Sen McCaskill Response about Nuclear Energy Power Plants

the following post is a response I received from an email I sent to Senator McCaskill about: 

Re: Senate Bill 50- Missouri Nuclear Agenda Just Say NO

 From: senator@mccaskill.senate.gov 

To: scottscontracting@gmail.com (Provided in Full)

Dear Mr. Scott,

Thank you for contacting me regarding nuclear energy. I appreciate hearing from you, and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As the United States seeks to become more energy independent and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) it will be important to diversify our investments in all available energy sources.  Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and biomass will play a valuable role in achieving these objectives.  However, our country's energy needs are considerable, and they continue to grow.  Even accounting for rapid expansion in recent years, renewable sources provide only a small percentage of our country's total energy production.  We simply can't address our energy needs through increased production of renewable energy alone.

To meet our energy demand, we must invest in a diversity of energy sources and new technologies.  Responsible development of new nuclear facilities, carbon capture and sequestration technology to reduce GHG emissions currently associated with coal energy, and expanded use of natural gas will all be necessary.

Along with significant investments in renewable energy, in February 2010, the Department of Energy announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to support the construction of two new nuclear reactors at a plant in Georgia.  This will be the first new nuclear power plant constructed in the United States in three decades.  To provide additional loan guarantees for other planned nuclear facilities, President Obama requested an increase in federal loan guarantee authority, from the current limit of $18.5 billion to $54 billion, in his fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget proposal.  It is important to note that this authority regards authorization for loan guarantees, not funding for direct subsidies or payments.  In addition to repaying the loans themselves, borrowers are required to pay fees to cover both administrative costs and risk of defaulting on the loan.

I support providing additional loan guarantee authority for the construction of new nuclear facilities.  However, I have concerns that the fees charged to borrowers may be insufficient to cover the costs of the guarantee.   In the past, the Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the Department of Energy often underestimates the costs of loan guarantees by at least one percent.  As we consider increasing nuclear loan guarantee authority, I want to be sure that the federal government is collecting fees sufficient to cover costs and protect taxpayers.

Additionally, as our country moves to expand nuclear energy production and open new facilities, it is important that we address the issue of long-term nuclear waste disposal.  Although funding for security measures has been increased in recent years, there is some concern that the number of storage sites presents an unnecessary security risk, and that a central repository would be a better solution to the issue of nuclear waste storage.

For more than 20 years, the Department of Energy has focused on developing a central repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.  This effort has been controversial, and opponents have argued that the potential for earthquakes, water infiltration, and other safety concerns make the site unsuitable.  The President's FY 2011 budget proposes eliminating funding for work at Yucca Mountain, and White House officials have stated that they will officially withdraw a pending license application for the facility.   In January 2010, the Obama Administration announced the formation of a Blue Ribbon Commission charged with conducting a comprehensive review of nuclear waste management policy.  It remains to be seen whether Yucca Mountain will provide the best option for long term storage for our country's nuclear waste, or if another solution needs to be found.

There are many legislative proposals concerning nuclear power currently being discussed and debated in the Senate, addressing incentives for new commercial reactors, research and development priorities, plant safety and security, and radioactive waste management policy.  During this session of Congress, the Senate may consider broad-based energy and climate change legislation.  Should the Senate consider such legislation, ideas from many of the legislative proposals that have been introduced to address nuclear energy issues would likely be incorporated.  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to find solutions to our country's energy challenges.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at www.mccaskill.senate.gov.

_______________________

Tell My Politician

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician Click Here

______________________

Re: Senate Bill 50- Missouri Nuclear Agenda Just Say NO

Jan 28, 2011

Solar is the Best Form of Renewable Energy- I don't consider Nuclear Energy a form of Renewable Energy since the Waste will be placed in the Ground- IE: It could pollute the Water our Bodies Must Have-We Consume Everyday ...

http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/

clipped from Google - 1/2011

Graphs Show- Nuclear Energy is not needed for Clean Energy Production

Jan 26, 2011

Renewable Energy Head-to-Head with Nuclear for Clean Energy Production.Last July we wrote about the North Carolina study that showed solarpower to be cheaper than power promised by planned nuclearconstruction in that state. ...

http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/

clipped from Google - 1/2011

What Will It Take to Achieve a US Renewable Portfolio Standard?

Oct 04, 2010

Here's another tidbit from the conference: Adding nuclear power into the mix of renewables might provide the political muscle to pass a federal RPS. After all, it IS carbon-free. Proponents claim, "Nuclear energy presents a safe, clean, ...

http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/

Re: Senate Bill 50- Missouri Nuclear Agenda Just Say NO

Collection of Examples for Solar vs. Nuclear- Energy Production Debate and Proposed Bill

• Missourians, Don't let the TV Ads on Senate Bill 50 Fool You. Read the Information for yourself-I've supplied all the web links where I found the Info. 

• Solar is the Best Form of Renewable Energy- I don't consider Nuclear Energy a form of Renewable Energy since the Waste will be placed in the Ground- IE: It could pollute the Water our Bodies Must Have-We Consume Everyday
• I do not Support Nuclear Energy for Our State or any other State

Tell My Politician- Web Site that will direct you to your Elected Representatives-Republican or Democrat, Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician http://tellmypolitician.com/search?

_____________________
Solar and Nuclear Costs —
The Historic Crossover
Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

___________

Easy to understand Solar Vs Nuclear Photos http://www.jeffreyventrella.com/Solar/solar.html

_____________

Which Is Cheaper? Nuclear vs. Solar http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/which-is-cheaper-nuclear-vs-solar/

By Bill Roth | July 20th, 2010

The study's premise is that traditional energy supplies including fossil and nuclear energy are experiencing what economists called "upward cost curves" or in other words, their costs keep going up and are not likely to ever go back down. However, the research claims of Blackburn/Cunningham are that renewable energy has achieved a "downward cost curve" over the last decade, namely that their prices have gone down and there is a strong likelihood that they will continue to fall in price.

____________

Report: Solar Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Energy http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/

Tagged with: nuclear, photovoltaic, solar

Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded "nuclear renaissance" began during the past decade, says Blackburn. "Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineering problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor."

The costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have fallen steadily while construction costs for new nuclear power plants have been rising over the past decade, which now makes electricity generated from new solar installations cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear power plants, according to a new report published by a retired Duke University professor.
_________________
http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/solar-information/nuclear-vs-solar-2/
These are the advantages, put simply, that I can see right now. There are proponents of one, the other, or both. I see a brighter future for solar for three reasons:
1. It is completely, even daily, renewable.
2. Solar is fast advancing. We are likely on the cusp of a technological windfall for solar power.
3. The risks for nuclear power are high and unlikely to get resolved soon. So far it seems that, in an attempt to stop polluting the sky, we would throw our toxins into the ground.
_______________________

According to Norman Baker, the environment spokesperson...  turning to nuclear power to tackle climate change is "like jumping from the frying pan to the fire". "Nuclear power may not contribute to carbon emissions, but it generates tonnes of radioactive wastes costing billions to store and will pose a risk to humans for thousands of years after disposal," he added.
Darren Johnson... said nuclear reactors had an operational life of between 30 and 40 years but created waste that lasted "thousands" of years. "It is barking mad to consider nuclear power as part of a sustainable energy policy," he opined.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/441990/nuclear_vs_solar_energy_which/
___________________

SB 50- Allows electric companies to recover costs from ratepayers associated with early site development for certain electrical generation facilities

SB 50 - Beginning October 1, 2011, any electric company seeking an Early Site Permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must submit reports to the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) every 6 months. The reports must document the work completed and costs incurred up to that point toward the acquisition of the Early Site Permit as well as the projected amount of work and costs remaining. If the total cost of obtaining the Early Site Permit is expected to exceed $40 million, the company must also include an explanation in its reports as to why expenditures beyond that amount are prudent.Once the Early Site Permit is obtained, the electric company may recover the expenditures for the permit from its ratepayers through rates and charges over a period not to exceed 20 years. The company may begin the cost recovery on the effective date of tariffs approved by the PSC at the company's first general rate proceeding following the acquisition of the permit. Other electric companies that also incur expenses toward the Early Site Permit may similarly recover their costs through rates and charges.
If an electric company has recovered costs from its ratepayers for an Early Site Permit but the company's interest in the Early Site Permit is subsequently sold or transferred, the company must refund its ratepayers up to the amount that the company collected from the ratepayers for the permit.
ERIKA JAQUESSenate Bill 50 is sponsored by: Kehoe -http://www.senate.mo.gov/-Capitol Office:201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 429,Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-2076 FAX: (573) 751-2582 EMail Senator Kehoe
__________________________

Say NO to SB 50- December 10th, 2010-Consumers Council of Missouri calls on customers of AmerenUE

to say NO to the newest legislative attempt to overturn Anti-CWIP law. http://moconsumers.org/2010/12/10/say-no-to-sb-50/#comment-8171
____________________________

Ameren Missouri; Combined License Application for Callaway Plant Unit 2; Exemption

Posted on: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:37:07 EST- http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/aee_uepcp_ameren-missouri-combined-license-application-for-callaway-plant-unit-2-exemption-1436866.html

Symbols: AEE, UEPCP

Jan 21, 2011 (FIND, Inc. via COMTEX) --
1.0 Background
Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren UE, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a Combined License (COL) Application for a single unit of AREVA NP's U.S. EPR in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), subpart C of part 52, "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." This reactor is to be identified as Callaway Plant (Callaway), Unit 2, and located at the current Callaway County, Missouri site of the Callaway Power Plant. The Callaway, Unit 2, COL application is based upon and linked to the U.S. EPR reference COL (RCOL) application for UniStar's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 (CCNPP3). The NRC docketed the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application on December 12, 2008. In its letter to the NRC dated April 28, 2009, Ameren informed that it was suspending its efforts to build a nuclear power plant in Missouri. Subsequently, by letter dated June 23, 2009, Ameren requested the NRC to suspend all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC informed Ameren by letter dated June 29, 2009, that it had suspended all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC is currently performing a detailed review of the CCNPP3 RCOL application, as well as AREVA NP's application for design certification of the U.S. EPR.
2.0 Request/Action
The regulations specified in 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) require that an applicant for a combined license under 10 CFR part 52 shall, during the period from docketing of a COL application until the Commission makes a finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) pertaining to facility operation, submit an annual update to the application's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which is a part of the application.
On February 25, 2009, Ameren submitted Revision 1 to the COL application, including updates to the FSAR. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), the next annual update would be due in December 2010. Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren Missouri (Ameren) as of October 1, 2010, as noted in its letter to the NRC dated October 26, 2010, has requested a one-time exemption from the 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) requirements to submit the scheduled 2010 and 2011 COL application FSAR updates, and proposed for approval of a new submittal deadline of December 31, 2012, for the next FSAR update.
In summary, the requested exemption is a one-time schedule change from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update at a later date, but still in advance of NRC's reinstating its review of the application and in any event, by December 31, 2012. The current FSAR update schedule could not be changed, absent the exemption. Ameren requested the exemption by letter dated October 26, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML103090556).
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, including Section 50.71(e)(3)(iii) when: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) special circumstances are present. As relevant to the requested exemption, special circumstances exist if: (1) "Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) "Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was
[Page Number 3928]
adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The review of the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR has been suspended since June 29, 2009. Since the COL application FSAR is directly linked to the CCNPP3 RCOL application, many changes in the RCOL application require an associated change to the COL application FSAR and, because the NRC review of the COL application is suspended, the updates to the FSAR will not be reviewed by the NRC staff until the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application review is resumed. Thus, the optimum time to prepare a revision to the COL application FSAR is sometime prior to Ameren requesting the NRC to resume its review. To prepare and submit a COL application FSAR update when the review remains suspended and in the absence of any decision by Ameren to request the NRC to resume the review would require Ameren to spend significant time and effort and would be of no value, particularly due to the fact that the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR are still undergoing periodic revisions and updates. Furthermore, the adjudicatory proceedings related to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application were terminated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) after agreements were made between Ameren, the NRC, and the petitioners for intervention, as documented in "AMERENUE (Callaway Plant Unit 2) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Terminating Contested Adjudicatory Proceeding) LBP-09-23 (August 28, 2009)" (ML092400189). Ameren commits to submit the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume review of the COL application and, in any event, by December 31, 2012. Ameren would need to identify all committed changes to the RCOL application since the last revisions to the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR in order to prepare a COL application FSAR revision that accurately and completely reflects the committed changes to the RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR.
The requested one-time exemption to defer submittal of the next update to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR would provide only temporary relief from the regulations of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) by submitting Revision 1 to the COL application dated February 25, 2009, prior to requesting the review suspension. Revision 1 incorporated information provided in prior supplements and standardized language with the RCOL application.
Authorized by Law:
The exemption is a one-time schedule exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next Callaway Unit 2 COL application FSAR update on or before December 31, 2012, in lieu of the required scheduled submittals in December 2010, and December 2011. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions. The NRC staff has determined that granting Ameren the requested one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) will provide only temporary relief from this regulation and will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety:
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. The requested exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to the schedule for submittal to the NRC of revisions to an application under 10 CFR part 52, for which a license has not been granted. In addition, since the review of the application has been suspended, any update to the application submitted by Ameren will not be reviewed by the NRC at this time.
Based on the nature of the requested exemption as described above, no new accident precursors are created by the exemption; thus, neither the probability nor the consequences of postulated accidents are increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety.
Consistent with Common Defense and Security:
The requested exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update prior to requesting the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, on or before December 31, 2012. This schedule change has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special Circumstances:
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present whenever: (1) "Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) "Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. As discussed above, the requested one-time exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to a one-time schedule change for submittal of revisions to an application under 10 CFR Part 52, for which a license has not been granted. The requested one-time exemption will permit Ameren time to carefully review the most recent revisions of the CCNPP3 RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR, and fully incorporate these revisions into a comprehensive update of the Callaway, Unit 2, FSAR associated with the COL application. This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the COL application when resumed, as well as issuance of the safety evaluation report, and therefore does not affect the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Under the circumstances that Ameren has suspended its pursuit of the COL, the NRC has suspended its review of the application, and the adjudicatory proceedings have been terminated by ASLB, application of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would result in Ameren spending significant time and effort in incorporating changes made to the RCOL application into the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application, but not achieve the underlying purpose of that rule; granting a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would provide only temporary relief; and Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR
[Page Number 3929]
50.12(a)(2) for the granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) exist.
4.0 Conclusion
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants Ameren a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) pertaining to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application to allow submittal of the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, no later than December 31, 2012.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the NRC has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (76 FR 800).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of January 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph Colaccino,
Chief, EPR Projects Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2011-1263 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Vol. 76, No. 014
[Docket No. 52-037; NRC-2008-0556]
Notices
For full details on Ameren Corp (AEE) AEE. Ameren Corp (AEE) has Short Term PowerRatings at TradingMarkets. Details on Ameren Corp (AEE) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.
For full details on (UEPCP) UEPCP. (UEPCP) has Short Term PowerRatings at TradingMarkets. Details on (UEPCP) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.
_________________________

Tell My Politician-

 http://tellmypolitician.com/search?

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com