Status of Potential New Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the United States
Category: News and Politics

Status of Potential New Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the United States

Introduction: There is growing discussion concerning the potential for building new nuclear power reactors in the United States. Evidence of this includes press releases and public interviews of executives at generating firms as well as corporate filings and discussions with Federal and State regulatory agencies. Table 1 indicates the status of ongoing licensing activities of firms that have indicated an intention to apply for a combined license (COL) to build and conditionally operate new commercial nuclear reactors.  Actual applications will also be included on future updates of the list as they occur.

The table does not represent a forecast of actual plant constructions, nuclear capacity additions, or dates that any specific actions will occur but rather provides a status report of projects where owners have taken several specific definitive steps in their consideration of the nuclear generation option.  Specifically, the table lists projects in which the applicant has met all of the following criteria: 1) publicly notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of interest in applying for a COL; 2) issued one or more press releases or initiated a pre-application meeting at the NRC; 3) selected a specific site for the reactor; and 4) selected a specific reactor design for the project.  Projects which do not meet the criteria or that have only appeared in the press are excluded.  There is no assurance that any of these plants will ultimately be built or operate commercially. The Energy Information Administration's (EIA) latest projection for U.S. nuclear power capacity additions under existing laws and policies is provided in the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO), which projects a net increase of approximately 19 gigawatts of nuclear capacity coming on line through 2030 in the reference case.  Please see the AEO and its supporting documents for specific information on these projections.

Discussion: Many of the firms listed operate under State regulations that require that they be "prudent" investors. Therefore many of these firms are currently evaluating alternative investments for generating electric power and have not publicly committed to the final selection of nuclear power for future construction. Most announcements that indicate an intention to file for a COL include a stated goal to "keep the nuclear option open." Full and final commitments to actually building new reactors need not be made until shortly before construction begins, though orders of key nuclear components and some contracts with suppliers might even predate an application for a COL to build and conditionally operate a new nuclear reactor.

Definitions and explanations: Reactor designs are discussed and defined in the EIA paper "New Commercial Reactor Designs". Many of these reactor designs are known primarily by their acronyms. Early site permits (ESP) are issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). An ESP is a partial construction permit that is good for 10 to 20 years and can be renewed for an additional 10 to 20 years. An ESP is not mandatory before a firm applies for a combined license (COL) to build and conditionally operate a new nuclear reactor. The COL process is the basis for inclusions on the above list. An application for a combined license precedes the receipt of any COL and is sometimes referred to as a COLA. The Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Watts Bar 2 reactor is excluded from this list because it already possesses a construction license. Exelon has received an ESP for its Clinton site in Illinois but has given no indication that it will apply for a COL at the site.

Following are more details concerning each of the projects appearing in Table 1. To navigate this page use arrow

Bellefonte, Alabama (NuStart Energy, Tennessee Valley Authority) On 30 October 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the multi-utility consortium NuStart Energy submitted an application for a COL at TVA's Bellefonte site near Hollywood, Alabama. TVA's evaluation of the project indicates a desire to meet baseload power needs in its service territory. The Bellefonte COL application could serve as the reference COL application for other AP1000 reactor design applications by other firms. Bellefonte was the site of previous, though now abandoned, nuclear construction by TVA. There are no operating commercial reactors on the site. TVA believes that completion of the first unit of the project is not possible before 2017. Any construction schedule for Bellefonte might be affected by plans to resume construction on TVA's partially completed Watts Bar 2 reactor.

Bruneau, Idaho (Alternate Energy Holding, Inc.) The Lynchburg, Virginia firm, Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (AEHI) announced in December 2006 that it intended to license a nuclear power plant near Bruneau, Idaho. AEHI has subsequently announced the acquisition of rights to 4000 acres for the reactor and has developed arrangements with associated industrial facilities, including an ethanol plant. In July 2007 AEHI announced that it was partnering with UniStar Nuclear to build an Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) design on the site. The potential power and industrial facilities near Bruneau are called the Idaho Energy Complex.

Callaway, Missouri (Ameren UE, UniStar Nuclear) Ameren UE's interest in licensing a new reactor at its single unit Callaway site was first indicated in late 2005 through filings with Missouri state utility regulators. Formal announcement of the project came in April 2007 when Ameren indicated that it had selected the EPR design in cooperation with UniStar Nuclear. The Callaway site was not specifically announced until July 2007, although the site had been strongly indicated much earlier. Ameren has also announced that it has ordered long lead-time components for the potential new reactor through AREVA NP. Ameren has indicated that the orders do not represent a commitment to build a new reactor.

Calvert Cliffs, Maryland (UniStar Nuclear, Constellation) UniStar Nuclear (now Constellation, AREVA NP) announced on 27 October 2005 that it would file COLs with the NRC for several nuclear power plants including Calvert Cliffs, Maryland. Formal site selection of Calvert Cliffs for the first UniStar reactor site was not announced until April 2007. The French utility, Electricite de France (EdF), has now joined UniStar Nuclear in project aspects related to reactor operation. Only one reactor is being considered for Calvert Cliffs in the short term. The reactor design would be AREVA NP's EPR. The environmental component of the Calvert Cliffs COL was filed on 13 July 2007. The target for a complete COL filing would be on or before 15 March 2008 and would serve as UniStar's reference application for the EPR design. The government of Calvert County, Maryland granted tax concessions for the first potential reactor at Calvert Cliffs on August 2006. UniStar has ordered forgings and other long lead-time reactor components for the Calvert Cliffs reactor in 2006 and 2007.

Comanche Peak, Texas (TXU Corp. [Luminant]) TXU Corp. publicly announced plans on 31 August 2006 to build two to six gigawatts of nuclear power capacity at as many as three unnamed sites. TXU subsequently indicated that it would apply for a COL for only two new reactors at Comanche Peak southwest of Fort Worth, Texas. TXU later announced that it favored the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 1700 MWe US-APWR design for the site. The Comanche Peak COL application could serve as a reference COL for any future US-APWR COL filings. TXU is now being bought out by the firms Kohlberg, Kravitz, Roberts and Company and the Texas Pacific Group with the generating component changing its name to Luminant. The new owners presently intend to proceed with the Comanche Peak nuclear licensing though not the other unnamed sites.

Grand Gulf, Mississippi (NuStart Energy, Entergy) Entergy filed for an ESP in October 2003 for an ESBWR design reactor at its Grand Gulf site. The Grand Gulf site is owned by Entergy, which operates a single existing reactor there. The permit was issued during April 2007. NuStart Energy, a multi-utility consortium, announced on 22 September 2005 that it would assist in the preparation of the Grand Gulf COL. It was originally planned for the Grand Gulf COL to serve, along with Dominion's North Anna application, as the reference COL for subsequent ESBWR applications to the NRC. Entergy has recently delayed its COL application target to February 2008 leaving North Anna as the reference ESBWR filing. Entergy has ordered long lead-time components for one of its two possible ESBWR reactors, either Grand Gulf or River Bend.

Harris, Shearon, North Carolina (Progress Energy) Progress Energy informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in August 2005 that it intended to submit a COL for two reactors in its North and South Carolina service area. Plans were based on anticipated baseload electricity demand growth in the region. Selection of the Harris site was announced on 23 January 2006. The reactor design will be Westinghouse's AP1000. The site is already the location of one Progress-operated reactor and had originally been designed for as many as four reactors. Progress hopes to submit its COL application in January 2008. According to Progress, commercial operations would begin no earlier than 2018. Progress will have to obtain a certificate of public convenience from the North Carolina Utilities Commission to build on the site.

Lee, William States III (Cherokee County), South Carolina (Duke Energy) Duke was the first public utility to notify the NRC that it intends to apply for a COL, publicly doing so on 4 March 2005. Duke had selected the AP1000 design for its potential investment by October 2005. Selection of the Cherokee County, South Carolina site was delayed until 16 March 2006 partly due to negotiations with Southern Co., the owner of the proposed site. Duke and Southern agreed in March 2006 that the first reactor at the Cherokee County site might bea joint venture in which Southern would have the option to own 45 percent (roughly 500 megawatts) of the reactor's capacity. Southern agreed to relinquish its interests in the plant during May 2007. Duke has indicated that its interest in possible construction at the site is based on growing baseload power demand in nearby market areas. In June 2006 Duke announced that the plant would be named the William States Lee III Nuclear Power Plant. Duke has on several times indicated that the "earliest possible" completion date would be 2016. There are no commercial reactors presently operating at the site.

Levy County, Florida (Progress Energy) Progress Energy's intention to seek a COL for new reactors in its Florida marketing area was announced in August 2005, when Progress also announced plans to investigate expanding its Harris site in North Carolina. Specific information on the Florida site did not come until December 2006. The selection of two Westinghouse AP1000 units was not announced until May 2007. Subsequently, initial clearance for the project has been obtained from Levy County officials. If construction follows, the Levy County plant is now targeted for completion by Progress no earlier than 2016, before the Harris plant. There are no commercial nuclear reactors now operating at the Levy County site.

Nine Mile Point, New York (UniStar Nuclear, Constellation) UniStar Nuclear (Constellation and AREVA NP) announced on 27 October 2005 its intent to file a COL with the NRC for several nuclear power plants. Sites under consideration included Constellation's existing nuclear power site at Nine Mile Point, New York. The formal selection of Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, over Nine Mile Point, was not announced until April 2007. The status of Nine Mile Point in subsequent filings had been uncertain though Constellation executives have recently indicated that a COL application for Nine Mile Point is targeted to be filed during the fourth quarter of 2008.

North Anna, Virginia (Dominion) Dominion Power filed an ESP application for the North Anna Station in September 2003 and the ESP was approved on 20 November 2007. Subsequently, on 27 November 2007, the company submitted a COL for one General Electric-Hitachi ESBWR reactor at the site. Dominion shares COL development information related to the ESBWR design with Entergy and NuStart Energy, which are licensing the same design at Grand Gulf. Entergy has recently delayed it planned Grand Gulf COL filing leaving the North Anna application as the reference filing for subsequent ESBWR applications with the NRC. Dominion announced on 1 May 2007 that it had signed contracts with GE for "long-lead nuclear components" for the North Anna plant.

River Bend, Louisiana (Entergy) Entergy announced on 22 September 2005 that it would seek a COL for a new reactor at River Bend, Louisiana. The reactor design selected is General Electric-Hitachi's ESBWR. Entergy anticipated submitting the COL application during May 2008. River Bend licensing is thus lags the targeted reference COL application for North Anna by six months taking advantage of the earlier ESBWR licensing experience at North Anna. No ESP application is sought for River Bend. Entergy has ordered long lead-time components for one of its two potential new reactor sites, either Grand Gulf or River Bend.

South Texas Project, Texas (NRG Energy, South Texas Project) On 20 September 2007, NRG Energy submitted a COL application for two new reactors at the existing, two-unit South Texas Project site on the Texas coast south of Houston. The ABWR design of General Electric-Hitachi was chosen because NRG found the design "a proven design, proven in construction." However, agreements for building the reactor were subsequently signed with Toshiba, which also owns international rights to the ABWR design. In contrast to the reactors selected for other potential reactor sites, ABWR units have been built and operated elsewhere in the world. NRG targets construction to begin as early as 2009 under limited work authorizations (LWA) from the NRC. The first South Texas unit is targeted for completion in 2014. NRG is 44 percent owner of the two existing South Texas reactors. The two other owners, CPS Energy (40 percent) and Austin Energy (16 percent), have been offered shares in the new project.

Summer, Virgil C., South Carolina (Scana [South Carolina Electric and Gas], Santee Cooper) South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (a unit of Scana) and South Carolina State-owned electric and water utility, Santee Cooper, notified the NRC in December 2005 that they intended to apply for a COL for two new reactors to be built in South Carolina. Their intention is now to file their application during November 2007. The firms announced on 10 February 2006 that they had selected the Summer site for potential new nuclear construction. Announced plans would involve two Westinghouse's AP1000 reactors. The goal is for any new reactors to be completed in time to meet anticipated base load electricity demand growth by the mid-2010s. Scana owns 66.7 percent of the existing Summer reactor and Santee Cooper the remainder.

Susquehanna, Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Power and Light [PPL]) PPL's plans to license a new reactor at its present two-unit Susquehanna plant were not publicly announced until June 2007. At the time PPL announced that any project would most likely involve other participants. Subsequent announcements indicated the involvement of UniStar Nuclear in the project and the selection of AREVA NP's EPR design. PPL plans to apply for a COL by the end of 2008.

Vogtle, Georgia (Southern Company [Georgia Power], Oglethorpe Power, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton) Southern Company's affiliate Georgia Power announced its selection of the Vogtle site for a potential nuclear site COL in August 2005. Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear Operating Company announced on 27 January 2006 that they had selected Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design for Vogtle. The sponsors filed for an ESP during August 2006 and anticipate applying for a COL during March 2008. The goal for the potential plant would be to meet anticipated baseload power needs in the Georgia electricity market. Southern has recently been quoted in the press as targeting completion in January 2016. Among the permits that the plant would require would be a certificate of need issued by the Georgia Public Service Commission. The Georgia Public Service Commission on 20 June 2006 allowed some planning and licensing costs at Vogtle to be charged to utility customers. The existing reactors at Vogtle are co-owned by Oglethorpe Power, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia. These organizations are involved in potential construction plans at the site.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html

Contact: John Moens
  Phone: 202-586-1509
  Email: John Moens

1:04 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Status of Potential New Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the United States
Category: News and Politics

Status of Potential New Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the United States

Introduction: There is growing discussion concerning the potential for building new nuclear power reactors in the United States. Evidence of this includes press releases and public interviews of executives at generating firms as well as corporate filings and discussions with Federal and State regulatory agencies. Table 1 indicates the status of ongoing licensing activities of firms that have indicated an intention to apply for a combined license (COL) to build and conditionally operate new commercial nuclear reactors.  Actual applications will also be included on future updates of the list as they occur.

The table does not represent a forecast of actual plant constructions, nuclear capacity additions, or dates that any specific actions will occur but rather provides a status report of projects where owners have taken several specific definitive steps in their consideration of the nuclear generation option.  Specifically, the table lists projects in which the applicant has met all of the following criteria: 1) publicly notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of interest in applying for a COL; 2) issued one or more press releases or initiated a pre-application meeting at the NRC; 3) selected a specific site for the reactor; and 4) selected a specific reactor design for the project.  Projects which do not meet the criteria or that have only appeared in the press are excluded.  There is no assurance that any of these plants will ultimately be built or operate commercially. The Energy Information Administration's (EIA) latest projection for U.S. nuclear power capacity additions under existing laws and policies is provided in the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO), which projects a net increase of approximately 19 gigawatts of nuclear capacity coming on line through 2030 in the reference case.  Please see the AEO and its supporting documents for specific information on these projections.

Discussion: Many of the firms listed operate under State regulations that require that they be "prudent" investors. Therefore many of these firms are currently evaluating alternative investments for generating electric power and have not publicly committed to the final selection of nuclear power for future construction. Most announcements that indicate an intention to file for a COL include a stated goal to "keep the nuclear option open." Full and final commitments to actually building new reactors need not be made until shortly before construction begins, though orders of key nuclear components and some contracts with suppliers might even predate an application for a COL to build and conditionally operate a new nuclear reactor.

Definitions and explanations: Reactor designs are discussed and defined in the EIA paper "New Commercial Reactor Designs". Many of these reactor designs are known primarily by their acronyms. Early site permits (ESP) are issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). An ESP is a partial construction permit that is good for 10 to 20 years and can be renewed for an additional 10 to 20 years. An ESP is not mandatory before a firm applies for a combined license (COL) to build and conditionally operate a new nuclear reactor. The COL process is the basis for inclusions on the above list. An application for a combined license precedes the receipt of any COL and is sometimes referred to as a COLA. The Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Watts Bar 2 reactor is excluded from this list because it already possesses a construction license. Exelon has received an ESP for its Clinton site in Illinois but has given no indication that it will apply for a COL at the site.

Following are more details concerning each of the projects appearing in Table 1. To navigate this page use arrow

Bellefonte, Alabama (NuStart Energy, Tennessee Valley Authority) On 30 October 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the multi-utility consortium NuStart Energy submitted an application for a COL at TVA's Bellefonte site near Hollywood, Alabama. TVA's evaluation of the project indicates a desire to meet baseload power needs in its service territory. The Bellefonte COL application could serve as the reference COL application for other AP1000 reactor design applications by other firms. Bellefonte was the site of previous, though now abandoned, nuclear construction by TVA. There are no operating commercial reactors on the site. TVA believes that completion of the first unit of the project is not possible before 2017. Any construction schedule for Bellefonte might be affected by plans to resume construction on TVA's partially completed Watts Bar 2 reactor.

Bruneau, Idaho (Alternate Energy Holding, Inc.) The Lynchburg, Virginia firm, Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (AEHI) announced in December 2006 that it intended to license a nuclear power plant near Bruneau, Idaho. AEHI has subsequently announced the acquisition of rights to 4000 acres for the reactor and has developed arrangements with associated industrial facilities, including an ethanol plant. In July 2007 AEHI announced that it was partnering with UniStar Nuclear to build an Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) design on the site. The potential power and industrial facilities near Bruneau are called the Idaho Energy Complex.

Callaway, Missouri (Ameren UE, UniStar Nuclear) Ameren UE's interest in licensing a new reactor at its single unit Callaway site was first indicated in late 2005 through filings with Missouri state utility regulators. Formal announcement of the project came in April 2007 when Ameren indicated that it had selected the EPR design in cooperation with UniStar Nuclear. The Callaway site was not specifically announced until July 2007, although the site had been strongly indicated much earlier. Ameren has also announced that it has ordered long lead-time components for the potential new reactor through AREVA NP. Ameren has indicated that the orders do not represent a commitment to build a new reactor.

Calvert Cliffs, Maryland (UniStar Nuclear, Constellation) UniStar Nuclear (now Constellation, AREVA NP) announced on 27 October 2005 that it would file COLs with the NRC for several nuclear power plants including Calvert Cliffs, Maryland. Formal site selection of Calvert Cliffs for the first UniStar reactor site was not announced until April 2007. The French utility, Electricite de France (EdF), has now joined UniStar Nuclear in project aspects related to reactor operation. Only one reactor is being considered for Calvert Cliffs in the short term. The reactor design would be AREVA NP's EPR. The environmental component of the Calvert Cliffs COL was filed on 13 July 2007. The target for a complete COL filing would be on or before 15 March 2008 and would serve as UniStar's reference application for the EPR design. The government of Calvert County, Maryland granted tax concessions for the first potential reactor at Calvert Cliffs on August 2006. UniStar has ordered forgings and other long lead-time reactor components for the Calvert Cliffs reactor in 2006 and 2007.

Comanche Peak, Texas (TXU Corp. [Luminant]) TXU Corp. publicly announced plans on 31 August 2006 to build two to six gigawatts of nuclear power capacity at as many as three unnamed sites. TXU subsequently indicated that it would apply for a COL for only two new reactors at Comanche Peak southwest of Fort Worth, Texas. TXU later announced that it favored the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 1700 MWe US-APWR design for the site. The Comanche Peak COL application could serve as a reference COL for any future US-APWR COL filings. TXU is now being bought out by the firms Kohlberg, Kravitz, Roberts and Company and the Texas Pacific Group with the generating component changing its name to Luminant. The new owners presently intend to proceed with the Comanche Peak nuclear licensing though not the other unnamed sites.

Grand Gulf, Mississippi (NuStart Energy, Entergy) Entergy filed for an ESP in October 2003 for an ESBWR design reactor at its Grand Gulf site. The Grand Gulf site is owned by Entergy, which operates a single existing reactor there. The permit was issued during April 2007. NuStart Energy, a multi-utility consortium, announced on 22 September 2005 that it would assist in the preparation of the Grand Gulf COL. It was originally planned for the Grand Gulf COL to serve, along with Dominion's North Anna application, as the reference COL for subsequent ESBWR applications to the NRC. Entergy has recently delayed its COL application target to February 2008 leaving North Anna as the reference ESBWR filing. Entergy has ordered long lead-time components for one of its two possible ESBWR reactors, either Grand Gulf or River Bend.

Harris, Shearon, North Carolina (Progress Energy) Progress Energy informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in August 2005 that it intended to submit a COL for two reactors in its North and South Carolina service area. Plans were based on anticipated baseload electricity demand growth in the region. Selection of the Harris site was announced on 23 January 2006. The reactor design will be Westinghouse's AP1000. The site is already the location of one Progress-operated reactor and had originally been designed for as many as four reactors. Progress hopes to submit its COL application in January 2008. According to Progress, commercial operations would begin no earlier than 2018. Progress will have to obtain a certificate of public convenience from the North Carolina Utilities Commission to build on the site.

Lee, William States III (Cherokee County), South Carolina (Duke Energy) Duke was the first public utility to notify the NRC that it intends to apply for a COL, publicly doing so on 4 March 2005. Duke had selected the AP1000 design for its potential investment by October 2005. Selection of the Cherokee County, South Carolina site was delayed until 16 March 2006 partly due to negotiations with Southern Co., the owner of the proposed site. Duke and Southern agreed in March 2006 that the first reactor at the Cherokee County site might bea joint venture in which Southern would have the option to own 45 percent (roughly 500 megawatts) of the reactor's capacity. Southern agreed to relinquish its interests in the plant during May 2007. Duke has indicated that its interest in possible construction at the site is based on growing baseload power demand in nearby market areas. In June 2006 Duke announced that the plant would be named the William States Lee III Nuclear Power Plant. Duke has on several times indicated that the "earliest possible" completion date would be 2016. There are no commercial reactors presently operating at the site.

Levy County, Florida (Progress Energy) Progress Energy's intention to seek a COL for new reactors in its Florida marketing area was announced in August 2005, when Progress also announced plans to investigate expanding its Harris site in North Carolina. Specific information on the Florida site did not come until December 2006. The selection of two Westinghouse AP1000 units was not announced until May 2007. Subsequently, initial clearance for the project has been obtained from Levy County officials. If construction follows, the Levy County plant is now targeted for completion by Progress no earlier than 2016, before the Harris plant. There are no commercial nuclear reactors now operating at the Levy County site.

Nine Mile Point, New York (UniStar Nuclear, Constellation) UniStar Nuclear (Constellation and AREVA NP) announced on 27 October 2005 its intent to file a COL with the NRC for several nuclear power plants. Sites under consideration included Constellation's existing nuclear power site at Nine Mile Point, New York. The formal selection of Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, over Nine Mile Point, was not announced until April 2007. The status of Nine Mile Point in subsequent filings had been uncertain though Constellation executives have recently indicated that a COL application for Nine Mile Point is targeted to be filed during the fourth quarter of 2008.

North Anna, Virginia (Dominion) Dominion Power filed an ESP application for the North Anna Station in September 2003 and the ESP was approved on 20 November 2007. Subsequently, on 27 November 2007, the company submitted a COL for one General Electric-Hitachi ESBWR reactor at the site. Dominion shares COL development information related to the ESBWR design with Entergy and NuStart Energy, which are licensing the same design at Grand Gulf. Entergy has recently delayed it planned Grand Gulf COL filing leaving the North Anna application as the reference filing for subsequent ESBWR applications with the NRC. Dominion announced on 1 May 2007 that it had signed contracts with GE for "long-lead nuclear components" for the North Anna plant.

River Bend, Louisiana (Entergy) Entergy announced on 22 September 2005 that it would seek a COL for a new reactor at River Bend, Louisiana. The reactor design selected is General Electric-Hitachi's ESBWR. Entergy anticipated submitting the COL application during May 2008. River Bend licensing is thus lags the targeted reference COL application for North Anna by six months taking advantage of the earlier ESBWR licensing experience at North Anna. No ESP application is sought for River Bend. Entergy has ordered long lead-time components for one of its two potential new reactor sites, either Grand Gulf or River Bend.

South Texas Project, Texas (NRG Energy, South Texas Project) On 20 September 2007, NRG Energy submitted a COL application for two new reactors at the existing, two-unit South Texas Project site on the Texas coast south of Houston. The ABWR design of General Electric-Hitachi was chosen because NRG found the design "a proven design, proven in construction." However, agreements for building the reactor were subsequently signed with Toshiba, which also owns international rights to the ABWR design. In contrast to the reactors selected for other potential reactor sites, ABWR units have been built and operated elsewhere in the world. NRG targets construction to begin as early as 2009 under limited work authorizations (LWA) from the NRC. The first South Texas unit is targeted for completion in 2014. NRG is 44 percent owner of the two existing South Texas reactors. The two other owners, CPS Energy (40 percent) and Austin Energy (16 percent), have been offered shares in the new project.

Summer, Virgil C., South Carolina (Scana [South Carolina Electric and Gas], Santee Cooper) South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (a unit of Scana) and South Carolina State-owned electric and water utility, Santee Cooper, notified the NRC in December 2005 that they intended to apply for a COL for two new reactors to be built in South Carolina. Their intention is now to file their application during November 2007. The firms announced on 10 February 2006 that they had selected the Summer site for potential new nuclear construction. Announced plans would involve two Westinghouse's AP1000 reactors. The goal is for any new reactors to be completed in time to meet anticipated base load electricity demand growth by the mid-2010s. Scana owns 66.7 percent of the existing Summer reactor and Santee Cooper the remainder.

Susquehanna, Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Power and Light [PPL]) PPL's plans to license a new reactor at its present two-unit Susquehanna plant were not publicly announced until June 2007. At the time PPL announced that any project would most likely involve other participants. Subsequent announcements indicated the involvement of UniStar Nuclear in the project and the selection of AREVA NP's EPR design. PPL plans to apply for a COL by the end of 2008.

Vogtle, Georgia (Southern Company [Georgia Power], Oglethorpe Power, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton) Southern Company's affiliate Georgia Power announced its selection of the Vogtle site for a potential nuclear site COL in August 2005. Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear Operating Company announced on 27 January 2006 that they had selected Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design for Vogtle. The sponsors filed for an ESP during August 2006 and anticipate applying for a COL during March 2008. The goal for the potential plant would be to meet anticipated baseload power needs in the Georgia electricity market. Southern has recently been quoted in the press as targeting completion in January 2016. Among the permits that the plant would require would be a certificate of need issued by the Georgia Public Service Commission. The Georgia Public Service Commission on 20 June 2006 allowed some planning and licensing costs at Vogtle to be charged to utility customers. The existing reactors at Vogtle are co-owned by Oglethorpe Power, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia. These organizations are involved in potential construction plans at the site.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html

Contact: John Moens
  Phone: 202-586-1509
  Email: John Moens

1:04 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

U.S. Lifts Moratorium on New Solar Projects Due to Public Pressure!
Category: News and Politics

U.S. Lifts Moratorium on New Solar Projects Due To Public Pressure!

By DAN FROSCH

Published: July 3, 2008

Source

DENVER — Under increasing public pressure over its decision to temporarily halt all new solar development on public land, the Bureau of Land Management said Wednesday that it was lifting the freeze, barely a month after it was put into effect.

The bureau had announced on May 29 that it was no longer processing new applications to build solar power plants on land it oversees in six Western states after federal officials said they needed first to study the environmental effects of solar energy, a process that would take two years.

But amid concerns from the solar power industry, members of Congress and the general public that the freeze would stymie solar development during a particularly critical time for energy policy, the bureau abruptly reconsidered.

"We heard the concerns expressed during the scoping period about waiting to consider new applications, and we are taking action," the bureau's director, James Caswell, said in a statement. "By continuing to accept and process new applications for solar energy projects, we will aggressively help meet growing interest in renewable energy sources, while ensuring environmental protections."

In the meantime, the bureau will continue with its plans to conduct a sweeping study on the environmental impacts of large-scale solar development on public land in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah, said a spokeswoman, Celia Boddington.

Since 2005, the bureau has received more than 130 applications from private companies to build plants in those states, where large amounts of sun-scorched land make for prime solar real estate. Those proposals cover more than a million acres and have the potential to power 20 million homes.

The bureau will process all of the applications it received before the freeze, and now, as a result of Wednesday's decision, will continue to accept new ones, studying the environmental effects of each proposed plant individually, Ms. Boddington said.

Solar energy advocates, who had lobbied against the freeze at public meetings that are being held by the bureau throughout the West, were pleased with the decision.

"We're encouraged that the B.L.M. lifted their moratorium, but we're only halfway there," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. "We now need to get them to expedite the permitting of the solar projects on public land."

Mr. Resch said the decision was important given that while the bureau managed to approve a considerable number of oil and gas leases on public land, it "had yet to lease a single acre of land to the solar industry."

Political opposition to the freeze was also a factor in the turnaround, and Ms. Boddington noted that there was "significant Congressional interest in the issue."

On Tuesday, Representative Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, wrote a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, urging the government to continue processing new applications.

In response to the bureau's change of course, Mr. Udall said in a statement, "This decision sends the right message to the renewable-energy industry that we are committed to working with them to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and increase our energy independence in an environmentally sound way."

10:33 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Progress Energy nukes get the go ahead from Florida PSC
Category: News and Politics

July 03, 2008

10:30 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: Industry oversight is lacking
Category: News and Politics

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: Industry oversight is lacking

Floridians should not support the planned relicensing beyond the design or expansion of existing nuclear power plants in our state until we are certain there is an adequate regulatory safety net to guarantee our protection.

Complaints from nuclear industry whistle-blowers received by our organization, We The People Inc. of the United States, during the past two decades provide compelling evidence that industry oversight by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not offer the public sufficient safeguards against dire harm from nuclear accidents.

The NRC has failed to develop effective evacuation plans to our satisfaction to protect vulnerable Floridians. A nuclear accident will give no warnings.

The NRC has also failed to fully investigate the presence of counterfeit or substandard parts in more than 70 existing U.S. nuclear plants, including Crystal River and Turkey Point plants in Florida.

The NRC also has failed to plan for the safe disposal of hazardous nuclear wastes. It has recently agreed with industry demands to cut costs by reducing the standards for many components of new and existing plants.

Because of this inadequate NRC oversight, We the People is continuing its efforts to educate the public about the serious risks associated with the construction of more nuclear power plants by offering testimony at public meetings and circulating a nationwide petition demanding that Congress investigate the NRC's track record, integrity and independence.

The petition demands an investigation by a bipartisan commission, regarding how effectively the NRC is doing its job, before we have a catastrophic nuclear disaster like Chernobyl in the United States.

Our goal is to provide a voice to the American people.

The national petition may be viewed and signed at the following Web site: www.petitiononline.com. Enter NRC in the search box.

STEPHEN COMLEY SR., president and founder, We The People Inc., Amelia Island

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/070208/opl_298525682.shtml

5:32 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Los Alamos’ neighbors hit plutonium pit plan
Category: News and Politics

Los Alamos' neighbors hit plutonium pit plan

Concern over pollution's toll on farms

Deborah Baker, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, July 3, 2008

DIXON, N.M. | The market at the heart of this little village is stuffed with locally grown produce. Fat, red radishes practically fly out of the display basket next to the cash register hours after leaving the field.

Nourished by a small river that empties into the Rio Grande, the narrow valley is dotted with farms, orchards and vineyards.

"Almost everybody grows a garden," Sheri Kotowski said, sitting one recent afternoon under an apple tree behind the market.

Small wonder, then, that Ms. Kotowski and others in this canyon keep a wary eye on their big, mesa-top neighbor, the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

They're fretting about a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposal to have the nuclear weapons lab increase its production of plutonium pits, the core of nuclear warheads, from a few each year to as many as 80.

It's part of a restructuring plan for the eight sites in the nation's nuclear weapons complex that the DOE says is aimed at making the complex smaller, more secure and less expensive.

"We need to consolidate and make it more of a 21st-century national security enterprise," said John Broehm, a spokesman for DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

Los Alamos, the only place where pits are manufactured, produced 11 last year and will produce six this year, according to the NNSA.

Under the restructuring proposal preferred by DOE - one of several it presented for public comment this year - the nuclear operations footprint at Los Alamos would shrink by almost half.

Plutonium and other nuclear materials would be consolidated from a half-dozen sites on the sprawling property to two sites with more modern facilities.

Joe Martz, project director with the lab's nuclear weapons program, says that would mean a dramatic improvement in safety and security.

"We are still working with many of these materials in World War II vintage buildings," Mr. Martz said.

The movement of material would be reduced, as would the number of areas that have to be secured, he said.

And even 80 pits a year is a fraction of what was produced at Rocky Flats, the Colorado plant that was the federal government's main pit production facility until it closed in 1989, Mr. Martz said.

"There are some that worry we will become a pit factory. Nothing could be further from the truth," he said.

Mr. Broehm says replacement pits are needed for the submarine-launched W88 warheads that are taken apart for testing, destroying their pits in the process.

But there has been a barrage of objections to the proposal some critics call "the bombplex."

Ms. Kotowski and others contend the DOE hasn't done an adequate analysis of the possible effects on farmland.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory "is located within the food basket of northern New Mexico," said the New Mexico Acequia Association, which told the DOE it is concerned about potential radioactive contamination of land and water.

Acequias are the irrigation ditches that feed farmland.

Some 40 miles northeast and downwind of Los Alamos, the Embudo Valley was reminded after a huge fire in 2000 just how close the lab is. The fire rained ash on the area and cloaked it in smoke.

A citizens' group, in conjunction with the state Environment Department, began monitoring air and sampling soil and produce for radionuclides, in an effort to determine exposure levels.

Of concern are exceptionally high levels of strontium, cesium and plutonium high in the Sangre de Cristo mountains above the valley, at the top of the watershed.

The lab says they are to be expected, because global fallout brought to earth by rain and snow gets concentrated at such high elevations. The Environment Department suggests it could represent either routine or accidental releases from Los Alamos over decades.

In any event, Ms. Kotowski said, "If you have contamination at the top of the mountain, you can't expect it to stay at the top of the mountain."

The Embudo Valley Environmental Monitoring Group plans more testing this summer.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/03/los-alamos-neighbors-hit-plutonium-pit-plan/

Comments:

By: websurfer

So the neighbors of Los Alamos think decreasing the number of pit production sites and modernizing the process is a bad idea. Are they in favor of keeping the old big facility and old processes or do they simply want to shut the facility down?

Is this writer leading the reader down the garden path to future unilateral nuclear disarmament.

5:26 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

How much will Progress Energy’s nukes cost? Sorry, that’s redacted
Category: News and Politics

July 02, 2008

8:25 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

DOE Announces Solicitations for $30.5 Bil. in Loan Guarantees
Category: News and Politics

DOE news release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 30, 2008

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
Angela Hill, (202) 586-4940

DOE Announces Solicitations for $30.5 Billion in Loan Guarantee

Second Round of Solicitations includes renewable energy, nuclear, and 'front-end' nuclear power facility projects

WASHINGTON, DC –The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced three solicitations for a total of up to $30.5 billion in federal loan guarantees for projects that employ advanced energy technologies that avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions.  The three solicitations are in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy and advanced transmission and distribution technologies; nuclear power facilities; and advanced nuclear facilities for the 'front-end' of the nuclear fuel cycle. This marks the second round of solicitations for DOE's Loan Guarantee Program, which encourages the commercial use of new or significantly improved energy technologies, and is an important step in paving the way for clean energy projects.

In a Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 loan guarantee implementation plan sent to Congress in April, DOE outlined plans to issue its second round of solicitations concurrently no later than June 2008 for energy efficiency, renewable energy and advanced transmission and distribution projects (up to $10 billion); nuclear power facilities (up to $18.5 billion); and advanced nuclear facilities for the "front-end" of the nuclear fuel cycle (up to $2 billion).  Later this summer, DOE intends to issue a solicitation for loan guarantee applications for advanced fossil energy projects (up to $8 billion).  The authority to issue loan guarantees in the amounts specified in these solicitations was provided to DOE in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 and is consistent with the Department's FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request.

"Loan guarantees from the Department will enable project developers to bridge the financing gap between pilot and demonstration projects to full commercially viable projects that employ new or significantly improved energy technologies," Jeffrey F. Kupfer, the Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy, said.  "Projects supported by loan guarantees will help meet President Bush's goal of diversifying our nation's energy mix with energy projects that will improve the environment while increasing energy efficiency."

The Department issued a Request for Information on April 11, 2008 and held subsequent public meet