(567.5398) NEIS - As reasons Exelon states it did not see reactor development as part of its core business strategy, wishing instead to focus more on power marketing, production and distribution. It also did not see a very immediate shareholder return on its US$20 million investment. Publicly, it states confidence in the viability of PBMR technology, and may even become a future buyer, should PBMRs work.
For the past two years activists encouraged Exelon's withdrawal. The South African Green movement challenged the project - and their government, which reneged on its promise to remain non-nuclear - early on. In early 2001 US-based Nuclear Energy Information Service of Illinois sent a formal letter to Exelon co-chairs John Rowe and Corbin MacNeill, bluntly requesting Exelon's withdrawal. At the first Exelon shareholders meeting in April 2001, NEIS' director (an Exelon shareholder) brought the issue before the shareholders, warning that unless the company was very forthcoming and open about PBMR development information and progress to shareholders, it risked a shareholder lawsuit if the project failed.
In August at the WISE/NIRS-co-sponsored Nuclear Free Great Lakes Action Camp held in Illinois, USA, Exelon Watch International - a group of over 20 activists representing 12 countries - demonstrated at Exelon's Illinois headquarters, demanding Exelon's withdrawal. Exelon refused to meet with them, and ignored their petition.
|
EARLY SITE PERMIT Exelon announced on 30 April that it will apply for an Early Site Permit (ESP) to build a second reactor at Clinton, 160 miles (250 km) south of Chicago. The Clinton site was designed for two reactors; one 985 MW BWR was built, but a second was cancelled in 1983. An ESP does not commit a company to building a new reactor - the company can sit on the permit for 20 years and still do nothing. Exelon said it has not yet decided on which reactor model to use if it does go ahead. Platts, 30 April 2002 |
Exelon's partnership share of PBMR Pty., Ltd., amounted to only 12.5%. The remaining consortium partners - ESKOM of South Africa, British Nuclear Fuels, plc., and South Africa's Industrial Development Corp. - have announced intentions to continue development without Exelon, although they may seek a new partner. The feasibility phase of development is scheduled to end later this year, with actual construction of the first reactor in South Africa at the Koeberg reactor site scheduled to begin in 2004, with completion scheduled for 2007.
What exactly does Exelon's withdrawal indicate?
Exelon's stated reasons for withdrawal may be legitimate. However, Exelon never engages in activity that is not in its own long-term best interest. Other Exelon-related events and activities may reveal its true intentions:
|
HTR/PBMR On 21 April, the Dutch Coalition of Anti Nuclear Groups (LPTK) protested at the opening meeting of the international HTR 2002 Conference. Some 15 activists blockaded the entrance of the restaurant in the Dutch town of Den Helder where the reception was held. The 100 participants were offered "radioactive food", like mushrooms from Ukraine and pigeon meat from Sellafield. After one hour the police succeeded in removing the activists. The three-day conference itself started the next day at the Dutch Energy Research Foundation in Petten. An international task team studying the feasibility of building a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) in South Africa released its report to the government. According to the team, lack of clarity prevails on technical and financial aspects and the team doubted the economical feasibility of the project. The conclusions are a further disappointment to the PBMR company in light of expectations that its recommendations would be largely favorable. Aktielijst (NL), 22 April 2002; Business Day, 22 April 2002 |
- The early retirement of Exelon's co-CEO and PBMR promoter Corbin MacNeill left the project without an internal champion. His co-chair John Rowe now takes over the company. Rowe's priority is in transmission/distribution functions, while director of Nuclear Power Operations Oliver Kingsley seems to favor larger-sized projects, and - according to insiders - may be in line to replace Rowe, should he retire.
- Exelon may accept the US government's offer to utilize federal property for the next reactor siting, which could shorten licensing time by by-passing the need for new EIS's and preventing most activist intervention opportunities.
- Rumors of re-opening the currently shuttered Zion, Illinois reactor site, which previously housed two 1,080 MW PWRs, continue despite Exelon's denial. The site would have been a candidate for PBMRs, and may be even more suitable for the newly promoted and larger Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors, currently before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval.
Exelon's withdrawal from the PBMR program seems to have little impact on the future of PBMR development. However, it may signal a whole new era of large-scale reactor additions to Exelon's existing nuclear fleet of 17 operating US reactors, on sites that will minimize challenges from safe-energy activists. Should Oliver Kingsley eventually become Exelon's CEO, large-scale nuclear programs might again become Exelon's priority.
Source and contact: Dave Kraft, Nuclear Energy Information Service, P.O. Box 1637, Evanston, IL 60204-1637, U.S.
Tel: +1 847 869 7650. Fax: +1 847 869 7658.
E-mail neis@forward.net
Web www.neis.org
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |