The actual NRC review process was completed about three months ago, but there is a delay of several months for, I presume, public comment. The five NRC commissioners then voted on whether to approve it or not. 4 of 5 commissioners voted yes. In my opinion, it is about time this happened - the design is far safer than anything built before, each day it is delayed will likely be costing the utility money, and the review process lasts many, many, years.
New nuclear power reactors are usually noncompetitive in the USA compared with natural gas and coal, however in the South-East, the cost of delivery for these are higher - making nuclear cost effective, hence Vogtle 3&4 are getting built. The reactors will also likely last 60 years, as these ones are designed to from the outset.
Construction will employ up to 5000 people.
The reactors will be Westinghouse AP1000s that do not require any electricity for three days to keep the fuel rods in the reactor and spent fuel pool intact. Additionally the reactors are not going to be located in a high seismic or tsunami risk area.
This news comes following the release (for public comment) of an analysis about a week ago called 'State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses '(SOARCA) that found that the effects of a severe accident at an existing nuclear power plant would be:
"thousands of times lower than the NRC Safety Goal and millions of times lower than the general U.S. cancer fatality risk.” (pg. xxiii)
and
“... the calculated risks of public health consequences from severe accidents modeled in SOARCA are very small.”
It can therefore be concluded the main effect of a severe accident is not on human health due to radiation exposure - but are rather related to evacuating a large area, perhaps, for a long period of time. SOARCA can be found by entering ML120250406 into the NRC adams search engine.
VC Summer units two and three, also AP1000s, will likely follow over the next several weeks.
www.world-nuclear-news.org
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 9/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/2/12 by C0bzz because:
(no reason given)
edit on 9/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
