Updates from Moderator Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Moderator 4:38 pm on June 18, 2013 Permalink  

    A Conversation with the Outgoing Executive Director for Operations – This Chat is Closed 

    bill-borchardtMy name is Bill Borchardt and I am the Executive Director for Operations at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but  I am often referred to as the EDO.  It is my job to carry out the operational and administrative functions necessary for the day-to-day operations at the agency.  Some of my responsibilities are supervising and coordinating policy development, agency operational activities and implementation of Commission policy directives.  Since joining the NRC in 1983, I have held many different positions including resident inspector at the Hope Creek Plant in New Jersey and inspector at other nuclear plants in New England, and I have had a number of leadership positions at NRC headquarters.  Prior to joining the NRC,  I was an officer in the U.S. Navy’s Nuclear Power Program.

    I look forward to hearing from you and taking your questions.


    • Moderator 2:04 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Good Afternoon!

      We will be answering questions as quickly as possible and posting some “fun facts” throughout. We already have several questions from e-mail and our blog post this morning, so we’ll deal with those first.

      Please remember to refresh regularly to see new content (with some browsers). 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.

      Unrelated questions or comments can be posted here: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/category/open-forum/


    • Moderator 2:06 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      My question is: What do you consider your best achievement(s) during your time at the NRC?

      Richard S. Scheirer
      Contract Administrative Assistant

      In every position, there have been a great number of opportunities – from being a resident inspector to starting up the Office of New Reactors. As EDO, I’m most proud of my accomplishments related to creating a positive work environment for employees so they can do their jobs better. I’ve emphasized an open and collaborative work environment, which focuses on NRC values and fosters good working relationships among the staff.


    • Dan Cronin 2:06 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Thank you Mr. Borchardt for your many years of service.

      I’d like to hear your perspective on the NRC role as it applies to allowing for widespread research and development within the non-power reactor community. Thank you.

      • Moderator 2:11 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        I’m not sure what you’re asking. If your question is about new designs for research reactors, that’s But more appropriate for the Department of Energy. We do acknowledge the valuable role that existing research and test reactors play in the educational system and in the many advanced research programs in this country. We have a highly knowledgeable staff in HQ who provide oversight of those reactors.


      • Dan Cronin 2:15 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        I’m referring in a general sense to the AEA Section 104(c) which is unique to the NPR community and which provides a constraint on the NRC’s oversight of NPRs.

      • Moderator 2:21 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        I’m not intimately involved in that and would need to study the matter more.


      • Dan Cronin 2:30 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        AEA 104(c) imposes a unique constraint requiring the “minimum amount of regulation” for non-power reactors and states that the NRC will “permit the conduct of widespread research and development”.

        In his farewell speech, Chair Jazcko stated (paraphrasing) that the NRC would ensure the health and safety of the public regardless of the impact on the licensee. No mention was made of the non-power reactor community in this speech. Chair Jazcko’s comment seems to be in conflict with 104(c). To my knowledge, Chair MacFarland hasn’t implemented any course changes with regards to NPR oversight that would contradict the Chair Jazcko statement.

        Given this background information, how does the NRC ensure compliance with 104(c)?

      • Moderator 2:36 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        We regulate all facilities for public health and safety. The requirements that we impose are based upon the risk the facility presents to the public. Research and test reactors have a much lower source term than power reactors and therefore have a commensurate set of regulatory requirements. Beyond that, I have no further comment.


      • Dan Cronin 2:49 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        Again, thank you for your time today and for your service. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.

      • Moderator 2:50 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        Thank you!


    • Moderator 2:09 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Questions to Bill Borchardt:
      (1) If I happen to land on your position, what documents do I consult to give me the pace or fast-tracked to meet the challenges that go with the position?
      (2) If you were to start all over again in the position, what would you like to be done different?
      (3) How would you restructure the operations of the US NRC if you had to?

      There is no document or play book! The 25 years of experience I had in the NRC in a variety of different positions was invaluable for me to do the EDO job. One of the most important factors was that time in the agency gave me a deep-founded sense of what the Commission is and a trust in the people here. I really understood the work of the agency here. The resident inspector job really did give me a good boots on the ground view.

      I don’t think I’d have done anything differently when taking on the EDO job.

      As far as restructuring the NRC, in almost 40 years we’ve adapted numerous times to the realities of the changing environment, most recently in 2005 with the creation of two new offices. I expect we’ll continue to do that in the future.


    • Moderator 2:10 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Fun Fact: The Executive Director for Operations is basically the NRC’s chief operating officer. The EDO manages the day-to-day operations of the agency, including responsibility for implementing Commission policy directives.

    • Rob Bunch 2:12 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      What was the most rewarding or interesting outreach you have been a part of in relation to our international missions?

      • Moderator 2:15 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        I really enjoyed my role as Vice President of the Convention on Nuclear Safety review meeting in Vienna that focused on Fukushima lessons learned (in 2011). It reaffirmed the NRC’s and US leadership role throughout the world, and was a valuable opportunity to share lessons learned and regulatory and plant improvements that are underway. I also really enjoyed being team leader on several integrated regualtory review service missions that assessed other regulatory agencies around the world — in U.K. and South Korea.


    • Moderator 2:12 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Question: What advice would you have for next EDO regarding appearance of interactions with NEI.
      Some folks think NEI has too much influence. Is it out of line for NRC to occasionally stick its thumb in NEI’s eye?

      We value the input of all stakeholders. NEI is but one of a wide range that we need to interact with. Being an independent regulator doesn’t mean that we should be isolated. We’re always conscious of keeping an arm’s length between us and the regulated community.


    • Jim Coyle 2:15 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Given that SMRs may be more of the future in power generation than new large-scale reactors, do you have any sense of what concerns could arise from people who would be in close proximity to the SMRs and who may be resistant to such reactors?

      • Moderator 2:18 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        Any Small Modular Reactor that gets licensed would get a thorough review that includes public input, inspections, etc. At that time, we’ll hear what the concerns might be.


    • Moderator 2:15 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Question: Could the EDO address the latest on the consolidation of NRC offices to the White Flint North area? Will RES staff move back to White Flint North area or stay in Church Street building?

      As some of you may know, we have a new third building in our headquarters complex in Rockville, MD, that we’ve just started moving folks into. It’s still a dynamic situation and the details of which offices will go where are still being worked on.


    • Moderator 2:16 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Fun Fact: The first EDO, Lee Gossick, was a Major General in the Air Force and a fighter pilot in WWII.

    • annon 2:17 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Some people rant against regulators, saying that they hold back the economy. Others complain that NRC, FDA, etc. are far too cozy with the regulated industries and strive too hard to accommodate them. How does NRC walk that tightrope?

      • Moderator 2:23 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        Thank you for that question. It comes up a lot. We have to remind ourselves what our mission is — we protect the public, their health and safety, and the environment. We aspire to that in the most fact-based, even-handed way possible. Over my 30 years as a regulator, I’m every day reminded that this is not a popularity contest.


    • Moderator 2:19 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Question: Could you explain what you mean in your enforcement policy of…basically we ignore little document falsifications and we only enforce big falsifications. What is the NRC definition of an enforceable document falsification and a venial documentation falsification that is ignored?


      In determining the appropriate enforcement response to violations involving submissions of materially inaccurate information (or omissions of material information), the NRC considers a variety of factors, including the potential (or actual) safety significance, whether the violation was the product of willful action, and the level or responsibility of those involved. So the appropriate enforcement response is dependent upon the circumstances involved with a particular violation. Not all violations involving falsification will be handled in the same way. While the agency does not “ignore” falsification issues, some violations of the inaccurate and incomplete rule may be considered minor. Violations of a minor significance are not normally documented; however, they are expected to be corrected.


    • Thomas Wellock 2:21 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      In the last several decades, what has been the NRC’s greatest achievement? Greatest mistake?

      • Moderator 2:26 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        Greatest achievement? Almost 40 years of the safe use of nuclear materials in this country (not just reactors, but materials as well.)
        Greatest mistake? The Davis-Besse reactor head issue. It was a short-coming of omission on the part on the NRC. We missed early signs of corrosion that should have been seen and mitigated promptly.


      • Mike Derivan 2:57 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        I find it interesting that you put the DB head issue ahead of the DB stuck open PORV pre-TMI event. DB head issue was caught before anything happened. Can you elaborate on your choice?

      • Moderator 2:59 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        It came to my mind first because the Davis-Bess head issue occurred while I was at the NRC.


    • Moderator 2:25 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Question: Hi, We have been following the story about the dropped lift at ANO a few months back that resulted in a worker fatality. We are hoping to gain insights into our own nuclear grade critical lifts from a lessons learned perspective.

      Does NRC have the lead on the accident investigation, or OSHA? From what we have seen this seems to have been a tragic industrial accident, so we are assuming OSHA has the lead, presumably with NRC functioning in a monitor and assist role to OSHA. Is that a correct assumption? Do you have any idea when the accident investigation report might be completed and released?

      Thank you,

      W. Don Seaborg, PE, PMP, STSM
      National Nuclear Security Administration/Nevada Field Office/Assistant Manager for Site Operations
      Senior Technical Advisor

      The NRC is not involved in the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the accident; that is solely OSHA’s responsibility. So we don’t know when it will be completed. As part of our Augmented Inspection, though, we looked at the licensee’s response to the event. Our report was made public about a month ago.


    • Bret Leslie 2:27 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Regarding being a best place to work in the Federal Government … what advice (e.g., top three ideas or topics) can you provide to leaders in Federal Agencies that will help them achieve the success NRC had, and are those topics any different than the issues NRC needs to address to get back on top

      • Moderator 2:32 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        I think the three most important things are: being clear about the mission of the agency, defining the organizational values and expected behaviors, and a focus on people. We really emphasize our people — we communicate with them, keep them well informed and engaged and make sure they have the information to do their jobs, and that they feel valued.

        We use feedback from our employees to make this the best place to work. The surveys this is based on gives us information that we reflect on and act on, as appropriate. Continuous improvement is part of what we do all the time here.


    • Moderator 2:28 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Fun Fact: The average term for an EDO is 5 to 6 years; the longest was Jim Taylor with 7 years, the shortest Joe Callen with less than two years.

    • Moderator 2:31 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Question: should the fedral gov. provide funds for nucular waste why or why not

      I’m not sure what you’re asking. But by way of background –the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (as amended) requires nuclear utilities to pay a fee into the Nuclear Waste Fund based on the nuclear power they generate and sell. The amount of the fee was set by Congress at one mil (one-tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour. The utilities collect this fee from their customers. Congress established this fund to pay the cost of disposing of the spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors. Congress also decides how much to spend each year from this fund. Any change to that system would require additional action in Congress.


    • Moderator 2:35 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Fun Fact: There have been eights EDOs in the NRC’s history — including three named Bill.

      • harold 2:57 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        I’ve worked for all of them

    • Moderator 2:37 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Question: i have a question, would it be a good or bad thing if the government quit funding for nuclear energy??? why? I have to write an essay on government funding nuclear energy.

      The NRC is an independent, regulatory body. We don’t promote nuclear energy or make decisions related to energy policy for the country (that is done by the Department of Energy and the White House). What we do is this: if the country wants nuclear power, we’ll make sure it’s done safely and securely. So we don’t have an opinion one way or another about nuclear power in the U.S.

      Good luck on your essay!


    • Moderator 2:40 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Fun Fact: One EDO, Victor Stello used to dress up like Santa Claus and deliver candy canes to kids in his neighborhood.

    • Mike Derivan 2:40 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      It seems to me that most of the really tough policy decisions the Commission has to make are based on judgements rather than hard science. The NRC staff provides input to the Commission decision process. What is your estimate of the amount of agreement between the staff input and the Commission final policy? e.g. most, half, less than half agreement.

      • Moderator 2:45 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

        That’s in interesting question. My sense is there is a high degree of agreement on the vast majority of issues that come before the agency. What might be misleading at times is that we tend to focus on whatever differences do exist. That might give the impression there is a lot of disagreement. But we don’t all have to agree on every detail. Even when there’s disagreement, we agree on the most fundamental, important things.


    • Moderator 2:41 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Question: Since you are the outgoing EDO perhaps are you “freer” than most would be to answer the following questions and/or give us your personal opinion/insights on the following items:

      It is my understanding that the Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation by the NRC was perhaps only a month or two from being finalized when the project was halted… (correct this assumption if it was wrong)…

      1) Do you believe this review should still be completed (even if Yucca Mt is not selected as the site or in the running for future consideration)?
      2) Do we know an estimate of how much more time and money it would cost at this point to complete this review… if it were restarted?
      3) Would the NRC have the ability to shift its budget money to complete this review… or would it be have to be refunded by Congress?
      4) Would any decision in this area require a Commission vote to start it back up again at this point? Would you care to speculate on what the current Commission vote would be X- X (you don’t have to say how each would vote)?
      5) Have the courts ruled yet whether we have violated the law and our responsibility in this area yet?… How will this court decision play into our ability to finish this review?… especially if congress refuses to appropriate the money to complete the review. What happens then?
      6) As an “independent federal agency” do you feel we have became too politicized in the recent past…and is there anything that the agency itself can do to reduce this politicization going forward… or is that just the new norm and it should be expected given the current nature of politics in our country… and having political appointees for the Commission?

      By the way – thanks in advance for answering the question above that you can…it’s been good working with you (when you were in NRR several years ago) and please know that I …and the all the agency personnel wish you the best in your retirement and your future endeavors. Also know that you did a great job dealing with Fukushima in front of Congress / public meetings, etc. — thanks for all you have done to serve the NRC.
      You will be missed.


      First, thank you for your kind words. Secondly, you’ve got a lot of questions there, most of which are too complicated in this setting. But overall, this is my view about the Yucca Mountain situation: We’ve answered many of your questions in previous Congressional testimony and correspondence. I agree with the answers we’ve provided in the past. I’m looking forward to a Court decision that resolves this one way or another.

      As for perceptions of politicization: I’m confident the NRC staff has and will continue to make our technical decisions based on technical facts and science. That’s fundamentally our job. What the policy makers do with that input is up to them.  


    • Moderator 2:45 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      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.

    • Moderator 2:48 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Fun fact: Former EDO Bill Travers became the head of the first nuclear regulatory agency in the United Arab Emirates after retiring from the NRC.

    • Moderator 2:52 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      The Chat ends at 3 p.m. I really appreciate your interest and have tried to get to most of your questions. Thanks for joining us today!


    • Moderator 2:55 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Our next chat is scheduled for July 23, when we’ll be discussing the Waste Confidence Rule.

    • Moderator 2:56 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      Fun Fact: Before he became EDO, Bill Borchardt was the first Director of the Office of New Reactors, when that office was created in August 2006.

    • Moderator 2:59 pm on July 9, 2013 Permalink

      My original plan, after coming off a submarine, was to spend two years at the NRC and use that as an opportunity to see what other jobs were out there. That plan didn’t work out. I really enjoyed my jobs at the NRC and enjoyed the people I worked with, and I just stayed around. There’s no way to overstate the value of being able to work in an agency of people who are truly committed to the important work they do. The NRC has been ahead of its time as far as being a model place to work and establishing healthy working relationships. It’s been a great 30 years. Thanks for joining this Chat.


  • Moderator 12:15 pm on June 7, 2013 Permalink  

    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.


    • 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/


    • 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.


      • 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.


    • 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.


      • 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.


    • 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.


      • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


      • 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


      • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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!


    • 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.


    • 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.


    • 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!


    • 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.


      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.


      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.


      Thanks again to everyone who participated!

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc