RESEARCH REACTORS | SPECIAL REPORT
for the unique components of the VTR will be demanding, so efforts to ensure that we have the supply chain we need have started early.” However, he added that, “The addition of the VTR to the US nuclear research infrastructure will support leadership in nuclear energy research, safety and security, while also supporting US industry partners as they commercialise new technologies.”
Timeline for engineering design The VTR project was expected to move to the engineering design phase as soon as Congress appropriated funding. In December 2020 the DOE invited the public to review and comment on a Draft EIS for the sodium-cooled fast-neutron- spectrum test reactor. The draft, prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), analyses potential impacts of the VTR alternatives and options for reactor fuel production on various environmental and
community resources. The EIS evaluated: ● Construction and operation of the VTR at INL or the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). This includes operating and performing experiments in the VTR, post- irradiation examination of irradiated test specimens in hot cell facilities, and used fuel conditioning and storage pending shipment for interim or permanent disposal.
● Production of fuel for the VTR at INL and/or the Savannah River Site including preparing feedstock for the fuel, fabricating fuel pins, and assembling the fuel pins into reactor fuel.
● A no-action alternative under which DOE would not pursue the construction and operation of a VTR.
The Draft EIS identified construction and operation of at the INL Site as DOE’s preferred alternative. Existing facilities (modified as necessary) would be used for the VTR support facilities. The public was encouraged to comment on the draft EIS and DOE also held two public hearings. According to DOE, the VTR could be completed as early as 2026 and it said in September 2020 that it will make a final decision on the design, technology selection and location for VTR following the completion of the EIS and Record of Decision, which is expected in late 2021.
Funding difficulties However, this timetable is increasingly unlikely in view of continuing Congressional lack of enthusiasm for the project. DOE had requested $295 million for FY 2021 for the project, but things did not go according to plan. Congress instead reduced funding from $65 million to $45 million after senators expressed concern about its cost, which DOE had estimated at between $2.6 billion and $5.8 billion. Congress also directed DOE to reformulate the project as a private- public partnership. The situation was further complicated by the fact that
DOE is also pursuing other research reactor projects as part of its Advanced Reactor Demonstration Programme (ARDP), which is clearly taking priority. In the FY 2020 budget, DOE had received $230 million
to start a new demonstration programme for advanced reactors. ARDP elements include Advanced Reactor Demonstration, Risk Reduction for Future Demonstrations, Regulatory Development, and Advanced Reactor Safeguards. Through cost-shared partnerships with industry, ARDP will provide $160 million for initial funding to build two reactors that can be operational within the next 5-7 years.
In 2021, DOE awarded cost-sharing agreements to
TerraPower and X-energy to demonstrate two advanced reactor designs, saying it expects to spend $3.2 billion on the projects over seven years pending funding availability. Terrapower’s project is a 345MWe sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system and Congress made clear its reluctance to fund two apparently similar projects.
The Biden administration’s fiscal year 2022 budget
request for DOE proposes to increase funding for the Office of Nuclear Energy by 23% to $1.85 billion. However, the House and Senate are only proposing increases to $1.68 billion and $1.59 billion, respectively. Within that, the administration proposes increasing funding for the ARDP from $250 million to $370 million and DOE is requesting $246 million to continue early work on the projects in the coming fiscal year. The request also proposes to increase funding for the National Reactor Innovation Center from $30 million to $55 million, in part to support the development of reactor testbeds. The request also included $145 million to continue early work on the VTR but it said that the administration now plans to sequence the reactor’s design and construction to follow TerraPower’s demonstration project — it recently announced plans to build the reactor at a retiring coal plant in Wyoming. That will take advantage of knowledge gained from developing its similar design and optimise the use of resources and expert personnel across the two projects. The Senate proposes to meet the administration’s
request to increase funding for ARDP from $250 million to $370 million, according to the American Physics Institute. The House proposes $395 million, with the additional funding allocated to efforts to reduce technical risk on potential future demonstration projects. In addition to full demonstration projects being pursued with the companies X-energy and TerraPower, the programme is supporting five risk-reduction efforts and three concept-development projects. But for the VTR, the House and Senate reduced funding for the proposed user facility to zero, offering no reason or any indication of whether the project could continue using funds already appropriated.
Why a need for demonstration and test reactors? DOE is continuing to argue that both demonstration reactors and the VTR are needed. In an article published by the Office of Nuclear Energy in July, Kathryn Huff, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy said: “Both demonstration and test reactors are necessary to support the development and commercial deployment of the new reactor technologies that will expand access to reliable, clean energy.” She said many US vendors are planning to demonstrate
their reactors within the decade, “but in order to innovate faster and improve upon these designs over time, we also need the necessary infrastructure to support their development and, more importantly, their commercial deployment”. She argues that a fast neutron test source would set up the US for success in a future clean energy market estimated to be worth billions. “Without VTR, US innovation will fall behind other countries which have fast neutron test reactors, and we simply can’t let that happen.” On its FAQ page DOE explains why the VTR cannot be combined with the ARDP reactor. “While the test and U
www.neimagazine.com | January 2022 | 15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
