On August 25, 2017, Duke Energy, citing Westinghouse's recent bankruptcy, filed a request to cancel the W.S. Lee Nuclear Project. In its filing, Duke Energy stated, "It is unlikely the Company will be able to construct and commence operation of the Project before the end of the next decade. These recent events support the conclusion that the Project, as originally contemplated, should be cancelled in the best interest of customers."


Duke Energy Filing

Jan. 28, 2015: Contrary to federal law, the required environmental reviews for nuclear power stations proposed by Dominion in Louisa, VA, Duke Energy in Gaffney, SC and a half dozen others omit any reference to the NRC’s recently issued irradiated nuclear fuel storage analysis. Instead, they are directed to environmental analyses that have been outdated; or worse, vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Our petitions call for a full environmental assessment of the safety and public health risks of long term storage at the reactor sites.

View Petition to NRC

April 19, 2013: South Carolina’s draft NPDES permit is premature. First, a mandatory environmental review is incomplete. Second, the concurrent plant safety review is also incomplete and no license has been issued. Therefore, the state cannot issue this permit until these matters are decided, engineering and environmental questions are settled, and the construction and operation license is finalized.

Read BREDL Comments

The July 9 motions to reopen and motions for leave to file a new argument (or “contention”) are legal steps necessary to hold certain electric power company’s feet to the nuclear fire. These actions follow the recent federal Court of Appeals order striking down the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s patently ridiculous “Waste Confidence Decision,” which should now be enshrined in Blackstone’s dictionary along with other “legal fictions.”

North Anna Motion | W.S. Lee Motion | Bellefonte Motion

SAFE Carolinas' Laura Sorensen and BREDL's Lou Zeller were interviewed by Ned Doyle of Our Southern Community. They discussed the proposed W S Lee Nuclear Power Plant.

Listen to the June 2012 radio interview: Part One | Part Two | Part Three

SAFE Carolinas is a BREDL Chapter.
Our Southern Community is a program exploring the people and the issues of the environment, energy and economics of the Southern Region.

In Hot Water

NPDES water permits for nuclear power plants are in some ways similar to those of other facilities such as sewage treatment plants. They are granted and monitored by state regulatory agencies under the Clean Water Act. The difference is that the pollutant of principal concern is heat. Steam electric generating plants, including coal-fired and nuclear, generate heat to boil water to make steam to run a turbine attached to a generator. The problem is that roughly two-thirds of the heat energy generated in this process is wasted, produces no power and must be discarded. People all across the Carolinas will be adversely impacted if Duke Energy builds a nuclear plant on the Broad River that is vulnerable to water supply heat problems.

View BREDL Fact Sheet

March 6, 2012: “Whatever safety measures are in place can never be sufficient because these facilities are, after all, operated by human beings. We have persistently cautioned against the arrogant notion, promoted by those with a disproportionate confidence in technology, that humanity can completely control nuclear power.”-Gensuikin

Read BREDL's Comments

April 17, 2009: BREDL Reply to Answers of Duke Energy and NRC Staff regarding new Contention Eleven on proposed W S Lee Nuclear Plants

March 10, 2009: 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. The League acted because of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's failure to recognize that high-level radioactive waste storage would pose significant environmental risks at proposed nuclear power plants at TVA's Bellefonte, Duke Energy's WS Lee and Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna stations. Read BREDL Press Release

On July 22, 2008 both Duke Energy Carolinas and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff attorneys filed their answers to our petition. (Duke Answer | NRC Answer) BREDL filed a motion requesting more time to file our reply and the judges agreed. (BREDL Request) Our motion stated:

Contemporaneous proceedings initiated by the Commission are creating scheduling conflicts. These conflicts arise from license applications for licenses in Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia as well as South Carolina. While this development may not be the ASLB’s doing, neither is it the responsibility of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League which merely seeks to represent its members in South Carolina and elsewhere.

On August 8, 2008 BREDL sent our reply to NRC and Duke Energy. (BREDL Reply)

The granting of a license to Duke Energy Carolinas would permit the company to construct and operate two nuclear reactors on the Broad River near Gaffney, South Carolina. Nuclear reactors here would endanger over a 2.3 million people in two states living within 50 miles of the plant including Spartanburg, Greenville, Newberry and Rock Hill in SC and Marion, Morganton, Hickory and Charlotte in NC. Download June 27 BREDL Petition

BREDL raised ten fundamental flaws with Duke's proposal in our legal petition:
1. The design of the nuclear power reactor has not been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2. Duke Energy failed to analyze the carbon footprint of the construction and operation of the nuclear reactors.
3. Duke failed to identify a plan for meeting its massive water requirements in adverse weather conditions such as droughts.
4. Duke has not demonstrated that it is and financially able to spend the $18 Billion necessary to build the plant.
5. Duke failed to show the plant could withstand the largest potential earthquakes.
6. Duke's power plants will not improve the general welfare, increase the standard of living, or strengthen free competition in private enterprise as required by the Atomic Energy Act.
7. Nuclear standards fail to provide equal protection to all residents as required under the US Constitution.
8. Uranium fuel is not a reliable source of energy.
9. Duke and NRC failed to include adequate protections from aircraft impacts.
10. There is no long-term plan for disposing of high-level nuclear waste.

On December 13, 2007 Duke Energy applied to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate two nuclear plants on the Broad River near Gaffney, South Carolina. The application is for two Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized Water Reactors designated William States Lee III Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League is challenging this permit for health, safety and economic reasons. If you are within the 50-mile zone, you may join in this effort.

Deadline: June 27, 2008

Gaffney 50-mile map and factsheet | Declaration of Standing | FAQs about Legal Declaration of Standing | BREDL Membership Form

May 2008 Factsheet: New Nuclear Power Plants in South Carolina? - Duke Energy has applied to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate two nuclear plants on the Broad River near Gaffney, South Carolina. The deadline for comments on environmental impacts of a nuclear power plant on this area’s air, water, and public health was May 20, 2008.