ROCKVILLE, Maryland (Reuters) - U.S. regulators on Thursday approved plans to build the first new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years, despite objections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman, despite objections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) chairman, who cited safety concerns stemming from Japan’s 2011 Fukushima disaster. 

The NRC voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Co to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. The units will cost Southern and partners about $14 billion and enter service as soon as 2016 and 2017.

No nuclear power plants have been licensed in the United States since the partial meltdown of the reactor core of the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979. After the accident, the NRC adopted more stringent safety standards, which caused construction costs for nuclear plants to skyrocket and stopped dozens of planned plants in their tracks.

*This post is for anon, who earlier this evening asked me to update a previous post on new plants in the US. No update is needed. There have been no new nuclear power plants allowed to be built in the US since 1978. Anon may have been referring to applications for new plants or perhaps rehabs of old power plants.

This may be the most important advancement in climate adaptation in U.S. history. Military bases, power plants, turtle nesting grounds, etc., are being affected by rising seas. Whenever there is a new project that will affect these areas, developers have to ensure that the environment is not significantly harmed (this is why the right hates the EPA).

They have to file what’s called an Environmental Impact Statement, aka an EIS. Want to build a new road? File an EIS to show the public if any animal habitat will be disturbed or if human health will be impacted from pollution. Want to build an oil pipeline from Alberta Canada to Texas? File an EIS and post it online for the public to review it.

Build a new high-speed train? File an EIS. Dump mercury pollution into the Great Lakes? EIS. New coal mine? EIS. Fix an old bridge? EIS. Cut down a forest? EIS. There are federal EISs and state EISs (and sometimes there are local EISs, which makes the process to build something very expensive, but they’re all relatively good for the environment.) 

The Federal Highway Administration builds and maintains our nation’s highway system. It has to file boat loads of EISs every year. It characterizes an EIS as a federal regulation required by the National Environmental Protection Act, which was signed by Nixon around 1970:

NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An EIS is a full disclosure document that details the process through which a transportation project was developed, includes consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives, analyzes the potential impacts resulting from the alternatives, and demonstrates compliance with other applicable environmental laws and executive orders. The EIS process in completed in the following ordered steps: Notice of Intent (NOI), draft EIS, final EIS, and record of decision (ROD).

The NOI is published in the Federal Register by the lead Federal agency and signals the initiation of the process. Scoping, an open process involving the public and other Federal, state and local, agencies, commences immediately to identify the major and important issues for consideration during the study. Public involvement and agency coordination continues throughout the entire process. The draft EIS provides a detailed description of the proposal, the purpose and need, reasonable alternatives, the affected environment, and presents analysis of the anticipated beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the alternatives. Following a formal comment period and receipt of comments from the public and other agencies, the FEIS will be developed and issued. The FEIS will address the comments on the draft and identify, based on analysis and comments, the “preferred alternative”. Read more here.

Writing for Columbia Law School’s Climate Law Blog, sharp student Patrick Woolsey found that the U.S. Military and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are at the forefront of filing EISs that include sea level rise impacts from climate change. In a recent post, Woolsey wrote: 

The U.S. military addresses sea level rise in its EISs for coastal bases and installations with particular urgency. In a 2010 EIS, the Navy analyzes the effects of SLR on the expansion of a naval base on the island of Guam and the construction of a deepwater docking facility for aircraft carriers. The Guam EIS recognizes the island’s extreme vulnerability to climate change and SLR. The EIS also discusses SLR in the context of broader security concerns, noting that “in 2008, the National Intelligence Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels.”

It’s not just the military who is concerned with rising seas - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission filed EISs for new reactors on the coasts; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration filed EISs for fishery management, coral reefs, and sea turtle habitat; and the Navy is concerned with expanding an island military base in Guam.

EISs are made up of many parts, but the do not have to include sea-level rise. And they certainly do not require developers to include climate change impacts! Politically, climate change is a toxic issue. But, the agencies are showing that they do have the individual power and mandate under the NEPA to manage environmental impacts regardless of the source. 

I have no doubt this turn towards adapting projects for climate impacts will hit the Supreme Court within the next few years.

Flood berm collapses at Nebraska’s Fort Calhoun nuke plant; facility shut down since April

“FORT CALHOUN, Neb. — A berm holding back floodwater at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station has collapsed.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it’s monitoring the Missouri River flooding at the plant, which has been shut down since early April for refueling.

The 2,000-foot berm collapsed about 1:30 a.m. Sunday, allowing the swollen river to surround two buildings at the plant. The NRC says those buildings are designed to handle flooding up to 1014 feet above sea level. The river is at 1006.3 feet and isn’t forecast to exceed 1008 feet.

The NRC says its inspectors were at the plant when the berm failed and have confirmed that the flooding has had no impact on the reactor shutdown cooling or the spent fuel pool cooling.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko will visit the plant Monday.”

Source: The Republic

Recall the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has, since April, told the public the plant is safe, see NYTimes, Reuters, etc. 

According to the NRC’s Burnell, the added flood barriers will protect the plant even if the river rises beyond where it is currently projected to go. 

Recall last week, when I wrote, twice, that the FAA closed airspace above the nuclear power plant due to a fire. 

More soon. 

“Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping, an Associated Press investigation shows.

The number and severity of the leaks has been escalating, even as federal regulators extend the licenses of more and more reactors across the nation.

Tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, has leaked from at least 48 of 65 sites, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission records reviewed as part of the AP’s yearlong examination of safety issues at aging nuclear power plants. Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard — sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.”

Source: AP via ABC 

UPDATE: One of my followers just accused Jeff Donn and the AP of shilling for coal companies. He, with a large staff, have investigated the NRC for over a year to produce this report. As the report states, two congressmen called for an investigation by the US GAO into the leaks - a report that shows serious inadequacies in voluntary self-regulation by the nuclear power industry.

Look, I’ll give my follower, and anyone else, the benefit of the doubt. I know Jeff peripherally, as well as several reporters and editors at the AP. If you have information that Jeff, or anyone at the AP are planting stories from coal companies, please send it to me asap directly or anonymously to mcote@vermontlaw.edu or mcote@accoonline.org. Thanks and best, Michael Cote

UPDATE2: Jeff Donn, AP reporter for this article, just had a Q&A sesh yesterday, here. Most interesting to me is this question about the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station near me. It’s leaked into the Ct River, and the company (I believe), lied about it. This caught my attention:

Question from Harold One Feather:

What right does the public have in removing a nuclear generating station from their backyards?

Answer:

Vermont is the only state where the state legislature has the power to close a nuclear plant. Upset about leaks of radioactive tritium, Vermont’s state Senate voted to do that for Vermont Yankee nuclear, but the plant’s operator has challenged in federal court.

ProPublica is reporting on the lack of fire safety in US nuclear power plants. They also reported that their reporters recently inquired about nuclear safety, and were met with hostile nuclear regulatory officials. My concern goes further in that these plants are not designed to withstand current climate impacts, such as major droughts. Power plants rely on a water source, such as a river or lake, to cool down their reactors. If the water runs dry, or too low, or is too hot, the plant has to shut down. There are no contingencies for these situations, that I’m aware of other than shutting down the plant. My understanding is that the danger here is a melt-down could occur from climate-related events. Never mind climate change, they’re not prepared for today. 

In a forceful critique of his agency’s approach toward fire safety, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission declared that the policy of not enforcing most fire code violations at dozens of nuclear plants is “unacceptable” and has tied the hands of NRC inspectors.

The written comments by NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko, released last week, were made as the commission voted in late May to continue a policy of citing only the most serious fire violations at 44 of the nation’s 101 reactors that are in the process of updating fire plans, and to address old hazards.

As ProPublica recently reported, many of the plants are relying on fire watches and other short-term measures while they work on their new plans. But critics say the NRC’s enforcement policy has allowed nuclear companies to put off installing fire suppression, barriers and other safety features for years.

Source: ProPublica. See also, ProPublica ripping the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on current unsafe nuclear power plants. MSM?