TITANS OF NUCLEAR

Q: How did you get started in the Nuclear industry?
A: Dr. Roger Howsley is the Executive Director and Co-founder of WINS (World Institute for Nuclear Security) and has held the position for 12 years. Originally graduating with a degree in life sciences from bachelor’s - PhD level, Roger joined the nuclear industry with expertise in health physics and was later offered a position in the International Safeguards Department, 8 years later, Roger became the Director of the division.

Q: What were your first perceptions of the nuclear industry?
A: Roger refers to his first thoughts of the industry as being very ‘heavy’, referring to the state and government involvements. The rigidity of the industry was something he took a while to get accustomed to, with high emphasis on processes and security clearances.

Q: How did your past roles influence your current work with WINS?
A: Roger felt early on in his career that there were a lot of wasted opportunities, when ultimately “all we were trying to do was boil water” and he felt the culture of secrecy and complexity only hindered progress on the primary goals.
Later on in his career, he worked with two directors who had a large influence on him and saw a need for proper stakeholder engagement and building visiting centers and encouraging young people to come around the facilities. Eventually they became the biggest tourist attraction in the area and public opinion during that time changed dramatically in favour of nuclear energy. Unfortunately, after the events of 9/11 everything closed up again, although Roger feels that was a mistake and instead they should have reengaged with the public much more openly than they did.

Q: What led up to starting WINS and what does it stand for?
A: As Roger got more involved with the security and policing issues in the nuclear industry, he realised that everyone was working in silos. This led up to Roger and two other directors setting up engagement programs with the public and anti-nuclear groups. This turned out to be a 6 year program with a $5 million budget. A series of working groups were facilitated to build trust, which turned out to be an early model to WINS.
Roger describes his time with the program like this: “The very first meeting we had with our counterparts who were not necessarily from the industry or pro nuclear, I think they looked at us like we had two heads and we looked at them like they were stupid. And I think within a matter of months, we realised that neither of those things were true. We were honest people trying to do an honest job, and they were honest people with honest criticism or issues.”
WINS currently has about 6,500 registered members and are the leaders in knowledge exchange and certification for nuclear security management, they also work closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency on certain programs.

Q: Do you see the conversation changing now that there is more concern about CO2 emissions and clean energy generation. A: Roger says there is general recognition that the construction costs for traditional reactors are unsustainable, adding the common delays that come with the construction cycle. For this reason, Roger is particularly excited about advanced reactor systems and SMRs (Small Modular Reactors), but believes that some of the same mistakes are still being made; because manufacturing processes for mass deployment internationally is still not an available option.
Standardising designs internationally is a necessary step in Roger’s view to drive progress in future nuclear reactor construction projects, and he can’t think of any other industry that still behaves this way - giving reference to the aviation industry where Airbus and Boeing dominate the commercial design space.
Explaining further, Roger summarizes his thoughts here: “If we truly believe in a nuclear future for the reasons that i’ve given: which is we are trying to mitigate climate change, and reduce CO2 emissions - there should be the international pressure, there should be the international desire to work together to achieve that - without just thinking about national or company objectives.”
WINS also works with the advanced technology community and SMR community to encourage them to integrate nuclear security into the design of their reactors, so there isn’t an added expense afterwards. WINS also encourages them to think hard about incorporating stakeholder engagement in all their plans, because if the objective is to integrate SMRs into local communities then its a good idea to engage with the public about the risks and educate them, before ill-will can grow. Also referring to Finland as an excellent example of stakeholder engagement.
Q: How can the industry break down communication barriers and embrace collaboration?
A: Roger has seen the reaction from the public and other stakeholders in his previous 6 year program prior to starting WINS. He recalls the change in attitudes and acceptance of nuclear energy.
Roger suggests that within every financial grant that the governments give, a compulsory percentage of the funding be allocated to stakeholders and community engagement. Another suggestion is for countries to work together on designs, so they don’t need to be relicensed in every country and international criteria be set for those designs. He believes that these points could help focus on the main goal, which is producing socially acceptable energy to generate electricity and he believes that we can’t do this by simply ignoring society.
Q: What are the major takeaways from your 12 years at WINS?
A: WINS was set up to be a practitioner driven organisation and to share best practices in nuclear security. Roger spent the first year arguing with governments if they could legitimately do this without disclosing secret information. Hundreds of events and thousands of members later, WINS is now regarded in high esteem.
WINS is trying to normalize attitudes towards nuclear security by integrating it into everything else that companies do. Breaking down communication barriers and integrating with safety, to focus more on human reliability.
WINS frequently organises events, workshops, webinars, and also through their WINS academy which has been running for 5 year. Which provides online programs that give certification for nuclear safety.
Q: What are you most excited for in the future of nuclear energy
A: “I think there is a growing realisation, driven by some of the climate statistics - that something has to be done and I think as a human species we are always better reacting to things than anticipating things.”
Roger is worried about the long term economic impact of Covid-19, and sees this potentially impacting funding to nuclear programs. He believes this as an opportunity to be less reliant on government grants and work with entrepreneurs and people who know how to take and manage risks.
Collaboration is cheaper and more effective, and will greatly benefit future designs and nuclear reactor construction projects. Roger calls for the industry to stop thinking solely about engineering and technology and spare some thought to how they are going to integrate these new reactors into society.
Energy parks is also something that Roger is looking forward to - featuring wind, solar, and nuclear. Roger believes that having integrated programs like these is the way forward for the industry.

Kenya’s Radiation Protection Board
Q: Tell us about your personal story and how you became an expert in the nuclear space.
A: David Otwoma graduated from the University of Nairobi in 1987 with a major in physics. In early 1988,
he joined a new entity called the Radiation Protection Board as a radiation protection officer. At that time,
physicists traditionally became teachers or inspectors at factories. The Radiation Protection Act, enacted
in 1982, implemented the new Board in 1986. When David first joined the Board, it was part of the
Ministry of Health because the people in human health knew about the hazards of radiation due to the
use of x-ray machines. In 1969, Kenya acquired the first Cobalt-60 for cancer therapy. Around the time
David was hired on, the Board started making a registry of radiation sources and found there were more
uses in industry than in human health, such as in construction and non-destructive testing for welding.
People in industry were less enlightened about the concerns of radiation sources. In welding, Iridium-192
or an x-ray machine could be used, dependent on where the weld was located. In road construction or
agriculture, emission beryllium sources could be used to test moisture content. Hydrology is also an
industry application in the search for water. One university application put a radiation source at the tip of
the lightning arrestor with the thought it would create ionization and attract lightning. In 1993, David and
the Board had to collect all the sources and mobilize them in drums filled with concrete. During his first
trip to the U.S. in 1994, David came to think about nuclear power and the different radioactive materials.
The casing of cobalt-60 is depleted uranium and was the only uranium in the country, used to treat
cancer in a patient. When the Radiation Protection Board was created, the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) became interested in Kenya. The first regional training for radiation protection officers
was held in 1988 in Nairobi and brought participants from all over Africa. At the time, Kenya was the only
country in the West Africa region that had regulation for radiation sources. In 1989, Tanzania also
created a Radiation Protection Board and now has the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission. During
work with the IAEA, David began to learn that most users of radiation sources are in electricity
production, not human health or agriculture. In 1999, David was hired by IAEA as a Nuclear Safeguards
Inspector, allowing him to get more exposed to electricity-producing nuclear facilities. His training took
him to Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Los Alamos in the U.S. A safeguards inspector goes to peaceful
facilities to ensure the technology is not being retrofitted for bad nuclear purposes.

Least Cost Power Development Plans
Q: After your training, did you set out to be a safeguards inspector around the world?
A: After his training, David Otwoma set out to be a safeguards inspector around the world. The
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had divided the world into three regions; David was initially
assigned to the European region, where he did most of his inspections, returning to Kenya in 2007.
Kenya suffered from a drought in 2009; at the time, hydroelectricity was approximately 80% of the
electricity and there was not enough electricity production. In the current presidency, the National
Economic and Social Council tasked the Ministry of Energy because the manufacturers were threatening
to leave the country for places where electricity was more readily available, reliable, and affordable.
When David came back, he joined the National Council for Science and Technology to provide
advisories to both the executive and national government. David was able to present information on the
use of nuclear energy for electricity production and collaborated with a gentleman from South Korea who
was involved in his country’s nuclear development. In 2011, the Nuclear Electricity Project Committee
was created to follow the IAEA milestone approach. The first milestone as a country is to make a
knowledgeable commitment to nuclear power. In 2008, David implored the Ministry of Energy to stop
relying on ex-patriates to stop making Kenya’s energy plants. Kenya’s Least Cost Power Development
Plan was created as a twenty-year rolling plan with the vision of having Kenya as a middle-income
economy which is industrialized by the year 2030. To realize the vision would require anything between
32,000 and 36,000 megawatts of electricity. Right now, Kenya is generating just below 3,000 megawatts.

If the potential for hydroelectric was exhausted, Kenya could reach 5,000 megawatts. Kenya also has
geothermal energy, which could product 10,000 megawatts. Coal, gas, and nuclear started popping up
as options. Coal and nuclear were competitive because of cost, since fracking technology had not yet
been established. The Nuclear Electricity Project Committee was transformed into the Kenya Nuclear
Electricity Board. In 2019, the Parliament passed the Energy Act which created the Nuclear Power and
Energy Agency. One mandate is to promote nuclear energy for power generation. The other mandate is
to research energy possibilities in all sectors. In December 20219, the president signed the nuclear
regulatory authority into law. Kenya conducted training with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) alongside Uganda, Tanzania, South Sudan, Burundi and Rwanda. The legal framework in place;
the next step is to train the next generation. Kenyan students went to Texas A&M to study at the
university during the summer months. South Korea’s Korea International Nuclear Graduate School has
also hosted Kenyan students since 2010.

Electricity Supply and Demand in Kenya
Q: At what point do you think you’ll be ready to actually have a reactor built in Kenya?
A: The first nuclear development plan in Kenya was made in 2009, which planned for construction in
2026. After the government shift in 2013, another development plan was made in 2017 and pushed
construction to 2036. Right now, there are discussions of having a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) and a partnership agreement between Kenya’s Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA) and
NuScale. However, there is a fear for having first-of-a-kind until Kenya’s leadership can be more
pragmatic and radical. Fulfilling the electricity demands of Kenyans and allowing the people to afford the
electricity are necessities. In order for manufacturer’s to be competitive, the cost of electricity needs to be
down and the source needs to be reliable. Kenya’s population of people who are 50 years old and above
make up 6 percent of the population, while people 18 years and below make up 40 percent. Towns now
make up 30 percent of the population as people leave rural areas to live in places with more accessible
electricity. Most of Kenya’s high level leadership has a planning life span of five years and plans only for
the short term to find quick wins. In order to have nuclear power, a country needs to think of time spans
of 100 years or more. Up to 1997, only one company was generating electricity in Kenya and the same
country was distributing the electricity. Now, Kenya has unbundled the industry, separating the generator
from the transmitter and distributor. The country now has independent power producers. Recently, an
independent power producer has built a wind farm which contributes 300 megawatts to the grid. The
Energy Act passed in 2019 recognizes a place for independent power producers and created a regulator
for petroleum, coal, and electricity. Any independent production above one megawatt will allow the
producer to sell the excess electricity to the distribution company in that region. Some places in Kenya
have concentrated companies, such as locations where phosphates are used for fertilizers or where iron
deposits are home for steel companies. Economic zones have special tax laws and if what they are
producing is set for export, they have dedicated sources of electricity.

Retaining Kenya’s Talent
Q: How do people on the ground feel about nuclear power?
A: David Otwoma sees Kenya’s population as a triangle, with few older residents and many younger
residents open to nuclear power. In 2010, Ministers in Kenya were politicians that were members of
Parliament, picked by the President to be on the Cabinet. One member went to her rural area where she
had gotten votes, where the electrification was less than 10 percent. While she was on the podium, she
asked the people if they wanted electricity and if they minded if it came from nuclear power. Like hungry
people don’t care which type of food they eat, people without electricity aren’t particular to the source.
The young people are in. They don’t have electricity in their house and it is not affordable. Even small
businesses that have electricity cannot rely on it, especially in bad weather. The demand for electricity
exists in Kenya. Right now, COVID-19 has stopped young people from moving to Europe for work. To
keep the young people, Kenya needs the things that Europe has. Roads need to be built, houses need to
be built, and factories need to be built. This would allow Kenyans to consume in their towns. Kenya must
up their game in many areas. Looking forward, Kenya the young people need the right skills and the right
technology to create the economy in Kenya. If it comes to having a first-of-a-kind technology, like
NuScale, Kenya must not be afraid because small power plants are needed to make Kenya a consumer
society.

International Introduction to HTGR Technology
Q: How did you get into the nuclear space?

A: Donald Carlson grew up in Omaha, Nebraska and got exposed to the energy industry early
on as his father was an electrical engineer who worked with hydroelectric power. He eventually
chose to pursue Engineering Science at Iowa State University, followed by a Master’s degree in
Nuclear Engineering. During his Master’s program, Donald worked at Fort Calhoun during its
first two cycles. This plant recently shut down, struggling with the ability to deal with floodings as
part of the safety analysis. After completing his program and receiving his degree, Donald took
a six month exchange program at the Nuclear Research Center in Jülich, Germany. He ended
up staying five years in Germany and received his PhD from Aachen under the mentorship of
Rudolf Schulten, the protege of Werner Heisenberg. Donald’s previous experiences had left him
as an subject matter expert on pressurized water reactors, but Three Mile Island - which
happened during his time at Aachen - was an epiphany for Donald. Until this point, he thought
the passive safety features of Schulten’s technology were interesting, but not a selling point.
The pebble-bed HTGR technology offers such a degree of inherent safety that it can be treated
almost like any other energy technology: suitable for rapid deployment in the developing world
and developed without special oversight. Nobody knew at the time that the releases at Three
Mile Island were not so bad, and even the long-lived radionuclide releases from Chernobyl and
Fukushima were not as bad as predicted. Donald left Germany in 1983 to work on exotic
reactors for exotic applications at Los Alamos National Labs. After Los Alamos, he moved on to
be the lead principal investigator for the new production high temperature gas reactor (HTGR),
an interesting, but short, project which used HTGR technology for weapons material production.
Donald then went to work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 1991 because of his
expertise in non-light water reactors. After twenty-five years at the NRC, Donald began to see
an organization that was farther from being able to consider and accommodate innovation than
when he first joined. It was difficult to recruit a team of engineers to become experts on HTGR’s,
or other advanced reactor technology, because it was safer long term for people to stay within
the parameters of what the NRC specialized in: light water reactors. Newcomer countries will
have less organizational and cultural inertia to overcome, compared to the NRC. Donald
Carlson felt frustration with the way the Nuclear Regulatory Commission made decisions about
advanced reactor technologies, which was predominantly with a refined focus on light water
reactors.

Mythbusting Misconceptions About Graphite Fires
Q: My claim is there is no physical mechanism to get the radionuclides into human bodies in
sufficient quantities even in the worst case of a light water reactor accident.

A: Donald Carlson advocates for the importance of rigorous, independent peer review and
analysis to confirm claims about mechanisms for getting radionuclides into human bodies.
Putting educated individuals’ careers at stake is part of the inertia that must be challenged in
these situations. One of the silver linings may be that this inertia may be easier to overcome in
emerging countries. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) representative gave a closed
seminar voicing frustration about Fukushima and experimental evidence suggesting cesium
does not come out to anything like the codes predict. Some of nuclear’s most revered experts
have misconceptions about the worst reactor accident in history. A widespread misconception is
that graphite burns like coal. Reactor-grade graphite can be made to burn, but it is not easy,
requiring high temperatures and air flow. The Windscale reactor fire in the UK was called a
graphite fire, but in 2006, photos taken of the damaged reactor core showed that most of the
graphite was still intact. Windscale was an air-cooled weapons material production reactor that
used metallic fuel elements. These elements got badly overheated and burnt, taking some
graphite with it, but most of the graphite remained. At extremely high temperatures, a solid
graphite block will air oxidize to carbon monoxide. Research has been done to see exactly how
that happens and how that will be credible - or not - in an extreme accident in a high
temperature gas reactor. Everybody thinks this happened at Chernobyl, but it did not. Chernobyl
went supercritical and exploded, blowing the core to bits. Within a fraction of a second, the core
went from producing ten percent of its nominal rate of power to ten times its nominal rate of
power, vaporizing the fuel and the zirconium. The Chernobyl-type RBMK reactor has twice the
zirconium in it than the comparable light water reactor. It is easy to conclude all of the zirconium
violently, exothermically oxidized in the first second of the accident and that the rapid oxidation
served as an accelerant to make a little bit of the graphite burn. No more than ten percent of the
graphite at Chernobyl burned, even though everybody says there was a raging graphite fire that
dispersed radioactive fission products via a thermal plume all over Europe. There was a thermal
plume - which was very hot, powered by air rushing into the demolished core - but the valid heat
source was not the burning of graphite or zirconium, but simply nuclear decay heat.

Light Water Reactors’ Weak Link
Q: Tell me about your residual concern for the current light water reactor system.

A: With a few minor changes to the currently light water reactor system, Donald Carlson sees a
possibility for a large fission product release that could even dwarf what came out of Chernobyl.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF)
included two key recommendations that Donald felt should have been implemented, but were
not implemented due to industry opposition. The major recommendation that should be
implemented is an accelerated transition from high density pool storage of spent fuel to dry cask
storage spent fuel. There are critical scenarios, such as a major solar flare, that would wipe out
huge portions of the electric grid by burning up transformers, causing a months-long blackout.
There has been a lot of work, sponsored by the NRC at Sandia National Laboratories, to do full-
scale modeling of what happens in a spent fuel pool drain-out accident, leading to a raging
zirconium fire. A drain-down accident is where the pool gets a hole in it and drains down,
exposing the fuel. This would take down one reactor at a time, but if there was a region-wide
grid blackout, all the reactors in that region would be facing the same scenario. Decades worth
of cesium and strontium could potentially come out of spent fuel pools without the other
mechanisms seen in light water reactors, or even Chernobyl, that make that release less than
predicted. This air-fueld zirconium fire is very exothermic and drives the plume of fission
products. While local geologic repositories absent of groundwater are physically possible, there
would be political outrage that must be addressed. The nuclear industry has tried to manage
risk by instead managing outrage. China has shown a certain amount of independence. During
a trip to the Chinese regulator many years ago, Donald was amazed that China was trying to
license one of everything in China and learning from the best in the process. China has that
diversity in the regulator to think about things that aren’t light water reactors. They are very
close to starting up the first modular HTGR at Shidaowan site.

Influential Factors in Nuclear Policy
Q: Why is spent fuel left in the pools for so long instead of moving it to dry storage?

A: Donald Carlson sees spent fuel pools as the biggest risk of light water reactors. Spent fuel is
left in the pools for long periods of time because it is cheaper than dry storage and the regulator
allows it. During his time at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Donald worked for six
years helping license spent fuel casks. In his efforts to bring a more rational approach, he
helped the NRC acknowledge that spent fuel is much less reactive than fresh fuel. The spent
fuel casks that were licensed were far more expensive than they had to be. There is an idea that
the canisters inside the shielding annulus of the spent fuel cask will be taken and placed into a
geologic repository someday. This repository is thought to have limited space, so as many
assemblies as possible need to be able to fit in the repository. Another idea considered for
nuclear waste is a deep borehole disposal (DBD), which would be cheaper than disposal in a
geologic repository. It is somewhat of a mystery to Donald why Germany turned their backs on
nuclear power. Germany was leading the way in nuclear technology and Professor Schulten’s
high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) concepts were emulated in China, hopefully leading to a
successful demonstration of the first modular HTGR. It also started in South Africa, but failed
due to a number of issues. Around the world, people admire the work of Professor Schulten, but
inside Germany during the current times, he is viewed as somewhat of a villain. In ten to fifteen
years, Donald sees the construction of multiple reactors that are acknowledged to be safe
enough and far better than the alternative, both in terms of pollution and public health, but also
reversing climate change. At the turn of the next century, fusion may start to take on that role.

Waclaw’s beginning of career (2:00)
2:00-6:07 (Wacław explains how he became a nuclear physicist, his PhD and Post-doctorate
path)
Q. How did young Waclaw decide to become a nuclear physicist in the first place?
A. Wacław wanted to become a nuclear physicist as far as he remembers. I studied nuclear
physics in Cracow university of Science and Technology, did his PhD in former Soviet Union, at
the Joint Institut for Nuclear Research. He was designing the moving reflector for the research

fast reactor, cooled with liquid sodium, which is called in Russian IBR-2 or in English Pulsed fast
reactor. And this reactor got supercritical on prompt neutrons. Such reactor wouldn’t be allowed
to be licensed today, not in the current licensing environment. This reactor works until today,
with the same design of the moving reflector. One week after his PhD defence, he left as a post
doc to Sweden. He never intended to stay in Sweden more than 6 months, but it became his
whole adult life. When Wacław arrived in 1983 it was the peak of antinuclear action - 3 years
before Chernobyl accident, but Sweden was extremely heavily affected by TMI. In 1980, the
country had a referendum and they decided, that all the nuclear power should be shut down in
20 years, which, as we know, didn’t finally happen. It was a very deep crisis in the research,
funding.
Relations with Swedish government in the period of discriminatory, anti-nuclear law
(6:07)
6:07- 12:13 (Wacław talks about relations with Swedish government between 1980 and 2006,
when the antinuclear law was lifted, including creation and performance of Swedish Nuclear
Center)
Q. Communication saved Swedish nuclear in 1980 and it needs to save it also now, because
the industry is diverting again from nuclear towards other sources of energy.
A. Wacław is convinced that in 5 years Sweden will be building a new reactor. Since the
referendum it was forbidden by law to develop new nuclear power under the thread of 4 years of
prison. Waclaw challenged this law a few times, e.g. in 1992 he reported himself to the police
saying that he wants to be arrested for plans of building a new reactor. He worked for 20y with
the parliaments - sometimes he was speaking to 1 person in the room, sometimes 200. The
anti-nuclear law was very harming for the industry, and also for the science, but it forced the
scientific environment to create a new mechanism to fund the university research. It was called
Swedish Nuclear Center, financed by industry, but the decision where the funds should go, was
up to the governing body of the entity. It also made possible to create a good master program.
This way around 200 000 swedish crowns [around 20 mln USD] to various Swedish universities.
Waclaw is very proud that they succeeded to disconnect the investors from the decision-
makers, because it created free research opportunities and at that time research on
transmutation florished, Sweden started the research on Accelerator Driven System and part of
the research on Generation IV reactors, because they were unconstraint in the choice of topics.
Development of Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS) concept leading to MYRRHA project
(12:13)
12:13-19:42 (Prof. Gudowski explains his involveent in ADS development and gives some
insights on MYRRHA project)
Q. Next thing I want to talk about is ADS.
A. Wacław is the author of the acronyme ADS. In 1994 he was a coordinator of the IAEA status
report on transmutation research. Due to various constraints of IAEA, the name of this activity
couldn’t relate to many features of this technology like ‘transmutation of waste’ or ‘reactors’, so

finally Acceleator Driven Systems was the optimum. Wacław was the coordinator of the first
European ADS project focused on impact of ADS on nuclear power safety, in parallel with Carlo
Rubia [CERN], who was working on nuclear cross-sections and other fundamental aspects.
Prof. Gudowski was at the very first step of development of MYRRHA – European ADS project
being constructed in Belgium. Wacław contributed to establishing a relation between former
weapon experts in Russia and the world community of the physicists – forming International
Science and Technology Center (ISTC), which managed to draw the know-how from the lead-
bismuth technology of submarine propulsion reactors into the civil world. ISTC planned to patent
this technology, but finally it was decided to publish all the data, which accelerated the
business-like activities and intensive research in this topic, in Europe, Russia, China, South
Korea. MYRRHA was born thanks to international activities. In Europe such activities it take a
long time, in the meantime, China is moving much faster with the construction and develoment
of new reactors, but also with ADS, an example being a laboratory in Hefei.
Timing and financial problems of reactor projects (19:42)
19:42-23:04 (Wacław states that the issues of current construction times come down to
politicizing decisions about nuclear and lack of political will to support nuclear)
Q. You’ve seen many countries with many working cultures, why does it take so long in Europe?
A. Wacław thinks that the reason is no common political will. The issue of nuclear power was so
unnecessarily politicized, politicians are, instead of setting the rules for the development, they
are trying to make the decisions that should belong to the experts. Also, we deployed so many
reactors, 150 reactors in Europe in only 20 years, it was almost too much to incorporate that.
Unfortunately it is not good for technology to move with jumps, it’s better when it develops more
smoothly, but still political will is the key.
Looking back, there were two financing models implemented – in the US it was private market
model, in Europe – state-level decisions, but in both cases we failed in the harmonic
development. The problem comes back to political will which is the function of very unsettled
public acceptance. For some reason public opinion was unnecessarily coupled with nuclear
weapons. History shows however that there is no correlation between nuclear power program
and weapon program, but this link was misused by some people.
Communication and teaching experience (23:04)
23:04 – 29:33 (Prof. Gudowski describes the role of Technology Empowered Education and
explains why reactor physics is a fascinating subject)
Q. You need knowledgeable society to distinguish these two things, You focused a lot on
communication and teaching students, incorporating e-learning in your teaching activities.
A. Wacław always considered e-learning as a very important aid in studies, although social
interaction between students and the teacher is still crucial. He supports Technology

Empowered Education, which gives more freedom of expression during the interaction time,
explaining basic concepts and exercises in the digital form.
Wacław, a former teacher of reactor physics, says that it is the key to make nuclear power safe.
And it can be really fantastic because it is very simple – an order of magnitude easier than e.g.
weather prediction – the “boring” things you can leave for the computers. Wacław gives his
recognition to the nuclear data files creation – in his eyes one of the most efficient scientific
cooperations, that has overcome the limitations of the cold war, but is not much appreciated
internationally.
Small reactors as a frontline development (29:33)
29:33-33:28 (Wacław sees small reactors as the crucial solution to be applied soon)
Q: can you pinpoint some other developments in nuclear physics, so that we have the feeling
what is its frontline right now?
A: Wacław advises to come back to the smaller reactors, which would be closer to the
communities, much safer, because decay heat would be also smaller, it would be much easier
to handle any incidents. He says that people have right to be afraid, so we should show them
that nuclear can be smaller, safer, and that it is better than any other energy solution.
Renewables have a big problem with the density of the power, while nuclear is very
concentrated.
Generation IV and evaluation of nuclear technologies of the future(33:28)
33:28-38:10 (Prof. Gudowski talks about the involvement in High Temperature Reactors and
why fission has more perspectives for the future than fusion)
Q: Small like the HTRs, you were also involved in the HTR project. Are there any Generation IV
technologies that will not stand the test of time?
A: Wacław’s first project was High Temperature gas cooled Reactor, for gasification and
liquification of coal, performed still in Poland in the middle of 70s. After almost 50 years he is
coming back to that. Wacław acknowledges that the HTRs were good designs, which, in the
course of history, lost against LWRs. Wacław sees the future for HTRs in production of high
temperature heat, hydrogen production for transportation. Wacław’s most favorable reactor
types from Gen IV are Lead-Bismuth and HTR.
Wacław decided not to criticize other Generation IV solutions, but he favors any of Gen IV
technologies to fusion technologies. He points out to the limits in resources of lithium in fusion
technology, that has to compete with battery industry to acquire raw material. In comparison,
taking uranium and thorium, we have resources for the future fission projects and these
elements have no use in other branches of industry.
Used fuel management (38:10)

38:10-45:30 (Prof. Gudowski states, that nuclear industry should think about back-end of the
fuel cycle)
Q: What bothers me in utilizing this almost limitless energy from fission is that some designs
treat their reactors like batteries, not caring about processing of the waste after period of
operation.
A. Wacław’s message is that back-end of the fuel cycle should not be ignored. It was done in
the past and we are paying heavy bills for it now. There will be no new acceptable reactor types
for the public without clear solution for the back-end. Independently of possible processing of
the used fuel, we need to have an ultimate solution – geological storage. This could be
discussed on international level, in the past we didn’t want to dump all the waste to the
developing countries, which was a thread, but he considers partner agreements between
countries of equal economic status as a valid opportunity. Waclaw is not supporting
decentralised final waste storage. He supports spreading the message to the people, that the
capabilities of detection of radiation are many orders of magnitude more sensitive, than the
amount of radiation that can influence our health. However, the fact that people don’t know that
means, that we failed in education of the public. If you don’t know things you are much more
prone to manipulation and fear.
Generation III+ vs. Generation IV implementation (45:30)
45:30-52:55 (Wacław explains, that decision about technology choice and location should be
customer-driven)
Q: In the future, should we keep on pursuing the generation III+ or strike straight with
Generation IV in several years?
A. We should ask the customers, industry, what they want – denationalize the power. For
example in Poland for the first time a private company wants to build a reactor for its needs. If
you ask them what they want, they will probably prefer smaller reactor for their factory. The
post-pandemic time will change our way of thinking. There will be a certain level of de-
globalization, there will be more discussion of more autonomy. Maybe industruy and
communities will want a smaller unit. There should be decentralization of this decision -
government should watch the rules, not be involved in the choices – they should be based on
customer and technological solution. However, we shouldn’t wait with anything, waiting means
freezing the competences. Wacław’s strong conviction is also that heat from the power plant
should not be dumped, but electricity and heat production should always be combined. Apart
from that, transmutation studies should be continued, with e.g. one ADS supporting four
reactors.
Future of nuclear (53:23)
53:23-55:07 (Wacław sums up his views in what should the future look like)
Q. What do you want to see in nuclear?
A.Nuclear is a part of solution for the sustainable, ecological and environmentally friendly
energy mix. We will never manage a good energy system without nuclear power. It has so many
benefits, that all the risks are, firstly, under control, and they are much less important than the
benefits we can have from nuclear. And for nuclear we need only uranium and thorium and

there is no other use for these materials for human beings. And we can run the system for
hundreds of years if we design a good breeding reactors followed by good ADS system.

Focus of the American Nuclear Society (0:00-10:45)
(Craig Piercy looks back on how his experience in policy led him to get involved with the American Nuclear Society)

Q: Tell me about your background and how you came into the nuclear space.
A: Craig Piercy came into the nuclear industry through work in the policy vector. He spent ten years on Capitol Hill in the 1990’s working for a Republican Congressman who ended up on the Appropriation Committee with Energy and Water as one of his subcommittees. This led Craig and the Congressman to learn about the Environmental Management (EM) program, which received about seven billion dollars a year at the time to clean up the former nuclear defense sites. This allowed them to develop an appreciation for nuclear technology. Craig then took a few years off to work at a university, eventually entering private practice and started working for American Nuclear Society (ANS) as a consultant. Through that process, he became the Washington representative of ANS, which facilitates scientific exchange, leads communities of practice, and represents roughly 10,000 dues-paying members who have devoted their careers to nuclear technology. As a consultant, Craig focused on public policy and government relations, doing a little bit of lobbying, but mostly focused on R&D appropriations and support for the nuclear workforce. ANS was very involved in the creation of the modern Nuclear University programs at the Department of Energy and making sure nuclear engineering programs have a steady stream of funding. This includes protection of the nuclear industry across all sectors, such as industrial and medical uses. ANS has about 35 full-time employees, centered in La Grange Park, Illinois. The society has a number of divisions and committees to analyze what’s going on externally, in policy or commercial markets, to understand impacts of new ideas and gain support for these strategies. ANS has two meetings a year which form communication between the community through technical sessions. They also use the traditional tools of advocacy such as media, social media, and letters to Congress. The American Nuclear Society (ANS) as a technology community has always been more out front on the technology than industry groups. Small modular reactors and advanced reactors were looked at by ANS first. There has been a change in attitudes regarding climate change, which has been a challenging issue since they are not the climate experts. However, there is an emerging understanding that, in order for nuclear to survive and thrive in the future, there must be a carbon constrained environment and sights set on deep decarbonization.

Stronger Science, Better Service, Louder Voice (10:45-21:17)
(How the American Nuclear Society addresses challenging nuclear issues such as research funding and the public’s understanding of radiation)

Q: Tell us about your current role and how it emerged.
A: Craig Piercy was approached by a number of senior leaders from the American Nuclear Society (ANS) to consider his new position. Craig has a deep love for the community and the people in the community. Nuclear is something that people look at and appreciate the technology. In his new role, Craig has completed a thorough review of ANS headquarters operations and made changes to the org chart. The goal of ANS is: Stronger science, better service, louder voice. Part of the job of the ANS is to work with divisions and communities of practice to advance science with good meetings and peer-reviewed papers for publication. As part of better service, Craig worked to simplify interactions on the ANS website by streaming questions from members, in addition to making sure clients and customers are satisfied. In striving for a louder voice, ANS works to be a voice of the nuclear community and the men and women of the community. Nuclear will only be successful by taking a long term approach and getting past quarterly profits. A long term approach would look at a scale-up of technology and the waste streams of doing so. The community of professionals that understand the technology details need a louder voice. There are three issues that come to the top of the ANS focus lists. One is to create a unified community voice about the need for increased public investment in nuclear R&D in the 2020’s. Some bipartisan progress has been made in the past couple of years, but it will require a lot more and ANS is putting together a high level group together to recommend where funding needs to go. The second issue is the public’s understanding of radiation. Any nuclear issue, at its core, is driven politically by a fear or lack of understanding of radiation - what it is, what it does, what is safe, and what is a dangerous level of exposure. This conversation needs to happen especially in the time of COVID-19 when people are making risk-informed performance based decisions every day, such as when to wear a mask or whether groceries need to be cleaned with bleach. As new information arises, processes are adjusted and recommendations change; this is what the nuclear community does every day in terms of radiation protection and exposure. In the nuclear community, protection comes first, but it is more because of the background public fear of radiation than the science. This conversation will play out over a decadal time frame and will not get solved overnight. The best way to address it in the long term is to teach good science in the K-12 environment. This generational advancement needs to be leveraged to bring others along.

Risk-Informed Decisions: COVID-19 & Nuclear Radiation (21:17-33:38)
(Craig analyzes the differences between risk-informed decisions related to COVID-19 and nuclear radiation and waste)

Q: What is good science when it comes to radiation? Is it the linear no-threshold theory or is there actually a threshold?
A: Craig Piercy recognizes that there is a lot we don’t know or understand about very low levels of radiation and what all the factors are related to individual biology. Due to COVID-19, the whole world is getting a crash course in epidemiology. At low radiation doses, there is no epidemiological evidence of effects. This has led to a theoretical discussion of thresholds. Understanding that concept and recent conversations about epidemiology can lead to public education that fear is expensive. If fear drives addressing a real risk, then it is money well spent. However, if fear of something that doesn’t bear out in terms of risk leads to needless spending that could be used for other things. The American Nuclear Society (ANS) has partnered with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health to look at how to communicate risk to a population, but it will take time and funding. ANS, with its broad purview of all nuclear technologies, is the right organization to take that challenge on. The next problem that no one is dealing with is the nuclear fuel cycle, specifically nuclear waste. The debate in Washington, DC must be reset to take small steps towards progress. Interim storage is a good first step, but there needs to be conversations about the organization that will be created to be charged with managing the back end of the fuel cycle. The DOE used to have an office for this purpose, but was defunded a while ago. This management conversation can happen now without naming specific sites. Current utilities know the government is responsible for the ultimate disposition, so they can focus on making sure their plants run well, safely, and profitably. However, advanced reactor developers have problems because there is no waste policy in the country. There doesn’t need to be a grand solution right now, but there can be conversations about organization and management. There must be an improved level of literacy about radiation over time. But climate change efforts cannot fail because there are worries about threats that will not bear out in epidemiology or science. Nuclear is generally safe and is the only base load source of non-emitting energy that could be scaled up realistically without any technological showstoppers. Sights must be set on the end game and worked backwards from there, including how to have conversations with the public about radiation and waste.

Nuclear’s Role in Bending the Carbon Curve (33:38-41:10)
(Why nuclear power needs to be integral in combating climate change and the technical solutions that will get us there)

Q: So what other specific things do you see happening in the community around the world that give you hope as to what the future might look like?
A: Craig Piercy recently watched “Planet of the Humans”, a new movie produced by Michael Moore which created a very strong visual impression of the scale required to address the climate change problem. The main premise of the movie is that renewables with storage are not going to get the planet there with climate change, even though it doesn’t mention nuclear power. A reasonable conversation with people needs to happen about what their energy demand looks like in the future and how it can be provided in a way that helps bend the carbon cuve. Major utilities have commited to net zero electricity by 2050. Cost-competitive power needs to be delivered in a way that it can be scaled up in a way that allows us to address the problem. A lot of electricity will have to be generated to remove a lot of carbon on the back end to get us where we need to be. Most of the developed countries have made some change in policy at the national level that sets the table for industry to meet the challenge in a technologically neutral way. Most, if not all, of the existing fleet have been saved and continue to run and be maintained. Advanced reactors will scale up, starting in the microreactor markets which are competitive right now with truck-in or flown-in diesel. Economies of production will be mastered to allow scaling of designs that would tackle the challenge of climate change. The nature of our electric consumption will change and in the end will benefit the stability and resilience of nuclear power. The public must be brought along into the debate without worries of levels of radiation.

First steps and Berkeley Earth

0:25-4:18 (Liz describes her early career and the goals of Berkeley Earth, the non-profit research organization she was leading)

Q. How did you start?
A. Liz never had a clear path, she majored in math and literature, also during early career, she used many diverse possibilities, including some time spent in Europe. After she came back to US, she started working with her father she felt that she likes starting and building things. They worked together on a non-profit called Berkeley Earth, which took over the task of reevaluating the temperature records across the globe back to 1700s, Liz was an executive director there. It was a massive data project with billions of data points. They represented an independent (not related to the government) and modern perspective, and were able to address many concerns of global warming skeptics. She believes that the questions asked by climate skeptics were legitimate, taking into account the weight of the decision based on our understanding of global warming. Berkeley Earth’s result were in accordance with other estimations, but they managed to explain issues like urban heat up effect – where the records indicating global warming were in part based on heating of the devices, not higher atmosphere temperature. Now the answer to the global warming question is much more robust.

Open access to the data of Berkeley Earth and current projects (4:18)

4:18-8:22 (Liz describes the open access to the research results of Berkeley Earth, its use and current questions to be answered in climate research being addressed by the organization)

Q. The data acquired by Berkeley Earth is open to the public. Who could be interested in using your results and how could it contribute to the development?
A. The concern about governmental studies was that the data was not available. Berkeley Earth put it all online in various stages of raw data, as well as including some adjustments e.g. in terms of units. Various organizations use the data, but also citizens who want to do their own analysis. Data is pretty robust right now to show that global warming is happening. Two questions of the skeptics remain: what does this mean and what to do about it? These questions are harder to answer, linking these results with events like storms is not as obvious. Berkley Earth still works on collecting global temperature reports. Lately they focused also on the area of big data, analyzing global pollution, which is also a current global catastrophy. The data of Berkeley Earth allows to see the current pollution levels and compare it with what was it in the past – such a thing was not available before.

Beginnings of Deep Isolation

8:22-10:07 (Liz explains the origins of idea to open a used fuel repository company)

Q. After Berkeley Earth, you jumped straight to Deep Isolation? Or was there something in between?
A. Berkeley Earth lead to Deep Isolation, after considering other topics like shale gas and directional drilling and nuclear. The team was not sure if there was any interest for the organization, but they realized that the nuclear waste is a big deal. They came to conclusion that directional drilling creates great opportunities in the area of used fuel disposal, by locating the waste in a horizontal drill hole. Horizontal drilling adds additional levels of security, safety and reduces the cost,

Advantages of horizontal drilling

10:07-12:45 (Deep Isolation uses an innovative technique of storage that involves horizontal boreholes)

Q. You mentioned two options of storing nuclear fuel – vertical and horizontal boreholes, there is also a version that looks more like mine. What are the advantages of your solution?
A. The international consensus is that a safe place for nuclear waste is in deep geologic isolation. There is no way to predict what the earth’s surface is going to look like in a million years. But a mile underground, it is going to look similar to what it is now. That’s why the waste should go there. In the early talks about such a solution for repository, in 70s, the only way to get so deep was a mined repository, incl. staff going down, possibly trucks. In 1980s a deep borehole concept was conceived. The horizontal borehole however, was developed only around 20 years ago. Now it has become an industry standard. Deep Isolation takes advantage of a recently mature technology to apply it to waste disposal.

Deep Isolation’s clients

13:10-15:35 (Liz explains the situation of waste disposal in the US)

Q. Who is going to be your client? A utility or government?
A. In the past US government decided that Yucca Mountain was supposed to be the only solution. That posed some challenges – it is not going forward, but it also blocked other possible solutions. There are several options right now: temporary storage for the utilities that were not able to hand in their waste to the DOE. Lately some regulations were developed on how to handle it safely for shorter periods of time. Deep Isolation wants to apply their solution to store it long term, but also short term. They want to demonstrate their technology somewhere, not necessarily in the US - it would be a good incentive to start changing the regulations in the US, and develop the framework for used fuel disposal in other countries. Deep Isolation is working in the US, but also internationally.

Technical conditions and location of a repository

15:35- 21:02 (Liz describes what conditions does a site need to meet to become a repository and that it is favored to build a repository close to an existing storage site)

Q. Is your solution applicable on any kind of rock and morphology of terrain or there are still some constraints?

A. The key factor needed is “strong isolation” – to be sure that the target layer of rock has been isolated from the surface for the past million years. Unlike other requirements from the past, Deep Isolation’s criterion is not a specific type of rock but the ability to isolate. An isolation assessment was made for a dozen of sites around the world, but eventually, drilling will need to be performed, which belongs to the second stage of the project.

There are some advantages of locating the repository close to a current fuel storage. There are objections to the transportation – people don’t want nuclear fuel to be transported by the road. On the other hand, it is hard to find a place willing to be a storage for all the country. Mined repositories are expensive, so one repository per country is a maximum. Deep Isolation is modular – there can be several holes dedicated to a specific reactor. That changes the conversation – instead of putting nuclear waste in “people’s backyards” the waste stays in the same place but is put into deep isolation. In order to move forward the fastest way possible it is favored to leave the fuel its existing location, but in case it is still accepted or geology is not appropriate, the fuel will be moved.

The communities Deep Isolation visited are very different from one another. Ones can have a very good understanding of the safety issues and some other say they never wanted nuclear waste around. But the conversation is different in such locations than with the communities that don’t have such situation.

Fuel retrieval

21:02 – 24:59 (Uniquely for a horizontal boreholes, the fuel can be retrieved after placing in the storage)

Q. Is it possible to retrieve the fuel?
A. Until around 1.5 year ago people thought that the fuel cannot be retrieved from the borehole. It is harder for a vertical borehole, when the canisters are on one another and potentially the weight of the material is crushing them. But in horizontal, the canisters are laid down flat, only withstanding its own weight. There are tools coming from oil and gas industry aiming at inserting and removing objects from the hole. This is not a new technology and therefore the fuel is retrievable and meets current requirements – the fuel can be retrieved for up to 50y. But there are also ways to make it irretrievable. As long as the horizontal part of the borehole is cased, the fuel can be retrieved, after removing that casing, it becomes much more difficult to go down.

The decision whether the fuel will be monitored beyond 50 years is the decision of the government and the local community, it is possible, but the idea is to leave it as a green field after some time.
Depending on the length of the horizontal section of the borehole, per one reactor you only need around 10 holes and it should be possible to stay inside of the reactor perimeter site.

Entrepreneurial experience in nuclear waste management field

24:59 – 30:30 (Liz shares her impressions of entering waste management field)

Q. You came to nuclear field not having much background. What did you find there?
A. The first 2-3y Deep Isolation would get advises from nuclear waste experts to change their field of business. There are a lot of people who dedicated 30y of their career to solving the waste issue and saw little progress. The mentality of a start-up is why Deep Isolation have seen so much progress in the past few years – they wanted to avoid handing their idea to the government and having it stuck on a shelf. The company idea didn’t crystallize until they found out about the budget related to the waste disposal in the US, which worth around 40bn$. Next as they grew, they found out that the overall budget globally is worth around 600bn $, which is helpful to present to investors.

The 40bn $ is the money that was paid in by utilities for the eventual disposal of the waste of the US. Access to this money is not easy, but it shows that there is price associated with the cost of nuclear waste disposal. Globally, some countries set aside the funds for the disposal, but even if this is not made, there is a budget associated to the expected final storage.

Challenges of Deep Isolation (30:30)
30:30-35:04 (Liz presents challenges that the company is facing )

Q. We talked about the advantages of Deep Isolation solution, what about the challenges?
A. A couple of things. One is on the stakeholder engagement side, another, looking at the government as the customer. When you look at why nuclear waste management programs failed, it’s rarely due to just the technology. It’s also public protests, people opposing the progress of the program. Background of Liz is helpful here – some of her work was in the high-tech government programs and development of the governmental programs to respond to the needs of the people impacted, rather than forcing them to align. Deep Isolation reached out to every major environmental group in the US that cares about nuclear waste and learned a lot fro them. It’s a two way conversation, two way listening. It takes time, building trust isn’t easy especially in an area like nuclear waste. The company wants to build the solution in partnership with people who are impacted by it. It takes time, it’s not easy, but it’s a core value of the company.

Second challenge is that there is that the typical approach to nuclear waste is either creating research program that will last for the next 50y or just moving very slowly accepting the slow progress, because the project is very important. Deep Isolation’s attitude is slightly different, recognizing that it a responsible thing to deal with something now rather than hoping that future generations will figure it out. There is an appreciation of the government to this responsibility, but on the other hand it isn’t the way that this project has been led by now, which is challenging for Deep Isolation. Liz doesn’t expect to have a quick sale cycle, and they expected to last onths or years, but at the same time they are hopeful that there is a number of places that feel urgency – full pools, no will to put the assemblies in the dry storage, imperative to move more quickly in a number of places around the world.

Cooperation with communities and adjusting to new forms of fuel (35:04 )
35:04 – 38:27 (Liz presents the strategy of communication with local communities and the actions that Deep Isolation is taking to prepare for Gen IV spent fuel
Q. Are you planning to work with the communities that are not voluntary for repository?
A. Deep Isolation will only work with communities that are real partners, this has to be a win-win where everybody is involved. Their work in communication starts with finding out if the community is happy with the current state of waste issue, If the answer is yes, maybe there is no need in changing it, but if the answer is no, there might be an opening to a conversation. It’s also challenging, because some communities just want it gone, which unfortunately is not an option now. It may be in the future, but there is some uncertainty around that, which adds a new dimension to the complexity of the conversation.

Gen IV reactors try to learn from the past – leaving the used fuel without a clear solution doesn’t seem to be responsible anymore. There is quite a few Gen IV reactors that are actively thinking about disposal. Deep Isolation is working with them to understand how to dispose of it.

Development (38:27 )
38:27-40:55 (Liz shows the needs for developments to ensure the success of her company)
Q. What could make your job easier in the future, what needs to develop to ensure the success of Deep Isolation?
A. Policies is the one thing, but certainly very important is to run a pilot – a site where they can put waste in Deep Isolation, this could be in the US or anywhere in the world, for any kind of waste.
Deep Isolation is talking to the governments around the world, some of them understand the importance of having new options. Quite a few utilities are also handling the fuel storage and also defense waste sites are interested. The interest is there and Liz is optimistic about the future,

Regulatory environment ( 40:55)
40:55 – 45:34 (Liz describes current regulations surrounding waste management and Deep Isolation’s preparedness to meet them)

Q. Do you think that the regulations of waste disposal are just right or too rigid as for real danger that the waste can create?
A. Deep Isolation had discussions with some environmental groups that weren’t happy with the current regulations. The company however adopted standards that are stronger than those that NRC requires, in part because of the input of concerned people and in part because they can meet them. The advantages of going deeper and not disturbing large amounts of rock, makes the calculations pretty straightforward, lately a calculated case was published on company’s website and it opens to feedback. It shows that the regulations can be met. The concern of Liz is that they don’t want to wait for the development of new regulations, which some people want for horizontal boreholes. They prefer to meet the regulations now and let any modifications happen in parallel, than insisting on updating the regulations.

Nuclear waste can be scary to communities, so the conversation has to revolve around making the repository safer for a very long time, not for the next decades. There is no plan for long time horizon and the waste is kept in a temporary location that is not intended to serve for long – that is concerning for people. Deep Isolation shows that it can meet the requirements and comes to solve the problems of the communities that are interested in it.

Near future tasks ( 45:34)
45:34-47:22 (The closest tasks taken up by Deep Isolation)

Q. What are your upcoming tasks to fulfill in the nearest future?
A. Deep Isolation is signing up first customers right now, multiple conversations at 4 continents, and they plan to announce some news soon. The focus is on initial project, studying the type of waste, geology, to check the alternatives. Eventually the company will move to drilling, taking the samples and showing that requirements can be met for a specific site,

Paul Dickman’s Nuclear Resume (0:00-9:49)
(Paul Dickman provides an overview of his introduction to the nuclear space and his experience in nuclear waste and national security)

Q: What’s your background and how did you get into the nuclear space?
A: Paul Dickman got a Bachelor’s degree in history, but became interested in the sciences during a History of Science class he took. This led him to take many science courses like physics, chemistry, and biology and eventually a Master’s degree in nuclear chemistry. In 1977, Paul spent a summer working at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) researching High-Level waste disposal. In his job search a year later, Paul was hired into the Waste Management division at the Idaho National Lab (INL). He spent the first three years researching Low-Level waste and what would eventually be known as Higher-Than-Class-C waste. Paul eventually transferred to the Nevada Test Site outside Las Vegas to run some of the environmental studies programs for a few years. This led him to get involved with the Yucca Mountain project in 1987. That same year, amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the project shifted from a good science project to a site with a political overtone. Paul then went to work for the Department of Energy in the defense waste management area, followed by a stint at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. Around this time, the U.S. started shutting down the nuclear weapons complex and Paul joined the Office of Facility Transition. Paul was then asked by the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to return to Yucca Mountain for five years. His next role was back in the Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Safety Administration. This group focuses on nuclear weapons, nuclear non-proliferation, and nuclear marinecraft. In 2006, Paul returned to the NRC, bringing him to retirement in 2010. At this point, he went to work for Argonne National Lab primarily on the national security side. His focuses include export control, dealing with international organizations, and advising the Japanese government on the decommissioning of Fukushima.

Clean-up & Revitalization at Fukushima (9:49-19:57)
(How the Japanese government and electric utility managed the clean-up and community revitalization in the aftermath of Fukushima)

Q: Why is dealing with the existing Fukushima site still such an expensive and complicated issue?
A: Paul Dickman serves as an advisor to the Japanese government on the decommissioning of Fukushima. When Fukushima happened, the Japanese government did not address certain key issues early on, specifically the treatment and discharge of water. The Fukushima site receives a lot of rain and there was a lot of contamination seeping into the groundwater. This required the contaminated water to be pumped up and treated, removing everything except tritium, which is naturally occurring in water. Instead of discharging it into the ocean, the water was stored in tanks. Fukushima is one of the great agricultural centers of Japan and the fishermen in the area were deeply concerned that additional release of radioactive materials into the ocean would effectively kill their industry. Japan is a consensus-based society, leading to agreements, not decisions. In Japan, the nuclear village of experts were relied upon by the public for saying the reactors were safe and accidents could never happen, losing credibility after Fukushima. Large parts of the area were evacuated when Fukushima happened and the criteria for reentry was quite strict. People have been allowed to go back for almost three years, yet only 30% of the original evacuees have returned. The infrastructure and services needed to create a viable, sustainable economy haven’t returned. In the U.S., sites like Savannah River and Hanford have brought large amounts of money into the economy for clean-up efforts. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which owns the Fukushima site, is starting to understand they can leverage their spending to help economic revitalization in the area. One of the major factors that helped drive decisions in Japan was the Olympics. The Olympics represented Japan back on its feet after the Fukushima accident, especially since the training center was located in the Fukushima prefecture. The soccer field was actually used as the command center during the accident and has since been returned to the Olympic committee.

Considerations for Nuclear National Security (19:57-29:48)
(A look at the concerns about dual use nuclear technology and how safeguard reviews are used to account for nuclear material)

Q: What are some of the concerns related to nuclear exports?
A: Paul Dickman has worked in many different facets of the national security side of the nuclear industry. From a national security standpoint, there are always concerns about the misuse of nuclear technology. Per the Non-Proliferation Treaty, there are obligations to try and limit the spread of certain technologies while not limiting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Certain technologies are dual use, meaning they could either be used for the advancement of nuclear weapon development or for nuclear power. One example is the production of heavy water, which is a traditional method to produce nuclear materials for weapons. However, it is also used peacefully in the Canadian CANDU reactors. Anything that can produce nuclear material that is weapons-usable is usually considered dual use, including the production of tritium and plutonium. All reactors must undergo a safeguards review. Some of the newer technologies being looked at have not gone through the rigorous safeguards review typical to more mature technology. The designs and procedures must include processes where the materials that are introduced into a reactor, and extracted from a reactor, are accounted for. Some ways to maintain safeguards at the spent fuel pool include monitoring systems, cameras, and inspection crews. One of the biggest concerns today about advanced reactors is the exportation of nuclear technology related to theft over intellectual property. Many of these advanced reactor developers are looking at international partners, due to market demand. In the export community, companies looking to find international partners need to follow provisions put in place for transparencies, assurances about use of the technology, and enforceability. The U.S. has essentially stopped doing business with China. The Chinese government has recently said that there are basically no barriers between the commercial nuclear sector and the military nuclear sector. The transfer of technology from the commercial sector to the military is prohibited. One of the concerns in doing business with India is related to liability laws in the country, which the U.S. and other countries have not yet accepted.

Nuclear Waste Storage Considerations (29:48-48:25)
(Conversations about radioactive waste and which different nuclear waste storage solutions were considered and vetted)

Q: Why do we treat nuclear waste any differently than we treat other industrial wastes, like arsenic or cadmium, that might have toxicity that last forever?
A: To a certain extent, toxic metals are not radioactive and are toxic infinitely long. In nuclear waste, cesium and strontium only have 30 year half-lives, so they are gone after approximately 300 years. The reason for treating nuclear waste as lasting for one million years is due to the decay daughters of plutonium and uranium. Many other isotopes are around that are water-transportable. Several studies were done for Yucca Mountain, but essentially, after a few hundred years, the vast majority of radioactivity has been diminished. However, there are still radioisotopes of concern that last for thousands and tens of thousands of years. The human body can purge iodine; when a nuclear disaster happens, potassium iodide is distributed to overwhelm the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine. The body evolved through a time at which there was significantly more radioactivity in the background, which is the reason why the body needs materials like selenium. Selenium acts like a vitamin in small doses, but can be toxic in large doses. The human body accepts radiation with no impact at low levels. Nuclear waste needs to be isolated in such a way that it can be done within this generation’s periods, leading to the solution of geologic repositories. Heavy metals, which can’t be destroyed, are put into a matrix so they are not solubilized to keep them out of the groundwater and out of the air. Nuclear waste is extremely dangerous at the time it’s produced, requiring shielding, protection, and isolation. In hundreds or thousands of years, it is not as dangerous because the more dangerous aspects of the radioactive emitting parts have decayed away. The million year standard for nuclear waste is quite controversial. On the toxic side, the EPA no migration petition calls for 10,000 years. In a perfect world, the spent fuel could be recycled to the extent it could and the portion of the material that needs to be isolated for 300-1000 years could be extracted to decay away. The reality is that the U.S. and other countries don’t need to recycle because there is plenty of uranium. There are many natural analogs like coal mines or uranium mines. However, they cannot be placed in an area where there is still an economic resource that could be exploited. Twenty-eight sites were originally considered suitable for what would eventually become Yucca Mountain. The 1984 Act included a provision for monitored retrievable storage of nuclear waste, and even though a proposal was made, it was eventually rejected. If Paul Dickman could have changed one thing in the Nuclear Policy Act would be to require an extended interim storage provision before disposal. This gets the material into a managed position to allow an option for people to look at technologies for utilizing the material. The day of the large reactor is gone, but there needs to be base load. One of the biggest problems to come is melding of intermittent renewable technologies and base load technologies, which may be dominated by nuclear energy in the future. Nuclear in the future is smaller, more agile, and more integrated into smart grids to allow dispatchable power. People are going to look at reactors and technologies that are load-following.

(0:00-9:30) Early Nuclear Planning in Korea
(Hee Yong Lee explains how Korea initially got involved in nuclear power plant development and the implementation of different reactor technologies)

Q: How did you first come into the nuclear industry?
A: Hee Yong Lee received a Bachelor’s degree in nuclear engineering and then joined the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) at the end of 1977. He has worked in various aspects of the industry, including planning, construction, operation, maintenance, and training. Hee Yong has been working on new nuclear builds in foreign countries since 2005. In 2009, KEPCO was awarded the contract for the simultaneous construction of four units in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). His first job at KEPCO was in the planning department. At the time, numerous new nuclear builds were in the planning phase. During the 1970’s, Korea experienced a hard time due to the oil crisis as the country was heavily dependent on oil-fired power plants. This led the government to diversify its electricity resources and introduce nuclear power. The president of the Republic of Korea (ROK) was competent about nuclear energy and sent many students to the U.S. and Germany in order to learn nuclear energy. Due to strong leadership, the nuclear policy has been maintained and promoted over the years. In his first role, Hee Yong was responsible for the site surveys and economic evaluation. KEPCO had two departments working together on this endeavor: the nuclear planning department and the national electricity development department. At the time, the optimum level of nuclear power was 30-40% of total electricity capacity, with the remaining 60% made up of thermal and hydro power plants. The national economy of Korea has been rapidly developing at the rate of over 10% per year, creating a lot of demand for electricity. A series of new nuclear build programs were planned and the country was in a hurry to construct nuclear power plants to meet the strong demand. The first unit was introduced by Westinghouse, a 600 MW pressurized water reactor, followed by a CANDU 600 MW class reactor. During construction, the country of Korea decided to incentivize nuclear design at the Yeonggwang site where localization was emphasized. Combustion Engineering (C-E) selected as the technology provider for the standardization and localization of nuclear technology. Since then, Korea has standardized the OPR-1000 (Optimized Power Reactor, 1000 MW) and APR-1400 (Advanced Power Reactor, 1400 MW). When Hee Yong Lee engaged in the long term power planning department in 1994, the economic competitiveness was compared to the large capacity of thermal power plants. They decided to increase the unit capacity in order to enhance the economic competitiveness against the thermal plants, upgrading to 1000 MW units. Korea is a very small country, so there is a lot of difficulty finding the right location for nuclear power plants and there are limited resources, requiring a large scale capacity unit to operate at one site.

(9:30-15:55) Korea’s Nuclear Construction Climate
(How Korea has achieved harmony among the nuclear reactor builders and the role standardization in successful contracting)

Q: What was the next department you worked at in KEPCO and what did you learn as you moved from role to role?
A: After years in KEPCO’s planning departments, Hee Yong Lee was sent to France to learn the fast breeder reactor as part of the long term development plan and the new nuclear build program. Upon returning to Korea, Hee Yong was assigned to a construction site as part of the quality assurance team. His role involved monitoring and overseeing all the processes on site as well as working with subcontractors. There are limited construction resources in Korea. Now, eight different construction companies are used and selected through the bidding process. People inside these construction companies often move between employers, allowing them to know each other well and work well together. Due to this, almost everything on the construction side has been harmonized, in terms of manpower and technical skills. KEPCO standardized the schedule and process, looking at how to expedite the process and for opportunities to modify and upgrade. The fastest construction of a nuclear power plant in Korea was 62 months to commercial operation. The key point is the maturity of detailed design before construction. Another key is standardization, even BOP (balance of plant) specifications and designs. This allows manufacturers to be familiar with the requirements and be ready to manufacture the components.

(15:55-23:51) Stakeholders in Nuclear Power Plants
(A look into priorities of different stakeholders when it comes to nuclear power plant construction and operation, specifically in Korean communities)

Q: What was it like to rise to the top levels of your organization?
A: At KEPCO, the key role is General Manager. Hee Yong Lee spent almost 12 years as the General Manager, responsible for most of the decision-making, but also planning, evaluation, and oversight. A general manager must know the scale, technology and have real experience, training, and qualification in order to make good decisions and report to the top manager. Outside stakeholders, such as the government, universities, and global companies must be kept in dialogue with the utility to find good solutions. The government’s priority is the national interest and wants the achievement, regardless of any difficulties. The utility always requests strong support from the government, which can be conflicting, but there is coordination and organization between the two entities. Strong financial support from the government and other institutions are also needed. Other domestic stakeholders include the local authorities and the communities around the sites. Now in Korea, almost all the authority has been empowered to the local authorities and they have a very strong position against the operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants in Korea. The priorities of the local authorities are transparency and safety. The local people have a lot of key interests in the nuclear safety of the operating nuclear power plants. Transparency about small technical problems which don’t involve any release of material must be communicated to ease the worries of the locals. A special environmental monitoring group also monitors the operating power plants. Nuclear power in Korea is still the favorite. Many voices advocate for nuclear power to be the majority of the electricity production, Korea has very limited resources for renewable energy such as solar and wind energy. Many people insist on continued nuclear power in Korea.

(23:51-31:35) Future of Nuclear Globally
(Why Korea’s nuclear development has slowed down and opportunities for bringing nuclear energy to new, developing regions)

Q: What has to happen in order to build more APR-1400’s in Korea soon?
A: Korea’s first two APR-1400 reactors were built at Shin-Kori Units 3 and 4. Following that are Shin-Hanul Units 1 and 2 and Shin-Kori 5 and 6, which are under construction. Shin-Hanul construction has been stopped due to an anti-nuclear government policy. Many people requested the government and opinion leaders to resume the new nuclear build program. If not, construction of APR-1400’s cannot continue. Today, Hee Yong is operating an independent consulting company after retiring from KEPCO. He also works as a committee member, or advisor, for another company. Hee Yong Lee recently published a book titled “Nuclear Korea”. He is also trying to make a platform for Korean vendors to work together for overseas energy projects, including nuclear, renewables, and combined cycle sectors. The main focus is the Middle East, but also possibly some countries in Africa who are willing to implement nuclear energy. Lee wants to share his experience with these countries as they explore nuclear energy. The first step to exploring a nuclear power option is training. They will be promoters of nuclear technology in their country and they will provide a good background of nuclear power to their people. There should also be a new organization to promote nuclear power and the new country will need external support from IAEA or NEA or another professional group. These entities can work together to build a new nuclear build program. The nation’s capacity of electricity will determine which nuclear technology is considered. Hee Yong has worked with South Africa, Nigeria, Morocco, Egypt, and other countries. Each country was excited to be the first to introduce nuclear power, but face a lot of problems in terms of political support, financing, manpower, supply chain, and national policy. Financing is one of the biggest obstacles to new nuclear plants, but there is no optimal solution yet. In the future, the current operating nuclear power plants will be extended with the life extension license and there will be a push of new nuclear builds with large capacities. Some countries are ready and able to support large capacity reactors right now. The remaining markets will be favorable for small and modular reactors, if SMR’s are developing well and getting licensed.