![]( "calv")
A panel of judges on the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has completed its hearing on challenges to an application
to build a new nuclear power plant at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland. Board
hearings are one part of the NRC’s process for determining whether a
new reactor can be approved.
The
judges’ rulings have enough moving parts that we’re taking the unusual
step of providing this brief summary to make sure everything’s clearly
understood.
Most
importantly, the judges ruled that the applicant, UniStar, is
completely foreign-owned and therefore the NRC cannot give UniStar a
license until they’ve resolved this issue. When the company submitted
its application in 2007, UniStar was a joint venture between
Maryland-based Constellation and the French company EDF. That
arrangement was challenged by several environmental groups, but in late
2010 EDF bought Constellation’s portion and made UniStar foreign-owned.
The
judges ruled that UniStar has 60 days from today to provide proof of
progress towards a partnership with a U.S. company that meets the NRC’s
requirements. Without that proof, the judges will end the hearing. After
60 days, UniStar would have to fulfill additional requirements to
re-start the hearing if they found a U.S. partner.
Another
panel of judges is considering a new reactor application for a site in
Texas that also examines foreign ownership issues, but under different
circumstances.
The
Calvert Cliffs judges had other issues to consider, and they ruled on
those too so that if UniStar finds a suitable U.S. partner in the
future, the NRC could continue its overall review of the application.
The
judges examined a challenge to the NRC’s environmental review. The
groups opposed to the application argued the agency’s review failed to
properly account for possible increases in solar and wind power as an
alternative to a new reactor. The judges said that argument was correct
when the hearing started, but all the information considered during the
hearing corrected the agency’s error. The judges ruled the environmental
review as it exists today is acceptable.
The
judges also ruled on the groups’ attempt to offer a new argument based
on the lessons learned from last year’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear
accident in Japan. The groups claimed the Calvert Cliffs environmental
review would be incomplete until the NRC considered information from the
agency’s Fukushima task force report, including possible improvements
for dealing with reactor accidents.
The
judges ruled that, while the groups filed their argument within the
time allowed by the NRC’s rules, the judges must abide by a March 16,
2012, decision from the agency’s five Commissioners. That decision
rejected a similar argument in other hearings, concluding the argument
failed to point out how Fukushima’s events directly related to the
applications under review. The Calvert Cliffs judges ruled the same
situation applies here, and therefore the groups’ argument must be
rejected.
One
judge provided a separate opinion that, even if the earlier Commission
decision didn’t apply, the groups failed to show how their argument
could alter the environmental impacts enough to require additional
agency review. Another judge provided a separate opinion that a portion
of the groups’ argument could be acceptable if the earlier Commission
decision didn’t apply.
As is the case with all Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decisions, the ruling can be appealed to the NRC’s five Commissioners.
Scott Burnell
Public Affairs Officer
No comments:
Post a Comment