I have blogged before about the new generation of small modular reactors (SMRs) that are being developed. The argument for these reactors is that they can be made in a factory and shipped to the location where they will be used. One problem with that is the fact that a design flaw that is not caught in the design phase will be replicated many times. In any case, these new reactors will have to satisfy licensing requirements that will take years. Now there is a discussion about the possibility of getting the nuclear licensing agencies of the United States and the United Kingdom to work together to expedite the licensing of small modular reactors.
Representatives of three companies working on SMRs made a joint presentation to the UK parliamentary Energy and Climate Change Committee in the U.K. a week ago. mPower was represented by CEO Bill Fox, NuScale Power was represented by Vice President Thomas Mundy and GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) was represented by Chief Consulting Engineer Eric Loewen.
Mundy told the committee that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.K. Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) could collaborate on supporting research and development of SMRs as well as cooperating on licensing and export issues. However, Mundy pointed out that the two agencies differed in their approach to licensing and regulation. He said that the NRC is very prescriptive while the ONR is more performance based. In the end, the goal of the two agencies was the same: to insure that safety got the highest priority. The NRC has not yet licensed a SMR design but Mundy claimed that their SMR was based on fifty year old technology.
Fox pointed that his company, mPower, had already spent five hundred million dollars on design, testing and licensing although they had not yet submitted a design to the NRC. He said that the U.S. and the U.K. governments should help fund the detailed engineering design work that was necessary to satisfy the licensing process. MPower is expecting to invest about fifteen million dollars a year in their scalable, modular, advanced light water reactor system. Fox claimed that there may be quite a few safety case analyses that while appropriate for a big reactor, might not be necessary for a SMR. The NRC has made changes to the requirements that must be met by SMRs. He suggested that the ONR in the U.K. should consider similar changes to licensing requirements for SMRs.
Loewen said that the ONR had about three hundred and fifty safety analysis principles and that GEH PRISM reactor designs satisfy those principles. He did not envision any major problems in getting licenses in the U.K. for the PRISM design. The U.S. Department of Energy has signed an agreement for exploring the development of a PRISM reactor at the South Carolina Savannah River site. GEH PRISM reactors are also being considered for the U.K. Sellafield nuclear site.
The NRC is trying to streamline the approval process for SMRs. They hope to be able to review a license application within thirty nine months. While shortening the time it takes to license an SMR in the U.S. or the U.K would definitely benefit the manufacturer, it would be detrimental to the public if any corners were cut in considerations of safety of design. SMRs are being touted as a solution to the world's energy needs that would be superior to just building more massive nuclear reactors for power generation. In reality, the industry seems to be asking for help in funding their research and development as well as special consideration when it comes to licensing.
