ML22140A247
| ML22140A247 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/08/2022 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML22140A247 (70) | |
Text
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
34TH REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE (RIC)
+ + + + +
TECHNICAL SESSION - W19
MOLTEN SALT REACTORS: RETHINKING THE FUEL CYCLE
+ + + + +
WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 9, 2022
+ + + + +
The Technical Session met via Video-
Teleconference, at 3:00 p.m. EST, John McKirgan,
Deputy Director, Division of Engineering, RES/NRC,
presiding.
PRESENT:
JOHN MCKIRGAN, Deputy Director, Division of
Engineering, RES/NRC
RAJ IYENGAR, Chief, Reactor Engineering Branch,
Division of Engineering, RES/NRC
PATRICIA PAVIET, National Technical Director of the
Molten Salt Reactor Program, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 2
ED PHEIL, Chief Technology Officer and Founder,
Elysium Industries
MELANIE RICKARD, Director, Advanced Reactor
Assessment Division, Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission
WENDY REED, Metallurgist, Reactor Engineering
Branch, Division of Engineering, RES/NRC
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 3
P R O C E E D I N G S
3:00 p.m.
MR. McKIRGAN: Greetings. I'm John
McKirgan, Deputy Division Director in the Division of
Engineering in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research. And I'm very pleased to welcome you to the
session on Molten Salt Reactors: Rethinking the Fuel
Cycle.
The impetus for the session came from the
NRC's recognition of the unique attributes of the
molten salt fuel cycle, including novel fuel types
and the potential for new waste forms. This session
will elaborate on the different aspects and
considerations of the molten salt reactor fuel cycle
from a variety of perspectives.
Next slide, please.
Let me take a moment to set our stage for
today. In the U.S. there are several reactor vendors
pursuing a variety of molten salt reactor designs,
both thermal and class spectrum.
Additionally, there are a variety of
fueling coolant types being considered, including
both fluoride and chloride salts.
As a safety regulator, the NRC doesn't
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 4
advocate for any particular design or technology, but
we do seek to be prepared to carry out our safety and
security mission in light of the general technology
as submitted. The NRC staff is actively identifying
molten salt reactor-specific technology areas that
might warrant further assessment with regard to
guidance.
The NRC staff always encourages early
engagement in pre-application activities. So, any
vendors there in the audience, please reach out early
and often. We always welcome that engagement.
To explore this topic, we've established
a wonderful panel today.
Next slide, please.
Let me take a moment to introduce all our
panelists. I'll go through the bios. They are
available on the webpage if you'd like to read them
later. But I'll run through them briefly here.
I'll start with Dr. Raj Iyengar. Dr.
Iyengar is currently the Chief of the Reactor
Engineering Branch in the Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research here at the NRC. He oversees
regulatory research activities in the areas of
reactor vessel and piping integrity, probabilistic
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 5
fracture mechanics, non-destructive evaluation and
inspection, and advanced reactor materials.
Since 2009, he's held a variety of
positions here at the NRC, including Acting Deputy
Division Director, Senior Materials Engineer and
Technical Assistant.
Before joining the NRC, Raj has held
corporate management positions in the automotive
industry where he led development and application
efforts, and research positions at Battelle and
University of Pennsylvania.
Raj holds a Ph.D. in Solid Mechanics from
Brown, an M.S. in Mechanics and Materials Science
from Rutgers, and an M.S. in Metallurgy from the
Indian Institute of Science.
Next, Dr. Patricia Paviet is the National
Technical Director of the Molten Salt Reactor Program
for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear
Energy, and the Group Leader of the Radiological
Materials Group at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory.
The DOE Molten Salt Reactor Program
serves as the hub for efficiently and effectively
addressing, in partnership with stakeholders, the
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 6
remaining technology challenges for MSRs to enter the
commercial market.
Prior to joining PNNL in 2018, she was
the Director of the Office of Materials and Chemical
Technologies at DOE-NE, responsible for the R&D
activities related to the back-end of the nuclear
fuel cycle.
She is currently Chair of the Gen IV
International Forum on Education and Training Working
Group. She has more than 25 years of experience on
the back-end of the fuel cycle, and has worked as a
professor, as well as in the commercial industry, and
as a scientist and project lead for a number of
laboratories.
She attained her Ph.D. in Radiochemistry
from the University of Paris, Marseilles.
We also have Ed Pheil, a graduate of Penn
State in Fusion and Nuclear Engineering. For 32
years he has worked at the Navy Nuclear Laboratory
where he trained Navy personnel to operate nuclear
reactors, design, start-up, refueling, test,
maintenance, and decommissioning of six classes of
U.S. submarines, including the Virginia and Columbia
Classes, as well as Ford Class carriers.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 7
He helped start up 15 new and refueled
reactors, has designed and evaluated most advanced
fuel cycle reactor types. He's helped the Jupiter
Icy Moons Orbiter nuclear ion rocket for a 12-year
mission to Ganymede, Europa, and Io, and adaptation
of the reactor for moon base power.
Ed is the Founder and Chief Technology
Officer for Elysium Industries developing a Fast
Chloride Molten Salt Reactor.
Next, we have Melanie Rickard. Melanie
is the Director of the Advanced Reactor Assessment
Division at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission,
with over 20 years at CNSC. And has held a variety
of experience positions in numerous facets of nuclear
regulation, including the development and
implementation of Regulations, assessing compliance
at nuclear facilities, and influencing the CNSC's
planning for Response to Nuclear Emergencies.
Currently, she leads teams that carry out
design assessments of nuclear -- advanced nuclear
reactors/small modular reactors. And her team
cooperates and collaborates with many other groups of
scientists and engineers to produce clear, accurate,
and consistent technical assessments for this work,
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 8
as well as for other large and complex projects
related to nuclear safety. And she is enjoying the
challenge of preparing for the deployment of SMRs in
Canada.
Melanie holds a Master's degree in
Chemistry from the University of New Brunswick.
And with that, I think we'll have a great
session today.
Let me make a few housekeeping remarks.
We will be doing some live polling today. And we'll
make an announcement as the questions come up, and
present those results and have a discussion towards
the end of our session.
There is a tab on your screen where you
can enter questions. And then, also, next to that
tab there is another one for the polls. And that's
where you'll see the polling come up.
We will hold our question and answer
segment at the end of the session, after all the
presentations. I do encourage you to enter your
questions as they occur to you during the talks. And
that will enable us to get them to the panelists.
And I think we'll have some really good discussion.
So, that takes us to our first talk from
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 9
Dr. Raj Iyengar. And his talk is Technical
Considerations for the Molten Salt Reactor Fuel
Cycle.
So, with that, I'll turn it over to Raj.
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MOLTEN SALT
REACTOR FUEL CYCLE
DR. IYENGAR: Thank you so much, John.
Good afternoon to all of you. I'm quite excited
today and honored to be part of this panel to discuss
the technical considerations of molten salt reactor
fuel cycle. Today, I'd like to share some insights
on the technical considerations for the MS, molten
salt reactor fuel cycle ordained by our capable and
secure staff.
And prior to proceeding, I want to
acknowledge the staff who conducted the primary
assessment which we initiated a year ago.
Former NRC staff, Ricardo Torres, who is
now at PNNL, for his vision charting our framework
for conducting the technical assessment and attention
intersections for the regulatory aspects.
Jesse Carlson for his energy and
enthusiasm to compile the necessary information.
Wendy Reed for exceptional technical and
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 10
regulatory skills and expedience.
And, certainly, our colleagues from
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, Nate Hanson
and my friend Tom Boyce for aptly preparing the agency
to assist to plan fuel cycles and sponsoring and
partnering such effort.
As I mentioned, NMS's office had been
monitoring both the licensing and certification of
molten salt reactors, understanding the need to build
our knowledge base and address the potential
technical challenges. The office engaged with our
office, Research Office, to conduct a preliminary
assessment of the fuel cycle well over a year ago.
Since we're already sharing perspective,
I wanted to mention the DOE, Department of Energy
program's advanced reactor -- advanced research
projects agency established a program called Curie to
provide funding for R&D efforts of MSR fuel cycle.
And electrical power researchers conducted a workshop
on the back-end of the fuel cycle that happened last
fall.
So, just wanted to put a plug in for our
researchers.
The objective of our preliminary
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 11
assessment was to better understand potential
technical and regulatory considerations related to
management of fuel, of molten design and fertile fuel
materials for these near-term customers and potential
mid-term MSR technologies.
We followed the time-honored procedure to
conduct this assessment involving mining information
related to prior experience with molten salt
reactors, and the associated fuel management,
production and transportation operations;
Assessing current state of knowledge of
fuel enrichment, production, transportation options,
considered by various vendors; Exploring technical
issues and challenges related to the back-end of fuel
cycle, and then developing recommendations for our
customer office to follow on actively to support
their initiatives related to licensing of MSR fuel
cycle.
Next slide, please. Thank you. Our
staff looked into mining prior operating experience.
And there's very limited information. Oak Ridge
National Lab has a site they let to support various
MSR technologies. And that's in both two designs.
One was the aircraft reactor experiment
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 12
established in 1949 at the Atomic Energy Commission.
A fuel mixture of sodium fluoride and zirconium
tetrafluoride was sufficient uranium tetrafluoride
added to make the reactor fertile.
The advanced, the aircraft reactor
project operated from November 1954 for a total of 96
megawatts.
The other one is molten salt reactor
experiment which was an 8 megawatt terminal single
fuel test reactor which operated from 1965 to 1969.
So, we had both these that operated by
degree. Oak Ridge developed latest techniques and
procedures prepared for planning and handling molten
salt since 1953. And the molten salt production
operated in the Reactor Industry Division as an
integral part of the molten salt reactor project.
The facility operated, developed
procedures, which some are better than the others,
including handling operations and training, sampling,
and engineering test groups.
Regarding reactor operation, we did not
mine much information on the -- from a fuel cycle
perspective. It was limited to information available
in the transportation or the decommissioning of
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 13
those, those reactors. And certainly there were no
commercial transportation packages so we could look
at that information.
NRC has no prior experience in regulating
any aspects of MSR fuel cycle.
So, in short, the staff did not gain
sufficient insights from prior operating experience
related to fuel cycles on the back-end of the MSR
fuel cyclings.
Next slide, please. There is a lag? Can
you go to the next slide. Yes, okay.
So, there are two major considerations
for the content of fuel cycle we saw: One is the
enrichment, production, blending. And the other
involving building and transporting the packages of
fuel and salt materials to support offsite
operations.
These present distinct and missing
technical regulatory challenges related to the
remaining offsite base fuels used in current light-
water reactor technologies. That's not a surprise.
We will share more on the technical
detail -- I will save all of the technical details
for Dr. Patricia Paviet. So, I want to save that for
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 14
her. And maybe save some time for a discussion.
The fuel salt mixtures would be a
combination of fissile and fertile materials of low
enriched uranium, LEU, or other isotopic
compositions. Fertile salt reactors are expected to
operate with uranium tetrafluoride and thorium
fluoride. Similarly, chloride fuel salts are
expected to operate on uranium trifluoride in radium
chloride salts.
Now, I wanted to go to most of the near-
term technologies focus on these LEU, low enriched
uranium methods. Some are looking into high, high
assay, low enriched uranium. So, there are why
centrifuge model is viable for LEU.
And I want to note that in June 2021, the
NRC approved license amendment to Aliquis for their
centrifuge, American centrifuge plant to begin
production of LEU in early 2022.
On the high assay, low energy uranium
side, DOE and its national laboratories are exploring
various options to the production of fuels, including
electrochemical processing or extraction processes.
These two are very new. We have not licensed those
or reviewed those.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 15
To mention that, the NRC issued a report
to Congress in December 2021 highlighting the
flexibility of the current regulatory framework for
formerly licensing in these related areas. But you
understand, we have a regulatory framework which is
flexible. But since these are new technologies and
new concentrations, we had to assess the technical
challenges or considerations. And for this, we need
information data from the vendors and DOE, Department
of Energy.
Many of the proposed methods of fuel salt
enrichment may involve considerations of production
of uranium and thorium fluoride salts from source
materials. And certainly they involve various
chemical reactor hazards, which we, as an independent
regulator, need to evaluate in this instance.
So, it is, while it's possible that
increased enrichments of fuel materials will lead
risk analysis, but it certainly is not, I mean, we do
have a regulatory framework that exists already.
On the transportation side, different
approaches may be implemented for transporting. One
consideration may be independent transportation of
fissile and fertile fuel material and non-radioactive
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 16
commercial salts to the reactor site where they can
be mixed. There are much development considerations.
It is resolved, we all have to, we have U.S. licenses.
Safety review under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, 54
and 63, depending on the type of approach used.
Alternatively, we could utilize 10 C.F.R.
Part 71 to call for approving transportation
packages, if applicable.
So, the safe transportation of uranium
tetrafluoride is not expected to involve new hazards
relative to the transportation of hexafluoride. That
we did understand. So, that's sort of a good use.
So, I want to highlight, the front-end
operations for midterm MSR designs would involve the
management of materials per regulatory principles
which will require safety reviews of different
hazards, chemical hazards, as an independent
regulator.
However, we are engaged proactively to
understand the technical considerations for the
front-end aspects so that it can be -- we can provide
timely decisions on safety review.
Next slide, please. The fluid fuel MSRs,
those with fissile materials, the chloride salt,
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 17
generally a diverse mixture of base streams like John
already alluded to.
The full array of fuel products is
generally in the circulating fuel core itself. So,
the fission products can be loosely grouped into
three categories: Can be soluble, or noble gas, and
noble metals. We do need to understand the
implication of these in terms of consequences of
each.
There are three main categories of waste
could be off-gas streams. Dr. Paviet is going to
talk about the off-gases. It's not only a back-end
issue, it's also a licensing issue, as you will see
from her discussions.
Salt waste streams. Separating some of
the more expensive isotopes that could be used.
We have metal waste streams, carbon waste
streams, and operating waste streams.
So, there are multiple considerations.
And we are -- our initial assessment pointed to some
information we would really be interested in getting
more information data from all DOE national labs and
other entities.
Waste management will likely be, as John
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 18
pointed out, likely be unique to practical design.
So, doing that is something so we may have to also
look into technology-specific aspects. So, while we
can get technology in this framework, we need to be
looking into some technology-specific aspects.
Next slide, please. Now, this picture
you will -- the next slide is the waste farms. The
waste farms need to consider compatibility with
storage materials because these salts can be
corrosive. And a mixture of chlorine salts, of
course. So, we need to be considering materials to
back up.
This is a silo for storage. It could be
different for these kind of salts or salt waste
storage. A lot of performance of a waste farm
canister need to be understood there.
The dose management of some radionuclide
will need to be considered, with unknown properties.
So, this fuel consideration and the other one is the
chlorine-36.
We have done a very good internal
assessment. And we hope that will clear the way for
additional research activities.
I do want to point one thing on the
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 19
graphite waste. It looks like this may not be a
particular issue. But we do need to understand the
onsite storage of graphite because it might trigger
some new forms that may not, part that we have not
assessed, such as carbon-14, because it's a large
percentage of activity in graphite and in and on
graphite. So, these are things we need to understand
better.
I wanted to point out that while back-
end looks so far out, you more might think, why is it
important to consider it now? Because in terms of
these advanced reactor long leg of molten salt it is
not just a back-end issue. Some of them also, the
licensees, it gives us a holistic view of the entire
fuel cycle material.
Next slide, please. This is my summary
slide. As we highlighted, MSRs pose unique
challenges in both front-end and back-end. We are
prepared to look into that and assess considerations.
Also mentioned, we have a flexible
regulatory framework. While that may not be an
issue, we need to know the technical issues involved.
NMSS and Research are collaborating in
future activities. And certainly, again, this is
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 20
something that occurred multiple times for many
people, and it sounds like a broken record but I will
say that, it is important that we have continued and
expanded engagement with the Department of Energy,
industry, and other entities to learn and understand
these issues better.
Thank you so much, John.
MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you, Raj. That's
great. And that actually takes us to our first
polling question. And so, if I could ask for that
question to come up, I'll read that for you.
And, again, that polling tab is off on
the right side of your, of your window, right next to
the Q&A tab. And so, please enter your questions as
they come up.
And our polling question: What do you
see as the biggest challenges with regard to the
front-end of the MSR cycle?
And so, we look forward to hearing your
responses there. And while you're doing that, I'll
introduce our next speaker, Dr. Paviet. And
Patricia's talk is on The Fuel Cycle of a Molten Salt
Reactor.
So, please take it away, Patricia. Raj
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 21
set you up to cover a whole bunch of things. So,
please, take it away. DR. PAVIET: Thank you so
much, John, for the introduction. And thank you,
Wendy Reed, for inviting me to participate in this
panel discussion. I think it's important.
So, today I'm going to talk about the
fuel cycle of a molten salt reactor. Understand that
we have several concepts, so I may be completely wrong
or kind of right.
So, next slide, please. So, to set up
this stage you're going to hear where we are right
now in the United States. It's a once through fuel
cycle. We have around 94 commercial nuclear reactors
that produce every year 2,000 metric tons of spent
fuel, 16,000 if you count depleted uranium.
And we are around the inventory of 84,000
metric tons of spent fuel, and 760,000 tons, metric
tons of depleted uranium.
Next slide, please. So, the title of
this slide is molten salt reactor: Renaissance? Here
maybe MSR can really contribute to the nuclear energy
renaissance because I think one significant potential
of MSR is really improving the sustainability of the
fuel cycle. So, which means that using more
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 22
efficiently uranium, decreasing the amount of waste,
and some of the concepts will use spent nuclear fuel
into their reactors.
As a reminder, a molten salt reactor is
any nuclear reactor that employs a liquid halide salt
to perform a significant function in-core.
As we said, we have so many concepts,
from the salt fuel to the salt-cooled. We have two
alike, the chloride and the fluoride. Different
fuel: uranium, thorium, titanium, He, LEU. With some
unique we're going to have maybe spent fuel. And
then the spectrum, from thermal to fast spectrum.
As you see down below the screen, I put
a few companies. I will leave my colleague Ed to
really go into multitask with the different concepts.
Next slide, please. Okay. So, I am the
National Technical Director of the Molten Salt
Reactor Program. And for one year now. And, again,
our vision, it's really to be the hub to help these
vendors looking at the different technical
challenges, to really push for the MSR to enter the
commercial market.
So, we are four groups. The first one
is looking at the salt chemistry. It's important to
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 23
have the thermal properties of salt.
The second group is looking at the
technology development and demonstration, looking at
radionuclide release, looking at sensor and
instrumentation development.
The third one is focused on materials.
So, really first I would say the objective is to look
at the gaps in the codes and the standards for the
stainless steel 316H.
And, finally, we have a path with
modeling, working with another company which is
called the Nuclear Energy Advanced and Modeling
Simulation. It's important for me to understand what
are the different species in the region of molten
salt reactor.
Next slide, please. So, so this, this
is how I view a generic fuel cycle for a liquid fuel
molten salt reactor. So, I also put because in the
next slide you will see I put the yellow, the green,
like that. Hopefully, you will remember this slide.
But, basically, first the most important
is the salt, the synthesis of the salt. As has been
said, all the chemical properties in our hands. Then
we're going to fabricate the fresh fuel salt. So,
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 24
we're going to use actinides: uranium, plutonium,
thorium. Different properties, chlorination or
fluorination.
And we will, some of the concepts will
use potentially spent nuclear fuel. And then
everything will go into the reactor.
So, the difference with the molten salt
liquid fuel is that we are going to release
potentially some off-gas. So, these off-gas need to
be understood what are they; need to be trapped, and
we need to have the right waste storage. So, you
will see you have gas and then the waste.
Depending on the concept, the liquid fuel
molten salt reactor can be just thrown away. So,
that could be a spent salt fuel waste, or we can
envision a salt processing. So, processing to get
rid of the accumulation of fission product, as an
example, reusing the used fuel into the reactor.
The salt qualification, so as I noted
here, is, in my opinion, very important. We really
need to establish a rationale for the measurement
regimes and the percentages. So, for example, how
pure the salt should be.
That will depend on the vendor. That
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 25
will depend on the -- on what they want to do.
So, the percentages, when we mention some
properties, what is acceptable? Because these
proportions are going to help us with the modeling.
Next slide, please. So, remember, first
the salt synthesis. So, this campaign is focusing
on the thermal properties of salt. This is more
important. It's really something that has been asked
by the vendors.
As you can see, it's very small on my
screen, but you have the fluoride and the chloride
salts. And you see all these little boxes: white,
with no color or no letter. This is what we use.
So, I have five national labs watching on
these thermophysical and thermochemical properties.
It's very hard to have really a consensus, again,
with the QA. It's very difficult to have the
standard.
Some key properties from the salt mixture
being evaluated for use in the MSRs have not been
measured. We have few values in the literature but
sometimes it's inconsistent and not suitable for use
in licensing.
So, I refer to you the report from PNNL
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 26
and maybe some words from Argonne. That's the first
part, the salt synthesis.
Next slide, please. So, now we're going
to go to the fuel, the fuel synthesis.
Oh, no, before we have that, the
thermochemical properties. That's a key, I will say,
milestone for us. You have access now to our
thermochemical properties database, as well as the
thermophysical properties database. You have the
need. We have fluoride and chloride salt content,
different systems.
For the thermophysical properties we have
entered data on melting temperature, boiling
temperature, density, thermal conductivity, heat
capacity, viscosity, along with the reference and the
authentication. I'm really extremely proud of this
group that has been really able to release these
databases.
Next slide, please. So, voila, this is
what I wanted to say before. So, the fuel salt for
an MSR is going to be a combination of the fissile
salt: as an example uranium-4 fluoride, uranium tri-
chloride, with a nonradioactive effluent or a carrier
salt.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 27
It is likely that the company producing
the fuel salt will produce, potentially, the fissile
salt, purchase the non-radioactive salts from
commercial sources, and then combine them to produce
the fuel salt mixture.
Depending on the MSR design, we may have
a fuel salt that contains fertile materials for the
MSR. So, as I said before, reuse of the spent light-
water reactor as a fuel.
Next slide, please. So, fuel
qualification, again, very important. I am writing
here for you all what is given to me. The report
from Dave Holcomb and it's coming from Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
The fuel qualification is a process which
provides the high confidence that the physical and
chemical behavior of fuel is sufficiently understood
so that it can be adequately modeled for both normal
and accident conditions. So, that's really crucial,
fuel qualification for me is crucial.
Next slide, please. Okay, the gaps.
So, what I've prepared this slide, of course now you
have your brain thinking, and I so hard here talking
about the process as I explain them and the MSRE,
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 28
that when you look at what we want to do, we are
realizing that, oh wow, we do not have a large-scale
fuel salt production facility that has ever been
built in this country. So, that's one gap.
And, again, reference your McFarlane
report. Another one is the purification of your
initial salt product. Depending on the concept, I
would like to know what the salts, how the salts
should be pure. Is it important or not?
And then production of tonnage scale.
Same question for the fuel salt which will compose
the production at tonnage scale. Fuel qualification,
again no standard. We don't have centralized NQA1,
for one. And sometimes, like I said, the literature
is inconsistent.
And then Raj mentioned that the
transportation of the salt from where it is
fabricated to the reactor. So, these are the gaps
that we have to think about.
Next slide, please. So, we have our
salts, we have our fuel into the reactor. And, pop,
we're going to have some off-gas. So, we have
regulation in this country: the EPA regulation and
the NRC regulation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 29
Unlike solid fuel, the liquid fuel salt
does not retain significant quantities of gases
sufficient for that, thus increasing the release of
the fraction of fission gases. So, we have to take
that into consideration about that. The program is
focusing right now on the Xenon and on the Iodine.
Next slide, please. So, you will see
that we have leveraged some of the research that we
already produced 10, 15 years ago for reprocessing
facility looking, for example, at metal organic
framework to capture Xenon/Krypton or leaking of
silica aerogel for Iodine-129, not only to capture
but also to immobilize and have the right weight form.
The greatest technical challenge I see
for the reactor developers will be in assessing off-
gas performance during the reactor operation.
Next slide, please. So, right now the
scientists are working on the bench stuff in their
laboratory. As you see, we have five national labs
involved. My goal for next year is really to use a
unique capability the liquid fuel test fuel at Oak
Ridge for demonstrating the MSR monitoring system.
So, we will be able to use relevant
powers, temperature, flow rates.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 30
And then the next time -- the next step,
I don't know if Tony Sheen is listening to me, but
Tony Sheen is building at Union Christian University
a test reactor. So, I would love then the next step
to use the sensor and the salt then in a more
realistic fashion to see how it's going to behave.
Next slide, please. Waste forms. So,
you saw the beautiful graphic done by Ryan Riley.
So, Ryan is in my group, actually, at PNNL. And
he's, and he's a colleague. It's good, very good
material. And I am also excited to work with John
McFarlane from Oak Ridge. He has returned a good
report.
Waste from an MSR is going to include
those generated during the salt preparation,
purification prior to irradiation;
Those generated during the operation such
as through sampling, analysis, online processing,
off-gas; Those generated at the end of the fuel
cycling fueling cycle; And then, at the end of the
operation of your reactor. We need to remember that
many of the radiological hazards will be similar to
those for operation of other nuclear power plants.
Next slide, please. The storage. So,
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 31
storage is, I will say, crucial because MSR are a
liquid. The liquid fuels, this is a liquid. So,
this is different from what we have with light-water
reactor. It's going to become more problematic over
time.
The current U.S. regulations require the
ability to store the used fuel on site indefinitely
in case we never have a deep geological formation for
a repository.
The halogen gas release from the used
fuel salts during the, during cooling is problematic.
The high temperature tolerance of fuel
salts will allow to be transferred to air-cooled
containers likely without ever using a pool. So
that, that's a good thing.
We will have radiologysis in fluoride-
based fuel salts which will result in fluorine gas,
also in uranium hexafluoride gas.
We can have chlorine-based fuel salts
that do not have any equivalent with the uranium
species, but would produce a chlorine gas we need to
think of, so, to the chlorine-36 has a lifetime over
300,000 years beta emitter. So, that will require
containment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 32
I would have to point out, DOE-NE has
sponsored a development of the dehalogenation method
for electrochemically processing the chloride salts,
as an example, to allow for stabilization in an iron
phosphate glass matrix, and UCI--3, to be suitable
for incorporation into fresh fuel salt.
So, you see sustainability of the fuel
cycle trying to really close the fuel cycle.
Next slide, please. Before I do the
conclusion, I hope I'm on time. I know we have 15
minutes.
So, the MSR program, again, is here to
really answer and help solve the technical challenges
for MSR. It's important for us that we can enter the
commercial market.
I would like to cite really two ARDP Risk
Reduction awardees. Kairos Power, which is with the
Hermes test reactor. It's a reduced scale FHR pebble
bed test reactor being built in Tennessee. License
application 2021. Construction start 2023.
Operation 2026. So, you see it's going fast.
There's a strong moment on a fast track.
The Southern Company Services, also the
recipient of this ARDP Risk Reduction Award, with a
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 33
molten chloride reactor experiment, fast spectrum;
integrated effects test facility, anticipated to be
operational this year.
Provide data to support the development
of TerraPower's MCFR system.
And then, I'm sorry, I have my notes.
Yesterday I was following the T9 session
at the RIC, which is called Reimagining Nuclear's
Role in Energy and the Electric Grid. There was a
panelist, Mr. Arshad Mansoor, from EPRI. And, voila,
this is what he said:
We expect in this decade to have a fully
operational advanced molten salt reactor.
So, that's my conclusion, within 10
years. This is the booster. There's a momentum.
And I really can, I really think that MSR could have
further stability of the nuclear fuel cycle and we're
going to be closing the fuel cycle.
So, with that, thank you very much. And
back to you, John.
MR. McKIRGAN: My goodness. Thank you.
Thank you very much for that talk. That was
wonderful.
And I understand we may be having some
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 34
challenges with the live polling. But let's see if
we can bring up that next question just to get people
thinking about that. Or maybe I'll just read the
question.
And really what we were going to ask
about was what you see as the biggest challenges on
the back-end of the fuel cycle? So, we wanted to
understand both the front-end and the back-end.
So, thank you. I think we'll move on to
our next talk. That's Ed Pheil. And his talk is on
MSRs and Closure of the LWR Fuel Cycle: Turning
Liabilities into Assets.
So, welcome, Ed. And please take it
away.
Ed, yes, unmute.
MSRs AND CLOSURE OF THE LWR FUEL CYCLE:
TURNING LIABILITIES INTO ASSERTS
MR. PHEIL: Thank you very much. I
appreciate it.
So, I'm going to mostly talk about the
fuel cycle for the Elysium reactor to make sure that
I'm not talking about proprietary stuff for someone
else.
Our goal was to try to solve a lot of the
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 35
problems in the nuclear industry. For this, things
like waste, what do you do with the waste? Answer
those questions. Passive safety, high temperature
efficiency, and the high temperature processes.
Do we have the slides?
MR. McKIRGAN: Ed, perhaps you can proceed
and I'll reach back to the technicians to see if we
can get your slides up for you.
MR. PHEIL: Right.
So, one of the things of concern is is
that the largest part of the greenhouse gases for
nuclear is in the mining, and converting, and
enriching of the fuel. But, in reality, we only see
about maybe a third of a percent of the fuel actually
being consumed in the reactor. So, a lot of that
energy is kind of being thrown away.
So, we thought it would be nice to
actually use all of that so that we don't have to
mine new fuel for every reactor core that we try to
burn.
So, our goal is to try to close the fuel
cycle. So, we intend to use spent fuel recycled in
a very simple manner.
We're on Slide 3.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 36
Right. And so, another goal is to
eliminate the concerns about proliferation and,
indeed, to consume weapons-grade plutonium by
denaturing it before we consume it.
We want to have a target of $20 to $40
per megawatt hour.
We want to have passive safety. We don't
want any meltdowns, and we don't want any chemical
reactions that might be able to disperse fission
products to the public.
We want to have scalability and
modularity so our reactor is the same vessel from 10
Mwth to 3,000 Mwth, or 1,200 MW electric.
And we want a flexible operational
environment.
Our fuel is so low cost because we're
using the waste and because we don't have to make it
into solid fuel that you can literally make money by
burning the waste and operate at full power and have
just the turbines cycle for changes in power. And
you're still economic in that case.
One of the other things that drives up
cost is refueling. So, we do not take fuel out of a
reactor for at least 40 years. And that essentially
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 37
reduces the number of fuel handling evolutions by a
factor of ten over light-water reactors.
Next slide, please. So, right now, the
U.S., the U.S. has nuclear waste management and
disposition needs.
We have about 80,000 metric tons,
probably closer to 84,000 metric tons of stored
nuclear fuel.
There are 60 tons, metric tons of weapons
grade plutonium that needs to be gotten rid of. And
we intend to denature that at a single start-up fuel
generation facility.
And then there's another 700,000 tons or
so of depleted uranium that can be used.
Next slide, please. So, we have three
types, three main types of fuel:
The start-up fuel which our main target
is for initial operations, is to take spent nuclear
fuel and weapons grade plutonium and convert it to a
fluoride salt and have enough spent nuclear fuel in
it that the low grade plutonium mixed with the weapons
grade becomes denatured, or less than 90 percent
Pu239. But also mixed with the spent fuel, which is
uranium and fission products that will protect the
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 38
The second method of start-up fuel
production basically just takes spent nuclear fuel
and essentially enriches the plutonium to 10-15
percent plutonium. That would have to be around 33
percent plutonium-239.
And, also, that's already denatured.
But, basically, what we do is we take uranium out of
spent fuel until the plutonium gets up to the 10 to
15 percent. So, we never remove all the fission
products. We never remove all the uranium from it,
so it's always still protected.
And the third type is the feed-in fuel.
So, our start-up fuel we're going to make
at a common facility in the United States near a
facility that has a Category 1 security capability to
make the -- make it with the weapons grade plutonium
or to enrich it.
But another section is to build a reactor
at existing reactor sites where there is fuel, and
convert that, that fuel, just convert it from oxide
to chloride without taking anything else out of it.
And that's our feed-in fuel.
Our feed-in fuel only needs about 3
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 39
kilograms per day to maintain the reactor. We don't
-- so, if you think about it on a per year basis, the
light-water reactor adds about 25 tons of new fuel
every year. We add 1 ton every year in our reactor.
So, so all we do is we change it to a
chloride and then we feed in at 3 kilograms a day for
40 to 60 years. Right?
In order to eliminate the need for online
processing or batch processing of the fuel over those
years, we have a 1.04 breeding ratio to override the
fission product poisons buildup. And then we don't
have to take fission products out of the core either,
and everything's uniformly mixed in the core.
The waste streams that we see online is
we have noble gases. And I think Patricia kind of
already covered that. We intend to use the metal
organic frameworks to pull out separately the Xenon
and the Krypton, and then separate with a centrifuge
any gases like helium, or tritium, or hydrogen, or
deuterium, things like that. And the cover gas is
argon, which gets fed back to the reactor. So, it's
just recycled online, and then stored in the metal
organic framework, which is going to be at a low
pressure.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 40
So, that we don't have a concern over
releasing high-pressure materials, and we don't have
a graphite material and super-cold fluids to try to
trap the noble gases. We'd rather have them be able
to be at whatever temperature they want to be without
leaking out, or having an accident of loss of cooling
or loss of pressure.
And then after 40 to 60 years we'll
purify the coolant -- the fuel by removing most of
the short-lived fission products, the 100-year
fission products. So, that's one waste stream that
we have is 100-year fission products.
And you will say, well, usually people
say that you have 300-year fission products. Well,
in our case we intend to use the cesium and strontium
to both lower the melting point over time and to
protect the fuel from others handling it, or theft.
So, it stays radioactive at all times, even after
we've cleaned the fuel up and put it back in.
So, the 1.04 breeding ratio allows us to,
essentially, take the fuel that comes out, take the
short-lived fission products out of it, but then
split the fuel into two parts to put it into two
different reactors. So, we've essentially doubled
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 41
our fuel in about 50 years.
Next slide, please. Oh, we've already
tested this at INL. So, we know it works. We've
taken burned lots and converted it into -- I'm sorry
for the dog in the background.
This is an example of a fuel conversion
container. This is just one of the cases that we're
doing. And I'll talk through it as if it were making
the feed-in fuel.
This is basically a shipping container
for processing. The fuel cell gets put in on the
left. The ends are cut off of it. And then it's
raised up. And then 1 centimeter at a time is cut
off and dropped into a vat which has carrier salt in
it. Right? Two of the carrier salts is sodium
chloride and potassium chloride. And then the third
salt mixed in will steal the oxygen out of the system
and replace it with chlorine. And the oxygen then
becomes a particulate.
So, this is a single chemical process for
converting spent nuclear fuel oxides into fast
chloride MSR fuels. We just need the one step.
So, normal pyroprocessing is six or seven
steps. And we've reduced it to one. And we don't
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 42
remove things like fission products or the uranium or
anything like that in this process.
But, as I said, there's particulates.
There are fuel cladding for zirconium. That is
removed and recycled into the light-water reactor
fuel cladding business, and the other particulates
are captured, like the oxides and some of the noble
metal fission products are captured.
And then the fuel is over at the right-
hand blue section, that is where the fuel goes through
as a liquid. It's cooled and cut into 1 kilogram of
actinide sections and put into fuel handling casks.
And from the fuel handling casks it goes
into the reactor. And as I said, you put in about 3
kilograms a day to keep the reactor. In our case,
the reactor gets fed fuel when you need to raise the
temperature back up to peak temperature, because over
time, as you burn out the uranium and burn any fission
products the temperature will tend to drop, so you
just add fuel for it. And it will have an argon
cleaning system as well.
One, so the start-up fuel version of this
is black sections in the center. So, this is a feed-
in fuel section is the part that I've just described.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 43
But if you add plutonium in, or plutonium oxide, you
can turn it into start-up fuel.
So, the goal is to have everything
modularized like this in individual shipping
container-size boxes. And then if you need to make
more, like, start-up fuel, then you would just get
more of these boxes for making more fuel at a higher
rate.
This, this is able to do about a 1-ton a
year type rate. So, you would need a lot of these
for doing start-up fuel. We hope to get that up
faster. But the 1 ton a year is kind of based on 1
ton a year of the fuel that you need for the feed-in
fuel for our reactor.
So, we end up using a tiny fraction of
the fuel that the light-water reactor, for instance,
uses. And we get about 30 times as much energy out
of the spent nuclear fuel for doing this.
And so, Next slide, please. This is just
an example of us basically saying we want to go to
where there are already other reactors and build on
the same site a facility, like on the right, at that
reactor. And consume the spent fuel on site from
that reactor without having to transport it to
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 44
another facility.
The stuff that actually gets transported
to another facility for places where the reactor
doesn't exist anymore would go to a consolidated
interim storage facility. And that's where we would
build our start-up fuel production capability because
there's more fuel going to be at those locations.
Next slide.
So, I'd like to thank you. But basically
I guess what I'm saying is the goal here is to take
the light-water reactor fuel and eliminate that as a
long-term waste material. And the only waste that
we're going to end up having is 100-year fission
products that have to decay, and the noble gases that
have to decay out of that.
So, thank you very much.
MR. McKIRGAN: Ed, thank you. Thank you
very much for that, that talk. That was wonderful.
And I do apologize, everybody. We've had
some challenges with the polling. And we're going
to see if we can get that back in operation. And
maybe we can run through that at the end of our Q&A
session.
But let's move on to our next talk from
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 45
Melanie Rickard. And her talk is Regulatory
Perspective on the Impact of Molten Salt Reactors.
So, thank you for coming. And take it
away, Melanie.
REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE ON THE IMPACT OF
MOLTEN SALT REACTORS
MS. RICKARD: (Audio interference). So
let's just dive right in here. Taking a little bit
of a different approach here, and bringing the
perspective of the CNSC with regards to SMRs in
general and some specifics on molten salt reactors
with regards to the fuel cycle.
Next slide, please. So, first, this is
a very brief introduction to the CNSC for those of
you who may not be familiar.
We are a science-based regulatory
organization, and we regulate to prevent unreasonable
risks to the environment, to health and safety. The
CNSC is the authority in Canada that regulates the
development and production of nuclear energy, and the
production of proscribed equipment and proscribed
methods in order to prevent unreasonable risk.
Next slide, please. So, our regulatory
approach is founded on several principles, some of
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 46
which I have put on this slide.
Fundamentally, the objective is
independent decision making and oversight is key. It
is the foundation to build public confidence in CNSC.
Safety is paramount in all that we do in
the sector for both us and industry. And it is the
licensee's responsibility to ensure the safety of
their operations.
We review safety cases that are before
us, and ultimately we make recommendations to our
commission on whether or not an applicant should be
granted a license. I will vouch for that. Reviewing
innovative technologies, it's helpful for the
regulator to start its work early, to be fully
prepared in order to execute our mandate. And so
we've established a number of pre-licensing
activities in order to execute this work, in order to
prepare for the future work.
Next slide, please. So this is a bit of
a busier slide, and I obviously have no expectation
for you to take all of in right now, but we'll see it
later. The purpose of this slide is just to show the
different stages in our licensing process, as well as
our licensing activities and pre-licensing
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 47
activities. It's really just to illustrate that
there are several steps involved in the transparent
decision-making process. For example, we have
received one application for a license to prepare a
site for Global First Power. This is regarding the
Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation's reactor to be
deployed at the site. We are aware, and I'm sure the
audience is aware as well, that OPG has recently
announced that they will be submitting an application
for this year for a license to construct the BWRX
nuclear reactor.
Assessments of some design specifics for
both of these reactors, the NMR and BWRX reactors are
being done through the VDR process, which is
illustrated on the lefthand side of this slide in a
lower red bubble, and this process will be elaborated
on in moments. Just going to take a really quick
break. How am I coming through on the audio? I'm
seeing some tech messages. Is it clear? Can you hear
me well?
MR. McKIRGAN: It was breaking up there
for a moment, but I think it's audible now, so thank
you.
MS. RICKARD: Okay. I do apologize for
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 48
that. Moving on.
The CNSC's experience with excimers has
been informed by a number of diverse activities. So
as I mentioned, we have been involved in better design
reviews, and we have completed several of those over
the span of more than a decade. The VDR is no
assurance of a future regulatory approval, but it
does give us an early indication of any potential
fundamental barriers to licensing.
The work that we had done in regards to
SO matters has taught us we do not have all the
answers. We therefore regularly meet with
international colleagues to share information and
insights.
Can I just do a check that we are on slide
number six? I believe we are. Slide number six,
entitled CNSC's experience with SMRs. Thank you very
much. I'm returning now to my notes.
So we do engage internationally with our
colleagues in order to share information and insights
for our respective reviews, to try to address facts
and complement our work. We have developed strong
relationships with other countries, and notable in
2020 and 2019, we have started LLCs with the ONR.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 49
In the last year, we have had great
success. We've completed a couple of projects and
we've made progress on other projects that we're
working on. (Audio interference)
Reviews conducted by multiple mature and
respected regulators are under development, and
include the designs or design processes, and that we
have no reservations about potentially licensing an
applicant of a particular technology. This should
provide insight to other nuclear countries,
particularly nuclear newcomers.
So it's all of the above that I've just
described, that is, it follows that perspective on
the impact of SMRs on fuel cycle from a design,
processing, safeguards, and license holder's
perspective, understanding that all of these aspects
are interwoven. And this is what I'm going to focus
on for the rest of my presentation.
Next slide, please. So now it appears
I'm on slide six. Sorry for the confusion. So
first, regarding designer specs, as mentioned, we do
vendor design reviews, and for those in the audience
who may not know what this is, it is an optional pre-
licensing process where vendors and designers engage
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 50
with the CNSC under a contract, we call it an excerpt
agreement. The review is an opportunity for both the
CNSC and the vendor, where the CNSC provides feedback
on the vendor's efforts to address Canadian
regulatory requirements, and identifies fundamental
barriers to licensing, if any, early in the process.
The VDR covers a number of objectives, and covers a
number of selected focus areas, actually nineteen in
total, and if problems are noted early in these areas,
there is time for the vendor to resolve them before
they become potential licensing issues, if and when
a licensee's application is to be received by an
applicant. These technical areas, focus areas, range
from highly technical, such as core and fuel design,
to crosscutting programmatic areas such as research
and development and management systems.
The review is carried out independently
by CNSC staff, with no involvement of the commission
member panel, and the process is also independent
from the CNSC's licensing district.
Next slide, please. So currently we're
working with two organizations, two designers,
specifically, regarding VDRs. We're looking at both
their design and their design cortexes as part of
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 51
that, specific to Molten Salt Reactors. So
Terrestrial Energy, Incorporated has completed phase
one of their VDR, and they are currently working near
completion of their phase two. At Moltex completed
a phase one review in 2021, and has signaled
intentions to commence a phase two for its stable
salt reactor. To learn more about the conclusions
of these VDRs, please see our website. We do post
an executive summary at the end of every project so
that the public and out stakeholders can get a sense
of what our conclusions and findings were.
Next slide, please. So in part based on
VDRs, CNSC staff have noted that there are areas, of
course, that require further evidence and data in
order to support the design and safety phase. These
relate to, for example, evidence that materials
associated with construction systems and compliance
can withstand the very high temperatures involved,
and that there are reliable ways to monitor certain
parameters. And some of these techniques, for
example, will involve the development and testing of
sensors that will be immersed in these salts. The
evidence that is required, thought, in order to
support all the claims is the responsibility of the
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 52
design organization and future applicants and
licensees. There is a lot of research going on at
these institutions and other research institutions in
Canada and abroad as well, in order to close the gaps
that do exist.
Next slide, please. So let's talk a
little bit more now of what's happening at the front
end of the fuel cycle. This map illustrates the
current distribution in Canada of our front end
facilities, with our uranium mines and mills that are
located in Saskatchewan, and on the processing side
of the cycle, we do everything from refinement to
fuel fabrication, and those facilities are all
located in Ontario, which is shown in a cut out here
on the left of the slide.
Please note that there is an error, a
geographical error in the map on this slide. The
pins on the cut in have shifted, so those facilities
appear in Quebec. They are very much not in Quebec,
the facilities are in Ontario.
Next slide, please. So as SMR concepts
or proposals advance in Canada, there's a lot of
discussion, some of which was already brought up
today, about novel extraction and reprocessing
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 53
methods that are associated with the spent fuel. He
Runs with Power, for example, is working with one
molten salt reactor, Moltex, in exploring
reprocessing spent fuel, and this proposal is in the
very preliminary phases with a letter of intent that
has been received by the CNSC on this matter. Canada
does not have any prior experience with domestic
reprocessing at this time, and as such, preliminary
discussions around Canada's was policies have begun.
No matter what transpires, any future reprocessing
activity must comply with Canada's Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Policy, our regulatory requirements at
the CNSC, and our international commitments.
Now, regarding the second bullet point on
this slide, liquid-based fuels as novel, as you all
know, in many ways, but in terms of fuel self-
manufacturing as proposed in some designs, questions
surrounding the process, where it will be done, and
which locations for potential transport of such
material do come into play. Under the MOU that I
referred to at the beginning of this talk, the CNSC
and NRC have recently started specific cooperative
activities related to the front end of the advanced
reactor fuel cycle, as well as transportation issues.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 54
Lastly, the supply chain for High-Assay
Low-Enriched Uranium fuels that are being proposed as
part of some designs, and a path forward for this
fuel source will need to be determined, if these
designs are progressed towards licensing and future
operation.
Next slide, please. Moving now to
safeguards. Adherence to Canada's international
safeguards commitments are of course fundamental to
our regulatory oversight, so that nuclear materials
are not used for nuclear weapons purposes. The CNSC
supports the concept of Safeguards-by-Design for all
designers, and in terms of some specifics associated
with molten salt reactors, there are of course some
challenges regarding safeguarding bulk nuclear
material in the form of molten salt versus the
traditional solid fuels that we are accustomed to
dealing with here in Canada and abroad. So those
issues are related to material accounts and safety
verification, and that's being worked through now as
part of our design review and certainly as these
designs make their way towards licensing, there will
be some advancements in this area.
The CNSC is a participant in an IAEA
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 55
Member State Support Programme task on Safeguards-
by-Design for Small Modular Reactors, which aims to
identify the key technical challenges and safeguards
implementation, challenges to our safeguards
implementation, and the steps that can be taken to
support Safeguards-by-Design principles into the
designs. Any SMR built in Canada will have to entail
a comprehensive safeguards approach that is
acceptable to the IAEA.
Next slide, please. One quick moment,
everyone. I just lost a slide, somehow. I will
quickly pull that up.
Thank you.
So, now just to do a check. I have a
slide that is entitled Waste Management.
So, finally, let's turn to the back-end
of the fuel cycle and to the management of spent fuel.
In Canada, safe and secure management of the waste is
a national priority, and waste producers and owners
are ultimately responsible for the management of
their waste.
This is following requirements set up by
the CNSC and also in line with applicable national
and international standards.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 56
At this time, when it comes to long term
storage of spent fuel, Canada continues to work on
strategy, with a vision that by 2050, key elements of
Canada's radioactive waste disposal infrastructure
are in place.
And planning is well underway for the
remaining facilities necessary to accommodate all of
Canada's current and future radioactive waste.
The Nuclear Waste Management
Organization is the organization responsible for
developing solutions for the long-term management of
waste in Canada. The advancement of SMRs has meant
that new forms of waste and fuel waste owners, or
waste owners rather are being considered. And, as
such, the NWMO has been engaged with these vendors to
lay the ground for to ensure that they are included
in plans.
I'd like to conclude this presentation by
noting that Canada is currently modernizing its
nuclear waste policy on radioactive waste management
under the umbrella of NRPM, in response to feedback
from our stakeholders. And so this policy is
evolving as we speak.
Next slide, please. So, just to
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 57
summarize. The CNSC is ready to regulate SMRs and
is increasing our readiness activities in order to
perform both effective and efficient reviews in a
timely and safe manner.
As you heard, our experience is informed
by a number of different activities, processes, and
relationships, including the important bilateral
relationships that we have with both the NRC, the
U.S.
It is apparent that SMRs, including
molten salt reactors, present some challenges and
opportunities: the CNSC's risk--informed approach
allows for the regulation of these non-traditional
reactors.
And with that, I would like to thank my
audience, particularly for your patience with some of
the hiccups that I experienced during the delivery of
this presentation. And with that, I thank you for
your questions and I will pass it back over to John.
Thanks very much.
MR. McKIRGAN: Okay, thank you. Thank you
very much. And thanks to all of the panelists. Some
wonderful information. I really appreciate your
presentations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 58
We have a number of questions. It is
clear that this was a very interesting topic and we
received a number of questions. I think far more
questions than we have time to answer. But I did
want to run through some of them. And we've tried
to gather them into some themes.
This first question I'd like to give to
Raj. Raj, if you could, we have questions along the
lines of what the NRC is doing to prepare for SMR or
molten salt reactor technologies. I wondered if you
could give your thoughts on that?
DR. IYENGAR: Oh, certainly. And I
thoroughly appreciate this question.
I believe that question is normally
related to the front-end of reactor operations, but
also the back-end, in particular the back-end issues.
So, as you know, we have done some good
assessment of molten salt reactor technologies, and
identified gaps in radiofluoride observations for
operations. We are embarked on this initiative right
now, which has been a year now, proactively looking
at the front-end considerations and as well as back-
end.
And I will tell you, the back-end is
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 59
when, you know, we understand everybody's
enthusiastic about the front-end because it has to
happen. We've come to licensing stage. We all want
to know about the operations that's reported.
The back-end is left to the back-end
normally. But in this case, because of the variety
of types and different issues that we have not really
tread along, it is important for us to have this
management. As you know, this today is, our
presentation is the first assessment we have done.
And Patricia Paviet added a lot of great information.
So, I do think this extended coordination
or collaboration with entities, that, yes, still have
to be independent, remain independent, is very
critical especially to the back-end.
I mentioned about off-gas. Off-gas has
a lot of issues. And Dr. Iyengar and we, we can talk
to you a lot about that. And these are all handiable
because we need to, before that we need to understand
the issues and see how they can be addressed and fit
within the regulatory framework that we have, or is
it something that we need to revise.
So, I think early engagement, pre-
application activities that NRC encourages a lot with
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 60
specific vendors, and then research. My office, we
have a lot of coordination and collaboration with
various entities, DOE, electric and power, and
international regulators. We all have to have all
of those checks.
Thanks, John.
MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you. Thank you, Raj.
Ed, I might turn this next question over
to you. There was a question about your thoughts or
insights on safeguarding material at your sites and,
in particular, how control and accountability and
inventory of the special nuclear material would be
hand-led?
And perhaps some of the other panelists
might want to speak on that, too, but I'll start with
you if I could.
MR. PHEIL: Okay. So, initially you have
to think about a fast fluoride MSR a little bit
differently because we don't have a waste stream that
comes out that ends up getting stored. As a matter
of fact, we consume safeguardable material of spent
nuclear fuel and weapons grade plutonium and consume
it. So, we are actually improving the safeguards
picture in respect to light-water reactor and the
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 61
excess buffings material.
So, that, that makes it a little bit
different. The reactor doesn't take fuel out for 40
to 60 years. So, you think of a light-water reactor
taking fuel out every 18 months or so. We don't do
that for 40 to 60 years. So, there's not a lot of
access to it.
But as far as actually monitoring the
content of the reactor, we will have isotopic and
elemental measurements of the contents of the fuel
salt. One benefit is it's all integrally mixed. And
we also measure the volume. Because, in actuality,
we put in more fuel, or at least 50 percent as much
fuel over the years as we started with. So, we end
up with an extra, like, 40 or 60 tons of fuel in the
reactor by the end of life.
So, we monitor both the volume and the
elemental and isotopic content of that fuel. And
then when it's taken out it stays mixed.
Our purification system doesn't remove
uranium separate from plutonium, so it always stays
mixed, and will stay mixed with cesium and strontium
as well. So, it's still protected as fuel in the
purification facility, which there's only one of
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 62
those purification facilities. The fuel would be
shipped from the reactors to a central facility for
purification, which would be licensed for handling
fuel as a fuel production facility would be.
And the same, similar amounts of controls
as the United States has done in the past for
pyroprocessing or Purex processing.
So, it's kind of more like a fuel
production plant in its safeguards controls than it
is of an actual reactor, because we don't do it very
often.
MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you. Thank you, Ed.
I wondered if any of the other panelists
wanted to comment on that. Patricia?
DR. PAVIET: Yes. Yes, I'm going to talk
for a Ben Cipiti. Ben Cipiti is the National
Technical Director for Advanced Safeguards for the
reactors in DOE NE5.
I would have to say that they are
developing online monitoring tools to monitor uranium
and titanium, looking also at the different
composition of the source. So, a safeguard by design
is a big topic in this Advanced Reactor Safeguards
campaign.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 63
MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you. Thank you,
Patricia.
And while I have you, maybe I'll get your
thoughts on this question.
The question was, you know, while we say
molten salt reactor, there are really several
different reactor technologies based on salts and
fissile isotopes, et cetera. Could you give your
thoughts on the risks associated with that diversity?
DR. PAVIET: You know, at the end of the
day there will be certainly a few concepts that will
emerge. That depends on if I think, for example,
uranium, plutonium, or thorium, right now in this
country a lot of, I would say, our capabilities have
been developed for uranium and plutonium. So, it may
be more difficult for the thorium, even though we
have companies that are developing the thorium fuel
cycle.
So, that could be, that could be an
issue.
Then we have, of course, depending on the
concept, the fuels. That's, that's a high risk,
which fuel you are going to use. Some of them are
going to use HeNU. Are we going to have enough HeNU?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 64
It's another risk.
And then you look at the waste that is
produced. Some of the concepts will have, I call
that the spent fuel solid waste without thinking to
nothing, okay. You have your core with your fuel
inside, and you throw that somewhere. And, oh well,
the next generation will think about that.
No way. You cannot do that, you know.
So, that that's for me the high risk. We
need to think to the entire fuel cycle. I'm very
happy to have this panel to start thinking and having
the people thinking about looking at the entire fuel
cycle, not just reactor only, but the front and the
back end.
So, these are the high risks that I see.
That's the reason we have a lot of research done on
these subjects.
MR. PHEIL: If I might comment here. One
thing we have to think about with liquid fuels is
there are as many or more types of liquid fuel as
there are solid fuel reactors. So, it's an entire,
you know, doubling of the category of fuel types that
we have to understand.
MR. McKIRGAN: Indeed. Thank you, thank
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 65
you. This is, it's a rich area.
And then, if I could, it looks like
Canada is currently addressing some of these issues.
And we've got a question if you could elaborate on
the regulations being used for the current design
reviews in Canada?
MS. RICKARD: Absolutely. Thank you for
the question.
So in terms of future licensing, and for
that matter, current licensing, since we do have some
license applications with us, we certainly have one
regarding Global First Power, there are a number of
regulations that apply.
So, we do have regulations for Class 1
facilities which, which apply here. We have
radiation protection regulations. You know, we have
regulations that relate to waste management, et
cetera.
So, so those regulations would apply.
But I think the question is probably more focused on
the work that we're doing right now with the design,
I believe.
So, I'll focus a little bit on that for
a moment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 66
In terms of the design expectations of a
plan that's going into design, we have one rather key
document that is called Reg. Doc. 252. You can find
it on our website. And that covers our design
expectations. And so, that is the document that
really guides our review, guides our designers in
terms of their, where they are.
We also have a couple of very key
documents related to safety analysis, so both
deterministic and probabilistic safety analysis that
kind of plays well. Those are Nos. 241 and 242.
So, as I mentioned, those are the main
ones.
We also have a series of license
application guides that are available for a licensee.
And 112 and 115 are the numbers for those license
application guides that are, that are more specific
to helping future applicants sort of find their way
in terms of what CNSC expectations are during the
licensing process.
And I will say one thing just because I
have the microphone and, hopefully, people can hear
me.
The document that we have, 252, is, if
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 67
you look at the preface, it does, it does speak about
water-cooled reactors because a lot of our
experience, of course, has been based on water-cooled
reactors. And we really feel that this document fits
the purpose for SMRs that can utilize a graded
approach.
We also accept alternative approaches, so
that those, keep those in mind, 252, does seem to be
quite appropriate for the SMRs.
Recognizing that in the future, we would
hope to make modifications or additions, what have
you, in order to accommodate some of the specifics of
some of these SMRs.
Thank you for the question.
MR. McKIRGAN: Melanie, thank you for
that.
And I know we're running a little short
on time. But I wondered if we could take just a
moment -- and my apologies for everyone for the
challenges we had with the polling. But I was very
interested to see, I think we did get some results on
that last polling question about regulatory
challenges. If we could flip to that for a moment.
And I'd like to just open this up to the
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 68
group. I'll give you just 2 seconds, unfortunately,
to digest that slide. And if I could just go quickly
through the group and if you could offer your
thoughts. I'll start with you, Raj.
Is there anything -- it looks like a
fairly even distribution. I don't know if you have
any reaction to the results there for this, the
challenges that we're facing.
And I'll ask you to come off mute first.
DR. IYENGAR: Thanks, John.
No, I'm not surprised at all it's such an
even split. And I want to tell you, we are checking
more cards A, B -- A, C, and D.
And regarding the consensus codes and
standards, I don't know how much -- I mean, we know
in operations we have codes and standards that are,
you know, being considered. But this is something
and behavior to probably expose the sort of technical
community in DOE.
Thanks.
MR. McKIRGAN: Thank you, Raj.
I'll just quickly just look to the other
panelists to see if anybody else wants to offer any
perspectives on those results?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 69
So, with that, I think we are coming to
the end of our time. I do want to thank the
panelists, of course, for their wonderful
presentations. This is, clearly, an area that
there's a rich amount of work that has already been
done, and rich work that is still yet to be done.
I again have to put in the plug to any
vendors or licensees out there. The NRC does always
welcome pre-application engagement early and often.
As you can see, there's a huge diversity
of technologies embedded in this area and, so,
engagement with regulators is encouraged. We welcome
it.
I also want to take a moment to thank
some of our supporting staff, Wendy Reed and Jesse
Carlson and, of course, all of our IT support. I
know we did have some challenges today, but I think
we worked through them and had a very productive
session.
And so, with that, I will, I will thank
you all and declare this session completed. And,
hopefully, you'll all enjoy the rest of the RIC.
So, thank you very much and have a great
day.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 70
DR. IYENGAR: Thank you, John.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter
went off the record at 4:30 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 www.nealrgross.com WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309