By CORNELL WRIGHT
Los Alamos

I am responding to an article written by Mr. George Chandler on Aug. 23 (link).

I am a member of the Los Alamos County Board of Public Utilities (BPU), but these are my opinions, not those of the Board. My opinions, however, are strongly influenced by several days of study of the NuScale nuclear reactor design and the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP), which I have undertaken as a member of the BPU.

Mr. George Chandler has written to local papers and spoken at public meetings about the NuScale reactor that is at the heart of the CFPP. His points leave out significant context and facts that should be considered. I will address the points from his Aug. 23 article.

1) Schedule Movement. The CFPP schedule has moved to allow more complete design and NRC certification prior to start of construction. This will improve the quality of construction cost estimation and reduce risk.

2) The fact that the design for the reactor components can be fabricated by existing pressure vessel manufacturers in their existing factories is a significant positive feature. Three major components will be manufactured by experienced fabricators in existing factories, transported to the site and then assembled by bolting them together at the same interfaces used for refueling for the life of the reactor. This should be more economical than building a unique factory just for NuScale. This is not an “artful response” that is a “failure” as described by Mr. Chandler.

3) Mr. Chandler is correct that a full, operational prototype of this reactor has not been built. What he does not mention is that pressurized light water reactors are a very mature, well established nuclear technology and that NuScale and their collaborators have conducted numerous tests of important reactor components and simulations of the whole reactor.

4) The fuel to be used is uranium oxide, not metallic uranium as Mr. Chandler implies. This type of fuel and the fuel assemblies are a standard design with a long history of use in the nuclear industry.

5) Mr. Chandler states that the zirconium alloy M5 used for fuel cladding is new. It is not. It has been in use in US reactors since 2001. It provides reduced corrosion when compared to its predecessor zircaloy-4. Nuclear Engineering International stated in 2011 “A mature alloy, M5 continues to offer substantial performance improvements over other zirconium alloys.”

The County needs a reliable base load power source. As many environmentalists around the world have come to realize, nuclear is the best available technology for clean base load power to complement renewable sources. The CFPP is undertaking many steps such as early NRC approval and near-complete engineering design prior to the start of construction. This approach is based on lessons learned from other projects and will minimize risk.

The County Council is being asked to make a commitment only for the next three years of this project. In three years, there will be another opportunity to assess the project and decide if further participation is right for our county. I strongly urge that the County Council approve remaining with the CFPP at this time.