{"id":4110,"date":"2013-06-16T14:00:06","date_gmt":"2013-06-16T18:00:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=4110"},"modified":"2013-06-16T14:23:00","modified_gmt":"2013-06-16T18:23:00","slug":"nrc-to-change-nuke-foreign-ownership-so-edf-can-fire-up-calvert-cliffs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2013\/06\/nrc-to-change-nuke-foreign-ownership-so-edf-can-fire-up-calvert-cliffs.html","title":{"rendered":"NRC to change nuke foreign ownership so EDF can fire up Calvert Cliffs?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nThe NRC “upheld” license denial for the Calvert Cliffs nuke\r\nwith its fingers crossed, the very same day\r\ndirecting staff to look into changing the requirement\r\nby which it just ruled.\r\nA requirement against majority ownership by a foreign firm,\r\nin this case\r\n\r\n\r\n\u00c9lectricit\u00e9 de France (EDF)<\/a>,\r\nwhose flagship Cattenom reactor\r\n\r\ncaught on fire a week ago<\/a> with smoke seen from miles away;\r\ntwo people died at Cattenom in February.\r\nYou can comment on NRC’s proposed changes to let EDF\r\n\r\nfire up Calvert Cliffs\r\n\r\nonline or in person June 19th in Maryland<\/a>.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nThe same day\r\n\r\nthe NRC upheld denial of a license<\/a>, 11 March 2013,\r\n\r\nthe same Commission<\/a>\r\n

\r\n“directed the staff to provide a fresh assessment on issues relating to FOCD including recommendations on any proposed modifications to guidance or practice on FOCD that may be warranted.”<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nAnd the issue with Calvert Cliffs was that very same\r\n“foreign ownership, control, or domination (FOCD) of commercial nuclear power plants.”\r\n

\r\nThis explains why\r\n\r\nCalvert Cliffs is marked as “Under Review” instead of “Suspended”<\/a>\r\nin the NRC’s list of \r\n\r\nCombined License Applications for New Reactors<\/a>.\r\nEven before\r\n\r\nthe NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board terminated the Calvert Cliffs\r\nlicensing decision 1 November 2012 and Unistar asked the same day for NRC review<\/a>; \r\n<\/a>\r\neven before that,\r\nback on the same day\r\n\r\nthe NRC denied a permit for EDF<\/a>,\r\n5 September 2012,\r\na nuke proponent floated the idea of\r\n\r\nchanging regulations derived from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954\r\nto permit majority foreign ownership of nuclear reactors<\/a>.\r\nAnd that’s exactly what the NRC directed staff in March to examine\r\nand what the current public comment period is about.\r\nSo the nuclear industry got the NRC to cross its fingers and say\r\nit was denying Calvert Cliffs while the very same day starting\r\na process to change the rules to permit Calvert Cliffs.\r\nDoes that seem right to you?\r\n<\/p>\r\n

I’m not guessing the rule changing is about Calvert Cliffs; \r\nFederal Register 3 June 2013<\/a> says so:\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n

\r\n\r\nNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION\r\n<\/strong>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n[NRC—2013—0107; Docket No. 52—016—COL]\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n\r\nStaff Requirements—SECY—12—0168— Calvert\r\nCliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC & UniStar Nuclear Operating Services,\r\nLLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), Petition for\r\nReview of LBP—12—19\r\n<\/strong>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n\r\nAGENCY:<\/strong> Nuclear Regulatory Commission.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n\r\nACTION:<\/strong> Request for written comment on requirements related to\r\nforeign ownership, control, or domination of commercial nuclear\r\npower plants….\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nThe NRC’s PR about this comment period\r\ndoesn’t mention Calvert Cliffs by name;\r\nyou have to follow the link in it to the above\r\nFederal Register entry<\/a>.\r\nPR in NRC News 10 June 2013,\r\n\r\nNRC Seeks Public Comment on Foreign Ownership of Nuclear Power Plants;\r\nPublic Meeting June 19 in Rockville, Md<\/a>,\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n

\r\nThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on\r\nissues related to foreign ownership, control and domination of\r\ncommercial nuclear power plants, and will hold a public meeting June\r\n19 at agency headquarters in Rockville, Md., to discuss the topic.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations disqualify any applicant\r\nfor a nuclear power plant operating license if the applicant is\r\nowned, controlled or dominated by a foreign national, a foreign\r\ncorporation or a foreign government. In recent years, a number of\r\nlicensing actions before the NRC have involved complex issues of\r\nforeign ownership, control and domination. This is likely due to the\r\nincreased globalization of the electric power industry and\r\ncomplexity of corporate structures generally.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe Commission\r\n\r\ndirected the staff<\/a> in March to prepare a fresh assessment of foreign ownership issues and propose any changes to guidance or practice that may be warranted. The staff’s assessment and proposals are due to the Commission by Dec. 31. At this time, no specific changes to guidance or regulation are under consideration. The staff requested public comment, with specific questions about the extent of indirect foreign ownership that should be allowed, in a\r\n\r\nnotice published June 3 in the Federal Register<\/a>.\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nThe June 19 public meeting will be held in the Commission Hearing\r\nRoom, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, from 9 a.m. to\r\nnoon. For more information, see the\r\n\r\npublic meeting notice<\/a>.\r\n

\r\nWritten comments will be accepted through Aug. 2. They may be\r\nsubmitted over the federal government’s Rulemaking website at\r\n\r\nwww.regulations.gov<\/a> using Docket ID NRC-2013-0107, or by mail to Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Office of Administration,\r\nMail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,\r\nWashington, DC, 20555-0001.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nSo, what are these questions?\r\nAccording to the Federal Register entry:\r\n

\r\n

\r\nSpecifically, the Commission is looking for comments on the\r\nlimitation on FOCD as contained in Section 103d. of the AEA and the\r\npotential to satisfy statutory objectives through an integrated\r\nreview of foreign ownership, control, or domination issues involving\r\nup to and including 100 percent indirect foreign ownership; criteria\r\nfor assessing proposed plans or actions to negate direct or indirect\r\nforeign ownership or foreign financing of more than 50 percent but\r\nless than 100 percent, and the adequacy of guidance on these\r\ncriteria; the availability of alternative methods such as license\r\nconditions for resolving—following issuance of a combined\r\nlicense—FOCD; and the agency’s interpretation of the statutory\r\nmeaning of \u2018\u2018ownership,” and how that definition applies in\r\nvarious contexts, such as total or partial foreign ownership of a\r\nlicensee’s parent, co- owners, or owners who are licensed to own but\r\nnot to possess or operate a facility.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nMeanwhile, according to regulations.gov, the\r\n\r\nPublic Meeting Notice on Foreign Ownership, Control, or Domination<\/a>\r\nposted Jun 7, 2013,\r\nsays NRC wants your input, either as part of a group, or as yourself:\r\n

\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nThis is a Category 3 meeting. This meeting is intended\r\nto include representatives from the industry, licensees, and interested\r\ngroups to focus discussion on FOCD requirements. The public is\r\ninvited to observe the meeting and will have the opportunity to\r\ncommunicate with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission\r\n(NRC) after the business portion, but before the meeting is\r\nadjourned.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nYou can also comment online now until 2 August 2013 on\r\n\r\nDocket ID NRC – 2013 – 0107, Staff Requirements – SECY-12-0168 at regulations.gov<\/a>.\r\nThree comments have been received as of this posting.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe only two U.S. utilities with the size and resources to pull off\r\nCalvert Cliffs are the two largest: #2 Southern Company and #1 Duke Energy,\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nboth already dug deep into the nuclear money pit building two reactors\r\neach, at Plant Vogtle in Georgia and Plant Summer in South Carolina respectively, the only four\r\nreactors actually licensed to build by NRC, all four\r\n\r\nsupplied by document-forging Doosan<\/a>.\r\nAnd Southern Company already got itself a black eye in the investment community\r\n\r\nwith its unrecoverable cost overruns at Kemper Coal in Mississippi<\/a>.\r\nSo without EDF, Calvert Cliffs will be finally truly dead.\r\nBut with the rule changes NRC proposes, Cattenom-smoking EDF or even Fukushima-meltdown TEPCO could\r\nbuild nukes stateside.\r\nDoes that seem like a good idea to you?\r\n<\/P>\r\n

\r\n -jsq\r\n<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The NRC “upheld” license denial for the Calvert Cliffs nuke with its fingers crossed, the very same day directing staff to look into changing the requirement by which it just ruled. A requirement against majority ownership by a foreign firm, in this case \u00c9lectricit\u00e9 de France (EDF), whose flagship Cattenom reactor caught on fire a […]","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[70,8,2,20,104,22,73],"tags":[6442,6438,143,1750,8728,6443,8701,8699,4718,171,8702,8710,12,7,632,217,8737,2193,107,8712,8731,2428,108,6441,6],"class_list":["post-4110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethics","category-georgia","category-government","category-law","category-nuclear","category-politics","category-safety","tag-document","tag-doosan","tag-duke-energy","tag-edf","tag-ethics","tag-forging","tag-georgia","tag-government","tag-investors","tag-kemper-coal","tag-lake","tag-law","tag-lowndes-area-knowledge-exchange","tag-lowndes-county","tag-maryland","tag-mississippi","tag-nuclear","tag-plant-summer","tag-plant-vogtle","tag-politics","tag-safety","tag-south-carolina","tag-southern-company","tag-unistar","tag-valdosta"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p585fK-14i","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4110","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4110"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4110\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4129,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4110\/revisions\/4129"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}