By Lewis Delavan
Stephens Media

LITTLE ROCK — Arkansas’ only nuclear power plant is celebrating its 35th anniversary as officials debate anew the role of nuclear energy in the push for climate change.

Arkansas Nuclear One completed 35 years of production this month. Sitting on an 1,100-acre site on Lake Dardanelle near Russellville, the facility powers one-fourth of the state and provides more than half of the power sold by Entergy Arkansas, its owner and a leading corporate supporter of clean energy legislation now before Congress.

Company officials say the plant is safe, reliable and emission-free, and that it has made a significant economic impact on the state.

“ANO’s reputation as one of the nuclear industry’s top-performing plants is a success story not only for Arkansas, but also for the people of Arkansas,” said Kevin Walsh, vice president of operations at the plant.

In 1996, ANO was the nation’s first nuclear plant admitted into the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Voluntary Protection Program and has remained in the program since, officials said.

In 1963, Middle South Utilities, as Entergy was then named, began studying the possibility of nuclear power generation. When Pope County was chosen as the site for Nuclear One in August 1967, area officials hailed the announcement as “the event of the century” and touted the facility as “the greatest thing in the (Arkansas River) Valley.”

The plant began operations Dec. 19, 1974. Today, “ANO provides approximately 1,000 jobs in the community and makes significant contributions to the tax base of Russelleville and Pope County,” Walsh said.

On a broader scale, the plant has been “overwhelmingly positive” for the Arkansas economy and the environment, said Entergy Arkansas President and CEO Hugh McDonald.

“Over the years, ANO has helped keep customer rates stable and acted as a buffer against the unpredictable prices of natural gas,” McDonald said. “Nuclear plants also produce large amounts of electricity without adding carbon to the atmosphere.”

Nuclear power generation has gained attention as the U.S. attempts to lead a global effort to reduce carbon emissions. Before the U.S. Senate, energy legislation would set a new course for U.S. energy policy with landmark standards and penalties aimed at curbing man-made pollution and promoting use of renewable energy.

Some lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and others this year took issue with President Obama’s reluctance to increase the role of nuclear power in his clean energy package that narrowly passed the House.

Supporters of the legislation noted nuclear-generated electricity would require far fewer carbon credit purchases than other power sources under the bill, and that the legislation provides financial incentives to encourage construction of clean energy sources, including nuclear.

The Senate version includes a specific provision to fund federal Energy Department programs to broaden expertise in nuclear technology.

Entergy, the nation’s second-largest producer of nuclear power, supports the Senate bill and stands to benefit from a national policy move more toward clean energy.

In 2001, Entergy voluntarily capped its carbon emissions to the previous year’s releases. Since then, its carbon emissions have been cut 17.5 percent, to 43.9 million tons in 2008, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

In a speech at the Clinton School of Public Service this month, Entergy Chairman and CEO Wayne Leonard said the EPA’s recent decision to classify carbon dioxide as a potential hazard was a signal to Congress to act quickly to set climate change policy before the agency does.

Under the legislation’s cap-and-trade provision, businesses would be restricted as to how much carbon dioxide they could emit into the atmosphere (cap) but would be allowed to purchase and swap credits to expel more if their company must do so (trade).

Critics see the measure as little more than an energy tax they say will drive up business and consumer expenses, hurting rural states like Arkansas as a result, and cost jobs.

Leonard said while he not happy with everything in the omnibus energy bill, he is happy to see the issue of addressing global warming on the front burner for more than business reasons.

“We’re playing Russian roulette with the planet and our economy. The difference is there’s a bullet in every chamber except one,” he said in his Dec. 9 speech at the Clinton School. “We have to answer the question of whether we’re more important than future generations. I believe with all my heart that everybody involved in this debate in their own heart knows what the answer to that question is.”

Four-fifths of Entergy’s power comes from low-carbon or no-carbon fuel. Half is nuclear generated and 30 percent by natural gas.

“We view nuclear energy as clean, safe, reliable energy,” said Entergy spokesman Alex Schott. “We are one of the nation’s cleanest power generators.”

Any type of energy will have some impact on the environment, Schott said, noting that to generate an equivalent output of ANO from the wind, for example, would require much more land.

However, not every one is sold on an expanded role for nuclear power in a move toward cleaner energy sources.

Glen Hooks, senior regional representative for the Sierra Club, said the organization favors sustainable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal power, with natural gas — with half the carbon emissions of today’s coal plants — serving as a bridge fuel until all power is generated through sustainable means.

The group does not view nuclear power as either clean or cost-effective.

“We can’t move ahead with nuclear power until we figure out what to do with nuclear waste,” Hooks told the Arkansas News Bureau.

Neither the nuclear nor coal industries calculate the full cost of either fuel, and when all costs are considered, from mining to safe disposal, both nuclear and coal power are far too costly, Hooks said.

Nuclear One is among 10 units operated by Jacksonville, Miss.-based Entergy Nuclear.

While Nuclear One was designed for the possibility of adding more reactors to its current two units, transmission lines are the limiting factor, Fisher said.

A third unit would require a massive expansion of transmission lines from the plant, involving the expense of purchasing right-of-way and other costs. There are no plans at this time to add another nuclear unit in Arkansas, he said.

Each unit was initially licensed for 40-years operation, and was extended by 20 years each. Unit One is licensed through 2034; Unit 2 through 2038.

——-
Reporter John Lyon contributed to this report.