Note: This transcript is the raw transcript of this podcast. Minimal edits have been made only for clarity purposes.

Melanie Snyder (0:10):

The concern that really comes up most often is just about the safety of it. And I feel like there’s a disconnect between the people who are concerned about safety and scientists and the federal government who typically move these things. And there’s just not always a very good dialogue between these different groups. And I think that’s where the concerns arise.

Narrator (0:38): 

Did you know that there are half a million metric tons of nuclear waste temporarily stored at hundreds of sites worldwide? In the U.S. alone, one in three people live within 50 miles of a storage site. No country has yet successfully disposed of commercial spent nuclear fuel, but it’s not for lack of a solution. So what’s the delay? The answers are complex and controversial. In this series, we explore the nuclear waste issue with people representing various pieces of this complicated puzzle. We hope this podcast will give you a clearer picture of Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story. 

We believe that listening is an important element of a successful nuclear waste disposal program. A core company value is to seek and listen to different perspectives. Opinions expressed by the interviewers and their subjects are not necessarily representative of the company. If there’s a topic discussed in the podcast that is unfamiliar to you, or you’d like to more closely review what was said, please see the show notes at deepisolation.com/podcasts.

Kari Hulac (01:59):

Hello. I’m Kari Hulac, Deep Isolation’s Communication Manager. Today, I’m talking to Melanie Snyder, Program Manager for Nuclear Waste Transportation and Disposition for WIEB, the Western Interstate Energy Board. The board’s radioactive waste committee works with the US Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and others to develop a safe and publicly acceptable system for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste under Section 180c of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Welcome, Melanie. Thank you so much for joining us today.

Melanie Snyder (02:46):

Hi Kari. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Kari Hulac (02:40):

So let’s start out with a very basic question because I’m guessing that most people don’t know how nuclear waste is transported. Could you walk us through the basics of the process such as common transportation modes, safety precautions, and perhaps you could give an example of how a typical shipment would get to its final destination?

Melanie Snyder (03:00):

Sure. I’m happy to do that. So when you’re thinking about transporting anything, you want to start with some really basic considerations. So what are the physical characteristics of what it is you’re going to be transporting? Where is it located and where do you want it to go? And that’s the same for nuclear waste as it is for anything. Nuclear waste of course has some unique physical characteristics in that it is highly radioactive. So that’s one of the characteristics that you need to take into account when you’re thinking about what you’re going to move. As far as the transportation modes, it really can move, you know, by plane, by a barge by rail or by truck. Those last two by truck and by rail are the most common way of moving them, but you could move it really any way that could be done safely.

Melanie Snyder (03:53):

And like I said, the location is going to be really, really important when you’re thinking about what mode you’re going to want to use. But again, we have to return to the physical characteristics. There’s a couple of different types of nuclear waste that will be moved or that are being moved. There’s spent nuclear fuel, there’s what’s called transuranic waste and there’s, what’s referred to as high-level radioactive waste or maybe tank waste kind of, depending on which definitional framework you are operating in at the time. So when you’re talking about spent nuclear fuel, the physical characteristics of it are that it is very long, sometimes 12 feet long, and it’s heavy because it has to be shielded. So when you’re thinking about transporting it, most of the time, people think that they’re going to move it by rail because the size of it creates difficulties.

Melanie Snyder (04:51):

When you are thinking about moving it by truck, if you think about trying to go around tight corners and things like that, the rail environment allows you a lot more flexibility to be able to move those kinds of packages. When you’re talking about transuranic waste, that’s a special designation that really only exists regulatorily in the United States. Transuranic just refers to elements on the periodic table that are higher than uranium, but in the United States, that’s a special designation that was created to refer to a specific kind of defense waste. So there’s a regulatory definition about, you know, how many curies you can have in that. And the waste tends to be a lot of just contaminated equipment that was used, you know, in the nation’s nuclear weapons programs. So, you know, gowns and gloves and things like that. So when you’re thinking about that kind of stuff it’s not huge, you know, you’re not as concerned about the size of it and going around corners and things like that.

Melanie Snyder (05:52):

So what they typically do is package it in a drum and move it by truck. So that is the typical mode for something like that. You’re talking about high-level radioactive waste or tank waste that is a whole other beast entirely. And what you, or what the Department of Energy and what scientists have considered needs to be done for that is a lot more processing to make it safe for transport and disposal. So depending on which tank waste you’re talking about, you’ll probably have to vitrify it, which means turn it into a glass, but then it would probably still go in a similar type drum, like what we were talking about for the transuranic waste and it would probably still move by truck. And you’re talking about the difference between rail and truck transport. Obviously, the physical characteristics are a really key part of that, but you also have to think about what you can do as far as routing and where the waste is located. So if you want to move something by rail, you know, you need to have rail infrastructure available. So is that going to be feasible? What, what kind of infrastructure improvements might you have to think about if you really do want to move it by rail. Trucks afford you more flexibility because there’s a lot more roads than there are railroads. So that might also play into consideration. 

Kari Hulac (07:17):

So let’s say today I have a shipment of spent nuclear fuel that needs to go somewhere, you know, is that a process where there are a million steps, it seems like it would be a bit complicated. Maybe just kind of give a little color about, you know, the process that has to happen for that to be successful.

Melanie Snyder (07:36):

So think about spent nuclear fuel. Obviously, it’s highly radioactive and you’re not really going to want to get close to it. So there’s logistical considerations that get played into when you’re thinking about how you’re going to transport it. So it’s not as if you can get in there and touch it or get close to it. So you do need to have remote operating procedures for packaging. So that’s a key thing in transportation is the package. You have to put the waste into something else in order to transport it. And the packages are not only to protect from radioactivity, it’s also to protect the stuff inside from the vigors of transportation, I guess you would call it. So it is complicated. You have to take the spent nuclear fuel from where it is and put it into a transportation overpack, and then get that overpack onto the rail car.

Melanie Snyder (08:40):

So we’re just going to be talking about rail here since that’s typically what we’ll be using for the spent nuclear fuel. And then that those are the physical considerations that go into the moving of the spent nuclear fuel. You are also probably going to have inspections. So you need to coordinate with whatever entities are going to be doing those inspections. There’s going to be security involved. So you have to have security accompany you along the route, and, and you’re going to have to know where it’s going. So you’re going to have to have a route that’s been planned out. So there’s a high level of coordination and planning that has to go into it, even aside from just the straight physical considerations of transport.

Kari Hulac (09:25):

So I was reading that there have been more than 3000 spent nuclear fuel shipments in the U.S. and about 24,000 worldwide over several decades, how much spent fuel and other waste is currently being moved in the U.S., and to where and how is this expected to change if it is going to change in the coming years?

Melanie Snyder (09:47):

So as far as spent fuel, there’ve been some unique programs in the U.S. where spent fuel has moved. One, in particular, that’s been ongoing for at least since the fifties is the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. And the spent fuel that they move from the nation’s submarines and aircraft carriers, and that is a highly successful and highly regimented program that the Navy runs. And so I would say probably less than 20 shipments a year of spent fuel. And of course, it depends on when they have to refuel and what’s going on with the fleet and everything like that. And that fuel all moves to the Idaho National Laboratory under basically top-secret or whatever privacy designation those shipments operate under, but it still is a program that requires a high degree of coordination. The Navy works really well with stakeholders to make sure that people are, you know, prepared for those kinds of shipments.

Melanie Snyder (10:48):

So that’s, that’s one small example of a spent nuclear fuel transportation program that is ongoing, and that continues to this day. And there’ve been some small shipments of spent fuel depending on typically the Department of Energy has different programs. So sometimes they have to move fuel around depending on what reactors they are running and what facilities they have available to store that kind of spent fuel. Those are really sort of one-off shipments and they still require coordination and all the necessary security and everything like that. But it’s not a great example of large-scale transportation.

Melanie Snyder (11:27):

When you’re thinking about commercial spent nuclear fuel, that started the nation’s power plants of which there are about a hundred in the nation scattered all around. You think about bringing them all to one consolidated location, whether that be interim storage, whether that be deep geologic disposal, that’s a much larger scale transportation program than what has been conducted in this nation before. So when you ask about how that might change in the future, if such a facility were to become available, then it would be a much larger scale spent nuclear field transportation program that would be contemplated.

Kari Hulac (12:05):

Maybe talk a little bit more now about what the Western Energy Board Committee is working on right now, and maybe tie that into some of what we’ve been talking about. Some of the examples that you’ve been talking about.

Melanie Snyder (12:17):

Sure. So the Western Interstate Energy Board or WIEB High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee is a group of Western state representatives who have been engaged on this issue since the 1980s. So since the time of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which was really when the prospect of this large-scale spent nuclear fuel transportation program seemed imminent. And certainly, there were a lot of steps that needed to occur before transportation could occur such as actually building the repository. But when the state saw that this could occur at some point in the future, they saw a need to come together to engage with the Department of Energy and with other entities on this large-scale transportation program. So the High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee has been engaged since the 1980s on this, and it’s taken various forms as the program has shifted. When it seemed when the program was much more active, you know, they were directly engaging with DOE as far as offering comments on different plans and things like that. And that’s still something that we do to this day. It’s just at a reduced scale since the program really isn’t moving right now. So we still stay engaged with DOE you know, we’ve developed some policy papers to kind of consolidate our historical views about, you know, the best way to conduct this, this transportation.

Kari Hulac (13:50):

So now that, so we’re talking about Yucca Mountain, right? So now that, that is uncertain. Are you planning, is it interim storage that you like moving to interim storage or, you know, what are you, where are you seeing? Is it kind of all on hold right now? Or are you seeing transportation anywhere? Are you planning for transportation anywhere?

Melanie Snyder (14:13):

The interim storage situation is an interesting one. So, you know, for so long, the States and the tribes were really engaged with the Department of Energy. And it’s always been this expectation. The federal government is going to move it and like, those were all the relationships. And that was where all the focus was. And the interim storage prospects kind of challenges those established ideas and those established relationships, because they are looking at moving it without the federal government’s participation, which really does change the environment a little bit. And there’s still expectations that the States have, or the Western States have for being involved in the transportation planning, but there’s not the same environment where the private entities feel like they have a responsibility to engage with the Western States. So, you know, the High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee has invited some of the representatives from the companies that are looking to open these interim storage facilities to our meetings.

Melanie Snyder (15:19):

You know, there’s some, some relationship building there and some information sharing, but as far as the connections and the historical engagement, it’s really not there. So certainly it’s still very important to the Western States. I mean, it’s still the same transportation and it’s still the same stakeholders. It’s still the same people who would be affected. So our interest has not diminished at all, but the environment is a lot different and the expectations are different. And it’s sometimes challenging to handle that kind of pivot, especially when you get the impression from the private entities that they may not be as interested as engaging. That they will meet the regulatory requirements. And that, that is, the metes and bounds of what they feel like they need to do as far as the transportation planning is concerned.

Kari Hulac (16:15):

Right. That, and that kind of raises one of my questions. You know, there has never been a radiological release due to an accident, but the transportation of the materials, understandably, a very sensitive topic for many people. So what are some concerns you hear from the public and how does your organization work with communities that are on transportation routes to make sure everyone feels prepared and trained and safe?

Melanie Snyder (16:45):

Concern that really comes up most often is just about the safety of it. And I feel like there’s a disconnect between the people who are concerned about safety and scientists and the federal government who does typically move these things. And there’s just not always a very good dialogue between these different groups. And I think that’s where the concerns arise. And certainly, you know, radioactivity is this unique thing that you can’t see. And even if scientists feel it’s very well understood, I think it is pretty well understood at this point. And it behaves in pretty predictable ways. It still is frightening to think about these materials moving through your communities when you don’t have a good sense of, well, when you actually, when you don’t trust, when you don’t trust the scientists and when you don’t trust the federal government, and there’s a legacy of national security interests covering up, or keeping secret a lot of the details of the nuclear weapons programs and things like that.

Melanie Snyder (18:00):

There’s things like Rocky Flats that have bred distrust. So certainly between the public and the federal government, when you’re talking about issues surrounding nuclear power, there’s a lack of trust there that merely understanding how radiation works is not going to breach. There needs to be relationship building. And I think the federal government has gotten a lot better at it over the years. They still sometimes operate under the auspices of national security and, you know, sometimes that’s justified and to do that. But it certainly doesn’t build trust. And then when you’re thinking about people’s relationship with science, there’s a different kind of disconnect there where scientists can sometimes be dismissive of the concerns of people that they don’t think are as well informed as they are. 

Melanie Snyder (18:50):

So the message that the industry tends to share is that we can do it safely, we have done it safely, shut up. And that’s not effective. It’s just not effective. And I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. People’s fears are justified, nuclear things can be destructive. And so we just have to continue to engage with people and continue to keep those open dialogues open and be as open and transparent as possible to help allay those fears. As far as how we work with stakeholders, we work with state representatives who are often in their public health agencies or in transportation. And these are the people who are connected to their constituents. Something that we often hear in our transportation meetings is that the most trusted public official is the fire chief. And if you have talked with the fire chief, he knows where the shipments are coming from, he knows how safe they are, he knows his people are trained, he can relay that information to everyone in his community, and they’re much less likely to be afraid of what’s going on because they feel like someone they trust trusts these shipments. And so our engagement really hopefully trickles down all the way to that level.

Kari Hulac (20:10):

That’s so interesting. I, you know, one of the things I wanted to ask you about is I’ve heard that it can take years to plan the routes and train emergency responders. So I mean, maybe explain a little bit about that process. Might make people at least understand how they could feel safer, even though it is like you say, legitimately scary for people in those communities because also it’s tricky. I know I’m understanding. I think you said earlier, it’s, it’s, there’s a security issue. So the routes are not public for good reason, correct.

Melanie Snyder (20:43):

Well, it depends on what routes you’re talking about. And so it is considered security sensitive information when you’re moving, spent nuclear fuel. The funny thing about that is there’s not that many routes that are available when you are looking at the rail environment. So it’s sort of an open secret in some ways, but yes, and not, there are designated individuals who are privy to that route information and not everyone gets to know. As far as preparing people along the routes, there is a lot that goes into that. There are radiological trainings. So, you know, teaching people along the routes, how to detect radiation and how to deal with it which requires equipment. And if you want to be training someone effectively, you should probably be using the same equipment. So there needs to be coordination as far as what the equipment you’re using.

Melanie Snyder (21:35):

There’s often training exercises that takes people through the motions of what this response would look like. So they feel like they are prepared to do this and there’s turnover. So you have to keep doing these things over and over again. You can’t just, you know, check the box that says they’re prepared because we went out there two years ago and showed, you know, a subset of the responders, how to use this equipment and how to respond to a radiological emergency people, move and things change. So you have to consistently keep up with the program. And that’s something that I hear from my state representatives quite a bit is the difficulties of keeping people trained because of the turnover and the scheduling and all the pieces that go into that. So not only do you have to keep it up, but you have to look all along the route to make sure that you are prepared everywhere, and that’s going to be easier in some areas than others. I mean, there’s challenges when you are moving through population centers, but when you are moving through population centers, you’re much more likely to have people be trained for other reasons. When you are in the more rural areas, you know, further out West, quite frankly, where populations are spread out, you’re going to be more challenged to be working with smaller departments and things like that who probably don’t have access to the same equipment. And don’t, haven’t had the same kinds of opportunities for training.

Kari Hulac (22:58):

Well, I was thinking about asking the question about the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, which I would imagine is more rural. And I imagine that’s in your 11 state territory, is that correct? 

Melanie Snyder (23:10):

It is indeed. 

Kari Hulac (23:11):

Yeah. So maybe explain some of the issues that have come up for that plant. For those who don’t know, it’s a mined repository that takes certain types of defense waste.

Melanie Snyder (23:21):

That transuranic waste that I was talking about earlier. That’s where that goes. Yes. Yeah. And those issues that I was just discussing, I was honestly drawing on the WIPP example because WEIB actually just assumed management of the WIPP Transportation Technical Advisory Group. So I have been so much more engaged in working with that group. And it really has opened my eyes to some of these strategic and operational difficulties. And it just requires that you stay on top of things. But certainly, like I said, keeping people trained along the routes is a, is a constant challenge for the States finding funding for supporting those activities. You know, and it’s not just the emergency responders that need to be trained. Medical personnel at hospitals also need to be trained so that there’s a continuity of care. If there is an incident where people can, you know, receive care at the site and then be transported to a hospital and still receive the requisite care and, you know, radiological issues are unique. So the, all the staff needs to be apprised of the unique characteristics of that and, and trained on the equipment as well. So there’s a high degree of coordination and planning that needs to go into all of this. And certainly the WIPP example is a wonderful example of just how much needs to go into this planning.

Kari Hulac (24:50):

And now you’ve worked with, I mentioned a couple of times you’ve worked with a lot of different States in the U.S. do you have ever have challenges in getting them to agree? And what have you learned about working with such a diverse group of stakeholders?

Melanie Snyder (25:03):

I feel very fortunate that the state representatives that I work with tend to agree about what the requisite pieces of a successful transportation program are. And a lot of times their experience with the WIPP transportation program will lead them to the same kind of conclusions for spent nuclear fuel transportation programs. So, the WIPP transportation program really was supposed to be, I mean, obviously its own entity, but also a model for how a spent nuclear fuel transportation program would operate. So a lot of the state representatives that I work with because they are so closely involved in the WIPP transportation program, really just take those precepts and put it into our policy papers and our policy considerations for spent nuclear fuel.

Melanie Snyder (25:57):

And a benefit of working with state representatives and people who are sort of a step below elected officials is that they don’t usually have to bring the political aspects into it. That will change depending on what it is we’re talking about, but it’s also advantageous to only focus on transportation. If we decided that we wanted to try and get involved in the siting space of where a repository would be, that would be a much more complex issue that would probably lead to disagreements between the States, because they have different ideas about what they would like to get out of their States. And sometimes they’re targeted for disposal or storage. So that creates some conflicts there.

Kari Hulac (26:43):

That makes sense. What about the funding piece of how all this is pulled together? Does federal funding impact the work that you’re doing? Any concerns about that or how does that process work?

Melanie Snyder (26:59):

It absolutely does. So we have been fortunate at WEIB to receive funding from the Department of Energy to allow us to, you know, run the High Level Radioactive Waste Committee, but it hasn’t always been the case as I, I have heard that sometimes funding was not available. So activities really did have to ramp down. I think the federal government is pretty good about acknowledging the value of these kinds of stakeholder relations, especially when you’re talking about something as high profile as spent nuclear fuel, and when it provides them a bridge to the people who are most concerned. And certainly it’s not just the public. I mean, think about an elected official in state government who doesn’t engage on this issue and suddenly the profile of it is raised for whatever reason, who are they going to go to, to ask about the safety of these shipments and to, you know, relay information to their constituents and then take a position on it.

Melanie Snyder (27:57):

Hopefully they’re going to go to people who are in their state agencies, and hopefully those people are going to say, you know, I’ve been engaged on this issue for a certain amount of time. You know, I am comfortable with this program. I am familiar with it. So there’s value on both sides, as far as engaging with the public and engaging with elected officials for the Department of Energy to, and the federal government to maintain these, these stakeholder relationships is kind of what they refer to them as. There are strings attached, of course. So we were talking about interim storage because that’s not a Department of Energy program. We are not allowed to use their funding to engage on that issue if they were brought into that transportation program that would change. But as it stands, now we have to use another funding source to be able to support that kind of engagement and not every entity has access to that kind of funding. So WEIB fortunately does have a little bit of funding available to support those kinds of activities, but that is not always the case. And you do have to keep an eye on where your funding sources are coming from and what they are designed to allow you to do.

Kari Hulac (29:15):

Southern California Edison, a utility that’s decommissioning a nuclear power plant known as SONGS just released a strategic plan for relocating it spent nuclear fuel along with a transportation plan. So I imagine you’re know, I know this just came out. You took a quick look at it. Could you share your initial impressions? Does this report align with your process? Maybe just share a little bit about your initial thoughts about that.

Melanie Snyder (29:41):

I did look at the stakeholder engagement piece and the transportation plan, and then the general transportation recommendations contained in the shorter documents and no surprise that it looks like Southern California Edison has done a very thoughtful job about thinking about these issues. So the stakeholder engagement piece in the transportation plan acknowledged the success of the WIPP transportation stakeholder engagement process, and also talked about how the Navy has successfully engaged with stakeholders. So those are certainly model programs that a spent nuclear fuel stakeholder engagement process could be modeled after. So certainly appreciate that they have seen that and recognize the success of those programs. And I also appreciate the transportation readiness pieces. So making sure that onsite infrastructure is maintained or at least that that is a part of the decommissioning process that they’re thinking about how that future transportation will occur.

Melanie Snyder (30:44):

And honestly, one thing I really, really appreciate about Southern California Edison is their inspection program and how they are really ahead of the game, as far as the inspection and repair of their storage canisters, which will have an impact on the eventual transportation. So mostly right now, the activities are focused on extended storage, you know, making sure there’s no cracks and if there are cracks, they know where they are and they know how to repair them, but certainly for transportation, that’s going to be equally as important. And so I think that, that program will serve them very well in the future once they are considering transportation.

Kari Hulac (31:27):

Great. Thank you. So I know this is such a complex issue and I am sure we couldn’t cover it all in just the short podcast, but is there anything else you’d like to share with our listeners?

Melanie Snyder (31:41):

I guess what I would say is that spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste can certainly be transported safely. Just requires a high degree of coordination and planning. And if you put the time in, there’s no reason why you can not do it safely.

Kari Hulac (31:57):

Great. Well, thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you.

Melanie Snyder (32:00):

Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure.

Note: This transcript is the raw transcript of this podcast. Minimal edits have been made only for clarity purposes.

Kalev Kallemets (0:10):

And that, I think this is totally fair that the people are well, not only skeptical, but kind of pushing it away. And so we do have a practical value proposition to the municipality in terms of how much benefit they would monetarily gain over the operating period of the plant.

Narrator (0:37): 

Did you know that there are half a million metric tons of nuclear waste temporarily stored at hundreds of sites worldwide? In the U.S. alone, one in three people live within 50 miles of a storage site. No country has yet successfully disposed of commercial spent nuclear fuel, but it’s not for lack of a solution. So what’s the delay? The answers are complex and controversial. In this series, we explore the nuclear waste issue with people representing various pieces of this complicated puzzle. We hope this podcast will give you a clearer picture of Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story. 

We believe that listening is an important element of a successful nuclear waste disposal program. A core company value is to seek and listen to different perspectives. Opinions expressed by the interviewers and their subjects are not necessarily representative of the company. If there’s a topic discussed in the podcast that is unfamiliar to you, or you’d like to more closely review what was said, please see the show notes at deepisolation.com/podcasts.

Elizabeth Muller (01:56):

Hello. My name is Elizabeth Mueller. I’m the CEO of Deep Isolation. I’m here today with Kalev Kallemets, who is the CEO of Fermi Energia and really happy to have him. And maybe I’ll let you introduce yourself Kalev.

Kalev Kallemets (02:10):

Yeah, my name is Kalev from Estonia and we’re trying to do a small modular reactor deployment in Estonia likely to do at 59. And we right now have minus 15 degrees outside. So we really need heat and electricity.

Elizabeth Muller (02:30):

Yes. What first got you interested in nuclear?

Kalev Kallemets (02:35):

I was studying economics, and that is quite a long time ago, at the master’s level. And I did the master’s thesis on a listing of publicly owned companies. And one of the biggest is the government owned utility, which was engaged in an Lithuanian nuclear power plant project. And that was curious about the economics of nuclear energy. And it turned out that like I said, also in Bret Kugelmass’ “The Economics of Nuclear Energy” is really fantastic. So 20 years you’re paying down the capital cost. And after that for 20-60 years, which is the case with most older reactors, your cost is really much, much lower and it’s effectively like printing money.

Elizabeth Muller (03:23):

And how is Fermi Energia looking to bring nuclear or advanced nuclear to Europe?

Kalev Kallemets (03:31):

Yeah. So first up, I would qualify also in Gen III+ as advanced, compared to second generation plants that don’t have passive safety systems. So yeah, we are a small country in Estonia. We are basically a common system with two other Baltic nations, Lithuania and Latvia. So about a total of something like 5 million population and like roughly 30 million, 30 TWh hour consumption. So not a big place and we can’t do large nuclear and also from three perspectives and the cost perspective that’s prohibitive. And that was also demonstrated in the Lithuanian project in the vast complexity in a large nuclear deployment project, but if you have a smaller project that is much more manageable and you can approach it with a private capital angle. And yeah, we are currently in the European Union and we have CO2 pricing and today a CO2 price reached 40 euros per ton, meaning something like close to $50 per ton. And that’s, I mean, with that price, all of coal would be shut down in the United States. And, I mean, and it has to happen also in Europe eventually, actually in 15 years and, our current government has decided to shut down oil shale, which is the predominant fuel for power generation in Estonia, to shut it down in 15 years. So we have to do a base load that is really dispatchable and we have to, so we don’t know any other alternatives.

Elizabeth Muller (05:24):

Yeah. And what is the hardest part of your work?

Kalev Kallemets (05:29):

Yeah, the complexity of it. So it’s not just about technology, it’s just not about economics. It’s the many, many issues happening at the same time. You have to be at the top of your game on energy economics, technology, I mean nuclear technology, but also the waste issues, international cooperation, politics, I mean domestic politics, energy policy, geopolitics communication, team-building, financing. And I mean, the list goes on. So it’s a, yeah, I love it.

Elizabeth Muller (06:04):

And, and why did you decide to do this through a startup company rather than through other methods?

Kalev Kallemets (06:12):

Yeah, that’s the best question I think. So yeah, we started up talking with the Estonian government on utility, but they said this is not our strategy. Our strategy is the mainstream thing, which is doing windmills and solar and keeping the existing fossil plants running. And also obviously the politicians, they don’t have the vision of 15 years, what is their thinking about the next elections. And which is kind of natural – I’ve been a member of parliament so I know. So I thought, and I have the practical experience working within the government, that if you are able to make a concrete proposal, which is actionable, timely, budgetary, and has a meaningful positive impact to the society. And the alternative is to do nothing. Then sometimes if you’re lucky and have good timing and everything works in your favor, you might get the positive outcome. So we thought we’d give it a try. And we have in Estonia, a culture of actually having multiple, multiple globally successful technology companies. Well, I wouldn’t say we’re Silicon Valley or something like that, that would be too exorbitant. But yes, we do have some companies that have been successful, some openness to technology, ability to learn, and execute and raise money. 

Elizabeth Muller (07:49):

What are the longer term goals for the company, are you going to stop at Estonia? Or are you also looking at other locations?

Kalev Kallemets (07:57):

Yeah, Estonia first. So what I’m aiming to do, I’m so enthused about what you are doing, Elizabeth, it’s bringing the best product to the market and you have a best product on the waste issue. I want to have the best product on nuclear energy deployment service, like product. And that’s what we are aiming to do. And I see a market opening in wider Europe for multiple, multiple projects, but nuclear is a very long term thing. It’s like a glacier, but if you’re stuck, get going, we think we’re good.

Elizabeth Muller (08:33):

So you mentioned the nuclear waste issue. Is that a big concern in Estonia and what do people think the right thing to do is?

Kalev Kallemets (08:43):

Yeah, absolutely. The same has been so successful. And we’ve been doing many surveys among the population and even the accident risk doesn’t play as strong as the concern about the waste. Somehow there is a perception that it’s a kind of gaseous thing that kind of emits and goes somewhere and moves somehow and is kind of mobile. So which is kind of a very easy thing to refute.

Elizabeth Muller (09:15):

So in many ways it looks like you’re actually doing the responsible thing by talking about, and by planning for the nuclear waste disposal before you’ve created a reactor in the first place. Is anybody else thinking like that or is it mostly a legacy problem?

Kalev Kallemets (09:34):

Yeah, it’s probably a legacy problem, but my background also led me to think about it immediately. I’m kind of a weird person that I’ve been in so many places, and I’ve been a founder of Estonian Geological Survey, a government agency when I worked in the Ministry of Economic Affairs. And I know about Estonian geology, even though I’m an economist by training. And I knew that we have a solid bedrock that is the same bedrock that Finland and Sweden have. So my presumption was that it should be possible in Estonian territory to determine the locations or areas where the bedrock is a safe environment for Deep Isolation solution. And I’m pretty pleased to see that confirmed.

Elizabeth Muller (10:32):

Now, of course, we’ve just published a joint piece of work on the geology of Estonia and how it could potentially be a suitable solution for nuclear waste disposal. What’s next? What is coming up and what are the next steps to move forward?

Kalev Kallemets (10:51):

Yeah, yeah. Like with any study, I think that the rational thing is to end up, what really happens is that the reports are looked at skeptically. And I think the government is well-advised that they would review from third sources. Then they would read the report carefully first and then consult with third-party consultants from International Atomic Energy Agency and other let’s say international partners on the details. And I would, I’m pretty confident that they find the satisfactory confirmations that the deep borehole solution has very strong potential. And then the rational thing is to, if the government decides to move ahead with the SMR consideration option, first planning and then other steps, then strategy should be developed then permitting that would, when we would go into actual construction permitting of the SMR deployment, it would be also at the same time. How do I say, permitting for specific action plan with dates, budgets, organization, arrangements, legal arrangements in place to make sure when, who, where, how, the spent fuel is being taken care of safely for the public. And if you have that, I think it is, yeah, it’s a very good product.

Elizabeth Muller (12:41):

And what about stakeholder engagement and community consultation? How and when would that happen?

Kalev Kallemets (12:48):

All the time? That has to happen all the time. I was just on the phone with some folks in the region that I know already first name basis and like in official meetings, meeting after work and discussing things openly, honestly – we have in Estonia because we are such a small nation. We have a very unofficial way how we just talk with each other. So it’s kind of a small family.

Elizabeth Muller (13:28):

So you feel like you’re already on the path to, to gaining the trust of the people who will be impacted?

Kalev Kallemets (13:35):

Yeah, I’ve been, I’ve been actually working in this area for a better half of my working life and I, yeah, I know many people there. Well, it’s more than 1000 kilometers away from Chernobyl so that this accident definitely is something that we need to address and the concerns related to potential of hazard to the population or capability to develop as an operating organization in the future. And also the basic know how about SMR technologies that we are currently considering. So there is some, what is the procedure of actually regulating, permitting, what are the political decision points? And obviously, like I explained, rational human responses, skepticism, and there is a lot of talking that needs to be happening. And this is the only way that human relations do development. You cannot assume that you’ll have, you can go in some place and start building stuff. So then you have to get familiar with the people.

Elizabeth Muller (14:51):

Yeah. And, what do they see is the upside, what, what is it that is positive from the perspective of stakeholders and communities and citizens?

Kalev Kallemets (15:02):

Yeah, I think that there definitely has to be a value proposal if you want to deploy something serious in a location, and we in Estonia call it like a billion dollar project and you do not offer a value proposal to the people. And your value proposal is you’re going to have jobs, some kind. This is like not serious. This is like lying, or it’s just like cheating or something. And that, I think this is totally fair that the people are well, not only skeptical, but kind of pushing it away. And so we do have a practical value proposition to the municipality in terms of how much benefit they would monetarily gain over the operating period of the plant. And also, I believe that one benefit that the nuclear power plant is producing is power, right?

Kalev Kallemets (16:11):

So it should, it should deliver power to the people. And we did the numbers. And if the municipality there, the population is reasonably low, it’s not like tens of thousands, or is relatively, let’s say a few thousand people. It can supply free power for thousands of people, and it is absolutely possible. And doesn’t impact, like in a major way, the economics, it’s a much bigger problem if you neglect that issue. And then you would have the situation that you have in the Kingdom of Belgium, the situation in Sweden, or the situation in Germany. And that is a much bigger financial and fiduciary risk for the whole project. And I would say for the whole society, if, if there are misalignment of interests.

Elizabeth Muller (17:03):

Could you say a little bit more about that? What do you see as the big issues in those locations?

Kalev Kallemets (17:09):

Alright, you have massive taxation and the nuclear phase out policies in place, because there is a misalignment of interests. So if there is a, in a society as well, if there would be very severely strong misalignment of wealth then you would have social unrest. If you would have a misalignment of, I don’t know, other interests, then you would have instability, inherent instability in the system. So I think I’m looking north to Finland, and there are two reasons I find why they are able to build new nuclear power plants in Finland, even to this point the Chernobyl and Fukushima events happening, that they do have a wide ownership base within the society. And wide benefit sharing around the society, Like when you say municipalities, shareholders in a nuclear power plants, like tens of municipalities and also industrial companies, not just some kind of anonymous big power company, big, bad, ugly, like a utility, but it is owned by the people. So it’s not, it’s not like communism, but it’s like shareholder capitalism, and that really works.

Elizabeth Muller (18:36):

And then at the Estonian sort of, whole of country level what do you see as the vision, if they’re able to move forward with this reactor, how will it impact the country as a whole?

Kalev Kallemets (18:50):

Oh, definitely very significantly. Like I said, we’re population wise 1.3 million. So economically it’s, it would be a very substantial project to deploy even two or three reactors, very substantial. And it would require very significant learning for the whole society. And I think that this is one of the things that excites me and why we call our company Fermi Energia, because this is a fascinating science of controlling the strong force. How we discovered this strong force and how it was like this international project, how nuclear energy continues to be, always continues to be absolutely international like you and me speaking. So it’s, I love it.

Kalev Kallemets (19:43):

I love, I love the international element of it and bringing like truly people get together around science and knowledge then, and taking the effort, mental effort and discipline of learning and engaging deeply and seriously with other people. And I think that this is the heart of democracy as well, and I’m very passionate about our Western values about cooperation, transcend that think manner and very passionate about market economy, also working for the benefit of the people. So I want all of those aspects happening, then I would be very pleased to pass it on to my children.

Elizabeth Muller (20:28):

Well, your passion certainly comes across. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

Kalev Kallemets (20:35):

Yeah, I think I’ve, I’ve said so much. So we are, we’re very early in the beginning and and we’re right now in the money raising period, and it’s so fascinating to see new investors coming in. We need to do nuclear? And we need to cooperate with really a lot of people. And there is no one else, no one else, but us to do that. I know for a fact, so this brings a responsibility for me that kind of fate has spoken that, that we have to do with this. And yeah, we’re doing it and we have to face out for sides. We have to do it, and we have to make practical, smart decisions to have nuclear reach the potential that well, maybe it’s like a CMO wrote about, and the people dreamt about when, when nuclear was originally developed.

Elizabeth Muller (21:34):

Well, thank you so much, Kalev. It was really wonderful talking to you. I think we share a passion for the future, so really thank you. And thank you for your time.

Kalev Kallemets (21:45):

Yeah. All right. Right.

Note: This transcript is the raw transcript of this podcast. Minimal edits have been made only for clarity purposes.

Andrew Sowder (0:10): 

I have learned from my time working with geologic disposal and reactor technology, is it’s important to keep in mind that no matter what technology you use, there will be some amount of something that needs to be disposed of for a very long time.

Narrator (0:28): 

Did you know that there are half a million metric tons of nuclear waste temporarily stored at hundreds of sites worldwide? In the U.S. alone, one in three people live within 50 miles of a storage site. No country has yet successfully disposed of commercial spent nuclear fuel, but it’s not for lack of a solution. So what’s the delay? The answers are complex and controversial. In this series, we explore the nuclear waste issue with people representing various pieces of this complicated puzzle. We hope this podcast will give you a clearer picture of Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story. 

We believe that listening is an important element of a successful nuclear waste disposal program. A core company value is to seek and listen to different perspectives. Opinions expressed by the interviewers and their subjects are not necessarily representative of the company. If there’s a topic discussed in the podcast that is unfamiliar to you, or you’d like to more closely review what was said, please see the show notes at deepisolation.com/podcasts.

Kari Hulac (01:53):

Hello everyone. I’m Kari Hulac, Communications Manager for Deep Isolation. And today I’m talking to Andrew Sowder, a scientist and senior technical executive for the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit that conducts research development and demonstrations focused on electricity generation and how it can be safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible. Welcome, Andrew. Thank you so much for joining us too.

Andrew Sowder (02:21):

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

Kari Hulac (02:25):

So first off why don’t you give us a high level look, your thoughts on what are the concerns for the world right now when it comes to safe, reliable, affordable electricity generation. What’s top of mind for you on what we need to be concerned about?

Andrew Sowder (02:45):

Sure. Well, I think in general globally, electricity is associated with quality of life and all these things that are measured on the human development index from the United Nations. And so certainly granting access to more and more people to safe, affordable, reliable electricity is a good thing. I think the challenge is how do you do that within the constraints of climate change concerns, resource concerns, and other environmental concerns like that. So really it’s about how do we continue with progress and electrifying more of the world while also living within our means and reducing perhaps our footprint that we leave in the environment. So EPRI is about initially electricity, but I think the other key thing is that electricity is not separate from other key infrastructures, like transportation, broader industry, and just broader energy infrastructure. So infrastructures play with one another and also can actually compliment one another to solve these big problems.

Kari Hulac (03:59):

Great. Yeah, it’s something that so many of us just take for granted, you know. So what are your kind of top goals at EPRI coming up for 2021? What are you kind of looking forward to? What do you hope to accomplish this coming year?

Andrew Sowder (04:14):

Well, I think the big one for EPRI writ large, and again, I’m just in one little section of EPRI, EPRI addresses everything from the actual generation of electricity to its delivery to the wires and then to the end-user and how it’s used, and now even how it also interacts with other energy sources and providers and users. So broadly we have rolled out a new low carbon resource initiative this year that’s gaining traction. And so, I’m working with the Gas Technology Institute on their similar organization, obviously for the gas industry, natural gas industry, on how we can actually achieve reductions in carbon emissions while also still meeting the needs of society in an affordable way. So that’s probably the big one. And I would say for nuclear, the area I’m in, it’s really about how, what role does nuclear play in the future in the, in the areas of, you know, mitigating climate change, reducing carbon emissions, but also perhaps even more importantly, just providing that reliable, safe, affordable power and energy that people also need in order to stay alive.

Kari Hulac (05:39):

So let’s go back in time a little bit how you ended up in nuclear yourself. You’re a health physicist. So I was reading that before you started your career at EPRI, you did some interesting scientific environmental work around uranium and nuclear weapons production, including working with the Navajo nation and communities affected by uranium mining. So how did those early experiences shape what you’re doing today?

Andrew Sowder (06:04):

Sure. And so as a graduate student, I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time on a former nuclear weapons production facility, the Savannah River Site here in South Carolina, where I actually still live now. And so I spent a lot of time working on the impacts and the fate and transport of things like uranium and heavy metals once they’re released to the environment associated with the production activities there. So I got to work there with the ecologists you know, plant biologists, animal wildlife biologists, my work focused on the soil part. So there, I got a real appreciation for the importance of considering, you know, the entire system and how things interplay and the things you need to consider anytime you’re undertaking a new activity. I really did enjoy it and it was really an honor to spend time on the Navajo Nation.

Andrew Sowder (07:02):

So one of the projects that I was able to participate in was educational outreach on the Navajo Nation. And so as part of that, I got to meet folks that were working on this abandoned uranium mine project. And it was real education, an eye-opener, you know, I had been in grad school, I thought I knew a lot of stuff about the history in the U.S. and I had assumed that a lot of these legacy, these are from the Cold War days, legacy mine and milling sites had all been cleaned up or at least addressed. Well, it turns out the mill sites and things had been addressed under one federal program and a lot of those mines were left just abandoned and left unreclaimed.

Andrew Sowder (07:50):

And you can imagine there’s a physical hazard of open shafts, but also, you know, mine tailings with a lot of uranium in them laying around on the surface. So, that really opened my eyes about the importance of, again, considering you got to think about the whole lifecycle when talking about technology from cradle to grave, so to speak. And there was a case where actually there were some real exposures to hazards from radiation and radioactivity simply because of the proximity and people incorporated some of that uranium ore into their homes, into concrete. And so, you know, it’s ironic in many ways we worry about isolation of spent nuclear fuel, used nuclear fuel, and other high-level waste and really managing those to very low doses and dose rates. When, in fact, in other parts of the fuel cycle and other activities that we may not think of, the risks and hazards can be higher, for example, radon, everyone knows radon is a problem.

Kari Hulac (08:58):

Interesting. Interesting. And so, kind of tying this to the present with the issue of, like you mentioned, spent nuclear fuel. I know that EPRI did a lot of research. I think I counted like more than 180 reports on your website with Yucca Mountain, which is designated to be the United States mined repository for nuclear waste, but has an uncertain future. So what are some learnings there? How can this body of technical expertise that you bring to the table and EPRI’s work on this, move the U.S. toward a permanent nuclear waste solution?

Andrew Sowder (09:36):

Sure. So, you know, again, I should just point out, you know EPRI’s role, no matter what we do, is technical. We stay clear of the policy space and that’s for others to decide. So, you know, our bread and butter is doing the technical work that’s credible and defensible. And so, really our role in the Yucca Mountain days, as I would call them, was providing an independent evaluation of the performance, including safety of the repository that ended up being designated at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. So we actually conducted work probably over two decades and actually led some of the development of really the contemporary way of how do you evaluate something like a geologic repository that’s supposed to contain its inventory and perform over, in the U.S. at least, a million years.

Andrew Sowder (10:40):

And so we really helped develop the total system performance assessment, PSPA method. And so in many ways, you know, we were at the forefront of some of that, just even how you think about, how you get your arms around the evaluation process. In that regard, we worked very well, kind of complimentary with the Department of Energy. They had their own innovation program, we had a different purpose. We were really on here to inform the utilities in the U.S. at least, our members, and keep them apprised, but also to provide technical peer review and insights into repository performance because obviously, that is, it was and is such an important issue.

Kari Hulac (11:30):

So you were the point person for the very in-depth, the 190 pages EPRI report that was recently released about how deep horizontal boreholes could work for advanced reactor fuel disposal. Full disclosure, my colleagues did contribute to this report along with many others. And thank you for your work on it. Now that it’s complete, it’s been published. Any insights or takeaways and anything about how it’s been received?

Andrew Sowder (11:59): 

I’ll go back to actually how long ago it was that we did active work on disposal. We actually exited from the Yucca Mountain work as it went into licensing. And so since then, it’s been all over a decade since we had actually done work in geologic disposal. And so now that we’re looking forward and most of the work I do now is in the advanced reactor space. You know, there was a perceived need to come up with a new story for maybe the new generation of reactors. Again, separating this from the existing fleet and existing inventory.

Andrew Sowder (12:39):

But we really thought it was time to actually think about options for the next generation of reactors. And so the spirit of the report is really one of exploring options. And so I think, I don’t think anyone would argue with the idea that it’s important to have options. But in order to have an option available when you need it, you actually have had to think about it, pursue it and develop the option. So this report was really, in my mind, just the first step towards thinking about, well, could you actually utilize some of the now developing technology that is just now being demonstrated by companies like Deep Isolation and also by other researchers here in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Andrew Sowder (13:27):

Could it be done? What does that look like in terms of scale? How does it fit in with the operation of a plant? And even things like preliminary costs because costs and schedule are always important. So that’s kind of our role. And we basically, since Deep Isolation really was the only commercial developer out there that we identified. We did appreciate being able to utilize your technology as the example in a way. So we use it as a kind of a proxy for what the technology could do. I think the conclusions of the report are, again, it’s preliminary. It was strictly based on a hypothetical non-existent site, we just chose a region of the country and looked around and said, you know, what would be involved in deciding this?

Andrew Sowder (14:23):

But what we really determined was there were no clear showstoppers technology-wise at least to the deployment of the technology on some reactor sites, again depending on where you’re located. Really the devil is in the details, and this will really depend on, you know, what, where the site is, and as with Yucca Mountain, the real important aspects are more the social and political aspects of will a community let you utilize the technology and will the powers that be you know, likewise agreed to allow the technology to be deployed.

Kari Hulac (15:06):

I’m glad you brought up the community again because I actually was thinking of that when you were talking about the Navajo nation, how eye-opening that was to see how they were affected. And, you know, that’s really important, and I know that’s important to you all as well. You know, if this is going to happen, there has to be great community engagement.

Andrew Sowder (15:28):

Yeah. And in the report itself, for example, you know, we do spend some time exploring actually a unique option that the technology offers in terms of using it in both an interim storage mode, as well as the permanent disposal mode, but part and parcel with that does come the requirement which is pretty broadly recognized for early and continuing engagement with the community and really giving the community the option to change their mind up to a certain point. When is enough, enough? And when does that ability to change their mind end? And what does that all look like? That has to be worked out, you know, politically and with the community, but what’s key is sound science, having the technical basis, and communicating it effectively with the community, listening to the community, and having the credibility that they actually believe you, because if you have no credibility, then there’s nothing you can say to actually get them to buy into plans.

Kari Hulac (16:38):

So let’s talk a little bit more about advanced reactors, as you mentioned, that’s kind of what you’re focused on. So what are the next best steps for continuing the nuclear waste dialogue with the advanced reactor community? This was, you know, that report was a huge big first step, as you said, you hadn’t done anything in a decade, so exciting that there’s this work, body of work now. So what, what do you see happening next? And I know you’re on a, I know you have an advanced reactor team at EPRI, and you can kind of talk a little bit about that, how that fits in.

Andrew Sowder (17:09):

Sure. So really, you know, one thing that came to light as I mentioned, is the report is very generic and conceptual in nature. So one of the important things to know is, well, what is the fuel or the waste that you want to manage, to store, dispose of? And so without a specific technology in mind you know, it’s really difficult to also make a lot of explicit and straightforward conclusions. So I think one of the important things for EPRI and others is to understand more what the technology developers are proposing and it will be important to actually tell this story and understand what comes out of the reactor at the end. Because as we’ve seen with the current fleet you know, it is an important consideration. You know, in relation to the amount of energy that is derived from the technology, but the waste still, because it is so concentrated, it is very hazardous and so needs to be managed appropriately. So I think really understanding the technologies and what different fuel forms because that’s the one thing that is going to change with the new technologies is you have really a full spectrum of fuel types from traditional solid fuels, all the way to liquid fuels. And a liquid fuel, you can imagine a dissolved fuel, will need to be somehow addressed in a way that can be managed and disposed of.

Kari Hulac (18:46):

From what, you know, do you think multiple technologies are likely, so there’ll be multiple paths? Or do you think a few may rise to the top and be most likely to be adopted?

Andrew Sowder (18:58):

Well, I think some will likely continue to just use the fuel once, at least in the near term, and other technologies are really pinning their case on being able to continually recycle fuel or use fuel from another era or another design of reactor. So again, that’s really where the complexity comes in and you have a lot of different use cases. And I do think there will be multiple reactor designs because moving forward there will be probably different missions beyond just straightforward electricity production. And some reactors are better suited for higher temperatures and compatibility with providing heat to industry. I have learned from my time working with geologic disposal and reactor technology, it is important to keep in mind that no matter what technology you use, there will be some amount of something that needs to be disposed of for a very long time.

Andrew Sowder (20:01):

And people debate how long that is, but some of these, you know, last for hundreds of thousands of years, and I’m talking fission products, not just the other things that can be potentially reused, like the uranium, plutonium, those sorts of things. So that’s really why it’s important to have options for disposal because you’re gonna need to dispose of something for a very long time.

Kari Hulac (20:29):

That makes sense. So there’s a, you have, you’re part of a team now, is that kind of a recent development? Tell me a little bit about what that group is within EPRI? 

Andrew Sowder (20:38):

Sure. When I first started at EPRI things were looking very rosy for nuclear. There was a nuclear renaissance on its way, but that’s all in a context. And the context was natural gas was expensive, climate change was a concern, and there was a recognition that reduced carbon emissions would be something needed in the future. And so natural gas did not look so great at the time. And nuclear looked to be really one of the mainstays. Within a year of that, all changed with the arrival of shale oil and gas production.

Andrew Sowder (21:15):

So that shows you how a simple, well, I won’t say simple, but a single technology disruption can change the picture almost overnight, at least in a country like the United States. And so getting to your question, around 2015, you know, well I was given the chance to, with some seed funding within EPRI, to start up a small program or a strategic area looking at, you know, what would it take essentially to convince folks to consider advanced reactors, something beyond what the current technology is? And so in the meantime, we’ve had the small modular reactor. And so that kind of provided a bridge from the large reactor to really the more advanced or very different non light water reactor cooled designs. And so about 2015 was when we started something and fast forward five years or so. Last year we formally incorporated that advanced reactor focus area into our EPRI so-called portfolio. And so it’s significant because it’s really the first time that EPRI has really focused explicitly on this area beyond just, you know, sponsoring one-off projects.

Kari Hulac (22:37):

That seems hopeful because, as you said, there was this chance of a Renaissance. And then it kind of died out for pricing reasons of energy. And now you have this, so does this make you feel hopeful about the future? Like, okay, we’re kind of looking at this closely.

Andrew Sowder (22:55):

Oh, it does. And I would say it feels different than it has before, although again, I’m only at midlife in my career. But you know, certainly, I think there’s a lot of energy. And then what I think is really important, at least in North America, is there’s private investment, significant private investment because in the past a lot of the realm of R&D and necessities fell to the governments. And so, you know, a lot of times technology developed exclusively by the government doesn’t always match up with what the industry needs, at least in the United States. I think it’s been a very good sign that you have so many entrepreneurs with so many ideas, and I call it like multiple shots on goal in hockey terms. And again, what’s different also is that you are offering these at different scale sizes and also capabilities.

Andrew Sowder (23:58):

You know, that’s essentially a given that the current fleet is safe, but you know, anything new has to perform as well, if not better. And so I am hopeful and recent developments, even in just the U.S. have been very positive, such as the U.S. Department of Energy has invested a lot of money in demonstrations, which in my mind are key. The customer needs to see the technology operated and it needs to be de-risked before someone takes a real risk. Why would someone buy and risk a lot on a technology that hasn’t been really proven before when they already have, you know, something that they could buy today? So that’s, I think what has changed is, you know, really this diversity of ideas and also in private sector investment.

Kari Hulac (24:49):

So I know EPRI is not just focused on the U.S. of course. Maybe we could talk a little bit about the international market for advanced nuclear, any countries to watch there, any guesses on who might be first to deploy an advanced reactor elsewhere?

Andrew Sowder (25:05):

Sure. We’re now an international organization and a lot of our funding and membership is international. In fact, in the nuclear sector over half of our funding and membership is outside of the United States. So, which makes it for a very exciting place to work. And it forces us, we do have to keep a view that’s not just U.S. centric. And so looking outside of the United States, you know, we already see countries like China, you know, really expanding their nuclear builds, you know, at a scale that’s reminiscent of the United States actually during the 1970s, when we built out the majority of our fleet. So they’re kind of going through that same rapid growth that we had and France had and other countries. 

Andrew Sowder (25:53):

But looking ahead, you know, in the past, when someone mentioned these advanced reactor concepts you know, generation four reactors, a lot of people would roll their eyes and say you know, I don’t believe that is that really going to happen? But you know, now my favorite phrase is really, it’s not no longer if, it’s when and by whom. And so it’s clear that there’s a lot of action going on in many countries around the world. 

Andrew Sowder (26:24):

If you look to China, you know, they’re about to start up a high temperature gas-cooled reactor, their HTR-PM reactor design, which is similar to ones that companies in the U.S. are looking to commercialize. And again, it’s kind of important to remember most of these concepts aren’t new. In fact, many of them were operated at some scale back in the 1950s and 60s.

Kari Hulac (26:51):

This has been a great discussion, Andrew, I guess I’ll just kind of give you a chance to mention, are there any other projects, upcoming work that you’d like to highlight for our audience today that we haven’t touched on yet?

Andrew Sowder (27:06):

Well, sure. You know, one of the things that I’ve been championing over the past several years is trying to recreate what we did for large light water reactors, but more geared towards the new generation of advanced reactors. And that’s really the development of a common owner operator requirements, a guide, which would help really align the needs of the customer with the developers. Because again, it’s easy to develop things in a silo and lose touch with your customers. And so this is a function that EPRI’s done before. And what’s different now is there’s so many technologies. We are looking to make this a much more high-level open framework, that’s technology and mission inclusive. And so this year we’re really trying to internationalize that more, reach out to partners, and work with others so that, you know, it’s not just focused in the U.S. or one area, but really could end up being a template for helping developers understand what the market needs are and helping the customers understand what they should be asking of the developers. And then the regulators can also use these frameworks because then they can kind of see, well, here’s the things we’ve got to get ready to actually license and regulate. So that’s kinda my big push is this internationalization harmonization, and that would be working with other organizations around the world.

Kari Hulac (28:44):

Well, great. Thank you so much for joining us today. It sounds like a lot of exciting things going on and we’ll keep an eye on what’s next there at EPRI.

Andrew Sowder (28:53):

Well, thank you very much. I’ve enjoyed it.

Kari Hulac (28:57):

All right. Have a great day. Thank you.