Lakeland Currents.

Your public affairs program for north central Minnesota.

Production funding for Lakeland Currents is made possible by Bemidji Regional Airports.

Serving the region with daily flights to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

More information available at bemidjiairport.org.

Closed captioning for Lakeland Currents is sponsored by Nisswa Tax Service.

Tax preparation for businesses and individuals.

online at nisswatax.com.

Hello again friends.

I'm Jason Edens, your host of Lakeland Currents.

Thanks for joining the conversation today and thanks for your ongoing support of Lakeland Public TV.

We are in the midst of an energy transition from an economy powered largely by fossil fuels to one that's increasingly powered by renewable energy.

But what role does nuclear energy play in that energy transition?

Here to help us answer that question are my two guests from Xcel Energy.

Xcel Energy as many of you know is a Minnesota-based utility that owns and operates two nuclear power plants in Minnesota.

One in Monticello and one on the Prairie Island Indian Reservation in southeast Minnesota.

Joshua Ohotto is the General Manager of Nuclear Fleet Operations and Pam Gorman is Director of Nuclear Fleet Operations both for Xcel Energy.

Pam and Josh welcome to the program and thanks for making time for our conversation.

Thanks for having us.

Thank you Jason.

Absolutely.

It's great to meet you both.

Pam I'd like to start with you.

According to the US Department of Energy, the two nuclear power plants here in Minnesota generate about 26 percent of our electrical energy.

Does Xcel Energy expect that number to grow as we wean ourselves off coal and other more carbon intensive energy sources?

Yes, well first of all thanks for having us here Jason.

As you discussed, Xcel Energy continues to lead the clean energy transition and we have plans to reduce our carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2030 and move closer to our vision which is providing a hundred percent carbon free electricity by 2050.

Our nuclear plants, we have two nuclear plants, three reactors, all totaled they provide about half of our existing carbon free generation and about 30 percent or 26 of our total generation on the Xcel Energy system.

These plants are providing 24/7 reliable dispatchable energy for our customers and we would expect that to continue into the future.

We don't see demand growing excessively in the near term so I would expect that number to remain consistent as we go forward, If that's your question.

So nuclear energy in that generation mix will stay approximately a quarter going forward.

That's Xcel's vision at this point in time?

I mean I think, you know, we'll look out into the future and see, you know, if our overall pie, if you will, will grow but as of right now I think we just see our nuclear plants continuing to operate as they have been.

Monticello is rated for 671 megawatts.

Prairie Island 1100 megawatts.

So, those two plants together providing about 30 percent of our total generation and that should continue into the near term here and we can talk about it in the future here but we just had a resource plan in Minnesota that confirmed they like our plan of continuing to use nuclear power going forward.

Well, Josh my question for you.

Is a study that was released by the International Atomic Energy Agency of which the United States, of course, is a founding member claimed that the service life of a nuclear power plant is between 20 and 40 years.

When were the two nuclear power plants in Minnesota built?

Very good.

So, Jason again thank you for the invite here and the opportunity to talk with you and the local communities that you support with very important information like the critical infrastructure we provide and electricity to make our lives better.

As far as answering your question, the Monticello nuclear generating facility was a commercial operation back in 1971 and then Prairie Island came after that starting, of course, with unit one and then unit two at Prairie island also in the mid-70's.

Their current licenses actually expire at Monticello in 2030.

Pam just talked about the fact that we're going to go beyond that though with subsequent license renewal based on the most recent approval from the Public Utilities Commission.

So, again extending the opportunity for us to serve our local communities and our customers is a fantastic opportunity that we embrace.

And then for Prairie Island, their existing license ends in 2033 and 2034 and with this recent approval, of course, we'll be pursuing all options to continue to have nuclear support our leading the clean energy transition going forward.

So, there'll be opportunities to extend those licenses also in the future up to 60 years.

Interesting.

So, that's well beyond what the IAEA suggests as a service life.

So, originally the plant of Monticello was permitted to operate until 2010.

Now you have a permit to operate until 2030 but I think I just heard you say that you are hoping to extend that even further.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Absolutely.

So, technologically the plants have lots of, I'll just say safety margin in them.

You know our priority is always, you know, we obviously, we have an obligation to serve our customers as a part of critical infrastructure but our priority is always, right, the safety and health of our customers and our employees.

And so the margin inherently built in these facilities and the aging management programs that we put in place to ensure the reliability and safety of these these units is sustained and of course then the if we want to continue to leverage the carbon free energy that these units provide, we'll make continued investments in them and we improve the technology as technologies improves etc.

to make them even more reliable.

Yes, if I can jump in and add something.

Ironically, I'm jumping on a plane this afternoon to head over to Vienna, Austria and go to the IAEA headquarters and part of what I'm attending and representing the U.S. utilities for is a conference.

It's called the Plant Life Cycle Management Conference and I was just looking at the abstract we were initially provided and it said the design life was initially designed and designed for 30 to 40 years.

However, following a comprehensive review, we all know that this has been extended and to enable this, engineers have demonstrated through analysis, testing, aging management, you know, for both equipment and system upgrades that the plants can continue to operate safely and reliably you know for 80 years, up to 80 years and beyond.

So, part of what we're doing with this Plant Life Cycle Management Conference is getting together power plant operators from around the world.

I think there's 440 nuclear plants operating in the world today.

So, what we're doing is getting all those operators together, sharing information, best practices of how we've operated through 40 years and then how we're going to operate up until 80.

So, I think IAEA did come out initially with that study but they've acknowledged too that through being able to safely and continually monitoring the equipment and upgrading them.

It's kind of like your car right?

If you are continually doing preventative maintenance, if you're replacing parts ,you can continue to operate that safely and reliably which we've seen with our nuclear plants, not only in the world and in the United States but at Xcel Energy as well.

We've actually had the last four years for us have been the highest four years of generations since we started operating our fleet.

So, we are operating reliably, safely.

We're online and the maintenance that we are doing is ensuring that we are are safely operating our nuclear plants.

Well, the analogy of a car is an interesting one.

Let me just ask you bluntly Pam.

Is nuclear energy safe?

Absolutely.

I live within five miles of our Prairie Island nuclear plant.

I wouldn't live there if I didn't feel it was safe.

We maintain those plants to the top of when it started operating.

Equipment is replaced if it needs to be.

We monitor the equipment.

We are, I think our operating performance demonstrates the fact that it's safe and not just by us but Xcel Energy currently is ranked as one of the best performing fleets in the nation not just by us, you know, that's ranked by our industry peers.

So, continued reliance on our nuclear plants is important because we are providing that safe reliable, dispatchable, always-on electricity for our customers and I think it's a good thing that we can pair with the renewables as we transition away from coal.

Like I talked about in this resource plan that was just approved by the commission.

e're transitioning from away from our coal and our coal plants and we've said we're going to retire all of them by 2030.

So, as we have this vision of growing our wind and our renewables, we want to have that work hand-in-hand with nuclear energy so we can provide that always-on, carbon-free electricity for our customers especially as we continue that transition to a carbon-free future.

Now Pam when you say commission I'm assuming you're referring to the Public Utilities Commission.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

You say it's safe but let me ask you this.

I lived in Japan, Fukushima, Japan for many years.

More specifically I lived in the county where the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster took place and without exception all of my neighbors and former colleagues are now environmental refugees.

My question is, even though it's safe, does Xcel maintain an emergency evacuation plan?

We do.

I mean that's part of any standard operating procedure for a nuclear plant here in the United States and across the world and maybe I'll defer to Josh too, maybe Josh you can, you know, talk a little bit about emergency plans and also plant design and maybe some differences between, you know, what they experience not to really get into the mechanics of their versus here but just emergency planning in general and what we do to prepare so that we are ready if some type of event would happen just high level.

Absolutely.

Thank you Pam.

So, Jason first and foremost from the Fukushima event standpoint, obviously terrible circumstances.

One of the key lessons learned from Fukushima was their preparedness and the ability to handle such a unique natural disaster.

One of the other learnings from that is that the design of the facility maybe wasn't as robust for the natural disasters that can occur in that area, the frequency at which they do.

In this case the flooding associated with an earthquake and a tsunami.

So, let me describe a couple of things.

First of all Monticello and Prairie Island are designed for flooding.

They have the ability to shut down for floods and the frequency the event that we're talking about is well beyond anything that we've seen in any of our lifetimes and beyond.

Where at Fukushima, some of the events that they had seen were actually possible, meaning they had come close to their design requirements.

Our designs have substantial margin to them such that we're talking on the order of, you know, thousands of years as opposed to maybe something in recent historical history and not only that we have a partnership with the Corps.

of Engineers for the Mississippi River which both our plants are near.

To make sure we understand both geologically and hydrologically that how the river in the land performs actually matches with as nature changes around us.

I just talked a little bit about the hydrological studies that were done in the Mississippi River and we actually identified that we have some more substantial margin than original license to.

And, the issue that you're talking about was around the ability to implement the flood strategy at Monticello in a very timely fashion.

As we know, floods don't happen in a predictable way.

So, what Xcel Energy has done is they've invested substantially in the flooding strategy, even to the point of installing a good portion of the flooding strategy in case the flood were to ever occur such that we could implement that in a much faster method than having to start from scratch, so to speak.

So, even though for instance today, we're not having a flooding concern at Monticello, we have a good portion of the funding strategy already installed, such that if when the flood were to occur, we start to see the rising river levels, which we monitor every day, working with the Corps of Engineer, then we would start to stage the equipment, get the resources which we have Memorandums of Understanding for all of the resources we need to fully implement our flooding strategy well ahead of the peak flood stage.

What about the possible opposite problem?

This summer, of course, we had a severe drought in Minnesota.

How concerned were you about your ability to cool the reactor?

Because it's my understanding that you use river water at both sites to cool the reactors.

Is that right?

So, we use river water to cool the condenser and we also use river water to cool the auxiliaries which support cooling the reactor vessel via heat exchangers.

So, there is never a direct interaction, for instance, with the river and the reactor.

That they do not touch.

They don't come in contact with each other.

Of course.

The river is simply used to cool via heat exchanger to ensure that we have all the margins we need to safely shut down the vessel as we started with the safety of the public, our customers, our local communities and our employees is always our top priority and so even with low river conditions like we saw extreme drought conditions in this last year, it made a little bit more of a challenge for us operationally meaning to stay at 100 percent power because of the hot low river water because we do use the river water and our cooling towers which is needed just to cool the condenser as a part of the whole process for creating electricity.

That was complicated.

So, we had to take reduced power just to make sure that we meet our environmental permits so we don't heat the river up too much in accordance with all of our rules for environmental purposes.

We would reduce power to make sure that the river stays within all of our limits and permits but that has nothing to do with the safety of the reactor.

At all times we are able to safely shut down the reactor and if there is doubt in which we were not able to do that in a predictable way, we have limits which are is a part of our license that we would have to shut down ahead of that time.

And, so we always have that capability that within with our license operators always assessing those conditions, that we would shut down ahead of those conditions being met.

So, if you had to throttle back your capacity this summer, did you backfill that with peaker plants or how did you address it as a utility briefly?

Yes, so because the grid is made up of all kinds of different forms of power right?

Just like when the wind blows, we want to take advantage of the wind and so certain plants come down in power so mostly coal or gas and so for nuclear depending on the day, it was a hot sunny day.

You could be offset by wind.

You could be offset by solar or like you said we could use some of our peaking plants as necessary and you know when I say down power it was a minimal down power so to speak but again in those hot conditions we want as much generation as possible and so we want to leverage our carbon free source as much as possible.

And, you know, keep in mind Jason, we still had our Prairie Island plant at full power, providing that always on energy that our customers need summer, winter.

I mean that's one of the advantages of nuclear is that we aren't reliant on a variable fuel source if you will that we can provide that always-on energy and so for the majority of the summer we were at full power other than a small down power like Josh mentioned just at Monticello.

Well, Pam I want to ask you a little bit about national security.

Of course cyber security is critical today and how does Xcel Energy work with the federal government and ensure the security of your facilities here in Minnesota and elsewhere?

Certainly, our nuclear plants are secure facilities.

We have a trained security force and we work with federal agencies to ensure the safety of the plant, our public, our employees and so we cooperate.

We work on all of those at all those levels as you would expect, not any different from other secure facilities and we work with all federal agencies to keep abreast of what's happening at the level, the country's security level.

So, I don't really have a lot else to add on that unless Josh you do.

From a cyber security standpoint Jason, since 911 and beyond and the cyber security threats that we've identified throughout the world, we have a very robust cyber security program such that there cannot be infiltration from outside the facility.

So the long and the short of it, you would have to somehow infiltrate the facility.

Now keep in mind, we have a very robust security strategy to ensure that that does not happen right to ensure that again emphasis being safety of our customers and the public.

I wanted to follow up on that.

It's really interesting to me.

Did I hear you say that you have a dedicated security force at the facilities?

That's correct.

We have a dedicated security force with all of the infrastructure in place to make sure that the adversaries cannot infiltrate the facility.

So, Pam you've mentioned a handful of times that it's carbon free.

Would you describe nuclear energy as carbon free or carbon neutral and can you help us understand the difference?

Yes.

I guess I refer to it as carbon free.

I'm talking about the production of electricity.

We do not produce any carbon-related gases.

So, yes, we are a carbon-free resource for the company and part of an important part of our carbon-free transition at Xcel Energy.

You know, when you're talking about carbon neutral, I don't know if you're thinking about.

I'm not sure exactly your question on that.

Well, let me rephrase it and zoom out a little bit.

Of course, we all refer to clean tech quite a bit particularly today.

Would you describe nuclear energy as being clean?

Yes.

So, it's clean but yet you are generating radioactive waste.

So, I'd like to talk a little bit about your storage plan.

So both facilities in Minnesota have on-site nuclear storage and in fact it's my understanding that you're seeking permission to expand that storage capacity.

So my question for both of you, is why do you store it on site and how do you do so safely?

Sure.

Good question.

Yes.

So, a byproduct obviously of nuclear power is the used fuel and we are able to contain that all.

It goes in as a solid.

It comes out of the reactor as a solid and we have all of the fuel that we've produced at both of our plants at each site.

We have stored that safely since the plants began operating and we store it both in a spent fuel pool and in dry cast containers.

On site it was never intended to be a long-term solution.

We had a contract with the federal government with a legal obligation for them to develop a solution.

We are still waiting for them to fulfill that obligation.

In the meantime we, Xcel Energy have taken a leadership role on the issue of spent fuel.

We're trying to work with the federal government to come up with either an interim or permanent storage solution.

We're also looking at there's two sites that have applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to host interim storage locations down in southwest United States and then I think for the first time, we're, not for the first time, but recently we've seen some movement in spent fuel storage.

I think there's an admission by the Biden administration that they see existing nuclear plants are important to the future of carbon-free resources and a recognition that they are going to help meet our nation's carbon reduction goals.

So, they've taken a step very recently and issued a consent based sighting request for information from communities that may be interested in hosting potential spent fuel storage location and so they're gonna take feedback from communities that are interested in hosting this and then follow that up.

They've already announced that they will follow that up with some type of funding opportunity and try to move forward on a federal interim and or permanent storage solution in the future.

But like I said at the same time, our company continues to drive towards finding a solution whether that be two of the interim sites that are looking at that, working with the federal government, but in the meantime we're storing it safely on site as we've done since the plants began operating.

It's not a technology that we don't understand.

As a matter of fact, we know how to safely store the fuel and we'll continue to do that until we have an interim or permanent location to send the fuel to it at one point in the future.

So, Pam I heard you say that you're waiting for the US government to fulfill its obligation.

Is that why Xcel Energy sued the United States was to fulfill that obligation?

Yes and essentially the courts agreed with us.

You know, there was a legal obligation on the part of the federal government to take that fuel and we had a contract.

So, in fact we are reimbursed for the cost of our storage which we then give back, that those dollars to our customers because they paid for the storage and so yes the federal government does reimburse us for the cost of storage and like I said we then in turn reimburse our customers for the costs that come back from the Department of Energy.

But, if you're applying to increase your storage capacity on site, that doesn't suggest you're very optimistic about a long-term solution.

So, how long do you intend to store spent nuclear fuel rods on site at these facilities?

Forever?

Again it was never intended that we would store them on our site indefinitely.

We are working very hard and leading the industry to try and find a solution whether it be an interim storage site until we have that permanent location built and ready to go or consolidated somewhere.

So, we are looking at all options right now.

Actually, as I said I'm going out to IAEA, part of we're going to hear from both Sweden and Finland who have seen, you know, success with their permanent storage facilities.

So, we're going to learn from them, what they have done and how they've moved forward with their programs, try and take some lessons learned that we can use here in the United States.

But again, we know how to safely store it.

We are committed to continuing to store it until we move it to an interim or permanent location somewhere here in the United States or reuse it.

You know, it's possible in some of the foreign countries, they take used fuel and recycle it.

Initially, when the plants were built here that was a direction that we were going to take.

So, it's possible that could be that could come around in the future as well.

You know, foreign countries are looking at a number of solutions.

The French already reprocessed.

I mean, who's to say what direction will take but I think, you know, I'm optimistic that the federal government is at least acknowledging the need to address this back end of the fuel cycle especially if we want to look forward at the future of advanced nuclear as well.

I would have thought that the United States would have been on the leading edge in terms of the back end fuel cycle as you say.

I have one more technical question about storage for you Josh.

How long is a spent nuclear fuel rod dangerous?

What's the half-life?

That's an interesting one.

So, keep in mind, let's talk about safety again for spent fuel storage.

It takes, it takes a long time.

Decades right?

Measured or longer for this stuff to decay right?

Highly radioactive material.

So, let's talk about safety.

This stuff is enclosed in stainless steel structure and then inside another concrete structure and all of these structures were designed in a way such that you could be picked up by a tornado and dropped and still maintain the integrity of the vessel.

They're also located in locations that are not within the flood plains for instance right?

Again, we talked about flooding and ensuring that it's well above and beyond and we're not talking about floods that are in anywhere we've seen in recorded history.

We're talking that plus feet above that.

So, we're talking margin upon margin.

So, tornadoes, natural events.

We talked about the full-time security force on site.

Accessing these rods, of course, is not possible.

One, the adversary would be exposed, of course, if somehow they got through all those structures that I talked about plus they'd have to get through the security force.

So, all of these things from a safety perspective.

It's all like Pam said, safely stored on site with substantial margin.

I appreciate that.

So, we only have time for about one more question here.

Pam, I'm curious.

Was Xcel present at cop26 otherwise known as the Conference of Parties, the 26 Conference of Parties, the United Nations Climate Conference and if so, were you promoting the use of nuclear energy in that conversation?

I'm not familiar if we were in attendance.

I know others from the industry were.

Honestly, I'm just not the right person to ask.

I'm not familiar with who was there or even how it the conversation, sorry about that.

Well, let me ask you this.

A couple years ago I had the opportunity to serve on a U.S. delegation to the Chernobyl disaster site for a conversation about clean energy and I'm curious if either of you have been there.

I have not.

I have not.

I've not been to the Chernobyl site.

How did the U.S. nuclear industry change on account of these disasters, very briefly?

Josh.

We are part of an industry.

I'll just say almost like a consortium or an industry group that when events happen anywhere within the nuclear industry, we share that information such that all of us can learn.

For example, what we learned from Fukushima is that we now have a fully integrated ability to provide power to the facility if all offsite power was lost and the already on-site diesel generators for some reason were lost in which case we have two of those and so from Fukushima we learned what they saw and the difficulties they had in that event and we have all of the capability to provide the necessary powers for the operators to safely shut down the reactor vessel.

And we're going to leave it right there Josh.

I really appreciate it and I appreciate both of you taking the time to help our viewers understand the role of nuclear energy here in Minnesota and elsewhere in the United States.

Thank you for your time.

Thanks Jason.

And thank all of you for joining me once again.

You can continue the conversation on Twitter @currentspbs.

I'm Jason Edens, your host of Lakeland Currents.

Be kind and be well.

We'll see you next week.