Reply #32: "Shoreham Effect" has yet to be addressed...

[DrGregory]

Answer these questions -
1) Why are no turn key nuclear plants being built?

2) Why are all the planned projects in the US being abandoned, even when there are unprecedented levels of governmental support?

3) Why were no plants even being proposed for jurisdictions that do not have construction work in progress (CWIP) policies on the books to allow the builders to recoup cost overruns and the costs of abandoned projects?

Answer those three questions and we'll have something to talk about.
======================================================================

One of the biggest problems that has yet to be addressed is the
"Shoreham Effect". A little history is needed.

Shoreham was one of the last nuclear power plants built when the USA
was building nuclear power plants in the '70s and '80s. Shoreham
is located on Long Island, New York; just north of Brookhaven National
Lab.

The LILCO power company went through all the legal processes and
obtained a construction permit to build the plant. The plant was
built properly, the NRC inspectors approved the construction. Then
LILCO applied for an operating license to actually operate the plant.

However, New York now had an anti-nuclear Governor in one Mario Cuomo.
Governor Cuomo ordered that the local governments not approve the plant
emergency plans. The approval of the local governments is required under
the NRC rules. There was nothing deficient about the emergency plans.
There are nuclear reactors at the nearby Brookhaven National Lab. The
emergency plans for Brookhaven were approved. The Shoreham plans mirrored
the already approved plans for the Brookhaven reactors.

Additionally, Governor Cuomo appointed anti-nuclear members to the New York
Public Utilities Commission. Before Shoreham could operate, it had to get
a ruling from the Commission as to what it could charge for the electricity
generated by Shoreham. LILCO was told they could charge $0.00 for the
Shoreham electricity. They could give the electricity away, but because it
was a nuclear power plant, they could not charge for it.

Like all power plants, LILCO had borrowed the money to build Shoreham. Now
Shoreham could not get a license, and if it got a license, it could not charge
for the electricity. There was no way that LILCO could pay back the cost of
building Shoreham, let alone make anything in the way of a profit.

The State of New York offered LILCO some relief, but only if it agreed not to
operate the Shoreham plant. It was too little, too late, and LILCO went bankrupt
and had to be taken over by the State.

One of the big problems with nuclear regulatory laws is that it allows for a
company to be given assurances that they can build / operate a nuclear power
plant at a given site. A construction license is given with those assurances.
The company then spends LOTS of money building the plant. However, when it comes
time for operating the plant, the State has another chance to change its mind.
The Governorship may have changed. The agreements as to being allowed to build
and operate the plant are NOT binding; and so it remains so today.

The local government has an effective veto on the plant AFTER it is built.
A relatively small group can veto a facility meant to service a much larger
group.

In the late 1980s, the city of Oakland, California had a "no nukes" ordinance.
The city prohibited anything that had to do with nuclear power or nuclear weapons
within the city limits. The Dept of Energy then had a field office in Oakland.
The purpose of that office was to oversee the operation of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory located about 40 miles east in Livermore. Lawrence Livermore
is one of the two labs in the USA that designs the US military's stockpile of
nuclear weapons. Therefore, the field office in Oakland was in violation of the
city's "no nukes" ordinance.

The Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations challenged the Oakland ordinance
in Court. In the late '80s, Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled the Oakland ordinance
unconstitutional. The US Congress authorized the Dept. of Energy to build and
maintain nuclear weapons for the US military on behalf of the people of the
USA as a whole. It made no sense to give a smaller group, the citizens of
Oakland, a veto power over an enterprise authorized for and by the duly
elected representatives of the USA as a whole. The Oakland ordinance was
ruled unconstitutional.

Why do we not have a similar ruling in the case of nuclear power plants. They
are built and service a large group of people. However, our laws permit a
relatively few people to veto a facility to serve the masses only on the basis
that they live nearby.

Some States like California have outlawed the building of any new nuclear
power plants. Others, like Maine, put onerous restrictions on nuclear power
plant operators. Under a 1998 law, if a company wants to operate a nuclear
power plant in Maine, then 1/3 of the energy generated by the company has to
come from "renewables". If Exelon or Entergy wants to operate nuclear power
plants, their "specialty", why not let them? Do we say to the airlines that
if they want to operate airliners, then they also have to operate railroad
trains, and that at least 1/3 of their passenger-miles have to be by rail?

Our legal system has evolved into a system that is EXTREMELY nuclear
"unfriendly". Sometimes I wonder that companies haven't shutdown the
100+ plants we now have operating. Of course, that is what the anti-nukes
would like.

How about a legal system that plays "fair"? How about one where legal
decisions are binding. How about one that can't give a company assurances,
have the company commit large funds to the project, and then the government
gets to change its mind?

The reason nuclear power flourishes in countries like France, but not in
the USA has a LOT to do with the legal environment.

Dr. Greg