Nuclear power industry reasserts itself after 3-decade lull

Stoked by new federal subsidies and worries over global warming, the nuclear power industry is beginning to glow brightly once again. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received seven applications for new power plants last year and is expecting a dozen more by the end of December. The applications, combined, will cover a total of 22 reactors since more than one is proposed at some sites, spokesman Scott Burnell said.

“Nobody had started the applications process for 30 years until last year,” Burnell said.

Even in California, where state law bars new plants from being constructed until a permanent repository opens to hold the highly radioactive spent fuel, business is picking up.

Westinghouse Electric Co., a Pittsburgh-based Toshiba Group Co. subsidiary, announced this month that it is opening a San Jose office “to support the growth of its boiling water reactor nuclear power business.”
Some are even beginning to plan ways around the state’s 1976 moratorium, which has effectively capped the number of operating reactors at four – two at San Onofre in San Diego County and two at Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo.

Former labor union leader John Hutson is head of the fledgling Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, which wants to build a 1,600-megawatt power reactor on 80 acres of city land, using effluent from a wastewater treatment plant for cooling.

“This is not Wall Street businessmen,” Hutson said. “These are farmers. They are salt-of-the-earth guys who know how to get things done.”

Hutson said his idea is to avoid the state moratorium by not producing waste. Used fuel would be shipped to France for reprocessing, rather than encased in steel and concrete and stored on site awaiting a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Pie in the sky? Maybe. But 30 years ago when Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island plant nearly melted and leaked radioactive gases, nuclear power looked dead. After a largely clean safety record since then, nuclear power is now being touted alongside wind and solar energy as a solution to global warming.

Most power produced in the United States comes from plants fueled by coal or natural gas. Burning coal is a leading emitter of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming, but even natural gas is not pollution-free.

Nuclear plants release virtually no greenhouse gases.

Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said billions of dollars in plant subsidies included by Congress in a 2005 energy bill also are helping power the industry’s revival. He said the subsidies are needed because nuclear plants are so expensive to build – about $5 billion apiece.

Nuclear critics maintain that federal taxpayers are being zapped, and that the 2005 law’s inclusion of $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks will compound the intractable problem of what to do with all the waste. Some think the cost to taxpayers will be far higher.

According to the NRC, the seven license applications filed last year call for 11 new plants in Texas, South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. Burnell, the commission’s spokesman, said the first of the new plants could be licensed as soon as 2011.

But California Energy Commission Vice Chairman James Boyd said that with waste problems unsolved and popular opinion running 54-37 percent against more plants, a groundbreaking in California is many years away.

“The likelihood of a new nuclear power plant being built in California within the next decade,” he said, “is low. Source: Las Vegas Review Journal

DOE - Expect license application after all

Managers postponed work on a Nevada rail line and other segments of the Yucca program, and redirected money and personnel to reach the most pressing goal of meeting a June 30 license application deadline, according to Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

The Energy Department has also readjusted its Yucca Mountain work plans after a deep budget cut and will be ready after all to apply for a license in June to build a Nevada nuclear waste repository.

Applying for a construction license has been a long-sought but out-of-reach milestone for DOE at Yucca Mountain. The department has encountered legal and budget problems, and a number of internal missteps in recent years.

Speaking at a conference organized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Sproat expressed confidence the application will pass initial muster to be docketed by the NRC for more thorough safety reviews and hearings.

Cutbacks will reduce the work force from 2,600 to 1,500-1,700. The Energy Department has singled out key scientists and engineers within DOE, the U.S. Geological Survey, the national laboratories and contract firm Bechtel SAIC who will be needed to defend the license.

“We have identified who those people are to make sure they know their jobs are not in jeopardy,” Sproat said. “We have an army of national lab PhDs and engineers on our defense team.”

Sproat’s upbeat assessment came minutes after a lawyer who represents Nevada in its ongoing battle against Yucca Mountain declared the program is on a “death watch” and is destined for failure.
(Continued on page 3)

Martin Malsch, of the firm Egan, Fitzpatrick & Malsch, said DOE will continue to face increasingly severe budget problems. He said DOE’s application will be rushed and incomplete and predicted a “huge dispute” over whether it should be accepted for review by regulators.
Beyond that, Nevada is poised to challenge DOE’s qualifications and other key aspects of the project, he said. On top of that, both Democratic presidential candidates have pledged to stop the program if elected.

“Yucca Mountain’s breaths are short and its heartbeat is faint,” Malsch said. “I really don’t think it has very long to continue.”

In response, Sproat said: “The death watch is going to continue for a very long time because I see this program being very alive and well.”

The Energy Department was sent back to the drawing boards late last year when Congress cut the 2008 Yucca Mountain budget by $108 million, a 22 percent reduction.

Sproat initially expressed doubt DOE would meet its deadline, but he said managers deferred work on all but the most pressing tasks. For instance, work on a proposed Nevada rail line to the site has been pushed back.

To save money further, technical specialists were rotated in for short periods to perform specific tasks and then let go, Sproat said.

Questions remain about the repository, which would need billions of dollars to be built. Sproat confirmed the Bush administration is considering a proposal to reorganize the Yucca project and other nuclear waste programs into a government-chartered corporation similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority or the Bonneville Power Administration.
Promoters contend such an organization would have the advantages of a private business to hire and fire managers, set salaries to attract talent and promote accountability. Sproat said it would stop a revolving door that has seen numerous top managers trying to run the Yucca program for short terms.

But such a big change would require a number of fundamental changes and approval by Congress, which might not be willing to give up control.

The Energy Daily in a Feb. 26 story quoted sources saying the DOE proposal has been at the White House for consideration since at least December. Sproat could not confirm that, saying he understood the concept still was being mulled within DOE.

“I personally don’t expect we are going to make anything significant happen on this over the next three to six months,” he said.

Steve Kraft, senior director for used fuel management at the Nuclear Energy Institute, said a “move like that would greatly enhance the chances of success of the Yucca Mountain project and recently Congress is not inclined to enhance the success of the Yucca Mountain project.”

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., long has been declaring Yucca Mountain dead and his spokesman said no new plan would change that. Source: AP: Stephens Washington Bureau

Continued in PDF -