Valor Atomics and Orangeville energy lab outline small test reactor plan; residents press safety, jobs and outreach questions

Representatives of Valor Atomics and leaders of the Center for Energy Lab in Orangeville presented details of a nonbinding memorandum of understanding with Emery County and answered residents’ questions at a public town-hall meeting.

The lab’s director said the MOU “explore[s] putting a nuclear reactor, a nuclear test reactor, as well as fuel manufacturing at the lab in Orangeville,” and that a formal contract is still in development. Company representatives told the audience the plan is to operate a research/test unit with fuel on site under a Department of Energy licensing pathway and that they aim to bring the test reactor to criticality by July 4 next year.

Why it matters: the plan would place a pilot nuclear test reactor and a small fuel‑manufacturing line at a state research site in Orangeville, a county with an economy long tied to fossil fuels. Supporters said the project could bring years of construction activity and local operations jobs; critics and many residents urged more outreach and demanded clear, written commitments on safety, water handling, waste management and long‑term community benefits.

Details given at the meeting

• Status and timeline: The Center for Energy Lab official said the MOU is nonbinding and a contract is “in development.” Company speakers said they are working with the Department of Energy and expect the licensing path tied to a recent presidential executive order could allow the test reactor to run by July 4 next year. A county official later described the initial project window as two to three years and said the site would be decommissioned at the end of the demonstration period.

• Reactor and fuel: Valor Atomics described the demonstration unit as a very small, low‑power high‑temperature gas‑cooled research reactor using TRISO‑type fuel. Company technical staff explained that the fuel form uses many small, ceramic‑coated fuel particles and a helium coolant; a company representative said that the fuel pellets and coatings are designed to retain radioactivity even in accident scenarios. "We make little little balls of uranium about the size of the head of a ballpoint pen, and we wrap that in high temperature ceramics," said Mark Mitchell, a company representative, describing the TRISO fuel form. The company also called the pilot reactor design inherently conservative and low risk compared with large commercial plants.

• Staffing, construction and spending: Valor representatives estimated the demonstration project at roughly $50,000,000 and said they expect the operating staff to be small — the company gave an estimate of about 20 people on the reactor side and about 14–15 on the fuel side during the demonstration, with larger temporary construction crews during buildout. The company said it prefers to use local contractors where practical.

• Safety, water and waste: Company engineers said the pilot unit will use very little water and that what is used would be recycled inside small cooling circuits; "we don't consume any water," a company technical speaker said. On waste, Valor staff said the demonstration generates small quantities of spent fuel and that the industry practice is to package and sequester spent material pending national disposition. The company and lab staff said they will follow the DOE licensing pathway and state oversight as the rules evolve.

• Regulatory/legal context: Company representatives described active engagement with the Department of Energy and said they and several states have pursued litigation aimed at clarifying whether small reactors can be licensed under state authorities rather than solely under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Speakers said the project expects to use a DOE licensing pathway created or clarified by recent executive‑branch action.

What residents and local officials asked and what they said

Residents at the meeting voiced three recurring concerns: safety (including seismic risk), transparency and how many local jobs and long‑term economic benefits the project would produce. Heather Keith, an Orangeville resident, asked whether the unit had previously run with nuclear fuel; a company representative replied the firm has operated a full‑scale thermal test unit in Los Angeles using electrical heaters and that the planned pilot would be the first using nuclear fuel at the site.

Kevin Butler, a member of the Hrenchville City Council, said residents he spoke with are both excited and concerned: “I have a mixture of a lot of excitement for this project and the future that it has. And, also, there are obviously concerns, with safety and different things like that,” Butler said.

Other speakers pressed for more outreach and for written answers to technical questions. Multiple residents said they had not been contacted directly before the MOU became public and urged door‑to‑door engagement as well as mailed notices. A county official said the lab and company distributed flyers and had public meetings and that the county is starting a master‑planning process for nearby property to consider industrial uses.

Company responses and community commitments

Valor representatives said they want community involvement: they described tours, an intent to invite local stakeholders into the lab, and interest in workforce training with local colleges and high schools. The company said it is cautious about promising long‑term large hiring numbers for the demonstration phase but that commercial deployment and manufacturing could create additional local jobs in a later phase if demand and community agreements support it.

A county official reiterated that the MOU is nonbinding, that the county and lab expect a two‑to‑three‑year demonstration window and that the project would be decommissioned at the end of that period if it does not proceed further.

Ending and next steps

Company and lab leaders said they will continue outreach, post updates on social media and the lab’s channels, and provide contact points for follow‑up questions. Residents asked for more widely distributed printed materials, door‑to‑door canvassing and repeated public meetings so people without internet access can engage. The county said a master‑planning procurement is imminent and that future hearings will be posted on emery.utah.gov.

The town‑hall did not include a formal vote or county decision; speakers described the MOU and preliminary project plans and agreed to continued public engagement and technical review.