Nuclear critics in this state and elsewhere have once again asked federal nuclear regulators to halt the approval process for a next-generation reactor design favored by Duke Energy, Progress Energy and other Southern electric utilities.
If the petition were to succeed, it would severely set back this nation's nuclear revival by disqualifying the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design that has shown greatest promise to the industry.
Duke and Progress have selected the AP1000 for new reactor construction in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida.
The critics, including N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, based in Durham, asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to terminate rulemaking on the AP1000, saying the design is fundamentally flawed and unsafe. They say the review process should not begin until the reactor design is completed.
The filing comes a month after NRC officials said Westinghouse needs to resolve issues about the AP1000's ability to withstand severe weather or a jetliner crash.
NC WARN, Friends of the Earth and the AP1000 Oversight Alliance said the Westinghouse design has been dogged for years by problems and delays. The design is now in its 19th revision before the NRC.
Today's filing is similar to one filed last year in which a dozen anti-nuke groups, including NC WARN, asked the NRC to suspend its review of the AP1000.
Westinghouse has repeatedly said the questions are routine and not significant.
The Westinghouse AP1000 design includes an emergency cooling system that can operate without human intervention during a nuclear emergency. Critics say the emergency system is not fail-safe.
The "passive design" is based on giant water tank elevated above the reactor. During a nuclear accident, the tank would release water through gravity to cool the reactor below and prevent it from overheating and releasing radiation.
Heat from the reactor would vaporize the water, sending it back up in the form of steam. The cycle would repeat itself for several days, giving emergency responders time to bring in another source of cooling water.
John Murawski has been a full-time newspaper reporter since 1991, with stints at Legal Times and The Chronicle of Philanthropy (both in Washington, DC), The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Palm Beach Post (in South Florida) before arriving at the N&O in December 2004. At the N&O he covers energy (nuclear, coal, renewable, efficiency), hydralic fracturing (or "fracking"), public utilities (both electric and natural gas) and health care. His beat includes Progress Energy, PSNC Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas, PowerSecure International, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Biogen Idec and others. You can reach him at 919-829-8932 or
Comments
John, you wrote that: "If
Fri, 06/17/2011 - 04:06 — SGSterrettJohn, you wrote that: "If the petition were to succeed, it would severely set back this nation's nuclear revival . . ." That's a strong and unsubstantiated claim. Such claims about the effect of requests for delays were made during the late 70's and early 80's, when John Ahearne was the Chairman of the NRC. He had an investigation done, and such claims were found to be groundless. Delays certainly existed, but then, as now with the AP1000, they were often due to technical issues. Many people seem to have forgotten about the plants on which construction was begun, but never completed. The ratepayers who were charged for these abandoned plants never got refunds on the portions of their electric bills that were used to begin construction on them. I think that the point that construction should not begin on a new nuclear power plant until its design is complete is a point of agreement between all concerned -- at least in principle. The question is whether or not the design is complete. If it is not (and indications are pretty clear that it is not), then I think that the statement you made is misleading; then, the effect of the delay would be to set back the ability of the utilities to raise rates on a construction project that may or may not produce power someday. If construction begins while the plant design is still undergoing changes, ratepayers are taking financial risks -- and they stand to lose.