Small Modular Reactors – This Chat is Closed
My name is Anna Hajduk Bradford. I am the Chief of the Small Modular Reactor Licensing Branch 2 in the Division of Advanced Reactors and Rulemaking here at NRC Headquarters. My division is the lead for the project management of work related to small modular reactors, which right now is focused mainly on pre-application interactions with potential applicants. I’ve been at the agency for almost 13 years and prior to that worked for an engineering consulting firm on nuclear-related projects.
I have a master’s degree in Environmental Engineering from Johns Hopkins University and a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Tech.
Mike Derivan, 
NRC Chat 
Moderator 2:01 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
We will be answering questions as quickly as possible. We already have several questions from e-mail and our blog post this morning, so we’ll deal with those first. We expect there might be a few bugs along the way, though, so we ask for your patience and understanding.
Please remember to refresh regularly. And if you’re replying to a comment or response, please use the reply link on the post rather than the comment box at the bottom of the Chat. That way your response is “linked” to the comment you’re responding to.
If you have a question or comment unrelated to small modular reactors, please post it here: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/category/open-forum/
AB
Moderator 2:02 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Here’s a question Abdul Khan submitted via our blog post earlier today: “What are the advantages of SMRs as compared to large one – (technically and cost wise)?”
Our answer — According to panel discussions at our Regulatory Information Conference, many groups feel SMRs may offer advantages in scalability and siting flexibility at locations unable to accommodate more traditional larger reactors. These discussions also suggest SMRs’ small size and potential below-ground construction could enhance safety and security.
AB
Henry Lynn 2:28 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Could you please elaborate on how below ground construction could enhance safety?
Moderator 2:48 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
We haven’t seen detailed design approaches yet, but an underground facility could potentially be better protected from severe natural events or manmade threats.
AB
Moderator 2:04 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Here’s a question Mike Derivan submitted via e-mail: “What is the specific technical basis for the NRC’s decision (and current published policy) to allow SMR vendors to submit an exemption request to 10.CFR50.54(m) Licensed Operator staffing levels along with their design certification proposal, rather than complying with the regulation?”
Our answer — Any applicant or licensee must appropriately justify an exemption request before we could consider granting it, and we’ll certainly consider whether the exemption would help protect public health and safety. The general topic of control room staffing is part of the ongoing discussions between the NRC and the various SMR vendors. I would note that none of the SMR vendors have yet told us what their plans are for control room staffing. Once we have that information we’ll be able to come to our conclusions about what staffing levels are appropriate.
AB
Mike Derivan 2:54 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
You said ” I would note that none of the SMR vendors have yet told us what their plans are for control room staffing.” Just so I understand the NRC position on this, is it the NRC position that until a formal design certification is submitted that you haven’t really been told anything official?
You have seen the same control room design proposals that are available in the PDR that I have seen, and I know what some SMR vendors are publicly stating. Their control room staffing plans seem clear, it is being advertized as a clear SMR advantage. I don’t understand this statement, unless as I described the official NRC position. And further, if such “informal” info tells you nothing to comment on, why waste time and money with the “informal” discussions/reviews? My honest opinion is the NRC at least informally knows what the staffing plans are for some SMR designs.
Moderator 3:17 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
We have had informal discussions, and control room staffing is among the ideas that have evolved over time. Both the vendors and NRC staff have benefitted from those talks. Until an SMR vendor locks down its ideas in a design application, the NRC is not going to spend significant resources evaluating proposals that may or may not come to pass.
AB
Moderator 2:07 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Here’s another question from Abdul Khan: “If we need say, 1000 MWe power, why we should select 5 SMRs of 200 MWe each compared to one 1000 MWe nuclear plant?”
Our answer — Some users may decide that they prefer to ramp up their power production capability rather than building it all at one time. For example, maybe they want 200 megawatts electric, or MWe, for the first two years and then want to add another 200 MWe every two years after that. It’s also possible that the transmission grid in a particular location can’t handle 1,000 MWe at once.
AB
Henry Lynn 2:11 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Could a user also ramp down their power production capability at a site? In other words, once an SMR is put into place, is it feasible to remove it to another site?
Moderator 2:22 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
SMRs are not “portable,” once they’re installed and the fuel added they’re in place for the life of the plant. If we approved a plant with several modules, however, not all of them would need to run at the same time. This also means one module could be down for maintenance or refueling while the rest of the plant runs.
AB
Mohsen Khatib-Rahbar 2:07 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
What is the expected application submission dates for various SMRs? Also, are there any “advanced” reactors that NRC expects to receive DC applications
Moderator 2:13 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Westinghouse expects to submit a design certification application in the second quarter of 2014. B&W expects to submit a design certification application in the third quarter of 2014. The Tennessee Valley Authority expects to submit a construction permit application for the B&W design in the second quarter of 2015. Ameren expects to submit a Combined License application for the Westinghouse design in the third quarter of 2015. NuScale expects to submit a design certification application also in the third quarter of 2015. Holtec expects to submit a design certification application in the fourth quarter of 2016.
Moderator 2:17 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
As for “advanced” reactors, the NRC has been told STL expects to submit a thorium-based SMR design in 2016. The Next-Generation Nuclear Plant Industry Alliance expects to submit a gas-cooled SMR construction permit application between 2016 and 2018.,
Henry Lynn 2:08 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Could you give an update on TVA’s work on SMRs at the old Breeder Reactor site? Ultimately what is TVA’s goal at that site?
Moderator 2:26 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
TVA is in the best position to discuss their ultimate goals, but in their latest letter to us, they reaffirmed their plans to build up to four mPower modules at the Clinch River site. We mentioned TVA’s expected application for the first module in an earlier answer.
AB
Moderator 2:08 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Here’s a question Tom Clements submitted via e-mail: “As the economics of SMRs is very shaky at best and given that funding for construction of SMRs does not appear to exist, why should the NRC place serious resources into reviewing reactor design and licensing when it is very likely that no SMR will actually move to construction? The NRC should be very cautious in getting caught up in the continuous and exaggerated hype by the SMR companies about the viability of their imaginary products, right?”
Our answer – The NRC regularly prioritizes available resources, and our budget and planned activities are reviewed and approved by Congress. At this point in working with SMR vendors, we generally hold technical meetings at their request when they are ready to have detailed discussions about specific topics. We also sometimes review technical reports that they develop and submit to us so that we can provide feedback. In other words, our activities are based on potential applicants’ detailed technical activities, rather than their marketing activities. The Department of Energy has a program to assist SMR vendors, although the NRC plays no role in determining which vendors get that support.
AB
Mike Derivan 2:14 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
It is my understanding that the NRC has a regulatory responsibility (under the Energy Policy Act of ’05?) to assist DOE in determining which designs might appear promising. Is this not true? This appears to be an NRC “role”.
Moderator 2:34 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
The Energy Policy Act directed the NRC to work with the Dept. of Energy regarding the licensing strategy for the Next-Generation Nuclear Plant. We issued a report on that work in 2008:
Click to access NGNP_reporttoCongress.pdf
AB
Mike Derivan 2:29 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
When SMR vendors request a meeting with NRC are they billed for the NRC time at the normal per hour rate (like a nuke plant is charged), or does the cost of the meeting/review come out of the normal NRC operating budget (at tax payer expense)?
Moderator 2:53 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
SMR vendors are billed for meetings with NRC staff at the existing per-hour rate in our Fee Rule.
AB
Robert Steinhaus 2:12 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Is there an economic case for SMRs?
Recently, fully paid for legacy 500 MWe Kewaunee Power Plant was shuttered because the utility operating it felt that it could no longer compete with natural gas fired power plants economically.
How will small SMR reactors, loaded with debt, that are more expensive per MW generated, compete when legacy reactors like Kewanee could not?
Moderator 2:31 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
The NRC’s role is to ensure reactor designs are safe. Apart from our requirements that a reactor owner run a plant safely and put aside money for decommissioning, questions about economics and profitability are for the utility to address.
AB
Robert Steinhaus 2:17 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Are you. Anna Hajduk Bradford, related to Peter Bradford, former NRC Commissioner at NRC under the Carter Administration?
Moderator 2:19 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
No, I am not, but I get asked that a lot.
AB
Moderator 2:18 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Here’s another question from Abdul Khan: “Are SMRs of pressurized type or boiling water type or something else?”
Our answer — The designs currently being discussed with the NRC are pressurized water designs. Looking further into the future, some SMR concepts include gas-cooled or liquid metal-cooled designs.
AB
Mohsen Khatib-Rahbar 2:18 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Which contractors (including national labs) are currently supporting NRC’s review activities, and what are their specific areas of support?
Moderator 2:39 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
We’re not currently reviewing any SMR designs or related applications. The NRC has broad contracts with multiple national laboratories, including Oak Ridge and Brookhaven, to help develop the guidance for future reviews. The contracts include provisions to ensure no conflicts of interest with other national lab activities.
AB
Robert Steinhaus 2:22 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Where are plans to create a SMR friendly licensing path through NRC in order to get more SMR reactors built?
Will SMRs have to go through the same licensing path as larger nuclear reactors?
Will licensing fees be the same for SMRs as for larger nuclear power plants?
Will yearly fees for operating SMRs be the same as for larger nuclear reactors?
Moderator 2:45 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
The NRC’s basic requirements are the same for SMRs as for large reactors; how SMRs meet those requirements could be different. We will use our design-specific review process for unique SMR features or approaches. The NRC recently published its design-specific review standards for our staff to use during the application review for the B&W SMR design. These standards are open for public comment until the middle of August. They can be found here: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/mpower/dsrs.html
We continue to examine the questions of how our fee structure will apply to SMRs, and we expect this will be resolved through a rulemaking process.
AB
Moderator 2:23 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Here’s a question from our blog, submitted by “richard123456columbia”: “Are these plants fail safe, walk away when any problems occur. If not they are a time bomb.”
Our answer – Our policy on advanced designs is that we expect new designs to achieve greater levels of safety. SMR vendors have not yet submitted full and detailed designs for the NRC to review, so at this point we’re still waiting to assess how the designs will perform during an accident. In general, SMR designers have said they’ll likely rely on advanced technologies and passive systems, such as emergency cooling water fed by gravity, to help keep the plants safe. Before we could approve any SMRs, we’ll perform in-depth reviews of those proposals to ensure they can protect public health and safety and the environment under both normal and accident scenarios.
AB
Susan 2:24 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
I had heard about these smaller Nuclear Reactors…very exciting tecnology!
Moderator 2:47 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Thanks for your comment — we encourage public participation, so please stay involved as this process continues.
AB
Robert Steinhaus 2:28 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Is any planning being given to nuclear fusion SMRs?
Will NRC have jurisdiction on SMRs powered by nuclear fusion?
If fusion reactors are intrinsically safer, will they have regulation appropriate to the technology and their intrinsic safety?
Moderator 2:51 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
The NRC doesn’t expect any fusion-based SMR design applications in the forseeable future, although the NRC would have jurisdiction over that kind of reactor.
AB
Tom Tramm 2:31 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Which parts of a multi-unit SMR plant would get certified? The Nuclear Steam Supply System, of course. How about the auxiliary systems: ECCS, fuel handling, radwaste, electrical distribution, emergency power, …? How much of the plant will be standardized in the design certification?
Moderator 2:57 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
The scope of our SMR reviews will be the same as for large reactors — the complete design must meet our safety requirements.
AB
Jasmin 2:32 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
How much engagement has NRC had with advanced reactor developers, some of which have designs that would classify as SMRs? In terms of NRC prioritizing its resources, how much focus is being put on these non-LWR designs? Or is the agency mainly geared toward looking at LWR designs for the time being?
Moderator 3:05 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
We’ve been talking to SMR vendors at various levels of effort since 2008. The applications expected in the near term are all light-water designs. We’ve been thinking about how we’d handle non-light-water designs for several years, and we updated Congress on what we’re planning in August 2012:
Click to access ML12153A014.pdf
At this point, the vast majority of the agency’s SMR resources are focused on light-water designs.
AB
Eric Freeman 2:35 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Do small modular reactors present any new and unique safety or security concerns for the NRC? If so, has the NRC identified any that require additional review or analysis?
Moderator 3:07 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
While we don’t yet have any designs to review, our discussions with SMR vendors up to now have touched on several issues, such as security requirements, emergency planning, licensing multiple modules at once, and insurance and liability considerations.
AB
Moderator 2:40 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Thanks for your interest in the Chat. I’m getting to your questions, and there are plenty of them!
AB
Robert Steinhaus 2:49 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
If, as many both within and without the nuclear industry predict that there will be a general phase out of commercial nuclear power generation in the United States by mid-century, mostly because regulatory obstacles, and availability of licenses precluded the building of new nuclear reactors to replace the existing legacy nuclear plants will
1) the nation actually be safer as a result of giving up/regulating out of existence nuclear technology which actually has a better safety record than any other energy sector over the last 50 years?
2) will NRC, who is expected by Congress to raise 90% of the funds required to run the agency from license application fees and yearly reactor operation fees, be able to raise the funds necessary to run the agency, or will NRC gradually have to shrink and shed good staff members as the industry they have regulated (into non-existence) shrinks?
Moderator 3:12 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Thank you for your question, but that lies far outside the scope of this SMR discussion. Congress would be a better venue for questions of where the nation will obtain its energy and how the NRC will be funded.
AB
Moderator 2:52 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
The Chat ends at 3 p.m., but if you get in your question before that, I will answer it. Remember, the Chat will be archived.
AB
Moderator 2:59 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
We’ve got several questions in the queue, so we’ll close the chat at this point and post our answers to the submitted questions shortly. Please check back here and on Twitter for information on our next chat. Thanks for participating!
AB
Moderator 3:37 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink
Here’s a comment Daryl Leon submitted via e-mail: “It is very unlikely that SMR companies will actually move to construction by reason of the lengthy and extremely expensive licensing process required by the US NRC. Even if funding was present for construction, the financial licensing burden would wipe this out in a heartbeat for any financial advantage the SMR would have obtained otherwise. Look at Galena, AK as an example.”
Our answer – The considerations of whether an SMR is financially advantageous are for an applicant to consider. The NRC’s review process and licensing fee structure are publicly available for potential applicants to consider. Given the number of applications the NRC currently expects to receive, it appears the industry plans to move forward with SMRs.
AB
Here’s a comment Daryl Leon submitted via e-mail: “Is there a cost difference in licensing small reactors compared to large reactors? If small reactors are safer, what are some of the things that can be done to make it easier to license or certify such designs?”
Our answer – Since we haven’t yet completed an SMR review, we don’t yet have enough information on SMR licensing costs to compare that to existing reactor licensing. As we said earlier in the chat, the NRC’s basic requirements are the same for SMRs as for large reactors; how SMRs meet those requirements could be different.
AB
Here’s a comment Matt Bandyk submitted via e-mail: “In the licensing process will any preferences be given to applicants that have received the award from the DOE’s funding opportunity?”
Our answer – When prioritizing our work in the future we will certainly take into consideration which designs have received awards through the DOE program.
AB
Thanks again to everyone who participated!