Activists Focus on Reactor Design

December 4, 2008

The News & Observer (Raleigh), by John Murawski, Staff Writer

NC WARN questions revisions of Harris reactor; challenge echoes around country.

Questions about the readiness of proposed nuclear reactor designs have emerged as a leading strategy for anti-nuclear groups to fight proposed power plants in North Carolina and elsewhere.

A Durham environmental group contends that Progress Energy's application to license two new reactors at the Shearon Harris site in Wake County should be halted until the reactor design is ready. The model Progress Energy selected, the Westinghouse AP1000, was approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2006. But today the AP1000 design is undergoing its 17th revision.

Since N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network raised the issue this summer, a half dozen nuclear plant applications around the country have been challenged on similar grounds.

Nuclear opponents have been emboldened by a favorable ruling by an independent panel of judges in the Shearon Harris case.

"It's all about risk," said NC WARN director Jim Warren. "We don't know what they will cost and we don't know how to assess the safety."

If NC WARN prevails, the Raleigh electric utility's application could be delayed, forcing the company to miss its target to have the reactor in operation as early as 2018. Power companies are eager to keep to a tight schedule on nuclear plant development. Unforeseen delays could potentially turn a nuclear project into a legal morass and a financial disaster.

Nuclear industry officials downplay the significance of the reactor design revisions.

But in a development unexpected by the nuclear industry, the independent panel that issues recommendations to the NRC on nuclear applications sided with NC WARN in October, ruling Progress Energy's application was incomplete. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board said the Shearon Harris application lacks a final design for a range of components, including reactor containment, control room setup, alarm systems and fire protection.

The board stopped short of dismissing Progress Energy's application -- saying the technical issues are being addressed in a separate NRC proceeding -- so the ruling has no practical effect for now.

Nevertheless, Progress Energy, along with NRC staff, quickly appealed the board's decision, contending that NRC rules require only that a reactor design be finalized in time to begin construction, but not for the purposes of filing an application.

NC WARN and other groups hope to persuade a federal court to block the proceedings.

Nuclear industry officials say that the ongoing revisions of the AP1000 make it safer.

"This is a standard process that doesn't surprise us at all," said Bill Johnson, CEO of Progress Energy. "When we start building, we would expect the design to be done so that we're not building and designing at the same time."

It will take the NRC at least three years to review any application, and longer if challengers win the right to hold hearings.

The cost of each reactor, paid for by utility customers, could exceed $7 billion.

The dispute over the meaning of NRC rules is gaining momentum as the agency is into its sixth year of reviewing the AP1000 design. Westinghouse applied in 2002 and won approval in 2006. During that time, the plans were revised 15 times. Since the design and modifications were approved nearly three years ago, Westinghouse has submitted two more revisions.

The most time-intensive change requires additional seismic analyses for a variety of soil conditions, said Eileen McKenna, NRC's branch chief for the AP1000 projects. These analyses verify adequacy of the buildings, piping and equipment of the plant to withstand tremors, and also assess the effect of an earthquake on the racks that hold radioactive nuclear fuel. Many changes are relatively minor, she said.

The NRC is behind schedule, McKenna said, but all revisions are expected to be done in 2011.

The NRC's review of a nuclear license application focuses on such issues as environmental impact, security and evacuation plans.

NC WARN challenged many of these issues in the Shearon Harris application, but the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board allowed only one contention.

[email protected] or 919-829-8932

http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/1319890.html