Interviews

Doug VanTassell

Certainty!

As CEO of Paragon, I’m excited by the momentum in our industry. But like every nuclear business leader, I grapple with the challenges of delivering projects on time amid capacity and investment constraints. While the industry’s future is bright, the timing of good news doesn’t always align with commitment orders.

Market uncertainty

For the commercial operating fleet, the past five years have been overwhelmingly positive. The private and public sectors recognize nuclear power as a reliable and clean energy source. Rising power rates have made deregulated nuclear plants profitable, while regulated markets have increased support from public utility commissions.

Jong Kim in 1994 . . .

How did I get interested in nuclear energy? I am a mechanical engineer by education, with a B.S. (Seoul National University), M.S. (University of Missouri), and Ph.D. (Caltech), and I am a nuclear engineer by profession.

After receiving my degree in 1971, I stayed on as a research fellow for two years and then moved to Penn State’s Garfield Thomas Water Tunnel, which at the time was the largest closed-loop tunnel in the world, as a research associate doing naval hydrodynamics research.

That was the year the infamous energy (oil) crisis hit. I thought that nuclear energy would become a critical pillar in energy security and independence. The nuclear profession looked promising. Brookhaven National Laboratory was hiring engineers to develop computer codes, so I decided to join the team and in 1975 became an associate engineer at BNL. This is how my long nuclear journey began.

Gary Adkins

Subsequent license renewal (SLR) authorizes nuclear power plants to operate for an additional 20 years beyond the 60 years of the initial license (years 1–40) and the first license renewal (years 41–60). NUREG-2191, Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR), and NUREG-2192, Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications (SRP-SLR), were issued in July 2017 and provide guidance for generic evaluation of plant aging management programs and reviews of SLR applications, respectively, by Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.

The first SLR application was submitted to the NRC for review in January 2018. A total of 10 additional SLR applications addressing 20 operating units have been submitted to the NRC. Nine operating units have been approved by the NRC, and 13 units are under review. These 22 units do not have any issues, including operating experience issues, precluding them from achieving a renewed license.

. . . and today

Ralph Cooper in 1955. . .

Variety characterized my career: in profession (engineer, physicist, educator), in field (energy, space, defense), in technology (fusion, lasers, nuclear), and in community (STEM diversity, scouting, social service).

After earning my energy engineering degree from The Cooper Union in New York and my Ph.D. in physics from the University of Illinois, I was most excited by Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory’s 1957 program (pre-Sputnik) to develop a nuclear rocket engine. There I worked on everything from reactor physics to vehicle design and mission analysis. I participated in the Gardner Committee that recommended the Apollo program, a thrill for a young scientist.

Fiona Rayment

Shaping the global nuclear future requires an understanding of nuclear’s role in addressing national and energy security endeavors together with foresight into the energy sector’s future needs. Nuclear typically produces reliable baseload electricity, but it could also play an important role in economically viable cogeneration. In addition, future electricity demand will require significant enhancements to baseload generation. Addressing these challenges requires a combination of innovation, collaboration, capacity enhancements, and focused strategic investments.

Nuclear is increasingly recognized as essential to enabling energy security and achieving net-zero emissions. The United Kingdom has demonstrated leadership in this area, with initiatives such as the Young Generation Network’s global #NetZeroNeedsNuclear campaign at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland. Efforts like these are impossible without international collaboration.

Idaho National Laboratory’s newest facility—the Sample Preparation Laboratory (SPL)—sits across the road from the Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF), which started operating in 1975. SPL will host the first new hot cells at INL’s Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) in 50 years, giving INL researchers and partners new flexibility to test the structural properties of irradiated materials fresh from the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) or from a partner’s facility.

Materials meant to withstand extreme conditions in fission or fusion power plants must be tested under similar conditions and pushed past their breaking points so performance and limitations can be understood and improved. Once irradiated, materials samples can be cut down to size in SPL and packaged for testing in other facilities at INL or other national laboratories, commercial labs, or universities. But they can also be subjected to extreme thermal or corrosive conditions and mechanical testing right in SPL, explains Colin Judge, who, as INL’s division director for nuclear materials performance, oversees SPL and other facilities at the MFC.

SPL won’t go “hot” until January 2026, but Judge spoke with NN staff writer Susan Gallier about its capabilities as his team was moving instruments into the new facility.

Stephen Taller

We push materials to their breaking point for you.

Millions of Americans rely on nuclear energy. It provides 20 percent of electrical power in the United States—24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. To maintain this reliability, every material used in our reactors must work safely and efficiently.

I’m part of a team of world-class scientists, engineers, and technical professionals at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, testing and evaluating materials designed to thrive in one of the most complex environments on Earth. Nuclear reactors experience heavy stress loads, high temperatures, corrosive environments, and intense radiation fields. Combined, these forces can substantially impact the performance of cladding or other structural materials. We want to know where and under what conditions materials may fail to keep a reactor running safely and reliably.

Ann Bisconti

We welcome ANS members with long careers in the community to submit their own stories so that the personal history of nuclear power can be capured. For information on submitting your stories, contact nucnews@ans.org.

It is 1983. I receive a phone call from Herbert Krugman, my boss in my first job at Marplan, a prestigious Madison Avenue research firm. He had moved to General Electric and hired me through UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute for research that gave GE a blueprint for recruiting top graduates from their key universities. “There is a new organization that will be looking for someone to direct all their research,” he tells me. “I can’t reveal what it’s about, but I told them they have to hire you.”

This new organization was the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness (USCEA), a forerunner of the Nuclear Energy Institute. Industry leaders had set up two main organizations in response to the Three Mile Island-2 accident: one to promote excellence in operations (Institute of Nuclear Power Operations) and one to promote excellence in communications (USCEA). I was charged with conducting all the research necessary to guide a large communications program that included advertising as well as media and public relations.

David Wright

There is a modern-day parable that NRC commissioner David Wright likes to reflect on from time to time, the story of a janitor on a mission. On a visit to NASA in the 1960s, or so the story goes, amid all the action and excitement and VIPs, President Kennedy stopped a janitor who was pushing his broom down the hallway. Kennedy asked the man what he was doing and he said, “Well, I’m putting a man on the moon.”

Wright believes people—all the people—are how jobs get done. And the people of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have a very big job ahead of them. Whether it is meeting the requirements of the ADVANCE Act, bringing 10 CFR Part 53 closer to the finish line, or working with its counterparts in other countries toward climate goals and international agreements, the NRC is moving mountains, one sweep of the broom at a time.

Jay F. Kunze

We welcome ANS members with long careers in the community to submit their own stories so that the personal history of nuclear power can be captured. For information on submitting your stories, contact nucnews@ans.org.

I was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pa. In 1959, I received my Ph.D. in experimental nuclear physics utilizing the 400-MeV synchrocyclotron at Carnegie Mellon University, involving measuring the scattering of pi-­mesons from protons (as a liquid hydrogen target). I joined ANS in January 1960.

I later joined General Electric’s Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion project to build a nuclear jet engine at the National Reactor Testing Station at Idaho Falls (now Idaho National Laboratory). In January 1961, the U.S. Army’s experimental nuclear reactor SL-1 blew up, killing three army personnel. At first, the Air Force would not permit General Electric to take part in the cleanup, but after the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion project was canceled by President Kennedy in March, GE took on the SL-1 disassembly and analysis project. I oversaw the analysis, which took nearly two years.

Houghtalen

The promise of nuclear power—clean, dispatchable, and reliable—positions it to match the ambitions of tech, industrial, and utility giants. But how do we turn ambition into action?

Uncertainty around nuclear energy’s capital cost is daunting, and the financial risk of pioneering new builds must be addressed.

Reliable nuclear power has incredible lifetime value. The ultimate project cost will pencil out over 40 or more years. We must focus on reducing the key risk: construction cost uncertainty for new nuclear.

Katrina McMurrian

As the nation confronts increasing demand for clean, baseload energy, nuclear power today receives substantial bipartisan support, but nuclear waste remains a trusty arrow in the quiver of opponents. The U.S. should work to make nuclear waste a nonissue not only to support opportunities for nuclear power expansion but primarily to meet long--standing obligations. Federal government inaction to remove and dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) continues to negatively impact host communities in 36 states; electric customers in more than 40 states who paid billions of dollars into the Nuclear Waste Fund; and all U.S. taxpayers, who pay about $2 million per day for the government’s partial breach.

Natalie Yonker

It’s all about finding the sweet spot: performing the correct maintenance at the correct interval (that is, the longest possible) with the correct resources (people, parts, and plant conditions) in a safe and efficient manner.

When engineering and maintenance teams adjust periodic maintenance (PM) intervals for plant components, they must take into consideration operating history, industry experience and guidelines, and vendor recommendations. This data, in conjunction with risk assessment, can be used to stretch maintenance intervals. If a valve fails before the scheduled PM, for example, the PM interval may be too long. But if a valve is overhauled during every refueling outage and the soft parts still look new each time, extending the PM interval would save money via man-hours, parts, and scope. A smaller outage work scope results in shorter outages, which results in less money spent on replacement power for the utility. That’s the real savings.

Corey Hines

Current and future decarbonization goals necessitate robust and reliable energy generation solutions with high capacity factors to serve as baseload sources of clean energy. Next-generation advanced reactor and small modular reactor designs have driven new technology, training regimes, and new reactor design and implementation of solutions associated with new design concepts and scale.

Research and teaching institutions like Washington State University are responding to help meet the needs of future nuclear research and development and fill in workforce gaps by preparing the next generation of workers in nuclear science and engineering. Domestic university research reactors provide an unparalleled teaching and training tool and are an R&D force multiplier for enhanced nuclear skillset development and training. Investing in research reactors and the important mission they serve benefits nuclear research both domestically and globally. Research reactors offer low-cost, safe, real-world job training and provide the experimentation platforms necessary to advance and meet demands of ongoing and future work in the nuclear sector that transcends traditional nuclear R&D.

Kimberly Cook-Nelson

For Kimberly Cook-Nelson, the path to the nuclear industry started with a couple of refrigerator boxes and cellophane paper. Her sixth-grade science project was inspired by her father, who worked at Seabrook power station in New Hampshire as a nuclear operator.

“I had two big refrigerator boxes I taped together. I cut the ‘primary operating system’ and the ‘secondary system’ out of them. Then I used different colored cellophane paper to show the pressurized water system versus the steam versus the cold cooling water,” Cook-Nelson said. “My dad got me those little replica pellets that I could pass out to people as they were going by at my science fair.”

After three years in the Department of Energy, including two as assistant secretary of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Katy Huff stepped down in May to return to the world of academia as a professor at the University of Illinois–Urbana-­Champaign.

Among her many accomplishments while serving as NE-1, Huff pushed for energy security—both at home and abroad, in places like war-torn Ukraine—and for the development of additional advanced and traditional nuclear plants, the potential restart of shuttered nuclear facilities, and a better funding stream for college nuclear programs.

Bradley Williams

The United States is already off to a good start with respect to new nuclear deployment. The completion of Vogtle Units 3 and 4, the Natrium groundbreaking, and X-energy’s partnership with Dow Chemical to deploy an advanced reactor for industrial applications are all important first steps. These efforts are being complemented by the flurry of licensing activity with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and overwhelming support in Congress and the White House. But to achieve the current administration’s goal of tripling nuclear capacity by 2050, more needs to be done.

Lynne Degitz

Public and private sectors are actively advancing research and development and concepts to realize a path to practical, clean, safe fusion energy. New fusion performance records continue to be set around the world, including at the National Ignition Facility (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), which demonstrated fusion ignition in 2022 and 2023.

However, significant obstacles for practical fusion remain. One challenge is to create and sustain a fusion power source. That is the mission of the international ITER project and the fundamental reason ITER is so valuable to the United States and the other ITER members (China, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, and Russia). Now under assembly in France, ITER is an experimental facility that will provide essential data and experience while also reducing risk for other fusion concepts. ITER will deliver unprecedented self-heated fusion performance, including fusion gain of up to 10 times greater power out of the plasma than the power into the plasma, fusion power of up to 500 megawatts, and long durations of hundreds to thousands of seconds.

. . . and today.

Fritsch in 1969 . . .

We welcome ANS members who have careered in the community to submit their own Nuclear Legacy stories, so that the personal history of nuclear power can be captured. For information on submitting your stories, contact nucnews@ans.org.

It was a summer day in 1956 in Berkeley, Calif., when I, a freshly minted Ph.D., left Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to travel to Pittsburgh, Pa., to join Westinghouse’s Commercial Atomic Power (CAPA) program. We were going to develop a large homogeneous power reactor—the future of energy. A year later, my efforts were diverted to lead what may have been one of the first nuclear safeguards equipment development programs funded by the Atomic Energy Commission.

José Reyes

Innovations with small modular reactors, which offer a compact, efficient alternative to traditional baseload power plants, are at the forefront of a new era of nuclear energy production that can reshape how we approach industrial decarbonization.

As global energy transition efforts progress, it is essential to examine the potential these advancements hold for reducing carbon emissions. Nuclear energy has long been recognized for its ability to generate vast amounts of electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. The introduction of SMR technology represents a pivotal shift, addressing many previous challenges to nuclear deployment and opening new pathways for the integration of nuclear energy into industrial sectors.

The innovative yet simple design of NuScale’s SMR technology provides a cost-competitive, safe, and scalable solution for a wide range of energy needs.