Skip to main content

Letter From Senator Robert Casey of PA

I believe that the U.S. must get serious about construction of nuclear power plants. The electric car is real, and the batteries must be charged somehow. Dependence on foreign oil must be reduced. And we need some jobs.
All of that speaks to building nuclear power plants. President Obama deserves high praise for extending credit to The Southern Company to construct additional nuclear plants. But, accompanying news is that it will take the NRC 12-18 months to approve the plans. That is silly. What are they doing now? Can't be many blueprints of proposed plants waiting on review.
I wrote Senator Casey a letter, recommending that he get the NRC in a hearing room and tell them they've got a month to approve it.

Here is his reply:

Dear Mr. Morphis:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your views on nuclear energy. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

The United States currently generates around 20% of its electricity from nuclear power plants. While no new plants have been built for almost 30 years, calls for a new wave of nuclear power plant construction have grown stronger in recent years. For example, as our Nation considers ways to combat global climate change, proponents of nuclear power highlight its ability to generate significant power with no greenhouse gas emissions. They maintain that if we are serious about achieving an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, without substantially reducing our electricity consumption, we must build nuclear facilities that can replace coal-fired and other fossil fuel based power plants. On the other side of this debate, however, opponents of expanding nuclear power contend that some of the same problems that confronted the nuclear industry decades ago persist today, including the challenge of nuclear waste disposal as well as the exorbitant costs of building new plants.

One aspect of the nuclear debate that I feel most parties can agree on is the need for strong safety and security measures to protect those who reside in communities located near nuclear facilities. Over ten million Pennsylvanians, for example, live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant. While nuclear safety guidelines, which help protect a plant from mechanical or operational failures, have long been a priority of federal regulators, I am concerned that the same level of attention has not been paid to the challenges of nuclear plant security. The threat of a terrorist attack on a U.S. commercial nuclear facility remains real, which is why I have lead efforts to identify ways to strengthen the level of security at all of our Nation's nuclear power plants. In January 2008, I asked the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety to hold an oversight hearing on the subject of nuclear security. At the hearing, which took place on February 28, 2008, I testified on a reported lapse in security that took place at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in York County, Pennsylvania. In addition, I questioned the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on these matters and offered a number of reforms that could address some of the problems that allowed incidents like the one at Peach Bottom to occur.

As Congress considers legislation that could provide incentives that would promote nuclear generation expansion, please be assured that I will bear you views in mind. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: What Matters Now by Gary Hamel

Interview of Eric Schmidt by Gary Hamel at the MLab dinner tonight. Google's Marissa Mayer and Hal Varian also joined the open dialog about Google's culture and management style, from chaos to arrogance. The video just went up on YouTube. It's quite entertaining. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Cover of The Future of Management My list of must-read business writers continues to expand.   Gary Hamel , however, author of What Matters Now , with the very long subtitle of How to Win in a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation , has been on the list for quite some time.   Continuing his thesis on the need for a new approach to management introduced in his prior book The Future of Management , Hamel calls for a complete rethinking of how enterprises are run. Fundamental to his recommendation is that the practice of management is ossified in a command and control system that is now generations old and needs to be replaced with somethi...

Stimulus Plan

Mr. President: The House stimulus bill is awful. Dangerous. Counter-productive. It has a very high probability of making things worse!. Your man Rahm Emanuel is supposed to be a tough guy: turn him loose on the House Dems - they are selling you down the river. Some simple tests: the spending will improve long-term productivity; the spending will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the spending will happen fast; very, very fast. There may need to be some legislation to enable spending without years of environmental review. For example, spending on wind farms would improve long-run productivity and reduce dependence on foreign oil. But let's say the wind farm is a couple of miles offshore. You can't have environmental groups stopping the development to see if some fish will be harmed. This spending has to happen now. And, no tax cuts with the possible exception of AMT. People aren't going to spend any tax savings; they are going to pay their credit card bills or r...

Romney/Thompson dream ticket?

The role of Fred Thompson in yesterday's SC primary is as murky as his next step. Did he divide the religious vote and thereby hand Huckabee a loss? Or would those votes, had he not been there, have gone elsewhere? My instinct is that more of those votes would have gone to Romney or McCain than to Huckabee. Fred comes across to me as the thinking person's conservative: thoughtful on positions, a sense of history, a Federalist, serious about the war on terror and prepared to take the long view on it. His addresses have content, not sound bites - which may, unfortunately, be a drawback in 2008. Mitt is quickly seizing the stage as the most knowledgeable in the field on economics, growth and job creation. With a war still consuming dozens of billions, it isn't clear that the race will be won on voters' views of candidates job creation prowess. However, he gives off as much energy as Fred seems to absorb - Mitt's electron shell could power Fred. So, Mitt may be drawi...