Skip to main content

NRC Issues Supplement to Draft EIS for North Anna

The NRC issued a supplement to their draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) associated with Dominion's amendment to an Early Site Permit (ESP) application for the North Anna site. The amendment changed the design from a once-through cooling system (as the two existing units use) to a closed-cycle system that incorporates a cooling tower.

The supplement concludes
The staff's preliminary recommendation, in view of the environmental impacts described in the Draft EIS, and the impacts reviewed in this SDEIS in relation to the changes presented in ER Revision 6, is that the ESP for North Anna Units 3 and 4 should be issued. This recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by Dominion, as revised; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; (3) the staff's independent review; (4) the assessments summarized in the Draft EIS and this SDEIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and in both the Draft EIS and SDEIS.
I've heard some antinuclear groups claim that this change proves that their efforts can stop a new plant from being built, but I see the situation as proof that the new licensing process works. The entire point of the new process is to resolve safety, licensing, and environmental issues before significant capital is invested while still allowing sufficient regulatory and public review.

While the original once-through design was technically sound, especially considering that Dominion built Lake Anna to support four units, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and nearby residents had concerns about potential effects on the lake. Dominion evaluated the options and concluded that a re-design was a "reasonable accommodation." I'm sure the extra megawatts they'll get with the cooling tower doesn't hurt either.

So, to recap: Dominion submitted its plans, regulators and citizens voiced their concerns, and Dominion came up with a viable solution before a shovelful of dirt moved or concrete was poured. I'd call that a win-win situation.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …