The next generation of nuclear power plants and the role of the local planner

ABSTRACT

This paper makes the case for urban planners to become active participants in discussions concerning the placement of next-generation nuclear power plants. Centered upon an evolving concept of creating small modular reactors (SMRs), these plants are now being created and tested at various sites. They are intended to be low carbon sources of energy. While extensive technical research on SMRs is ongoing, the planning community has been quiet about the local impacts that could occur from their placement. This paper offers a review of the attitudes toward nuclear power, the characteristics of SMRs and why planners should be involved.

KEYWORDS:

• Nuclear power
• plant closures
• government intervention

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to make the case for community planners to become collectively involved in discussions and decisions concerning national strategies on the possible deployment of ‘Next Generation’ nuclear power plants over the next decade. Centering upon an evolving concept of creating small, modular, nuclear-powered plants, they are intended to provide power to places as small as a village or a single company to as large as multiple cities (Rauch, 2023, p. 58). Instead of being placed in large plants located in relatively few scattered sites, as at present, they are expected to be, in many instances, closely integrated within the community fabric throughout cities and towns across the United States. Commonly called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), these plants are now in the experimental stage (World Nuclear Association, 2022b). A driving force in their development is that they are a low carbon producing source of energy and could be a supportive component in strategies to control global warming. However, there are still extensive obstacles to overcome before they are embraced as an essential source of power. These impediments include, among others, concerns over costs, safety, security and removal of nuclear waste at the end of their life cycles. Equally as important are the cultural attitudes of the American people who, on the whole, are hardly enthusiastic over the use of nuclear power.

An examination of planning literature shows that the creation of a national SMR program has been a limited topic of professional or scholarly planning research (Fastest Path to Zero Initiative, n.d.). Nor, for that matter, has it become a topic addressed in local energy or sustainable development plans. Given there is at least the possibility that SMR deployment will become part of the nation’s energy strategy in the next decade, it is essential that planners become more knowledgeable over what it will mean to their communities and, through their professional associations, become active participants in discussions at the national level concerning how quality of life issues at the community level can be addressed as part of a potential SMR deployment program.

The paper, following this introduction, is divided into three parts. Part one is a concise summary of the use of nuclear power as an energy source in America and how, over time, it has been viewed by its citizens. Part two describes the critical elements of the SMR program and how they could be placed. Part three examines the significant research efforts undertaken to date concerning SMRs and includes commentary on still unresolved issues. The paper concludes with an explanation of why it is important for planners to participate in developing strategies concerning the possible deployment of SMRs. In fact, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have concluded that it is imperative to include ‘value-focused thinking’, ‘consent-based initiatives’ and ‘research-backed’ approaches to meaningful civic engagement as part of a potential national strategy for deployment (National Academies of Science, 2023a).

Embracing things nuclear: an American conundrum

The use of nuclear power as an energy source is still widely suspected. Most notably, for those people coming of age in the aftermath of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear bomb testing by the military in the 1950s, the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s and later day tense confrontational moments of the Cold War, nuclear power is indelibly linked with actual and potential horrific events. To them, despite governmental efforts to promote civilian contributions resulting from nuclear research, the prevailing image of this technology is its military use and power to destruct. Indeed, these feelings have become even more pronounced as the war in Ukraine continues today (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 2022).

Even after nuclear reactors became a major source of power and were promoted as being fail-safe, suspicions did not dissipate. And rightfully so: If one simply mentions the words Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island or Fukushima, most people will quickly recognize them as nuclear power plants that were promoted as failsafe. They were not. Indeed, the partial melt down at the Three-Mile Island plant, coupled with frequent shutdowns due to safety violations at other US installations, costly upgrades and the failure of the federal government to remove the radioactive detritus from closed sites within host communities, has caused generations to be wary of the use of nuclear energy as a source of power (Schellenberger, 2018).

At one point in the 1950s, the United States government expected to have more than 1,000 nuclear reactor plants operational by the turn of the century. At its peak, in 1991, 112 reactors were producing energy. However, following the partial meltdown of the Three-Mile Island plant in 1979, American support for nuclear power declined precipitously. In its wake, 120 proposed nuclear power projects, small and large, were quickly cancelled, leading one analyst to conclude ‘The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program is the largest managerial disaster in business history … ’ (Cook, 1985, p. 82). The nuclear power industry had become, what another analyst described, a ‘commercial flop’ (Rauch, 2023, p. 52). Today, America has 100 operating reactors, most of which were built before 1980, collectively producing approximately 20% of the nation’s electric power. Thirty of these plants are in the process of decommissioning, and more closures are expected shortly (World Nuclear Association, 2022a). While two large new plants are expected to be fully operational in 2024, there are no others that are now under construction (World Nuclear News, 2023).

This national sense of cynicism and distrust of nuclear power has contributed to the creation of a conundrum. With global warming increasing, with relatively little time to deploy low carbon producing sources and recognizing that wind and solar alternatives are perhaps unlikely to be enough to solve the problem, the use of nuclear generated power may have to be part of the solution. If it is, then, given the extensive time required to construct traditional large nuclear plants, it may be necessary to rely on small modular nuclear reactors.

Characteristics of small modular reactors

What are the characteristics of SMRs and how are they different from those reactors currently in use? They will be considerably smaller than the typical plants that one can observe today. To place them in context, the experimental model developed by the Kairos Corporation in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is comparable to the size of a suburban self-storage facility (Rauch, 2023, p. 52). Further, if there is increasing demand for power, additional modules can be co-joined. They are expected to produce up to 350 megawatts of energy (MWE) or approximately one-third the power of a traditional plant. Small plants are intending to use molten salt, helium gas, or convection and gravity driven water systems, rather than electric power, to operate the plant. By doing so, unlike traditional plants, there will be no need for large cooling towers that so frequently mark these facilities and they can be placed underground. They would be built into standardized modules in an assembly-line process at an off-site factory and moved to the selected location where final preparations would be undertaken. At the end of their useful lives, the modules could then be moved to a nuclear waste disposal site at a far lower cost associated with removing large plants (Liou, 2021).

Experimental SMR projects are now in the design stages and are projected to be operational in the next decade (National Academies, 2023a). One demonstration project, for example, is now being jointly funded in part by the United States Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Energy Program and TerraPower, a start-up company founded by entrepreneur Bill Gates (Clifford, 2021; Cockburn, 2022). Located near the site of a coal processing plant in rural Kemmerer, Wyoming, population 2,700, it is expected to provide 345 MWE of power. Placing this amount in context, three SMRs similar in size to that proposed for Kemmerer would likely be sufficient to meet the power needs of a small city (Gates, 2022). If the experiment proves successful, TerraPower will contribute to meeting two elements of concern as the nation’s global warming strategy emerges. First, the company is committed to provide jobs to many coal workers who were displaced through the closing of a local mine and re-train them for jobs in the nuclear power industry (McComb & Gruver, 2022). Advocates for the passing of the proposed American ‘Green New Deal’ legislation considered this type of response as important in their efforts to achieve a ‘just transition’ from one fuel source to another (Sicotte, 2021). Secondly, the plant will be designed to ensure a steady flow of energy during intermediate periods when neither sun nor wind applications are adequate (McComb & Gruver, 2022). Another example of a venture currently under development is a joint project involving the NuScale Power Company, the US Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory and a consortium of western cities called the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems. The partnering organizations will build and test a multiple-reactor SMR plan as a demonstration project to be placed in Idaho Falls (Gardner, 2023). The design was approved by the National Regulatory Commission in January 2023. It is the first approval authorizing the building of an SMR plant in the United States. It is expected to be operational by 2030 (Office of Nuclear Energy, 2023). There are many other SMR experimental projects, large and small, that are underway in more than 150 laboratories, research centers and technology companies across the globe including, among others, those found in Argentina, Russia, China, England and Denmark. In the United States, national laboratories, including Argonne, Idaho and Oakridge, have ongoing SMR projects.

Where fits the local planner and the host community?

There is one important subject area that has yet to be comprehensively examined: How will these SMRs fit in the local community? Their potential impacts on environmental quality, land use, sewer and water infrastructure, local highways, and local jobs, among others, come to mind. And even if there is a clear understanding of how SMRs will impact the quality of life in these communities, there is still the all-important issue of trust at the local level. The NRC has had a long record of keeping its distance concerning local affairs and providing minimal assistance to those communities where plants have been closed or are presently undergoing decommissioning (Lydersen, 2022). It can be most vividly noted in its failure to remove the radioactive detritus from the site. Indeed, the authors of a recently published article concerning the problems of decommissioning asked whether these host communities are ‘cursed forever’ (Yamamoto & Greco, 2022, cover page). Due to this poor treatment, one would expect that the widespread placement of SMRs would be subject to intensive scrutiny concerning their end state.

What planning actions should be undertaken by the local planners in preparation for their proposed deployment? Given the possibility that the first SMRs will begin to be placed across the country beginning in the 2030s, then they should be considered in current discussions concerning long term, comprehensive local strategic plans, which typically include topics related to energy and sustainability. It is common for these plans to examine community needs for 10 to 20 years into the future. Thus, as with drones, electric vehicles and the ageing of America, among other local change makers, the placement of SMRs would fit as a topic of interest. It is also an opportunity to model prototypes of SMRs with professional community planning and energy planning associations as well as academic planning institutions.

A critical element in these discussions will have to be an understanding of each state’s policies concerning the use of nuclear power as part of their effort to stem global warming. As towns and cities are subdivisions of the state, they are required to follow their laws and edicts. At least 32 of the states are addressing how best to include nuclear power applications in their green energy plans (Rauch, 2023). At the same time, however, none of the states currently have regulatory structures in place that will specifically govern the construction, operation, location and closure of SMRs. Until the states determine the required controls, their cities and towns will have to focus on the SMR issue by themselves. There is a bit of irony in this for a US Department of Energy (DOE) study that has already identified more than 200 retired coal plant sites that could potentially be developed for SMR use (Hansen, 2022). In West Virginia, where many of these sites were found, the report was widely acclaimed by local community leaders despite the fact that the SMR concept had yet to be determined as a safe and economically feasible energy source (Halper, 2023).

The cost of building and operating the plant will be an issue: Will the SMR developers be able to complete their projects? The US Department of Energy estimates that, in order to build quickly, the reactors would have a cost of approximately $3,600 per kilowatt. The experimental projects now being built are costing $6,000 to $10,000 per kilowatt (The Economist, 2023, p. 18). As well, high assay, low enriched uranium, the type expected to be essential in operating in most of the proposed SMRs, is mostly found and processed in Russia. Its prices are soaring (Steward, 2023, p. 65). The cost of the experimental NuScale SMR in Idaho Falls is expected, due primarily to rising interest rates and inflation, to increase by 75% before completion, and is at a point where investors are concerned about their ability to continue with the project (Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 2022). In an economic sense, their views may be correct. However, in light of global warming risks, the economic argument alone may not appease the advocates of SMRs. As Jeff Bordoff, co-founding Dean of the Columbia Climate School, concluded: ‘We have to incorporate nuclear energy in a way that acknowledges it is not risk free. But the risk of falling short of our ultimate climate goals exceeds the risks of including nuclear energy as part of the zero-carbon energy mix’ (National Public Radio, 2022).

Creating a meaningful safety zone will require considerable thought. Presently, the NRC requires Emergency Planning Zones related to Plume Exposure and Ingestion Exposure for large reactors. The Plume Exposure Zone extends approximately 10 miles in radius around the reactor, while the Ingestion Exposure Zone extends approximately 50 miles from the site (Nuclear Regulatory Commission n.d.). Due to the smaller size of the proposed SMRs, the limited amount of radioactive material that would be stored on-site and increased in-plant safety features, the NRC has approved a new methodology for the determination of exposure zones for SMRs: They will now be limited to the site boundaries of the project (World Nuclear News, 2020). In theory, this means that plants would no longer have to exist as stand-alone entities in isolated areas (Brady, 2020). Not all researchers have agreed with this finding, stressing that there is significant danger in dramatically reducing the size of the safety zones, while the new technologies in these plants have yet to be tested (Lyman, 2013, pp. 15–17). At the local level, we expect this issue would have to be carefully vetted with particular attention to the specific site conditions, the geography of the community, the built environment and local demographic characteristics.

The size and capacity of SMRs are likely to be subject to debate. Many universities, military installations and hospitals already rely on very small reactors, often called microreactors, for research and medical purposes (McDermont, 2023). They typically have the capacity to produce less than 20 MWE and frequently operate either off-grid or on a microgrid. They have long been accepted in communities (U.S. Department of Energy, 2021). However, SMRs with a maximum capacity of 350 MWE and the fact that they are expected to be easily expandable, are likely to cause concern.

There will be land use concerns. A typical SMR is expected to require less than 100 acres of footprint. For example, the recently licensed NuScale SMR project, consisting of six modules collectively supplying approximately 460 megawatts of power, will require 65 acres of land. Placing this in perspective, the 54 conventional plants operating in the United States average 600 acres, while the footprint of the two new Vogtle plants, now coming online in Georgia, is 3000 acres (Derr, 2022; Crownhart, 2023). Future SMRs could be candidates for placement on large parcels of land that previously housed fossil fuel facilities such as coal plants. Among other sites, they could be placed on surplus land that once housed asylums, tuberculosis hospitals, defunct malls, inactive military installations and formerly contaminated manufacturing sites. These sites, in many parts of the nation, have been difficult to revitalize. Equally important, SMRs could fit within large technology and industrial parks. The most likely issue will center upon how the placement of SMRs will impact the future growth and development of the community. This point is particularly important since current planning is increasingly emphasizing mixed land use development where residential, office, retail and light-manufacturing uses are intermingled.

There will be questions related to infrastructure needs. Should these plants be placed on land in agricultural areas, proxemic to built-up communities, there may be pressure to connect water and sewage systems and the community’s road networks to them. Too often, when these are emplaced for the purpose of meeting the needs of new industrial plants or commercial activities, the value of land increases and creates market pressure to change the zoning designations to allow more intense uses. This would run counter to the desire of many communities that are endeavoring to maintain their agricultural and open space characteristics through the adoption of Smart Growth principles (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023).

Beyond their possible placement in the community, there will be concerns over how many SMRs could be housed on specific sites. The fact that the SMRs are considered to be ‘small’ and free of the common issues associated with the legacy plants, will be potential selling points in gaining community approval. However, once the owners begin to incrementally add modules and the plant begins to take on ‘large’ characteristics, there is likely to be popular resistance. The focal point of this citizen intervention would most likely center upon safety and security issues. Moreover, and equally as important, the nuclear waste generated from operations is likely to be stored on site until permanent disposal areas are created: Community acceptance of this ‘temporary storage’ is likely to be contentious. For these reasons, it will be imperative for the community to set a maximum plant size for each selected parcel.

Tied to this will be questions about the exact site characteristics and architectural designs. Interestingly, some of the architectural renderings released to date show the facilities as having the patina of ultra-modern structures tied to the grid and located in rural areas surrounded by forestland and waterbodies (U.S. Department of Energy, 2020). While this may be a selling point for securing support for placing SMRs in non-urban areas, the developers will also have to present designs that show how they fit as non-grid structures in urban settings.

The question of what happens after the life of these plants ends must be answered. A look at the response of the plant owners and the NRC to the plant closings of current nuclear power plants is quite disturbing and telling (Greenblatt, 2017). Neither the owners nor the NRC are obligated to assist the host community in the recovery following closure except for ensuring the radioactive waste is safely stored. As a result, the host communities, despite short-term governmental aid and a modicum of assistance from owners, have been left with the responsibility for recovery (U.S Economic Development Administration, 2020; Hamilton, 2021). In fact, from the day closure is announced, the communities typically must face a dramatic loss in tax revenue, declining residential property values, the loss of highly skilled workers, the destruction of social capital networks and the downsizing of municipal services. While some of these communities had prepared for closure, most had not. Examples of those that have not recovered include the Zion plant in Zion, Illinois, Yankee Rowe in Rowe, Massachusetts, and Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vermont (Kotval & Mullin, 1997; Bidgood, 2015; Lydersen, 2022). On the other hand, Plymouth Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts, is recovering quite well (Cooper, 2016). Why some have recovered, and others have not, will require extensive in-depth future research (Yamamoto & Greco, 2022). However, it appears that those that had planned for the retirement of their plants and set aside funds to finance regeneration efforts have been recovering quite well (Town of Plymouth, 2022).

In the meantime, the former sites, in many instances, remain as fenced-in, well-guarded, radioactive storage areas patrolled by armed guards. The expectation was that the radioactive detritus would be removed to a designated permanent waste storage location and that the closed site would then be safe for other land uses. Provisions for the removal of this waste were even encoded in law (United States Congress, 1982). And yet, the closed sites are not being restored: Currently, 70% of the United States’ spent fuel is sitting in ageing, over capacity cooling pools and dry casks, many of which are considered unsafe (Parshley, 2020). Also, despite steps by the NRC to resolve this issue by removing the waste to places willing to be paid to temporarily store it, there is still a lack of public confidence in its ability to meet this obligation (O’Brien, 2021). In fact, the state of Texas is now challenging this effort in its courts (Hampshire Gazette, 2023). Unless the NRC finds methods to ensure that at the end-state, the waste will be removed, the full embrasure of SMRs will be problematic. No one wants to live near a nuclear graveyard or in a community that could be ‘cursed forever’.

Beyond these technical issues and questions, there is a need to create a meaningful process concerning site selection. Empirical evidence has shown that the nuclear power industry has been reluctant to engage in citizen participation, public engagement or shared decision-making related to the placement of its facilities (National Academies of Science, 2023b). And, when it has, they have hardly been meaningful, timely or non-adversarial. One of the most widely acclaimed articles ever written in the Journal of the American Planning Association is entitled ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’. Written by Sherry Arnstein, she described eight rungs on the ladder. The bottom two, called informing and consultation, are considered as ‘non-participation’. The middle three, called informing, consultation and placation, are considered as a form of tokenism. She considered the top three, partnerships, delegated power and citizen control, as areas where true civic engagement could occur (Arnstein, 1969). Reaching these top rungs will be essential to the placement of SMRs. More specifically, if the deployment of SMRs is to be successful, the planning community must advocate for a process incorporating a ‘Consent Based Siting’ approach. This approach would require the promoters of a proposed plant to meaningly engage the local community on issues such as design, location, safety and security. If they obtain the community’s approval, the promoters would then submit their design certification documents to the regulators. The National Academies have concluded that, given the potential for nuclear deployment to aid in the low-carbon transition, such an approach should be strongly encouraged (National Academies, 2023b).

Conclusions

Extensive research and testing of SMRs is now ongoing in many parts of America. As this is occurring, legitimate concerns among scientists, economists and environmentalists over the cost, safety, security and storage of spent fuel have emerged and are being studied. What has not been examined are the potential direct impacts that the deployment will have on the quality of life of the hundreds of communities that may be hosting them. For this reason, it is important that community planning interests become a critical element in defining a national strategy concerning SMR placement. Among the most important elements of this strategy should be the ability of a community to opt out of a proposal via referendum, providing funds to the host communities to finance their own independent impact statements and enabling public interest groups that may be in opposition to a proposal to participate in the process. The community must be a knowing and willing partner in the process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).