Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
04/11/2022 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB177 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 177-MICROREACTORS
3:40:10 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to microreactors."
3:41:11 PM
MARK NUTT, PE, PhD; Nuclear Energy Sector Manager, Nuclear
Energy Market Sector, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL), Richland, Washington, began a PowerPoint on the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory Briefing: Advanced Microreactor
Safety. He reviewed slide 2, PNNL is DOE's Most Diverse National
Laboratory. He pointed out that the PNNL sector manager works
with research scientists and engineers on nuclear energy, from
the front end to the back end of reactor safety. He said he is a
nuclear engineer and previously worked in one of Fluor
Corporation's US nuclear plants. PNNL has $1.24 billion in
funding, with 5,300 staff working on national security and
environmental restoration.
3:43:08 PM
DR. NUTT paraphrased slide 3, Bottom Line Up Front: Nuclear
Power is Safe.
The potential hazard of nuclear's high energy density
has always been known and has always been factored
into the design of nuclear power plants.
The nuclear energy industry is one of the most heavily
regulated commercial enterprises. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has principal
responsibility for government oversight. The NRC's
mission is to protect public health and safety by
ensuring that plants comply with the terms of their
licenses as well as all the technical and
administrative requirements imposed by the agency.
• The NRC assigns at least two NRC resident inspectors
to every US nuclear energy plant, where the
inspectors conduct more than 2,000 hours of baseline
inspections each year.
• The industry also conducts peer reviews of plant
operation through the Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations (INPO). An INPO team and industry peers
conduct on-site, two-week inspections at each plant
once every two years.
• Major studies all conclude that nuclear is an
exceptionally safe way to produce electricity on an
industrial scale. Nuclear has the lowest number of
direct fatalities of any major energy source per kWh
of energy producedover 100 times less than hydro
and liquefied natural gas (OECD 2010).
3:44:56 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked why the nuclear plants were targeted in
Ukraine but would not be targets in the United States.
DR. NUTT answered that the military aspect of microreactors was
not his area of expertise. He said he would not speculate on
what was happening in the war between Russia and Ukraine. He
said he was familiar with the nuclear reactor, which was very
similar in design to the pressurized water reactors in the US.
He hoped no one would ever shoot at US nuclear reactors.
SENATOR STEVENS related his understanding that the current
nuclear reactors are a different generation. He asked if the new
plants were remarkably safer than the previous ones.
DR. NUTT agreed they are safer, noting he would discuss it later
on in the presentation.
3:47:19 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked about the two NRC resident inspectors
assigned to US nuclear energy plants and 2,000 hours of baseline
inspections each year. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
(INPO) onsite inspections are listed in bullet points 2 and 3.
He asked if the NCR and INPO oversight would happen with the
nuclear microreactors.
DR. NUTT answered that would be determined via the licensing
process. The new microreactors have passive and inherent safety
features, which may have reduced staff, but the regulator would
vet all of the terms.
SENATOR KAWASAKI acknowledged that slide 4 would cover
microreactors. He asked him to address the inspections for those
compared to the nuclear power plants listed on slide 3.
3:49:00 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE referred to the last bullet point which
compared nuclear power to hydro and liquefied natural gas
fatalities per kilowatt of energy. He noted a Cleveland incident
killed 130 in 1944 when a stainless nickel container leaked. He
wondered if the bullet point captured the statistics for each
industry.
DR. NUTT answered that there have been no direct fatalities
operating nuclear in the United States.
SENATOR MICCICHE noted that there had been occasional fatalities
in the natural gas industry.
3:50:31 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slide 4, What microreactor Design Sizes are
being considered? The slide included a graph that showed small
nuclear reactors under development in the US.
Nuclear microreactors are very small reactors usually
generating less than 50 megawatts electric (MWe). They
are seen as an alternative to small modular (50-300
MWe) or conventional reactors (often around 1,000
MWe).
By comparison, microreactors can be produced more
quickly, and within weeks, transported and deployed to
locations such as isolated military bases or
communities affected by natural disasters. They are
designed to provide resilient, non-carbon emitting,
and independent power in those environments.
DR. NUTT reviewed the evolution of nuclear reactors over time,
noting they originally started small, then became substantial
units. The industry has not had the most outstanding record in
deploying reactors, but it has worked to reduce plant size and
assemble the reactors at the power station. The smaller
reactors, typically under 50 megawatts (MWe), can serve many
different markets.
3:53:27 PM
MR. NUTT said the goal was to reduce civil construction required
to house the reactor, using smaller modular nuclear reactors,
which has led to microreactors. This provides portability, so
the microreactor can more easily be deployed or removed when it
is no longer needed.
3:54:36 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slides 5 and 6, What is an "Advanced Nuclear
Reactor"?
According to 42 USC ? 16271(b)(1) the term "advanced
nuclear reactor" means (A) a nuclear fission reactor,
including a prototype plant (as defined in sections
50.2 and 52.1 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations
(or successor regulations)), with significant
improvements compared to reactors operating on
December 27, 2020 , including improvements such as:
(i)additional inherent safety features
(ii) lower waste yields
(iii) improved fuel and material performance
(iv) increased tolerance to loss of fuel cooling
(v) enhanced reliability or improved resilience
(vi) increased proliferation resistance
(vii) increased thermal efficiency
(viii) reduced consumption of cooling water and other
environmental impacts
(ix) the ability to integrate into electric
applications and nonelectric applications
(x) modular sizes to allow for deployment that
corresponds with the demand for electricity or process
heat
(xi) operational flexibility to respond to changes in
demand for electricity or process heat and to
complement integration with intermittent renewable
energy or energy storage.
DR. NUTT said the advanced nuclear reactor takes the existing
experience of safe operation of the machines to deploy newer,
safer, more efficient and economic nuclear reactors in the
future.
3:56:06 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slide 7, What are "Passively Safe" and
"Inherent Safety" Designs?
Passive nuclear safety is a safety feature of a
nuclear reactor that does not require operator actions
or electronic feedback in order to shut down safely in
the event of a particular type of emergency (usually
overheating resulting from a loss of coolant or loss
of coolant flow).
Inherent nuclear safety systems use certain materials
and their properties to provide additional layers of
protection.
"Certain SMR designs are small enough that natural
convection cooling should be sufficient to maintain
the core at a safe temperature in the event of a
serious accident like a station blackout." - Union of
Concerned Scientists
DR. NUTT referred to a link on the slide to the Idaho National
Lab passive safety video that members could view at their
convenience.
3:57:11 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slide 8, What is an Inherent Safety Feature?
TRISO stands for TRi-structural ISOtropic particle
fuel.
Each TRISO particle is made up of a uranium, carbon
and oxygen fuel kernel. The kernel is encapsulated by
three layers of carbon- and ceramic-based materials
that prevent the release of radioactive fission
products.
The particles are incredibly small (about the size of
a poppy seed) and very robust.
They can be fabricated into cylindrical pellets or
billiard ballsized spheres called "pebbles" for use in
either high temperature gas or molten salt-cooled
reactors.
TRISO fuels are structurally more resistant to neutron
irradiation, corrosion, oxidation and high
temperatures (the factors that most impact fuel
performance) than traditional reactor fuels.
Each particle acts as its own containment system due
to its triple-coated layers. This allows them to
retain fission products under all reactor conditions.
TRISO particles can withstand extreme temperatures
that are well beyond the threshold of current nuclear
fuels.
DR. NUTT added that other fuel designs with the same inherent
safety features were being considered for advanced nuclear
reactors.
3:58:57 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slide 9, How are "Passive" Systems Different
from "active" systems for heat removal, which displayed a
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) diagram.
Active Systems in typical large light water reactors
require electrical power produced by the plant,
provide from the offsite grid, or from emergency
generators to operate to cool the plant.
DR. NUTT explained that if an event occurred at a reactor, the
control rods would drop into the core, and the nuclear chain
reaction would dissipate. The heat would still come off the
radioactive decay of the fuel, which would need maintained
cooling. He noted that the existing plants would require active
pumping, safety injection systems, and diesel generators to
provide offsite power, but the plant would require active
cooling.
3:59:43 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slide 10, What is Passive Heat Removal Through
Convection? [This slide depicted a reactor vessel showing heat
removal by air circulation; and a photo of the Westinghouse
eVinci reactor design.]
Convection is the movement caused within a fluid by
the tendency of hotter and therefore less dense
material to rise, and colder, denser material to sink
under the influence of gravity, which consequently
results in transfer of heat. Passive systems do not
require electrical power produced by the plant,
provided from the offsite grid, or from emergency
generators to operate.
The Westinghouse eVinci micro reactor is a next-
generation, small battery for decentralised generation
markets and micro grids such as remote communities,
remote industrial mines and critical infrastructure.
The reactor has heat pipes that remove heat from the
core. The heat pipes enable passive core heat
extraction.
DR. NUTT explained that heat removal by air circulation could
keep the plant cool and protect the fuel. Combined with the
inherent safety, it provides a better safety margin than the
reactors deployed today.
4:00:42 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slide 11, What Design Features Does NRC
Evaluate in their Safety Review?
NUREG 0800: Standard Review Plan for the Review of
Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,
listing Chapter 1 19.
DR. NUTT explained that this slide shows what the NUREG provides
with its safety review. He stated that the applicant must
demonstrate how they will meet all of the criteria within the
guidelines. He anticipated that this would be the criteria used
in the future.
4:01:33 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slide 12, What are Staffing Considerations for
Microreactors?
What technical skills are required to operate a
microreactor and how feasible is it that skilled
technicians will be found to work at remote
microreactor locations?
• The NRC licenses all individuals who either operate
or supervise the operation of the controls of a
commercially owned nuclear power reactor or a
test/research (i.e., non-power) reactor under 10 CFR
Part 55.
• Operators are required to pass a written examination
that contains a representative selection of questions
on the knowledge, skills, andb abilities needed to
perform licensed operator duties.
• In general, a smaller plant having inherent and
passive safety features with some functions being
automated would likely result in a smaller work force
as compared to large LWRs.
• The NRC licensing process would end up defining what
on-site work force would be required to ensure safety
and security
4:02:49 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slides 13 and 14, How Will Spent Nuclear Fuel
be managed?
Multiple agencies and organizations have
responsibility for managing spent nuclear fuel:
• The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (the Act or the
NWPA) of 1982, established a comprehensive
federal policy to store and dispose of the
nation's SNF and HLW. The NWPA and its amendments
directed the Department to develop a system to
accept, transport, store, and permanently dispose
of SNF and HLW from commercial utilities. The DOE
manages and disposes of spent fuel it accepts
under the Standard Contract.
• The NRC regulates interim storage, permanent
disposal, and certifies SNF transportation casks.
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets
radiation protection standards? The
Utility/Operator sites, designs, and submits
license applications including an environmental
report in accordance with requirements
established by the U.S Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)
• The NRC prepares an Environmental Impact
Statement for the proposed reactor and conducts a
review of the license application including any
required hearings
• The Utility/Operator constructs and operates
reactors in accordance with its NRC license-
Responsible for the management and storage of all
spent fuel until accepted by DOE in accordance
with the standard contract
4:04:13 PM
DR. NUTT acknowledged that the US does not have a national
repository for spent fuel.
The NRC has an established regulatory framework for
spent fuel storage at 10 CFR 72 and for transportation
at 10 CFR 71.
Pending approval of a national repository, there are
two general options for managing spent fuel:
1. For the current reactor fleet, Spent Nuclear Fuel
is stored in an onsite Independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI) under 10 CFR 72 pending U.S.
policy decisions on ultimate disposition.
2. For advanced microreactors, the reactor could be
returned to the vendor for decommissioning or
refueling. This will require a new NRC package
approval as there are no currently approved packages
for microreactors with SNF.
An ISFSI is an NRC licensed complex designed and
constructed for the interim storage of spent nuclear
fuel; solid, reactor related, greater than Class C
waste; and other associated radioactive materials.
Consent-Based Siting
DOE is considering a national Consolidated Interim
Storage Facility for spent nuclear fuel that would be
sited using a consent-based siting approach in which
communities could volunteer to host the facility
4:05:38 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slide 15, How are Environmental Impacts
Different for Microreactors? The slide consisted of an image
listing broad environmental factors that are considered by NRA
during the NEPA reviews.
DR. NUTT said some considerations would be different due to the
size of the microreactors, including the lower water usage and
less transportation. The environmental impacts are also expected
to be smaller. He pointed out that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is developing a generic EIS for advanced reactors
that will include microreactors. He anticipated a draft would be
available later this summer.
4:06:40 PM
DR. NUTT reviewed slide 16, What are Some of the Unique
Challenges in the Arctic? The slide showed a photograph of
permafrost layers and a diagram that showed the ten codes for
evaluating potential doses from Nuclear Power Plants during
licensing and siting. These are being evaluated for use in
arctic environments.
NRC conducts geotechnical evaluations for foundation
supports for Nuclear Power Plants. These evaluations
will have to consider locating plants in permafrost
and the potential for permafrost to change over time.
DR. NUTT added that a hazard assessment would be required to
determine any external hazards the reactor could be exposed to
and ensure they are appropriately mitigated. The NRC evaluates
various codes, including radiation exposure potential from
nuclear power plants.
4:07:47 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI related his understanding that one selling
point of microreactors is reduced staffing. He expressed concern
about the 5 Mwe microreactor proposed at Eielson Air Force Base.
He asked what else NRC must consider before licensing, including
staffing levels and the number of hours for baseline
inspections.
DR. NUTT answered that the applicant would submit the plant
operational plan as part of NRC's licensing requirements,
including staffing requirements necessary for safety and
security. He noted that if an inspection happened and
insufficient staff was present, inspectors could shut down the
microreactor.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the site must be reviewed and
approved by NRC before siting would be approved and permitted.
DR. NUTT answered yes. He stated that the natural hazards and
geophysical stability must be reviewed prior to permitting.
4:10:20 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE turned to the exclusion zones based on the
quantity of energy in a facility. He asked whether it was safe
to say that if two facilities were designed similarly, but one
was a one gigawatt facility and the other a 50 megawatt
facility, one would have a significantly lower potential for the
quantity of fuel for the facility.
DR. NUTT answered yes, but the source term would depend on the
fuel and release mechanisms. He offered his view that a 50-
megawatt facility with extremely robust fuel and a 10-megawatt
facility, perhaps not as robust, could wash out. He indicated
that it would depend on the accidents, the accident sequences,
the source terms, and the potential amount of material that
could be released and where it would go. He indicated that a
larger nuclear reactor with a more extensive inventory could
typically have a larger source.
4:11:57 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related his understanding that there may not be
any exclusion zones needed for the self-contained smaller
microreactor. He wondered if that meant that the seismology
regarding a tsunami is less critical with the smaller
microreactors, and if they are truly self-contained.
DR. NUTT answered that it would depend on the site, noting that
the microreactor would be sited to avoid flood and tsunami
zones, such that the geotechnical hazards and seismicity would
not cause the unit undue harm. It must be able to respond to an
earthquake and safely shut down, and with passive heat removal
remain safe. He pointed out that hazardous fission products are
retained in the TRISO fuels. It could be possible that the
safety analysis, including analyzing the event sequences,
hazards, and consequences as part of the safety analysis, might
show that there was no credible way that the nuclear reactor
could get damaged. If so, they may be able to back off of the
exclusion zone.
4:13:39 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about the implications of disposal once the
project is completed. He recalled Dr. Nutt mentioned that no
packaging was approved for transporting the small nuclear
reactors when their work was completed. He asked if he
envisioned that the small microreactors would be hypothetically
left to cool forever on site or if they would end up in the big
trench on the Hanford Reach with a couple of hundred former
nuclear submarines.
4:14:15 PM
DR. NUTT answered that the Hanford Reach contains the reactor
compartments, but the fuel is removed, shipped, and stored in
Idaho. The nuclear reactors and cores are brought to Hanford and
stored in an open trench so inspectors can examine them.
Currently, all the fuel is stored at the reactor sites, pending
the department deploying a consolidated storage facility or
geological depository where it would be transported. He said
there are certified casks to move the existing light water
reactor fuel. He characterized it as proven technology. He
offered his view that if the business model had the microreactor
sited and ran for a period of time, if there were not a
disposition pathway, storage, or disposal facility, it would sit
until one became available. The regulatory commission must
certify the package for pickup and packaging if the company has
a business model that includes transport. It would also need to
certify a plan to move a fully-fueled microreactor. Currently,
the PNNL moves rated and unrated spent fuel in transportation
packaging. However, PNNL has never moved a reactor. The
Department of Defense (DoD) understands its responsibility. DoD
has restarted the process of assigning a new storage facility.
Other projects are underway to consider transporting nuclear
reactors, so work is being accomplished to develop those
capabilities to move nuclear reactors.
4:16:54 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that TRISO has been
around since the 1960s. He asked why it took so long and if it
was a realistic goal.
MR. NUTT answered that TRISO-fuel reactors and others, such as
metallic-fueled, micro-fast nuclear reactors, have been around a
while. The US has operated gas-cooled carbide-fueled reactors.
However, the US chose the water-cooled nuclear reactors
primarily because the US Navy selected that approach. Meanwhile,
the Department of Energy and the national lab continue
developing advanced nuclear reactor concepts. He highlighted the
benefits: they are efficient, operate at lower temperatures than
gas reactors, can be used for process heat, and have inherent
passive safety benefits. As the technology developed and the
deployment of nuclear reactors improved, many private-sector
companies wanted to take different routes, considering other
coolant technologies, especially when using microreactors. Thus,
the technological advancements meant that nuclear reactors could
be deployed economically, allowing them to compete in the US
energy markets.
4:20:28 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI stated that the DoD has been discussing the
potential for using an advanced nuclear reactor at Eielson Air
Force Base (Eielson AFB). He asked whether NRC would have the
authority and jurisdiction for siting, permitting, and other
requirements Dr. Nutt outlined earlier.
DR. NUTT offered his belief that if a commercial company
deployed the microreactor to provide power services to Eielson
AFB, it would have to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
4:22:06 PM
At ease
4:22:44 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting.
4:22:59 PM
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, answered that
the nuclear project at Eielson AFB was envisioned as a privately
owned and operated commercial project on USAF property. She said
that because the independent power producer would sell the
output from the reactor via a purchase agreement, it would fall
under NRC.
4:23:46 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that DOE testified that NRC would
require staffing considerations and other restrictions before
permitting or siting, including spent-fuel management and the
number of annual inspections and hours for them. He asked
whether she was saying that the decision for a microreactor at
Eielson AFB hasn't been made yet.
MS. HOLDMANN stated that the project was intended at Eielson
AFB, pending EIS approval.
4:24:50 PM
CHAIR REVAK advised Ms. Holdmann that the committee was
experiencing audio issues and missed most of what she had said.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that any project at Eielson AFB would need
to comply with state requirements and meet NRC requirements.
SENATOR KAWASAKI clarified that this whole presentation is about
an NRC-regulated facility. He wondered what would happen if NRC
determined later that Eielson AFB was not the right location due
to staffing considerations, natural features, or spent-fuel
management.
MS. HOLDMANN agreed that it is quite possible that if
insurmountable barriers arise, NRC could select a USAF base at
another location.
4:26:53 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that SB 177 relates to an "advanced
nuclear reactor" as defined in 42 U.S.C. 16271. He highlighted
that people thought of the Three Mile Island accident and
Chernobyl stories when this bill was first brought up. He asked
what was different about the definition of "advanced nuclear
reactor" [referenced on page 1, line 13 of SB 177.]
DR. NUTT answered that it related to the requirement for
significant improvements since December 27, 2020. He explained
that the new advanced nuclear reactors must show improvements
over large light-water reactors like the one on Three Mile
Island, indicated by the 11 bullets on [slide 5]. He noted that
it was not just an incremental step up for today's nuclear
reactors because these reactors are different. These advanced
nuclear reactors are fourth-generation reactors with significant
improvements.
4:29:05 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related that one of his constituents wondered
about the enrichment of microreactor fuel. He asked whether the
fuel was significantly more enriched and how that would affect
the overall risk.
MR. NUTT answered that these nuclear reactors would be limited
to using five-percent uranium 235 enrichment and they would run
around 20 percent, allowing for increased material loading in
the reactor core, resulting in using smaller reactors that can
run longer. He pointed out that even if using higher-enriched
uranium, these reactors would still use passive nuclear safety
measures with inherent nuclear safety systems. He offered his
belief that although the uranium fuel enrichment would be
higher, it was not significantly higher, so it wouldn't make too
much difference. He explained that fuel enrichment was necessary
to operate the nuclear reactor as envisioned.
4:31:03 PM
CHAIR REVAK held SB 177 in committee.