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.