Notice

AMR RD&D Programme Phase B: applicant questions and responses

Updated 18 July 2023

On 13 December 2022, BEIS launched Phase B of the AMR Research, Development and Demonstration Programme. This is a Grant Competition which provides up to £55 million in innovation funding to support the development and demonstration of High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) technology in the UK. The Competition Guidelines state that prospective applicants to the competition could submit questions by 14:00 23 January 2023.

This document details responses to generalised and anonymised questions either submitted through the formal portal before the deadline, or asked during the competition launch event which was held at the BEIS conference centre in London on 20 February 2023. It should be read in conjunction with the AMR RD&D Phase B Competition Guidance Notes.

Further to the announcement that BEIS will be replaced by 3 new government departments, this programme will now be taken forward by the Department for Energy Security and Net-Zero (DESNZ). References to BEIS and DESNZ should be read in that context.

Scope

Can we start Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Step 2 during Phase B?

Yes – the scope listed in the Competition Guidance Notes should be considered the minimum. Applicants are encouraged to make realistic proposals to carry any additional scope during Phase B (within the budget constraints) that could accelerate the schedule and maximise net-zero impact.

Does the scope of Phase B preclude early site-specific design, licensing, and permitting, including GDA?

Not specifically – Applicants can propose to include this as part of their scope provided they can also deliver the minimum scope set out in the Competition Guidance Notes.

Do Government expect a design to be entered into the approvals process, or to have a design that is just ready to be entered into the approvals process?

The minimum requirement is to have a design that is ready to be entered into GDA Step 2. As stated above Applicants are encouraged to make realistic proposals to carry any additional scope.

Do consortium partners and suppliers have to fill out the declarations or just the Lead Applicant?

Only one set of forms needs to be submitted but they should be submitted on behalf of the entire consortium and should contain all relevant information in that regard (e.g. potential conflicts of interest within the supply chain should be declared).

Would Government financially support entry into UK GDA during Phase B?

It would be up to the applicant to justify how funding for GDA entry made up part of the wider RD&D work and how it could be accommodated within the stated budget and timelines.

Can the design of downstream equipment (e.g. a hydrogen electrolyser, or coupling with end-user equipment) be included in the FEED+ scope?

Very high-level design activities can be carried out on downstream equipment in the context of system level design. i.e. all work required to appropriately specify the reactor system is in scope.

Can mock-up / experimental rigs, enabling testing of components/systems necessary for completing Phase B activities, be designed, manufactured and built in Phase B?

Yes

To develop a costed schedule for the delivery of Phase C, can Government please confirm how and when they propose to take forward the development of enabling policy, including on siting – i.e. what are the enabling steps to simplify the process of deployment for existing and new sites.

Applicants should submit what they consider to be realistic, optimised schedules and identify all external dependencies, including those that would sit with DESNZ. DESNZ will work with successful projects to enable and/or accelerate schedules wherever possible.

Section 3.2 states “The following items to be excluded: Manufacturing, Construction, commissioning, and operation of the Reactor). Can design work related to these activities be carried out in Phase B?

Yes

Requirements

What is the expected page count for Deliverable 12?

We have not specified a page limit. DESNZ expect successful Applicants to cost their proposals using their expert judgement based on including all relevant information in consideration of the size and complexity of the project.

What format is required for Deliverables 1 (SOC), 8 (OBC) & 18 (FBC), and associated page count?

See answer above regarding the page count. DESNZ will agree an appropriate standard format with successful Applicants – we don’t intend this to be G4 Cons.

Assessment and eligibility

Will the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) be assessed on individual systems or the whole plant?

Assessors will take a view on the overall maturity of the proposed reactor system technology in respect of the feasibility that it could be suitably developed in time to complete the demonstration by the early 2030s at the latest.

Can the application refer to the indirect impact to support jobs and skills beyond the project (e.g. end-users) and societal value?

We will assess the social value that would not occur without this funding.

Was “Any relevant commentary to further explain the information presented in items 3.2, 3.3, & 3.4” meant to say “Any relevant commentary to further explain the information presented in items 3.2, 4.3, & 4.4”?

There appears to be a numbering error in the Competition Guidance Notes this will be corrected.

Can reactor designs that have already entered the UK GDA process apply to this competition?

Previous applications to enter the GDA process would not necessarily make designs ineligible for this completion. However, applicants should note that this Grant is not intended to fund projects that are ready for commercial deployment.

Would we need to have an EPC contractor as part of the consortium to be eligible / successful?

Applications will be assessed on their ability to appropriately represent various organisational roles, including an EPC contractor as well as other roles such as operator, end-user, etc. Applications that evidence the inclusion of an EPC contractor in the Applicant Group would likely score highly in respect of this particular element, however other methods of representation may also be acceptable.

Is it important to have an end user as part of the consortium?

Similar to the answer above - we consider access to end users to be essential. The strength of relations with end users will be assessed.

Fuels

Are Government planning to provide funding for Coated Particle Fuel (CPF) development?

We recognise the importance of CPF to support advanced nuclear reactors and have been exploring the best possible approach for CPF development using Phase A evidence & recognising the strategic importance of fuels. We are awaiting a final decision and anticipate sharing further details in due course.

If you plan to run a separate competition for CPF development, what is the difference between that and the Nuclear Fuel Fund (NFF)?

The approach for CPF development is to be confirmed. However, any activities on reactor or coated particle fuel must focus on innovation due to the funding that is being utilised.

The NFF will be open to projects that support the establishment of new commercial scale capabilities to produce or handle uranium and associated fuel products. This includes the establishment of capabilities to fabricate different types of uranium fuels needed to supply AMRs and the development of a HALEU supply chain.

To avoid duplication of funded work in relation to CPF, only projects which support the commercial deployment (i.e. for a multi-tonne/year plant) of CPF will be considered eligible for NFF support. Alongside that stipulation, funded activities must meet the definition of capital spend as per the Consolidated Budget Guidance and the majority of funded activities should be at TRL 4 or above.

If you fund a CPF development programme, do we have to use the fuel from it or can we import from abroad?

We do not intend to place restrictions on where fuel can be sourced from for the demonstrator.

Funding

If an applicant has received funding from another (non-UK) government do they qualify for funding in this competition?

Yes, provided the same scope has not already been funded. Applicants will need to demonstrate the additionality of the scope to be funded through this programme.

Can funding from other governments (non-UK) be used to make up the balance of the match funding?

Yes

Does match funding need to be cash or can it be in-kind contributions?

Non-cash funding can be counted as match-funding where an objective monetary value can be reasonably attributed to them and aligns with the eligible expenditure guidance set out in the Grant Funding Agreement. Applicants should note that use of background IP will not be accepted as match funding.

Intellectual Property

Clause 16.1 states: “Intellectual Property will be the property of the Grant Recipient” The Grant Recipient will be a single organisation. How does this apply to IPR material potentially generated by other partners, or subcontractors, is there a requirement for that to belong to the Grant Recipient or does that belong to whichever partner generated it?

Intellectual property can be held anywhere within the consortium. It is up to the Grant Recipient to put appropriate IP arrangements (consortium agreement or another agreement deemed appropriate by the Applicant) in place with Consortium Partners and Sub-Contractors.

Clause 16.2 states: “The Grant Recipient grants to the Authority a non-exclusive irrevocable and royalty-free, sub-licensable, worldwide licence to use all the IPR Material for the purpose of supporting the Funded Activities and other projects.” What does this mean?

BEIS need to have the capacity to hold and share information internally within Government, to review and to help inform future policy making decisions.

Security Plan

The guidance requests a security plan – can BEIS provide some guidance on what is required to help us shape a security plan that meets requirements?

It is recommended that applicants refer to the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s Security Assessment Principles as the foundation of any plan. These fundamental principles set out the general good practice that will support applicants in meeting legal and regulatory requirements. Particular attention should be given to: ensuring that governance structures embed security risk management at a senior level; that risk management be driven by an understanding of the threat; that considerations for personnel security cover the full cycle of an employee’s employment (from role risk assessments to pre-employment checks, onboarding, aftercare and exit procedures); that the physical security of staff and key assets be sufficiently considered; that evidence be provided of mature cyber security arrangements; that arrangements for safeguarding IP be evidenced; and that assurance of the supply chain be appropriately considered.

Should the security plan cover activities during Phase B or physical protection of AMRs?

It should be specific to Phase B.

Reporting requirements

What should the format and content of the regulatory touchpoint submissions be?

Grant Recipients can decide this in the context of the needs of their project (provided the reports are no longer that 50 pages). There will be an opportunity to meet with the regulators at the start of the project to ascertain what specific approach would add the most value.

Will Government dictate a format for the checkpoint submissions?

These are intended to be short reports (circa 5 pages) to give government officials and external monitoring officers a clear overview of how the project is progressing. Grant recipient will be allowed some flexibility on format. However, as a minimum these reports should include: a brief summary of the work done since the last reporting period; a brief summary of the work planned for the next reporting period; a summary of the main risks and issues; Earned Value metrics; and an appendix containing the latest project schedule, and the full project risk register.

Miscellaneous

What is the difference between ‘long-term schedule’ and ‘project schedule’?

The project schedule should only cover the FEED+ scope (Phase B scope). The long-term schedule should cover Phase B, all potential future phases (Phase C, FOAK, and fleet rollout) up until 2050 and beyond if appropriate.

Is electricity a valid use case for the Demonstrator?

Provided the Demonstrator is designed to enable a commercial fleet with a non-electrical use case (including co-generation) then it is acceptable to Demonstrator to produce electricity as an initial use case.

The competition may lead to some duplicated R&D scope across the two funded projects. How will BEIS deal with this? How should Applicants account for this?

BEIS will not fund the same activities twice. When producing their application, Applicants should assume that the scope will not be duplicated. BEIS will deal with any duplicated scope and potential synergies during the Grant Award process.

Glossary of terms and definitions

Term	Definition
AMR	Advanced Modular Reactor
Applicant	The Lead Applicant or anther organisation in the Applicant Group.
Applicant Group	Collective term for all organisations in the Lead Applicants’ consortium and supply chain.
BEIS	Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy
CPF	Coated Particle Fuel
Demonstration	All activities carried out to enable the option for commercial HTGR technology by reducing technical risk. This includes the demonstrator, and any ancillary activities needed to achieve the programme’s aims, goals, and objectives.
Demonstrator	A licensed operating nuclear reactor intended to showcase functionality and reliability
DESNZ	Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
EPC	Engineering-Procurement-Construction
FBC	Full Business Case (used in reference to the accuracy requirements in HMG’s Cost Estimating Guidance)
FEED	Front-End Engineering Design
FEED+	FEED and other supporting activities
G4 Cons	The standardised cost sheet specified by BEIS in AMR RD&D Phase A
GDA	Generic Design Assessment
HTGR	High Temperature Gas Reactor
OBC	Outline Business Case (used in reference to the accuracy requirements in HMG’s Cost Estimating Guidance)
Organisational Role	A key role in a nuclear project that will be filled by an organisation (as opposed to an individual)
RD&D	Research, Development, and Demonstration
SOC	Strategic Outline Case (used in reference to the accuracy requirements in HMG’s Cost Estimating Guidance)
TRL	Technology Readiness Level
UK	United Kingdom