TITANS OF NUCLEAR

Nuclear Power in Bulgaria (0:00-5:28)
Anton Simeonov reviews his resume in the nuclear industry and provides a brief overview of Bulgaria’s nuclear power history

Q: Tell me about your background and how you got into the nuclear space.
A: Anton Simeonov received his Master’s degree in Economics, starting his career after graduation in financial consulting. He eventually got into the energy business, specifically nuclear. Bulgaria has a very balanced energy system. The nuclear energy in Bulgaria is producing 33-34% of the electricity output, with the remaining output composed of thermal power plants, renewables, and hydropower. The country’s one nuclear plant has two operating VVER pressurized water reactor units, each producing 1,000 megawatts. This plant was originally built in the 1970’s, but the useful life of the units has been prolonged for thirty more years. Anton hadn’t done much research about the nuclear industry, but was interested in getting involved when he got the chance. He worked for the largest energy company in Bulgaria, which owns many different types of power plants and also involved in the gas business. Anton started with the company ten years ago, starting out on a gas project and soon after getting more involved with nuclear projects. He is now the Head of Power Projects, responsible for managing different projects in the company and analyzing new builds from the financial and commercial aspects. Many projects related to nuclear, including prolonging plant lifetime and other smaller scale projects, also fall under his management.

Challenges with New Nuclear Builds (5:28-12:49)
A look at why new nuclear projects have struggled in Bulgaria and the possibilities of bringing in new technologies

Q: Is Bulgaria looking to build new generating assets in the nuclear space?
A: Anton Simeonov is the Head of Power Projects for the largest energy company in Bulgaria. Bulgaria currently has a new nuclear project in the works, but it has been going on for a long time due to financing. Such projects are very capital intensive and it is very hard to do such large scale projects without having a lot of cash. These high risk profile projects are commercially complex and require a lot of investments, making new nuclear builds difficult for any utility. Bulgaria has nuclear experts, but does not have enough specialists in the country for the whole scope of a new project, including the capacity to complete construction. Smaller projects are not pursued mainly due to economics. They are not much cheaper than large reactors and provide a much smaller output. Anton hopes the nuclear industry will move forward with other energy industries to provide faster development. Renewables and thermal power plants are moving forward much more quickly than nuclear. Bulgaria’s energy companies meet regularly with vendors and technology providers. The small modular reactor (SMR) is not being viewed as an option because of economics and the current energy mix is very balanced. A few years ago, Anton explored the options for first-of-a-kind technology such as AP1000 reactors.

How to Make Nuclear Power Competitive (12:49-18:47)
A call to action for nuclear industry stakeholders to ensure the long time stability and success of nuclear power

Q: What are the targets that new nuclear has to hit in order to be competitive with other power generating sources?
A: Anton Simeonov has worked to bring new nuclear builds to Bulgaria, but development has been difficult mainly due to economics. All the stakeholders involved in the industry must put forth effort to lower the cost and simplify the design to make it easier for the regulators and authorities. Nuclear also needs more support from the authorities, similar to support and incentives given to other energy sources, such as renewables. When one source is supported over another, energy is not competitive at all. The European Union (EU) allows each country to choose their own technology. Germany decided to stop using nuclear power, but has invested in a lot of renewable energy sources. The high amount of renewables in Germany makes the cost of power go down in the EU and more challenging for other technologies to get hold. Different incentives are needed, mostly related to integrated strategy. The markets in Europe are very volatile. The situation with the coronavirus and the production of renewables have dropped the price of energy to 25-30 euros per megawatt. From the 70’s up until present day, nuclear development had stopped, and suddenly a lot of countries want to build new nuclear plants. Regulators in many countries are lacking capacity and human resources are insufficient.

Bulgaria’s Economic Climate (18:47-25:27)
Anton shares the strengths and challenges of working in the energy industry in Bulgaria’s current economic climate

Q: What are some other things you can tell me about the Bulgarian economy?
A: The Bulgarian economy is doing pretty well over the last few years with a very good budget deficit. Bulgaria has one of the best economies in the European Union and is growing, even during COVID-19. This growth is mainly coming from the industrial sector, such as the automotive industry. Bulgaria has been an exporter of energy for the last 30 years and wants to keep developing their systems. Nuclear power is an essential part of the country. Anton Simeonov describes nuclear power as the backbone of the country’s energy system. The Bulgarian Science Academy has a scientific institute and Bulgaria has their own nuclear regulator, with varied capacity. The country is doing fine as far as human resources for running the power plants, but plants are doing a lot of work with the universities to keep students interested in nuclear energy. All interested parties in nuclear have to ease the processes and make it easier to realize a project. Different regulators around the world have different requirements. This makes it difficult for technology providers, utilities, and vendors, leading to an increasing cost. Design needs to be simplified to make it easier to license, and more institutionalized support is needed for nuclear to be more competitive. Nuclear will keep its positions, at least, because it is sustainable and brings energy security and, in the long term, nuclear might be profitable.

Overview of Gabriele’s career (1:11)
1:11-17:06 (Gabriele shares an overview of her scientific career)

Q. How did you get to nuclear space
A. Gabriele’s background is in genetic engineering. She finished her PhD in Bayreuth, Germany and got her first job in Ministry of Health in desk researching the bio-kinetics of radionuclides in animals in order to deduce the data for humans. She was not satisfied with desk work due to her interest in experimental work. She initiated her own tests starting with rats and comparing radionuclide transfer in the bodies of young and adult animals. The results showed that younger rats absorb the radionuclides more efficiently. Next, she started working in radionuclide transfer in cow’s body. Since then, she stayed in radiation protection and radioecology, After Chernobyl accident she became more involved in researching transfer of radionuclides in environment: plants, soil etc, She worked in Chernobyl zone, Mayak zone and other affected areas. She was involved in many European Commission projects, She considers herself as environmental radioprotection person because radio nuclides can be used to trace transfer of substances in environment. Next, she took over preparation of a program for a laboratory of IAEA in Seibersdorf, Austria and ultimately she became a director of agency’s nuclear laboratory in department of sciences and applications. As one of her achievements she mentions establishing IAEA’s program for environment and radioecology on terrestrial research. She i the only director in IAEA that abolished his/her own position as a result or restructuring that she led. Finally, together with her colleague she founded a consulting company that takes care of training in environmental modeling. Apart from that, she’s also focused on radionuclide transfer in arid areas, the topic that becomes important with climate change and progressing desertification of lands. Apart from that, she is an editor of a scientific journal, which keeps her updated with the latest research. Outside of her job, she promotes gender equality in a workplace, since very often she used to be the only woman in a team and in IAEA for several years she was the only female director in the agency. Now it is improving and committees were created to support gender equality. Women in Nuclear in IAEA is also boosting and Gabriele is a president of WiN Global.

Radionuclide transfer in animals and humans (17:06)
17:06-22:26 (Gabriele explains the relations between the transfer of radionuclides in animals and humans)

Q. How does research on radionuclide transfer in animals relate to humans?
A. The studies that Gabriele did on the cows was focused on how radionuclides introduced in animal’s food can reach human in the form of food, drinks, direct exposure to skin, inhalation. However, as for direct translation between animal’s response to exposure and human’s exposure, it is not possible to realize in a simple way. However there are studies that try to find relations between different animals, Ideally, we would need to have comparison studies on humans, however this is obviously impossible due to ethical reasons. There is some data from epidemiological studies in e.g. Bikini atol inhabitants, Hiroshima. For humans there are models created by ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) that take into consideration the structure and mass of the organs, type of radionuclide. The models tend to overestimate the dose, to be on the secure side.

LNT and conservatism in radioprotection vs. general public (22:26)
22:56.-28:54 (Gabriele shares her insights into the influence of conservatism in nuclear on general public)

Q. Sometimes this conservatism can be problematic, for example when it leads to applying LNT (linear no-threshold model) in radiation protection. How do you explain it to people asking you about this?
A. People get suspicious when explained in too much detail. Gabriele points out that so much research has been done to find out the details, but with progressing knowledge, we also get more worried. People are worried about tiny amounts of radiation that they receive during a release, but they do not compare the magnitudes with what they receive during medical tests. After nuclear accidents many reports were published trying to establish the number of deaths, But it is not that easy, taking into account how small the doses absorbed are. For example, the liquidators in Chernobyl after finishing work were often marginalized due to their experiences and many ended up with alcohol addiction and dying of liver illnesses rather than cancer. So their deaths was radiation-related, because their job stigmatized them and caused personal hardships, but it was not radiation that killed them. It is very emotional discussion, and Gabriele together with Women in Nuclear works on re-establishing facts, because the statistics can be interpreted in any different ways, not always correctly. For example, in a small community around a NPP in Germany, there was a rise in leukemia rates among children. However, in a small sample, these rates were generated by two sick children instead of one, which is a high increase, but it cannot be said that it comes from radiation in NPP. This information has to be explained to people. 1,5y ago Gabriele took part in Clean Energy Ministerial, where for the first time nuclear was considered as a part of future energy mix. Gabriele hopes that in the future nuclear will be part of the energy solution, like SMRs.

Scientists and public education (28:54)
28:54-30:02 (Gabriele shares about the importance of government and media in public education)

Q. For this to happen we need to start with proper education of the public.
A. Gabriele says, that what we also need is politicians who are fighting for it and proper coverage of media. People don’t read scientific journals but mass media. Scientists have ignored it for too long to speak in an understandable language to press and TV. If they cannot do it, they need a so-to-speak translator to do it for them.

Trends in radioecology (30:02)
30:02-34:43 (Gabriele explains the latest trends in radiation studies)

Q. What do radio-ecologists work on in 2020?
A. There is still some studies after Fukushima – how the radionuclides work long-term. More and more modern tools are developed to combine geophysics and radioecological studies, to determine areas for emergency preparedness, direction of countermeasures, high-population areas, or lands rich in natural habitats. Apart from it, waste management is researched now, on how will the waste behave in a repository, the impact of climate change on radionuclide migration possibility of entering water and food chains. The marine environment is still a major sink of radionuclides, so it is studied now. Moreover, the self-healing potential of nature is being analyzed now. In Chernobyl exclusion zone the environment is changing with reduced human impact. Some species that were practically extinct, came back to this area. Long-term radiation or low radiation zones are interesting, also in relation to the hormesis theory. Gabriele, as a geneticist, points out, that a pressure put on organism causes protective reactions. In result, this organism is potentially more resistant than others. There is no proof of hormesis, that Gabriele is aware of, but from the biological point of view it could exist.

Studying the hormesis theory (34:43)
34:43-38:08 (Gabriele talks about a possible way to study hormesis theory)

Q. Is it possible to prove hormesis?
A. What is needed is a very low radiation area, with a dose that is hardly measurable. There was an idea to lead an experiment in a deep geological repository with bacteria, to check on survival rate and other parameters. We need deep geological isolation, because on the earth’s surface we are exposed to all kinds of radiation, starting with sunrays, through geology of the terrain.
The most pertinent directions of development of nuclear industry (38:08)
38:08-44:24 (Gabriele shares her opinions on the need for development of the nuclear industry)

Q. In IAEA you abolished your own position. Is nuclear industry ready for such restructuring or you were an exception?
A.IAEA is a special organization. On one side it’s a watchdog, taking care of nuclear safeguards. Another side of IAEA are applications in power sector, agriculture, and security and safety. Nuclear industry is now mostly developing in the branch of SMRs, as they present different advantages like water desalination, mobility, improved safety. The regulatory framework will need to progress, but there are some steps taken e.g. in Canada. Nuclear industry has to focus on issues like in Gabriele’s home country, Germany, where the government decided to shut down all reactors. When Gabriele was a teacher of radioecology, she used to have around 20 students, but ultimately she was left with only 5 people, as youngsters didn’t see future in nuclear sciences. In other countries, like in UAE, they get experts from the outside and train local staff.

Gender equality advantages and needs (44:24)
44:24-51:00 (Gabriele explains the features of an industry with gender equality and what needs to be done to foster it)

Q. What is the added value of having gender equality in nuclear industry or any technical industry.
A. Mixed team is the best solution. In the past it was men-dominated and small fraction of women working in the sector was rather doing the work in the laboratory, but it was men going to conferences to present the work. This is now slowly changing. The atmosphere is friendlier, the competition becomes more healthy. Gabriele recalls that her best employees were women after having kids, showing the best timeliness, efficiency and quality of work. In the end, all the diversity components are needed: all ages, all genders, no discrimination is allowed. It pays off, because the results of cooperation will be better. The gender inequalities show the most in the highest levels of decision making bodies. Right now, in the governance of IAEA there are 2 female directors out of the total of 6 people. Very often women don’t reach the highest level positions because they are too modest to foster their career. Apart from that, family life competes with successful career, a supportive partner is very important for a successful woman. Gabriele was privileged, because her husband supported her in her career choices. Gabriele mentions that in her former institute they had a program encouraging women to re-enter their career after having a child. However such women are lacking important time in their career path when they can climb the ladder, therefore they can never reach the top or get discouraged.

Systemic issues of gender inequality and WiN’s response to it (51:00)
51:00-53:48 (Gabriele enumerates the actions that WiN takes to support women in their careers)

Q. Can the problem of gender equality lie in the system, for example the unsuited recruitment process or other systemic obstacles that stop women from climbing the ladder?
A. In WiN there is a mentoring program between the female professionals to teach younger employees about the professional life, there is also a lot of contact with recruitment companies, because it’s a very good moment for women to apply for technical positions. The possible discriminations are related to specific institutions, but WiN is able to make women aware about it. In IAEA Gabriele is also working on providing better access to competent women, who would normally not apply for agency position. It is also important to prepare women for the job interviews, because women tend to undermine their achievements, while men tend to point them out, even by only using correct sentences, writing CV etc. This is where WiN can help.

Projects of WiN (53:48)
53:48-55:05 (Gabriele talks about the actions of WiN)

Q. Any other projects that WiN is proud of?
A. WiN is trying now to create more partnership agreements providing opportunities for the organization. Improving WiN’s website is also a priority.

A day in the life of WiN president (55:05)
55:05-58:50 (Gabriele shares soe insights from her everyday life a WiN president)

Q. How does a day of the president of WiN look like?
A. It is volunteer work, but everyday Gabriele works a couple of hours on WiN. At the moment new chapters in Africa and Latin America are being opened. They need support. Annual conference is planned, so Gabriele supervises scientific program preparation. She also acts as mentor to other women. She will hand over the presidency at the end of the year.

Gabriele’s future goals (58:50)
58:50-1:01:42 (Gabriele shares her next plans)

Q. Can you tell us about your plans for the future?
A. Gabriele has a lot of traveling plans for the coming future, very often she tries to relate it to work as well. The beauty of WiN is that the network is so extensive that you have a friend to show you around.

Introductions and background (00:24)
Q: How did you get started in the Nuclear industry?
A: Amir Vexler is the president of Orano,TN, USA. He graduated as a mechanical engineer from the university of Toronto and worked in several engineering industries before arriving in nuclear 20 years ago.
His first job in the nuclear industry was with General Electric (GE) in Toronto, back when the company had a large nuclear footprint. Amir rose up to become a plant manager for most of the GE plants in Canada, later moving to operations in the US.
In 2015 he became the CEO of Global Nuclear Fuels (GNF), which was a joint venture between Hitachi, GE, and Toshiba. A role which he held till 2019 before moving to Orano,TN.
(02:38-4:45) Early impression of the nuclear industry
Amir was working in the chemical industry when he first interviewed with GE, and didn’t realise that there was a large nuclear facility in downtown Toronto that was making nuclear fuel. His early perception was of shock that a nuclear facility was functional in a large city, this later changed drastically as he started working at the GE facility with all the controls and safety measures that were put into place.

Nuclear spent fuel management (4:56)
(4:56-14:05) Specialisations and unique challenges in Orano,TN
Q: What services does Orano,TN specialise on?
A: Orano has a turn key integrated supply chain that starts at the moment a utility company offloads their fuel into the spent fuel pool and Orano takes it from there onwards.
When speaking of the challenges that come with dealing with spent fuel and the negative public perception, Amir remarked: “I think the media, movies, cartoons - have done us no favours in that, it's just a complete exaggeration of what this business is about. I think if the public had any knowledge of the amount of engineering work, licensing rigor, the amount of testing, the amount of quality control that goes into fabricating, installing, and maintaining a dry fuel storage system, I think people’s concerns will very quickly go away with anything that has to do with spent fuel.”
Amir feels strongly that most concerns have very little rationale behind them, and some of these attitudes have delayed or outright stopped the commissioning of a national nuclear waste repository. He believes this doesn't help the industry of society in general, especially when the issue becomes overly politicized.
Another challenge that Amir mentioned in the misconceptions on the side of customers (utilities), that consider dry fuel storage as a commodity.
(14:18-18:25) Developing a permanent solution to spent fuel management
Amir shared his views on the delay in developing a permanent solution to spent nuclear fuel, referring directly to the proposed Yucca mountain repository: “Unfortunately that issue has been politicized and the reason why it was allowed to be politicized is the lack of education of the general public. I believe i’m just stating simple facts, obviously in my opinion - as a taxpayer, as a citizen - it makes more sense to have a central repository for nuclear spent fuel.”
Amir feels a more permanent solution is needed, but going off historically trends, the solution might not arrive very quickly in the US. He mentioned a collaborative effect between utilities with nuclear plants could also hold solutions in creating a consolidated storage site, and although the framework for that kind of collaboration already exists - a strong obstacle remains public opinion regarding nuclear and radiation, another challenge he mentioned was the transport system to move large quantities of spent nuclear fuel in the US.

The case of public opinion (19:20)
(19:20-25:35) Influencing public opinion regarding spent nuclear fuel.
Q: What are the difficult questions you get regarding the work you do?
A: Amir identifies the reason behind poor public opinion on nuclear to a knowledge gap between the comforts they are used to with electricity and the systems needed to generate energy - especially low carbon energy. He believes that until the public has correct information readily available and an environment to listen to, many problems will remain unsolved.
“I do see that some people are very closed minded when it comes to stuff [spent nuclear waste] like that. And I think what’s driving closed mindedness is the lack of education and understanding of what really generates power in this country, and what provides grid stability, and what provides the comforts that people are used to.” Amir said while remarking on the question.
Amir also pointed out that simple things like organizing open houses to show the local communities and tourists what these facilities do, and as people come to understand that there is very little risk involved with the work. Another step is for employers to encourage workers in the industry to talk to their neighbors and family about the work they do, a method that Amir believes could be the most impactful.
The priority should be closing the nuclear fuel cycle, and America must do that before it can be a global leader in the nuclear energy space.
(26:05-29:13) Main priorities at Orano,TN
Amir mentioned 2 things any company needs to be at the top of their game, especially when they’re in the business of serving customers. First is technology, constantly evolving as a business and improving on your service offering where possible to make sure they get the best value has to be top of mind - especially now that the business landscape can evolve so quickly. Second is a strong cost positioning in the market, Amir is aware that a lot of Orano’s clients will be more careful about spending - especially post covid impacts on revenues. Finding a way to remain cost competitive and transfer the same cost competitiveness to their customers. These 2 points are what he identifies as keys to keeping Orano,TN and prime players in the nuclear supply chain.

Conclusion (30:08)
(30:08-34:00) Optimism for the future of Nuclear energy.
Q: What excites you about the future of nuclear energy?
A: Amir sees trends of a turnaround on a governmental level, where everyone agrees that the nuclear industry needs to become more competitive in the world. He attributes the statement to the support of the US Department of Energy to various projects in nuclear, especially the development of the new generation of nuclear reactors.
Seeing these new projects take on life and attract attention from private companies is one thing that excites Amir.
Another point that he’s excited about is the younger generation coming into the nuclear industry.

NASA’s Kilopower Program (0:00-14:07)
David Poston’s entrance into a career in space reactor development and how NASA’s Kilopower
project came to be
Q: Did your career start out with an interest in nuclear or in space?
A: David Poston is the Chief Reactor Designer at Los Alamos and the Reactor Design Lead for
KRUSTY. David originally went to Los Alamos to design space reactors and get them in space.
He holds a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering. After graduation,
David worked for General Electric. Once he caught the space nuclear bug, he knew it was what
he wanted to do. The first space reactor project he worked on was the SP-100 government
effort in the 1980’s. After the project’s failure, David decided to get his PhD in nuclear
engineering and to strive to come up with ways to do it simpler and easier, leading to the
building and testing of the first new reactor in 40 years. Lots of interesting reactors were built
and tested in the 1950’s and 1960’s to try novel nuclear ideas. The Nevada National Security
Site, which is the old Nevada Test Site for weapons testing, allows for some experimentation,
but is still under tight regulation. David designed his test to be operated within the safety
authorization basis, working with the regulator to get through the process. Idaho National Lab
has some desert land available, but Nevada has the biggest area that is remote from the public.
David worked on a project for NASA called Kilopower, which is a very compact, lightweight
power source to provide 1-10 kilowatts of power. This would be enough for early human
missions and a lot of science missions. This provided the ability to test at the device assembly
facility on the Nevada National Security Site at the National Criticality Experiments Research
Center (NCERC). The facility takes things critical from a nuclear reactor standpoint to get a
sustained nuclear reaction. At the facility’s authorization basis, David determined they could run
at 5 kilowatts of thermal power for a day inside the facility and learn everything about how the

reactor operated. David is against moderators, only because the testing capabilities are not
there. The reactor is a chunk of highly-enriched uranium metal about the size of a paper towel
roll. The uranium is surrounded by beryllium oxide, which is the best neutron reflector in nature,
allowing the reactor to be very light and small. Beryllium oxide scatters neutrons very effectively
and has a high atom density, providing a very high probability of the neutron being returned.
This reactor can’t go critical or produce radioactivity unless it is surrounded by the beryllium,
increasing the safety of the reactor. The reactor has to be pretty small for the reflector to be
worth it in terms of radioactivity, so it is not usable at commercial scales. David’s test produced
5 kilowatts of thermal power; within the fuel, the thermal power is conducted through the metal
to heat pipes. Heat pipes were invented in Los Alamos for this application, but have since been
adopted for a wide variety of uses. Heat pipes are used to transfer the heat from the core to the
power conversion system, which are Stirling engines. Commercially available Stirling engines
existed, but they were not space qualified. The fission power is generated right into the metal
and conducts into the heat pipe. The heat pipe has liquid sodium inside to transport heat at a
high temperature, approximately 800 degrees Celsius. The heat boils the sodium down at the
core region, the evaporator region, to create vapor pressure. This pressure pushes the heat up
to the Stirling engine where it condenses and gives its energy to the heat pipe wall, conducting
to the Stirling engine. Getting the liquid metal back to the core is tricky without gravity, so a
wicking mechanism is used to draw the material down.
Stirling Engine Reactor Design (14:07-22:45)
The importance of simplicity in nuclear reactor designs and why David Poston committed to the
use of a Stirling engine in his reactor prototypes
Q: Since the core of the reactor is a giant chunk of metal, is the centerline temperature a lot
hotter than the outside temperature?
A: David Poston is the Chief Reactor Designer for the NASA Kilopower KRUSTY reactor
experiment, which has a large chunk of uranium metal in the core. The power is relatively flat
across the reactor because it is so small and there is not as much peaking as seen in larger
reactors. A temperature gradient is created to conduct the heat from the inside to the outside,
with approximately a 20-30 degrees Celsius delta T from the inside of the core to the heat pipes
because of the relatively low power and uranium is a good conductor of heat. The biggest
problem is failing a heat pipe because redundancy is needed. Heat needs to be able to be
conducted to the adjacent heat pipes so heat can always be removed. This reactor operates in
steady-state and self-regulates. The reactor control never had to be moved during the test. Only
0.1 percent of the fuel is burned, allowing it to last decades to centuries at this level. The life
time limiter is the Stirling engine and NASA is doing reliability testing, which comes back to
redundancy. The first mission can either show that they can last 10-15 years or at what rate
they start failing and have to change the design to get more life time. All of the space reactors
that have flown in the past used thermoelectric conversion, so the whole system was in a steady
state, but the problem was efficiency. A Stirling engine can provide 25-30 percent efficiency of
thermal heat conductive electricity, but thermoelectric systems can only provide 4-5 percent
efficiency. David’s conclusion is the reactor needs to be made as simple as possible because
there is not as much ability for testing. KRUSTY (Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology)

was the prototype of the 1 kilowatt Kilopower. The KRUSTY test was almost identical to the
Kilopower reactor, but the difference was how the heat was rejected from the Stirling engine.
This exact technology can be used for 1-10 kilowatts. David did look at the chance of getting
more life time out of the core by switching to low enriched uranium because of fuel swelling
possibilities, which would bring the unit up to 20 or 30 kilowatts. Neutronic simplicity and how
the reactor operates is the most important aspect of the design because it is the hardest thing to
test. Power systems up to 5 megawatts have been designed that use the same physics, but the
fuel has to be changed from uranium metal to uranium oxide and the power conversion cycle
has to change from Stirling to Brayton. Once a system gets about 100 kilowatts, a Brayton
conversion system is much more efficient. KRUSTY provided the first real data from a new
nuclear reactor in 40-50 years and the test was almost exactly as predicted.
Applications of Nuclear Reactors in Space (22:45-34:06)
Future applications of the KRUSTY reactor experiment and why nuclear power is vital to space
colonization
Q: What did the KRUSTY reactor experiment evolve into?
A: The KRUSTY reactor prototype that David Poston developed was a successful test of a
Stirling cycle nuclear reactor. Near term, the Kilopower reactor based on KRUSTY as-is
provides one kilowatt for a NASA deep space mission, with some applications in orbit. One near
term project could be a 20-30 kilowatt lunar lander. Another great application for a 10 kilowatt
reactor is nuclear electric propulsion. Jet Propulsion Labs (JPL) recently published a paper on
the possibilities, which includes orbiting around anything in the solar system. Delta V, or how
much acceleration the vehicle has, is limited by the mass that can be launched on the rocket is
known. The most important parameter is specific impulse, which is comparative to miles per
gallon, looking at how much acceleration change can be achieved. With nuclear electric
propulsion, enough acceleration change can be achieved to slow yourself down to possibly
leave one orbit and go to orbit another moon. Chemical propulsion is not very effective in space
due to a lack of oxygen. The shuttle had hydrogen and oxygen combined, but most of the mass
was oxygen. A majority of this oxygen is spent in the first few minutes of launch. There is five
orders of magnitude more energy density in uranium than there is in hydrogen oxygen. A
nuclear thermal rocket runs a reactor extremely hot, up to 2500 degrees C and hydrogen is
flowed through it. Since it is so hot, the exit velocity provides a much better specific impulse, or
miles per gallon, than chemical propulsion. Using a nuclear reaction for takeoff was explored in
the 1960’s and 70’s, but standard rockets have gotten so good that it wouldn’t make sense to
use nuclear electric propulsion except to launch out of Earth’s orbit. Direct fission propulsion has
a very thin fuel element in which the fission product escapes, where an electromagnetic field
takes the fission product and puts it in the right direction. Right now the space station has 100
kilowatts of power with solar power that is working very well. There are three places in which
solar is not very good, but where nuclear can be. The first is on the Moon. The Moon has 14
days of darkness, making it very cold and storing electricity becomes more difficult than a
nuclear reactor. Mars is further out from the sun, making solar panels less effective, and the
dust storms reduce the solar insulation, or amount of heat flux, so much that the solar farm that
would be needed to power a base would be huge. A Kilopower reactor would be the equivalent

of football fields of solar panels, so the reactor would be much lighter to get to Mars. The third
place where solar panels do not become effective is past the asteroid belt and Jupiter. David
Poston imagines Kilopower scaling up; the Kilopower philosophy and physics could go up to 5
kilowatts of energy. Human colonization of the Moon or Mars might require 20-30 kilowatts per
person. Once the colony is self-sufficient, native materials could be used to build power plants.
The 5 kilowatt reactor barely fits on Elon Musk’s Starship, so until bigger rockets are used, this
would be the largest reactor sent to space. It could also be shipped in pieces once some
infrastructure is in place in the colony.
DUFF and KRUSTY Reactor Experiments (34:06-53:52)
A summary of results from the DUFF and KRUSTY reactor experiments and what made them
successful programs
Q: Tell me more about the opportunities and challenges of working in the lab system.
A: David Poston has been at Los Alamos for 25 years, initially going there to design space
reactors. David proposed the DUFF test in 2012 to show NASA they could still do anything.
DUFF was a 10 watt system that used an existing reactor and ran enough heat pipe to power a
Stirling engine. KRUSTY went very smoothly with the help of Pat McLure, who was very good at
knowing what the regulations were and integrated the regulator, the Department of Energy
(DOE) very quickly and early on. The team set up a program with gates in which they would
show the regulator they know what they are doing, predict the results, and move forward.
Advanced reactor concepts are being developed, but the difficulty the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) and DOE have is that only the people that designed them have the tools to
evaluate them, since they are such unique concepts. David’s system with the regulator allowed
him to make predictions, do simple, safe and small steps, and wait for the okay to go onto the
next step if the results were predicted accurately. This worked in place of the traditional system
of getting the regulator’s tools to match the predictions. The whole process, from design,
prototyping, and electrical testing, took three years. The regulator usually had six to seven
people involved in the meetings. David used the MCNP code to calculate transport and the
CINDER code to calculate burnup. This was used to gain a source term and sent to Pat McLure,
who knew more about how aerosols are formed, transported, and dispersed. David’s team had
to calculate and predict how long KRUSTY would be on the criticality machine, Comet, which is
used for lots of important missions. They determined how long it would be for the radioactivity to
be low enough for someone to go in the room, how long it would be until it could be physically
taken apart, and how long it had to sit disassembled before a post-irradiation examination. This
test was solely to measure the magnitude of radiation via neutron fluxes and gamma doses. A
lot of the data during and after the test was gathered from dosimeters on people and was
matched to predictions. David warns those with a burgeoning interest in microreactors to keep
things simple. Dozens of failed programs have tried to take too big of a technology jump. There
must be a realistic amount of time and money to get things done. Oklo might be the right team
doing the right thing; they are using a technology similar to Kilopower. Almost every project out
there now is doing things too complicated. NuScale’s reactors are the most doable, but the
question is whether they will be efficient enough to be economic. David has gotten cynical about
big projects and prefers to take the small steps. He would rather ask for $150 million to put a

reactor on the moon instead of putting money into studying other things. The $150 million would
fund a KRUSTY-like program, not a traditional government reactor program. The small team
was why KRUSTY worked; four people were in the core team, including a mechanical designer,
power system specialist, safety specialist, and reactor specialist. NSA oversaw the project with
NASA and allowed the small team to make small decisions. Space nuclear is important because
curiosity and exploration make being a human fun, interesting, and worth living. Science and
technology also benefit from space programs. The more we explore and discover, the more we
can answer some of the world’s questions and become enlightened. Finally, space nuclear is
important to our viability and sustainability. It is human responsibility to keep the “light of
consciousness” alive and establishing colonies on another planet is an insurance policy for the
human race.

What is Tecnatom
Q. How big is Tecnatom
A. Around 900 people and we are present in 10 countries, and we work in 23-25 countries every
year. We work mostly in nuclear but also expanding to other sectors like aeronautics. We grew
up on nuclear and it is appreciated in other branches of industry where complex technology and
safety are essential. The culture we apply in nuclear can be used by other industry.

Javier’s studies and entering the industry
Q. You studied maritime engineering not nuclear, was it hard to enter the industry?
A. I studied on a speciality of propulsion, so it was related to nuclear. A good thing in this
industry in my opinion is that it’s not so important which sector you study, but how you
specialize in something you like, how you develop your skills. In nuclear we are good at
teaching people to do their job.

Lines of action of Tecnatom
Q. Is Tecnatom hiring rather talented people not necessarily specialized with nuclear and train
them or you prefer your employees to have the nuclear education?
A. Tecnatom has 3-4 directions for the employees. First is related to the operation of the power
plants taking around 9 months for everybody, for the instructors for operators, taking additional
2 years of training, the engineers, and employees working with materials or aeronautics. We
have to make sure that each engineer understands what he’s doing and the risk associated with
it. Tecnatom is delivering whole control rooms, e.g. 8 Chinese power plants recently
commissioned are working with our design. We also design and sell equipment to other
companies. Now we also start to move in SMR field.

In-service inspection
Q. For a part of your career you worked in in-service inspection. Can you tell us something
about it?
A. Its aim is to ensure a structural integrity of all the components both in operation and accident
conditions. We ensure that the component will resist the accidents and work without fault in
normal conditions so we make sure to know about problems and repair the component in
advance. All the pipes, heat exchangers (SG, condenser etc.) undergo such inspection. E.g. a
steam generator has around 200km of tubes inside of the component, all this has to be
inspected. However, the material science also develops fantastically, we have much improved
SGs in comparison to what they were in the past and the methods of detecting are much better.

Long Term Operation
Q. Right now a 40 year old plant is not the same installation as it was decades ago, because the
replaced components work much more efficient than the original ones
A. Many people skeptic about nuclear use the argument that after 40y the plant is old, But the
reality is that many components, apart from a Reactor Pressure Vessel, are replaced, from
Steam Generators to even piping and cables. This way, taking into account better efficiency and
materials of the modern designs of components, you end up with a safer and better plant. The
knowledge and the better components and all the investments that were made during the live of
the power plant arrive to the situation when after 40 years you have a better power plant than
what you have at the moment zero. As for the necessary updates, most PWRs replace Steam
Generators, a lot of power plants replace condensers and heat exchangers even before reaching 40y, for efficiency. Beyond 40y a power plant has to demonstrate that the installation is in good condition with additional inspections. Furthermore, cabling, control room and instrumentation undergo some revitalization. Arriving to the 60y is pretty well established. The best investment to maintain the low-carbon capacity is to maintain a NPP.

Nuclear as cheap, low-carbon energy
Q. It was demonstrated by MIT that in Spain the cheapest addition of low-carbon energy it is
keeping the NPPs in Long Term Operation.
A. Renewables have good conditions in Spain, but they need storage capacity. Beyond 40% of
share of electricity renewables become very expensive, including the charges on electric grid.
For this reason it is sad what happened to the Fessenheim power plant in France, it has
decided to close it, while keeping it open would be a low cost solution.

Spanish fleet
Q. Can you tell me more about Spanish fleet?
A. We have 7 reactors in operation, and between 2027 and 2035 an average of one reactor per
year will be closed. The ideal would be keeping the plants till 60y, because we would be able to
collect more funds for decommissioning, which we need. The decision of closing the plans will
need a revision.

Spanish Nuclear Society
Q. You’re a president of Spanish Nuclear Society. Is SNE working on this, trying to convince the
decision makers or the public about this?
A. SNE promotes the technology and science among the public, that’s our mission. It’s rather
the job of Foro Nuclear, the nuclear lobby in Spain to influence the decision makers. We are
focused on making people know about nuclear, because knowing means accepting. We’re
doing all kinds of activities open to the society, from very technical to the most accessible. We
also include the young the engineers, we are competing with other sectors, like banks, business
etc. so we are attracting young people to keep them close.

The identity of the employees of nuclear industry
29:20-31:16 (Javier shares his views about the identity of employees of the sector)
Q. The employees of nuclear should think about it as their identity, because they contribute to
producing electricity that is not harming the climate.
A. I think it’s important to explain our employees and the professionals working in nuclear that
what we do is good for the society that we are not making any harm, on the contrary, we are
providing part of the chain of producing electricity for the society, a very basic need of our society, that nuclear is not producing CO2, so we are fighting against climate change and we are champions of this fight. We are helping that our sons and grandsons will have a better world.

COP25
Q. We met at COP25, how did you feel as a person from nuclear industry among all the
environmentalists and ecologists?
A. I was surprised, because I was expecting some anti-nuclear actions, while the people
approaching us wanted an explanation and then they would agree with us. Only one person was
against us, mostly due to military applications. People accept our opinions when they enter a
discussion. I was also happy to see young people from all around the world in our delegation of
pro-nuclear associations. COP25 was rather a failure, the arguments were weak and we haven’t
solved any issue. We need to work on the opinions of politicians.

Nuclear industry now and in the past
Q. What are the differences between nuclear industry when you joined it and right now
A. When I joined it was a high-tech industry. Right now, people think, which I don’t agree with,
that nuclear is in its last days. The sector is in transformation now, it will be ore oriented to
services, not only electricity. I think that the nuclear technology is here to stay. We are coming
from the sector where nothing used to change. The current reactors being build are the
technologies from the 80s. In recent years companies accepted that we need to develop. If you
are more innovative, you attract talents and then you become even more innovative. The new
companies , small nuclear start ups are doing things unimaginable for big companies like
Westinghouse, Framatome, Rosatom. These big companies see they need to develop their
features like the start ups do. The other thing is that the administration has to develop –
international regulations are needed. A Boeing plane around the world has the same rules. If it’s
a NPP, it has different regulations in each country. Of course, there are some country-specific
details, but e.g. 90% of rules should be the same. Next very precious quality is an ability to build
fleets. We are not able to repeat the model in France in the UK and Finland, they are all
different machines. Right now nuclear is hiring new people, unlike car industry and is not in crisis like aeronautics. Nuclear is developing. If I was choosing my career now, I would ask myself the same questions:
what do I love and which sector can develop my skills.

Tecnatom and SMR
Q. Can you give me some insight on how Tecnatom contributes to SMR development?
A. We are working with several companies, one of them is NuScale, mainly on control room
design and training for the future operators. We are doing a similar thing with another company,
X-energy. These companies are very innovative, flexible an pushing their design to be approved
and commercialized.

Accident Tolerant Fuel
Q. And what about Accident Tolerant Fuel, is it the future of all the reactors or rather a nuance
that is far from deployment
A. ATF is something that will arrive to the market very soon. To achieve the commercil success,
the authorities need to understand that this fuel, by reducing the chance of an accident, reduce
other costs in a NPP and compensate the investment. If this happens, I’m completely sure that
ATF will replace the fuel in standard designs. If not – the speed of replacement will be much
lower.

Development of regulatory body
Q. So it’s the regulators who really need to develop
A. The regulator is a very important part of industry. Even if we innovate, but the regulator does
not agree, we will have difficulties to implement the changes. We need to harmonize the
regulations, not make them weaker, just uniform. This kind of development needs decisions
from the political level and at least Europe should have common ruling for all the countries.

Future goals and priorities of Tecnatom
Q. What are the exciting goals and priorities in the future of Tecnatom?
A. We really embarked in the digitalization of our activities for the past three years. We are
moving to the knowledge management of complex knowledge and safety as a key, cooperating
with many US companies, using our digital training tools. The other area is digitalisation of
reactor operation. In the market we are working more and more internationally and expanding in
other sectors.

Nathan’s studies and graduate program
Q. You studied physics, why did you choose nuclear industry for your career, not any other
popular field of physics?
A. Nathan studied science and physics, his courses covered many fields, including photonics,
laser physics, material science, nuclear fission and fusion. He took part in a nuclear submarine
graduate program, that included system engineering, safety engineering and other aspects of
nuclear submarines. It is a great way to start a career, to see which area of the industry you like.
Nathan cannot share any details of technology they worked on,

First tasks at Rolls-Royce
Q. After you finished the marine propulsion program, you moved to nuclear industry?
A. After finishing the graduate program Nathan moved to Rolls-Royce but was still involved in
the naval propulsion program, working on different areas of nuclear safety, internal and external
hazards, assessment and identification. He got involved in verification and validation for a new
iteration of one of the nuclear reactors and it was a fantastic experience because such a project
doesn’t happen very often, only every few decades.

Verification & Validation of a nuclear design
Q. What is verification and validation of the design?
A. It means taking design requirements and verifying them through different means like analytic
testing, computer modeling, validating those models with physical tests like e.g. thermohydraulic
testing. Nathan could observe the evolution of different systems of the plant from design to
proving it and manufacturing.

Business development at Rolls-Royce
Q. You also worked for business development of Rolls-Roys. What kind of experience is that?
How does Rolls-Roys expand globally?
A. Nathan was working for certain areas and customers to help develop marketing and produc
development. One of the areas was e.g. Emergency Diesel Generators. He would lead the talks
with customers in Finland, Russia, discussing the solutions they were interested in and agreeing
it with the teams back in UK, France and Germany.

Foratom
Q. Right now you work for Foratom which is an association. How were you drawn to this area?
A. For Nathan, starting in engineering and following to bussiness development, it was a natural
progression to move to Foratom. Foratom works on understanding how nuclear industry can fit
in to the EU level, understanding where different policies, legislations could be optimized.
Nathan got the opportunity to focus on supply chain, so he can stay close to the industry and
also Reasearch and Innovation working group.

Supply chain working group at Foratom
Q. What are your tasks there and how do you work to develop the communication between the
companies
A. One of the areas is how the supply chain can be optimized to fit in the needs of nuclear
industry. The supply chain working group involves industry experts, workshops to discuss the
national matters of each members, share lessons learnt. One of the issues that Nathan covered
lately was preparing a report on this subject, including adjusting to the needs of Long Term
Operation. On average European NPPs are 35 years old, so in the nearest future a cycle of
LTO processes is coming, but in certain areas there are difficulties in accessing the right
supplier. One of these areas are all the equipment undergoing ASME certification. Some of the
components doesn’t need to be nuclear grade equipment, so there is an opportunity to access
high quality industrial items from other industries. The issue is how to leverage this experience
with using non-nuclear grade items. It’s being done in America, the practice is called
commercial grade dedication, but it’s not yet well developed in Europe.

Codification
Q. One of these problems could be codification. Each country has a choice of code to design
components, so if you are a supplier working internationally, you need to adjust to many
different codes.
A. This is exactly something that Foratom tries to open the door for. Foratom is discussing the
topic in collaboration with WENRA (Western European Nuclear Regulators Association),
because industry and regulators are two sides of this issue. The LTO programs are on the onset
now, so Foratom has to act quite soon.

Research & Innovation at Foratom
Q. The other part of your work is research and innovation. What are you doing there?
A. It is another working group composed of industry experts analyzing R&I projects at EU level.
The focus is on how can industry facilitate and help with creation of these programs. One
example is Euratom R&D program, which is strictly directed to nuclear, but there are also wider
frameworks, like Horizon Europe. The task is to propose optimization and better synergies
between nuclear and non-nuclear areas like material science, digitalization, advanced
manufacturing areas.

Key areas of innovation in nuclear
Q. What are the key areas to innovate in nuclear right now?
A. It depends of the wished boundary life of such a startup. You can think of designing a new
SMR, but you could also think of digitalization of the existing nuclear fleet, trying to provide
better health monitoring of components. So there is a need for the exciting things like new
reactors, but also services for the current fleets. There is plenty of discussion about new
components and new systems as well, like 3D printing, additive manufacturing. But in some of
these, there are still issues with qualification of the products, especially if a component is
fulfilling a safety function. It’s a great time to come to nuclear industry with new fresh ideas
All the applications beyond electricity production present a lot of opportunities for a new mindset
to approach these areas. Moreover, bridging the gap between other energy sectors is of
importance, many energy need such coupling.

The politics of the EU regarding nuclear power
Q. Do you think that EU is doing good job with including nuclear in its low carbon strategy?
A. There are opportunities for nuclear to be involved at the EU level, there are some positive
statements, but there is not enough pull forward. EU is working on European Green Deal, which
is an opportunity to show how nuclear can play an important role in the 2050 strategy for de-
carbonization of the continent. We’re also experiencing the ties of the pandemic, nuclear can
play an important role here, both existent fleet and new technologies.

European taxonomy
Q. What are some other frameworks that nuclear should be included in?
A. One of them is so called taxonomy, being sustainable finance system. It involves deciding
what should be classified as sustainable investment. At the present moment it is not decided if
nuclear will be in or out of that agreement. Not only Foratom, but many associations,
stakeholders, Ecomodernists all across Europe are all seeing that we need to wake up now and
include nuclear in this system. There is strong lobby against nuclear, different member states
have turned their back on nuclear or were never into it. On the other side there is a lobby for gas
industry. It is hard to unite all these sides on one piece of paper. Before issuing final version of
taxonomy an expert group gathers to decide whether nuclear life cycle is sustainable or not.
Nathan is confident of their conclusion, but there needs to be an opportunity to double-check
that. And then hopefully the nuclear industry will have an open door to the sustainable financing.
Nathan doesn’t think that the taxonomy issue is related to the public opinion because the
sustainable finance framework is based on the work of numerous technical expert groups set up
looking of different areas. One of them is Do No Significant Harm principle, that is mainly used
to push nuclear out of the taxonomy. Nuclear is analyzed by experts, but not in nuclear field,
rather in finance. Foratom is engaged to give these people access to information, but the same
is being done by people against nuclear industry. Recently there has been a call for a new panel
of nuclear experts to assess the true qualities of nuclear and its possible affiliation with this
framework. Foratom supports engagement with the public, trying to cooperate with nuclear societies
involved in this area. But Foratom’s main focus area is EU policy site.

Young Generation of Nuclear Society
Q. Yet another society in your history is Nuclear Society. You used to be a chair of European
Nuclear Society Young Generation Network. Any cool memories from that time?
A. Nathan used to be a representative of Nuclear Society YGN in UK. He was involved in many
aspects, e.g. promoting nuclear in outreach work, organizing conferences, events, speaking at
industry events on behalf of the young people. Young Generation community is of the things for
which nuclear industry has golden standard.
Among the advantages of joining a nuclear society is that it bridges the gap, it makes nuclear
much more human. It makes the industry much more diverse, brings people with a lot of energy,
it bring together people who do not only want to talk about nuclear technology, but also on how
it fits in the context – get involved in Nuclear for Climate initiative, go into climate change
conferences. It creates the platform to bring all these things together and it makes you open
your eyes. So you can leverage and build on the initiatives from country A and bring it to country
B. Being in nuclear society makes you think of nuclear rather as an avocation than only a job.
You get more connection to this technology and benefits of nuclear. It can get frustrating for
people if they are only attached to nuclear on professional level and don’t really understand the
opportunities in the nuclear industry. In the society you can exchange views with senior
professionals so it enables a richer dialogue on where the industry should go. Nathan believes
that senior people appreciate hearing the views of YGN.
Young Generation communities take different nuclear advocacy initiatives in uncommon areas,
like pubs. Public knows that these are not people in suits coming from nuclear industry, that
they will address the concerns and touch controversial topics.

Future of nuclear in Nathan’s eyes
Q. Are you excited about the future and how should it look like for you to be satisfied?
A. Nathan is very excited about the opportunities for nuclear industry. Firstly, from technology
side, especially focusing on the non-electric applications of nuclear energy. There are going to
be new reactors coming through, SMRs, micro reactors, advanced nuclear reactors providing
heat at much higher level than existing PWRs. It’s going to open the door for applications like
hydrogen production, district heating. Hopefully it’s going to make nuclear much more
accessible and understandable for the public and other industries as well. There are some
industries that already look out to partnerships seeking nuclear technologies, e.g. in Poland,
Estonia. It’s a great time for engineers to be involved in nuclear projects like Gen IV.

From Metallurgy to Manufacturing (0:00-14:38)
(Rich Deakins looks back on how his education in metallurgy led him into operations management in nuclear fuel manufacturing)

Q: How did you learn about nuclear energy?
A: Rich Deakins grew up in the coalfields of northern UK, around the heavy industry areas of South Yorkshire and Sheffield. Both his father and brother were underground coal miners. During his late teenage years, UK experienced an industrial shift around the economics of coal, threatening the industry. Rich went on to study metallurgy at Sheffield University. The four-year degree program included two six-month work experience placements. Rich ended up working at the UK Atomic Energy Authority where he did research on void swelling on nuclear radiation damage in stainless steel. Brittleness, dimension, and shape of a metal can all be changed by radiation. When a metal is put in front of a radiation source, damage is done to one side caused by neutrons knocking atoms out of the lattice and coming together to form a gas bubble. During his early years i/n university, Rich started planning strategically one year ahead, not knowing what he wanted to do long term. Young grads shouldn’t look too far ahead, but show up and know what you want to get out of it. Rich’s second placement during university was at one of the big generating boards, a UK utility, which was a nationalized industry at the time. His work was focused on completing insurance claims and analyzing machine failures on power stations. Rich got exposed to nuclear and hydro power stations during this time. During his time in school, Rich identified areas of study that he wasn’t very comfortable with and focused on learning those subjects thoroughly, eventually leading him to receive a first class honours degree. He received an offer after graduation in the technical department at Springfields, the home of UK’s nuclear fuel fabrication since 1960. All the magnox fuel in the UK and all the oxide fuel for the advanced gas reactors (AGR) was made at Springfields. Rich worked around icons of the industry, who encouraged him to explore the operations side. He got a position on the operations management team as an assistant plant manager on one of the main line oxide fuel plants. Rich was responsible for the blend recipes for AGR main line enrichment blends. Most enriched oxide plants are either limited moderation, safe by shape, safe by mass, safe by moderation, or they have burnable poisons. At that time, the AGR fleet was ten or eleven reactors, all slightly different and all operating on slightly different enrichment levels and fuels. Production starts with a powder, goes into granules, pellets, fuel rods, fuel bundles, and to the station. Progressively, these steps get more complicated as the process advances, especially with 20 or 30 fuel variants.

Innovation in Nuclear Fuel Production (14:38-31:54)
(A look at how Rich brought success to some of nuclear fuel manufacturing’s biggest operations challenges in the UK)

Q: I never thought that the fuel could be different, driving up fuel costs, operations costs, and overall the cost of power more expensive.
A: In his late twenties, Rich Deakin was working as an assistant plant manager on one of the main line oxide fuel plants at Springfields. The fuel division of British Nuclear Fuels called the Springfields site, realizing that a change was coming in terms of customers because the UK electricity market was about to be broken into the North and South boards and eventually be deregulated. Nuclear fuel had to be thirty percent cheaper to survive in that market. British Nuclear Fuels tried to kickstart a just-in-time manufacturing program aimed at finding the right balance between keeping the workforce busy and producing the right products. This strategy focuses on supply chain management, value stream mapping, and constraint theory which identifies the bottlenecks. Three assistant plant managers, including Rich, were promoted to plant manager in order to try running things differently. Rich had to get very good at actually fixing problems that were previously bearable. Without inventory or stockpiles to go to, breakdowns are fixed when things more quickly. Productivity was improved by 25% over three years. The lead time for fuel went from two-and-a-half years to a maximum of six months. This led the company to question whether twenty-odd variants of fuel were actually needed and if the marginal difference in performance was worth the extra cost to manufacture. Rich reduced the number of fuel types down to six or seven variants. This also helped reduce the amount of material that needed to be stockpiled. Nuclear has progressively looked at technical gain in the reactor systems, rather than the overall cost of delivering power. Rich was asked to go to Sellafield to make mixed oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel. Sellafield has been the center of reprocessing and waste storage in the UK. It was also the site of the first commercial power station, Calder Hall, a Magnox station in 1958. Four reactors were built and put online in three-and-a-half years. Sellafield was a reprocessing facility generating plutonium oxide. The question is whether the activity still latent in that material is a liability or an asset. One mechanism for closing the cycle was to blend it with uranium and put it back in fuel assemblies sent to reactors. This was done at the Sellafield MOX Plant. The plant wasn’t particularly easy to operate and was challenging to commission, mostly because of the way the components were connected in the system. Rich was appointed head of manufacturing in that facility and asked to get it to go with his team. When Rich picked up the business, he decided his team needed to get away from planning and feel successful by solving a problem in the plant. The speed at which you commission is determined by a simple cycle: how fast you can identify where the problem is, usually based on the data collection system; how fast your people can understand it and identify the issue; how fast your team can find a potential solution; and, how fast your team and can trial and error to put it in place. In nuclear, the trial and error phase gets tricky because of change management plans and risk assessment. Rich advocated that the ownership of an issue should belong to the individuals that can fix it. Managers and leaders own the responsibility to give the team space to do their work. Rich took the plant from zero to four fuel assemblies, right the first time with the certification date approaching half a million data points, all concession free, in 18 months. The key is good data and ability to find the problem and implement solutions.

The UK Government’s Investment in Nuclear (31:54-47:52)
(Why the UK is pursuing small modular reactor technology and how manufacturing methods can impact the success of the industry)

Q: What role are you at now and what are the challenges you are trying to take on?
A: Rich Deakins was an operations-making type, as opposed to reprocessing or project management. After Sellafield, it was not obvious what his next move would be, so he left to get some international experience in a different sector. Rich was asked to be a general manager head of manufacturing for a Rolls Royce Aerospace site. His job was to transition an old site to a new site within the aerospace network. Rich learned a lot in this role, such as dispersed supply chains and external supply chain management, but both the aerospace and nuclear industries had a similar focus on quality. Rolls Royce has a division which designs, builds, and services nuclear reactor cores for the UK Navy. Rich was offered the role of general manager and agent of the site licensee, making him accountable for running a nuclear licensed site, where he worked for five years. After his five years in Rolls, Rich went to work for NuScale Power in Oregon as the program director for their first-of-a-kind engineering and validation effort. He returned to the UK and joined the UK government as a policy advisor within the Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) advising UK government ministers on what’s needed to bring forward the commercialization of small nuclear power in the UK. In 2014, the UK hosted a small modular reactor (SMR) competition to try and downselect what small nuclear technology offered the best value for money as a proposition for investment by the UK. It actually compared small nuclear on a like-for-like basis with large generation programs, determining it doesn’t work based on economies of scale if all things are equal. There is a different risk profile than delivering something that is factory-built in a controlled environment than something that is field-built as a project. Small nuclear looks at developing a product, not a project. In 2018, BEIS commissioned the Expert Finance Working Group which took six or seven independent experts from the City of London to see if commercial finance could be attracted to small nuclear programs. One theme that emerged was the financial community didn’t understand the risk profile of nuclear, particularly small nuclear. When Ford built the first Model T in Michigan in 1908, it wasn’t about the internal combustion engine - it was about the method of factory-built manufacturing. This is what needs to be done with small nuclear. There will be step changes and technology evolution along the way to fit in different applications and markets, but they will all be built the same way. Rich decided he wanted to explore the development of UK SMR technology. In July 2019, the UK government decided they would cofund the first phase of a UK SMR program and committed to a series of programs run by UK Research & Innovation designed to enable developments and deliveries of significant projects that might impact societal growth. Rich left the government and is now the UK Challenge Program Director for the Low-Cost Nuclear Challenge. The mission is to de-risk the research and development of a small nuclear delivery model to the point at which commercial and private financers can be attracted to it at competitive rates.

Low-Cost Nuclear Challenge (47:52-1:01:47)
(Rich explains how the combination of government and private investments has decreased nationwide emissions and fed into the nuclear supply chain)

Q: Are private nuclear developers applying for the money through the Low-Cost Nuclear Challenge?
A: Rich Deakins is the Challenge Program Director for the Low-Cost Nuclear Challenge in the UK. Rolls-Royce, with a consortium of partners, came forward and bid into the industrial strategy fund. They believed they had a program which could attract a private developer to select the technology and build on a site. The match funding to the government investment is provided by Rolls-Royce and its partners. This advances the design, promise towards site allocation, development of the supply chain, and advances the policy narrative and commercial frameworks for nuclear. The real value of the program is creating a project dynamic and forcing issues to be answered and addressed on a project timescale. UK wants to deploy small modular reactors (SMR) no later than 2030, if not earlier. Rolls-Royce looked at all the things that drive the cost of power output and the cost of construction. They went searching for a construction partner that was not necessarily skilled in nuclear, but one that was skilled in innovative and modular construction. The cost of operations is driven by data analysis and impacts. Rolls-Royce has taken a very cost-driven view of nuclear power to deliver a small nuclear power station. No decision is made if it is thought that it will drive the cost up. Phase One was about firming up cost estimates. Utility partners have stepped forward wanting to engage in this program and private investment funds from other sectors are interested due to the cost of decarbonization. After the next phase, a joint venture will form and equity partners can step in. UK is the first country to legislate for a net zero target across the whole economy. Fundamentally, the power generation footprint needs to be a lot lower than it is today. Over the past five to eight years, UK has decreased emission from 235 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour to about 128 today. To get to net zero by 2050, most analysts say that people should double energy generation and delivery to the grid. Nuclear is a proven technology that is low carbon, but it must be affordable and deliverable. Estimates predict that the cost of nuclear power will be just as competitive as everything else. There’s going to be enough need to build enough units in the UK to demonstrate the benefits of the fleet approach and to warrant investigation into the technology. Building in a factory - relative to a big project site build - probably saves you 30-40% of down time. It’s possible, with the scale of the global market, that getting up into 10-20 units around the globe could turn into a supply chain supplying tens of thousands of jobs in the northern UK. One of the visions is for the UK to become a global hook for small nuclear deployment, supply, build, and regulation. The UK SMR is a vehicle to develop a supply chain capability that can service and support multiple technologies, including advanced nuclear, molten salts, and high temperature gas reactors.

Q. What are you doing on everyday basis in Nuscale?
A. Chris works as Chief Strategy offices in NuScale since 2014, focusing on business
development, government affairs and working with customers on a number of issues. In Nuscale
a position of CSO is very flexible, which he likes.

Q. What did you study?
A. Chris’ initial choices were influenced by his parents. One of first experiences that Chris
recalls is reading “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. In his community there was a discussion
about nuclear waste and he remembers writing a paper about it in 8-th grade, that turned out
anti-nuclear. He got his Bachelor of Electrical Engineering at MIT and started his career in
General Electric. After several years he came back to university to make his Master from
Business Administration. This experience allowed him to look from the engineering details to the
macro-impacts of his actions. One of the first opportunities after graduation was to work in
Bechtel Financing Services, focusing on large construction projects. He developed several
power plants – in India, Australia, United States. He always believed that having access to
affordable power is an important factor for people to have a high quality of life. Wanting to join
the benefits of large scale projects with source of energy being clean, he looked for the first time
into nuclear. Around that time the Energy Policy Act of 2005 came to power, supporting building
new nuclear units, so called ‘renaissance’. Chris joined company called Unistar, that was a joint
venture between EDF and Constellation Energy, which was pursuing the design of US-EPR
reactor. His conclusion from this experience was that technology was very safe, but also very
based on active systems. It involved the use of four safety trains, diesel generators, required
active pumping to be cooled down. In 2011, when Fukushima occurred, two things became
clear – active systems were a challenge in case of power loss, and the size of the plants on the
level of 1600MWe made them too expensive to afford and a number of existing grids being able
to accommodate such unit was limited. Soon after Chris moved to NuScale and experienced the
features of its small units. They are passive, mostly manufactured in factory and affordable, on
the level of 3bn $, which is comparable to the coal power projects that Chris worked on, worth of
2.2bn $. Chris was looking on different sources of energy, also renewables and other nuclear
sources, but NuScale won in terms of scalability.

Q. Unistar was partly owned by a French company, EDF, could you observe different working
culture? Which one did you like more?
A. In Unistar, EDF was bringing cash into the venture and Constellation was providing platform
with the existing sites on it. At the beginning of the company, several hundred French nationals
came to US to work. Bringing these people and assimilating them was one challenge. The other
one was that the cultures are different, requiring cultural training. The last one was the language
differences which made it harder to communicate efficiently. Another interesting difference was
a custom of staff rotation in EDF, that is not usual in US companies. Finally, Chris spotted that
in the US the cooperation between companies and government is not as tight as in France.
Ultimately, the project was not successful - design was too large as for current US market needs
and the overall unfavorable economic environment (cheap natural gas, the onset of renewables)
Q. What do you think about big units and their future in nuclear?
A. There is a place for the large reactors for sure. Small reactors can fit in places with lower
capital or smaller grids, but large reactors are seeked for e.g. in Europe, while for district heating
and other applications, also a small reactor is wanted. For small grids, e.g. in Jordan small
reactors are better. Initially they were looking for large VVERs, but taking into account how
much transmission lines they would need to build to accommodate it, it turned out to be very
expensive. In conclusion, there is a place for both.

Q. When you moved to NuScale, what were the qualities and experiences that Unistar didn’t
prepare you for?
A. When moving to nuclear, Chris appreciated the safety culture – there is a space for an idea
and everybody is being heard. The independent power project were commercially driven, in
nuclear, the interest in safety, the culture you operate in and discussing ideas generally, was
work-inducive, which was refreshing. In his childhood Chris learned to present his ideas
forcefully, it is good to have similar response from people, when you work in the nuclear sector.

Q. You open numerous new partnerships, MoU’s with different countries. Does it take a lot of
time to prepare to enter new market, a newcomer country?
A. It’s a broad experience, depending on which countries are we talking about, it looks different
in terms of technology, regulatory, culture. In Chris’ experience he was exposed to partnerships
overseas, in particular the countries having partnerships with US government. Chris was
working on making sure in succeeding with the translation of public-private partnerships in US
into the projects overseas. In US a natural reaction is to be weary of the government. Overseas,
people are at intersection of these two all the time. Also, there is an expectation from the
overseas partner, that the government has to support NuScale to provide its credibility,
whereas, in US culture, government cannot pick favorite technologies or companies like e.g. in
China. The US has plenty of different companies and partly this is why they are so innovative
and creative.

Q. How can you compete with state-owned companies?
A. NuScale is able to shut down and cool without a source of power. Next, because of the safety
case and all source term, the emergency planning zone that is the site boundary. That in part
is important to people. Once NuScale gets operable in the US, it will raise the confidence in the
design and this is where the company is competitive against state-owned enterprises. They will

not compete with the pricing of state owned enterprises, that are not so focused on profit.
However, Chris is excited about new results of a Fuel Working Group of DOE that plans to
implement US sources of financing, that will not be the cheapest, but will be available. It can be
in a form of loan or equity, that will be affordable. If the only factor that a client is strictly looking
at is price, then they are maybe going to choose Russians or Chinese, but as for safety,
operating history and avoiding a ‘pay day loan’ financing an American history is a good option
for them. Back in the US the competition is also based on the price, but it possible because the
rules and structures are already in place. When you go to a newcomer countries, they don’t
have it.

Q. Are there any incentives on bridging the SMR market between young companies designing
SMR and newcomer countries?
A. For example IAEA has its 19 steps showing what is there to do, focusing on establishing
regulatory framework and the regulator itself. NRC has about 43 MoUs to cooperate with foreign
regulators. NuScale wants to expand on that and provide US expertise, because they see that
their partners overseas are interested in aligning to the NRC standards. The US government
has realized that before selling a US reactor, a regulatory body is needed. There are initiatives
that NRC is taking to make sure that countries have solid foundations to make use of SMR
Technology.

Q. What are your favorite economic advantages or NuScale?
A. The economy of scale: thanks to smaller scale of the reactor, many systems could be
removed. There are no coolant pumps, so there is no need for back-up power like diesel
generators. The project is easier to manage on-site, thanks to for example containment that is
factory-built. The outages can be performed module by module, which minimizes lost power in
the grid. Also thanks to it, on average every 2 months one of the modules in a 12-module power
plants will need to be refuelled, which supports excelling of the staff in this process. The
capacity factor of the plant is very high, around 95%. Chris recalls an analysis of SCRAMs in the
US reactor fleets and 2/3 of the cases were due to the faults that are not possible at NuScale,
like leaking DG, faults in Reactor Coolant Pumps etc. these benefits show up in the cost of the
plant, number of operators to maintain it, in Core Damage Frequency. For these reasons
NuScale can be cost-effective.

Q. What is the learning curve of NuScale?
A. Initially NuScale will be using existing manufacturing capacity to create the modules and the
optimization in this non-specified factory is supposed to be reached around 8 th reactor – in the
scope of the first power plant built. The second step of productivity will be second, dedicated
plant, where production efficiency thanks to purpose-built machines, layout etc. For comparison,
Chris mentions Unistar, that was counting on getting all the learning curve by the 4 th reactor.
The partnerships for the first step factory production are signed with BWX Technologies and
Doosan Heavy Industries. The search for a good partner was performed worldwide and the
conclusion is that thanks to the small size of modules, multiple companies are capable of
performing requested services. After the first module is manufactured, NuScale will be able to
assign the manufacturing to numerous companies worldwide.

Q. Many people have this opinion that technologies based on Light Water are only transition
technology, what do you think about it?
A. Chris says, that wood used to be transition fuel, the same is with coal and oil, natural gas.
NuScale doesn’t need to be around for a hundred years to be successful, they look up to maybe
2040. And after that, the modules will be in operation for many decades. Chris mentions that in
the developed world, the electricity is so cheap that there is little difference in changing the price
by several cents per kWh, it is still affordable to people. In the developing countries, the prices
of electricity are very high so bringing down this cost is of importance.

Q. What are long term plans of NuScale? Creating new reactor designs or rather providing
services for the units in place?
A. NuScale is going to stay focused on the current technology. They are going to obtain design
certification in September 2020 and they will be able to get the first customer. 40% of the
workforce is under 40 and they are interested to see what is the future of NuScale. However,
current focus stays on delivering the first module on time in budget and adequate quality.
NuScale was able to disprove the issues that people assume about nuclear like financing of the
young company, timely review of certification by NRC. Now they are working with their first
customer Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems to deliver the product in time and budget
by learning all the possible lessons like achieving high degree of design complete before
starting construction. Some elements of NuScale are different from the rest of nuclear light
water fleet: instead of Control Rod Drive, there is a long control rod, instead of U-tubes in the
Steam Generator, the tubes are helical. Any part of the technical project that is deemed risky
will be analyzed before going to the field, including all the parts outside of nuclear island.

Q. What are the near-term goals of NuScale?
A. Chris outlines the next steps of NuScale as design certification, first customer, combined
license application, manufacturing trials and test with the supply partners to have modules
available when they need to be installed. It is a huge undertaking, requires attention to detail, a
proper plan. In this technology, if you want to do everything right at the first time, it requires time
and effort to prepare. Chris states a US nuclear fleet outage as an example. Before the outage,
around 20-25% of its budget is used, next, during only several months, 80% is spent, which
makes the outage time require a high level of detail and proper scheduling. Thanks to it, US
fleet has the lowest cost per unit produced, highest capacity factor and high safety. It was
observed that after TMI when nuclear industry was dedicated to development of safety, the
capacity factor of the plants went up, operating costs came down. This is partly why US nuclear
fleet is looked at the way it is and this could have been one of the reasons why EDF partnered
with Constellation to form Unistar.

Q. Are you excited about the nearest future of NuScale?
A. Chris is absolutely excited about the future. Chris wishes it happened faster, because this is
the longest he’s been in one job. There are many places where people don’t have enough
energy and they need it. NuScale has been the stage of growth in Chris’ career that was the
most challenging and the most worthwhile. Even more than him, his employees are excited
about the future. Chris likes meeting them. During the Covid crisis NuScale staff was
teleworking not diminishing their effectiveness.