Mon, May 28, 2012, 2:15 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed for Memorial Day

NRC approves first new nuclear plant in 3 decades

NRC approves Georgia nuclear plant; first construction approval since before Three Mile Island

RELATED QUOTES

SymbolPriceChange
SO45.690.09

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's first new nuclear power plant in a generation won approval Thursday as federal regulators voted to grant a license for two new reactors in Georgia.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted 4-1 to approve Atlanta-based Southern Co.'s request to build two nuclear reactors at its Vogtle site south of Augusta.

The vote clears the way for officials to issue an operating license for the reactors, which could begin operating as soon as 2016 and 2017.

The NRC last approved construction of a nuclear plant in 1978, a year before a partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania raised fears of a radiation release and brought new reactor orders nearly to a halt.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko voted against the Vogtle license, saying he wanted a binding commitment from the company that it would make safety changes prompted by the March 2011 nuclear disaster in Japan.

"We've given them a license. They have not given us any commitment they will make these changes in the future," Jaczko said.

The meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant led to a series of recommendations by the NRC to improve safety at the 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. The changes are intended to make the plants better prepared for incidents they were not initially designed to handle, such as prolonged power blackouts or damage to multiple reactors at the same time.

The changes are still being developed, though Jaczko said it is clear that they will be required by the NRC before the new reactors open in 2016 or 2017.

Despite his opposition to the license, Jaczko called the vote "historic" and a culmination of years of work by Southern Co. and the NRC.

Southern Company Chairman and CEO Thomas A. Fanning called the NRC vote "a monumental accomplishment for Southern Company, Georgia Power, our partners and the nuclear industry."

Fanning said the company was "committed to bringing these units online to deliver clean, safe and reliable energy to our customers."

"The project is on track, and our targets related to cost and schedule are achievable," Fanning said.

Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobbying group, said the NRC vote "sounds a clarion call to the world that the United States recognizes the importance of expanding nuclear energy as a key component of a low-carbon energy future that is central to job creation, diversity of electricity supply and energy security."

Allison Fisher, an energy expert for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, called the NRC's action — less than a year after the Japan crisis — a step in the wrong direction.

"It is inexplicable that we've chosen this moment in history to expand the use of a failed and dangerous technology," she said.

While other countries such as Germany are reversing their commitment to nuclear power, "the U.S. is approving new reactors before the full suite of lessons from Japan has been learned and before new safety regulations that were recommended by a task force established after the meltdown crisis at Fukushima have been implemented," Fisher said.

The NRC approved a new reactor design for the Vogtle plant in December. Utility companies in Florida and the Carolinas also plan new reactors that use the same design by Westinghouse Electric Co.

The planned reactors are remnants of a once-anticipated building boom that the power industry dubbed the "nuclear renaissance."

President Barack Obama has offered the Vogtle project $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees as part of its pledge to expand nuclear power.

Obama and other proponents say greater use of nuclear power could cut the nation's reliance on fossil fuels and create energy without producing emissions blamed for global warming. A new government permit process strongly encourages utilities to use pre-approved reactor designs rather than building custom models, a strategy intended to make construction easier and less expensive.

The once hoped-for boom has been plagued by a series of problems, from the prolonged economic downturn to the sharp drop in the price of natural gas, due in part to improved drilling techniques that have allowed energy companies to tap previously unavailable underground shale formations.

The Vogtle project is considered by many observers to be a major test of whether the industry can build nuclear plants without the delays and cost overruns that plagued earlier rounds of building decades ago.

Close on the project's heels is South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., which is seeking permission to build two reactors at an existing plant in Jenkinsville, S.C.

__

Follow Matthew Daly's energy coverage at twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC

 

23 comments

  • chester pugh  •  Los Angeles, California  •  3 months ago
    AEHI is also attempting to build a nuclear reactor but is getting a lot of flack from the greens.
  • Greg from Cincinnati  •  3 months ago
    The entire world is building and moving to nuclear power and the US hasn't built one in 34 years. I'd say...about time.
    • GunnarSD 3 months ago
      for a very good reason.... it is expensive power and there is no where to dispose of the nuclear waste. How about a hole somewhere in Cincinnati? Do you know anything about nuclear waste and its containment? It is a nimby issue since no one wants a plant built near them nor do they want to the waste from the reactor disposed on near them either...
  • GaryM  •  3 months ago
    There has been far to much unwarranted fear after Three Mile Island. That has why the utility companies have not been willing to invest in nuclear plants and why it has taken so long.
    If you fear US nuclear power it is because you lack knowledge. Are you afraid of radioactive gasses in the air? At what levels should you be concerned? That was TMI. If you can't give anything but 'It's radioactive' stop and evaluate your last airplane flight or your last x-ray.
    • GunnarSD 3 months ago
      If you don't have some fear of nuclear power and the dangers posed by nuclear waste then you lack knowledge. Solve the issues around disposal of spent fuel and other waste from the reactors and there will be progress.
    • GunnarSD 3 months ago
      By the way Gary... the Obama administration stopped funding for Yucca MOuntain because Nevada has said they don't want the countries nuclear waste disposed of in their state.
    • GaryM 3 months ago
      History Lesson:
      Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. In December 1987, Congress amended the NWPA to designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the selected site for the nuclear waste repository. This is an act of congress, law of the land. Obama stopped the funding for Yucca Mountain and his boy Chu pulled had the DOE pull the license application. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act is federal law, an act of congress.
      This is still going through the courts and is will catch up with Obama. By the way this was a campaign promise by Obama to carry Nevada and help get Harry Reid re-elected...
  • PENY STOK  •  3 months ago
    If it has the name Uranium in it, its going up!
  • P Hankamp  •  Omaha, Nebraska  •  3 months ago
    Hmmm, I wonder if a Chinese Chevy Volt will run on US Nuclear electricity?
    • MRD 3 months ago
      Volt is made in USA, Pube.
    • Greg from Cincinnati 3 months ago
      Since the vast majority of the Chevy Volt is it's electrical battery system and that is built in China. I'd say it's chinese made.
    • MRD 3 months ago
      Batteries can be made anywhere. GE is coming up with a better one.
  • Dennis S  •  Islip, New York  •  3 months ago
    It's about time!
  • bob  •  Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  •  3 months ago
    Looks liek the NRC needed something to do - what about that waste disposal issue - call Harry Reid?
  • bbalwet  •  3 months ago
    Congratulations from all of the 5,000 EPU workers at Grand Gulf!!
  • MRD  •  3 months ago
    You can be sure if it's Westinghouse. ((@#@))
  • 7againstThebes  •  3 months ago
    Exactly what was the permit grant division of the NRC doing for the last three decades?
    • Dale 3 months ago
      thye donated their paycheck to folks that could afford thier elect bill
    • GaryM 3 months ago
      Trying to deal with Chu, Jaczko and Obama. Obama stopped the funding of Yucca Mountain and put Chu in. Chu put in Jaczko. All three have no support for the nuclear cycle.
  • ROBERT S  •  Jacksonville, Florida  •  3 months ago
    why does this not suprise me in an election year.......the wise have wanted this for 30 years
    • GunnarSD 3 months ago
      Please define the wise? What do you actually know about nuclear radiation, reactor design or safe disposal of nuclear waste?
  • GunnarSD  •  Carlsbad, California  •  3 months ago
    So which of you will allow the spent fuel to be stored in your backyard? The issue has not been with the plants so much, it has been the fact that there is no place to dispose of the fuel from the reactor after it is spent. The plan had been to bury it deep in Yucca Mountain in Nevada but the folks in that state said they did not want the spent fuel sent there... and no one wants it... how about Islip, NY? How about somewhere in Texas? Lots of people posting here are quick to say we should build more plants but no one wants to volunteer their state for disposal of nuclear waste and that is what is created at a nuclear power plant. Find a solution to nuclear waste disposal and you remove a major barrier to more new plants.

    So... who posting here is ready to push for a safe nuclear waste disposal facility in their backyard?
  • Jason  •  3 months ago
    Why are they sticking to outdated designs? There are newer, walk-way safe designs that don't require huge concrete domes and triple redundant safety systems. The $14 billion price tag is because they have to follow approved designs. It's possible to build a better, safer plant for 1/3 that price if not for the nuclear beauracracy.
  • Perception  •  3 months ago
    Great news!!!! made all of 1 minute of NBC nightly news - The new AP1000 nuclear power plants (already completed and operating overseas) have much safer passive cooling systems and digital controls and guess what (standardized design) without future modifications extending completion time and cost overruns.
  • Ashford Street  •  3 months ago
    GO NUKES!!!
  • Pier2  •  College Station, Texas  •  3 months ago
    Sweet! No it's time for this administration to get its head straight and give more funding to fuel reprocessing and MOX fuel production. Savannah River Site is just waiting....
  • Daniel  •  New Braunfels, Texas  •  3 months ago
    The problem is not nuclear power itself but the greed built on insisting we build plants that can generate weapons grade fuel and require high cost treatment of spent fuel. If these greed seized corporations really had the interests of our people in mind, they would follow the Canadian CANDU model. Anyone interested in safe nuclear power should see CANDU reactor on Wikipedia for a start.
    Daniel Boone
  • Thomas Paine Esq.  •  Phoenix, Arizona  •  3 months ago
    Opening by 2015? Not in any way shape or form. Why? First the Obama administration is going to impose new hurdles for the proponents to jump through. That way they can say that they are for nueclear power and also that they are against its potential to pollute. It's called delay for delay's sake. Then there will be a series of lawsuits against the project. Each will have to wend its way through the trial and appelate court systems, till each gets a final hearing before the Supreme Court. If justices even consider combining all of the litigation into one trial, that will be fought tooth and nail by the various plaintiffs. Finally there will be a problem of obtaining fuel for the reactor. The best source of fissionable material in the US is on the Colorado Plateau. Unfortunately all of that material is now off limits. The Feds have ruled that there can be no mining for uranium or other rare earth elements anywhere near the Grand Canyon, even if it would have no impact on the area. The term "near" seems to be amazingly flexible, moving upwind and downwind for many hundreds of miles and totally ignores groundwater movement directions, as well. In the meantime nothing is done about the giant cement plant north of Las Vegas that is illegally spewing huge clouds of potentially toxic alkali laden dust into air currents that blow directly toward the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and the Grand Canyon. Oops Can't discuss that. It could possibly be linked to that stalwart environmental crusader, Senator Reid of Nevada. Anybody notice that the coal fired power plant owned by the Navajo Nation was shut down, even though it was a whole lot cleaner than the cement plant? Not only that but the power plant could have been retrofitted with scrubbers to make it even cleaner.
  • Preybrother  •  Richardson, Texas  •  3 months ago
    It will take years to start construction because a minority of radical environmentalist will sue and all it takes is one radical leftist judge to issue an injunction. By the time constuction starts, if ever, the price will go up ten fold. The way Obama is pacting the lower courts will liberals and they way Repubs are going along with the appointments, we'll be lucky to get any new energy in the US in the next 30 years.
  • Bro  •  3 months ago
    This proves all the rednecks wrong again.
 
Recent Quotes
Symbol Price Change % Chg 
Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
 
Sign-in to view quotes in your portfolios.

Trading Center

Yahoo! Finance on Facebook

  YAHOO! FINANCE ON TWITTER