• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

History Made as NuScale Files First SMR Application With U.S. Nuke Regulators

January 27, 2017 By Rod Adams 10 Comments

NuScale COO Mike McGough watching press fill the room at the Newseum

Two years ago, NuScale committed to filing a license application for its eponymous SMR design with U.S. regulators by the end of 2016.

Just three months before two company executives used a custom pen on the cover letter of the ~12,000 page design certification application, even NuScale insiders were doubtful that the task could be completed by the self-imposed deadline.

Experienced and jaded observers from outside the company thought the task impossible, given the publicly available information about the status of the effort.

The final actions required to complete and check the document were finished a couple of hours after the famous New Year’s Eve ball had dropped in Times Square.

But NuScale is, and always has been, a West coast company. By the clock in the conference room, the DCA was signed with nearly an hour to spare before 2016 ended.

In an interview, Chief commercial officer Mike McGough described the scene in the Corvallis, Ore., conference room where a small signing ceremony was conducted.

Tired but happy and legitimately proud faces gathered around COO and chief nuclear officer Dale Atkinson and vice president Tom Bergman to witness their signing of the letter that formally requested the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review, approve and grant a standard design certification for the NuScale design.

“As you recall, we had the NRC in to conduct a DCA readiness assessment in September,” McGough said.

“When they departed, they gave us a list of 85 items where they felt that we had provided incomplete information that might prevent docketing,” he continued. “Our DCA submission includes a response matrix listing every one of those 85 items and what we did to address the concern.”

On the morning of Jan. 12, company executives piled into a van for the short trip from a Washington, D.C., hotel to NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md.

After hand delivering the DCA and supporting documentation, they held a press conference with brief remarks by company executives, elected officials and nuclear industry leaders at the Newseum near Capitol Hill.

McGough and I spoke about the company’s progress several times during the month of December. The NuScale official repeatedly emphasized that the company had numerous protocols in place to ensure that the submission would be high quality and complete, even if the decision had to be made to miss the self-imposed deadline.

Recent history of DCA submissions at the NRC have shown that there are severe cost, schedule and credibility issues associated with an incomplete submission.

McGough said that his company’s leaders were ready to take several weeks to a few months longer if needed to avoid a docket rejection and DCA resubmission that might require another year or more of effort before getting to the point where the NRC began the review.

Aside: Following NuScale’s press conference announcing the DCA submittal, I spoke with John Hopkins, NuScale’s CEO. He reiterated the company’s firm commitment to submit a complete, high quality DCA as a higher priority than one that met a self-imposed deadline.

He also expressed his appreciation and gratitude to the people who worked so diligently to make the application both timely and complete. He told me that the Fluor board was impressed that a nuclear project met a deadline; it was a relatively rare event. That reinforced their confidence in NuScale designers and managers. End Aside.

The current expectation is that the agency will take about two months to review the application and determine if it is complete or if additional information is needed before the staff can begin its work that, under a recently refined schedule, is projected to take three and a half years.

UAMPS Is First Customer

NuScale’s application provides complete technical details for the standard plant design, which consists of 12 identical modules that could each be a standalone 50 MWe power plant.

Each module has a reactor heat source that uses light water circulated without any pumps to transfer fission heat from the reactor, an integral steam generator and pressurizer, a sealed containment vessel and a complete Rankine cycle steam plant.

All 12 modules will be installed inside a common pool and will be controlled from a single control room.

The modules are sized so they can be completely manufactured and delivered to a site ready to be installed and connected.

This concept provides economy of series production, scalabil- ity and maintenance exibility that is impossible in monolithic power plants designed to produce 1,000 or more MWe per unit.
The first commercial NuScale power plant will be built on a site within the reservation of the Idaho National Laboratory.

It will be owned by the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), whose member companies will use the 600 MWe of clean electricity from the facility to supply retail and commercial customers in their service territories. UAMPS has a target date for commercial operation by the end of 2026.

Energy Northwest, an experienced nuclear plant operating company, will operate and maintain the plant for UAMPS.

Primary Funder Is Fluor

The NuScale power module evolved from a design first conceived in 2000 by Dr. Jose Reyes while working as a nuclear engineering professor at Oregon State University. OSU continues to play an important role in hosting several testing facilities and providing a strong pipeline of engineers.

NuScale started pre-application reviews with the NRC in 2008. The firm has purchased 43,000 hours of professional staff time at a cost of more than $11 million to resolve concerns about the design approach and safety case.

The company has also invested in more than 2,000,000 staff hours supplied by a staff of more than 800 people. NuScale worked with more than 50 vendor partners to design and test components, conduct full system tests and develop licensing documentation.

In 2013, the SMR designer competed for and won a grant from the Department of Energy that provided $217 million. NuScale investors have matched those government funds — and then some — to pay for design and licensing efforts.

In 2011, Fluor (FLR:NYSE), the giant multinational construction and contracting company, purchased a majority of the company’s shares and has been the primary source of funds for the project.

Fluor has also been a major participant in the design effort and the establishment of the supply chain for the unique components that form the plant.


Note: A version of the above was first published in Fuel Cycle Week, issue number 690 dated January 12, 2017. It is republished here with permission.

Related Posts

  • NRC accepted NuScale's DCA. Will it complete its review on time? Estimated completion July 2020
  • NuScale Getting Ready For Design Certification Submission
  • Tour of NuScale control room and test facility
  • Prospective customers lining up at NuScale
  • NuScale and DOE finalize the agreement announced six months ago
  • The Atomic Show #100 - Nuclear Power on a New Scale - NuScale Power

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Pressurized Water, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Smaller reactors

About Rod Adams

Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Eino says

    January 28, 2017 at 12:04 PM

    “The current expectation is that the agency will take about two months to review the application and determine if it is complete or if additional information is needed before the staff can begin its work that, under a recently refined schedule, is projected to take three and a half years.”

    Would this mean that a unit or unit(s) of the 12 modules could possibly be complete before Vogtle? Time is money and reducing assembly time by such a factor is a strong selling point.

    Reply
    • gmax137 says

      January 30, 2017 at 9:04 AM

      I don’t think so. If the 3 1/2 year NRC effort results in a COL, then you have a “paper reactor” with a license, and the real work can begin.

      Reply
      • FermiAged says

        January 30, 2017 at 10:20 AM

        And the “paper reactor” can still be subject to gyrations, particularly when the region and HQ contradict each other.

        Reply
        • Eino says

          January 30, 2017 at 8:25 PM

          “The firm has purchased 43,000 hours of professional staff time at a cost of more than $11 million to resolve concerns about the design approach and safety case.”

          I guess I misunderstood. I thought the NRC had already invested the 43,000 hours. That’s about 21 people full time for a year. Does any other industry require this level of review effort by the government?

          Reply
          • Rod Adams says

            January 30, 2017 at 8:33 PM

            @Eino

            Just to be clear – NuScale has already purchased the 43,000 hours and the NRC has already delivered them in the process of pre-application coordination and review.

            The clock hasn’t even started yet for the design certification review. That one will probably take 4-10 times as much time and money.

            Reply
  2. Brian Mays says

    January 28, 2017 at 1:41 PM

    Not quite as historic, somewhat off topic, but noteworthy nevertheless … the NRC finally, once again, has a nuclear engineer for its chairman.

    And this only a week into the new administration.

    Reply
    • Ed Leaver says

      January 28, 2017 at 3:42 PM

      Thanks Brian. Closely kept secret, but Mr. Google finally turned up a story at Platts: http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/washington/us-nrcs-svinicki-appointed-chairman-effective-21720968

      Apart from a minor clash of symbols, my question is whether Ms Svinicki’s appointment will make any real difference over Mr. Burns. Svnicki is an ex-DoD NE with 10 years experience as senate aid, including to senators Warner and McCain. Burns is a lawyer with experience OECD Nuclear Agency and 30 years at NRC, including 3 as General Counsel.

      I don’t personally know any more of either; superficially they both appear very well qualified. Do you know if there is anything here beyond partisan politics?

      Reply
      • Brian Mays says

        January 28, 2017 at 4:33 PM

        The ANS website had a news item on it.

        “Svnicki is an ex-DoD NE”

        She’s ex-DOE, not DOD.

        I’ve heard Svinicki speak. She’s rather soft-spoken, but I think she will make a fine chairman.

        “Do you know if there is anything here beyond partisan politics?”

        How about seniority? Svinicki has been on the Commission much longer than the other two members.

        I don’t have anything against a lawyer being on the Commission. I think that legal expertise is quite valuable in a regulatory setting. Nevertheless, nuclear power, by its very nature, is highly technical. Therefore, I prefer to see someone with a relevant technical background leading the Commission, especially during an emergency situation, when the Chairman has to act without the rest of the Commission (e.g., how Chairman Jaczko acted immediately following the Fukushima accident).

        Reply
        • Ed Leaver says

          January 28, 2017 at 4:54 PM

          Thanks. Albeit — arguably — Mr. Jaczko might have taken 30 minutes or so to ask of his technical colleagues. It’s not clear the Chairman was required to speak in haste.

          Reply
          • Brian Mays says

            January 28, 2017 at 6:55 PM

            According to what I’ve heard, Jaczko took measures to keep the other Commissioners out.

            Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • Rod Adams on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Michael Scarangella on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Gareth on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Rod Adams on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Atomic Energy Wells

Enough with “renewables!”

Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?

Atomic Show #303 – Bret Kugelmass, CEO Last Energy

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy