Under the auspices of the CEA Cadarache/ANL-US I-NERI project a comprehensive investigation has been made of improvements to the Gen-IV GFR safety case over that of the GCFR safety case twenty five years ago. In particular, it has been concluded and agreed upon [1] that the GFR safety approach for the passive removal of decay heat in a protected depressurization accident with total loss of electric power needs to be different from that taken for the HTRs. The HTR conduction cooldown to the vessel wall boundary mode for an economically attractive core is not feasible in the case of the GFR because the high power densities (100kW/1 compared to 5 kW/1 for pebble bed thermal reactor) require decay heat fluxes well beyond those achievable by the heat conduction and radiation heat transfer mode. A set of alternative novel design options has been evaluated for potential passive safety mechanisms unique to the GFR. In summary, from a technological risk viewpoint and R&D planning, the option which has been identified is the block/plate-based or a pin-based reactor with a secondary guard containment/vessel around the primary vessel to maintain the primary system pressure at a high enough level which would allow primary system …