(The Center Square) – New nuclear energy development seemed unlikely in Pennsylvania just a few short years ago.
Whether because of costs, safety or environmental challenges, many investors backed new technologies – natural gas, solar panels and wind turbines, for example.
That could be changing in the commonwealth, however.
The House Energy Committee met Monday to hear testimony from experts about the risks and potential of expanding nuclear energy production in the state.
The hearing was held in advance of a vote on a bill that would help clear the way for deployment of small modular nuclear reactors, a technology many hope will revolutionize the energy sector in the coming years.
The hearing revealed a bipartisan appetite for legislation and solutions that could promote nuclear energy in the state. If passed, House Bill 2017 would allow the Department of Environmental Protection to change the structure of fees currently levied on nuclear plants to make it less costly for new technology models to operate.
“While the upfront capital costs for traditional light-water reactors remain prohibitively expensive, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, or “SMRs,” present an eminently more affordable option on account of their compact size and faster on-site construction timelines,” reads a memo circulated by the bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Jose Giral, D-Philadelphia.
In large part, the testimony given served to assuage some of the fears sown by past failures of the nuclear industry while demystifying innovations that have brought it back into focus in the larger energy picture.
Experts reported that both advancements in safety and the greatly reduced size of SMRs help to reduce the risk posed by newer reactors. New reactors utilize passive cooling, which further limits risk, feature designs that eliminate the elements that contributed to disasters like the one at Fukushima, and employ automatic shut-off mechanisms.
Even setting those developments aside, in a worst-case scenario, the scale of an issue with an SMR is much smaller.
Dr. Rob Hayes of North Carolina State University told the committee that, in general, people don’t understand the threat of nuclear radiation. He pointed out that the amount of radiation people in the vicinity of the Three Mile Island following its 1979 accident was 1 mrem, the same amount that most people receive in an average day from background radiation. By contrast, a cross-country flight exposes people to 5 mrem of radiation, and 1,000 mrem, or 1 rem for a chest CT scan.
Hayes said that none of those situations have been shown to pose a risk to human health. He noted that they’re looking at different levels by “orders of magnitude” when discussing dangerous doses of radiation. It is here where exposure to radiation 10 times more powerful than a CT scan increases cancer risk by 0.5%.
Other risks for nuclear do remain. Waste is still a question without a long-term answer, though Hayes pointed out that the amount of waste produced relative to the amount of energy makes it a highly efficient technology. Transportation and storage of nuclear material also pose risks to security, creating windows for bad actors to access materials that could be used for mass destruction.
Sola Talabi of Pittsburgh Technical told the committee that when SMRs are ready to be deployed, they expect them to be able to operate for five or even 10 years without needing to refuel, thereby limiting opportunities for problems. He also noted that some of the reactors themselves are designed to operate underground.
Though the industry is not yet prepared to solve the energy crisis with nuclear power, testifiers say that there are two obstacles legislators can be working to eliminate to clear the runway. Those obstacles are regulatory and in workforce development.
“Currently it could take years to get an operating license and construction permit — an operating license is how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does it,” said Alison Hahn of the Nuclear Energy Institute. “Right now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is going through a complete overhaul of its processes to understand where they can be more efficient — not less safe, to be clear — more efficient to be able to move these licenses through much quicker.”
As regulation changes, energy providers need to shift their sights onto getting the finances and workers in place to be able to develop new nuclear sites. Talabi told legislators they should be thinking about leveraging existing infrastructure and training workers to meet the needs of tomorrow’s energy industry.
Though HB 2017 represents just one step toward new nuclear commitments in Pennsylvania, the hearing signaled promise future legislation.
“As we’ve discussed in the past with energy prices spiking for our constituents back home and a potential supply shortfall in the PJM region on the horizon, I think we need to be open to all technologies we can and have an open mind, especially about some of the newer technologies that could help the commonwealth keep the lights on, especially if those technologies produce near zero carbon emissions,” said Chair Elizabeth Fiedler, D-Philadelphia.
Fiedler’s Republican co-chair, Rep. Martin Causer of Bradford, agreed.
“I do think that we can work in a bipartisan manner to support additional nuclear energy in the commonwealth, so I’m looking forward to working with all of you to make that happen,” said Causer.
