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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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