Vogtle nuclear loan guarantee drags into fifth round of delays

Aerial image of Plant Vogtle Nuclear Generating Station - photo credit to High Flyer. The photo shows the operating Units 1 and 2, as well as the construction site for proposed new Units 3 and 4.As reported by Platts, and conveyed in a Friends of the Earth press release, the December 31, 2013 U.S. Department of Energy deadline for finalization of the $8.3 billion federal taxpayer backed nuclear loan guarantee for Vogtle 3 & 4 has been extended yet again, for a fifth time, until the end of January, 2014.

As reported by FOE: "Freedom of Information Act requests and litigation revealed that the credit subsidy fee offered to Southern Company ranged from 0.8 to 1.5 percent. The credit subsidy fee is supposed to insulate against default, but the fee offered to Southern Company is woefully inadequate to cover the risks involved in major nuclear construction. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 32 percent of reactor construction is cancelled before any electricity is produced."

Watchdog groups have long called for a credit subsidy fee commensurate with the risk of the nuclear new build proposals. Congressional auditors reported several years ago that new reactors, historically, have had a 50% risk of cancellation and potential default. The Vogtle 3 & 4 nuclear loan guarantee puts 15 times more taxpayer money at risk than did the Solyndra loan guarantee scandal, which had a significantly lower risk of default than does Vogtle 3 & 4.

Given the Obama administration offered the $8.3 billion nuclear loan guarantee nearly four years ago, and now this latest delay, concerns continue to mount that the project is a financial house of cards, and will ultimately leave taxpayers holding the bag. Nuclear Watch South has called for taxpayers to express their concerns to decision makers, as has Beyond Nuclear.

Atomic reactors? Electricity is but the fleeting byproduct; the actual product is forever deadly high-level radioactive waste!

At the first anti-nuclear power event Beyond Nuclear's Kevin Kamps ever attended, in March 1993, Michael Keegan of Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes and Don't Waste Michigan pointed out that "Electricity is but the fleeting byproduct from atomic reactors. The actual product is forever deadly radioactive waste."

An environmental coalition of nearly three dozen groups, including Beyond Nuclear and Don't Waste Michigan, has said just as much to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding its "Nuclear Waste Confidence" Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. So too has Beyond Nuclear directly itself.

A key conclusion of such public comments? The costs, liabilities, and risks of generating, storing, and "disposing of" high-level radioactive wastes mean that NRC approving proposed new reactor construction and operating licenses is a non-starter, as should have been revealed by the "hard look" required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) during NRC's court-ordered EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) undertaking.

The image to the left is the cover of the Beyond Nuclear pamphlet published for the Dec. 2, 2012 conference held at the U. of Chicago entitled "A Mountain of Radioactive Waste 70 Years High." Sponsored by Beyond Nuclear, FOE, and NEIS, it marked the 70th year, to the day, since Enrico Fermi fired up the first self-sustaining chain reaction in an atomic reactor, creating the world's first high-level radioactive waste, as part of the Manhattan Project's race to create atomic weapons, culminating in the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan in August, 1945.

Expert: Doubts on Geotechnical Data Undermine Safety at Proposed Fermi 3 Atomic Reactor

Arnie Gundersen, Chief Engineer, Fairewinds Associates, Inc.Arnie Gundersen, Chief Engineer at Fairewinds Associates, Inc. (photo, left), testified before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) on behalf of an environmental coalition opposed to the construction and operation of Detroit Edison's proposed new Fermi 3 atomic reactor in Monroe, MI, on the Great Lakes shoreline. He focused on license applicant Detroit Edison's (DTE) blatant violations of safety significant quality assurance regulations.

The coalition, comprised of Beyond Nuclear, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Citizens Environment Coalition of Southwestern Ontario, Don't Waste MI, and Sierra Club MI Chapter, issued a press release.

Gundersen voiced his concerns about the trustworthiness of geotechnical data gathered by DTE and its subcontractors as part of the Fermi 3 Development Project. Detroit Edison has argued that it was not required to have quality assurance in place, as it was not yet an “applicant” for a new reactor construction and operating license at the time.

“Given Detroit Edison’s violations of quality assurance requirements, the geological borings and soil samples are suspect. Fermi 3’s building structures would be very heavy, so the geotechnical data has to be verifiable, so that the atomic reactor’s foundations are rock solid, and seismically qualified."

Gundersen pointed out that Detroit Edison’s playing fast and loose with the definition of the word “applicant” presents dangers not only at Fermi 3, but would set a very bad precedent across the nuclear power industry.

Gundersen continued: “If Detroit Edison was not an applicant, then it was not subject to NRC rules guarding against deliberate misconduct, the bearing of materially false witness, and requirements of completeness and accuracy of information, employee whistleblower protections, oaths of affirmation, and reporting of defects and noncompliance. Without quality assurance in place from the get-go, the very fabric of nuclear safety regulation has been torn asunder at Fermi 3. Whistleblowers watch out: NRC confirms that whistleblower protection did not apply at Fermi 3. As a former nuclear whistleblower, this is truly terrifying."

Gundersen filed an expert declaration on QA, or lack thereof, on Dec. 8, 2009. He included his CV.

On January 15, 2010, the coalition had to fend off legal attacks by both DTE and NRC Staff.

He submitted additional expert testimony on June 8, 2010. A week later, the ASLB admitted the environmental coalition's QA contention to the evidentiary hearing stage.

He also filed non-proprietary QA testimony on April 30, 2013, which accompanied Intervenors' Initial Statement of Position on Contention 15 [QA].

DTE sicked three experts on Gundersen on April 30, just as they did at the oral evidentiary hearings on October 30-31.

NRC's expert, George A. Lipscomb, who also filed written testimony on April 30, was subjected to withering cross examination by the ASLB during the October 31 evidentiary hearing. Lipscomb stuck to his position, that DTE was not responsible for QA before it filed its Fermi 3 license application in September 2008. One of the three ASLB administrative law judge’s took issue with the agency staff person’s testimony.

“I really find your position to be very troubling,” ASLB Administrative Law Judge Anthony J. Baratta stated on the record. Baratta described NRC’s logic as “circular,” “confusing,” “appalling,” and even “somewhat misleading.”

In addition, ASLB Chief Administrative Law Judge Ronald M. Spritzer stated that NRC’s position was “completely irrational” and a “totally incoherent version of this regulation.”

Also responding to NRC’s testimony, Michael Keegan of Don’t Waste Michigan said: “That was the best Double Speak I’ve heard in a long time. George Orwell is spinning so fast in his grave, he should be hooked up to the electric grid.”

Gundersen also filed non-proprietary rebuttal testimony on May 29, 2013. It accompanied the environmental coalition's rebuttal to DTE and NRC Staff legal attacks.

Comments needed to NRC ASLB in opposition to Fermi 3 proposed new reactor in MI!

As instructed in a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission press release, those opposed to a proposed new reactor in Monroe County, Michigan can submit oral or written comments to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) overseeing the application.

Those able to make it in person to Monroe, MI are encouraged to submit oral comments at sessions provided by the ASLB on Tuesday, October 29th.

But written comments can also be submitted, via these ASLB instructions:

"Those who cannot attend the sessions in Monroe can submit written statements via mail to Administrative Judge Ronald M. Spritzer, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop T-3F23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001; via fax to 301-415-5599, or via email to onika.williams@nrc.gov and ronald.spritzer@nrc.gov. Copies of written submissions should also be sent via mail to Office of the Secretary, Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20444-0001; via fax to 301-415-1101 or via email to hearingdocket@nrc.gov."

Sample comments, in bullet point form, are provided below. You can use them to compose your own comments.

An environmental coalition has fought for over five years for its day in court, in opposition to the risky Fermi 3 proposal. An NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel will hear two of the coalition's remaining four intervention contentions next week.

SAMPLE COMMENTS

---It costs too much. Fermi 3's price tag is around $20 billion and climbing. That money should be invested in renewables, such as wind power and solar photovoltaics, as well as efficiency, instead. Renewables and efficiency are the future, they are the solution to the climate crisis, not a new atomic reactor.

---It takes too long. Fermi 3's 1,550 Megawatts of electricity are not needed. Fermi 3 would take years, if not decades, to build. As electricity demand in the area increases over time, efficiency and renewables can meet it better than such a large, centralized plant. (In fact, Detroit Edison itself has just indicated it would much more likely build natural gas fired plant, instead of Fermi 3.)

---Weapons proliferation risks. Fermi 3 would be General Electric-Hitachi (GEH) so-called "Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor" (ESBWR) design. GEH also runs a new laser-based uranium enrichment facility in North Carolina, which would likely supply enriched uranium fuel to Fermi 3. The spread of laser enrichment technology worldwide, which GEH and NRC have thus encouraged, will worsen risks of nuclear weapons proliferation, due to its easily hidden small size, and its high efficiency for achieving weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU).

---Accident risks. The brand new Fermi 3, co-located with the age-degraded Fermi 2, would place "break-in phase" risks beside "break-down phase" risks. The 1966 "We Almost Lost Detroit" Fermi 1 meltdown, the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown, and the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe all occurred at new reactors, where the "bugs" in design, construction, and operator performance got "work out" the "hard way." Fermi 2 is the identical same design as Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 to 4 -- General Electric Mark I Boiling Water Reactors. But Fermi 2 is nearly as big as Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 and 2 put together. As shown by the Fukushima Daiichi itself, co-locating reactors and radioactive waste storage can lead to cascading, large-scale catastrophes.

---Attack risks. Fermi 3 would be located on the shore of Lake Erie. The Great Lakes provide drinking water for 40 million people in 8 U.S. states, 2 Canadian provinces, and a large number of Native American First Nations. Such mega-risks should not be located next to such an irreplacable natural resource.

---Radioactive waste. The mountain of commercial high-level radioactive waste is now over a half-century tall, and we don't even know what to do with the first cupful. Fermi 2's Mark I storage pool contains well over 600 tons of HLRW, multiple times more than Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4's, on the brink of collapse, which would unleash a catastrophic radioactive waste fire. Fermi 2 and Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4's storage pools have something in common: the HLRW is stuck, they are not able to unload it. At Fermi 2, because structural welds were never installed in the adjacent structures. At Fukushima, because of the explosion that devastated Unit 4. Fermi 3 would only add to the HLRW woes on the Lake Erie shore. NRC should have no confidence in the safety and soundenss of HLRW storage at Fermi. Electricity would be the fleeting byproduct at Fermi 3. The actual product would be forever deadly radioactive waste. The only solution to the HLRW problem is to not make it in the first place.

---"Routine" radioactivity releases. Fermi 3 would add to the radiological burden in the environment, due to "permitted" or "allowed" releases of radioactivity into the air and water. Uncontrolled and unmonitored leaks should also be expected, as there is an epidemic of such leaks at U.S. reactors today. In addition to radioactivity releases, Fermi 3 would release toxic chemicals, as well as waste heat, into Lake Erie. This will worsen the already bad toxic algal blooms marking Lake Erie's demise.

---Fermi 3's construction would mark the biggest impact on fragile Great Lakes coastal wetlands in the history of applicable environmental protection laws, according to the State of Michigan. This will significantly harm the threatened Eastern Fox Snake, an indigenous constrictor species, which calls those Great Lakes coastal wetlands home. In fact, numerous threatened and endangered species would be harmed by Fermi 3's construction and operation. This would be made worse by tens of miles of associated new transmission lines that would be built as part of the Fermi 3 project, including through fragile forested wetlands.

Bette Pierman of Michigan Safe Energy Future--South Haven Chapter has submitted comments that can be used as a model.

Farouk D. Baxter, PE, an expert/specialist in nuclear power plant electrical systems based in Sudbury, MA, has also submitted comments, regarding Fermi 3 transmission corridor and other electrical systems problems, that can also be used as a model.

Citizen Ron Lankford of South Rockwood has expressed concerns about Fermi 3's impacts on the Great Lakes.

Fermi 3 Nuclear Reactor Atomic Safety Licensing Board Hearings in Monroe, MI

Press Advisory: Fermi 3 Nuclear Reactor Atomic Safety Licensing Board Hearings, October 29^th through November 1st

Formal hearings begin Wednesday October 30^th at 9:30 am at Monroe County Board Chambers

Contact: Michael J. Keegan, Don’t Waste Michigan (734) 770-1441

Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear (240) 462-3216  

Halloween in Monroe, MI - -  An environmental coalition will finally get its day in court after more than five years of resisting Detroit Edison's (DTE) proposed new Fermi 3 atomic reactor targeted at the Lake Erie shoreline of Monroe County, Michigan.   The coalition includes Beyond Nuclear, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (CACC), Citizen Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario (CEA), Don't Waste Michigan, and Sierra Club Michigan Chapter.  The coalition is represented by Toledo-based attorney Terry Lodge who filed intervention contentions and petitioned for hearings by NRC's short deadline on March 9, 2009.

Of some 30 contentions filed by the coalition, four have survived five years of NRC staff and DTE legal attacks.  Two will be heard over Halloween, two are deferred.  The proposed Fermi 3 project is behind schedule by three and one third years  from DTE's original plan.

The first contention relates to the threatened Eastern Fox Snake species, an indigenous constrictor.  The State of Michigan has identified that Fermi 3 would be the largest impact on Great Lakes coastal wetlands in the history of applicable state environmental protection laws.

The second contention examines the adequacy,  and in fact, the very existence, of quality assurance (QA) on the entire Fermi 3 Combined Operating License Application (COLA).  DTE's failure to have a quality assurance program undermines any guarantee of safe operation if Fermi 3 is ever constructed.  Chief nuclear engineer Arnold Gundersen with Fairewinds Associates, Inc. will serve as the expert witness on behalf of the Interveners.

These evidentiary hearings will commence at 9:30 AM, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Wednesday, October 30, 2013, and continue through Friday, November 1, 2013, if necessary, in the Monroe County Courthouse’s Board Meeting Room, 125 East Second Street, Monroe, MI.   Monroe County Courthouse Directions  ASLB Order Notice of Hearing issued May 15, 2013.

Related ASLB proceedings will be held Tuesday, October 29th with "limited appearance statements" being taken -- essentially a public comment opportunity -- by non-parties to the formal proceeding. The limited appearance statement opportunities will be held from 1-3 p.m. and from 7-8:30 p.m. in the Meyer Theater at the Monroe County Community College’s La-Z-Boy Center, 1555 S. Raisinville Road in Monroe.

More at Beyond Nuclear: http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-power/2013/10/16/interventions-against-proposed-new-fermi-3-atomic-reactor-in.html

ASLB Hearing Notification link: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Going Forward With Hearing Oct. 30 on Proposed Fermi New Reactor