[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Regulatory Commission denies a license for new nuclear reactor

[SAF OPT]

In reply to today's question I had commented a few days about this decision 
in more detail. See my comments below.  The NRC did not find that wind or 
solar electric power had less environmental impact than nuclear generated 
electricity. Also they reported that the potential for solar and wind 
generation was much less than NIRS maintained. Anti nukes have less to crow 
about than they seem to think.

The immediate licensing problem  with the Calvert Cliffs project is indeed 
an issue of the extent of foreign ownership of the plant and not any excess 
environmental impact. The NRC review of wind or solar raises some 
significant negative issues related to solar and wind power potential.

The issue of greatest concern was not solar or wind generated power, but THE 
solar wind --charged particles from an extreme solar event that might 
severely damage electric system infrastructure and interfere with backup 
power in the even of long term loss of offsite power.

Stewart Farber, MSPH
Radproject at optonline.net

===============================

-----Original Message----- 
From: SAFarber
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:16 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Regulatory Commission denies a license for
new nuclear reactor (NRC Licensing Board comments on wind and solar in
LBP-12-17

The full review by the NRC Licensing Board of the solar and wind contentions
of the anti-nuclear group NIRS regarding the new unit at Calvert Cliffs is
at:

http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/10cruling.pdf

The Staff, after a 64 page review,  dismisses the contentions of NIRS
regarding the potential for wind and solar development  in MD. In skimming
the NRC decision LBP-12-17 mentioned by Sandy it is clear that there are
conclusions reached as to significant limitations in the potential of solar
and wind development power generation in MD to limit environmental impacts.
The final Conclusion stated by the NRC is:

"VI. CONCLUSION
The Board finds that, while the FEIS analysis of the combination alternative
was deficient
for the two reasons we have identified, the FEIS, as supplemented, satisfies
the requirements of
NEPA and 10 C.F.R. Part 51."

FEIS = Final Environmental Impact Statement
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act

The content of the decision is quite informative. It discusses how a utility
may purchase REC [Renewable Energy Credits] to satisfy the requirements that
might be imposed as to how much wind or solar is produced. The NRC discusses
that a utility does not actually have to use the power generated by a REC,
just pay the cost of purchasing the REC.   The power produced, distant from
MD, in most cases can not be used by the purchasing utility because of the
limitations of long distance transmission. Also as wind power generation in
any given local area grows to a non-trivial level, the variability of wind
requires that a utility build second power plants in the form of
quick-ramping gas turbine plants increasing the pollutant releases for any
unit of generation, and adding to the cost.  In essence the utilities end up
building almost 2 power plants [ gas plus wind] to get the output of  one
baseload  non-wind power plant

It is obvious that when utilities end up purchasing REC and competing for
them, the cost will go up and the electricity cost to the consumer will go
up sharply.

As one looks more closely at wind and solar electric generation,  it is ever
more obvious that the benefits as to environmental impact limitations and
cost reductions are largely a shell game.

Stewart Farber, MSPH
farber at farber.info

===================
====================
-----Original Message----- 
From: Perle, Sandy
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:43 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Regulatory Commission denies a license for
new nuclear reactor (NRC Licensing Board comments on wind and solar in
LBP-12-17

Roy,

Yes. In this document, NRC Licensing Board comments on wind and solar in
LBP-12-17,

Regards,

Sandy

-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division

================================
From: <Miller>, "Roy H."
<ROHMILLE at southernco.com
Date: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:53 AM
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Regulatory Commission denies a license for
new nuclear reactor (NRC Licensing Board comments on wind and solar in
LBP-12-17

Looks like a foreign owner issue and not a change in policy

Sent form iPad

On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:05 AM, "Perle, Sandy"
<sperle at mirion.com<mailto:sperle at mirion.com>> wrote:

www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/10cruling.pdf
-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division
=================
From: <Mercado>, "Donald Paul. [CONSOLIDATED SAFETY SERVICES INC] (ARC-QH)"
donald.p.mercado at nasa.gov
Date: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:40 AM
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu><mailto:radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Regulatory Commission denies a license for
new nuclear reactor
The briefing won't come up on my computer for some reason. Does someone have
the Cliff notes on this? Is the NRC really commenting on the wind and solar
issue?

=====================
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Roger Helbig
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:00 AM
To: RADSAFE
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Regulatory Commission denies a license for new
nuclear reactor
The anti-nukes are crowing about this sad day for the rest of America.
Roger
Christina MacPherson posted: "CALVERT CLIFFS-3 LICENSE DENIED!
http://www.nirs.org/    August 30, 2012. In a historic decision, NRC
Licensing Board supports NIRS's position and denies
construction/operating license for Calvert Cliffs-3! Key decision
here. NIRS press statemen"
Historic event - Nuclear Regulatory Commission denies a license for
new nuclear reactor
by Christina MacPherson
CALVERT CLIFFS-3 LICENSE DENIED!   http://www.nirs.org/    August 30,
2012. In a historic decision, NRC Licensing Board supports NIRS's
position and denies construction/operating license for Calvert
Cliffs-3! Key decision here. NIRS press statement is here.
The Licensing Board also issued decisions onNIRS' solar and wind
contention, and another contention related to Fukushima Task Force
issues.
On July 26, 2012, NIRS held a press briefing on the expected Calvert
Cliffs-3 decision and its implications for the nuclear industry with
Michael Mariotte of NIRS, Bob Eye, attorney for intervenors in the
South Texas licensing proceeding, and former NRC Commissioner Peter
Bradford. You can listen to the briefing here. Michael Mariotte's
opening statement is here.
Timeline of the Calvert Cliffs-3 reactor project and licensing proceeding.
Christina MacPherson | August 31, 2012 at 6:36 am | Categories:
politics, USA | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-7nB
http://nuclear-news.net/2012/08/31/historic-event-nuclear-regulatory-commission-denies-a-license-for-new-nuclear-reactor/
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________


-----Original Message----- 
From: Perle, Sandy
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 9:54 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Regulatory Commission denies a license for 
new nuclear reactor

If you can receive it, I've attached the document. Yes, the Licensing Board 
does refer to inadequate assessment of wind and solar potential

-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies

From: <Mercado>, "Donald Paul. [CONSOLIDATED SAFETY SERVICES INC] (ARC-QH)" 
<donald.p.mercado at nasa.gov

Date: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:40 AM
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Regulatory Commission denies a license for 
new nuclear reactor

The briefing won't come up on my computer for some reason. Does someone have 
the Cliff notes on this? Is the NRC really commenting on the wind and solar 
issue?