iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Wins First Reactor Construction Permit In A Generation


First Posted: 02/ 9/2012 3:07 pm Updated: 02/ 9/2012 3:07 pm

WASHINGTON -- Federal safety officials voted 4-to-1 to approve the first nuclear reactor construction permit in almost 35 years, overriding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko.

The commission's vote on Thursday will allow Southern Company subsidiary Georgia Power to expand operations at its plant in eastern Georgia, paving the way for the construction of two new nuclear power reactors at its Vogtle site. The last such project to be approved was in 1978.

Chairman Jaczko in his dissenting vote cited concerns stemming from Fukushima, underscoring long-standing tensions on the commission over the regulatory response to Japan's 2011 nuclear power disaster.

"I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened," Jaczko said after the vote at the commission's headquarters in Rockville, Md. Jaczko had requested a binding commitment that the Fukushima enhancements currently planned would be enacted before the facility begins operations. Southern Company refused to meet this stipulation.

In a conference call with reporters on Thursday, Tom Fanning, CEO of Southern Company, sought to minimize any differences with the chairman, promising "anything we learn from Fukushima we will bring to bear."

The project, which is estimated at $14 billion, could begin operations as soon as 2016. The project is expected to take roughly ten years to build and will create 800 permanent jobs, according to Southern Company's estimates.

Thursday's vote moves the project one step closer to securing an $8.33 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, a deal that's been in the works since February of 2010. The Department's loan guarantee to the now-bankrupt and much maligned Solyndra, by comparison, was just $527 million.

Critics have been quick to question the fiscal prudence of asking taxpayers to take on such enormous upfront costs, arguing the DOE has offered insufficient "public disclosure" on the particulars of the loan guarantee.

“Given some of the lessons learned and political games developing from the Solyndra loan guarantee case, it's unacceptable and inconsistent that the much larger Vogtle loan isn't getting more intense scrutiny when the potential risk to taxpayers is much greater,” said Stephen A. Smith, executive director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, in a statement. "The DOE needs to operate with more transparency now -- not less."

The vote also underscores ideological divisions between the commissioners and the chairman, who, in the wake of Fukushima, sought to implement stricter safety standards that have been opposed by the four members. HuffPost reported on an earlier attempt to oust the chairman, noting the organizer of the attempted coup had previously consulted for the firm operating the Fukushima nuclear facility.

Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) on Thursday decried the commission's "cavalier disregard for the NRC's mission of public safety," noting the commission had failed to implement the safety recommendations of its own technical experts in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. These recommendations, Markey said, should have been made mandatory.

"Today, the NRC abdicated its duty to protect public health and safety just to make construction faster and cheaper for the nuclear industry," said Rep. Markey, top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "While four NRC Commissioners continue to slow-walk the implementation of the Fukushima safety upgrades, today they have fast-tracked the construction of two nuclear reactors whose shield building could 'shatter like a glass cup' if impacted by an earthquake or other natural or man-made impact."

He isn't the only one worried about the safety of nuclear power in the event of a disaster. A coalition of nine environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, plan to file a lawsuit next week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit arguing that the NRC is violating federal law by issuing the license without considering the important lessons from Fukushima.

No nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. since the partial meltdown the so-called Three Mile Island, a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania that in 1979 was the site of the most significant accident in the country's history of nuclear energy.

"The technology that we're dealing with today is the newest and safest we've ever had," Fanning said. "It is completely different than what we faced back in the 1970s."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- Federal safety officials voted 4-to-1 to approve the first nuclear reactor construction permit in almost 35 years, overriding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko. ...
WASHINGTON -- Federal safety officials voted 4-to-1 to approve the first nuclear reactor construction permit in almost 35 years, overriding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko. ...
WASHINGTON -- Federal safety officials voted 4-to-1 to approve the first nuclear reactor construction permit in almost 35 years, overriding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko. ...
WASHINGTON -- Federal safety officials voted 4-to-1 to approve the first nuclear reactor construction permit in almost 35 years, overriding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko. ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,432
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (69 total)
  1 of 4  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
outlandish 06:17 PM on 02/09/2012
                  The San Andreas Fault line runs the full length of the of the north American continent.
It has enough stored energy to run the entire North American continents electricity need for ever.
Geothermal energy is a proven science and a few countries have switched to it exclusively or are in the process of doing  Read More...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Harley 2
08:56 PM on 03/04/2012
Greed, Ignorance, Denial, economic cycles, political cycles, and 24/7 mother nature can be a beeatttch.

Why nuke will never be safe, why we should shut them down, they have failed the test.

nukeproffesional.blogspot.com/p/manifesto-why-shut-them-down.html
06:58 AM on 02/24/2012
Vogtle is a safe and well chosen location - 220 feet above sealevel,130 miles from the coast and low seismic activity http://bit.ly/waOVnS
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Harley 2
08:51 PM on 03/04/2012
If it was off the earth, I would agree with it being somewhat safe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
12:07 PM on 02/23/2012
Moderators of this site have removed over 20 references to health and environmental damages from nuclear power that I listed yesterday. Those who claim there is no conspiracy to hide information from the public about nuclear power have another example of it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
09:55 AM on 02/21/2012
The proposed fuel is thorium, an abundant silver-gray element named for the Norse god of thunder. It is less radioactive than the uranium that has always powered U.S. plants, and advocates say that not only does it produce less waste, it also is more difficult to turn into nuclear weapons.

They’re pushing the idea of adapting plants to use thorium as a fuel or replacing them with a completely new kind of reactor called a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR (pronounced “lifter”). The LFTR would use a mixture of molten chemical salts to cool the reactor and to transfer energy from the fission reaction to a turbine.

Proponents say such a system would be more efficient and safer than existing plants, which use pressurized water to cool uranium fuel rods and boiling water or steam to transfer the energy they create.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nuclear-power-entrepreneurs-push-thorium-as-a-fuel/2011/12/15/gIQALTinPR_story.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
02:14 PM on 02/23/2012
LFTRs are totally different technology check out this video http://thoriumremix.com/2011/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Harley 2
08:52 PM on 03/04/2012
Nuke blows up all the time, why would any rational person think that they would stop blowing up.

http://nukeproffesional.blogspot.com/p/nuke-accidents-civilian-and-military-99.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
09:10 AM on 02/21/2012
South Korea relies on nuclear energy for about 30 percent of its electricity needs, supplied by 21 active nuclear reactors. The government aims to increase that share to 40 percent by 2040.

Even after Japan's magnitude-9 earthquake and tsunami last March 11 led to a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, a South Korean government official was quoted by The Korea Herald newspaper as saying "the (nuclear) plan has not changed."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/02/20/South-Korea-to-boost-nuclear-power/UPI-66711329765873/#ixzz1n1d1vj9C
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
09:48 AM on 02/21/2012
How does the rest of the world view nuclear power?  That is the real question. Many members of governments have been bribed to allow things in opposition to the needs or desires of the public.
Nuclear energy policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear power phase-out - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
photo
vmf211
Fighting against Liberalism every day
12:17 AM on 03/01/2012
They few it as awesome and we need to build more of them.
11:56 AM on 04/02/2012
South Korea's nukes are inviting targets for any future meglomaniacal North Korean leader
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
07:09 AM on 02/21/2012
Rumor has it that the final fueling stage will be stopped.
This is just a works project - make work project.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
04:41 PM on 02/21/2012
That is the beauty of the COL they already have the license to operate the plant, in the past anti-nuclear activists would use delaying tactics to prevent final approval (the operating license) in the old two part process, (construction license first then operating license after the plant was built) the delays increased the cost immensely
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Harley 2
08:53 PM on 03/04/2012
perfect test case to crush nuke. Please continue with your false sense of security.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
04:46 PM on 02/21/2012
By issuing a combined license (COL), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorizes the licensee to construct and (with specified conditions) operate a nuclear power plant at a specific site, in accordance with established laws and regulations. A COL is valid for 40 years from the date of the Commission finding, under Title 10, Section 52.103 (g), of the Code of Federal Regulations [10 CFR 52.103(g)], that the acceptance criteria in the combined license are met. A COL can be renewed for an additional 20 years. The NRC expects to receive applications for new LWR facilities in a variety of projected locations throughout the United States.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
06:50 PM on 02/21/2012
And it can be rescinded in a New York minute.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
08:14 AM on 02/19/2012
So far, there are 573 deaths related to the Fukushima nuclear meltdown, 573 deaths 'related to nuclear crisis' : National : DAILY YOMIURI ONLINE (The Daily Yomiuri)
Consider what effect are to people forced from their homes and farms over time.  What are the Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Meltdown? Japanese Press Assessments 福島原発炉心溶融のもたらす結果は?−−日本の諸新聞記事による評価

How much more loss of land and life are we willing to put up with, when we have so many safer and more economical ways to make electricity? Examine this map of contaminated lands in the US, and consider, when is it enough?  NREL map of contaminated lands
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
09:22 AM on 02/20/2012
Yet, radiation has killed no-one. The evacuation was far more injurious than the radiation, it illustrates the dangers of over reacting and why evacuation is not to be taken lightly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
09:29 AM on 02/20/2012
Can you understand that death is the result of being killed? A nuclear reacttor building does not hold a gun, yet it does provide the radiation that results in death, and does create the disasters that lead to indirect deaths. However I realize that you will continue to deny responsibility as that is all a criminal can do when caught.
11:59 AM on 04/02/2012
I've never seen cigarette smoke ever actually kill anyone. Have you, mike?
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
08:04 AM on 02/19/2012
While nuclear cheerleaders make assertions that no one has died- before leaving the property of a nuclear power facility, the delayed deaths from cancer, birth defects, and related injuries pile up. Also consider the effect of forcing people out of their homes and farms into temporary shelters. Consider what happens to these nuclear power refugees when the paltry $2500 settlement form TEPCO runs out, and all those who did not even get that. http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120204003191.htm Then add up the anticipated deaths yet to come. http://www.japanfocus.org/events/view/114
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Harley 2
08:47 PM on 03/04/2012
Exactly, nukers are a joke, a laughing stock.
charles77
Just the Facts Please
12:34 AM on 02/19/2012
"Critics have been quick to question the fiscal prudence of asking taxpayers to take on such enormous upfront costs, arguing the DOE has offered insufficient "public disclosure" on the particulars of the loan guarantee."

"Critics have been quick to question the fiscal prudence of asking taxpayers to take on such enormous upfront costs, arguing the DOE has offered insufficient "public disclosure" on the particulars of the loan guarantee."

lmao!

See nuclear power makes economic sense, solar DOES NOT!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
06:43 AM on 02/19/2012
You obviously have no idea what making sense entails.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
07:14 AM on 02/21/2012
jobs and money for fob
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
12:57 PM on 02/17/2012
This is the first step towards what Republicans and many Democrats alike hope will mark the reemergence of nuclear power as a viable energy source. A majority of Americans agree. A 2011 national survey found that 71 percent of the public favors nuclear energy as one way to generate electricity. Eighty-four percent believe nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting U.S. electricity needs in the future.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/211117-rep-phil-gingrey-r-ga
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
08:14 AM on 02/19/2012
No,employees and their families are excluded from local polls. Wording of the questions can have a significant effect.
According to Ann Bisconti, president of polling firm Bisconti Research Inc., the wording of questions can make comparing polls from different organizations exceptionally difficult. “Even the slightest difference in wording can make a difference,” she said. “For example, more people support ‘building more nuclear power plants in the future’ than simply ‘building more nuclear power plants’ and more people favor ‘building more nuclear power plants’ than ‘building more nuclear power plants at this time.’”
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/publicationsandmedia/insight/insightsummer2011/polls-show-continued-support-for-nuclear-energy/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
07:06 AM on 02/19/2012
I see the new strategy of crooked moderators is to run links together, even though they were spaced apart, so it makes them hard to read. Big business loves nuclear power for the huge amounts of tax money sucked out of the budget and delivered into the hands of a few private interests. This site encourages support of nuclear power, as do all those who make millions off embezzlement schemes from tax payers. Nuclear power is built with taxpayers providing construction costs, subsidies to operations, research from military budgets, freedom from liability insurance costs, with a token amount collected that in no way ever covers the costs of meltdowns, but allows some figures to be shown on paper. and the "profits" all funnel into private hands of the well-connected.
outnow
Ban the bomb
10:44 AM on 02/17/2012
Virginia and Emory Law Schools have environmental litigation funding and volunteers. What a time to be in law school and part of the environmental movement!
iridium53
Semper Fi
10:25 AM on 02/17/2012
I'm all for nuclear power generation - if it is the new generation of technology.

If they're going to build another early 60's technology plant with the same basic design as what we have in so many plants in the U.S. - that is a horrible mistake.

In the intervening 50 years there have been some advances - I hope they are building a new style of plant instead of a nuclear Edsel.
03:13 PM on 02/17/2012
iridium53, it is quite simple to figure out if it is an "old 60's version or something else. The article states the plant will be a Westinghouse AP1000. With a Google search, you'll see that this is what they call a generation III+ (Gen III+) reactor design. Although the reactor physics (nuclear fission) are the same all the the rest of the plant is a totally new design using passive emergecy cooling system (i.e., no pumps required to get water into the reactor). So, no it is not a "old 60's" design.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
07:12 AM on 02/19/2012
Overhead water tanks are subject to earthquake or terrorists attack damages that would allow a loss of coolant water and still end up in a meltdown potential. The water from an overhead tank will last a few days at best. Fukushima, after 11 months still requires large amounts of water flushing the reactor, and employees cannot even approach the reactor to verify the contents. That is hardly a situation that might be considered "under control". A safe system can be turned off. De-commissioning the Fukushima reactor will be a 40 year endeavor. The long term costs from the Fukushima meltdown are estimated to run in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and the cancer costs are all extra.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
08:55 PM on 02/20/2012
Also a search shows the design and illustrates the weak points, that still leave cause for concerns that many of the problems remain. AP1000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Harley 2
08:50 PM on 03/04/2012
NO nuke can ever be made safe enough.
They are never safe, but even to make one safe enough would make it so expensive it would be a stupid decision. Nuke is stupid.
WonderingNThinking
Think Before We Sink
05:00 AM on 02/17/2012
Interesting tidbit. It took almost 20 years to get Diablo Canyon NPP built and running. How's that for "cheap" energy?

TIMELINE:
1968 - Start of plant construction
1985 - Unit 1 enters commercial service
1986 - Unit 2 enters commercial service
2024 - Unit 1 license to expire unless renewed
2025 - Unit 2 license to expire unless renewed

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/utilities-operations-pge-diablo-idUKL2E8DEGNR20120214
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
10:21 AM on 02/17/2012
Faved, already fanned!

How many years to decontaminate the site once they shut it down?
25?
03:16 PM on 02/17/2012
CaptD, well to answer that, I'd suggest you look at how long it took to decommission Maine Yankee or any of the other sites where plants used to be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
12:21 AM on 02/19/2012
And it took from 1965 to 1969 to build the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant for $88 million and it is still in operation as well... licensed to 2029 Hows that for cheap energy?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
07:20 AM on 02/19/2012
Using 1965 dollars looks good does it not? A car could be bought for less than $2000 in those days. Typical dishonest comparison . http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/06/237150/stunner-new-nuclear-costs-as-much-as-german-solar-power-today-and-up-to-0-34kwh-in-2018/ The Vogtle reactor is priced at $8 billion and no power plant has been completed under budget in recent years. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/jul/22/nuclear-power-cost-delay-edf?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2011/09/22/florida-nuclear-costs/
photo
FaceTheTruth00
I'm a girl.
07:46 PM on 02/16/2012
Seriously, I can't believe most other countries are looking to move away from nuclear power, and even shutting down/planning shutdowns; but we're going to build more. Why?

I keep hearing how "safe" nuclear power is. Well, Three Mile Island was in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011. That's 3 nuclear meltdowns in 32 years.

That is acceptable? Three nuclear meltdowns is acceptable? How? Why? Because we didn't see immediate mass casualties (like with the atomic bombs)?

Can it be argued too that each accident was worse than the one before? I guess some will argue that Fukushima wasn't as bad as Chernobyl, but the Soviets lied for days and let people continue to live in the fallout. Certainly there were more rescue workers who died or became ill; but we don't know what will be the long-term effects of Fukushima.

So it seems to me that we could at least argue that Fukushima is much more on-par with the level of Chernobyl, than with TMI. These are not small things; they're nuclear meltdowns, and we're still not preventing them 32 years after TMI.

I don't see how anyone can argue that this is safe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
10:21 AM on 02/17/2012
Faved, already fanned!
I agree, since it has been proven that Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!
Ask The Japanese!
outnow
Ban the bomb
10:45 AM on 02/17/2012
Three strikes and you're out, IMHO. Well said. They don't want to heed the mistakes of Fukushima. Their insanity is repeating the mistakes of Fukushima. Stop the madness!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
07:24 PM on 02/16/2012
Seen this nuclear EXPERT dumped by GE
GE Whistleblower Nuclear Physicist Jack Shannon
http://youtu.be/yf1ur9aBiS8