SMRs | TRANSPORTATION
Left: Fuelled SMRs may have to withstand the same rigorous testing regime as conventional nuclear transport casks Source: NRC
This is a more complex issue than it may at first
appear, as Chaplin explains: “If it’s classified as a reactor in operation, you could look at using the same rules that are in place for, say, the maritime estate for a nuclear- powered ship. In this case the reactor is considered to be just a part of the ship. However, if it’s a module that’s being transported in a turnkey state with fuel on board, it would be cargo. Under those circumstances there are separate rules to consider it as cargo rather than part of a vessel or conveyance but also whether it is classified as a package.” If it is considered a package then the actual reactor
that’s being carried would have to be able to withstand the same sort of conditions that a package would have to, for example a drop test, an immersion test, a stacking test, and a fire test. “All of those conditions would have to be applied to the reactor and that may not be something that’s easy to achieve. That is an immediate challenge to understand how we’re going to do that and how the various regulatory frameworks would apply,” notes Chaplin.
Designing reactors for lifecycle transport One of the other associated with transportation and that must be established prior to deployment are the rules and regulations concerning the way that SMRs are potentially operated. Conventional nuclear power stations are generally
operated by an entity that regulatory or government authorities usually have quite close control over concerning the operations of a plant. They are also typically large sites that feature lots of physical security with fences and security guards and they’re generally close to a populated area where people can relatively easily respond to emergencies or security incidents that may arise. For an SMR it could be that none of these conditions may apply. “With an SMR potentially they may be located in a very
remote area and there’s also the potential that they may even be operating automatically and therefore maybe unmanned. The operators will have to make sure that things like safety, security and safeguards would need to be considered in the actual design stages. Just as safety by design is already a consideration so there will be security by design and safeguards by design as well,” says Chaplin, who adds: “Designers will need to consider where it is and how it’s going to be operated to make sure that there is sufficient safety, security and safeguards. That will also apply to the transport phases of the operation too, during transport to the site of operation, during operation and then during the decommissioning.”
Indeed, decommissioning is potentially another
particular challenge for SMRs. Chaplin expands on this theme: “Within the design of all of the SMRs that are proposed, the decommissioning process must be considered as well. It may not be possible to decommission in the same way as a conventional site where decommissioning is done in situ and components are taken apart. Instead, they may have to consider an SMR with a spent fuel inside it which will need to be transported to another site for decommissioning.” While it is clear that designers will need to make sure
that all SMRs will be suitable for the operations necessary for the entire life cycle, not all are giving sufficient prominence to the transport issue. As Chaplin observes: “Within the WNTI membership we’ve got several companies that have been designing SMRs and transport is something that they definitely think about, whereas others sometimes indicate that transportation is an issue to be considered at some later date. That’s quite remiss because if you can’t transport it, you’re not going to be able to operate it either. In terms of potential barriers to SMR deployment that’s a deal breaker. If you can’t move the fuel or you can’t move the reactor to the site or take it away again, that’s it. It’s dead in the water”.
Establishing regulatory frameworks In considering SMRs there are potentially two different types that require considerably different approaches. Some designs are delivered as a complete unit or modules that get assembled in a location and which will stay in that location for the entirety of the unit’s operational life. There are also potentially designs which will be very mobile and which feature an easily transportable containerised reactor, possibly with some other containers which would carry the balance of plant. They may be used for disaster relief, for example, as they can be taken to a location, operated for a number of weeks or months and then taken somewhere else. The fact that a reactor could be moved has some profound implications for the regulatory regime. Chaplin explains: “At the moment the countries that are
talking about using SMRs are countries which already have a developed or even an early-stage nuclear industry or a nuclear regulator. However, there are a lot of countries which will be using SMRs which don’t have a nuclear regulator. They may well not have had any reason to develop a nuclear regulatory framework. Inevitably the host nation would need to have some sort of oversight
www.neimagazine.com | November 2023 | 29
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 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
