NRC Seeks Public Comment for SMR Safety Regs

Subtitle:  SMR Safety - So Small They Are Intrinsically Safe

Here's the chance for all the nuclear power pundits, the arm-chair experts, those with far more faith in nuclear designers than in wind and solar designers, and in grid-scale battery designers, to show the NRC what few safety regulations are really required for those (so-called) ultra-safe SMR (small modular reactor) nuclear plants.   Just show up in Maryland on May 10, 2017, and make your case for why these SMR plants are so safe they don't even require emergency preparedness..  

After all, it's just nuclear fission at issue.  With all the deadly, radioactive byproducts like Plutonium.   There's clearly no problem with the residual heat from nuclear fission, so clearly there's no need for safety cooling systems.   And it's smaller, so no need for spent fuel storage systems to safely contain the radioactive byproducts of fission.    There's absolutely no need to consider a LOCA, loss of cooling accident, which would trigger an emergency evacuation.  

Go ahead.   Make your case.    Recall, though, that this is a public venue and all comments will be recorded for posterity.  

NRC posted this notice at see link. 

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on a draft regulatory basis for
new emergency preparedness requirements for small modular reactors and other new technologies, such as non-light water reactor facilities.

"In addition to accepting written comments, NRC staff will conduct a public meeting May 10 to
discuss the draft regulatory basis. The meeting will be held from 9-11:30 a.m., in the Two White Flint
North auditorium at the NRC’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Visitors will need to enter through One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike. Additional information on the meeting, including a telephone bridge line, will be made available in a public meeting notice.

"A regulatory basis is an early stage in the rulemaking process in which the NRC staff explains
the rationale for developing new regulatory requirements and seeks input from the public. After the
regulatory basis is finalized, the staff will develop a proposed rule, which will also be issued for public comment before the staff produces a final rule. The draft regulatory basis, in part, explains why the NRC believes the existing regulations should be updated, revised, and/or enhanced; presents
alternatives to rulemaking; and discusses costs and other impacts of the potential changes.

"The nuclear power industry is developing small modular reactors and other advanced reactor
technologies that differ in size, scope and hazard from the large light-water reactors operating in the
U.S. today. Their smaller size or innovative safety features are likely to lead to lower risk or less
challenging accident conditions than today’s reactors. This rulemaking would establish emergency
preparedness requirements appropriate to these technologies. Existing requirements for current reactors will not be part of the scope of this rulemaking."

Note that NuScale Power LLC see link has already begun the NRC safety review process for their 50 MW, 12 module (600 MW total) SMR nuclear plants.  Their design, as published, is hopelessly complex and uneconomic with 12 large pressure vessels, equipment, piping, and pumps just to supply 600 MW of electricity.    However, the NRC does not pass judgment on economics, but evaluates only the safety aspects.  The market will judge the economics.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here 

NuScale Small Modular Reactor Begins Safety Certification

The nuclear cheerleaders should be cheering like mad over this one:  see link.  That's a welcome thing in their world, given the recent disastrous news of Westinghouse Electric filing for bankruptcy earlier this week.  see link to SLB article 

NRC To Begin Full Certification Review of NuScale Small Modular Reactor

“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has docketed for review NuScale Power LLC’s
application to certify the company’s small modular reactor design for use in the United States.

“The company submitted its application Jan. 12 for the design, in which the reactor building holds 12 co-located pressurized-water reactor modules for a total output of 600 MWe. NuScale is the first company to submit a small modular reactor (SMR) design for certification. SMR designs seek to meet NRC safety requirements through smaller reactor cores and passive safety features. The NRC, after completing its acceptance review, has concluded NuScale’s application is complete enough for a full design certification review. The staff soon will provide a review schedule.

“The NRC’s certification process determines whether a reactor design meets U.S. safety
requirements. Companies can then reference a certified design when applying for a Combined License to build and operate a reactor in the United States. The NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards provides input on design certification reviews. If issued, certifications are valid for 15 years.

“The NRC has most recently certified Westinghouse’s AP1000 and GE-Hitachi’s Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor designs.”

Sowell Commentary

The certification process evaluates only the safety aspects and has zero concern over economics, costs to construct, time to construct, costs to operate, reliability or onstream factor, costs to decommission, etc. SMRs have zero chance of producing economically attractive electricity.  An earlier article on SLB see link discussed the economics of SMRs, and concluded they must have very short construction times to have any advantage over conventional, large (1000 MWe or greater) plants.  

Excerpts from that earlier SLB article include:

"The analysis for two 600 MW plants shows construction must be finished within 5.5 years to break even with the costs to build a 1200 MW plant.  Similarly, for SMRs of 300 MW, where four plants would be required to produce 1200 MW of power, and 200 MW, where six plants would be required.  The results are as follows.  The 300 MW plants must be constructed in 4 years to have zero savings, with any savings produced only if construction time is 2 or 3 years.  The 200 MW plants must be constructed in 2.1 years to have zero savings over the cathedral design.    It seems highly unlikely that small, modular plants can be built on such short timescales."  (end excerpt)

The NuScale design purports to have twelve, 50 MWe reactors in the same containment building to produce 600 MW electricity.  From the NRC documents filed by NuScale, 

"A NuScale Power Module (NPM). . . is a collection of systems, sub-systems, and components that together constitute a modularized, movable, nuclear steam supply system (NSSS). The NPM is composed of a reactor core, a pressurizer, and two steam generators integrated within a reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and housed in a compact steel containment vessel.

"The NuScale advanced small modular reactor plant design is scalable, such that from one (1) to twelve (12) NPMs operate within a single Reactor Building."

So, the question is, can this design result in lower construction costs and operating costs compared to, e.g. AP-1000?   There are orders of magnitude more equipment.  For 1100 MW output, the AP-1000 has one reactor, while the NuScale has 22.  Similarly, the AP-1000 has 2 steam generators, and NuScale has 44.  The amount of piping to connect all that equipment is magnitudes greater for NuScale.  That means many more welds, pipe supports, which greatly increases costs. 

As is the usual case with nuclear, it will be years and years before anyone knows the answers based on an actual, operating plant.  The design certification review will require some years.  Finding a suitable utility to invest will require more time, then fabrication and construction will require more years.  

Only then will we truly know how much SMR-produced electricity costs.   My bet is it will be twice or three times the cost of renewable-based electricity with grid-following storage technology. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here