Author Archive

June 18, 2012

PRNewswire-USNewswire

24 Groups and Individuals Seek Suspension of Final Agency Decisions on Reactors in States of AL, CA, FL, MD, MI, MS, MO, NH, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX and VA.

WASHINGTON, June 18, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must not make final licensing decisions until it has completed a rulemaking action on the environmental impacts of highly radioactive nuclear waste in the form of spent, or ‘used’, reactor fuel storage and disposal, as required under the landmark Waste Confidence Rule decision of June 8th by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, according to a petition filed today by 22 groups and 2 individuals. This petition is to ensure that the environmental analysis directed by the Court is meaningfully incorporated into the licensing of nearly 35 reactors in a number of states.

The petition is available online at
http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/testimony/PetitiontoSuspendLicensingDecisions_061812.pdf.
The court’s decision is available online at
http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/testimony/WasteConfidenceCourtDecision_USCA11-1045_StateNYetal_vsNRC_060812.pdf.

The groups maintain that the NRC should not finalize its licensing decisions until it satisfies its environmental review obligations under federal law in relation to the following reactors: Callaway Plant , Unit 1, MO; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, MD; Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, MI; William States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, SC; Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 & 2, MS; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, OH; Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7, FL; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4, TX; Seabrook Station , Unit 1, NH; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, CA; Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant, PA; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 2 and 3, NC; Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, FL; South Texas Project, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, TX; Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4, AL; Watts Bar, Unit 2, TN; and North Anna, Unit 3, VA.

The groups also asked the NRC to establish procedures for ensuring that members of the public can comment on the environmental analysis and raise site-specific concerns about the environmental impacts of highly radioactive spent nuclear reactor fuel in individual licensing cases. Importantly, this petition is not a request to halt or suspend all or any licensing proceedings. Petitioners do not demand any change in the schedules for the NRC Staff’s review of reactor license applications in pending reactor licensing cases. This petition seeks the suspension of final licensing decisions only, pending the NRC’s completion of the work directed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
The groups are still analyzing the implications of the court’s far-reaching decision for recently completed NRC licensing actions such as the proposed Vogtle and V.C. Summer reactors.

Diane Curran, an attorney representing some of the groups in the Court of Appeals case, said: “The groups filing this petition represent neighbors of nuclear reactors around the country. Many of them are currently participating in NRC licensing cases for new or existing reactors. Among the many individual petitioners are neighbors of existing or proposed reactors who would have participated in NRC licensing proceedings had they not been barred from raising their concerns about spent fuel storage and disposal by the Commission rules that were struck down by the court. By joining together, they seek to ensure that the environmental analyses ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals will be fully applied in each reactor licensing case before operation is permitted, and that they will be given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.”

Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford said: “By telling the naked emperor to go get dressed, the Court has delivered an overdue rebuke to the NRC’s bad habit of pushing for the nuclear power plants while postponing the problems, as we now know the Japanese to have done at Fukushima. It’s hard to see how federal and state officials can justify putting more taxpayer or customer money at risk on new reactor projects until this situation is resolved.”

“We are part of this important effort to ensure that local communities and the public finally have the ability to raise important concerns about the risks associated with radioactive waste and subsequent storage at nuclear plants across the Southeast,” said Sara Barczak , High Risk Energy Choices program director with Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, one of the petitioners to the Court. “The Court agreed with us that it’s long overdue for these serious impacts to finally be evaluated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and shared with the public. Now we’re just making sure that’ll happen–that communities will have a voice.”

Lou Zeller , Executive Director of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, another petitioner to the Court, said: “For years we have had no confidence in NRC’s assertions about nuclear waste and we have not been silent about it. Finally, the courts have agreed with us. We look forward to injecting some sanity into the debate on nuclear waste.”

On June 8th, the Court rejected the Waste Confidence Rule, which has been an essential component of all NRC decisions to license new reactors or re-license existing reactors for additional 20-year terms. In vacating the rule, the Court directed that the NRC comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and conduct a thorough environmental analysis of radioactive spent fuel storage and disposal issues.

The groups contend that federal law requires the NRC to suspend its final reactor licensing decisions while it determines what environmental effects could occur if the NRC’s decades-long search for a radioactive nuclear waste repository for spent nuclear reactor fuel never materializes. The impacts of storing highly-radioactive spent fuel at reactors across the country has for decades essentially not been analyzed during individual reactor licensing cases. The recent Court decision would now require the NRC to finally analyze what are likely to be significant impacts.

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League are joined by the following additional petitioners before the NRC:
Beyond Nuclear, Inc. (intervenor in Fermi COL proceeding, Calvert Cliffs COL proceeding, and Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding; potential intervenor in Grand Gulf COL and Grand Gulf license renewal proceedings);

• Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Inc. and chapters (“BREDL”) (intervenor in Bellefonte COL proceeding and North Anna COL proceeding; previously sought intervention in W.S. Lee COL proceeding);

• Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc. (former intervenor in Turkey Point COL proceeding);

• Citizens Environmental Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Inc. (intervenor in Fermi COL proceeding and Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding);

• Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (intervenor in Fermi COL proceeding);

• Don’t Waste Michigan, Inc. (intervenor in Fermi COL proceeding and Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding);

• Ecology Party of Florida (intervenor in Levy COL proceeding);

• Eric Epstein (potential intervenor in Bell Bend COL proceeding);

• Friends of the Earth, Inc. (potential intervenor in reactor licensing proceedings throughout U.S.);

• Friends of the Coast, Inc. (intervenor in Seabrook license renewal proceeding);

• Green Party of Ohio (intervenor in Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding);

• Dan Kipnis (intervenor in Turkey Point proceeding);

• National Parks Conservation Association, Inc. (intervenor in Turkey Point COL proceeding);

• Mark Oncavage (intervenor in Turkey Point COL proceeding);

• Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Inc. (Petitioner in Callaway license renewal proceeding; intervenor in suspended Callaway COL proceeding)

• New England Coalition, Inc. (intervenor in Seabrook license renewal proceeding);

• North Carolina Waste Reduction and Awareness Network, Inc. (admitted as an Intervenor in now-closed Shearon Harris COL proceeding);

• Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Inc. (intervenor in Calvert Cliffs COL proceeding and Levy COL proceeding);

• Public Citizen, Inc. (intervenor in South Texas COL proceeding; admitted as intervenor in now-closed Comanche Peak COL proceeding; potential intervenor in South Texas license renewal proceeding);

• San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Inc. (intervenor in Diablo Canyon license renewal proceeding);

• Sierra Club, Inc. (Michigan Chapter) (intervenor in Fermi COL proceeding);

• Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Inc. (intervenor in Watts Bar Unit 2 OL proceeding, Turkey Point COL proceeding, Bellefonte COL proceeding; former intervenor in Bellefonte CP proceeding);

• Southern Maryland CARES, Inc. (Citizens Alliance for Renewable Energy Solutions) (intervenor in Calvert Cliffs COL proceeding);

• Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (“SEED”) Coalition, Inc. (intervenor in South Texas COL proceeding; admitted as intervenor in now-closed Comanche Peak COL proceeding; potential intervenor in South Texas license renewal proceeding).

The NRC has set a precedent for suspending its final licensing decisions while it reviews spent fuel storage and disposal impacts. In the re-licensing case for the Indian Point reactors near Manhattan, the NRC promised in 2010 that it would not re-license the reactors until it completed its pending waste confidence rulemaking. Now that the Court has vacated the Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC must continue to refrain from final re-licensing decisions until it finishes an expanded environmental analysis.
On June 8th, the Court threw out the NRC rule that permitted licensing and re-licensing of nuclear reactors based on the supposition that (a) the NRC will find a way to dispose of spent reactor fuel to be generated by reactors at some time in the future when it becomes “necessary” and (b) in the mean time, spent fuel can be stored safely at reactor sites.

The Court noted that, after decades of failure to site a repository, including twenty years of working on the now-abandoned Yucca Mountain repository, the NRC “has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository.” Therefore it is possible that spent fuel will be stored at reactor sites “on a permanent basis.” Under the circumstances, the NRC must examine the environmental consequences of failing to establish a repository when one is needed.

The Court also rejected NRC’s decision minimizing the risks of leaks or fires in spent fuel stored in reactor pools during future storage, because the NRC had not demonstrated that these future impacts would be insignificant. The Court found that past experience with pool leaks was not an adequate predictor of future experience. It also concluded that the NRC had not shown that catastrophic pool fires were so unlikely that their risks could be ignored.

SOURCE Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League

May 2, 2013

By Editors
Real Clear Energy

Is coal dead? Well maybe not entirely. Coal’s share of the electric grid has declined to 43 percent but companies are finding they can sell their surpluses abroad. Europe is moving back to coal after being stretched to the limit by Gazprom on natural gas prices. Illinois reports a record year for exports and Oklahoma is talking about a coal comeback. The railroads are gaining on new shipments. But Patriot Coal, one of the largest domestic producers, is caught in a vice with its unions and facing bankruptcy.

Nuclear continues to thrive abroad and wither at home. Mitsubishi and Areva have won a joint bid to develop a reactor in Turkey. Russia has announced it will invest $31 billion in developing its nuclear technology. But Southern California Electric says it may close its huge San Onofre Reactor if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t allow it to reopen soon. And in Texas, the NRC has killed the South Texas project on the basis of – get this – the two reactors were going to be built by a foreign company, Toshiba. Do they think there are any American companies left in the nuclear construction business?

Colorado will up its renewable requirement from 10 percent to 20 percent under a law now awaiting Governor John Hickenlooper’s signature. He’ll sign. But in Connecticut the state senate has undercut environmentalists’ push for more renewables by allowing Canadian hydropower to count under that category. The enviros wanted the mandate to be satisfied only by solar and wind.

Finally, Stuart Barns suggests on OilPrice that maybe the current energy boom is going to lead to a revival in manufacturing. There have been a lot of conflicting claims on this lately. In National Interest, Amy Harder notes that we have lots more oil and gas than we thought and the Texas Tribune says there’s lots more shale out there to be discovered And on Atomic Insights, And on Atomic Insights, NuScale CEO Paul Lorenzini tackles a ridiculous study that claims nuclear reactors kill more birds than windmills. He makes a good case for scientific fraud.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

By Nolan Hicks, Staff Writer
San Antonio Express-News

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission found this week that a foreign company is too heavily involved in plans to build two nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project installation.

Under federal law, companies that are owned, controlled or "dominated" by a foreign individual, company or country are barred from holding licenses to operate nuclear reactors. The regulator notified the groups involved of its finding in a letter that it sent Monday afternoon.

"We think it’s encouraging that the NRC is recognizing that this is the law and it needs to remain in effect," said Karen Hadden, executive director of the SEED Coalition, which has opposed the STP expansion from the beginning.

The matter will now go to a panel of three administrative judges in Washington, D.C., which previously dismissed a series of environmental challenges to the project, said Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the NRC.

"It’s part of the process that we need to proceed on to… to finally get the issue resolved," said Mark McBurnett, chief executive of Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, a joint-venture between NRG Energy and Toshiba Corporation, which has been leading the effort to acquire the licenses from the NRC to build the two reactors.

The project at STP, located in Matagorda County, has been fraught with delays and complications since it first applied for the nuclear licenses in 2007.

City-owned CPS Energy was one of the initial partners in the expansion project, which would have brought the number of reactors at STP to four. However, the utility ended its involvement after its senior management failed to disclose that unofficial estimates that showed the cost of the new reactors had risen dramatically, resulting in a political firestorm.

CPS, however, maintains a 7.625 percent stake in the expansion project.

The effort to add those two reactors at STP took another blow when NRG Energy, which owns 90 percent of NINA, announced that it was withdrawing direct support of the project in 2011, following the nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. It had hoped that the operator of the Fukashima plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company, would be a major investor in the expansion.

The remaining 10 percent of NINA is owned by Toshiba Corporation, a Japanese engineering and electronics conglomerate, which was left to foot the bill for pursuing the licenses from federal regulators after NRG ended its support.

This report includes material from the Express-News archives.

Twitter: @ndhapple

Foreign Ownership Could Halt Licensing of South Texas Project Nuclear Reactors;
NRC Says NINA Doesn’t Meet Their Requirements

May 1, 2013

Contact:
Karen Hadden, Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, 512-797-8481
Susan Dancer, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy, 361-588-2143

Download this release in pdf format for printing.

Contacts: Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition, 512-797-8481
Brett Jarmer and Robert V. Eye, Attorneys, 785-234-4040

Austin, Texas On Tuesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told judges overseeing the licensing case for two proposed South Texas Project reactors that the applicant (NINA) is subject to foreign ownership control or domination requirements and does not meet the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act in this regard. This will help licensing opponents in the hearing that is anticipated this fall.

"This NRC notice is great for us as opponents of two proposed reactors at the South Texas Project," said Karen Hadden, executive director of SEED Coalition, a group that has intervened in the licensing process, along with the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy and Public Citizen. "We hope that we’ll soon see clean, safe energy developed in Texas instead of dangerous nuclear power. We must prevent Fukushima style disasters from happening here."

"Federal law is clear that foreign controlled corporations are not eligible to apply for a license to build and operate nuclear power plants. The evidence is that Toshiba is in control of the project and this precludes obtaining an NRC license for South Texas Project 3 & 4," said Brett Jarmer, an attorney also representing the intervenors.

"Foreign investment in U.S nuclear projects is not per se prohibited; but Toshiba is paying all the bills for the STP 3 & 4 project. This makes it difficult to accept that Toshiba doesn’t control the project," said Robert Eye.

Toshiba North America Engineering, or TANE, will assume exclusive, principal funding authority for the project, but they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Toshiba America, Inc, a Japanese corporation. Opponents contend that this makes them ineligible for licensing.

"National security and safety concerns justify NRC’s limits on foreign ownership and control of nuclear reactors," said Karen Hadden, Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. "What if a foreign company was careless in running a U.S. reactor? International allegiances are known to shift. Our own reactors could become a weapon to be turned against us in the future and be used to threaten civilians in a war against the U.S. The NRC is right to protect against this possibility."

"Even if the reactors are operated by the South Texas Nuclear Operating Company, they will get their orders from foreign owners. What if their concerns are more about cost-cutting and less about safety?" asked Susan Dancer, President of the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy. "Japanese investors would have us believe that they can come to America and safely build, own and operate nuclear plants, and that we should not concern ourselves with passé laws and regulations, but the recent Fukushima disaster has demonstrated the flawed Japanese model of nuclear safety and the lack of protection afforded the Japanese people. In such an inherently dangerous industry, the American people deserve protection through federal law, including that our nuclear reactors are controlled by the people most concerned about our country: fellow Americans."

"Foreign Ownership, Control or Domination policy is spelled out in the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office. "In Section 103d it says that no license may be issued to an alien or any corporation or other entity if the Commission knows or has reason to believe it is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government."

The NRC interprets this to mean that these entities are not eligible to apply for and obtain a license. According to Commission guidance, an entity is under foreign ownership, control, or domination "whenever a foreign interest has the ‘power,’ direct or indirect, whether or not exercised, to direct or decide matters affecting the management or operations of the applicant." There is no set percentage point cut-off point used to determine foreign ownership. The factors that are considered include:

• The extent of foreign ownership
• Whether the foreign entity operates the reactors
• Whether there are interlocking directors and officers
• Whether there is access to restricted data
• Details of ownership of the foreign parent company.

For further information please visit www.NukeFreeTexas.org

Related Material:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issuance determination letter in the South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4
4/30/13

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Bay News 9

In response to Duke Energy’s announcement to close the Crystal River nuclear plant, State Rep. Mike Fasano is calling for a billion-dollar refund to customers.

ST. PETERSBURG — In response to Duke Energy’s announcement to close the Crystal River nuclear plant, State Rep. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, is calling for a $1 billion refund to customers.

Fasano is calling for Duke Energy/Progress Energy Florida to refund all the money that has been collected from its customers in the name of a repair project that is now being abandoned.

The lawmaker says the plant has been plagued with problems and with the closure customers will not see any return on their forced investment. Fasano represents the state’s 36th district, which includes parts of Citrus, Hernando, Pasco and Pinellas counties.

"This utility has collected over $1.3 billion dollars from its customers for the repair of its broken power plant that apparently will now never be fixed," Fasano said. "The poor choices made by Duke/ Progress Energy’s present and former executives leave customers with nothing to show for the huge bills they have been forced to pay."

Repairing and improving the plant would have cost $3.4 billion and taken years. The 36-year-old plant has not produced power since 2009.

"All told, customer’s bank accounts are emptier, and their wallets are lighter, while the utility will pocket huge sums of money that doubtfully will ever be returned to the people who paid it," Fasano said. "The lack of transparency during this ordeal, the promises not kept and the false hopes all are dashed with today’s announcement."

More Reaction

Rep. Richard Nugent (R), Florida District 11

"For the six hundred families who are directly affected by Duke Energy’s decision, this is going to be a devastating blow. But the economic impact of the decision goes far beyond just the workers employed at the plant. The plant has been a key economic engine in this community for thirty years and all of Citrus County will be affected in a very real way.
"Community leaders all over the county have been pushing Progress and then Duke Energy to repair the plant for years now, including myself. I know all parties involved have worked as hard as possible to find a solution for Citrus County and the focus will now shift to making sure that Citrus will be home to future investments by the company. In particular, the natural gas-fueled plant being considered by Duke would be a tremendous asset for the state and for the community for years to come and I plan on working with both the leaders in this community and Duke Energy in the coming months to find a viable way forward. It’s energy and it’s jobs and Central Florida desperately needs both. I know we’re all going to do everything we can.

"The employees affected by this closure are extremely capable engineers and operators and they are truly an asset to this community and to the industry. I am extremely hopeful that as the Crystal River facility is taken offline and as the Levy facility is brought online, that these employees will continue to find a home with Duke Energy. It’s a mighty tough day for Citrus County, but I know we’re all going to turn our eyes now to the future to see what is possible."

Joe Meek, Citrus County Commission Chairman

"While we are disappointed in the decision to retire the Crystal River Nuclear Plant (CR3), Citrus County is committed to continuing to work with Progress Energy/Duke as we move forward. We are dedicated to having a solid relationship with Progress Energy/Duke and are committed to working through these difficult issues with them. Progress Energy/Duke will continue to be a vital part of our community both with their employees and with their investment in our county.

As the Chairman of the County Commission and President of our Economic Development Council, we have been working closely with Progress Energy/Duke on multiple economic development initiatives in our community. We will continue to work with them, as Duke explores their options for finding alternatives to replace power generating capacity, and potentially build a natural gas-fuel plant in Citrus County. We have had discussions with Progress Energy/Duke executives, and will continue to work closely with them on this important issue.
The decision today removes uncertainty about the future of CR3 for Citrus County, and further highlights the importance for us to work to diversify our local economy. The decision also highlights the drastic budget issues we are facing as a community. The County Commission has been preparing for this decision, and has made balancing the budget and diversifying our local economy the top priority.

While this decision will have a major impact on our community, it will provide an opportunity to redefine our priorities. We are a wonderful community, with a bright future. As a local government, we are dedicated and determined to work with our citizens, businesses, and community to make sure we do everything we can to ensure we are a successful and thriving County."