Public Meeting On Proposed Nuclear Project
Photo by Nikola Johnny Mirkovic on Unsplash.
Allison Sayer - CRR Staff
On April 19, the Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) and the Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC) held a public meeting in the Glennallen Elementary School gym to present information about a proposed micro modular nuclear reactor for the Copper Basin area and to take questions. Despite there being a lot of online interest and commentary on this proposed idea, the meeting was attended by fewer than 20 people, several of whom were CVEA personnel.
Travis Million, CVEA CEO, Mary Woollen, USNC Director Stakeholder Engagement and Cristian Rabiti, USNC Director Strategy gave presentations and took questions from residents.
USNC has gone through the permitting process to construct micro modular nuclear reactors (MMRs) in Canada and Illinois. An Alaska project would be the company’s third. The company hopes their reactors can be used at global remote sites which temporarily require power, such as mines.
A detailed slideshow explaining the design of the proposed reactor can be found at CVEA.org. Briefly, the power would come from a chamber of “poppyseed sized” grains of uranium encased in a proprietary silicon carbide material would heat a “molten salt” solution. From there, the molten salt would create the heat for steam-powered turbines to generate electricity. The cooling source for the fuel would be helium gas.
My main interest in attending the meeting was to learn what questions attendees had for the presenters. The general atmosphere of the meeting was of interest and curiosity. There were some very technical questions about the science behind the reactor, in addition to the more general Q&A described below.
Where would the reactor be located? Million answered that the location of the reactor would be somewhere that it could provide not only power but also heat in order to make it economical. There is more than one location being considered. The Alaskan consulting company Electric Power Systems is contracted to help with site evaluation.
Storage and disposal of nuclear waste were among the concerns expressed by attendees. This was discussed at length. The first phase of waste disposal would be to pull it out of the reactor cask and allow it to sit on site and cool for a period of six months to two years in a cement overcast.
The waste would be transported off site, although its fate would be uncertain. According to Woollen, there is not currently a permanent nuclear waste storage facility in the United States accepting new waste; there are only “interim facilities.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that anyone building a nuclear facility demonstrate the financial capacity and build a trust fund to remove the waste. The financial responsibility would fall on USNC.
Attendees had questions about the life of the fuel in the reactor. Rabiti estimated it would be a minimum of 10 or as many as 40 years, depending on how much of a draw was placed on it. The reactor would be able to use less fuel and put out less power during the summer, when hydroelectric power supplies much of the area’s needs. According to Rabiti, it would be possible to extend the license and refuel the reactor after the original fuel was spent.
One attendee was curious about whether components of the system other than the nuclear fuel would need to be replaced over time, or whether disposal of other components would be considered nuclear waste disposal. Rabiti answered it was possible the salt could need to be “refreshed” if the reactor lasted for a few decades, but it would not be considered nuclear waste.
Turbines also need to be replaced over time. Million stated that the turbines at the CVEA diesel plant must be replaced about every seven years at a cost of approximately 1.5 million dollars. He hoped that the turbines at the proposed reactor site would need to be replaced less frequently than those at the diesel plant due to the corrosive nature of the diesel.
One attendee asked how seismic risk was be- ing evaluated. Rabiti stated that both computer models and physical models with shaker tables were employed to assess earthquake outcomes. Million also added later that a seismic study had recently been performed at the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric facility, and some of the data might be transferable.
One attendee read a statement citing concerns that uranium mining produced a negative environmental and social impact at the site of the mines themselves. Woollen responded that it was important to “ask for high standards,” although the panel did not cite a specific source for any uranium that would be used for this reactor.
How many jobs would this plant generate, and would locals be eligible for these jobs? Million responded that the plant would employ approximately 10 people full time as operators and security. He also stated that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would have requirements for training, but hoped that locally hired individuals could be trained to those standards.
Does the feasibility study include an EIS? If the results of the feasibility study are positive, there will be an EIS required to obtain a license.
One resident wanted to know how many reactors like this are currently in operation? Rabiti replied that one component of this reactor would be new: there are some proprietary components to the silicon carbide grains encapsulating the nuclear fuel. The rest of the components exist in extant reactors.
Will the plant have any carbon emissions? The plant itself would not have carbon emissions from its operation. There would of course be a carbon footprint from components, construction, etc.
What is the cost and timeline of the feasibility study? The initial feasibility study phase is projected to be completed this summer. The cost of it is being borne by USNC, although Rabiti stated the analysis is being carried out by an independent entity that would not be influenced by USNC.
One attendee asked for a breakdown of relative power costs for different projects, both current and proposed. Allison Lake generates seven megawatts of power at a cost of $55 million. If an intertie project did go forward, it would cost approximately $2 million dollars per mile, or $566 million for the loop. The estimated cost for the USNC reactor is between 80 and 100 million dollars, and it would generate 10 mega-watts of power.
There are big questions to be answered over the next few months during the “feasibility study” phase. For example, it is yet to be worked out whether CVEA would own the proposed reactor or whether USNC would be the owner and sell power to CVEA.
Million stated that the feasibility study would consider the project’s safety, seismic conditions including tsunami hazard, environmental risk, and cost. He added that the project would not go forward unless it would produce a lower electric bill for customers than what they are currently paying.
Million stated that CVEA and the USNC representatives will continue to have public meetings to seek community questions and feedback. If the project is determined “feasible,” a permitting process will begin which will likely take several years.
Disclosure: CVEA is a Copper River Record ad- vertiser. CRR does not have a position endorsing or ob- jecting to this project.
More reporting on the Proposed Nuclear Project:
Valdez City Council Endorses Nuclear Microreactor Bills