TITANS OF NUCLEAR

1a. 0:00
Introduction:
Bruce McDowell: Bruce is the project manager for the Clinch River Environmental Impact statement for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
1b. 0:37
Naomi Senehi: What did it take for the EIS to be approved by the NRC?
Bruce McDowell: This project is for a small modular reactor, a first of its kind. We’re qualifying the site for a small reactor that’s up to 800 megawatts.
The NRC has to do an assessment like this for any major federal action. It took us 2 years, which is the fastest process in the last decade.
1c. 2:37
Naomi Senehi: Was this for one or many sites?
Bruce McDowell: The concept behind these reviews is that there’s a proposal and also other alternatives to the main proposal. This one is located in the Clinch river in Tennessee, which is where we landed after investigating other nearby sites.
1d. 3:50
Naomi Senehi: Why Tennessee?
Bruce McDowell: One of the main reasons is to be near the Tennessee valley authority. Also, this site was previously developed for the breeder reactor in the 70’s, so the site has been previously evaluated and is close to the federal facility (the Oak Ridge National Laboratory).
1e. 5:20
Naomi Senehi: Because it was previously evaluated, did that make for differences in requirements?
Bruce McDowell: The interactions with the environment are the same. The main difference is the ability to bring the small modular reactors can be brought online incrementally over years, which changes the socioeconomic impacts.
1f. 7:05
Naomi Senehi: Tell me about the socioeconomic impacts?
Bruce McDowell: Because of how big these plants are, they will take thousands of people to build it.
1g. 8:01
Naomi Senehi: And this is all part of the EIS?
Bruce McDowell: We do very thorough assessments and economic models regarding how the whole process affects the community to make sure the site is truly qualified.
———
2a. 9:25
Naomi Senehi: How does the project start once it’s put on your desk?
Bruce McDowell: The TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) goes to the NRC and begins a long process of pre-application discussions.
2b. 11:31
Naomi Senehi: Where do you start in gathering information?
Bruce McDowell: Each resource is different. In this case, we talked to Fish & Wildlife Services, the Core Of Engineers in Tennessee and directly to the applicant. The applicant has to put together an environmental report which is the key basis for our assessments.
—
3a. 12:58
Naomi Senehi: Can you paint a picture of what the site looks like?
Bruce McDowell: It’s in rolling hills in Tennessee and is a managed river. The river system is a series of dams, where water is released stored and shut off. This creates a situation where the direction of the current changes between downstream and upstream.
3b. 14:29
Naomi Senehi: So who is the plant proposed to provide electricity to?
Bruce McDowell: TVA has several different purposes for this plant. They wanted to demonstrate that this tech would work and provide secure power to federal facilities. They also wanted to meet some greenhouse gas objectives and incrementally follow the load growth. It’s a midrange plant in terms of comparison to other plants in the US.
—
4. 17:53
Naomi Senehi: How does a site like this differ from others in terms of carbon footprint?
Bruce McDowell: SMR’s are being designed to not need active power systems to maintain cooling, etc. The current designs are such that it can be passively cooled, which is a large safety improvement. Also the carbon footprint is much smaller than fossils.
—
5a. 20:19
Naomi Senehi: Do you do any sort of long term life cycle analysis for these statements?
Bruce McDowell: Currently, we only look at whether this site is qualified. That analysis will come into play when TVA comes in to build a reactor. At that point they apply for a 40-year license, which would require us to analyze the impacts that would occur over the next 40 years.
5b. 22:23
Naomi Senehi: So you look at species, water bodies, topography… Is it a requirement to determine contamination of the water table?
Bruce McDowell: At the clinch river site, that was a major concern. Past activities there have contributes to group water issues there, which required us to assess whether there would be contaminated groundwater that would be dug into.
—
6a. 26:00
Naomi Senehi: Are there other nuances unique to this site and what you had to do for the EIS?
Bruce McDowell: The emergency planning zone is smaller than a typical (larger) plant, minimizing the impact of the plant if it’s approved. This plant required a direct line to Oak Ridge for backup power, consisting of a 6-mile underground transmission line.
6b. 29:09
Naomi Senehi: So the past construction that was supposed to be for the breeder reactor, are those supposed to be used?
Bruce McDowell: They didn’t get in to that, other than making sure there were no problems of fault.
—
7a. 30:01
Naomi Senehi: What are the next steps?
Bruce McDowell: The next step is the NRC approving the application. Then TVA will have to decide at what point they want to apply to for a license build an actual plant.
7b. 31:54
Naomi Senehi: What’s next for you regarding this project and after?
Bruce McDowell: The NRC will hold hearings on the application, and after that we’ll close out our piece of the process.
7c. 32:20
Naomi Senehi: What is the hearing process?
Bruce McDowell: There’s a mandatory and a contested hearing. In this case we only have the mandatory hearing, in which the NRC hears arguments and ask questions regarding the plan and process. This will take place in August.
—
8. 33:29
Naomi Senehi: How did you get into the nuclear field?
Bruce McDowell: I grew up in northern California, where my father was a logger. I worked for him in the summer in high school and college. By the time I finished college, he had transitioned into buying and selling timber, and I worked with him in that role.
There was one parcel we bought that contained a stream. After we logged it, we put a damn on the stream to create electricity. By investigating the permit and build process, I learned the craft and process of siting energy plants and facilities.
My dad and I started a business called Frontier Land & Power that owned land and sold power plants in the 80’s. Eventually there was less opportunity in that field.
After this, I got an MBA from University of San Francisco. Eventually I connected with the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory via a job fair and went to work doing environmental assessments for them and then more project management work.
—
9a. 44:21
Naomi Senehi: So your job is a lot of permitting based work?
Bruce McDowell: Yes, it’s primarily dealing with permits and regulations.
9b. 45:05
Naomi Senehi: Do you see a difference in working on projects around building nuclear vs other types of sites?
Bruce McDowell: There’s certainly a public perception difference, largely because of the radiation potential. Over the years I’ve learned a lot about it and also obtained a masters degree in Atmospheric Dispersion & Modeling at UC Davis. The health physics aspect is a whole field in and of itself, which is unique to nuclear projects. We have a lot of different types of specialists and a strong team. The size is different, as well.
—
10a. 47:49
Naomi Senehi: Looking at the impacts and risks, how has that shaped your personal view of nuclear energy?
Bruce McDowell: In the 17-18 years I’ve been doing this, I’ve concluded that the contribution that nuclear energy makes to reducing greenhouse gasses exceeds the risk and is worth it.
10b. 48:52
Naomi Senehi: As we wrap up, what do you hope to see for the future of nuclear?
Bruce McDowell: The future needs to be incorporate non-traditional applications for nuclear power.

Rose’s journey to Oak Ridge (1:10)
1:10-7:33 (Rose explains how she progressed from a chemistry student to a Group Leader at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.)

Q. Where did you grow up and how did you get interested in isotopes?
(1:25) A. Rose grew up in southern Ohio along with 10 brothers and sisters. Rose studied biology and chemistry in college before working in hospital laboratories where she became interested in medical isotopes. Rose then attended graduate school at the University of Tennessee to study organic chemistry and focused on radioisotopes. She then went on to a postdoctoral position at Oak Ridge National Laboratory where she has worked on a project to recover Actinium-225 and Thorium-229, which are used in targeted alpha therapy. She is now the Group Leader of Medical, Industrial, & Research Isotopes at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Rose has always enjoyed science and math. While Rose had planned on attending medical school, she decided she would rather take chemistry than biology classes. The hospital lab work, however, enabled Rose to study both medicine and chemistry. Rose’s love of science stems primarily from her father who worked in refrigeration and taught Rose about freons as she was growing up.

The Actinium-225 isotope (7:34)
7:34-16:29 (Rose defines what an isotope is. She also explains what Actinium-225 is and the Tri-Lab Project that produces it.)

Q. What is an isotope?
(7:57) A. An isotope is a form of an atom that has a different number of neutrons. For example, Sodium-22 and Sodium-24 are both Sodium atoms, but have differing neutron amounts. A different number of neutrons means that some isotopes will decay at different rates and with alpha particles, beta particles or gamma energy.

At the point Rose joined Oak Ridge, the laboratory was recovering Thorium-229 from waste material left over from the production of Uranium-233. Uranium-233 is a fissile isotope, meaning it can be used to produce bombs. Thorium-229 has a half-life of 7,000 years, meaning it takes a long time for the isotope to decay. Actinium-225 is a product of Thorium-229 decay and only has a decay rate of 15 days. Actinium-225 is used in cancer treatment as a targeted alpha therapy isotope.

Twenty years ago, Actinium-225 was obtained only through the decay of Thorium-229. More Actinium-225 is needed to meet medical demand, therefore researchers are finding other ways to produce Actinium-225. Researchers are currently using an accelerator to hit a target of Thorium-232 with protons, neutrons or electrons to produce a material that transitions to become Actinium-225.

The Oak Ridge lab does not have an accelerator, but it is part of the Tri-Lab Project that also involves the Los Alamos and Brookhaven national laboratories. Oak Ridge’s role involves the purifying of Actinium-225 from the Thorium-232 target used in Brookhaven. The Project is currently working on moving into Phase 3, which will produce the expected demand of Actinium-225 for the medical industry. Once the research is completed and the method is known, lowering cost of production, the private sector will take over.

A global collaboration (16:30)
16:30-22:11 (Rose explains that available equipment determines what theories are tested. She also discusses that this is a global collaboration.)

Q. Can you walk us through the phases of establishing this research method?
(16:58) A. Phase 1 began with testing the theory of producing Actinium-225. This involved irradiating the target (a thin metal sheet of Thorium-232) and analyzing the results. For the Tri-Lab Project, the available tools and equipment dictated the primary method tested. Accelerators and other necessary tools are expensive, but the promising first results justified the investment.

There are other labs around the world with accelerators that are researching the same method of Actinium-225 production. This is needed if the medical industry’s demand increases globally. Conferences enable a strong collaboration in the creation of the targeted alpha therapy for cancer treatment.

The demand for Actinium-225 (22:12)
22:12-27:19 (Rose explains the cause of the demand for Actinium-225. She also explains that, unlike antibiotics, people generally do not build a tolerance to radioisotopes.)

Q. What is the reason for the Actinium-225 demand?
(21:53) A. The application for targeted alpha therapy for different cancers have been showing positive results. This includes targeting metastasized cancers with radiation as well as targeting Leukemia cells, HIV cells and certain fungal infections resistant to antibiotics with radioisotopes. The application is becoming more broad as it is adopted for different cancer types.

Rose has not heard that radiation resistance is prevalent but some people can be more tolerant to radiotherapy than others. There may not be enough evidence of treating the same patient multiple times to see if they have developed immunity to the therapy.

Medical isotope regulation (27:20)
27:20-32:06 (Rose discusses how medical isotopes are regulated.)

Q. Are medical isotopes already regulated?
(28:07) A. There are different levels of regulation based on the various research stages. Rose’s studies undergo less regulation than clinical trials involving humans. The regulations that Rose’s team must abide by require the Actinium-225 to be pure before it can be used in medication. This means obtaining the FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP) standards.

The phase of Actinium-225 production depends on the specific cancer treatment. Lukiama has been working on trials for several years and is approaching Phase 3, while some breast cancer studies are in the early phase of looking at effects on mouse cells. Rose is not involved in a particular trial phase because Oak Ridge focuses on isotope production for medication manufacturing, but is currently setting up CGMP, which they hope to have in place by next year.

Challenges of Actinium-225 production (32:07)
32:07-43:23 (Rose discusses the difficulties encountered in the project. She also explains why the private sector will not be able to take over the project for another 5 to 10 years.)

Q. What were the longest or most difficult parts of the project to overcome?
(32:40) A. Recovering the initial Thorium material was the most difficult part of the project as the waste was mixed. As the demand for Actinium-225 increased, meeting the needs of the customers became the next difficult step of the project. This required the team to shift away from a research and development mindset and towards one where they could produce enough Actinium-225 at a high purity level to meet the weekly needs of the customer.

Measuring the purity is also challenging because one millicurie (a radioactive measurement, mCi) of Actinium-225 has a mass of only 0.2 nanograms. This amount is impossible to detect with the eye, but a geiger counter is still able to detect the radioactivity. Vials containing this amount of Actinium-225 are shipped through regular mail services, but there are regulations in place that ensure the radiation is contained.

Using other sources of waste is not possible for this particular isotope. The original Uranium-233 was produced at Oak Ridge National Lab. Additionally, the role of the lab is not to produce for the private sector, but to research and develop until a project can be handed off to the private sector. The project is getting close to entering Phase 3, where they hope to produce 100mCi per target, which approaches the needed curie production level for widespread application of targeted alpha therapy. This level of production is also needed for the private sector to be able to afford the needed facilities that must be designated solely to the production of Actinium-225. Rose predicts this may take 5 to 10 years.

The project is working to increase the yield. In the early stages, the power of the beam and the length of time of radiation was adjusted. The same parameters are then used on larger targets during production and the beam time and the amount of energy used is then optimized to produce higher quantities.

Radioisotope education (43:24)
43:24-56:54 (Rose explains her role as an educator and why she believes teaching children about radioisotopes is important.)

Q. Are these some of the same topics that you teach?
(43:52) A. Rose taught at the University of Tennessee for 10 years before joining Oak Ridge full time and still occasionally guest lectures in radiochemistry classes. The lab also has interns, many of whom are undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral students that Rose works with.

Rose used to teach chemistry and would give lectures on isotopes. She believes educating her students about radiation made them more informed voters. Rose specifically taught the history of radiation and how isotopes are used in various industries. Rose believes that radiation education could easily be incorporated into elementary and high school science classes today to make people more comfortable with radiation. However, some teachers have not been exposed to radioisotope education themselves, making this process difficult. Despite this, Rose has seen an improvement in radiation education since she was a child. She has seen a decrease in the concern about nuclear explosions, which Rose believes may be because the younger generation is exposed to more technology today than prior generations.

The future of medical isotopes (56:55)
56:55-1:01:26 (Rose explains how her views of the nuclear industry changed over time. She also discusses her hopes for the future of medical isotopes and her role in the industry.)

Q. How has your impression of the nuclear industry changed over time?
(57:25) A. When Rose was graduating high school, there was a strong anti-nuclear GreenPeace movement. Rose remembers agreeing with them because she wanted to be environmentally sound. However, her education in radiochemistry taught her that the ideas of the time were not necessarily correct.

Moving forward, Rose wants people to realize the benefit of medical isotopes. Radioisotope treatment is becoming more of an option for people, and Rose believes education is important in achieving this.

For Rose’s work specifically, she is looking forward to improving the techniques used to separate materials to increase purification and manufacturing standards. Rose is coming to the end of her career and sees her future role becoming primarily involved with education.

Jeremy Renshaw - From Iowa to Brazil to North Carolina (2:44)
​
Q: How did you end up in North Carolina?

A: Jeremy Renshaw is the Used Fuel and High-Level Waste Program Manager at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in Charlotte, North Carolina. He is originally from Iowa and received his bachelor's degree from a university in Iowa, during which time he married his wife. The pair soon had two children, all before Jeremy completed his graduate degree. His oldest daughter will be 13 this year; Jeremy says she’s already showing the signs of becoming an engineer. In fact, all of his children are interested in robotics; his daughter placed 6th last year at the World Championships in robotics. Before going to graduate school, Jeremy attended a two-year mission trip to Brazil, where he learned Portuguese. After Jeremy graduated in 2009, during the height of the recession, he managed to find a job in non-destructive evaluation in Charlotte, NC.

Family of Engineers (6:30)

Q: It sounds like your family has an inclination toward engineering and learning?

A: Jeremy says his entire family, both his children and his siblings, always liked math and science. He is one of seven siblings. His older brother was a rocket scientist with the United Space Alliance, one of his younger brothers is as NASA and the other is getting his PhD in robotics. One of his three sisters has her medical PhD in traumatic brain injuries. Jeremy says it’s a friendly competition between all of them.

Non-Destructive Evaluation 9:36

Q: What is non-destructive evaluation?

A: According to Jeremy, non-destructive evaluation is like having a superpower; it gives him the ability to look inside of materials and see what���s there. X-Rays, ultrasounds and eddy currents are other examples of non-destructive methods of evaluation. His specialty was thermography, evaluating heat patterns and distribution of heat flows to find defects. There are positives and negatives to every technique; no method is one size fits all, perfect match. Jeremy says each technique has areas where it is strongest, but other areas where it is weak. Thermal mapping was most useful when testing aircraft components. Jeremy was looking for cracks using vibrothermography. When shaken, differential heating appears in crack faces, delamination and other defects in the component being tested. Sometimes Jeremy could find defects using vibrothermography that no other non-destructive methods could find. He says the key to non-destructive evaluation is understanding materials and their behaviors. Materials are tailored to applications. For example, piles need to be able to withstand high temperatures and be corrosion resistant; airplane components also need to be able to withstand extremely high temperatures but must also be creep resistant. No material is perfect. Jeremy says all materials have flaws and defects. Inspection techniques are meant to identify and correct tiny flaws that could cause failure.

Switching to Nonprofit (13:12)

Q. What did you do after graduate school?

A. Jeremy worked for a nuclear vendor on ultrasonic techniques to inspect reactor internals. He then transferred those skills to the nonprofit sector. Trying to make a difference in the world and working toward a greater good spoke to Jeremy, so he took a job at EPRI. It was the change in mission and the company vision statement that pulled him into the nonprofit sector.

Need for Inspections (14:43)

Q. What is the outcome of determining imperfections in components on the business side?

A. The reason Jeremy does inspections is to prevent failures. He points out that “NDE” has two acronyms: “non-destructive evaluation” and “near death experience.” According to Jeremy, proper non-destructive evaluations prevent near death experiences. Inspections and repairs occur to prevent unplanned outages, broken pipes or bolts, and other failures or to change the material, component or design. Qualification programs are used to demonstrate that certain techniques will find flaws of interests during inspections. But there are no restrictions to using specific types of techniques, rather it is a matter of using any and all techniques to find even the smallest flaws. Both modeling and mockups help prove the effectiveness of inspections. During mockups Jeremy creates intentional flaws that are representative of what might be found in the field. Jeremy has also created artificial flaws to create the behaviors of flaws, without having actual flaws in the material. Other people at EPRI are currently working on virtual mockups. Data from real flaws is used in models to detect virtual flaws in a mockup. The point is to find the probability of detection curves and the reliability that detection will occur. If you have a flaw, you want to be able to find it. Jeremy says half and inch, an inch or longer, detection is much easier. But flaws that are a millimeter or smaller are difficult to find; some techniques will work better than others.

Robots Inspect Spent Fuel Dry Storage Canisters (20:13)

Q. Do you use multiple techniques on one component?

A. Absolutely, Jeremy says. He’s been developing robotic systems to inspect dry storage canisters containing nuclear fuel. The robots inspect the outside of the canisters in the annulus space between the canister and the overpack of a concrete vault that is meant for shielding. The robots are specially designed using 3D printing to navigate the two to four-inch gap between the canister and the vault. The first inspection is typically visual; any part of the canister that is not bright, shiny metal is marked for closer inspection. The next steps include ultrasounds, eddy currents, sampling of canisters, etc. Since these kinds of robots didn’t exist before EPRI started using them for these complex examinations, 3D printing was used during the accelerated development process. 3D printing allows for faster revisions of prototypes and is significantly easier than making changes to the robots in a machine shop. It took about two years to develop the robots Jeremy uses. Robotic Technologies of Tennessee has aided in the production of the robots. Inside the dry storage canisters, the robots must withstand thousands of rads per hour and 150 to 200 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures. All of the electronics are protected and shielded inside of the bodies of the robots to avoid foreign material exclusion problems. The robots are always tethered by two five-hundred-pound cables, so if the robot loses power or gets stuck it can be pulled out of the vault. The smallest robot is about the size of two cell phones stacked on top of each other. Some of the other robots are designed a bit larger, at six by ten inches. One of Jeremy’s favorite robots is a multi-stage robot and acts as a mothership that deploys a second daughtership robot. The mothership robot is about four feet wide, a foot long and a couple of inches tall; the mothership deploys the daughtership once inside the vault. There are also two different modes of transportation for the robots moving around inside the vault: magnetic wheels or vacuum suction systems. Both kinds of robots are capable of moving over 90-degree angles to inspect the sides and the lid of the canisters. Videos of the robots in action are available online on EPRI’s website.

Yucca Mountain (30:30)

Q. Given your experiences, do you feel that dry storage is a problem?

A. Jeremy thinks dry storage is an ingenuitive solution to the problem of not knowing where to store spent fuel. Currently, spent fuel from around the United States is waiting to be transferred to a repository, something that currently doesn’t exist. Yucca Mountain was supposed to be the repository in the United States, but due to political issues instead of technical issues, the project is going nowhere. There are only a couple of countries around the world are making progress with nuclear repositories and Jeremy says that’s because those countries were able to remove some of the political hurdles. EPRI is an independent, unbiased nonprofit, so Jeremy says he stays out of politics and focuses on solving technical issues.

Wet Storage of Spent Fuel (31:53)

Q. What is wet storage?

A. Wet storage typically comes before dry storage. It’s another step in the life cycle of fuel, which begins when you mine the uranium. Then you enrich the fuel and make your fuel. Once fuel has been operated for four to six years in the reactor and squeezed out as much energy as possible, it is then transferred into a spent fuel pool where it typically stays for five to 30 years while radionuclides decay and the fuel cools. Once the fuel falls below a certain threshold, it can be transferred into dry storage. The ideal is for the spent fuel to someday be transported for disposal. Due to delays in the creation of a repository at Yucca Mountain, spent fuel pools began to run out of space and had to be redesigned. The fuel had to be placed closer together than was originally intended, necessitating the addition of neutron absorbers. However, this process doesn’t last forever and replacing every neutron absorbing panels would globally cost billions of dollars, or $25 million per site. EPRI responded by creating the Industry wide Learning Aging Management Program (i-LAMP). The program is meant to take data from plants around the globe and combine neutron absorber materials with the data from the spent fuel water chemistry data and create a database to find trends. The goal is for nuclear plants to rely on each other and foster a system of sister plants that are operating similarly.

Saving Imaginary Lives and Killing Real People (40:11)

Q. How do you balance maintaining margin of safety while keeping operating and maintenance costs low?

A. Jeremy is looking into reactivity depletion uncertainty calculations, meaning the more energy extracted from the fuel the less reactive it becomes. The EPRI benchmarks look at what is the uncertainty of that depletion. In the past an old engineering memo suggested five percent was the correct uncertainty number to use. What EPRI has found through a multi-year study, using actual conditions rather than assumed conditions, the actual numbers of uncertainty are 1.8 to 2.5 percent. In a criticality space the difference between five percent and EPRI’s suggested three percent is huge and offers a lot of operational flexibility. EPRI is working with regulators in the US and abroad to increase acceptance of using more accurate reactivity depletion uncertainty numbers. EPRI’s suggested numbers allow plants to be more efficient, and Jeremy says that increased efficiency often leads to higher levels of safety. He says that this helps prevent radiation exposure for imaginary issues. Similarly, Jeremy says that the way power plants are being operated is counterproductive to the future of climate change. The way power plant operation is going, it is killing real people to save imaginary ones. Nuclear plants are being shut down because of perceptions of safety of imaginary people. Instead, shutting down nuclear plants is killing real people in other countries around the world.
The radiation risk of nuclear plants is mostly based on negative perceptions. For example, Jeremy says that more radiation comes from coal plants than nuclear plants; yet, both are at very small levels.

Next Steps in Nuclear (101:32)

Q. What are the next steps the nuclear industry needs to take?

A. EPRI is working with the Department of Energy and other organizations to create a phenomena identification-ranking table (PIRT). What are the influential factors, what are the knowledge gaps, and how influential are they? For example, an item with a low certainty and a high sensitivity is a big gap. Versus something that is well understood with a low sensitivity; Jeremy says we don’t need to rush to get more data. It allows Jeremy to rank which items he needs to get more data on before making any conclusions. A report will come out next year to help improve safety, efficiency and increase economic benefits. It is important to Jeremy that he helps solve the waste issue so that he doesn’t pass it onto his children and future generations. To Jeremy, it’s all a part of being good stewards of our planet.

From insects to public health (1:37)
1:37-9:04 (Ed explains how the field of toxicology arose from the environmental movement of the 1960s. He discusses his journey from entomology to public health and his position now at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst.)

Q. How did you come into the field of toxicology?
A. When Ed Calabrese was an undergraduate student, he noticed the widespread concern of pesticides that sprung out of the awakening of the environmental movement in the 1960s and with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Ed was hired by an advisor to collect intertidal samples to analyze pesticide residue. This work inspired Ed to become an insecticide toxicologist, which he pursued in a PhD program in the 1970s. During the program, however, Ed was driven towards public health applications rather than entomology. Ed’s first faculty position was at the University of Illinois’ School of Public Health in the environmental and occupational medicine department. Here, Ed looked into issues such as radium-226 in drinking water in some Illinois communities.

Ed grew up near Cape Cod and prefers the country life to living in Chicago. The University of Massachusetts - Amherst fit Ed’s favored lifestyle and so he joined their School of Public Health. Ed has been a toxicologist faculty member there for 43 years and still enjoys his work today.

Similarities between DDT and radiation exposure (9:05)
9:05-18:46 (Ed explains the similarities in studying chemical toxicology and radiation biology. He also discusses the challenges of human-based studies.)

Q. Can radiation be studied in the same way as DDT?
A. The fields of chemical toxicology and radiation biology did not mature together and had little inter-field communication. Ed saw this as a problem because it prevented scientists from seeing comminalities. Ed studies the adaptive responses to low-level exposures and notes the similarities between the two fields is striking. For instance, Ed sees the same biological responses to low-level DDT exposure as radiation exposure.

Measuring the toxicological effects of contaminants depends on the agents that are studied and the biological material that is evaluated. Over the past 30 years, the studies have shifted away from using mice and rats to using cell cultures. This is because cell culture and invitro studies allow for more concentrations to be tested and enable more replicability of studies. Studying low-dose effects is even more difficult in human studies, also known as epidemiology studies. Human populations are highly variable, meaning the magnitude of adaptive responses to low-dose effects is modest and the underlying mechanisms are harder to detect. This makes it difficult to detect adverse or beneficial changes and can cause differing results between studies.

The LNT model versus hormesis (18:47)
18:47-26:16 (Ed explains what caused the interest in studying the effects of low-dose exposure and the differences between the LNT model and hormesis.)

Q. What motivated us to look into the epidemiological effects of low-dose contamination?
A. Environmental legislation, such as the Clean Water Act, began surfacing in the 1970s. This was also the first time that the US focused on chemical carcinogens and the need for a policy to assess contamination risk. The National Academy of Sciences had previously recommended that ionizing radiation be evaluated for a linear dose response relationship. In the mid-1970s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) applied this guidance to chemical carcinogens as chemical carcinogens and ionizing radiation act via the same mutagenic mechanism. By 1979, the EPA used the linear dose response relationship model to establish the first carcinogen-based drinking water standard, which was then applied to many other chemicals. Linear dose response models, known as linear no-threshold (LNT) models, established acceptable low-level exposure risks. This required industry to adopt costly new plants, strategies and technology.

At the same time, the EPA began seeking out the responsible parties to clean dumpsites around the country. Carcinogen cleanup costs were driven by the LNT model. This sparked conflict between industries and the EPA because the national toxicology testing program had to extrapolate data and the EPA always chose to favor on the side of safety. The LNT model also meant that the EPA would not declare a threshold. This caused people to become interested in hormesis, the biological response to low-dose exposures. Because of the J-shaped curve of hormesis, the risks of exposure were more easily distinguished from the LNT model.

In hormesis, dose is measured on the X-axis and response is measured on the Y-axis. Disease incidents, such as cancer or heart attacks, depict a J-shape dose response. Memory-enhancement drugs, for example, show an inverted U-shape dose response, which explain how performance is enhanced with exposure. The magnitude of the response is the same whether the subject is a plant, animal, cell or human.

Improving adaptive responses with low-dose exposure (29:19)
29:19-42:57 (Ed explains how low-dose exposures can improve adaptive responses.)

Q. Does this mean that low-levels of radiation are good for us or does it mean they are insignificant?
A. Organisms have the capability to adapt and will respond when cells are stressed or damaged. If exposed today to a low-level dose, the body’s adaptive response will last for typically 2 weeks. If the organism is exposed to a high dose during this period, they will have a greater ability to prevent harm from the higher dose. Humans tend to overcompensate in our adaptive responses. This not only allows us to repair damages, but also upregulates adaptive mechanisms, leading to overall improved performance. Moderate amounts of stress from low-level doses therefore induce positive hormetic dose responses. This has been seen with mercury, lead and ricin but also in a preconditioning study in rodents. The research showed that when preconditioned using a blood pressure cuff, shock damage in the rodents was reduced by 80%.

Low-dose radiation is good for health (42:58)
42:58-54:02 (Ed explains the difficulty of including hormetic dose responses in regulatory decisions. He also discusses a research project that shows the benefits of low-dose radiation exposure.)

Q. How do we get agencies to put regulations in a biological context?
A. Ed says this is the big question. Ed testified in the Senate on an EPA proposal to consider non-linear dose responses in risk assessments, including hormetic dose responses. Ed believes the data that has accumulated over the past decade points to this being necessary. There are many opponents to this because most believe that lower exposure is always better. However, we need some exposure to stress because organism health diminishes when stress is fully eliminated.

Ed attended a conference where a researcher presented a study that exposed mice to a radiation level of about 60 times higher than background doses. After 92 weeks, the exposed mice looked much healthier than the control group. Additionally, the exposed mice lived about 20 to 30% longer than the control group. Ed believes regulatory agencies must optimize health rather than separating law from public health. This position challenges the last 30 years of thought, but Ed believes challenging the regulatory agencies is just as the science proves that low-doses are good for health.

Retraining minds through exposure to Ed’s message (54:03)
54:03-1:01:13 (Ed explains that retraining the public and scientific community is needed to erase fear of low-dose radiation.)

Q. How can the idea of hormesis be pushed forwards to erase the fear of low-dose radiation?
A. Ed believes that both the public and scientific community have been brainwashed. Retraining people is the major challenge facing the industry. Ed sees hope because people ultimately want to live a healthy long life. Because many medicines are based on hormesis, self-interest will motivate people to save their hearts, hair and neurons without waiting for regulation to catch-up. Intelligent low-doses of stress enhance biological systems and Ed believes he can transform opinions by gaining more exposure to this hopeful message.

A halt to retirement (0:08)
0:08-5:27 (Chuck describes how Fukushima changed his career.)

Q. How did Fukushima change your career?
A. Chuck Castro was close to retirement and had just moved back to Atlanta, Georgia when he was called to go to Japan after the Fukushima accident. Chuck now spends much of his time teaching about the lessons learned from Fukushima. Chuck’s book, Station Blackout, is an important archive of the event, making sure that the younger generation can learn about the accident. Chuck’s primary motivation to write the book was to tell the operators’ story who are unable to tell it themselves as they are considered villains. Further, Chuck wanted to share how America helped behind the scenes.

Writing Station Blackout (5:28)
5:28-10:47 (Chuck explains how he wrote Station Blackout.)

Q. How soon after Fukushima did you write the book?
A. In 2012, Chuck began interviewing Fukushima operators and began writing the book the year after. It took Chuck years to digest the stories and thoroughly check all the facts. He also worked hard to strike a balance between the technical and emotional details, making sure to keep the story accessible to a wider audience.

Prediction errors (10:46)
10:46-16:36 (Chuck explains why accident predictions were wrong. He also describes why the NRC’s evacuation zone was larger than Japan’s.)

Q. How was the tsunami prediction so off?
A. The predicted height of the tsunami was 10 feet high. The actual wave height greatly surpassed this and was 50 to 60 feet high. The earth broke in three places creating an additive effect for the wave, which may have contributed to the prediction error.

Chuck has recently visited Fukushima. He notes that during this visit, he was stuck in a traffic jam on a highway that had been previously closed. He was happy to be stuck as it represented the return of life. Much of the evacuated area has since been remediated.

At the time, there was not enough information about the accident, leading to the NRC’s evacuation zone to be five times larger than Japan’s zone. In the US, the NRC’s resident inspector program is an independent inspector that shares the facts of an accident. Japan does not have this type of program, creating confusion and a loss of confidence in leadership during the accident. There were also many models that provided vastly differing results for what the evacuation zone should be. The US used the larger evacuation zone as a buffer to protect against the unknown information. It also served as a way to tell US citizens not to enter the area to avoid disrupting the Japanese evacuation efforts.

Listen, Learn, Help and Lead (16:37)
16:37-23:41 (Chuck discusses the US’s involvement with Fukushima and how a change in strategy resulted in more successful advisement.)

Q. It seemed like the US just helped the Japanese develop their own solution to the accident. Why do you think this was?
A. At first, the Americans independently analyzed data and came up with a plan. Instructing the Japanese did not work, however, and so the strategy changed to one that aimed to see the problem from the Japanese point of view. Chuck calls this Listen, Learn, Help and Lead. For instance, the US thought it was best to flood the reactor containment building. But after Chuck listened to why this was not possible, they realized that the Japanese were right to not flood the building because the many breaks in the building could potentially cause an overflow into the ocean.

Chuck saw a huge difference once the Listen, Learn, Help and Lead model was adopted. This gave the Japanese confidence, enabling Chuck to gradually ask questions and he eventually developed a repore with the Japanese team. This created a stronger relationship, leading to an acceptance of American advisement. Expressing remorse was also of huge importance to successful advisement. It was important to remember that the Japanese workers were also victims. The operators that stayed at the facility were also unaware of the state of their families outside of the plant. Even Chuck finds it emotional to drive through the evacuation zone, seeing life interrupted such as children’s toys left in yards and the devastation from the plume.

Learning from Fukushima (23:42)
23:42-26:42 (Chuck discusses the measures the US has taken to avoid another Fukushima-like accident.)

Q. How do we prevent this type of event from happening again?
A. We have learned from Fukushima and all other nuclear accidents to implement effective corrective actions. For instance, Flex equipment, which are quickly accessible equipment brought in during an accident, is a good solution that avoided making thousands of small changes to nuclear facilities around the country. The US has also put in place measures to protect against external hazards, including in earthquake zones.

Japan’s nuclear industry and response (26:43)
26:43-36:47 (Chuck explains why Japan adopted nuclear and describes their past and current regulator. He also speaks about Japan’s response to Fukushima.)

Q. Why did Japan pursue nuclear?
A. Japan is an island with few natural resources to produce electricity. Japan needed a high amount of power to rebuild after WWII and to support the population growth. Nuclear presented the most efficient and environmentally friendly option.

Compared to the US’s nuclear industry, Chuck believes Japan’s regulator was not strong or effective at the time of Fukushima. Nuclear promotion and regulation were grouped together. They have since been separated and Japan has given the regulators more power and full responsibility over safety and oversight. Chuck believes this must be balanced, however, giving utilities the responsibility for safety and regulators the responsibility of oversight. While Fukushima made people lose trust in Japan’s nuclear industry, trust in nuclear utilities must be rebuilt.

Chuck believes the issues in the response to Fukushima were more than communications based, but included confidence and effectiveness. The Japanese government lacked knowledge and a national response plan, giving them little structure to respond. Chuck points out, however, that Japan faced the earthquake and tsunami in addition to the Fukushima nuclear accident, creating a desperate and serious situation that caused the loss of over 16,000 lives. Naoto Kan, the prime minister at the time, needed to focus on Tokyo and the evacuation of people, especially those critically injured in buildings damaged from the earthquake. While sheltering in place around Fukushima would have been satisfactory, at the time Japan was unsure of how large the scale of the problem would become. Most people did not return to the nuclear site, but about 40% have, primarily the older generation. The younger generations have remained in the larger cities of Japan.

Chuck’s nuclear journey (36:48)
36:48-46:00 (Chuck explains the future workforce of nuclear and his own journey through the industry.)

Q. Do we see a lot of younger people studying nuclear and learning to operate nuclear plants?
A. The number of nuclear PhD students in the US is the highest it has ever been. Nuclear is clean and could be the future of the US. Chuck encourages the youth to study nuclear as it is a great opportunity for environmental students to make it safer and greener.

Chuck did not study nuclear in school but first entered the field during the Air Force. Part of his job was to work with nuclear weapons, sparking his interest in the nuclear weapons program. After the Air Force, Chuck was attracted to the nuclear energy industry and got a job in construction, later becoming an equipment operator and joining the control room. He was also an instructor before becoming involved in regulation. Chuck enjoys that he jumped into the field and gained hands-on experience. Fukushima later became a pinnacle part of Chuck’s career, stopping his retirement from the industry. He is now interested in academia and helping others grow their careers. Fukushima taught Chuck a great deal about crisis leadership, something he believes he could teach in an executive MBA program.

Post-Fukushima (46:01)
46:01-48:48 (Chuck further expands on how the US’s nuclear industry has changed after Fukushima.)

Q.Have there been any changes in how we regulate and operate post-Fukushima?
A. Chuck believes Flex equipment is a good solution. Everyone must also keep reflecting and remembering Fukushima so an accident does not occur again. The industry has included many lessons learned from Fukushima into training materials, procedures and safety culture. Fukushima proves that the US has an effective emergency plan. We also have many counter measures and well trained people in place to ensure accidents do not occur.

Adding business smarts to an engineering background (0:56)
0:56-5:14 (Stephane explains how he got his start in the nuclear industry and the steps he took to become Assystem’s COO and CEO.)

Q. Where did you grow up and how did you get into the nuclear space?
A. Stephane Aubarbier is a mechanical engineer from a French engineering school. He began his career at Assystem as a commissioning engineer, which work with nuclear plants until they are working correctly. Stephan worked in both the automotive and nuclear industries. Stephane found that he was complaining about the construction and design processes as a commissioning engineer and so was made the project director where he realised he was more comfortable with marketing rather than the technical aspects of nuclear power. He then realized that he was lacking in finance and management capabilities, so decided to go back to school to get an MBA after 7 years with Assystem. He then joined a vendor company before returning to Assystem to lead the development of nuclear activity. He is now the Chief Operating Officer & Chief Executive Officer of Assystem.

Shifting management teams to deliver projects on time (5:15)
5:15 - 16:04 (Stephane discusses the need for nuclear projects to focus less on design and more on completing projects on time. He describes Assystem’s approach to achieving this.)

Q. What were some of the things you were seeing at the time, in terms of nuclear construction and design, that you wanted to change?
A. We have more of an ability to manage requirements of projects now, such as regulations and expectations of performance. We must start with a design’s specifications, which must also fit the requirements of a project. Using the digital tools of today, Assystem can be more clever when designing plants. The process switches from push to pull when a project enters the construction phase as the project’s goals move to pull the plant into operation as soon as possible. This change requires a different mindset, and Stephane usually places a new management team in charge as a project progresses to the construction phase. This change forces a project into the next phase, removing the temptation for a management team to dwell on the design during the construction phase. This strategy keeps projects on time and on budget.

New nuclear projects face 2 main issues regarding timeline. The first is that the original timeline committed to may not be realistic. The second is a lack of focus on the ability to deliver a project compared to the focus that is given to engineering and designing a project. A mindset focused on delivering projects is therefore key to a nuclear project’s success.

Adopting the copy and paste model to reduce project costs (16:05)
16:05-24:34 (Stephane explains that Assystem has gradually identified issues of the nuclear industry and have adopted the copy and paste model to reduce design time and overall project costs.)

Q. From your experience, has there ever been a period of time where you realized that we needed to separate engineering from the construction side of the project or was this more of a gradual realization?
A. It has been gradual. Assystem began as a commissioning firm, but have transitioned to construction management, plant design and managing the overall project. They have identified the difficulties along the project line and always kept in mind the need to deliver a project on time. Stephane sees a major cultural gap between delivering and designing a project. The change in the way of managing a project in the design phase and the construction phase is what sets Assystem apart and pushes the nuclear industry forwards. The best way to push projects forward to complete them on time is to copy and paste rather than reinvent. This also means keeping the time spent on designing to a minimum.

Designing a project is not the primary cost, as 15-20% of project costs are related to construction. An additional 25-30% of costs are related to the operation of a plant, including fuel, labor and maintenance, and 35-60% of a project’s overall cost is due to funding. 75% of funding costs are related to risk coverage. The cost of funding a project is high because of safety issues, risks of operation and risks of construction. The copy and paste model reduces this cost because the design, supply chain and construction method remains unchanged, diminishing the overall risk of the project.

Assystem’s business strategy (24:35)
24:35-34:57 (Staphane discusses Assystem’s strategy when it comes to recruiting engineers. He also explains why Assystem has stayed in the nuclear industry since 1966.)

Q. How do you train and convince engineers to think with a business mindset?
A. Assystem tends to recruit engineers that focus more on project management rather than design. These engineers will therefore naturally focus on the delivery of the project rather than only on the design phase. Assystem has small design offices, but most engineers are on site. Assystem also coaches engineers to be more focused on customers and what is happening outside of the company, which Stephane believes is the reason for 80% of Assystem’s success.

Assystem employs about 6,000 people, mostly in Europe and the Middle East. Assystem began in 1966 as a spin off of a French governmental organization that focused on nuclear activity research. Assystem was in charge of commissioning all French nuclear facilities, whether they were operated in France or sold and built abroad. Over the years, Assystem branched out to include other sectors and grew to about 10,000 employees but decided to sell 60% of the company to refocus on the nuclear industry in 2017.

Growing in other sectors meant that Assystem needed to make a decision. They were unable to be key players in each of the automotive, aerospace and nuclear industries. They decided to focus on nuclear rather than another industry because Assystem prefers to work on complex infrastructure projects and because Assystem’s origins are in the nuclear sector. Additionally, Assystem believes increasing the nuclear electricity supply is the only way to combat climate change and CO2 emissions.

Assystem was able to develop their nuclear business in the Middle East due to the acceptance of nuclear power there. They have also developed a collaboration with the Russian nuclear industry as 75% of nuclear projects are led by the Russian industry. Looking forwards to 2025, Assystem believes they can grow 50% in the nuclear industry primarily with new builds in Asia, North Africa and the Middle East as well as supporting existing fleets in the UK and France.

Why decreasing energy consumption will not combat climate change (34:58)
34:58-45:17 (Stephane explains Assystem’s position on capping energy consumption versus finding a carbon free electricity solution. He also explains that increasing education is key to the nuclear industry’s success.)

Q. Where people actively paying attention to climate change at the time or was Assystem ahead of the time?
A. Assystem believes that climate change is real. Assystem has looked at public and different government opinions to understand if climate change affects energy consumption and they found the answer to be no. Energy consumption has been exponential since 1900 and is still growing despite global wars. Stephane believes efforts to cap energy consumption will not work as energy consumption will still grow during the next century. This means we must consider how to produce energy without affecting the Earth.

There is also a discrepancy between what governments are saying and what the people and governments are actually doing. Many western governments believe they can limit energy consumption but do not have an ability to understand global management of energy. Additionally, the general scientific education of the public is low, so speaking about energy and nuclear power is difficult. For example, 60% of the French population wrongly believes that nuclear power produces CO2 emissions. This means that even though plants have been running for 40 years in France, people still think CO2 is produced. While people sincerely care about climate change, they still hold onto wrong beliefs about what is generating climate change. Stephane thinks this is a challenge that the current and future generations will need to take on and thinks it will rely on transparency and sincerity.

Assystem’s country collaborations (45:18)
45:18-57:54 (Stephane explains how Assystem collaborates with other countries. He also discusses the possibility of a global nuclear regulation.)

Q. What are some of your collaborations with other countries and how do you use the copy and paste model on a global scale?
A. Assystem works with countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Turkey. In these countries, Assystem works with public bodies to help develop nuclear programs according to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) regulations. They also assist the country’s nuclear industry in being successful in building nuclear projects. Assystem’s strategy focuses on limiting designs and ensuring requirements from the local safety authority are met. Assystem faces two main challenges when partnering with a new country. The first revolves around the fact that all newcomer countries must develop their own nuclear program. The second challenge requires Assystem to resist developing a new reactor design each time a country wishes to build a new facility. Overall, Assystem works to reduce the gap between the local requirements and the designs proposed by vendors.

Regarding developing a global nuclear regulation, this could be possible if each country would abide by it. Today, there are different nuclear regulations in each country. Even though the same basic regulation exists in each country, the legal environment changes, meaning the nuclear regulations are affected. For example, nuclear liability is defined differently in each country. We can envision global standards, but Stephane is not sure that it will occur in the near future. Finding common regulation and making regulation changes in the main nuclear countries will be difficult.

The first thing Assystem does when creating a new country partnership is understand the specificities of the regulations within the particular country. They will then assist a country in choosing the right reactor technology for them if one has not yet been chosen. A country will often, however, already know which technology they want to use because bilateral agreements with another country may already be in place. These agreements often drive the technology choice and determines the available funding. Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) make up about 99% of new build programs worldwide. Between the different PWR technologies, there are some differences but the design concepts are very similar. This is because designers want to reach the same level of safety. Assystem therefore focuses on the gaps between the design proposal for licensing and the local safety authority requirements. This process becomes more successful when less innovation is involved in a design because the project will be more likely to be delivered on time.

John’s 35 years in energy (1:27)
1:27-6:17 (John discusses how he transitioned from being a mathematician to an engineer and how he has applied what he learned in the automotive industry to the energy sector.)

Q. Where did you grow up and how did you get into the nuclear space?
A. John Louis Ricaud has worked in the energy sector for 35 years. He also worked in the automotive industry to develop new transportation solutions. John is originally a mathematician but switched to engineering because he wanted to understand what was going on in the world. In the automotive industry, John had to think globally and listen to what his customers wanted. This is the same for the energy sector where engineers must ensure that proposals are positively perceived by people. During John’s university years, he began working for the energy sector after the head of a French electricity company invited John to work with them. John is now Senior Advisor at Assystem.

Different nuclear perceptions around the world (6:18)
6:18-13:18 (John explains how nuclear perceptions have shifted over the last 40 years and the need for politicians to take on long-term energy solutions in Europe.)

Q. Did you have an understanding of what nuclear was and did you have any sort of opinion on it?
A. When John began working, nuclear energy was perceived to be the solution. But 40 years later, there is a specific mindset about nuclear energy in different countries. John finds it interesting to ask what has caused the changes is perceptions. John thinks this is because there is no political support and no political ability to advise on long term issues on developing new nuclear power plants. In some countries, such as China, India and the UK, they are able to think farther into the future compared to other countries that rely on importing energy from other countries. We therefore need to be careful when considering the nuclear issues in France, Belgium and Italy, for example, that have very specific nuclear issues. The issue is understanding how much energy Europe will need in 2050. Some believe decreasing energy needs is the solution, but John does not agree with this because decreasing consumption will create a social pushback and global growth means energy needs will continue to increase. Countries developing nuclear understand that they need to address long term energy needs and mitigate climate change.

Shifting towards carbon-free electricity generation (13:19)
13:19-20:21(John discusses why a reduction to energy consumption is not a practical solution and how cities will need to switch to using carbon-free electricity generation.)

Q. I would think it would be impractical to just reduce consumption because we will still need energy to desalinate water and cool rooms, right?
A. When thinking about energy, we must do so from both the main uses of energy: transportation and heating homes. For transportation, we need to move towards electric cars because of pollution. John believes in 30 years, all large cities will use electric transportation. From the heating perspective, many cities would not have developed if cooling and heating systems did not exist. Global warming will cause an increase in the number of cooling and heating systems installed around the globe. Heating and cooling will also see a switch from oil and gas to electricity over the next 30 years. This is a step by step process where cities will adopt electricity first and then switch to electricity that is generated without emitting CO2.

Carbon emissions vs carbon footprint (20:22)
20:22-28:49 (John explains why solutions will be different for each country. He also discusses why Europe should focus on each country’s carbon footprint rather than their carbon emissions.)

Q. Why not reverse this and first get government and publics to support nuclear and then electrify everything?
A. This is a specific situation for each country. France has the ability to produce electricity for 20 to 30 years. In Germany, they plan to stop nuclear plants in 2022 and have no other option but developing coal or gas plants, which will increase their CO2 emissions. Belgium also plans to stop their nuclear program and plans to import energy from other countries. This supports the not in my backyard mentality where a country may be considered green because they are not producing CO2, however they may be importing energy produced by coal plants in another country. The current focus is on CO2 emitted by a country but not on the CO2 emitted by products or energy imported to a country. We need to take into consideration a country’s carbon footprint. For instance, France emits 400 million tons of CO2 but their carbon footprint is 750 million tons of CO2 . China is not constrained by COP 21, meaning many countries import goods from China instead of producing in their own country, which reduces their carbon emissions but increases their carbon footprint. A carbon tax may be a way to reduce European country’s imports.

Being realistic about Europe’s increasing energy demands (28:50)
28:50-39:18 (John explains why Europe’s demand for energy will increase and why politicians must be realistic about this when making decisions.)

Q. Have we looked at the balance between implementing a carbon tax versus disincentivizing production in Europe?
A. Macron said that a carbon tax is necessary but there will be backlash from industry. In 30 years, will industry be global or will it become more regional? The US is becoming more regional, for example. John believes relocalization will occur, meaning the needs for energy in Europe will increase. Energy production will be transferred from China and India back to Europe. Additionally, Europe will need non-intermittent energy. Thinking about zero carbon energy in 2050 requires many points to be taken into consideration. Nuclear is not a target by itself, but it is a way to solve the needs of people between 2050 and 2100. John believes we must be realistic about what 2050 will be like in order to make critical decisions now. We can not deny possibilities, such as the need for cooling systems in European houses.

Making energy as strategic as military defense (39:19)
39:19-49:14 (John explains that nuclear power must be adopted to keep global warming under 2 degrees as the world’s population increases to 10 billion people. He states that this should be achieved when politicians make energy as strategic as military defense.)

Q. So step one is to educate people?
A. At least for politicians, they must be responsible for what will occur in 20 to 30 years. We have to face the future as it is, not as we may dream it might be. Decisions must be based on the realistic vision of the future, including the increasing human population to 10 billion people. Half of this population will be below the age of 30. If the future 10 billion people uses the same amount of energy as we use today, the world temperature will increase by 3 degrees. If energy consumption per person decreases by 30%, the global temperature will increase by 2 degrees. We must stabilize world energy consumption, however 90% of the world’s population wants to see more economic growth, meaning global energy consumption will increase. Internet energy consumption, for example, is forecasted to represent 10 to 20% of total electricity consumption worldwide in the next 40 years. It is therefore important to recognize climate change and move towards energy sources that do not emit CO2. The International Committee About Climate Change said last year that in order to keep global warming under 2 degrees, we need to increase the number of nuclear power plants by 5 times. The International Energy Agency also said that nuclear energy must be developed to mitigate climate change.

To do this, we need to copy what is underway in the UK and Finland and make people confident that nuclear energy is completely safe. All organizations that manage safety are conscious of their strategy and responsibilities. The politicians should not just advise short term issues, but must advise long term issues, too. Energy is not yet perceived as an issue as strategic as military defense, but this must change moving forwards.

A future of low cost nuclear power (49:15)
49:15-57:39 (John explains the dangers of promoting fast neutron reactors and the necessity of returning to simple designs to keep nuclear power costs low.)

Q. Do you think, in terms of long term solutions, that we should push forward with reactors that we have already developed or new designs, such as small modular reactors?
A. John thinks we must be cautious. The main asset of nuclear energy today is the years of operations of existing power plants. Advanced reactor designs are different, but the physics is the same. John does not believe, however, that fast neutron reactors will be put into operation in the next 30 years and believes we must be careful when promoting this type of new technology.

The focus for the future of nuclear energy is on Belgium and Germany that need to import energy. These countries will be critical to the future of nuclear and decreasing climate change impacts. The price for electricity will also be a focus as energy costs continue to increase. The price must be kept under control because energy is a fundamental cost that families must pay. This means that nuclear energy must remain cheap. We have to ask ourselves why nuclear development costs more today than it did 40 years ago and we need to understand the added value of the more expensive designs. John believes we should return to the more simple nuclear plant designs of the past to keep costs low.

Developing a career in problem solving (0:38)
0:38-9:02 (Robert discusses his background and how he developed a mindset that he finds useful when working in the nuclear sector.)

Q. Can you tell me about your background, where you grew up and how you got into the nuclear space?
A. Dr. Robert Plana comes from the South of France where he received a PhD in Information and Communication Technologies. He initially was more interested in sports but quickly was drawn to research because Robert loved that he was able to discover new things. It is here where he developed a mindset that he found useful later in the nuclear industry. This mindset focuses around never giving up and finding alternative routes when you refuse to do something. This is applicable to the nuclear sector because projects are huge, there are many interfaces and the process is long.

Robert has a rich background, studying such things as physics, electronics and electromagnetism. His first research career was in the Internet of Things (IoT) domain in the early 2000s. No matter the subject, he is driven by the scientific and innovation aspects that come with a career in problem solving. This interest probably stems from Robert’s father, who was a physics professor. Robert did not pursue a career in teaching because he was bored by the lack of innovation opportunities. Robert is now the Chief Technical Officer (CTO) of Assystem.

Determining innovation investments (9:03)
9:03-16:02 (Robert discusses how his role as CTO enables constant innovation. He also explains the different readiness level scales [TRL and BRL] and how these are used to fund Assystem’s innovation projects.)

Q. Your role now is probably different from teaching, where you are now looking at a lot of new ideas and innovations, right?
A. Yes. Robert is constantly looking at new ideas. His primary role is to detect talent and new ideas within Assystem and make sure these are leveraged to elevate the business. Robert defines innovation as the process of transforming an idea into a business opportunity. Robert creates an innovation roadmap to help direct investment within Assystem. He uses NASA’s Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale to determine the stage of innovation a project is in. Projects that fall between 1 and 3 are in the research phase, those between 3 and 6 are demonstrators and those in the 6 to 9 range are ready for product development. Robert has developed the Business Readiness Level (BRL) scale which he uses to help determine which products to produce. In the BRL scale, projects between 1 and 3 have no existing business case, those in the 3 to 5 range have some existing business case but the market is not yet well defined and those falling between 6 and 9 have a market that is ready for the product. Because Assystem must balance risk, about 75% of funded projects fall in the BRL 6 to 9 range to generate business revenue. A small percentage of funded projects fall in the 1 to 3 range because although they are risky, Assystem must invest in the anticipated future.

Improving efficiency with Artificial Intelligence (16:02)
16:02-28:15 (Robert describes what projects are currently in the BRL 6-9 range. He also explains how Assystem is using AI to improve efficiency of project design.)

Q. What projects are in the BRL 6-9 currently?
A. One project in the BRL 6 to 9 range is a project to develop additional bid services which will enable Assystem to introduce new functionalities such as class detection and cost estimation.

Another project involves accessing the amount of data present in the nuclear industry. Electronic data enables data manipulation which can lead to new service opportunities. Currently though, there is a wealth of historical nuclear data in paper documents. Documents are often written and read by multiple people, which can lead to misinterpretation of information when analyzing information. These errors can affect the physical architecture of nuclear facilities. To get around this, Assystem is using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to automatically extract data from documents. This eliminates human misinterpretation so the proper functional, logical and physical architecture data in design reports are captured in a more robust way. The data in inspection reports can be used to generate hot mapping, which creates clusters of sensitive and critical areas based on malfunction data, for example. This enables Assystem to focus and optimize maintenance and prevent problems from occurring in future designs. Assystem has 50 years of nuclear data which can be leveraged to create more efficient projects moving forwards.

Data driven approaches decrease costs (28:16)
28:16-32:41 (Robert describes how a data driven approach reduced a project’s cost by 30-40%. Robert also speaks about the need to attract a wider range of engineers and data managers to Assystem.)

Q. What are some of the biggest flaws that Assystem has extracted from old data which has turned out to be a huge cost or time saver?
A. Assystem is working on a waste management project. The team used a data driven approach to create a digital twin of an existing facility. Digital tools were also used in the testing and commissioning phase. This approach saved Assystem 20% during the design phase and between 10 and 20% in operations, creating a total cost savings of 30-40%.

Not only does this type of innovative approach save Assystem money, but it also saves their limited human resources. Assystem does not have enough engineers and needs to attract mechanical, electrical and ventilation engineers as well as data managers and system engineers.

Some exciting Assystem projects (32:42)
32:42-38:51 (Robert describes three interesting projects that he has worked on as Assystem’s CTO: SMRs, hot cells and machine vision.)

Q. What are some of the most interesting projects that you’ve worked on as Assystem’s CTO?
A. Robert has worked on Assystem’s small modular reactor (SMR) project. New modular designs can accelerate both the design and construction phases. SMRs are built in factories and then assembled at the new nuclear site. Assystem is co-developing SMRs with Rolls-Royce in the UK.

Robert also works on the hot cell project. A hot cell is essentially a containment box to increase radiation safety. They range in size and Assystem is designing a large hot cell for ITER, a major international fusion reactor project.

Another safety-focused project is the development of Assystem’s machine vision. This aims to advance inspection of nuclear facilities, such as the UK’s graphite reactor. Due to radiation levels, reactor inspections can be impossible because microscopes are needed to identify and monitor very small cracks that may appear in a reactor. An advanced camera, a laser system and sophisticated data processing is used to detect cracks on the 50 micron scale. For reference, one micron is the diameter of a single human hair. It is important to detect cracks as soon as possible to understand what caused them and to monitor them as they grow in size. Radiation, stress and incorrect designs can lead to cracks and reactors must be stopped once a crack reaches a prespecified size. Machine vision, modeling and AI can be used together to understand the physics of reactor cracks.

Crack monitoring with machine vision (38:52)
38:52-46:04 (Robert expands on the machine vision project, focusing on the safety and financial reasons that support crack monitoring.)

Q. Is crack monitoring more important in nuclear because replacing a facility is more costly than, say, a water treatment plant?
A. It is primarily a safety issue. The reasons for cracks and how fast they will grow is unknown, so using machine vision to monitor cracks is a zero risk approach. Graphite, for instance, is a complex material and the physics of its surface energy is not well understood, meaning interactions are not well known. This is another reason for close monitoring of cracks, which is crucial because safety authorities will shut down reactors once a crack reaches a couple of centimeters.

Recovering from a crack will take many months because a reactor must be shut down in order to be fixed. It must then go through the commissioning phase again before it can regain operation. Machine vision therefore saves time and money.

Today, Assystem’s machine vision model is in its first demonstration and resolution is still improving. Robert explains that a few more years of research and development (R&D) is needed to incorporate more data and expert knowledge to run further simulations. While the project is very complicated, it is also exciting because the knowledge learned in this project can be applied and reused in other domains.

Predicting nuclear facility maintenance (46:05)
46:05-55:46 (Robert describes the predicted maintenance project and how it will be used to decrease costs while increasing optimization.)

Q. What is predicted maintenance?
A. Predicted maintenance is a model that predicts the lifetime of a system. It enables operators to know when to perform preventative maintenance to prevent machine failures. The current nuclear facility maintenance schedules ignore the Health Index of an asset. This is when, for example, a car that is driven in a snowy climate ages differently from one that is driven in a different climate. Assystem uses data and sensors to create the Health Index of the machine to understand how nuclear machines age under different operating conditions. This is then used to calculate the Mean Time to Failure and identify key performance indicators (KPIs). This will allow operators to understand a nuclear plant’s lifetime and schedule maintenance according to when it is needed. Optimization plans can also be proposed to increase a machine’s lifetime. Predicted maintenance has been implemented in the oil and gas industry, decreasing maintenance costs by 20%. It should therefore also be implemented for nuclear to decrease costs.

Assystem’s first predictive maintenance project involves screen cleaners, which are the screens that stop debrey, such as trees, from entering a nuclear reactor’s cooling system from the nearby sea or river. If a screen cleaner malfunctions, it could restrict water from entering the cooling system, raising the temperature of the plant and resulting in plant closure. Assystem’s predictive maintenance model for the screen cleaners monitor data every day which are used to generate reports that are sent to the operator. The model is refined if defects are detected and the Mean Time to Failure is calculated. Assystem can then design and propose the maintenance inspection schedule for the lifetime of the screen cleaners. External data, such as tide levels, weather conditions and the season, are used in the model. Assystem will eventually move towards ending reliance on physical sensors and instead use virtual sensors in the coming years.

Accelerating projects and improving safety with technology (55:47)
55:47-1:01:37 (Robert explains the dismantling project and his vision for the future of a technology-enhanced nuclear industry.)

Q. Tell me about the last project you’re working on?
A. Dismantling is the other project Assystem is working on. CEA, a nuclear reactor R&D organization, has access to 14 million physical documents. Assystem has created an AI algorithm and search engine to automatically read these documents and answer questions. This technology will enable better team organization and will minimize hazards during the dismantling process through automated infrastructure mapping and information organization.

Moving forwards, Robert sees the nuclear industry advancing system engineering. He foresees a critical role for modeling, data and AI in accelerating the way the nuclear industry designs, commissions and operates in the future. Robert also believes in the development of modular reactors as it is another way to accelerate design and construction. Predicted maintenance will also optimize processes while increasing safety and maximizing efficiency.