«  
  »

U.S. denies reactor license — Only 2nd time in history

Published: August 30th, 2012 at 10:20 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
25 comments


Title: Calvert Cliffs-3 Reactor License Denied; NRC Licensing Board Rules In Favor Of Intervenors, Says Atomic Energy Act
Source: PR Newswire
Author: Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Date: Aug 30, 2012
Emphasis Added

A three judge Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) today denied a license for the proposed Calvert Cliffs-3 nuclear reactor on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.

In a 29-page decision, the ASLB agreed with intervenors that the Calvert Cliffs-3 project would be in violation of the Atomic Energy Act’s prohibition against foreign ownership, control or domination, and that the project’s owner, UniStar Nuclear, is eligible neither to receive a license nor to even apply for a license. UniStar is 100% owned by the French government’s Electricite de France.

[...]

This is only the second time in history a reactor license has been denied by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The first was the license application for the Byron reactor in Illinois in 1984, which was briefly denied because of quality assurance problems at the site. But that decision was quickly overturned on appeal as the utility already had initiated a program to correct the problems.

In this case, the ASLB is giving UniStar 60 more days to find a U.S. partner that might enable it to meet the foreign ownership restrictions before the ASLB declares the proceeding concluded. The decision noted that UniStar already has had nearly two years since it became solely owned by EDF to find a partner, and has not shown any progress toward that. UniStar can appeal this decision to the NRC Commissioners.

“This is a great day for Maryland,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which first filed the contention on foreign ownership in November 2008 and has been the pro se intervenor on the issue ever since. “Marylanders need not fear another dangerous nuclear reactor in our state, nor the accumulation of still more lethal radioactive waste on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay.”

Mariotte added, “But this is also a blow to the so-called ‘nuclear renaissance.’ In the summer of 2007, Calvert Cliffs-3 became the first new reactor project to submit even a partial application in about 30 years. It was the flagship of the nuclear renaissance and now it is a symbol of the deservedly failed revival of nuclear power in the U.S. That UniStar has been unable to find a single U.S. utility to partner with it in this extraordinarily expensive project speaks volumes about the lack of genuine interest in new nuclear reactors in the U.S.”

[...]

A copy of the decision is here: http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/contention1decision.pdf

A copy of the decision on the solar and wind contention (Contention 10C) is here: http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/10cruling.pdf

A copy of the decision on the Fukushima Task Force contention (Contention 11) is here: http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/cont11ruling.pdf

On July 26, 2012, NIRS held a press briefing to discuss the upcoming ASLB decision and its implications for Calvert Cliffs and the nuclear industry generally. That briefing can be heard here: http://www.hastingsgroupmedia.com/NIRS/072612CalvertCliffsDecisionImplicationstelenewsevent.mp3

Statement of Michael Mariotte, executive director of NIRS, at the July 22, 2012 briefing is here: http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/CC3briefingstatement72612.pdf.

A timeline of the Calvert Cliffs case is here: http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/cc3timeline.pdf

h/t Anonymous tip

Title: NRC says French company can’t build Md. reactor
Source: Associated Press
Author: BRIAN WITTE
Date: August 30, 2012 at 8:45 pm

A panel of judges says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can’t issue a license to a French company to build a new nuclear power plant in Maryland as long as it is completely foreign-owned.

[...]

The judges say UniStar has 60 days to provide proof of progress toward a partnership with a U.S. company that meets the NRC’s requirements.

Title: Reprieve for Proposed Third Maryland Reactor Just Delays the Inevitable French Nuclear Demise Almost Complete in the US
Source: Beyond Nuclear
Date: August 30, 2012
Emphasis Added

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) today gave a 60 day reprieve to embattled French governmental electric utility, Électricité de France (EDF), which remains in violation of the Atomic Energy Act while attempting to obtain a license for a third nuclear reactor at the Calvert Cliffs, MD site. But Beyond Nuclear, which has opposed the third reactor and supports a nuclear phase out, views the decision as simply a delay in the inevitable cancellation of all French reactor plans on US soil.

In a decision released late Thursday, the NRC found applicants Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project and Unistar “ineligible to obtain a license because they are owned by a United States (U.S.) corporation that is 100 percent owned by a foreign corporation.” However, the agency gave the applicants another 60 days to come up with the hitherto elusive US partner. If they fail to do so, “this proceeding will be closed,” the NRC order stated.

Calvert Cliffs 3 was intended to be an Areva design known in the US as the Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR). Areva is an energy corporation 90% owned by the French government. The application for the new reactor project was filed by UniStar, a corporate merger between EDF and its US domestic partner, Baltimore, MD-based Constellation Energy. But when Constellation withdrew from the project in 2010, citing the overriding financial risks of new reactor construction, EDF, a foreign corporation, was left as sole controlling owner, a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

“The NRC’s decision is just postponing the inevitable,” said Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear, one of the interveners opposing the Calvert Cliffs EPR application. “When Constellation ran for the exits two years ago, the writing was already on the wall,” Gunter continued. “It’s clear that nuclear energy development has become an economic black hole that smart CEOs are avoiding like the plague,” he said.

The EPR in Europe is an on-going financial and technical disaster. The two EPR projects under construction in Finland and France have both run into constant and lengthy delays, managerial problems, legal challenges, technical flaws and enormous cost over-runs. The Finnish EPR at Olkiluoto, abandoned by original partner Siemens, is now five years behind schedule and 120% over-budget.

The EPR underway in Flamanville, France is four years behind the completion schedule with soaring cost over-runs that exceed $7.5 billion. Three government safety regulators – from Finland, France and the UK – have raised safety concerns about Areva’s EPR design.

Areva had originally planned for seven EPR reactors at six US sites, in Idaho, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas. But Calvert Cliffs was considered the “reference reactor” by the NRC. Its ultimate cancelation would effectively nullify the others.

“It’s just a matter of time – 60 days in fact – before we see the phantom promise of the so-called ‘new generation’ French reactor evaporate here in the US,” said Gunter of Beyond Nuclear. “In fact, industry-wide, nuclear power is proving too expensive and too risky with multi-year delays, fleeing corporate partners and ballooning costs the norm.”

[...]

For details on the shutdowns, cancelations, and cost-over-runs of nuclear projects in the US and worldwide, see the Beyond Nuclear Retreat web page at http://www.beyondnuclear.org/the-nuclear-retreat/ and World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012, by Mycle Schneider and Antony Froggatt at http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/calvert-cliffs-cola/calv3_cola_order_contention1_08302012.pdf.

Published: August 30th, 2012 at 10:20 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
25 comments

Related Posts

  1. *NRC approves new US reactors* NRC Chairman says no: “I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima had never happened” — Had been a supporter of project February 9, 2012
  2. Spillway gates at Big Bend Dam now closed to inspect how water has affected the structure: “We expect repairs when this is done” — June was first time in dam’s history that gates had been opened during a flood July 1, 2011
  3. SoCal reactors trip offline — Most extensive power outage in state history — Massive explosion heard near substation — First time entire system has been lost — 5 million affected September 9, 2011
  4. U.S. Freezes All Nuclear Reactor Construction & Operating Licenses August 7, 2012
  5. Pennsylvania nuclear reactor unexpectedly shuts down for 3rd time in 1 week June 5, 2011
August 30th, 2012 | Category: Calvert Cliffs (MD), US
«  
  »

25 comments to U.S. denies reactor license — Only 2nd time in history

  • Coincidence Theorist
    August 31, 2012 at 12:42 am

    Foreign nuclear operator companies on U.S. soil in Maryland?? YIKES!!


    Report Comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture
    August 31, 2012 at 12:54 am

    Nuclear reactor in Maryland, or anywhere, is insanity. You risk loosing your state, or country, depending.


    Report Comment

  • aigeezer aigeezer
    August 31, 2012 at 7:52 am

    Interesting that the stated reason for denying the license is xenophobia rather than, say, acknowledgement that the technology is disastrously risky.

    Politics at work, not physics. We ignore the physics at our peril.


    Report Comment

    • JustmeAlso
      August 31, 2012 at 9:47 am

      The xenophobia is nowhere to be found when American companies can build nuke plants in other countries..


      Report Comment

    • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK
      August 31, 2012 at 9:59 am

      @aigeezer: it has nothing to do with xenophobia. Paul Gunter's (of Beyond Nuclear) statement "…“It’s clear that nuclear energy development has become an economic black hole that smart CEOs are avoiding like the plague,”" reveals the real cause for behind NRC reticence. They can't get anyone (of means) to buy into further investment in nuclear power. No informed person or organization is buying (any longer) into nuclear power. Next to figuring out how they're going to fob-off the cost of remediation onto the public, the biggest problem is going to be in how they'll move the ownership of these plants off-into the portfolios of unwitting shareholders. Like everything else these days, it's all about passing losses onto the passive recipients (taxpayers and dull-witted investors). Those at the top have rigged the system to ensure only gains for themselves and losses for the rest of us…


      Report Comment

      • aigeezer aigeezer
        August 31, 2012 at 10:10 am

        AFTERSHOCK, I was commenting on the stated (xenophobic) reason: "the Calvert Cliffs-3 project would be in violation of the Atomic Energy Act’s prohibition against foreign ownership, control or domination".

        I agree with your remarks about other underlying reasons – they were not cited in the excerpt from the judges' ruling.


        Report Comment

        • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK
          August 31, 2012 at 11:20 am

          @aigeezer: original rational for these restrictions go back to cold-war days and national security. As things are now, our worst enemies are able to come in and buy-up whole tracts of land and facilities for use as 'economic zones'. Xenophobia no longer registers on the meter…


          Report Comment

        • VicFromOregon VicFromOregon
          August 31, 2012 at 2:43 pm

          Yes, aigeezer, the reason given wasn't the danger of nuclear energy, but, rather the worry of "foreigners". In many quarters of America, that always spells danger with a capital T. But, my guess is that the ruling from the court is more along the lines of trade, business practices and monetary concerns. The US and all other trade partners restrict the percentage of ownership in business based upon origin. The idea is to limit the influence of other nations on one's domestic economy. i.e., keep a little control. With globalization, this case is just one example of the legal challenges being put forth by multinational corporations to go into other countries and set up shop without having to forfeit too much control. But, your point is well taken. That an approval process from the NRC even exists begs the question that nuclear power generation is safe in the first place. Sadly, this wasn't the reason for concern.


          Report Comment

    • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic
      August 31, 2012 at 1:00 pm

      I'm with you Aigeezer.. why can't we get a press release that says something like…

      Due to the overwhelming danger to the Human species, and all other organisms living on the planet Earth, we will no longer license nuclear power plants.

      These nuclear power plants will kill, or genetically injure, every single living cell on the planet..and due to our desire to survive as a species, we will also start decommissioning these plants immediately.

      All proceeds earned from generation of electricity via nuclear power plants, are to be held in trust, via immanent domain, for the good of all US citizens, and will only be utilized for decommissioning expenses.

      No further profits will be allowed via nuclear power generation.

      A moratorium on selling shares of corporations that are engaged in nuclear power is effective immediately. All board members and share holders of companies will be held accountable for failure to comply with stringent safety measures and failure to comply will be considered treasonous and punished to the fullest extent the law allows, no exceptions.


      Report Comment

      • WindorSolarPlease
        August 31, 2012 at 2:20 pm

        Hi Cataclysmic

        I don't think we will ever hear that, even though it would be nice.

        We don't even hear the official Fukushima data or information in media about the dangers of the sink hole in Louisiana especially with Hurricane Isaac.

        I was surprised I saw on TV from the President in saying, to take that storm serious and evacuate. Wish he could have elaborated on the dangers of the sinkhole, and also talked how Fukushima is effecting us.

        If the President or anyone who is running for office won't/can't talk about those issues, then who will/can?

        ~END NUCLEAR POWER ~ END NUCLEAR WEAPONS~


        Report Comment

        • VicFromOregon VicFromOregon
          August 31, 2012 at 2:59 pm

          Yes, Obama, and the other guy running for the job, are both pro nuke. Always have been. Obama especially supports the emerging thorium reactor concept, but is still examining the fast breeder reactor as part of the mix for a US energy future. This link takes you to an open letter by a pro-nuke fellow who is outlining the underlying debate occurring within the pro-nuke community. A little chicanery is going on, apparently. It's an interesting read and also helps us understand their commitment to this technology, still seeing it as limitless energy for an evolving species. Understanding this argument helps us to know how to discuss nuclear issues with the public rather than with the choir.

          http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/07/july-4th-letter-to-president-obama.html


          Report Comment

          • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic
            August 31, 2012 at 3:17 pm

            Hi Vic!.. LOL.."evolving species" is correct.. but, what shall we evolve or devolve into? ..and will we even need electricity? will we have opposable thumbs anymore? is that why they are trying for "limitless"? cause we will be so genetically malformed? ..or do they mean more like the coriums under Fukushima limitless? lol! oh boy..


            Report Comment

        • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic
          August 31, 2012 at 3:08 pm

          Hi WSP :) Yes, you are right. Sadly, I clearly see that the majority of public officials are Corporate sellouts, that Corporations are the only "ones" with representation, and with their expensive representation, they have managed to do away with their taxation… this leaves the rest of us in the situation of taxation without representation.. odd how the expense of "political contribution" is more than the taxation they are seeking to avoid, which belies the point that the corporation is more sinister than that. It is not that they want to avoid expense, obviously, it is just that they want favors, and influence for their "political contribution" which they get, and they get their tax break, after all the money they spent to get the schmuck elected, they need to save a few bucks somewhere, so now they ask a favor of their schmuck in chief, and presto.. tax break, deregulation etc.. The average citizen can not afford a lobbying group, nor media campaigns that would not even be aired as the station is owned by the corporations we would like regulated or abolished. The Planet is in the same dire situation, no representation, no way to get any. Democrats + Republicans = duopoly partners in crime and influence with no regard for their fellow citizen or planet… right to life my ass.. ;)


          Report Comment

    • dharmasyd
      August 31, 2012 at 11:50 pm

      aigeez… Several more +++s


      Report Comment

  • Atomfritz Atomfritz
    August 31, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    Americans like to deploy their nuclear bombs in foreign countries, but don't want foreign countries' nuclear bombs in America.


    Report Comment

  • Mark
    August 31, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Whats news worthy here is no one in America wants to invest. Nuclear is dead in the water. Just we are going to have to clean up the mess

    And our children…..


    Report Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

«  
  »