Question and Answer Session for ENW.pdf - UxC

Q&A Session for Energy Northwest Presents:
NuScale: Responsible Options for Expanding Northwest Nuclear Power
Q: How does cost compare to other resources
A: The per kWh bus-bar cost of power from a standard NuScale plant compares favorably to
published numbers for new, large scale, single shaft nuclear plants.
_________________________________________________________________
Q: Paul/Jack, so you have a fixed O&M, variable O&M and heat rate for the NuScale
technology
A: NuScale currently projects O&M costs at $1.37 cents per kWh.
_________________________________________________________________
Q: Can you please speak to the refueling cycle, the costs for refueling and any disposal/storage
costs of the removed fuels.
A: Each NuScale module is individually taken out of service for about 14-days, once every two
years for NRC required inspections and tests, and for refueling. The majority of the work related
to refueling, inspections and tests is conducted by permanent plant staff instead of temporary
workers so most of the associated costs are already included in O&M estimates.
_________________________________________________________________
Q: Dave, does the requirements forecast take into account the current recession (especially in
CA)
A: The NWPCC 5 th Plan was prepared before the full onset of the economic crises. The 6th Plan
is being prepared and is taking into consideration the current economic environment of the
Western United States.
_________________________________________________________________
Q: Would plants be built for maximum capacity but only start with one + module(s)
A: The scalable nature of the NuScale design offers flexibility in determining the ideal plant size.
An owner, for example, has the flexibility to initially plan on a plant with three or four modules
then decide during construction to add one or two more modules prior to project completion.
_________________________________________________________________

Q&A Session for Energy Northwest Presents:
NuScale: Responsible Options for Expanding Northwest Nuclear Power
Q: What is the minimum size plant that is still economical
A: The base design is for a 12 module (480 MWe) power plant that can be built in two phases
with each phase able to accommodate six modules. NuScale is not proposing to design a plant
with less capacity and it would not likely prove economical in the Pacific Northwest. There are
locations, especially where electric systems rely heavily on diesel oil for generation, where a
smaller configuration for a NuScale power plant makes sense and could lower costs to
consumers.
_________________________________________________________________
Q: Roughly how do costs scale by size i.e. how would cost per KW installed for a 120 MW
plant compare to a 480 MW
A: The economics of different configurations needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
NuScale is implementing a number of strategies to enhance the economics for plants that start
out with fewer modules. The decision to design the plant so that it is built in two phases, each
accommodating six modules, is an important example.
_________________________________________________________________
Q: What if you reduced the number of steam turbines from 12 to 4 Would that reduce the
costs Need to weigh shaft risk vs costs.
A: NuScale is focused on ensuring simplicity in design, construction and operation. It carefully
evaluated the merits of having two or more modules supplying steam to a single turbine. The
increased complexity in licensing, design, operations and maintenance, however, outweighed
the potential benefits.
_________________________________________________________________
Q: Can you elaborate on what is meant by the NuScale technology meeting dispatchable
characteristics Do you mean to say that NuScale technology may be operated at variable
power outputs to accommodate fluctuations by renewables
A: NuScale plants are designed as base load power plants but can meet the need for load
shaping. Overall power output from a plant can be reduced by shutting down individual 40 MWe
modules or reducing the power output from multiple modules. NuScale estimates that the power
output of individual modules can be increased at a rate of approximately five percent, per hour.
_________________________________________________________________

Q&A Session for Energy Northwest Presents:
NuScale: Responsible Options for Expanding Northwest Nuclear Power
Q: Would we be able to use previously approved plant site that was not completed
A: Some of the existing infrastructure can be used for the NuScale project. We will not be able
to use the existing Energy Northwest Site1 reactor building in the project, but some of the
support buildings and the onsite electrical connection will save some overall cost of the project.
_________________________________________________________________
Q: What hurdles do we have to cross to get approval from the State of Washington Voter
approval
A: Any energy project exceeding 350 MWe, would require a local vote open to the utility’s
ratepayers for the intent of approving or disapproving taking on new debt by a utility typically
through bond sales. It does not require an open statewide vote. The number of Energy
Northwest members and their geographic distribution is such that virtually every region of the
state will be asked to vote. An up or down vote only affects the utility district where the vote is
taken. Under the state statute the JOA needs a simple majority to go forward with the project.
_________________________________________________________________
Q: Where on your website will the presentation and Q&As be
A: http://www.energy-northwest.com/generation/options.php
_________________________________________________________________
Q: What's a good estimate for the cost of fuel and fuel disposal And what's your opinion on
how long it will take the Feds to get a disposal site operating
A: U.S. policy on managing used fuel and permanent disposal is changing under the new
administration. It appears that plans for the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada
will be cancelled. Energy Secretary Chu is assembling a blue ribbon panel to study and
recommend a future strategy. A key question is whether to treat used fuel as waste and dispose
of it permanently, or to view it as a valuable resource that can be recycled and reused in power
plants. The most likely outcome of the current review is interim storage of used fuel in dry casks
at centralized repositories. NuScale is designing its plants so that used fuel is first stored in a
spent fuel pool that is below ground level, then moved to dry casks and stored adjacent to the
plant.
_________________________________________________________________