TITANS OF NUCLEAR

At this time we are still producing show notes for this episode. Please check back again at a future date.

At this time we are still producing show notes for this episode. Please check back again at a future date.

At this time we are still producing show notes for this episode. Please check back again at a future date.

At this time we are still producing show notes for this episode. Please check back again at a future date.

"Q1: How did you become interested in nuclear energy?

A1: Brady Hanson was naturally attracted to the news in kindergarten during the Apollo moon landings and saw coverage about new nuclear power plants being built north of Milwaukee. When Hanson got older, he started reading up on the topic, especially related to acid rain, which was the main environmental concern in the 70’s. In 8th grade, Hanson heard about Three Mile Island on the news, around the same time that the “China Syndrome” film was released which fed into misinterpretations surrounding nuclear energy. Hanson knew he wanted to work with nuclear, specifically on the back end of the fuel cycle, and became a chemical engineer in pursuit of this study. Plants had been built around the concept of reprocessing, but Presidents Ford and Carter banned the process due to fears about proliferation.

Q2: Were you still interested in reprocessing at the graduate level?

A2: Brady Hanson attended graduate school at the University of California at Berkeley in the nuclear engineering program. Utilities were shutting down nuclear plants due to larger than anticipated storage costs, since the plants were originally planned around using reprocessing. Pools and dry storage are temporary storage before it goes to long-term storage. Gov was supposed to take ownership of spent fuel in 1998 with Yucca Mountain, but cells are still in pools and dry storage for the time being. Hanson completed a project in graduate school looking at the effects of water contacting fuel in storage and also had a fellowship with the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management in charge of Yucca Mountain. Upon graduation, Hanson accepted a job offer from PNNL working on determining mechanisms and kinetics of oxidation in spent fuel.

Q3: By adding different elements, you can change the fundamental properties. These changes can be intentional or unintentional. How do we know the changes inside fuel itself?

A3: Brady Hanson utilizes radiochemistry to dissolve fuel in order to determine what makes it up. Hanson determined that higher fissions in fuel rods are more resistant to oxidation. DOE started the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) which accepted proposals for projects. Hanson started designing reactor fuel that would be more resistant to oxidation, and was chosen to receive three years of funding. Hanson and his team made their own fuel pellets and observed how the properties changed. For Yucca Mountain, he looked at dissolution, in which a waste package buried in the mountain fails and water contacts it. They worked to determine how long will it take for fuel to dissolve in this condition. Hanson discovered that fissions have a remarkable stabilizing effect, on the fuel cells.

Q4: Where do you see Yucca Mountain going, considering it was mostly political issues, not technical issues, that kept it from opening in the first place?

A4: Brady Hanson would like to see Yucca Mountain move forward through the whole process, since so much work has already been put into it. The project got a license from the NRC, and stakeholders, such as the State of Nevada, put in contentions. If and when Yucca Mountain comes back, the NRC has to set up a court to resolve the contentions. Hanson is a firm believer that Yucca Mountain is a good site and, despite its oxidizing environment, the amount of moisture is miniscule. The public understanding of the site needs to be addressed so they can understand the technology. Hanson collaborated with Sandia National Labs, Spain, and South Korea to conduct an experiment to understand the stresses and strains that the spent fuel rods undergo during multiple forms of transportation. They determined they cells are very robust and able to withstand all forms of transportation safely.

Q5: Explain more about the reaction between water and the zirconium alloy cladding. The oxygen from water reacts with the outermost layer of the zirconium alloy, and the hydrogen atom is left.

A5: Some of Brady Hanson’s work has focused on the reaction between water and the zirconium alloy cladding of the fuel cells. Zirconium likes hydrogen, so some is taken up by the cladding and if the solubility is exceeded, some zirconium hydrides are precipitated out. If spent fuel assemblies are placed into a dry storage canister, a vacuum removes all of the water and the temperature goes up. Pressure in the rods cause the zirconium hydrides to reorient in the radial direction, which look like cracks under the microscope. Hanson is finding that the pressures are not high enough to cause the hydrides to reorient, designers of cells have been overly conservative, and therefore, there is a high confidence that the fuel will stay together and is able to be transported safely.

Q6: What other topics do you focus on at PNNL?

A6: Brady Hanson also works on novel fuel designs at PNNL, taking lessons learned from the back end of the fuel cycle and applying it to the front end. He also works with tank waste at the Hanford site to see how it behaves. Hanson notices that utilities pay millions of dollars a year to maintain, inspect, and provide security for spent fuel cells on decommissioned sites. These non-operating sites are still being used for temporary storage for spent fuel and can’t be turned back over to the public.

Q7: How do we teach the public about the safety of nuclear energy?

A7: Brady Hanson is passionate about sharing the safety of nuclear energy with others. Hanson is a strong proponent of nuclear energy because it is clean and the waste is small, but he also supports other energy sources that pursue cleaner air and cleaner water. Politics play an influential role in public perception of nuclear energy.

Q8: What can we look forward to in the nuclear power industry?

A8: While Brady Hanson looks forward to technology such as advanced reactors and new fuel cycles, he is most excited about the DOE’s Accident Tolerant Fuel Program. He hopes to do things to prove that future generations won’t ever have an event like Fukushima, even if we power is lost, which was the catalyst for that event. Hanson hopes to move forward with centralized interim storage and a repository. He recognizes that electricity efficiency is getting better, but in order to reduce poverty, energy is needed and industry leaders, such as Bill Gates, are looking towards nuclear power to provide this support.
"

Background
How did your background in archaeology lead to your work in the nuclear industry?

Tara O’Neil grew up in Eugene, Oregon and fell in love with archaeology when sitting in on an archaeology field school in middle school. O’Neil thought often about participating in the dig, but didn’t realize it was an actual career. She attended Oregon State University, first studing fashion merchandising, and then, after taking an anthropology course, switched fields to earn an archaeology degree. Within a week of graduation, O’Neil hired on with PNNL and started working at Hanford Cultural Resources Lab managing cultural resources. Tara O’Neil manages historic and prehistoric sites for PNNL, including sites of Native American tribes, such as the Wanapum, Umatilla, Nez Perce, and Yakima tribes. O’Neil completes surveys and evaluates potential impacts to sites. Over her 26 years at lab, O’Neil has been exposed to a variety of projects and experts and evolved into work with ecological risk and human health assessment. Lots of Tara O’Neil’s work is involved with site clean out, especially Hanford site related. She works with ecological scientists and has traveled to many site locations including the Mojave Desert, Alaska, and Italy. Tara O’Neil is also involved in broader environmental management, policy, and regulations at PNNL. She has completed graduate courses at Washington State University Tri-Cities to become an expert in National Environmental Policy. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to take into account impacts on environment for projects, including applicants for federal permits. Some states have laws requiring private companies to comply. Large scale projects require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requiring the agency to establish a baseline and collect public comments during the scoping period, and identify potential issues and how it could impact the environment. Different sites have different review experts, such as archaeologists, hydrologists (surface and groundwater), geologists (terrestrial and aquatic), health physicists, and/or meteorologists.

NRC Regulations
What other work have you engaged in on the regulatory front?

Tara O’Neil has developed the infrastructure around environmental assessment, building the team and supporting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) environmental space. One decade ago, on the brink of the nuclear renaissance, the group developed infrastructure to support 18 environmental assessments at one time. The team produced environmental impact statements for the NRC, which is followed by mandatory hearings with the commission to determine whether a new reactor can be granted a new permit to construct.

Environmental Impact
What is NRC looking out for in regards to environmental impact?

Tara O’Neil and her team at PNNL determine if reactors are operating safely and protecting human health and environment. There is a pre-application space to understand potential impacts and identify mitigation measures. Some sites gain early site permits, allowing them to go through an environmental and safety process to bank a site and resolve issues up front. Different licenses to construct and operate can be applied for.

Nuclear Renaissance
What happened with the nuclear renaissance?

What are some of the mitigation efforts that might have to take place at a nuclear site?

Tara O’Neil saw the drop in natural gas prices combined with the Fukushima incident have an effect on the possibility of a nuclear renaissance. Advanced reactors and SMR’s are in lots of conversations and design certifications are being pursued. An environmental review for early-site permit for Clinch River, near Oak Ridge, is currently being pursued. In the realm of cultural resources, O’Neil decides if there is the ability to move a build or not. If not, the team goes through a series of documentation to try to retain as much information as possible, and if it is possible, what it will take to move historic structures. Tara O’Neil typically sees the environmental review process taking anywhere from 2-3 years to 8-10 years, dependent on many factors. A new push with current administration to streamline infrastructure related projects has left federal agencies to look at a two year timeframe for review. The environmental review must be completed on time without compromising anything.

Existing Reactors
What are some environmental considerations for the existing nuclear reactors?

Tara O’Neil sees most environmental considerations for existing nuclear reactors revolving around license extensions and decommissioning. There are approximately 99 operating reactors in US which were originally constructed with licenses good for 40 years. Toward the end of their life cycle, the NRC must make a business decision about whether to pursue a license extension or decommission. As part of the license renewal process, the NRC will go through similar safety and environmental reviews to make an extension for 20 years. NRC recently accepted the first subsequent license renewal, meaning a site went through one round of license renewals, reached the end of the 20 year extension, and asked for another extension, to extend the license from 60 to 80 years. Both safety and environmental have aging management for existing reactors. After 50 years, they are eligible for listing on the National Register as historic sites.

Environmental Review System
What are some things you like about the environmental review system and

what are some areas for improvement?

Tara O’Neil likes the fact-based structure of the environmental review process and how all disciplines are connected to understand issues to better assess impacts. As for lessons learned, O’Neil is embracing the streamlined approach for reviews, and acknowledges that it is difficult, but overall a good thing for the industry. She is interested in the future use of small modular reactors (SMR’s) at DoD sites and believes a lots could be learned from their deployment.

Background
Tell me about yourself.

Steve Unwin is currently a Nuclear Sector Manager at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL). He was born in Manchester, in Northwest England. In that same year, in Northwest England, the first electron made its way from a nuclear power plant to an electric grid.

Steve Unwin’s homeland in Northwest England has a deep nuclear energy history. In the 18th century, John Dalton was the first person in the modern era to come up with the idea of atoms and how it might explain chemical behavior. In 1911, the University of Manchester discovered the nuclear nature of atoms by way of Rutherford’s famous gold foil experiment. This was the first discovery that atoms have a nuclear nature; most of it is empty space, with a kernel in the middle called a nucleus.

Steve Unwin studied physics at Imperial College in London, then returned to Manchester to complete a PhD in theoretical physics. He specialized in the field of quantum gravity, working to quantize the gravitational field. Steve completed research at the University of Manchester studying this topic. The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) brought in people from specialized disciplines and taught them useful skills. Through this program, Steve learned probabilistic risk assessment (PRA).

The UKAEA
What is the UKAEA? Is there a comparable institution in the US?

The UKAEA that Steve Unwin worked for at the time doesn’t exist anymore, as it has been supplanted by other organizations. It served both the regulator and the industry. A US National Lab is a somewhat parallel organization, as they serve industry, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Steve Unwin’s motivation for pursuing PRA was based on the state of current UK technology. All the reactors in the UK were gas reactors, carbon dioxide cooled and graphite moderated. Light water reactor (LWR) technology, created in the US, had become the dominant international technology. The UK wanted to benefit from all the insights coming research and development (R&D). UK built its first LWR pressurized water reactor in Eastern England at at site called Sizewell. In the late 1970’s, a new wave of PRA methods was developed called the WASH-1400, or the Reactor Safety Study. Steve learned about those new methods in order to apply them to Sizewell.

WASH-1400 was a true risk study that Steve Unwin implemented in his studies. Risk takes into account the consequences, but also the probability of it happening; this is the key ingredient to a PRA. The design-basis accidents that NRC had been using were a large break LOCA (Loss of Coolant Accident). After the risk study was done, the large break LOCA was not risk dominant due to the low probability of it happening. Other accidents were smaller in consequence, but larger in probability.

Steve Unwin’s research in PRA shows a large break LOCA at a commercial facility is viewed as highly unlikely. Small break LOCA’s were dominating the risk, as well as other risks such as loss of offsite power. Even though it wasn’t as severe from an impact perspective, it was more likely to happen. The PRA calculated what events could occur initially, how the plant would respond to it, how the safety systems would respond, and ultimately, if everything went wrong - with the incredibly low probability of that happening - what the consequences might be in the plant and beyond the fenceline. Steve was asked to become the Technical Attaché. The NRC funded a program in which they assigned persons from UKAEA and to a lab so they could share insights between UK and US. Steve was assigned to Sandia National Labs for a couple years to update the WASH-1400 study by adding more reactors.

WASH-1400 Impact on Risk
Did the WASH-1400 lower the risk from previous studies?

No risk assessment had been done on nuclear power plants before, so the WASH-1400 study formalized that process and allowed Steve Unwin to implement in his research across energy sectors. Risk perception and risk assessment are very different fields, but work hand-in-hand. Dread factor and knowledge of exposure are factors for risk perception. People do not understand nuclear energy and the technology associated with it, especially with the development of nuclear weapons.

Steve Unwin is looking at ways to make nuclear plants even safer via inherent safety. Conventional nuclear power plants have many safeguards, multiple redundancies. This creates low probability. Inherent safety relies less on engineered features, but take advantage of the laws of physics. This could change public perception.

The NUREG-1150 Paper
Were you at Sandia when you authored the NUREG-1150 paper?

Steve Unwin was part of the analysis team at Sandia, and then moved to Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio where he was involved in actually writing the document. It was published in 1990.

Steve Unwin had to analyze a large quantity of research between WASH 1400 and NUREG-1150. One insight was that some uncertainty bounds got a wider, but overall, concluded that risks were lower. The paper validated the conclusion that nuclear power is extraordinarily safe.

After working at Battelle, Steve Unwin worked for SAIC doing PRA, and diversified beyond nuclear into oil and gas. Steve then set up his own company based in Columbus doing risk assessment for the private sector. Steve got recruited by PNNL at this point.

Steve Unwin contributed to a large portfolio of projects at PNNL, and nuclear was a large portion of this work. Risk is about defining scenarios, probability of them happening, and consequences of that happening. Risk analysts want a bit of diversity, which was offered at PNNL.

Work at PNNL
What projects are you engaged in at PNNL?

Steve Unwin oversees all nuclear energy work as Nuclear Sector Manager at PNNL. He works with the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, commercial organizations, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Licensing and regulation is one of the biggest concerns in the industry. NRC is working to develop a different approach towards licensing for different reactor technologies. Steve’s group advises the NRC on these changes while also providing a technical understanding of materials and how they behave once exposed to harsh environments. This affects how facilities are licensed and regulated. The NRC is becoming increasingly focused on risk informed approach as opposed to deterministic approach.

Post Irradiation Examination
Can you explain the post irradiation examination you do?

Do other regulatory bodies use risk informed principles?

Steve Unwin’s international experience allows him to compare different principles of approaching risk in different countries. Steve helps NRC to review amendment requests utilizing the PRA. His group also advises the NRC on non-destructive examinations, especially in nuclear power plants as they age. PNNL has Category 2 nuclear facilities capable of doing post-irradiation testing.

Q: What is a Category 2 facility?

A: Facility category depends on what types of materials you can handle; Stephen Burn’s facilities can handle spent fuel and irradiated materials, and have a radiochemical processing lab.

Work at DOE
What DOE work are you involved in?

Steve Unwin completes work for the DOE across the entire fuel cycle. On the front end of the cycle, his group is currently examining the viability of extracting uranium from seawater, working in conjunction with Oak Ridge National Lab. PNNL has a Marine Sciences Lab that is used for this study. Steve’s group also works on reactor technology, radiochemistry, and material science on the back end of the fuel cycle.

Q: What was your relationship with the Hanford site?

A: Hanford was part of the Manhattan Project where plutonium was produced, and Steve Unwin was part of the technical authority to shut down some of the reactors and how to conduct clean up.

Spent Fuel Clean Up
What about the science behind clean up for spent fuel from commercial cells?

Steve Unwin’s group was involved in Yucca Mountain, and is looking to be involved in the future, due to their expertise in spent fuel. Risks analyzed include transportation and long-term storage. They are also working on how to instrument existing reactors. This merges PRA technology with materials technology. The US currently has a national policy against reprocessing spent fuel, due to proliferation. Modifying reprocessing methodologies to discourage proliferation could allowing the US to reprocess in the future.

Points of Pride
What are you most proud of? What’s next?

Steve Unwin is proud to be an important player with NRC getting design certification for the Vogtle plant. Working with the DOE and the Idaho labs were also beneficial to filling the niches that Steve group specialized in. Steve is confident that the golden age of nuclear energy is ahead of us and has untapped potential benefits.

Q: Tell us about your path to the Department of Energy (DOE).

A: Ed McGinnis attended graduate school at American University and upon graduation, immediately started working at the U.S. Department of Energy. The DOE is the lead department for all things energy, including acting as the custodian of the nuclear weapons deterrent, leading in technology and innovation, and directing disruptive exploration technologies, including oil and gas, directional drilling, space-based missions. At the end of the first year, McGinnis actually submitted applications pursuing other opportunities, unaware that he would spend 27 years in the Department.

Q: Early on, was your energy focus more on security applications?

A: Ed McGinnis attended the School of International Service at American University, with the intention of going into a government, international or domestic, mission-based area focused on national security. He also attended the Harvard Executive Program while working for the DOE in Nuclear Non-Proliferation Warhead Security and pursued two certifications at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Q: Tell us about your collaboration between 40+ countries in understanding radiological threats across the world.

A: Ed McGinnis earned the trust of his leadership to lead a collaboration between multiples countries in understanding radiological threats across the world. Secretary Abraham was responsible for DOE at the time a new focus area called dirty bomb threat reduction, or dirty bomb concerns, developed. Dirty bomb concerns were related to using radiological sources as a weapon. There were also concerns about the materials all over the world that could be used to create an improvised nuclear device. The Assistant Secretary level office leadership asked McGinnis to start a secretarial task force on global radiological and nuclear threat reduction. McGinnis had been a senior advisor for seven years, in addition to Russian warhead security work, before he stepped into this role. He was asked to build an international coalition of like-minded countries that shared concern about the threat of radiological materials and nuclear materials that could be used for malevolent purposes. More than 20 countries got together around the world, working to secure materials in hospitals and nuclear institutes in order to reduce the chances of those materials falling into the wrong hands.

Q: Was it clear what all the sources of these radiological and nuclear materials were, or was that part of the force that you led?

A: Ed McGinnis led the threat reduction task force to understand the global inventory of different materials that could be used in an RDD (radiological dispersion device) or an improvised nuclear device, which have different impacts and threats. The force used the National Labs to baseline the location of materials, such as those found in Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union countries, and also in hospitals with little or no security protocol. Many of these materials found in hospitals had not been protected or safeguarded in the past. The DOE also recovered materials from Iraq, such as radiological thermoelectric generators and plutonium beryllium sources. McGinnis was responsible for understanding and taking action on this new, emerging threat. The global threat reduction initiative has seen great success in recovering and securing these materials, which McGinnis is extremely proud of. McGinnis recognizes the commitment to non-proliferation shown by the U.S. companies that export the products, who realize the gravity and responsibility of this market. The U.S. nuclear industry has the highest standard of non-proliferation in the world.

Q: Is it more imperative that the U.S. is the exporter of radiological and nuclear materials around the world, because we carry through with our technology, people, expertise, safety protocols, and the ability to track materials? What can we do to further enable our nuclear export preeminence?

A: Ed McGinnis believes it is imperative that the U.S. is the exporter of radiological and nuclear materials. Great innovation has come out of the Manhattan Project, Enrico Fermi, and Admiral Rickover of the nuclear Navy fleet. U.S. companies such as Westinghouse, GE, and others led the way in the 1950’s U.S. nuclear industry. The U.S. was the founder of nuclear energy in many respects. The world has dramatically changed in that the U.S. used to have 90% of the market in the 1970’s to 1980’s, and now only maintains about 20% of the market. If the U.S. does not supply into this competitive market, consumer countries are going to look elsewhere to supplier countries that do not have the same level of safety, security, and innovation and customer service-based philosophy that the U.S. does.

Q: Russia and China both have state-financed nuclear industries. Does the DOE look toward initiatives to make ourselves competitive? What can doe do to help private companies against these?

A: Ed McGinnis has led the DOE to utilize many competitive initiatives in the nuclear industry. In order for the U.S. to compete overseas, the U.S. must continue to out-compete in the innovation, safety, and efficiency markets. The U.S. has the largest fleet of reactors at 99 units total, currently operated at over 90% capacity; the domestic industry was resource savvy and got the most out of these major national assets. The U.S. has the highest standards in the industry and leads in innovative new designs, such as microreactors and advanced small modular reactors (SMR’s), which will get the U.S. back in a leadership role. The U.S. also has leading national laboratories, 17 total, that are preeminent around the world. The DOE harnesses, mobilizes, and partners with national labs to test transient reactors and complete modeling and simulation advanced fuel fabrication. The DOE wants to dispatch significant and disruptive technology at the highest optimal impact point. McGinnis challenges that companies think innovatively, and state-owned enterprises are not going to be able to match that.

Q: It is imperative that we bring innovation and advanced technologies to market. How would the DOE like to partner with the advanced technology companies?

A: Ed McGinnis and the DOE bring four game changing factors for the future of nuclear energy.
The first is knowledge about existing reactors. Major issues of confidence in the past encourage technology and innovation that can support a new class of reactors from a safety perspective, including walk-away safe designs. Most of the new reactors are designed without any human intervention or electric pumps, but instead will naturally shut down. This will prove to the public that a reactor can safely shut down without fear of core melt. The second game changer is versatility. Large reactors are large base load and do not power up and down in variable ways very well. Newly developed small reactors are load-following. NuScale is designing the first reactors under development that can go from zero power to 100% in 60-120 minutes. As for versatility, SMR’s have 12 different 50MW electric units that can operate individually at a different level or for different purposes. The third game changer is financeability. Large units cost too much for utilities to shoulder and take too long to construct. Small modular reactors are set up to have a plant like NuScale that is able to start small, begin generating power, and then grow gradually. The final game changer is the ability to recycle waste. Reactors are being developed that can burn waste into a power source. All of these factors create a highly disruptive movement in nuclear sector.

Q: How does the DOE balance ushering in the new generation of reactors versus the courtwork and managing the waste of existing plants?

A: Ed McGinnis approaches more complex problems with an intuitive, simplified approach when balancing roles of the DOE. The DOE approaches nuclear energy in terms of fleet, planning new reactors, and fuel cycle infrastructure, including disposition. On June 29, 2017, President Trump committed to reviving and expanding the U.S. nuclear energy sector. In the past, the sector struggled with a lack of clarity from administration. McGinnis leads a newly reinvigorated DOE with a clear mission: maintain a safe, sustainable fleet. Goals also include extending life extensions from 60 to 80 years and developing accident tolerant fuels. The average age of existing nuclear plants in the U.S. is 38 years. A long length of service at safety and service has been sustained, but as the end of the life for those plants is approaching, it is essential to bring in a new, disruptive class of technologies. This forges an additional set of options, especially for communities that never had that option for nuclear energy from financing option. Ed McGinnis envisions widely distributed opportunity over the next decade in the U.S.

Q: What short term challenges does the U.S. still need to face, and where do you picture the world ten years from now, from a nuclear energy perspective?

A: Ed McGinnis sees short term challenges in taking intellect and innovative concepts from the private sector and clearing a path for them to commercialize and bring to the market. By reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, becoming more efficient,and helping dispatch technology at National Labs, the DOE can help them compete. Ed McGinnis compares the nuclear energy industry to the aerospace, oil and gas, and IT sectors, in which the U.S. will leapfrog the world in supplying technology development in the nuclear sector. The DOE also has challenges amongst the National Labs regarding 3D printing. Oak Ridge National Lab is among the world’s leaders in 3D printing and additive manufacturing, looking to create nuclear components and even a microreactor with these processes, upending the wisdom of the conventional manufacturing supply chain. Ed Mcginnis sees a completely transformed nuclear energy sector around the world in ten years.