Dear Editor,
On January 24, the Progress published an article that was to provide an Update on the Nuclear Power Plant for Green River. The article provides information about the project and its prospects, but missed some important information. The article did not discuss the fact that Blue Castle Holdings Inc. (BCH) failed to make their First Pre-Operational payments to the Kane and San Juan County Water Conservancy Districts for the lease of 53,600 acre feet of water from the Green River for the Blue Castle Project. The Districts were expecting payments totaling $180,000 dollars. BCH failed to even inform the Districts that they would not make the timely payments once the water rights had been secured. BCH and the Districts are now in the process of renegotiating the lease agreements, since BCH is unable to meet the payment requirements. The article mentions Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) site visit and a letter from the NRC about the data gathering program, but not the fact that the site visits and letter were in 2011. BCH has not written to the NRC since March 2011, when they told the NRC that they would submit an Early Site Permit (ESP) application in late 2012, and has not had any pre-application meetings with the NRC since 2011. BCH has not had any emergency response planning meetings with local, state, and national agencies since about 2012.
The article discusses possible time frames and implies that BCH would be seeking a combined construction and operation (COL) license, since there is no mention of the submittal of an ESP application. BCH previously stated that they were going to apply for an ESP. BCH estimated that it would cost them about $100 million to develop an ESP application. A COL application would cost up to $500 million. BCH no longer owns the Willow Creek pipeline construction company, which they were relying on for funding. There is no information about where the millions of dollars for the application(s) or billions for construction and operation would come from.
In the past BCH has stated that they would probably not be the company to construct and operate the reactor. Rather, they were interested in obtaining the initial permits and resources. Thus far, BCH has a lease for water for the reactor, but have been unable to pay for the lease as previously agreed to. BCH does not own the land near Green River, nor have an option to purchase the land, for the reactor. No utility has joined the project and no utility in Utah or nearby states has any plans to provide electricity to their customers via nuclear power, except for the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS). UAMPS plans to develop a 600 mega Watt small modular reactor project in Idaho. Rocky Mountain Power, the primary electrical provider in Utah has stated that they have no plans to participate in the Blue Castle Project.
The utilities in the east coast, where new reactors are currently under construction, have state laws that permit them to recover costs prior to the construction and operation of a reactor. Western states, including Utah, do not have those provisions. The ratepayers in Georgia and South Carolina are speaking out about being charged for millions of dollars of construction cost overruns.
The article mentions Westinghouse and the AP1000 design, which BCH has chosen. The construction of four AP1000 units in Georgia and South Carolina is years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget. The delays and cost overruns at the AP1000 construction sites in Georgia and South Carolina have resulted in Toshiba, the Japanese company that bought Westinghouse in 2006, writing off $6.3 billion. Toshiba recently lost half its share price, the chairman resigned, the company is in litigation regarding cost overruns, and Westinghouse will no longer be involved in the construction of reactors. It is doubtful that any US utility or lender would commit to the construction of an AP1000 reactor in the future.
It is hard to know why this information isn’t important to the citizens of Emery County and surrounding communities. It is unfair to give impression that the Blue Castle Project is a feasible and economically sound project that is moving forward, when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
Sincerely,
Sarah Fields
Moab, Utah
[dfads params='groups=4969&limit=1&orderby=random']
[dfads params='groups=1745&limit=1&orderby=random']