If the members would take their seats, the president will be with us in a minute. I think Bob Lagomarsino told you that we would like, we'll call on two people at a time, so there will always be someone at the other microphone to ask his or her. Ladies and gentlemen, it's my high honor and great privilege to present to you the greatest president of our lifetime, President Ronald Reagan. Thank you all very much. Thank you Jack, Bob, Tranton, all of you here. First let me begin by noting that today is the first anniversary of Claudine Schneider's 39th birthday. No, you're not supposed to reveal anything like that, but having had some 37 of them myself, I thought we should recognize it. Happy birthday. Well, you and I usually meet in formal settings, but today we'll try to get beyond those barriers. There's a story that I'm sure most of you know, and I know that some, any of you my age know, and that's a World War II story about Chester Nimitz, the admiral, and General Douglas MacArthur in a small boat and rough waves, and the boat tipped over, and as they were struggling there to save themselves, Nimitz said to MacArthur, he said, I hope when we get out of this, if we do that you won't tell my men that I can't swim. Doug said, I won't tell your men you can't swim, but you won't tell mine I can't walk on water. But seriously, I do appreciate this opportunity to be with you. I know you'll be off to New York shortly to visit the site of the first Congress of the United States, which held its opening session in March of 1789. And believe me, being here with you, I feel some of that same camaraderie, that pride that Washington must have felt when he met with his officer corps, soldiers who had fought the revolution, and many of whom later went on to serve in that first Congress. What would have our country have been like without the leadership, the good sense, and the commitment of those individuals? It may be a little consolation, but I can't help but think that future generations are going to look at us in the same way, that this has been and continues to be a pivotal time for the United States. We've accomplished much in these last six years, and yet the challenges that remain are quite substantial. Most patriots of 200 years ago laid the foundation for generations of freedom, and our job is to focus on what needs to be done now to make certain that America in the next century is the prosperous and free land that we wanted to be. I know how hard it is to keep the long term in mind when you're on your way to mark up answering the phone and generally up to your elbows in alligators, but that's why we're here today, laying the foundation for the 21st century. John Adams perhaps had us in mind when he said to future generations, posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent it in heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it. Well I've had days like that myself, and on the other hand John Adams never had to face Sam Donaldson. But those men who met in that first Congress didn't let us down, and we're not going to let down those Americans who follow us.  That means sticking to the Graham-Rudman Hollings commitment, and I've seen we've all got them on. The number for this year is 108, and the motto is no fudging. Lada and his colleagues on the Budget Committee have demonstrated an impressive resolve in this regard. We shouldn't let the Democrats off the hook. They should bring a budget blueprint to the markup table so the Democrats and Republicans alike can get legitimate budget writing underway. I just had the pleasure in the other room before we came in here of telling Sam Donaldson that that's what they should do. He had a few questions about that. I don't know how he got off of Iran, but he did. Well, every skirmish is part of the bigger battle, and I think it's becoming clear that holding the line isn't enough. Institutional long-term solutions are needed. To start with, could I mention here, the President's right to a meaningful veto must be restored. I'm talking about a line I don't think. I think the erosion of the presidential veto has weakened the safeguards and the system with its huge continuing resolutions. That's no longer working. It ain't a pretty sight. The porkers are loose, headed for the public trough and the take-home pay of every working person in America is in jeopardy. And with regard to that, I've often said, yes, you get buffeted about when you get between a hog and a bucket, but it has to be done. It's up to us to alert the public to the danger and to offer a way out. The greatest protection we can offer our citizens. President in future is a line item veto for the President of the United States. 43 governors have it, and I don't know why they should be ahead of the President. And consistent with this, and perhaps as part of the same vehicle, we need a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget. If the big budget or big spenders on the hill continue to block progress, it's time for us to take our case to the people. Last Monday, I took a big step in that direction. I wrote a letter to the minority leader of the Montana State Senate, reminding him that if Montana would act on calling for a constitutional convention, this could spur the Congress to act on the balanced budget amendment. And we'll continue trying to look for ways to mobilize the public behind such an amendment. I'm told the other party has three creative ideas of that their own that they claim will bring down deficit spending. Three of them are tax, tax and tax. You and I know it won't affect the red ink because the liberals will then spend, spend and spend. And if that happens, the economy will go down, down and down. Just like it did the last time, they control both houses of the Congress. Well, my answer to the tax hikers and I hope I can count on you to back me up is three. No, no, no. We're not going to knock the legs out from under economic growth by draining resources from the private sector into the federal bureaucracy. No, we're not going to break faith with the American people. We'll pose high taxes and voted for us for that reason. And no, we will not thrash the historic 1986 overhaul out of the tax system, out of being. Last year, we went on the offensive to get the special interests out of the tax code. And now it's time to get them out of the budget. We can be proud that together we turned around the American economy. Liberal economists still can't believe it. But you know, economists, they're the only ones who see something working in practice and wonder if it would work in theory. President Calvin Coolidge, although he was known as Silent Cal, he had a lot to say. He observed that we must strive for thrift not only because it brings prosperity, but because it builds character in the people. This notion may have been scoffed at before the results of the great society came pouring in, but today it's clear that our country disregarded certain fundamental values at its peril. Today, we see individuals with the great social programs of the 60s and 70s were supposed to have helped, dispirited and immobilized by a total loss of self-worth and living in wretched conditions with little hope for anything else. Government policy, well-intentioned or not, has ended up depriving our most needy citizens of the strength of a family and the self-esteem of earning a living. In the months ahead, we Republicans should be in the forefront of a fight to reform from top to bottom the system that created and perpetrates this tragedy. A consensus, I think, is emerging about what should be done and whatever the final wording, let us pledge that we'll be aggressive and that the watchwords for welfare reform will be work and family. Benjamin Franklin, who played such a role in launching our republic, once wrote, I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. Well, it's taken a few years, but I think America's rediscovering some of the truth that Franklin was talking about. He also quoted, if you will not hear reason, she'll surely wrap your knuckles. They question my memory. I remember the day when old Ben told me that. Our forefathers, those who occupied that hall in New York that you will visit, were as brave as they were innovative and farsighted, and we can afford to be no less. We've already come a long way in these last six years. Together we've rebuilt our military power, which was permitted to seriously erode during the last decade. We've strengthened our alliances, and together we've launched a research program that could well usher our country and all a mankind in a safer time, an era when peace would depend on technology of defense and protection rather than weapons with which we threaten retaliation and mass destruction. We've mobilized some of this country's brightest minds for our Strategic Defense Initiative, and I'm gratified at the progress that's been made. There are those who oppose on principle any steps the United States might take that could have strategic implications. They may believe it's safer to stand still, but they're wrong, dead wrong. Sir Francis Bacon wrote long ago, He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator. Today we have no insurance against the accidental launch of a nuclear armed missile, or the possibility that such a missile could be obtained and launched by a fanatic or an unstable third world dictator. It's a bit difficult to understand those who would ignore this potential danger. If they think that by being nice guys the tread will go away, they don't need to take a cruise to Fantasy Island, they've already arrived. We believe that SDI, even if not a hundred percent effective, will offer a very high degree of protection. The more protection, the better. The question we must ask is what's wrong with a system that saves lives, a system of deterrence based increasingly on defense, which threatens no one rather than offense. Furthermore, SDI is a major stimulus to nuclear arms reduction. The less effective a ballistic missile, the more negotiable it becomes. With SDI on the scene, cheating becomes less likely, or threatening, making arms reduction agreements more likely. In short, SDI is totally consistent with the goals, the values, and the inspirations of the American people and our fellow democracies. We aren't going to see it grounded by a lack of courage to face the future, or a lack of vision in smoke filled rooms someplace here in Washington. While we're on the subject of arms reduction, let me just thank all of you for hanging tough these last few years. In Reykjavik we made a step forward, and then just a few weeks ago I believe a turning point was reached. The Soviets may have finally cotton the message. Their removal of a major obstacle, which has prevented deep reductions of U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range missiles following the principle of the zero option formula that we proposed six years ago, could well open the way to an historic agreement. I understand the caution on the part of many toward agreements with the Soviet Union, but let me assure you, as in all our dealings with them, realism has been and remains our guiding principle. I'm not a linguist, but I used a few words of Russian on the general secretary in our last meeting, and he did smile. He changed the subject, but I said dover I, no probity I. Trust, but verify. Now trying to prove our sincerity, trying to prove our sincerity by making unilateral concessions or accepting unequal agreements, which seems to be the strategy of some members of our domestic opposition, is not the path to a safer world. If we can achieve an actual reduction in the number of nuclear weapons with our steadfast approach, history will record who the real champions of a more peaceful world really were, and it won't be the accommodationists. The bottom line remains that peace through strength is not a slogan, it's the only way to achieve a lasting peace. Finally I'd like to thank each of you, especially your leader Bob Michael, for standing firm for freedom in Central America during one of the more frustrated times of this or any administration. In the last four months we've endured an unrelenting barrage, and after months of a steady drumbeat by the opposition, a change of 18 votes in the House would have won the day for our stand against an ill-conceived moratorium plan that would pull the plug on those brave freedom fighters, and I call that kind of a moral victory. What we're facing is a strategic move by the Soviet Union. They're not pouring over a billion dollars of military aid into Nicaragua to secure their supply of fresh bananas. Liberals on the hill here may be able to keep the United States out of Central America, our own front yard, but their moaning and groaning certainly isn't going to keep the Soviets out. If the communists ever got a hold of some of those fellows, they'd do more than straighten their tie. The Kremlin will continue its adventurism, and the Sandinistas will continue to communize Nicaragua and apply pressure on its neighbors unless we make it clear that the cost will be too high. We can do that today without spilling the blood of our young servicemen just by helping the freedom fighters. The price of peace in this hemisphere and a secure southern border will be higher and much more heart-rending if we falter in the months ahead. As the current controversy fades, and it will, we must make certain the American people understand what the stakes are in Central America and see that the basic issues haven't changed since last year. We'll get those 18 votes. We'll win more than a moral victory and give democracy in the next generation of Americans a chance. We don't want to pass this problem on. Communists have a way of twisting words. They call their governments people's democracies. You know the difference between a democracy and a people's democracy? It's the same difference between a jacket and a straight jacket. On helping the freedom fighters, you've made all the difference, the fight you made in the House made possible on our Senate victory. But I couldn't conclude here without mentioning that I'll need your help again on an issue I noted at the start of this talk, protecting the family budget, not the federal budget. The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post all have found something very wrong with the current highway bill. And I say that if those three newspapers can agree, so can we. In fact, I just happened to remember a letter that Bob Dornan wrote me a while back signed by 150 of you in which you pledged to help me when I veto spending bills. Well today I'm going to take you up on it. Now those of you who care about 65 miles an hour believe me, so do I. So first help me sustain this veto and then let's clean up this bill and get it back to me in a week and I'll sign it within hours. I'm not totally against that, I'm just against that version of it and I think there's a better version that we can find and it won't break the bank. Now let's take a quick look at the agenda but as Newt Kingrich is already always reminding me we're a party of ideas. So I'd welcome your thoughts on all of this and Jack I understand that that's the end of the monologue and we're going to have a dialogue. Thank you Mr. President. We'll do our best to get as many questions in as possible. May I have the pleasure of just for the moment before the president answers questions of introducing a longtime friend of ours, a real champion of the Reagan agenda is Chief of Staff Senator Howard Baker. First question, Tom DeLay. Second question, Steve Gunnerson, then Joe DeGuardi. Mr. President, I'm Tom DeLay from Texas. I support your veto even though I have a project in that bill and we'll work to help you sustain that veto but I'd also like for you in your veto message to think about the things that we could not do in that highway bill that would have saved money like Davis Bacon and Section 13c and your staff could inform you about that but I'm actually here to talk about what I think is your upcoming trip to the nation and talking about excellence and I'm here to talk about competitiveness, not trade although that's a part of it but competitiveness given back to America. One of the problems that we have with competitiveness in America today is is governed the government policies of the last 20 or 30 years and I would hope Mr. President when you go out and talk about competitiveness we grab back the political rhetoric that UAW is doing and and their ads on television the protectionists are trying to do and the Democrats have grabbed away from us we're losing that battle we need to tell the American people because of spending tax policy environmental policy regulatory policy safety policy we are lowering their standard of living and we are lowering their opportunities to have jobs and I would hope Mr. President that you would talk to him in that vein and grab back the issue. Well I have and and I will in the future very much in our meetings at the economic summit I think you'd be all be interested to know that the first time after we began to show the recovery and our economic plan was in place here I walked in and it was an unusual greeting that I got and those eyes up to then I was the new kid in school and all of a sudden they just in unison asked me to explain the American miracle to them and I did my best to explain it but you're right I think that that they competitiveness is going to also be part of them following in what we've done and yet even though that may make them better in their economies it'll be better for us because they will be better able to afford the things that we make and so forth their standards will go up and approach ours and we're going to we're going to continue trying to do that. Thank you. Steve Gunderson. Mr. President, Congress and Steve Gunderson from Wisconsin many of us in here represent rural parts of this country and through the help of yourself our leadership and the campaign committee we can tell you unlike the Senate that not one rural Republican who ran for reelection in 86 was defeated but I'm here today on behalf of many of us I think who are asking for your help as we look to the future to understand there is a transition going on in rural America and when we talk about competition competitiveness and we recognize that transition very frankly we are asking for the leadership of you as the president and the White House in providing some real initiatives in terms of economic development in rural America most of our initiatives that Tom Coleman, Ed Madigan and Bob Smith and others have developed actually don't even cost money it's just changing formulas to get rural America a fair shake and I'm here to ask for your help in that regard. I think all of us need each other's help in this in coming up with a program that will get agriculture back out there in the marketplace instead of where it has been for so many years the and I've asked for a complete study of how we can do this and not with by pulling the rug out from under with agriculture for so long has now been a well they're farming government more than they're farming the land but we have now a worldwide situation of the world producing more in agriculture than the world can consume and yet we've got a program that is encouraged increasingly that very overproduction but one of the greatest I could go on here about the fallacies in our present program but when I tell you that the overwhelming majority of the money $26 billion last year went to farmers who had an average income of around $200,000 a year and assets of about $900,000 now that's not exactly a program that is to help the family farm out of some temporary hard times but we do need to review this entire program and that's what we're doing to try and come up with a proposal that will rely on the marketplace and then at the same time if there are people that are going to have to turn in other directions we should stand by ready to help them with training and everything that would be needed to set them on a different course I have 19 names on my list not trying to turn anybody off but for the convenience of our colleagues please make your question as brief as possible so that we can get as many questions in Joe DiGuardi, Pat Swindall, Joe DiGuardi, New York thank you Mr. President I think we all realize that there's a serious lack of financial accountability here in Washington the public is not getting a good count you mentioned fudging you mentioned the budget process today we are still using the Mickey Mouse cash basis accounting system and budget system that we took New York City off of in 1975 as a price for the bailout today 37 states employ a capital budget yet the United States of America the world's largest financial enterprise does not last September you and your chief of staff then said that high on your priority list and the agenda would be budget reform and a capital budget have you changed that view no we're trying for a budget reform because I think you all would have to agree with me the budgeting process here at the national level compared to that of most of the states in the union is just Mickey Mouse and I don't think a state would put up with it now we have a capital budget in California when I was governor but I do have to tell you one phase of it that that is that for any of the bond issues and that capital side the people had to vote on them and the people determined whether they wanted what was being offered enough to vote on it and actually it took more than a 50 plus one vote to achieve that bond issue but that has to be looked at and we have a system right now in which by bookkeeping tricks with some of the trust funds that can't be used for anything else but a specific purpose the deficit is really worse than it appears and it's time we quit kidding ourselves and the people and got right down to what are we spending and what are we taking in the various measures that are over budget one example many examples come to mind one in specific I was the 500 million dollar homeless bill that this congress passed is one of its first acts certainly that should have been vetoed in my judgment and so my question to you is may we have that commitment and secondly why have we not had that consistency in the past well I'm going to try to do that I know that there are sometimes bills that you you wobble about on as to whether you sign them or not but I also I also have to say that I have been prevented from vetoing a lot of things that would have been vetoed because of the practice of the continuing resolution where the only thing you can do is shut the government down and veto the whole thing and again I say give me a crack at vetoing the things in there that should be vetoed the line item veto if you don't like the veto you can override it and I can only tell you that as a governor in eight years I line item to 943 items and was never overridden once thank you uh Fred Grandi Frank Wolf Fred Grandi of Iowa yes thank you mr president right I wanted to know if you could give the conference some idea of what your administration expects to see from the contra movement in Central America between now when they receive the 40 million and next fall when the administration will probably ask this congress for more money is there a blueprint for progress that you see and does it involve perhaps the orias proposal Costa Rica's initiating well we've been greatly encouraged by just what has been taking place although you don't see much about that there's a quite a disinformation network by the Sandinista government and it does manage to get its story and its side in much of the American media you don't see the victories in the other side but the contras who there was a time when they really were just kind of scattered hit and running but they now apparently have a plan that is based on true guerrilla tactics but aimed at specific targets and targets of strategic and economic importance to the Sandinistas and they have been quite successful recently as I say you don't hear about them but knocking out power combines bridges and things of this kind which they hadn't been doing before you've got to remember that in the military a guerrilla fight guerrilla fighters you have to have at least a 10 to 1 superiority in numbers in the regular military to to successfully curb them so the number we shouldn't overlook that fact we've got about 12,000 of them already across the border in there but they are better trained and now have a better strategic program and I expect to see that continuing and rolling on and it's the only pressure I believe that along with the rest of us and their neighbors is going to have any chance of bringing anything of a nonviolent solution. Mr. President the country of Romania has been persecuting the evangelical church they've been turning bibles into toilet paper they've been persecuting the catholic church I would ask two questions one would you direct the state department to come out and oppose most favorite nation status for the barbaric country of Romania their secret police are more repressive than a kgp the second question is this there's a law in the books now that prohibits the importation of goods made by slave labor in the soviet union into the united states syransky has identified many products that are made by slave labor in the russia that come into the united states would you urge your treasury department to enforce the law to prohibit the importation of goods like chess sets and wood carvings that come in from the soviet union that made by slave labor yes and we we have been talking about that and we'll continue to talk about it and on the other one romania we have a ticklish problem there many of the things you say about sosescu that the dictator there are absolutely true on the other hand the thing that we've sort of wanted to encourage a little bit is the fact that he is the only head of one of the satellite states there that is going his own way and kind of thumbing his nose at the soviet union and getting away with it and we'd like to hope that maybe we could persuade him to improve his domestic policies at the same time that he continues showing that example to the other satellite states of being able to stand up to the soviets which he is doing march uh rakama uh larry craig marches from new jersey larry's from Idaho mr president i want to congratulate you for your statement on the welfare reform and i hope you pursue that vigorously i know you will uh i don't exactly have a question but i have little opportunity to get messages to you so i want to i want to uh get a message to you which i have repeated before both to you and the and the new york times and that is on the subject of medicare reform i appreciate what you've done in supporting dr bowen's proposal but i must suggest that based on the temper of the of my district as i see it this subject of medicare and the cost of long-term care which is really part two is a growing political issue and i would hope that under your leadership that the republican party can get ahead of that issue before the 1988 campaign i think it will become an issue that will dwarf the flap over social security colas and will be a live political tinderbox of an issue in 88 if you have any comments yes march let me tell you that we are we were faced with a dilemma and we argued both ways about what we were going to do with this this plan of catastrophic illness and so for and some wanted to wait until we could have a complete plan and then move we thought that at least to get that chunk of catastrophic protection for all of our over 65 people was worth moving but at the same time we are continuing to study and and to work with private insurance companies to find out how we can meet these other problems and you know joe six pack out there in his family he's got a a threat of catastrophic illness or injury too and uh we want to find a way to help them but we are working to see what we can do on the whole package thank you very much mr president larry craig of idaho let me thank you very much for your letter to the legislators in montana last week it was well received and greatly appreciated bob smith of oregon and i charlie stenholms of texas and tom carper will this week introduce a bipartisan balanced budget amendment to the constitution last year we had 230 cosponsors we think we will have as many or more this year it is critical for you to continue your open and public support of this issue as we fight the graham rudman battle and the budget battle because we think it will lend credibility as the other side attempts to destroy the process and we really appreciate your effort thank you very much believe me and then we will lean on the senate we've come close once before and uh my my letter to montana was the hope that it would help uh raise the temperature with regard to that whole measure here because i would certainly prefer us doing it here than absolutely the constitutional convention route called by the states thank you manuel lujan and um dan coach okay dan coach thank you al mccannellis dan coach mr president dan coach from indiana i am a strong supporter of contra aid and i think we uh face a grave danger of renewing that aid by voting the house and senate for next year's funding if some things aren't done in the next few months i would just suggest we look at two things one a some from a public relations standpoint if nothing else proposal of conditions under which the united states would negotiate with a dead firm deadline set for the sandanistas either to comply or not comply before the vote so that we can go home and say we tried that we've set these conditions they rejected them secondly somehow utilizing the very effective talents of president duarte to come up here and explain again what he's doing in his country what the threat is to his country we have a success there democratization of that country he is very effective and perhaps you can work with him and bringing him here explaining the story so that we have something to talk about in that next vote well that's a that's a very good idea and a thing to think about but again there's thing that i said about the inability to get our story across some time ago there were three uh people in nicaragua up here one of them was an evangelist a black preacher who called attention to the fact that he doesn't have any ears anymore they were cut off while he was in jail in nicaragua he was only arrested for preaching that's all he hadn't done anything else the other two had been former members of the sandanista government and couldn't stand it and walked away over the state department they brought a cache of of weapons that they had uncovered and so forth to show what was going on down there and they all spoke and told of their experiences and this minister speaking telling of his and i was there and afterwards to say a few words of thanks to them the entire audience was the washington press corps and then that night i turned on the news waiting to see well they showed me saying a few words of thanks and so forth to three fellows sitting on the stand the people never got to hear one word of what those three men had to tell so if you weren't in the room nobody else in the country knew the horrible stories they had to tell we've got to do better about that i called a catholic bishop who came back to iowa he was hailed in the press as having led some refugees out of nicaragua across the honduran border but before they got to the border they were attacked by the countries i called him when he got back to iowa told him who who i wasn't what i wanted to know and said i'd read this story well he said that's entirely wrong he said yes i was leading them out we were attacked by the sand anistas and the contras rescued us but that story's never appeared publicly al mccannis helen betley mr president uh i'd like to talk to you about the highway bill in my four plus years here i think i voted for one appropriation bill in continuing resolution in keeping with the california spirit you will this bill is uh 86.3 billion dollars of which 2.1 billion comes from general revenue the balance comes from the highway trust fund which is a user's fund the problem that has been explained to me and there seems to be a difference of opinion on this between those in the transportation field and those in the department of transportation but the highway trust fund would be drawn down too rapidly and that if the project of five years the bill of five years would continue to be funded that they would be back for general revenue funding because the trust fund would be exhausted i have a vested interest in this because in my part of california we have over 300 miles of interstate highways and i will confess to you that i have one project pilot project due to the fact that we had 1200 accidents of 60 plus deaths on this one highway in in three years according to caltrans but the important part here is i would ask you to revisit this based upon the fact that it is highway trust fund money a user fee we want to revisit it as i say we want a better bill than this one but and let me just tell you that some of you have got particular problems in your own uh district about this bill i shouldn't be talking my hometown of los angeles one of the things i've got against the certain features of the bill that don't belong in there i think allowed them to do with transit los angeles would get 14 percent of the total amount of the money for its proposed subway and i don't think los angeles needs the people of vermont and new hampshire and so forth to help get their workers on time mr president we have become a debtor nation the we have the biggest debt of all the industrialized countries today and of course that's because of our deficit spending why don't we or have we at any point insisted that the nato countries and for eastern countries pay for the cost of our troops overseas because this is a big part of over a hundred billion dollars of our spending well i think one of our problems with say the nato allies and some of these other places is that they just uh there would be lost without us that and at the same time we have to recognize in return that what would be the situation of the united states if europe fell if we didn't have a nato and europe was overrun uh the only thing is that we get an advantage when we whittle back on the foreign aid military aid that that kind of aid to other countries uh we it's very costly to us for example a country like turkey it only costs a few thousand dollars a year for them to provide a military man and provide the security there in their area that otherwise we would feel maybe in our strategic plan we would have to provide it would be 10 times as much for us to have to provide military there so the more that we can encourage them to do this by us providing some financial aid to help them do it the more money we save by not being forced to position american troops in all those places it's breaking us be writer nebraska mr president some of us are concerned that the administration perhaps yourself have proposed to go to zero for intermediate range nuclear missiles in western europe and that the commitment of the western european nations for conventional forces to meet the soviet threat has not been demonstrated perhaps could not be demonstrated uh and this made a couple uh the united states from western european defense it could hurt western european chances of survival and hurt the united states as well what can you say to us that might reassure us that in fact we do not intend to go down to zero for this kind of nuclear missile well ultimately i would hope that we would go down to zero for all kinds of nuclear weapons i think there is something immoral in the whole world a world that a few only a few years ago had all kinds of combat rules about protecting civilians in the innocent and not making war on the non-combatants and now we suddenly turn to the place where we place our security as dependent on a weapon whose principal target would be the non-combatants and the wiping out of cities in the and the population and i would like to see it done away with ultimately but not in the sense as i say doing as i said in my remarks doing anything unilaterally and i would like to point out that yes the european countries and the balance between us and the soviet union all of us conventional weapons is very much on the other way but i don't like ever talking in advance about negotiating principles but i know enough to know that mr gorbachev has a very real and great economic problem and that economic problem has been magnified by their continued buildup and i don't have in mind eliminating all of those weapons in europe and then leaving them with that conventional superiority and i know it would be very costly for us to overcome them but it's also very costly for them and they know that the combined european countries in the united states if we were forced to it can do it to a far better extent than they can so what is at stake here is if we can go forward with the reducing of those weapons at the same time that we say to them to the soviet union you can have your choice you can join us in reducing down to equality in conventional weapons or you can engage us in an arms race you can't win now make your choice and i think with their economic situation this is what i think is a bargaining point on our side but no we would never let them remain with that great advantage bob doran j roads newt gingrich mr president we painted this room for you six years ago and i'm glad to see you here your ultra-experienced excellent chief of staff said that we should do this once a month and i think we should mr president i have in my hand the letter which you addressed in the body of your remarks i'm not going to release it to the press suffice it to say every one of our leaders up there but one is on this letter making you veto proof you call it the shotgun behind the door i took a head count two of the people on this letter are already in heaven mr brian and mr grotberg and 18 others have gone back to the private sector they're all doing very well that leaves you a shortfall because we had three over the third we needed shortfall of 17 there are 23 freshmen it's up to you sir to work those 23 freshmen now you mentioned los angeles orange county has everything in the bill that we asked for including a million dollar project around anaheim stadium for my district this is going to hurt me i'm getting very good press right now we had a two hour discussion with my staff last night mr president i will and it hurts a lot support your veto and i hope there are more to come let's put a task force together to pair the transportation bill back to what you think is acceptable under a responsible budget god bless you i'm with you i'll take you and thank you mr president i'm j road from arizona i want to thank you for being here with us this morning this has been fascinating mr president i know that you know how it's vitally important it is to the united states that we have a strong and economically sound state of mexico unfortunately mr president outside of of our border states is very difficult for us to get that message across i think it's extremely important that the people in this room and the people of this country begin to understand just exactly what's at stake for us in mexico and i would plead with you to to help lead us in that direction i'm asking you please help us tell the story about mexico believe me from the very first day i was ever here or even when i was just a president elect i established a relationship with the then president and now with this new one we're on a first name basis and i have believed that that border is one of the canadian border these should become meeting places not lines of division between us and if we and then as you know first year i was here i made a trip to latin america i just have to believe that in the past we fumbled the ball too many times we've gone with the best of intentions with some


Thank you everybody, we now will restart our workshop with presentation on technical and associated challenges in establishing a viable SMR that will be delivered by Professor Akira Tokuhiro. Akira, please. Yes, let me share my screen. Can you confirm? You can see the first title slide? Yes, we see, but this is not in full screen. Ah, so we have this problem again, so we have to... Okay, you try if still we have a minute or two, if possible, otherwise just go. Like what I do here, I also learn it this week. I start full screen PowerPoint presentation and then it has two windows. Okay, looks now, no. No, okay. First I start this PowerPoint in full screen and it shows the two windows. Then I start share screen from here and select the big window, which is full screen. Ah, I see, okay, so let me try to... So first you start it and then come back with Alt-Tab to this browser window and then share screen. If not okay, you just maybe minimize. No, no. Okay, I just keep, I just start. I hope you can see the title slide. Okay, okay. Okay, I just go, yeah. So, thank you very much, Amira and the organizers and the students. I think you had a very interesting week. I'm sorry I cannot be there in person, but it's a busy time of the year. So I will talk about the technical and some of the related or associated challenges in establishing a viable small modular reactor initiative in the whole world. I think you saw this on Monday. I hope you all just connect with me on LinkedIn. I use LinkedIn quite a bit. I'm happy to see the list of participants, all of you except maybe one or two I know in person. So thank you very much for that. To start, I think you know about this slide. This is one of the most used slides in the nuclear energy world. Generation one to generation four reactors, just some important points. We will, maybe in your career you will reach 2014-2050 when we have to get the net zero carbon SMRs roughly started a lot of progress in about 2010-2011. We are already at 2022, at the end of 2022. Generation four reactors, I think the initial conversation started in about 2000. So this tells you about the nuclear world that doesn't change very much compared to, for example, the software world, which changes quite a bit. So that's just the, and we have about 425 operating reactors. I can tell you now we need, as I said on Monday, in some of the models on how many nuclear power plants, large and small, do we need to counter or combat climate change or get to net zero carbon. We need something like 4,000 more than, or more, so we need 10 times more than what we have now. So for me the question is how can we get to, not to have 430 nuclear power plants, but 4,000 nuclear power plants, large and small, throughout the world in a very short amount of time. So, okay, so let's talk about both small and micromodular reactors. We have them in many places. We have research reactors that are very small or micro, but they don't have energy conversion systems, and they do not generate electricity. There are a few examples, but few is not having 400 or 4,000. Okay, I talked a bit about this on Monday. I hope the slides are advancing. This is the startup financing cycle, commercial sector slide. What has changed since about, well, compared to 1990 or so, 30 years ago? Sorry, Professor, I think the slides are not working as you might be. Okay. If you share the wall screen, instead of the window, you should be able to let us know. My screen? Yeah, instead of the window. So, if you get out of the presentation and the screen sharing and select to share the wall screen, we can see exactly what you are seeing. Okay. Okay, how's this? Do you see the, are my slides changing? Here's a standard PowerPoint window, maybe, if you share entire screen. Entire screen. Maybe the entire screen. Let's just try to make the presentation with a slide or the button. Okay. How's this? Do you see the title slide? No, still not. Ah, this is a problem. It's like you have two windows. One is standard PowerPoint windows for editing and another for presentation. So, we see the standard, not window for presentation because. Stop sharing. Do you see me? Yeah, now you see me. So, okay. I guess one option if you click share screen and I see here entire screen.  Or you have two monitors, I guess. No, I have only today, I reduced, I changed to one. Do you see the slide? Now, if you click this F5 or go to the full screen mode. Okay. How's this now? Still the same PowerPoint. Okay. Do you see this slide, the title slide? Now, we see the first slide, title slide. Yeah. Okay. I will go with this. I hope you can. Yeah. Yeah. Ask for your patience. Okay. So, I switch to my career slide. I hope you will connect to me on LinkedIn. Just, that's what I said. Okay. So, let me jump to this slide, which I hope you see. Evolution. We see evolution of commercial. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, the evolution is the most used slide. And what I said before was that from generation one to generation four. And then to 2014 and 2050. We have to get the net zero carbon by 2050 or so at the earliest. We have about 425 operating reactors. I can, as I said, how many, how many large and small reactors do we need to get to net zero carbon? And to replace all the power that's electricity, electrical power that's being generated by fossil fuels, coal, especially coal and natural gas and petroleum. We need about 4,000, at least 4,000. So, the question is, can we build, can we increase the number of nuclear power plants throughout the world to 10 times what we have today? It's quite a big challenge for us. Right? In the next 30 years, can we get to more than 1,000 reactors, more than 4,000 reactors is the type of numbers we need for 8 billion people and the electricity demands that we have. Now, remember, what I often think about what is urgent. And is when you have to charge your cell phone, right, that's really an immediate task that you have to do. And that's, where is that electricity coming from? And that has to come from a nuclear power. Okay. Let's talk about small and micromodular reactors. There are some examples of micromodular and small reactors today in research reactors throughout the world. They don't have energy conversion systems and they do not necessarily generate electricity or have distributed heat. Okay. All right. This is slide number six is a startup financing cycle and commercial sector. I talked about this on Monday. What has changed since 1990 compared to Westinghouse and General Electric and Hitachi and other large companies. We have, and certainly in North America and some in Europe, US, Canada, we have a small modular reactor startup companies. And remember, they operate on a different financing cycle. They have to have investments in order to make progress in their engineering and design. And this is the, you have to remember the startup cycle initially when you start up, you are doing everything at your own cost. And then startup people have, you have these four questions, you know, they, they, do they want to have a startup to make, to sell the company, a successful company eventually and then retire young or do they want to do something good for humanity and then undergo some financial hardship because they believe what they are doing is very good. So they're, they're, that's different from a commercial company like General Electric investing, being in the business of nuclear power. So you have to know that difference that the define, essentially the financing cycle and the investment cycle is, is different for startup companies compared to traditional nuclear vendors. Okay, the other thing that's important to know is the technology readiness level one through nine. This is in Wikipedia. I would ask you to look at Wikipedia technology readiness level. This is important because you may have a very good idea, but it may be you're at the technology readiness level number one. And in order to get the technology readiness level eight or nine takes quite a bit of time or even seven system prototype demonstration and operational environment is really a large, large scale engineering demonstration in a near commercial type environment. So technology, technology readiness level number five, for example, technology validated in a relevant environment, maybe a test facility. All those things take quite a bit of time. So you have to think about the technology readiness level. Okay. And I just have the example of a picture of the airline industry. They have the same kinds of constraints. Okay. Here's slide number eight is just another slide on the technology readiness level. This is from Wikipedia and then again technology level one to nine. Okay. Now, the other thing about startups is that with small modular actors, especially in North America and some little bit a few companies in Europe, they live on the idea. So that idea is intellectual property or proprietary. And you see the black box is essentially that it's a it's an SMR, but you don't know many of the details. So you have to keep that in mind. The regulator may know some details, but then to the public that some of the details of the design are protected. And it's hard to know what's exactly inside. So that can be a problem for the public to access in terms of the information. Okay. Now, let's look at beyond the investment slide number 11. Remember that nuclear engineering and the scales of engineering are one of the most challenging in engineering design because the length, energy, number, distribution, information and time. If you just look at the first letters, L E N D I T I call lend it or have some of the biggest and the widest scales, like the energies may go from 10 to the minus three MEV all the way to 10 to the minus 10 to 10 to the plus seven MEV. And the time may go from from femto seconds, 10 to the minus 15 seconds to thousands of years. So you're doing engineering and design and over this very wide range of scales. So this is why nuclear engineering is interesting, but it's also a very big challenge. Okay. All right. The other thing that's difficult with traditional nuclear reactor engineering and codes is that because it started in the late sixties and early seventies, even earlier, many of the computer codes are still in the Fortran structured programming language. And we have changed since that time. And we don't really teach at least in the US and Canada. We don't really teach Fortran. So you have to learn that on your own. Although as an older person, I learned Fortran at the university. Now, you know, people are learning HTML and Java and Python and so forth. And then Fortran is some of the codes are unfortunately still in Fortran version. And you have to learn Fortran to make sense or to work with Fortran based codes. Now what else has changed is we have new software like GitHub or sites or platforms like Slack and GitHub and some of the fortunately some of the coding is has been done so many times it's shared. So GitHub is you don't have to write the original code for a certain routine because it may be already available on Slack or GitHub or some of these other newer platforms. Okay. And then the other problem is that some of the codes like MCMP or Melcore and Relop even are controlled and they're not easily available for everybody in the world. And some of the control is coming out to the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center, RSICC out of Oak Ridge National Labs. And then you might not be able to get the latest version but the maybe an older version of a code like Relop. Okay. Okay. Slide 13. Yeah. Because I just want to say that because compared to a large water reactor or larger reactor design because of the smaller scale of small modular reactor in the simplicity in design, it's much more possible to integrate and model and simulate much more than larger large water reactors. The analysis is should run faster in principle. And we should be able to look at more details of the design. Does somebody have a microphone on please turn that off. Okay. Slide 14. Again, the technical needs in SMR safety and design I use this term safety and design for to capture the design and engineering. You have the regulatory body and licensing strategy to get your design through the regulator. You have to certainly have a probabilistic safety assessment of the design or risk assessment of the design. You certainly need system analysis of design. You need accident analysis of the design really to get to get the potential source term. What is the magnitude of the source term that can go off site from the reactor through dispersion analysis and then back to the current design philosophy and design approach. So you go in a circular iteratory process to do the design. Now, when I say the SMR is designed as simple enough, one example is that you're deciding between, for example, a safety relief valve. You may only have three safety relief valves and you may be thinking about adding a fourth safety relief valve relief valve. So the difference between three and four safety relief valves in typically integrated PWR SMR design can change the accident scenario or the accident sequence. So because it's smaller and you have much fewer components, whether you have three valves or four valves safety relief valves can make a large impact on the behavior under accident conditions. So that's why the details are important on the accident, especially on the accident revolution or the time dependent sequence of events in a small modular reactor. So, project-wise, you may not be able to freeze the design to say, okay, no more changes to design. This is the final design for our SMR before we submit it to the regulator. In project management terms, you may be at 80% completion, but you may still be deciding between a design with three safety relief valves versus design with four relief valves. But you have to come to a point where you 85% project management completion percentage, you say, okay, no more changes. We will do, we decided on four safety relief valves, and we have to go with that design and no more changes, design changes, for example. All right, again, the same six aspects of SMR design. And you have to also remember from this slide 15 aspects and specialization that in some of the SMR designs, you're saying that the design basis accidents in a traditional sense for large water reactors are zero, reduced to zero or not applicable, and that you cannot have, because of the goodness or the greatness of the design, that you cannot have a beyond design basis accident. All right, and you may have, as a result, a core damage frequency, CDF, perhaps smaller than 10 to the minus eight, or smaller. And you have to have an incredibly small event or a sequence of things that can happen, like, for example, the Fukushima. You have a very large earthquake and then it's tsunami. The earthquake probability may be small, the tsunami probability may be small, but it can happen. So you have to think of, let's say, a small break loco, large loss of coolant accident. That itself may be small, but you may have another event that can happen. So you may have, overall, a core damage frequency of 10 to the minus eight or 10 to the minus 10, something very small. And you have to consider, even though it's not possible from your design, you have to think of that as a possibility to the regulator. Or, and the regulator may say that we don't believe that the probability can be 10 to the minus 10. We cannot, we don't have a position on something so small, but we are convinced that it, for your design, that it's incredibly small and it's not likely to happen. Now, Insect 10 is, look on Wikipedia or on Google. Insect 10 is a design philosophy that's very important. There are five levels. You may make the design to meet all five levels that you cannot have level one, level two, level three. But it's also possible to design to say your design is made so that you, if you are at level one, the design is, makes it very difficult to get to level two. Right. So, again, I'll say if you are at level one, under the Insect 10, five levels, the design is such that it's very difficult to go from level one to level two. So, that's another design approach that you can take. And overall, what you want to do is that you don't want to introduce human intervention because human beings can, are typically human beings, human operators under stress can make mistakes. And you don't want human intervention in order to, in order to prevent mistakes made by human operators. Right. So, that's something that's, that's important to remember in the overall design process as well. And then if you have a small source term and a dispersion is very limited, then you can have a small emergency planning zone, EPZ. And that's typical for a small modular reactor. Okay. Slide 16, just to say that just some features of the triple crown, what they call a triple crown of, at least in the west of Hylobal Objectives and Functions of the design. No AC or DC power necessary at the plant. The plant is, is often said the plant can operate on, on, on island mode, meaning it can operate on its own electrical power and not require power from the grid because from the earthquake or tsunami, the external grid may be out. You may not be able to, to have electrical power coming back into the nuclear power plant so that the power plant itself can work on island mode. So, so those are some of the, the, the, these are some of the questions that are asked to have a good design in the SMR. Okay. All right. So I talked a little bit slide 17, I talked about passive safety systems a little bit. I'll talk a little bit more about that. I talked, certainly talk about insect 10 here are the five levels. And with respect to talk more and more about passive safety systems, PSS. Here are the five levels. As I said, in the SMR space, you really want to only work in levels of defense and depth levels one, two and three. And because four and five are already severe accident conditions and mitigating severe accident conditions. So you want to make the design good enough and without human intervention needs so that you operate even under the worst conditions at level of defense and depth number three. And you make the design so that if you are one, if you have abnormal operations or failures, it's difficult to get to level two. Okay. Here's the, here's some different levels that defense and depth levels from insect 10 on the very left. Some target frequencies in terms of probabilities per year. Some attributes there. And then you have what's called PRA probabilistic risk assessment levels one, two and three. These are approximate correspondences between defense and depth and PRA and the current regulatory requirements. This is not a absolute correspondence, but these are some interpreted correspondences and there's some differences that still need to be resolved. And you see that the probabilities that are listed in the second column from the left are very small, level four and level five, let's say are 10 to the minus 10, 10 to the minus 12. So very, very small probabilities and there may be some differences between you, the designer and the regulator who takes a position if they take a position on the probability. So that has to be discussed early in the design process. Okay. Here are some more into the technical details. Here I've taken the example of the ESBWR and the PANDA facility that was at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Europe. Some SMR technology, some design simplifications compared to the evolutionary simplified boiling water reactor ESBWR. And now that design is 30 years later has become, for example, the BWRX300 looks very similar. And you have this passive safety system for this BWRX300, for example. So, yeah, so I'll talk a little bit about that. Slide 20. Yeah, so linking the three elements, probabilistic risk analysis or probabilistic safety analysis, PSA or PRA, system analysis and excellent analysis. And then the reactor design and the lessons learned maybe over 30 years. In the case of, for example, for General Electric, all the things that eliminate some of the higher level design objectives like human intervention, the triple crown, defense and depth. You really have to integrate and have activities and integrate activities and reactor design, safety and that system analysis, excellent analysis and PRA, PSA. Okay. Now, slide 21, time evolution of events, including accidents and PSS. What we have used in the industry is what I call or some call classic PRA, classic probabilistic safety assessment or risk assessment. And these are discrete models. And there's a software for making the PRA, PSA model. And as you know from your education probably from inventories and fault trees. These are classic PRA is our discrete events in time and they happen in an idealized world automatically. But there is another dynamic probabilistic risk assessment or PSA dynamic, which includes explicitly includes time as a variable. And so you know much more with dynamic PRA, the evolution of the of events that happen with the system that you design. And that's important. And you can do that with SMRs because the system is simpler. The overall system is simpler so that it's amenable to computational models and simulation. Although for even for large reactors, software models and simulations are possible, but you need more computing resources. So for the design engineer, for the SMR for design engineer, you may be able to do dynamic PRA analysis on your laptop, as opposed to having a computing cluster on high performance computer. So, slide 22 is just a very busy slide, but in the US there's a documentation called Code for Federal Regulation CFR. CFR 50 Appendix A is a thing called a general design criteria, GDC, and it has a list of about 50 design criteria for how objectives that have to be met when designing a nuclear power plant. Okay, so this is one regulatory approach. The US NRC takes what we call a prescriptive approach or a checklist approach. And if you have to meet all these criteria, if you design a reactor, other regulators may have a different viewpoint. But if you consider the US one, it's useful because when you think about the completeness of your design, an SMR in this case, or an micromodular reactor, then you can go to criterion 25, for example, and make sure that you have taken this criterion 25, for example, into consideration. So, if you look, this is one for protection systems, protection system requirements for reactivity control malfunctions. So, these are design criterion, for example, that does talk about the fuel design limit, not to exceed for any single malfunction of the reactor reactivity control system, such as accidental withdrawal or rod ejection or rod dropout, control rod dropout. So, you have to design the system and the reactor so that even with a rod accident, a control rod withdrawal or ejection accident, that you still have some reactivity control. So, it's a checklist in a sense for the goodness in design. Okay, slide 23, safety SMR design features that challenge the conventional safety analysis. These are just examples of generic eliminated scenarios in your small modular reactor. You may design the reactor so that you don't have large piping connections in the design, only at the very top, for example, and nothing at the bottom. And it may be impossible to have a large break loss of coolant accident because you don't have any penetrations into the pressure vessel, for example, and that you do by introducing an integrated reactor cooling system feature. So, you see in some designs already that you don't have any penetrations at the bottom of the pressure vessel or even the containment so that it's hard to have any loss of coolant accident. All right, so slide 24 is just an overall schematic of the safety assessment. The classical approach is the PRA, PSA, and then the deterministic safety analysis or safety assessment. And the integrated approach is that you combine these two. And in addition, that coupled to the design, so you have to, as I said before, you might have to think about in an integrated approach, what happens to the PSA and the safety assessment and the accident analysis when you have three examples, is an example of three safety relief valves versus four safety relief valves. All right, so here's a detail of passive safety systems, and you have at least at this moment four different types. And this is what I was, this is an example of what I was saying, that the evolution, the time dependent evolution of the accident can be dependent on the type of passive, here in this case, passive residual safety system that you may use for your design. And they are a little bit different for each type of SMR design. Okay, so here are four, and here are in graphic form, passive residual heat removal system. I'll go back, that's number one. And even with number one, you have three different types, and you can see that type three is very different than type one or two. And even type one or two is actually very, very slightly different. And you have to really look in detail to see if the difference between type one and two. But one thing to remember is that in passive residual heat removal systems or passive designs, you don't have a pump because you eliminate the pump to have, and for circulation, you eliminate your option to have for circulation without a pump, and you operate the reactor on natural circulation. And natural circulation is at a much lower velocity or mass flow rate than for circulation, but maybe the safety system is, and the normal operation is okay, acceptable on natural circulation. All right, slide 27 is potential advantages of implementing a passive safety system in an IPWR type SMR, some design characteristics. For example, lower core power capacity is facilitated by less decay heat to be removed or smaller magnitude of decay heat removal. So if you have a small module reactor with lower thermal output, of course you're going to have a decay heat to be removed that's smaller. And that you may be limiting the thermal output capacity of your small module reactor so that it can be cooled. Ultimately, if you go to a micro module reactor, the ultimate heat sink is really air. So, and that's not really much different than having a water cooled automobile engine design or air cooled, like the Volkswagen Beetle, is an air cooled, some of the smaller, the original 1100 cc cubic centimeter design is an air cooled design, right. So it's only when they increase the capacity to 1300, 1.3 liters, then they have to use, beyond that point, you have to use some liquid cooling. So if you have a lower core power capacity, for example, you may, you have less decay heat to be removed, for example. So here's a slide 28 is just a detail, much more detail on the evaluation metrics for our PSS passive safety system among I integrated pressurized water reactor designs. So these are PSS types of PSS systems and you look at the cooling time, redundancy and diversity, and for R and D and R is for the redundancy, D is for diversity. So you can see some differences and the evaluation metrics are for a paper by Williams, but you, what this really says is that when do you use your passive safety systems and are, are you using what type of PSS passive safety system design are you using. And that can really impact the time evolution of your accident sequence. So the, getting to the end here, the, the, the importance about this, the whole thing is that you're going to have for SMR design one through nine, for example, you're going to have some rank, if you had a ranking. Some of them are going to be better than others or best or good or expected or minimum, depending on your passive safety system design. Okay, so this is, this is just to suggest that not all SMRs are alike. And, and the passive safety system design, being different in each type of SMR, some are going to perform in a better manner than others. And you may not, the regulator needs to know this, because the designs are different, the public may not know it because that the detail information is hard to access. Okay, just to give you some references, I mentioned the paper by Williams. That is really good paper in terms of the defense and depth metrics and new reactive designs. I would recommend that as for reading, just a picture of two of my former master students, you and me and Chiru Zelyang from India. And then I just want to say in slide 232 about low, medium and high in terms of digital twins. Digital twins are needed, but in terms of engineering and design, if you need high performance computing or cluster based computing, it may not be practical. And you may be talking about details that really do not matter, but may matter because of the smaller when the reactor is smaller in design, your safety margins also may be smaller. And you need to check if your safety margins and uncertainties in the modeling and simulations are smaller and to make sure that they are not critical factors in the safety of the design. I talked about on Monday about complexity overall, if you take a systems level view, the complexity, if you think of the number of variables and parameters, then you have a complex process. You often use heuristics to optimize the entire system, whether technical or non technical. And I talked a little bit about Pareto and these are available in Wikipedia, so please look at complex system analysis and the parameters that I introduced or the heuristics that I introduced are the blended parameters. I talked about this in the very beginning. For systems, for thermodynamic systems, pressure, temperature, mass flow rate, valve position and liquid level are very important. And during accident analysis, system state resource and response are applicable. You have to know the state of the system. You have to know what resources you have that may be engineered or non engineered. You may have an emergency diesel generator. You may have a fire truck as a resource and you may be able to use that in the responding to the accident event that you may have. Okay, in summary, slide 39. These are not in any order or priority. You may have, we have today, some 80 current SMR designs. And I think a smaller number will get to the end. Getting to the end means for me, finishing construction, starting the operation and connecting to the grid. You pouring concrete at a site is the beginning, but pouring concrete does not guarantee that the plant is construction will be finished. The operational testing, the core first criticality, getting up to 100% power connecting to the grid is really the most important. So, some things that I worry about, do you have enough of a workforce? Do you have how many SMRs can be constructed simultaneously in the world is important? Do you have enough funding? You make sure that in order to finish the construction that you have a sufficient number of sufficient funding. Is there regulatory approval? Is there support in Russia and China, Argentina and some other countries? You have a different financing model as well. So that's important to remember. So, with that, I'll take some questions. Thank you very much for your time and your attention. Thank you very much, Akira. Now we have several questions. Let's start from Chad. And one question from Ibrahim Ballaradi-Mansir. My question is, does the SMR design is robust under the loss of power accident since there is no human intervention during decay heat removal? Yeah, so that's a good question. What I meant is that you have to rely on passive safety system design. It essentially means natural circulation. And the operator, and those happen automatically in that you are able to remove decay heat. And assuming that you have a natural shutdown system, so the reactor is in shutdown, but you have to still remove the decay heat. And that requires no judgment or intervention by the operator. It happens and that requirement may be within the first 24 hours, first 72 hours, maybe within the first week. It depends on the regulatory requirement and expectation. And that can impact the SMR design. So I think you have to think of that upfront on whether the regulatory position is that you have no human intervention within the first 24 hours or 48 hours or 72 hours or one week. So hopefully that's a partial question answered to the question. Thank you. Thank you. We have a question from our audience. Thank you, Professor Tokoiro. I'm Seydali Hussaini. I have a question about dynamic PSA. One of your slides says that dynamic PSA is a potential for using in small modular reactors. But NRC not accepted the dynamic PSA or dynamic PRA as a requirement. There isn't no document for dynamic PRA, even for PWRs or LWRs. So how we can make a practical way for SMR safety assessment based on a dynamic PRA? Yeah, so I think I thank you for that question. It's a very good question. So the regulatory requirement is that you have a classic PRA. And that satisfies the regulatory requirement. The research, if you want as a vendor, want to know more details and time evolution of the reactor. You may want to have an internal dynamic PRA analysis to keep as part of your knowledge base. You're right. It does not mean there's not a regulatory requirement for dynamic PRA. But you may want to know as a company and use dynamic PRA. For example, in Japan, even classic PRA is not a regulatory requirement. But the utility owner and operator, of course, has a classic PRA model and they do simulations to know much more detail about what can happen and how it can happen. And this is the same case for dynamic PRA. So is that partially in answer for your good question? Yeah, I agree with you to going toward the IDPSA, dynamic PRA, best estimate tools in licensing process. But there are many restrictions, regulatory restrictions. But if both related to the SNL modular reactor, if we should come back to the conservative strategies, I think it's a full of drawbacks and rollbacks for safety. And thank you for your specific answer. Thank you so much. And I have another question. Later, please. You will have a chance if we have time, okay? Now let's accept another question from, I see that also Alessio Luwara has two, even three questions in one. I just will reformulate first question.  Why not to develop a new software suits which more updated programming paradigms to be used by all different, to be used by all different proposing SMR microreactor vendors during design phases and even beyond? Yeah, so I'm glad for that comment. It is a very silly situation. And I don't know what all the software tools that all the AT SMR vendors are using. But some of them, I am assuming that some of them are using free or cost free old SMR or old reactor system analysis codes or PSA codes and they might be even written in Fortran language and maybe Fortran 2000. Maybe they have been converted from Fortran 4, which is of old version, to Fortran 2000. But it's still an old structured language and it takes some time. You need to hire a software engineer to convert. And that's really not productive time to convert that Fortran 2000 to some other modern language. And this is where the change comes. You may make that code available on GitHub or Slack or some shared global site to facilitate the water usage of software tools for the entire community. And on that, I just want to answer one other question. The role of the IAEA is very important in some of these new methods like dynamic PRA because they are able to get all the stakeholders together to have a discussion about some of these newer methods and standards and expectations of newer methods. And it does take time. It may take 10 years before we have a consensus as a community, a global community in saying that we should share, we should get away from Fortran-based nuclear reactor design analysis or use of dynamic PRA versus classical PRA. So just to give you a short answer, I hope that's the case. I hope I see that. I see also Adrian answering in the chat. Adrian, could you just add to this? Yeah, sorry, I couldn't resist answering in the chat. I love Fortran because it's such a nice language. And the fact is just that a lot of old code is written in Fortran and the legacy code, as we call it, and not just in the nuclear industry but also in the automotive industry in lots of places. They have lots of code, tens, hundreds of thousands of lines of code in Fortran, but it is hopelessly outdated. And therefore universities don't teach it anymore and new codes are written in C or C++. Now, one point that is very important though is that there has to be a standard and Fortran has a standard. If you have a Fortran statement that adds two numbers, then the standard says what the result should be. In Python it used to be a long time that well, it depends on the version of Python that you have, whether the division gives you this answer or that answer. That's not something you can use when you build a nuclear reactor. So that's why Fortran is still around a lot and I personally love it and I would be very happy to teach it. So back to you. Thank you. Thank you. Now, darling, your second question to Akira. Thank you. My second question about the passive safety system, the other part of your presentation. The passive safety system from the reliability point data is despite of the many advantage is a challenging issue. You recommended about the advantage. So the dynamic PSA or PRA is potentially challenging for SMR with the passive safety systems. Combine the passive safety system with the dynamic PRA. How we can do in this situation in your opinion? Thank you. Yeah, so that's a very good question. So I often worry about this as well. For example, I'll give you an example. If you have natural circulation and have much lower cooling flow rate velocities, for example, as a metric, and you need the reactivity control and you're going to use boric acid injection, the question is where do you add the reactivity controls in the core? Where do you add the boric acid? If you add it beneath the core, then you have a penetration into the pressure vessel, for example, and you could have a small break loco. You introduce a small break loco. But it's the most effective and the shortest time frame to have reactivity control. If you do not want to have any small break loco possibility, you introduce the boric acid midway or above the core or further away from the core, and then you have to wait for the boric acid to traverse all the way down into the bottom of the direct pressure vessel and then into the core. And there's a lot of uncertainty in that calculation. So you have to actually look at both in terms of dynamic PRAs, PSA, and compare it even to classical PSA and account for the uncertainty because you have much longer time scales for circulation and eventual reactivity control. So you have some design optimization process and you have to look at both classical PRA and dynamic PRA and you have to look at seriously in detail the uncertainty associated with that. And that's why, this is the point I make, the importance of dynamic PRA and the importance of the optimization in the trade-offs that you make in this case boric acid injection as a secondary reactivity control as a consideration. So these are kind of research questions and maybe for the SMR vendor, they want to finish the design so they don't have to know that this is an issue but this is a research question to be explored maybe at the university or at a research institute. So hopefully I gave you a part of an answer to your good question. Okay, thank you. I also have a question. Just please clarify it. Let's say we want to replace instead of one big reactor, we need to generate the same electricity. We need 10 SMRs, let's say, or 15 SMRs. From the point of view of the probability of severe accidents, you also have to reduce the probability in order of magnitude. And of course you can say that the source term is smaller but for the public support or let's say acceptance, if you have any accident of the big power plant, small power plant, result will be the same for the nuclear industry. Could you explain how to do it? Yeah, so that's a very good question and you're right. There is a difference certainly in the non-technical perception of risk versus benefit of whether you have one large plant or 10 to 15 small module reactors. It depends on, I guess, on the location, right? It's because you're dealing with... Part of the answer is that you're dealing with the public acceptance of a nuclear power plant.  I'm in Toronto area. We have a pickering generation station that's just outside of Toronto. And you can see the plant from the freeway. And that one plant generation site is probably objectionable if you are very anti-nuclear because it's almost within the city, right?  So I think the public perception is one issue. The other issue is earthquakes from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Earthquakes are the size of the wave or the tremor of the earth is much larger than a large plant or a small plant. So you do have this multi-unit or multiple SMR model that you have to convince the regulator that it's safe, whether you have 10 to 15 small module reactors, like you said, to replace one large plant that you may have. So I think one of my concerns is the scale of what is the probability of a large earthquake. But we have to remember Fukushima that the plant shut down as designed. And then the problem was that you had the loss of off-site power to the plant and in addition, you had this historically large tsunami. And unfortunately you had emergency diesel generators that were in the basement of the site and were flooded and became unavailable. There was one emergency diesel generator at Fukushima Daiichi that was above ground and was operating for units 5 and 6. So that is a good design to be above the ground and inward, not right on the coast because Fukushima Daiichi plant is right on the Pacific Ocean, some of the auxiliary and emergency systems were behind the reactor building as it should be. So partial answer to your good question. Thank you. Thank you still. I think the main problem here, even like you noticed at Fukushima, Fukushima happens in Daiichi in Japan. The most influence on the public was in Germany.  It does not depend where a small reactor or a big reactor, a remote area or not. It depends on this general understanding of the public, of the situation. Okay, we should go. Thank you very much, Akira. Yeah, thank you. Again, Professor Takuhira, thank you for joining us. Now I would like to ask Adrian, Professor Bozo.


Okay, I'm Simon Hobbs from Little Engine. I was, I'm going to keep this pretty tight and pretty straight and leave things open for questions. So I'm not going to try and try to explain a lot of the background detail on what I'm doing here. Why I'm doing it should make sense to the people who it makes sense to and please feel free to ask any questions you like at the end. So I've got the Drupal Slack open here and I'm just open to the bug smash initiative. And that is basically, I suppose you'd call it the way I would say it's an attempt to corral, help corral people and direct people and make them more effective at reducing issues in the Drupal Core bug queue. So when this started, I sort of thought, the usual thought is I'd like to do a bit more bug testing or maybe bug patching for Drupal Core. But then I faced the typical problem where I'm sort of not comfortable with what the latest is and it takes me a while to set up my environment. So I'd had this sort of few times of setting up a sort of my preferred kind of environment for doing bug fixing. And so I did that and all I'm doing today is just giving you a bit of a run through of what I've done and what I'm using for myself. So I have a repository, a public repository here. I'm just calling it Core Dev. I'll give you just a quick run through of what is in the repository. Well, firstly, there's a read me which maybe describes a little bit more about why I'm doing this and some of the tooling, but I just want to take you through, I suppose the simplicity of it. I've got an empty directory for any config that I might want to export and import into a local Drupal Core site. I've got a patches directory for just storing patches that I might create or need to store for my local site. I have a basically a templates directory for any sort of preferred files such as settings.php that I want to use locally. And then I have a lando file and a hui file. My lando file is going to help me run up my local LAMP stack. And I suppose this is where the lando bit comes into it is as my preference is to use lando. Nothing here is couldn't be done with just Docker straight, Docker compose or other tools. But I just have a very simple lando file which effectively is going to run a Drupal 9 recipe. It sets some configurations such as simple test URLs, sort of things that I always forget how to set up in the first place. And it creates sets of a couple of databases, one for a local test site. And then the other one is just separately set up for running simple test tests or running PHP unit tests. Otherwise that there's not much to the lando file. And then I have a very simple to get ignore which is just, which pretty much identifies how this is going to be set up. I'm not going to be committing config and patches that I'm generating. I've got a directory for Drush, vendor directory for Drush, which I'm not going to commit. And I've got a random setup of directories for the Drupal core project to be cloned into. You'll notice I've got three here. I'm actually hard coding everything around 911X because I'm doing, I'm interested in patching on the latest version of Drupal core. So it's not really abstracted. I've just set it up to do 911X and then that's what the directory is called. And then I've got, and then outside in addition to that, I have my composer Jason and that is just installing Drush. So one of the things about doing Drupal core development is, okay, you want Drush, but Drush doesn't ship with core and there's an issue that says maybe it should. But I really just want to have Drush, but I wanted to install it outside of my repository, my Drupal core repository. So I'm going to do, so basically this is all this is doing is giving me the ability to access Drush for this. And that works quite well. And finally, I just have an Ahoy file and Ahoy is just what I'm using to, essentially just to set up a bunch of commands that I'm going to do regularly. So, and I didn't have stuff where perhaps I shouldn't be able to do it better, but I don't know how to do it.  So I've got a command that does that, but I've also got commands that just a command to apply a patch from a URL. So that's basically the repository and the idea of that is to keep that really simple. I don't want to make it like this huge massive thing that does a whole bunch of stuff. I just want to, what can I set up there to have the minimum that I need to run up Drupal and to do a patch. So I'll just jump into a demonstration of that. So here, this, here I have the repository clone. So this is the way that I run. I'm going to have a terminal for that repository that we just looked at. And then inside that I have this 911X directory. And so I'm going to be, have another terminal. Oops, people. Okay, and I've changed something. Ah, yes. So I'm going to have another URL with just the directory that the clone, another sorry, terminal with the clone. And then in my IDE, I'm going to have two as well. And the first one is the outside one because I might want to add something useful into the tooling that I've got there. But then I also have actually another session sort of for the actual Drupal core because if I'm sort of, if I'm say looking for files or something, I kind of want to just keep it. I don't want to hit anything outside of this directory when I'm doing my development. So that works fine. So the thing that I'm thinking is when I want to, I've got 15 minutes and I would think I might be able to do a patch is I want to be able to do that pretty quick. So I don't really care what I've worked on before. And I'm happy. And basically I'm happy to nuke what I've got there because in theory, I've created a patch from the last thing that I did. So the idea is I'm not going to do the long commands like building and things. So I'm just going to do a Lando start to bring up my containers. You can see that I've got Nginx, PHP, got database, the main database and then test database. Okay. So I get this URL core dev.lando which I'll be using. So the second thing is, all right, I actually don't know what I've done with my Drupal core. So I just want to reset everything that I've done. So I have a command just to do exactly that. So in other words, it's going into that directory and it's just nuking everything. It's just resetting everything, banking sure that says vanilla as possible.  Okay. So I'm back to square one. And I should be able to look at the top of that and see that the patches that I see that should be relatively recent. So it just helps forth. It's great. And then jumping over to Drupal.org, we're looking at an issue and I think I can have a go at this. I'm not going to do the actual issue testing and review. I'm just going to just apply a patch and just to demonstrate that that's been done. So I'll grab the last patch that's on this issue, which I think would be this one. So I've got it set up. So I just want to take that URL. I just want to apply the patch. So I have another command that's just, at this stage I could just be using git commands and this is actually the only whole command that I've got is almost just demonstrates that, but I can just go into the directory and apply a patch just with a git command. So what that's done is it's applied the patch and it's just given me a git status to show. So I basically to confirm that that patch has applied. If I do a git status in here, I get pretty much the same thing over here. And then I can test. And then so to look at, to actually then run that up, I just have a command to, sorry, how can I install? So what this is doing is it's basically saying, I don't care what's in the database. I don't care what was there before. You call that and we're going to install a new copy of Drupal. So once this is finished, it'll give me a URL to log in. At the same time, I'm just going to reset this for the demonstration. Okay, so I've got my installation in here now. So I'll go and have a look at that. So what I want to do with this patch is I'm actually, it's actually a patch to check for a new option on the date range thing. So I'm just going to quickly see that my patch has applied. So the first thing I'll do is just install the date range module. And so there's a command here to try to hide rush and all that's really doing is just making sure that the URI, like the directory options correct on the, when you, when a SSH is in, makes just make sure that everything's, the drive configurations there. So I don't, I can just run simple commands. So I'm just doing a drive enable date range. Date, date range. And the, the patch that we're looking at doesn't take long to demonstrate. So I'm just going to structure content times, if you mistake, add field, add a date range field, please. But you can see here that this is a default form without the patch. So grab the patch, apply the patch. And then if I refresh this, I get the new, this new option. And then at this stage, so I've managed to do what I wanted to do, which is I wanted to see the patch in action physically, I can then, and then the final part of that is, perhaps I would like to, you know, run the tests against that. So we want to see that we can run the tests that have been changed in that patch. So that's where we can just use Lambda SSH into the container. And so in the container, I'm just going to go into the directory where I think it's a, we need to go into call to run this. So, so I want to run vendor then PHP unit. Then I just going to have a look at that patch and I'm going to see what tests have been changed there. So we've got this entity test, a data range test. So copy that. Hopefully we can just run, hopefully this will work. We can run PHP unit and just run that file with those tests in it. And then that then we're ready, basically ready to go ahead and update the tests as well as the code. I think that is basically what I wanted to show you in a kind of a quick tour. And I wanted to open up now to questions from you about what you think, did you have any questions about the process of, about bug smash initiative, about the process of testing patches that you wanted to ask or about this particular repo itself. I'm not gonna, I'll let those tests just run as they go. Obviously it's good to be able to run tests just specifically for a single test or a single set of tests in a file because they can take a while. Hello, Sai, very nice, Prezi. Question, I really liked the way you were using Ahoy to get it with Lando. Question, why did you use Ahoy and didn't use the Lando true link? Is it because you keep switching between GavCMS projects and non-GavCMS projects or because there is a limit on the Lando side? Yeah, two, no, so there's two reasons. One of those reasons you gave is correct. So one of the reasons is just generally speaking, I prefer Ahoy, because if we do a project, any sort of project and a developer is doing any kind of command for anything, I kind of say, well, I would like to be able to run that command if I have to pick up the project and run with it. So we sort of just use Ahoy as just a central way of doing things. So I'm sort of a bit comfortable, I guess, with just using Ahoy for that. The Lando tooling I just haven't done a lot of probably because the problem was already solved with Ahoy, but I would love the, I mean, you know, a project like that, if someone came along and said, can I just set up tooling in Lando to do the same stuff? I would go for it, because as I say in the read me for the project, using Ahoy makes it less accessible to Windows users. So this project would be better with Lando tooling, I think, long story short. And on that similar note, I mean, Lando is not doing anything that, like Docker, you couldn't do with Docker Compose. And if someone came along and said, can we just chuck in a Docker Compose file as well? And some of our Lengen projects do that as well, because we don't, not all of us prefer Lando. So we've got Lando and got Docker Compose, which I kind of don't mind. I kind of feel like that makes everyone a little bit kind of across the different things and different technologies that are emerging and comparing them. So I can talk a bit more about the bug smash initiative and how people can get involved. Yeah, good. So how can you get involved in the bug smash initiative? So it's bug smash doesn't, in some ways bug smash doesn't do anything new in the space. It's like there's already issue queues, there are already testing channels and so forth. But it's a regular kind of weekly bug smash meeting where people can, where if you join up to Drupal Slack, there was a meeting earlier today, so you can basically discuss different issues that you're having around fixing bugs, what ideas you want to see, what bugs you'd like to see fixed, what perhaps what you're looking for help one. Then there's a bug smash landing page, which gives you a bit of a like a starting point to get involved. So I think the way I kind of see it is like come in here and look at the different areas that you might want to get involved in. And then you've then got the bug smash initiative space to really talk that out and say, I'd love to do more work on such and such or who can I help or is there someone, can I exchange patches with someone? These things aren't necessarily not happening in other channels, but bug smash initiative is a nice friendly place where people can start to get involved with the goal of closing issues. I wouldn't say more about it myself, I think. You can always talk to people like Lee Rollins, Laurelann and like say Pamela, who are in there, so where's who are here. So we've got Pamela and Lee are both here in this channel and they're both in the Australia NSEd channel. So if you wanted to get involved in bug smash initiative, just put your hand up and say you want to get involved. Thanks, Sai. It's a great initiative. I think there was more than 200 bugs smashed within a matter of couple of months. Yeah, I'd hope to see some actual visible reduction as a result of just people just getting in. And I think Drupal, I generally feel that Drupal Core is much nicer to get involved with now now that things like all the old test classes and stuff have been replaced. So everything's like runs off PHP unit. It's really clear all the functional tests, the unit tests and stuff that are in core is a lot clearer. It's a lot clearer to kind of get to know everything's really well marked in terms of deprecation. So it's really clear if you're a developer, you've got a lot more examples to work off if you're trying to write or update tests. So I tend to think like a lot of the really hard work has happened in Drupal Core and it's a good time to get involved in contributing. If you ever wanted to.