Bellefonte Nuclear, Suit Filed in Federal Court-Press Release, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League

GROUPS TAKES BELLEFONTE FIGHT TO A HIGHER COURT

Yesterday the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League filed a Petition for Review in the US Court of Appeals of the Bellefonte nuclear power plant in Alabama. The League seeks judicial review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s reinstatement of construction permits for two nuclear reactors, the so-called Bellefonte 1 and 2.

The League’s petition relies in part on a statement from a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who voted against the Bellefonte Construction Permit. In January Commissioner Jaczko wrote, “There is an inherent danger in ignoring this obvious fact. Licenses exist for a purpose. We use them to fulfill our statutory mandate of protecting the public health and safety.”

Local residents supporting the League’s petition criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s action. Louise Gorenflo, of the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team in Chattanooga, said, “NRC’s mission is to protect public health. But they’re bending over backwards to accommodate TVA and ignoring their role as regulators.”

The League’s Science Director, Louis Zeller, said, “TVA has cannibalized its original plant, rendering it useless. The off-again, on-again history of this plant, the uncertain management, and the unprecedented reinstatement add up to a situation which is both dangerous and illegal.”

James B. Dougherty authored the March 30th petition to the court. This month the League hired Mr. Dougherty to work with them on the Bellefonte challenge.

The Bellefonte construction permit was first issued in 1974; construction was halted twice, in 1985 and 1994, before the permit was withdrawn in 2005. Since then, salvage operations have removed valuable components such as stainless steel pipes.

Points of Contact:
Louis Zeller (336) 982-2691 office, (336) 977-0852 cell
Louise Gorenflo (931) 484-2633
James Dougherty (202) 488-1140

>

Update April 1, 2009:
Interesting Article in this mornings Scottsboro Daily Sentinel newspaper. Headline Reads: "Group Tries To Block Bellefonte," true. What is not true is this statement in the article, refering to Units 1 & 2 Construction Permits, "The Commission voted 3-1 in February to reinstate construction permits..." that is not true and reflects the continuing stream of propaganda being pandered to the citizens about this project.
>

The truth is, not one, none, zilch, zero, -0- votes of approval were given to reinstate the construction permits. The vote results of the 4 NRC Commissioners were: 1-disapproved and 3 voted both disapproved and approved. There was NO VOTE OF APPROVAL. The single disapproved voter stated, "...there is an inherent danger in ignoring the obvious fact. Licenses exist for a purpose. We use them to fulfill our statutory mandate of protecting the public health and safety." This statement was made due to the NRC's policy concerning terminated and deferred status which states, "... a terminated plant is a nuclear power plant at which the licensee has announced that construction has been permanently stopped, but which still has a valid construction permit." There is no valid construction permit for Bellefonte Units 1 & 2, it was cancelled by the TVA. This policy statement was highlighted in COMMISSIONER SVINICKI's comments and rulings. The Commissioners which voted with Commissioner Svinicki's "disapproved-approved" vote each stated an agreement with her position.
>

It is significant that the NRC Staff Reviewer noted there could be no return to a terminated or deferred status of the Construction Permit as there is no Construction License in existence as required by NRC Policy as it was cancelled by the TVA.
>

However, the NRC Staff and the 3 Commissioners voting "approved-disapproved," with no single vote of approval, went ahead over the objections of the Senior Staff Reviewer and Commissioner Jaczko's protest and moved to reinstate a non-existing construction permit and placed the TVA's non-existant, previously cancelled permit into a terminated status in violation of the NRC's Policy and Regulatory Guidance.

>

This is the reason this case will be heard in the Federal Court System. It is also the reason the 3 Commissioners voted "approved-disapproved." There was no legal form or fashion they could vote Approved as there was no Construction Permit/License in existence, it had been cancelled.

>

The 3 errant Commissioners schemed to violate NRC Policy and circumvent procedures in the Nuclear Licensing Process. The question now arises, did the 3 Commissioners actions violate the Atomic Energy Act?

NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Violating Own Rules and Proceedure??

TVA's $20 Billion Bellefonte Dream, 4 Reactors. Seems the safety of radioactive waste storage and enforcement of NRC's current licensing requirements has been called into question along with allegations the NRC is circumventing the legal process of licensing thru secretive process.

"Yesterday in a flurry of legal activity the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League filed new arguments opposing nuclear reactor licenses in Virginia, South Carolina and Alabama." Part of the brief filed on March 9th read, “The NRC’s secrecy is unnecessary, corrosive to the NRC’s system of accountability through open decision-making, and potentially dangerous because the decision-making process was not only secret but was restricted to the NRC and a limited group of individuals with a vested interest in minimizing the cost of mitigative measures, i.e., reactor licensees”

A sub-title, when will bureaucrats learn they have a responsibility to the law and their own policy. Press release from the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. http://www.bredl.org/press/2009/newnukesmustwait031009.htm

TVA Fails to Tell the Facts, Intentionally Fails to Report Construction Costs, Petition Filed

TVA's Bellefonte Dream, 2 AP 1000 reactors, costs were under estimated. The truth has not been told. Reactor plans have not been approved. The TVA has not approved this project and has spent millions upon millions of dollars with no approvals of any sort. Meanwhile the TVA is going further into debt.

TVA's original Bellefonte Nuclear Plants The two partially built 1256 MWe pressurized water reactors on the Bellefonte site were made by Babcock and Wilcox. The reactor pair are called a 205 design due to the number of fuel assemblies in the core. The original construction permits for Bellefonte were approved by the NRC in 1974. The TVA deferred completion of the plant in 1988 due to an over estimation of power needs in the area plus massive cost overruns. Unit 1 was 88% complete and unit 2 was approximately 58% complete.

The TVA has not been truthful in their filings to the NRC for the building of a Nuclear Power Plant at Bellefonte, Alabama. TVA intentionally underestimated costs for the construction of a pair of reactors at Bellefonte so as not to list alternative/sustainable energy resources available.

>

BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
www.BREDL.org PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 BREDL@skybest.com (336) 982-2691 office, (336) 977-0852 cell

Esse quam videre

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 16, 2008

GROUPS DISPUTE TVA COST FIGURES
NEW LEGAL CHALLENGE AT BELLEFONTE

Today citizens’ groups announced new cost arguments in their lawsuit against nuclear power at Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bellefonte site. The December 15th filing charges that TVA provided inaccurate cost information in its environmental report. In an 18-page request to the three-judge licensing board, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy charged that TVA violated the National Environmental Policy Act.
>

The petition states that TVA’s cost estimates and comparisons are grossly inaccurate for four reasons: 1) TVA failed to include the full range of costs for nuclear power, 2) TVA made apples-to-oranges comparisons with coal- and gas-fired options, 3) TVA improperly selected nuclear as the best available option, and 4) TVA excluded reasonable alternatives for getting electricity at lower cost. Under the law TVA must compare the impacts of nuclear power at Bellefonte with available alternatives. The comparison must include construction costs and the costs of power delivered to customers.
>

Louis Zeller, the League’s Science Director, said “TVA's failure to estimate costs accurately spells trouble for its customers in seven states.” He continued, “We’ve been through enough bailouts already; let’s not continue the nuclear one.”
>

Dr. Ross McCluney, a member of the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team, said, “Considering the wave of energy efficiency technology and the clean renewable energy sources on the horizon, a nuclear plant at Bellefonte would be obsolete before it generated the first watt of power. To continue pushing for nuclear power in the U.S. just makes no sense.” Dr. McCluney is a research physicist for SunPine Consulting in Chattanooga and a retired Principal Research Scientist at the University of Central Florida.

>
TVA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff have ten days to respond to the groups’ petition. Earlier this year TVA requested a license to build two new reactors at its Bellefonte site in northern Alabama. The League, BEST and SACE intervened in June and the NRC held a hearing in Scottsboro in July. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will hold further hearings on four of the groups’ legal arguments.
>>

Links to BREDL: http://www.bredl.org/ SACE: http://www.cleanenergy.org/

TVA and the NRC Complicit in Deceiving the Public.

Financial Information hidden, restricted due to the TVA being broke. Even the TVA admits in their NRC application they can't explain how they will pay for the nuke plants by their omissions of facts and attempts at hiding their financial statements of construction. Although the COL Application, Part 1 states that the application contains "no restricted data" they do not disclose to the public how they will pay for the plant, COL Application, Part 1 Administrative and Financial Information, pages 1.1-7 thru1.1-12. They contradict their own COL Application and refuse to produce a financial disclosures by stating the information is "proprietary info, not to be disclosed." (The TVA is a public corporation their financial construction disclosures are not restricted and must be disclosed by law.) http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&ID=073200714
>

The NRC states an organization must give financial disclosures to demonstrate they are capable of building Nuclear Reactors. The TVA coupled with the NRC has deceived the public and has not released and refuses to release financial disclosures due to the TVA violating the TVA Act in exceeding their Debt Cap of $30 billion.

>>
The TVA willfully violates the law and the NRC as the Regulatory Agency for reactor licensing is a party to the deception.

>>>

TVA Debt link: http://arklite.blogspot.com/2008/07/close-look-at-tva-debt-by-experts.html

>>>>

Note: I have pulled my support for Senator McCain from my blog for his deceiving the citizens of the United States about the dangers and costs of Nuclear Power.