It’s official: PSEG files application for new nuclear reactor site

Here’s how PSEG describes it:

PSEG Power and PSEG Nuclear today filed an Early Site Permit (ESP) application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as part of PSEG’s ongoing efforts exploring the possibility of building an additional nuclear plant.

“This is an important first step in the regulatory process to determine if a new plant is viable,” explained PSEG Power President Bill Levis. “Though it is not a commitment to build, it would determine that the location we have identified for a potential new plant is suitable from a safety, environmental and emergency planning standpoint.”

This “fourth reactor” would be adjacent to the three existing ones.  Such applications are not lightly done:

A dedicated nuclear development team has spent the past two and a half years developing the ESP application that is approximately 4000 pages.

The News Journal has the reaction from the Sierra Club:

“Nuclear is a bad investment for New Jersey’s ratepayers,” Jeff Tittel, New Jersey Sierra Club director, said in a written statement. “Nuclear technology is too expensive, unsafe, and will undermine investment in clean energy sources and the creation of green jobs. It is not green if it glows! “

I understood from the public hearing that it may take up to two years for the site to be approved and I suspect site rejection is quite unlikely.  

Comments (7)

  1. deciminyan

    The 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to acknowledge is that the USA still has no viable plan for the removal and safe storage of nuclear waste.  Even if the new power plant could be built within budget (highly unlikely), we are generating tons of waste and storing a good part of it on site.  And who guards that material from terrorists?  The lowest bidder for-profit company.  This could potentially make us think of the BP disaster as the “good old days”

  2. Jersey Shore John

    during the last election season, I just don’t really care much what he has to say.

  3. princetonblue

    In a perfect world, we wouldn’t have nuclear power.  But if I have to choose between the climate changing due to Co2 emissions and nuclear power,  with its problems, I’m choosing nuclear power.

    Nuclear power, along with solar, wind, etc., seems the only way we’re going to prevent climate change.

  4. Hopeful (Post author)

    One resident pointed out at the hearing that it has a lot of nuclear waste

  5. NNadir

    place to put its dangerous fossil fuel waste.

    Used nuclear fuel is not now, nor has ever been “waste,” except in the minds of people who know very little about nuclear science.

    How come, while dangerous fossil fuel waste kills people continuously people worry incessantly about used nuclear fuel which kills no one?

    Why is the imagination of risk magnified over the reality of disaster.

    If you want to know why the Gulf of Mexico is covered with a layer of oil, thank an anti-nuke today.

    Nuclear power need not be perfect to be infinitely better than everything else.   It merely needs to be better than everything else, which it is.

    I fully support phasing out dangerous fossil fuel waste, dangerous fossil fuel terrorism, dangerous fossil fuel war and dangerous fossil fuel accidents, especially here in New Jersey.

    I would be happy to live near a nuclear plant, for the jobs, the tax revenue, for the high productivity and for the gift to future generations that all nuclear plants represent.

  6. deciminyan

    I pray that “the gift we give to future generations” that you refer to is not the same as the one that was given to the citizens of Pripyat.

  7. 12mileseastofTrenton

    It’s not a rhetorical question.  I’m more open to nuclear than I used to be, but I’ve never really received a satisfactory answer on the health risks involved in disposing of the “waste.”


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *