Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Weird homes

Home is where the heart is, no matter what unusual form that home may take.  Slideshow 

Photo

The drone wars

The frontlines of America's covert drone program.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

New U.S. nuclear reactors close to construction: S&P

NEW YORK | Wed May 4, 2011 11:11am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - For the first time in more than 30 years, the construction of new nuclear plants is underway in the United States despite the ongoing nuclear crisis at Fukushima in Japan.

The accident at Fukushima Daiichi will cause the U.S. nuclear regulators to call for new inspections and additional regulatory scrutiny on both existing and new plants, but should not stop the construction of at least a few new reactors in the country, Standard & Poor's credit analysts said on a call Wednesday.

The construction of new reactors in the United States has stalled since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

Two new projects, from Southern Co's Georgia Power unit and SCANA Corp's South Carolina Electric & Gas Co unit, however, are on track to receive the combined construction permit and operating licenses (COL) from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), possibly before the end of 2011, S&P said.

Both companies want to add two of Westinghouse Electric's 1,154-megawatt AP1000 reactors at existing nuclear power sites: Southern's Vogtle plant in Georgia and SCANA's Summer plant in South Carolina.

Westinghouse is majority owned by Japan's Toshiba Corp and the U.S. construction firm Shaw Group Inc.

DELAYS NOT EXPECTED

The S&P analysts said improvements in the regulatory process should help the U.S. projects to proceed with few material delays.

"In light of the cost and complexity of the new nuclear plants' designs and the four- to five-year construction period, the current licensing process can help companies avoid committing significant capital to a project until they have received all necessary licenses," Standard & Poor's credit analyst Dimitri Nikas, said in a statement before the call.

The new plants benefit from the NRC's revamped licensing framework established in 1989, which addresses all safety, design, construction, and operational aspects of a plant up front, before construction begins. In the past, nuclear operators had to apply for a license to build the plant and later apply another license to operate it.

The combined operating license includes a certified nuclear plant design that is likely to be more than 90 percent complete when construction begins, as well as an early site permit, which is effectively an environmental review.

Once the NRC approves the combined operating license, the company can begin full construction of the new plant.

(Reporting by Scott DiSavino; Editing by Alden Bentley)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
Hal9King wrote:
Finally some sense.

May 04, 2011 10:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
spentfuel wrote:
I noticed in the article that Shaw group is the half owner of Westinghouse the company that will be providing the new AP1000 reactors to GA and SC. I just wanted to point out that after resigning as head of the NRC, Jeffery Merrifield went on to be a Senior VP at Shaw group. The NRC is a “captured” agency. This is unfortunate for the people of the US considering that just one accident at a nuclear plant will render much of the country uninhabitable for centuries. I fully expect the NRC to licenses these dangerous reactors to help the bottom line at Shaw group and Southern Company (it is one of the leading political donors in the US)

If you think this is unethical as I do you should post a comment on the NRC’s new blog at nrc.gov. These AP1000 reactors have been shown to have serious safety flaws. The reason that Southern company chose them had nothing to do with safety it had everything to do with how fast they could get them approved. If you don’t believe me do some research. Then when you see I am correct post on the NRC’s blog how unethical this is, it becomes public record.

May 05, 2011 1:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.