What Does the NRC’s Order on Waste Confidence Mean for New Plant Licensing?

Dry cask storage

It is not every day that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission advises everyone to “take a deep breath,” but when it comes to people misconstruing the facts about new plant licensing activities following a recent order, that is exactly what happened.

In a nutshell—last week, the NRC issued an order saying that it would not issue final reactor licenses or license renewals until the agency addresses a recent federal court ruling on waste confidence. Many people and some news articles mistakenly reported that this means all current licensing reviews and proceedings will come to a screeching halt, which is simply not the case. The order basically means that licensing reviews will move forward, but that final licensing will be put on hold.

The NRC clarified its position in a blog post late last week:

Let’s be clear: Tuesday’s Order was not a “Full Stop” to NRC’s licensing process. The Commission stated that licensing reviews should move forward—only final licensing was put on hold.

NEI’s Vice President and General Counsel Ellen Ginsberg weighed in:

The commission’s order is helpful in that license applicants can continue to pursue their licenses. Although there may be some delay in issuing some renewed licenses, NRC regulations provide that plant operation can continue beyond the original license term and until there is a decision on the renewal application, so long as it has been filed in a timely manner.

A level-headed article in Forbes’ over the weekend provides further background on the NRC’s order and how it relates to new plant licensing activities (bolded text added by me for emphasis):

There has been some fist-bumping this week in the anti-nuclear sector over the recent vacating of two NRC rules by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in June; the waste-confidence decision and the storage rule. The judges felt that the agency had failed to conduct an environmental impact statement, or a finding of no significant environmental impact, before ruling that it is safe to store nuclear waste in wet pools and dry casks without a permanent solution in sight. But it was just that the initial NRC rule was too vague, not that this type of storage is unsafe (platts NRC Ruling).

In response, the NRC this week voted unanimously to delay final approval of licenses for new nuclear plants, or renewing the licenses of existing facilities, until the agency responds with a more complete ruling and addresses the dilemma of long-term nuclear waste storage across the country.

The 24 environmental groups that petitioned NRC to respond to the court are acting like they actually stopped all action on nuclear licensing (Marketwatch NRC Ruling). While no final decisions will be made in issuing licenses, the process for licensing new and existing plants will continue as before, the NRC said, which means the impact to the industry will be minimal.

Also, reactors can operate even after their present license expires as long as it is the NRC that is dragging it out. And most reactors have already been relicensed in the last ten years.  Only 18 out of 104 reactors are not and primarily because they have to operate beyond 20 years before they can apply. The four new GenIII plants being built at Vogtle (Georgia) and V.C. Summer (South Carolina) are also not affected at all since their licenses have already been issued.

The NRC’s blog post continues:

Essentially, the Order represents a regulatory agency taking a deep breath while trying to decide the best way to satisfy the Court.

So, let’s all follow the NRC’s advice: inhale, exhale.

Read More

How the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant Weathered the 2011 East Coast Earthquake

Dominion Virginia's North Anna Power Station

We're coming up on the first anniversary of the 2011 earthquake that jolted the East Coast of the U.S. While the quake did little damage -- other than fraying the nerves of millions who never experienced even a tremor that small all of their lives -- plenty of folks were moved to ask questions about the safety of nuclear energy facilities, especially as the quake came just months after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi.

As it turned out, virtually all of the plants on the East Coast endured the event without missing a beat. The only exception was Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna Power Station. North Anna was the nuclear facility closest to the epicenter of the quake in Mineral, Virginia.

When the quake struck, the facility shut down safely and automatically, just as it was designed to do. Just ahead of the anniversary of the quake, the team at Dominion Virginia has published a video recounting how its team responded to the earthquake, inspected it to ensure that it could be re-started safely and got the plant back into service: 



As you might recall, 2011 was quite a year for America's nuclear energy facilities, as plants across the country successfully endured a series of extreme weather events, something we chronicled in the following interactive graphic:

Read More

A Nuclear Namibia Nearer Than Naught?

If you’ve read enough of our posts here, you know we like to keep up with what’s happening around the world – who’s interested in nuclear energy, who’s building facilities, and who’s making a big mistake – the aspirational, the inspirational and the laughable. But even when you pay close attention, a surprise will come along now and then:

The Minister of Mines and Energy (MME), Isak Katali, says the inadequate supply of power in Southern Africa leaves the door open for the possibility of a nuclear power station in Namibia.

Namibia? Really? It could use the development – half of its 2.1 million people live in poverty – and the country has enough uranium deposits to ensure energy security. It also has a stable government, no small thing.

Namibia currently imports about 50 percent of its electricity and is suffering shortages despite this (the story doesn’t really explain why).

Namibia will face a shortage of about 80 megawatts (MW) of electricity by this coming winter.

…

[Minister of Mines and Energy Isak] Katali said the deficit will continue to increase every year, with a shortage of 300 MW forecast for 2015.

As a net importer of over 50 per cent of its electricity demand, Namibia will always be directly affected by the regional power supply situation, which has been critical since 2008.

Katali gave his assurance that his ministry has been hard at work with power utility NamPower and the Electricity Control Board to speed up the completion of planned energy generation projects.

Namibia's main source of power generation, the Ruacana hydropower station, will be boosted with the installation of a fourth generator unit, and when commissioned in March, an additional 92 MW will be added to the current installed capacity of 249 MW at the power station.

And now nuclear – this story is from February, before the more recent addition of nuclear energy to the conversation. How seriously should this be taken? Well, let’s say it’s in the early talking stage right now.

"I am not saying we will have a nuclear plant, all I am saying is that government through our ministry and the electricity supply industry are looking at all power sources, among them, wind energy, hydro and coal-fired stations, a solar thermal collector and the possibility of a nuclear power station in the future," he [Katali] said.

Especially in terms of carbon emissions, Namibia has been exceptionally responsible in its energy profile, favoring hydroelectric and thermal power. Nuclear energy could actually make a good fit. Or would it?

With the country scrambling for new energy sources, including coal-fired power stations, biomass and wind power, nuclear aspirations are seen as contrary to government's advocacy for green energy.

Oh, really? Loads of electricity and no emissions? It solves almost all of Namibia’s energy issues in one swoop – no need to import electricity, a consistent source of generation and an engine for further modernization. (I can’t help but think that small reactor vendors would find a welcome home here, too, able to keep costs down if that’s an issue.)

We’ll keep an eye on it – who knows, it could prove a model for Africa.

---

One of the reasons Katali is thinking of nuclear energy right now may be this:

A new commission to coordinate and promote the development of nuclear energy in Africa is set to become fully operational after key founding documents were finalized and adopted. South Africa has agreed to host the commission in Pretoria.

I imagine the IAEA is involved in this effort, though it isn’t mentioned in the story. But the goals of the new organization show that it is serious in intent and somewhat modest in affect at this early juncture:

Afcone chairman Abdul Samad Minty of South Africa said that the commission "could play a useful role to facilitate the implementation by African states of the relevant legally binding instruments and codes of conduct on nuclear safety and security, and have in place their respective nuclear safety and security infrastructures." He noted, "A key aspect of our work is to promote nuclear sciences and applications."

Namibia isn’t listed among the originating members. They are: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritius, Senegal, South Africa, Togo and Tunisia. It’s a start.

Windhoek, the capital of Namibia. From a blog about the city’s night life (!): “For many of us born in the land between the Kalahari and Namib deserts it is the only big city we will ever know and for many others it will be the smallest they’ll ever know. To some it is an African city with European hopes, for others a European city whose sunshine and blue skies are the only betrayals of its unabashed Europeaness but for us of this land, Windhoek is our eternal city. The dwelling place of our gods and the sacred resting place of our ancestors.” And the bar scene? Read the site for that.

Read More

Japan: Onagawa Good - Emissions Very Bad - Nuclear Energy?

Japan's Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant

The nuclear facility that was nearest the epicenter of the 2011 earthquake in Japan was not Fukushima Daiichi but Onagawa. How did it do?

An IAEA team of international experts on Friday delivered its initial report at the end of a two-week mission to gather information about the effects of the Great East Japan Earthquake on the Onagawa Nuclear Power Station (NPS), saying the plant was "remarkably undamaged".

A little more:

Onagawa, facing the Pacific Ocean on Japan's north-east coast, was the nuclear power plant closest to the epicenter of the March 11 magnitude 9.0 earthquake that struck Japan and resulted in a devastating tsunami.
The plant experienced very high levels of ground shaking - among the strongest of any plant affected by the earthquake - and some flooding from the tsunami that followed, but was able to shut down safely.

The story doesn’t mention this, but Onagawa also acted as safe harbor for the people of the town, with over 200 taking shelter inside the plant. More on that here.

Within the nuclear plant, facilities are pristine, electricity flows directly from Japan's national grid, and evacuees can use its dedicated phone network to make calls.
"The general public isn't normally allowed inside, but in this case we felt it was the right thing to do," company spokesman Yoshitake Kanda said.

Just so.
---
There were a fair number of stories over the last few days about the Japanese government pledging to use less nuclear energy at a annual remembrance ceremony at Nagasaki. That didn’t seem right – even though Japan may well end up using less nuclear energy – because using the ceremony to announce it just seemed crass.
This report seems closer to right:

In his address, [Prime Minister Yoshihiko] Noda said "we aim to establish an energy structure in the mid- to long term in a form that will reassure the people of Japan, under a basic policy of reducing our dependence on nuclear power," without elaborating.

This is much gentler, although Noda still walked it back a bit later. Nuclear energy really isn’t the issue here.

"The international community must act now by taking the first concrete steps toward concluding the Nuclear Weapons Convention," Mayor Tomihisa Taue said during the city's annual peace ceremony at Nagasaki Peace Park.

That’s the issue.
---
Japan without (much) nuclear energy:

Japan, with only two working nuclear power plants, has discharged a record high amount of carbon dioxide in the year ended March 31 as it relied on crude and fuel oil to support its energy requirements.
According to Bloomberg calculations based on data provided by Japan's 10 power utilities, the companies released a whopping 439 million tons of CO2 for the year, a 17 per cent jump from 374 million tons a year ago.

Oil and crude? I wonder how the air quality is doing.

"Objectively speaking, there is no doubt that it is more difficult to achieve the 25 per cent reduction goal than before," Naomi Hirose, president of Tepco, said in June.

Objectively speaking.
Onagawa.

Read More

For Great Britain, New Nuclear is a Gold Medal Strategy to Reduce Carbon Emissions

U.K. Nuclear Stations

Our Olympics-hosting friends in Great Britain appear poised to react to climate change in a manner far different from the Germans, who have designs on abandoning nuclear energy. Britain Gives Nuclear a 2nd Chance, the New York Times informed this week, and in it we learn that the British government "is courting the nuclear industry." Why? "It wants low-carbon power to aid its goal, enshrined in law, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050."

Those numbers caught my attention. They sounded eerily familiar to me, and for good reason. I work a lot with communicators at California's two nuclear energy facilities, San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. In 2006, then Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Under that law California must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 -- about 30 percent. And the state must redeuce GHG by 80 percent over 1990 levels by 2050. Most ambitious -- and the moreso seeing as how California can't turn to new, carbon-free nuclear to aid its cause: it's got a moratorium on building new nuclear.

Like the U.S., Great Britain today derives nearly 20 percent of its electricity generation from nuclear power. Perhaps it's coincidence that Great Britain and California have identical GHG reduction targets, but how they'll respectively achieve them over the next few decades couldn't be different. EDF Energy, a British subsidiary of Electrice de France, envisions enough new nuclear power at the Hinkley Point site to power 5 million homes, according to the Times.

"The [British] government has identified eight sites, all with existing nuclear facilities, where new ones might go . . .

"I've bet my career on it, so I think that it is pretty high," Nigel Cann, Hinkley Point's manager, said of the probability that the plants will be built."

Siting new coal apparently is as problematic for the British government as it is their American counterpart. No doubt the Brits will broaden their conservation and efficiency strategies, but when it comes to making big gains with cleaner air, this nation of mighty winds appears poised to go with new nuclear as the best option. That we'll have two vastly different air-improvement approaches with new electricity generation, with identical targets and time frames, will make for fascinating energy policy watching in the years ahead.

"Nuclear investment is a high priority for the [British] government," said Charlotte Morgan, a nuclear expert at the law firm Linklaters. "There are few alternatives to deliver the U.K.'s long-term energy needs, its low-carbon commitments and security of supply."

Read More

Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy

We've been talking a lot about Australia in recent weeks (click here and here), where the debate over nuclear energy has been heating up. Long one of the world's top sources of uranium, some folks in Australia are wondering out loud whether or not it might be a good idea to turn to a home-grown energy source to generate electricity.

One of the people helping to drive that debate is Ben Heard of Decarbonise South Australia and Think Climate Consulting. A one-time skeptic, he's now embracing nuclear energy as the only rational way to battle climate change while producing the electricity we need to power advanced societies.

Recently, Heard took part in a television debate sponsored by the Australian Broadcasting Company. As we've written before here at NEI, we're not climate scientists and don't take a position on the validity of research that has concluded that climate change is caused by human activity. However, it's only logical to conclude that you want to reduce the amount of carbon emitted to the atmosphere while still generating enough electricity to power a modern society, nuclear energy has to be part of your energy portfolio.

With that, I'd like to share Heard's opening statement from the ABC debate:



Powerful stuff. Hat tip to Rod Adams for picking up the clip.

Read More

Crocs Live! --- With Help from FPL’s Turkey Point Nuclear Plant

The AP has an interesting story making the rounds about Florida’s Turkey Point nuclear energy facility. At first, I thought to call this post something like Unintended Consequences, because what’s happening there could seem a consequence of the facility being where it is. But really, it’s more than that, because Turkey Point, which is run by FPL, has taken an active hand in enhancing what is happening there. The good work there is active, not passive.

Here’s the story:

There are between 1,500 and 2,000 crocodiles in Florida — 40 years ago there were 300. They are listed as an endangered species by the state, but were downgraded a few years ago to "threatened" on the federal list.

And that’s because of Turkey Point:

Since the croc monitoring program began at the plant in 1978, some 5,000 hatchlings have been captured and marked. [Tukey Point biologist Mario] Aldecoa said that indicates that some female crocodiles are returning year after year to the habitat surrounding Turkey Point to lay their eggs.

And what does the presence of the facility have to do with this? There are two factors. The first is about the plant’s operation:

Its [Turkey Point’s] cooling canals are prime croc habitat and have been credited with helping the crocodiles' recovery in Florida over the last few decades.

And second, there are FPL’s efforts to foster and support the recovery:

Aldecoa is part of a group hired by the state's largest public utility, Florida Power and Light, to monitor the hundreds of crocodiles that roam the swamps surrounding the plant.

Good neighbor policies on the part of business and industry are not new, and many many nuclear energy facilities put a high priority on being good stewards of the land around them and the animals that call the facilities home, but I doubt FPL knew the crocodile expansion would happen until it started happening – so it seems remarkable that it decided to put considerable effort and resources into making sure it continued along a positive path.

Aldecoa and his group search out baby crocs, measure them, affix microchips on them for tracking (many of them end up in adult crocs’ bellies) and help the state keep records on them:

He [Aldecoa] had searched weeks earlier for hatchlings at a spot where he was sure he would find a nest but came up empty. Once he started pounding on the dirt, the grunting from underground began. He dug up 34 crocodiles, "the highlight of the year so far," he said.

The story by Suzette Laboy is very good. By all means, take a read.

---

If you want to know more about the return of the crocodile in Florida, try Crocdocs, a site run by the University of Florida. From the site:

The American crocodile has made a comeback in South Florida in areas where suitable habitat remains and in some areas where habitat modification has made it more attractive to crocodiles. Nesting habitat was inadvertently created through construction activities at the Turkey Point Power Plant site, at Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge and other locations has to some extent compensated for the loss of nesting habitat elsewhere.

Inadvertent – there’s that word again. And of course, they recognize that the croc population increase has its downside:

Although the presence of crocodiles throughout south Florida is good news for this endangered species, it does present challenges for land and water managers. As crocodiles continue to increase in number and occupy new areas, encounters with humans will increase, thus, more complaints. Therefore we need a proactive educational program describing the recovery of this endangered species. This knowledge could be used to prepare people for the arrival of crocodiles into new areas and aid in the continuation of what is currently a successful recovery program.

I think this is a little overstated – remember, 3000 crocodiles in Florida, about 1.3 million alligators.

A company I worked for had a warehouse in Florida that often attracted alligators to its air conditioning vents, something that erecting fences around the vents could not prevent. Once, an alligator strode right through the front door of the warehouse, causing considerable, shall we say, consternation.

Living with creatures that eye you as food and aren’t always shy about letting you know it certainly provides challenges. Consider it a codicil to the proposition that humans have dominion over the fishes, the fowls and the beasts.

---

Now, if I ran Turkey Point, I’d make some hay out of this. This is a genuinely terrific initiative and no amount of cynicism about corporate motivation can make it less so – this is a uncomplicatedly benevolent activity – so why not tout it?

Maybe FPL is classier than I am. It’s actually pretty low key:

About nine-tenths of the Turkey Point property remains in its natural state of mangroves and fresh water wetlands. There are more than 60 known species of birds and animals that inhabit the property. Of these, 17 are endangered.

The endangered American crocodile enjoys a favorable habitat in the plant cooling canal system. We protect the crocodile and conduct research by counting crocodile nests annually to record population changes. More than 3,000 crocodiles have been marked and released, and FPL is committed to continuing protection of the species while encouraging ongoing public education.

…

FPL is also involved in the Florida Everglades Mitigation Bank. We are returning nearly 13,500 acres of wetlands to their natural, historical condition. We preserve this area to best serve Florida citizens and our own company goals because of the site's ecological value.

Turkey Point was recognized with the top industry award for land management and environmental stewardship.

A salute then to Turkey Point and FPL. Good neighbors, good stewards of the land, a friend to crocs and modest about it, too. Oh – it also produces a lot of electricity, I hear.

This work has been covered quite a bit. Check here (complete with slideshow!), here (video) and here for more.

Mario Aldecoa – looking happier than you’d expect a man holding a crocodile would look.

Read More