide platform on SMRs This platform is coordinating high-level general work in the area of SMRs And it has been established with the aim at better coordinating the activities conducted within the agency because there is quite a lot going on at the moment So next slide please So the SMR regulator's forum started their activities in 2015 It has since completed two phases of work resulting in publications on the different topics that you can see here These topics were selected by the participating regulators as being important to need some discussion and resolution In their work, the SMR regulator's forum aims to reach common positions and in some cases provide recommendations to the IEA In the ongoing phase 3, one of the key topics of interest of the SMR regulator's forum is how to enhance regulatory cooperation This is perceived to be of maximum importance for SMRs The forum is looking at different options such as mutual recognition of other regulators' assessments or perhaps increased collaboration Another important topic in phase 3 is the integration of security safeguards and safety by design principles If this is not addressed during the design stage, it may be very difficult and costly to address the later stages of the nuclear power plant The IEA is working very closely with the SMR regulator's forum on these topics and plans to build on the work developed by the forum to guide future activities and publications, particularly on the topic of regulatory cooperation The IEA has completed an applicability review of the safety standards to SMRs and non-watercooled reactors covering all the aspects of their lifetime The review takes into account inputs by experts from 30 member states and several international organizations including some regulators and the SMR regulator's forum The review has confirmed the overall applicability of the IEA safety standards to SMRs and non-watercooled reactors However, we've also identified some areas of non-applicability, some gaps, and some additional considerations that may deserve further work mainly to help the implementation of the safety standards to these technologies To some extent, this work can be done without amending the safety standards themselves The findings of this review are presented in a draft safety report, which is due to be published later this year In the next slide, I'll provide you with an overview of the key challenges we've identified as part of this work and these are in alignment with the findings from the SMR regulator's forum So next slide, please Technologies First, some of the safety standards, mostly those related to design and safety analysis, may not apply directly to non-watercooled reactors Clarify the intent of the safety standard in a technology neutral manner Second, some areas of novelty of non-watercooled reactors and SMRs may have safety implications not captured in the safety standards Their future consideration may result in new or revised requirements or recommendations For example, there may be new phenomena, failure modes, design features, or alternative operating models There may also be differences in the deployment model For example, the future owner or operator may not be known during the phase of manufacturing which may have implications for the future licensee responsibility for safety during operation Another example of importance is the case of the transport of a transportable nuclear power plant There are currently no safety standards that cover this exact situation Third, there's a lack of regulatory and operating experience for some of these designs with challenges for the safety demonstration particularly when considering first of a kind technologies Furthermore, even when safety standards are applicable, there's a lack of experience on how to apply them in practice For example, when it comes to the concepts of severe accidents, assigned extension conditions, or the implementation of defense and death Interpretations of these terms can be different from those used for conventional water-cooled reactors And finally, there is increasing interest in cooperation among regulatory bodies in view of the potential global deployment of SMRs and everyone's limited resources Next slide, please So at the IEA, we've been working on defining a way forward to help our member states address these challenges We're currently developing a plan in terms of publications and activities in 2022 and beyond, consisting of three major work streams First, we'll be working with the Commission on Safety Standards and the Safety Standards Committees to plan for the consideration of how to enhance safety standards, applicability to SMRs and non-water-cooled reactors Second, we're planning to develop publications to capture learning from practical examples for specific technologies, mainly non-water-cooled reactors and transportable reactors, on how the existing requirements and recommendations may be fulfilled Third, we're planning to develop a repository of technology-specific knowledge comprising technical documents, webinars, and training materials This information could support future safety standard requirements and recommendations to be developed by the IAEA Next slide, please We're also seeking to strengthen our work with regulators that are licensing or preparing for the licensing of SMRs and non-water-cooled reactors, particularly taking forward the work developed by the SMR regulators forum The IAEA can serve as a platform to enable regulators to work together on SMRs and try new ways of cooperation We have several tools to facilitate this cooperation. For example, regulators can work together in the IAEA technical review services for conceptual designs This can help regulators develop common positions on areas of safety for SMRs that are not well covered by IAEA safety standards Also, the development of an IAEA detailed publication on effective regulatory cooperation on design assessment following the recommendation of the SMR regulators forum This work could consider potential processes to enable regulators to carry out joint regulatory design assessments And lastly, I'd like to mention that the agency recently launched a new initiative called the Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative That provides wider perspectives to collaboration in harmonizing regulatory and industrial approaches and support of the global deployment of safe and secure SMRs This is in the very initial stages of formation, so I'm not going into more details about it here today, but we will be providing more information on this in the near future Dan, that's all I wanted to cover today, so thank you very much for your time Thank you, Anna. And now for an additional perspective, a broader perspective, we'll turn to Sama Bilbao-Ileon, the World Nuclear Association Sama, the floor is yours Thank you, thank you very much Dan. It is a true pleasure to be with all of you today So I see, I don't see, okay, here are my slides, perfect So let's go to the first slide, because I wanted to maybe start by providing a little bit of a context of why this is very important Of course, I know that all of you are familiar with the very important role that is suspected from nuclear energy as we try to address the huge challenge of climate change And then of course, I'm looking at this as a global level, so obviously both the International Energy Agency and the IPCC call for an increased role for nuclear energy This is going to require not only to maintain and to extend the life of the current fleet of nuclear reactors as long as it's feasible and economically possible But also of course the construction of new reactors This is going to be the construct of many, according to the scenarios, we are going to need many gigawatts of new nuclear capacity, which is going to be large and of course small modular reactors So, and the key here is we are going to need this urgently So if we go to the next slide, I also want to highlight that if you please click three times to see the three additional images in the slides, thank you So the point here is we envision a future in which nuclear energy will have an increased role both for electricity production but also using the zero carbon nuclear heat for industry for hydrogen production for this heat So to me, there are three major challenges that we as a nuclear community need to address together in order to ensure that nuclear can actually play this huge role that we all think it needs to play in this clean and just tomorrow So to me, those are financing, which is an area in which we are working very closely, there is perception and finally of course, regulation, so I'm going to focus today in the area of nuclear regulation So if we can go to the first next slide Of course we know that our existing very robust national regulatory requirements were developed with little foresight regarding the possibility of the global nuclear industry that we have today So while the fundamental requirements and standards have been developed and agreed at an international level, for example through the IA Safety Standards series, the differences on how national regulators interpret or apply these standards remain And this for example is outlined in a recent Cordell report if you click one more please That is titled differences in interpretation of regulatory requirements in which we assess the impact of licensing for different generation three reactors outside of the country of origin So you could please click to the next item in this slide So in this report that you will see here, we demonstrate that the nuclear industry is being held back by the national approaches to licensing and regulation And what should be an efficient series of ninth of a kind projects with significant learning curves have turned into an ever-ending series of first of a kind ones And this is something that we can see clearly by the four EPRs that are either in operation or under construction today Both are in Finland, in France, in China and in the United Kingdom So this is something that is adding uncertainty and risk to the deployment of new nuclear technologies So let's go to the next slide because of course the issue is even more significant as we are looking at the small modular reactors Because the business case and the essence really of small modular reactors is to have an nth of a kind deployment which is predicated in the same reactor being built in a factory mode and shipped to the different locations around the world So and of course also this is going to require the emergence of a global market that needs to be as standardized and streamlined as possible and just as importantly the consolidation of the global supply chain with standards said in a way that is as global as possible So this of course means that a streamlined licensing process between countries will significantly help to facilitate this deployment and it is vital if we are going to take advantage of the decarbonization opportunities that nuclear energy provides So this means that we really need to reinvent or maybe adapt the way we are doing international licensing and regulation to this global war in which we are today So what we are looking is in processes that could lead to the development of multinational cooperation to support the streamline and harmonize licensing and regulation of this innovative small modular reactor designs So let's go to the next slide So you already heard a number of efforts that have been going on for quite a while and so this is good, we've been working on this coordination and harmonization for a while At the international level you have already heard the word that the International Atomic Energy Agency is doing developing the SMR platform that will bring together its activities such as the SMR Regulators Forum and its review of the applicability of the safety standards for emerging reactor designs among others And of course the Nuclear Energy Agency at the OECD have also been collaborating through the MDEP and also the CNRA committees So at a regulator level you heard, I'm not going to insist, the very important ongoing collaboration between different national regulators such as the CNSC, the USNRC and the UKONR So that is obviously a very, very positive forward steps And we also have the work that is taking place for example in WENRA that are constantly reviewing and updating the safety reference levels which are obviously widely used by industry and regulators So within industry we have the Cordell which is a working group that we have within the World Nuclear Association which I will discuss in a second And then of course we have other efforts, for example Ennis which is a group that is aiming to convert in a set of European nuclear installation safety standards Under harmonized implementation and then of course we know that organizations such as EPRI and the EUR have been working on the development of owner and operator requirements to help drive standardization So if we go to the next slide I will tell you a little bit more about Cordell Cordell was created in 2007 and has been working together with industry, I mean within industry and also with regulators and with governments to really move forward for greater harmonization of regulatory approaches So we have been working together, we have defined much more carefully or much more granularly the need for greater harmonization of regulatory approaches And we have also looked for practical examples in other industries or perhaps within the nuclear industry so we looked at the regulatory approaches for the transport of nuclear materials So look at the regulatory approaches in the aerospace industry So taking those examples we are looking into increase the licensing predictability through the use of a consistent approach to reduce cost as much as possible by reducing licensing efforts and minimizing the redesign between different countries And of course reduce construction schedule through a consistent construction approach and very importantly facilitate a consistent supply chain with the same goals and standards throughout the global nuclear supply chain So all these will help reduce risk and increase investor confidence throughout a consistent deployment So as I said we've been working on this for a long time since 2007 and I think that we've done a significant effort and we are making significant progress and if we go to the next slide I won't really go into the details because I am actually running out of time but I just want to hint to a potential framework that the Cordell Group at the World Nuclear Association is being developed in the last six months to a year So this is a potential international framework that may help streamline international licensing and regulation at a global level So this is an approach that is currently under review and we are hoping to present this very soon to our working group members So in fact if you go to the next slide there will be in May there is going to be a workshop of the Cordell Working Group in which we are going to discuss in more detail the proposed framework and how it may be sharpened or improved in order to actually make it feasible and make it applicable as we move forward So let me just go to the last slide where I have my conclusions where essentially and you know what I'm saying is something that you have heard from the other previous speakers There is an urgent need to move forward together because if we really want nuclear energy to take the role that it needs in this decarbonization and also helping new countries and developing countries to reach the economic development that they need we really need to accelerate our efforts towards the streamlining of these licensing and regulatory processes So in that sense while there is a lot of cooperation between a lot of the organizations that you've seen before there really seems that some of these activities tend to be done in isolation from one another So we really think that there is an urgent time to bring number one government leadership to actually put in place the legal frameworks, the policies and to bring forward the capabilities that are going to allow regulators and governments and industry to truly work together And as you said there is currently a lot of collaboration but perhaps we really need to figure out how to make this collaboration much more effective so we actually continue to move forward at the speed that is required So perhaps the three points that I will just highlight which again, nothing new you have heard this from the previous speakers Number one, we really need to capitalize on maybe pragmatic approaches to align the licensing and regulation for existing watercool reactor technologies large and small because obviously those are the ones that are going to be deployed earlier so we need to facilitate this deployment We need to make use of all the lessons learned from previous harmonization efforts in watercool reactors and other technologies to really develop the regulations for advanced technologies in a way that we are not going to find ourselves reinventing the wheel and having to go back to align our licensing processes And finally, we need to support newcomer countries as they design their regulatory approaches and to help them optimize them so they can learn from how much we have learned in current nuclear countries So with this I will stop and back to you Dan Thank you so much Sana and thank you to all of our panelists for your presentations I think we've generated interest in our audience Before we begin the question and answers we do have the first polling question if we could get that teed up for the audience you can click on poll on the right side of your screen and answer this question of what do you think will be the biggest challenge to deploying SMRs and advanced reactors And while you're doing that let me just bring up a general question there was touched on the sovereignty of individual nations but in looking at harmonization and collaboration how do you balance that with the sovereignty of individual nations So let me open that up to the panel for your thoughts Well folks are weighing that question I think we each have different legal frameworks we have different administrative procedures that we need to go through and fulfill our obligations within our nations to engage our stakeholders in the process And inform our decision making in that regard but as Ramsey indicated before the neutrons are the same in the US and in Canada and the UK and elsewhere So I think there are in the harmonization and collaboration and I think we are best focused on specific technical issues to find a common thought on risk informed and performance based standards and find harmony in those areas Turn it to Mark We have discussed it before and recognize the challenges between different regulatory regimes that exist but I think there's an acceptance that we've got to approach it in an open minded manner And not recognize that perhaps the system that sits in the US, Canada, France, UK or wherever is the best system we've got to come at it literally open minded clean slate what is the best way to approach international assessment licensing of a particular technology And I think if we do it in that manner you've got the best chance of success Where it has failed in the past is when people have come to the table to talk about working together and they say well we do it this way in our country and we've got to keep on doing it this way We'll never get any work with that and then it also touches on a point that Sam has made there around we have to get government on board with this Government has got to be supportive, regulators can have the best intent in the world but if you don't have the backing of your government again you're not going to go anywhere so I'll just leave it there and others can comment as well Ramzi and then Samma Thank you Dan to add to what Mark has said You know it's key to understand the fact that nuclear harmization in the nuclear domain if we look at the SSR6 The consent to the findings of technical certification of a package and I'm not diminishing at all the risk of an SMR versus a package So there are good practices internationally within the nuclear and such things can be the systematic approach can be applied for the SMR And at the same time, this is not new to the regulatory industry other than nuclear regulators Aviation does it, pharmaceutical does it, look at the vaccine rollout So these are key principles that we can learn from and as Mark mentioned if you're going to come to the table the US is better than Canada, Canada is better than UK There is no point having that discussion The end point is sovereignty will continue to exist because the final decision making is going to be by the regulator and in Canada specific will be the commission In addition is there need to be a policy perspective from the governments in order to support the regulators to allow such things to take place from a policy perspective without interfering with the independent decision making Okay, thanks Ramzi, Samma Thank you. I really was, I think that both Mark and Ramzi have brought up most of what I was going to say Maybe the last thing that I would say is that sometimes I wonder if the word harmonization is a little bit not the right word because sometimes it feels that we may actually pile up regulations as opposed to actually do what we want which is more optimized So this is why I tend to talk about streamlining. This means that it doesn't mean that one regulator needs to give up the way they do it or they need to lose their sovereignty and their independence But we can find optimized approaches and we can have innovative approaches to actually streamline the processes and the way the different regulations are being looked at So that in the end everybody gets to do their job but do it in a way that we achieve the goal that we need to Okay, thank you Can I say one thing, Indian? Sure, Emma I would just say, I mean Ramzi's right, a neutron in one country is the same as a neutron in another country but I will say the way people feel about those neutrons and what they think needs to be done about those neutrons can of course be very different from country to country And I think that the sovereignty is one of the big challenges about an international harmonization approach and it's one that's going to have to be addressed I think the only solution is that the common approach has to be one that's acceptable and that each sovereign nation can accept as Mark was saying you have to come to it with an open mind But it is quite a challenge. So I just wanted to add that. Thank you Thanks, Anna I understand we're having some technical difficulties with the polling and I know the team is working behind the scenes to get that back so we'll go on to another question The question suggests that there are possible conflicts between safety enhancements for SMRs and economic goals for the developers And the question is how do you resolve those I think I'll take a first stab at that and I see Ramzi's hand as well. I think from a regulatory perspective we're not wedded to the economic goals of the design in the first point But as the developer faces trade-offs in the development of the design, they'll need to meet the regulatory standards for safety So they'll need to provide safety enhancements that are needed to meet the regulatory standards and see how they can work that out to achieve the goals of what they're trying to put in the marketplace Ramzi? Thanks Dan My answer will be based on two levels or two segments of economic goals In Canada we've been doing the vendor design review or pre-licensing reviews for several years right now, a little over five years Our mandate is not economic mandate, the fact that we provide clarity with respect to the licensibility of the design in Canada that provides some economic benefit to the designer And even though it's not our mandate, through regulatory certainty, clarity And in Canada we can say that there is administrative protocol that we put in place that really anticipates what challenges in the licensing process the applicant will face So economic outcome is not our mandate, but we will be able to provide regulatory certainty so that the first of a kind And if applied for the end of a kind, that will be the industry's economic factor, that's not ours, but we provide regulatory certainty And since Canada, we were the first G7 to receive an application for a design that OPG has selected Which is the GE XWR or X-Energy, those are key principles of regulatory certainty that will support economic factors at both levels For the applicant, which is not our mandate, but at the same time for the operators for overall Okay, thanks Ramzi, others want to weigh in on this question, Mark Thanks Dan, I think for me I'm not quite sure what the question is coming from because SMRs still have to satisfy the same standards that existing reactors do So that will be built into the cost base, we are not driving additional higher standards of safety, there are claims around SMR technologies that they are safer by design Passively safe, fault tolerant and such like, those are the claims of the vendors and they must be building those into the designs So to my mind, I don't think it's regulation that's driving any economic impacts on SMRs, they still have to meet the prerequisite safety standards and those that are set by the agency To my mind, there are lots of benefits to SMRs in that economic world, Mark Ramzi has already talked about the end of a kind SMRs are intended to be deployed in large numbers, so you're going to see significant economies of scale over and above what you get for gigawatt scale reactors And again, a stable rectory environment I think gives confidence, de-risks these projects and is more attractive shall we say to the investment market, so I'll leave it there Thanks Mark I see we have the results of the first polling question and so I think that about half of the group has identified first of a kind technology as the biggest challenge to deploying these technologies I think also the financing seems to rise in people's concerns and Sama highlighted that and did not go into depth on the financing piece in her presentation, but I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this results of this polling question So if not, we'll, the question of fabrication and construction codes and how those differ across geopolitical boundaries with Sama talked a bit about the end of a kind And so I think those are areas that create a burden for the designer to translate what worked for the first of a kind in one country and then translate that into an acceptable approach in other countries Any thoughts and I think I was intrigued by Sama's slide that she very briefly touched on that had regulatory lead on the right side, but it also had the industry lead on the other side. So there's a role of industry in working towards harmonization or streamlining So interested in any thoughts on that element of the challenge Sama Yeah, so I mean I completely agree that there is obviously the regulatory side, which is clearly really important. But as both Ramsey and Mark mentioned, there is a very important role for industry here. So codes and standards is obviously very important and this is one of the areas in which we are working on. And also, the other thing is, you know, this continuous engagement between the industry and the regulators to truly understand what we are talking about because this is what I mentioned earlier, that sometimes even though the regulation is clear and we are all based on the same standards, sometimes the interpretations are different. So I think that this engagement with industry and regulators to work together this path so we don't have surprises at the last minute is very, very important Okay Others on that And if I could go back to the full results about about the first of a kind. I would just, I would just agree that's a challenge it's very hard to be first you're blazing the trail people to come after you benefit from the the lessons that you've learned and maybe the changes that were created in the context around We've recognized at the agency that there's a gap there with first of a kind and so we're going to start probably putting together a document on what is needed for licensing of a first of a kind reactor given that you might not have much operating experience might not have models that apply things like that so that's definitely I just would agree with the results of that that does need some attention. Thanks. Thanks Anna and and and it also embedded in that question there was first of a kind and also non LWR and for all of our experience with LWR non LWR just introduces different issues and so how we address those different issues and and for us in the US the pre application discussions are critical and identifying and attaining early resolution on those, but it is a significant challenge Ramsey I saw your hand go up. Thanks Dan. Definitely the challenge for the first of a kind is going to be existing, but we have to focus on the technology at this point the generic element the basis we spoke about, as Anna said yes, it's how do you interpret the neutrons and how do you accept them is different than the technical element with respect to neutrons. So the first of a kind is a take off element. There are some generic component that can be applied from a lessons learned perspective, but there are some uniqueness to that first of the kind, and I can speak of a game perspective. We're working collaboration with the SNRC and as a lead regulator, the collaboration with the industry, even the applications, potentially between TVA and OP and the Ontario power generation. Those are key elements for us not to duplicate the effort. But I can speak of the first of a kind where we are relying and cooperating with the SNRC on many of the topical areas that you already reviewed from the coach perspective, and we are assessing to the meet our requirement. So the first of a kind is going to be unique to the technology with some generic element. On the international front, Samma and Anna mentioned a little bit, but we will require international governance. So if Canada is out first or the S is out first. Yes, we are trade blazing, what's going to destroy the regulatory credibility is if some international document comes with an opinion, that will really take away the work that was done today. And in the nuclear industry because safety is paramount, we do it sometimes without recognizing what does enhancement mean. It's not what we did is unsafe. And that's why we say it's a rolling regulatory approval. And one of the questions to me was how do you apply this conform? The data comes from everywhere. So in other words, from the vendor design review, we do have enough information to be able to determine what is the acceptable risk and how we apply risk from decision making. Thanks Ramsey Mark. Thanks Sam. I would hope that attendees are recognizing that there is an appetite amongst regulators to work together, but not just with regulators but also with the industry. So although first of a kind actually does have some risk associated with it, I think you're going to start seeing the benefit of people organizations working together to allow that first of a kind to be a success and to be deployed more efficiently and effectively. But I think what has to happen is to have open, honest discussions. So it's no good having unsubstantiated claims about what a particular reactor technology can do. You know, you've got to have the evidence there on what that does. It builds trust between all the various stakeholders organizations and increases the chance of successful deployment of the technology. You know, so first of a kind, yes, does have risk, but I think you'll start to see benefits that haven't existed previously. You know, technologies 30 40 years ago that were developed in the US predominantly deployed in the US for quite a period of time. Likewise in the UK, a gr technology and they stayed within those sovereign states. What we are now talking about is cross boundary deployment across the globe. And I think people are attuned to working together and making a success of it. It will be a challenge. But I think we're starting that journey. It's a long way to go. But, you know, it will require focus and effort. Thanks. Thanks, Mark. Let me take a moment now and turn to the audience and tee up our second polling question. In what areas could collaborative efforts among regulators provide the greatest potential benefit in terms of clarity consistency and efficiency for SMR and advanced reactor licensing and acceptance of common standards in which of these areas. Again, while you're, while you're considering that, you know, Ramsey, you talked a little bit to the question of how risk informed decision making. I think as we look at different technologies non LWR technologies we have obviously a great wealth of detailed data that supports our risk models for light water reactors. But as we look at other technologies, perhaps more uncertainties in the models and how do we address uncertainties, and how can we better cooperate together to share experience and lessons learned. Yeah, was the question to me. So it's to anybody, it's to anybody but you know I think in the in the context of both both in risk and deterministic analysis as we look at new technologies where perhaps we have less of an empirical database. How do we deal with that in our licensing evaluation. Yeah, I would just throw something out there I think that this is where the graded approach comes in as you gain more knowledge and information, you can perhaps adjust to fit that. But at the beginning when perhaps there's more risk and you don't have as much data to base it on you you can probably grade your safety requirements or operating conditions or something like that but that's what comes to my mind right away is the graded approach regarding you know regarding how much knowledge you have about that technology Ramsey I'm sorry did I cut you off. Oh and I, it's. And I said it, there is graduate approach, recognizing what is an acceptable risk, we have regulatory requirements with respect to deterministic values and we have requirements from an objective with respect to PRA in Canada we call them PSA or probably six safety assessment. If you look at the regulatory framework, we always say continuous enhancement. And in Canada, we have the PSR element and then then the periodic safety review will provide us with areas of improvement. Again, we have the regular framework in in place, and from the fundamental principle enhancement towards the future it does not mean the current status is unsafe what I'm trying to say is the licensing approval is and clarity and certainty as part of the design with the industry industry has a big role to play on the standardization and the modeling perspective. Yes, there is a need for empirical formula but we have to rely on modeling and modeling is so sophisticated today. That will give you a pretty good predictability on where we would like to be or we want to go and at the same time, what is the risk with respect to the uncertainty. The application of the uncertainty, not being unsafe, the uncertainty communication of uncertainty to say we know what is what it is and how we're going to go about improving it and recognizing that uncertainty is part of the approval process, because we accept risk, and the key point is, what is the acceptable risk that the regulatory body is going to take. And it does not mean we're going to erode again the safety determination. This is a continuation. That will be my answer. Thank you. Thanks, Renzi. If we could just bring up the results of the question and then I'll come back to you, Mark. So it looks like the general assurance standard seems to be the consensus view of the area for the greatest efficiency and also PRA standards. It's an interesting perspective from our audience on this area, but room for improvement across the full suite of codes and standards. Mark, back to you. You had some thoughts on that last question. Yeah, it's just really underpinning what some of the previous speakers have said. It's that incremental approach, but it's a mix of PSA, deterministic and basic engineering as well, actually, you know, so the three legs to it. And you adopt that incremental approach. But I think the basis for it all is the fault analysis. So you're looking at the fault analysis to give that indication, perhaps, where the riskier areas of a particular design are, and that would enable you then to focus your effort, not just as a regulator, but also as the vendor of that technology as well. Yeah, great. Thanks, Mark. So we're coming near the conclusion. Let me ask one more question. That's really quite a broad question. I don't know that we'll have time to do it justice, but where does security fit in all of this? Obviously, we're in an interesting world environment, involving kinetic and cyber threats, also evolving security technologies. But as we look at new and advanced reactors, how does security fit into the licensing approach? Ramzi, I saw your hand go up. Yeah, thanks, Dan. I'll speak from our experience. We did, as part of our readiness for SMR, we did review all of our regulatory requirements and regulatory framework. And we recognize that some of our security regulations, existing regulation, are very prescriptive to the point that will be an awkward impediment, but will become a challenge for no added reason other than the experience we gained over time from regulatory oversight, because the CNSC regulated three as a safety security and safeguard. We are in the process and towards the last step in the regulatory amendment to balance our safety requirements to be perform a space at the same level as the safety element, and accepting the objective that the proponent or the designer will meet our security objectives without compromise to the security culture itself and meeting our requirements. So we are amending our regulation and we are almost at the last step with respect to publishing the regulation. Great Ramzi, thank you. Others, Mark? Yeah, similar to Ramzi. We actually also regulate the three S's and we've moved from a prescriptive approach to regulation on security to being more outcome focused. So we don't regulate and say you have to have a fence so high, you have to have so many responders on site at any particular moment. What we've got to say is you've got to put sufficient measures in place to delay the threat by a certain period of time. And that then what that does is instills ownership on behalf of the operator of the licensee. So instead of them relying on us to tell them what measures they have to put in place, they have to think about it themselves. So they take ownership of it. In terms of these new technologies, we complete a safety assessment and a security assessment in our work in relation to completing generic design assessment. So when we issue our design acceptance confirmation, it considers both security and safety matters in the round. Great. Thanks, Mark. Ramzi, I saw your hand go up again. Just 30 seconds. I would like to add the fact that security is integral to safety. Safety is integral to security because the end consequences from safety or security is a logical impact. And if you take that into consideration, the commonality between the two are phenomenal. And that's why you would see our amendments to performance based from a security perspective. And those that such integration but collaboration and harmonization is key. So that one is interconnected with the other. Yeah, thanks, Ramzi. And I would just add that as we look at technology inclusive framework and we look across the spectrum of designs that may come to us. The characteristics of an accident, whether it's induced by natural causes or malicious intent are very different in terms of the timing of the development of the hazard. And that may affect the performance considerations for the security response in terms of delay, detection delay and response. And so having performance based requirements that are tailored to the specifics of the technology I think are important. Mark. Yeah, thanks Dan. Just to add quickly, 30 seconds again. In terms of our goal setting security regime and the assessments of these new technologies because of all aspects of security because I saw there was a cyber evolving IT threat that covers physical IT and cyber personal protection, information security, all the gamut of security that you would expect. Great. Thank you. So, Anna. Yeah, I would just very quickly, I would say, you know, you asked how does security fit into this and I would say in a simple approach it needs to be at the very beginning with SMRs as SMRs are developing novel approaches to safety. There should also be novel approaches to security because we have a unique opportunity here to just have it integrated from the beginning. So thanks, Dan. Great. Thank you. All right, any any last words. 30 seconds here 30 seconds there were a few minutes over I want to thank all of our distinguished panelists for taking time out of your very busy schedules in a very challenging time to spend this time with us it's been a wonderful discussion. I want to thank our audience for your participation. I want to thank all of the team who supported making this happen and work behind the scenes. This concludes this technical session and the final technical sessions of this year's Rick will commence at 10 30 Eastern time. Have a wonderful day. Thank you.