Fermi 3: Michigan’s Nuclear Debate
Environmental Coalition Fights Proposed Nuclear Reactor in Monroe County
This article documents the 2009 opposition to the proposed Fermi 3 nuclear reactor in Michigan. The debate over nuclear energy expansion remains relevant today as states reconsider nuclear power for clean energy goals.
In March 2009, a coalition of citizen groups asked federal regulators to reject plans for a new nuclear reactor at Michigan’s Fermi site, contending that it would pose threats to public health and the environment. The proposed Fermi 3 would have been one of the first new nuclear plants built in the United States in decades.
The Proposed Reactor
Detroit Edison Company (now DTE Energy) submitted an application for a combined license (COL) to build Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 on September 18, 2008. The proposal represented a major expansion of nuclear power in the Great Lakes region.
Fermi 3 Specifications
- Design: GE-Hitachi Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR)
- Capacity: 1,550 megawatts electric (MWe)
- Thermal Output: 4,500 MWt
- Location: Monroe County, Michigan (Lake Erie shore)
- Estimated Cost: Up to $10 billion
- Construction Timeline: Estimated 6 years after approval
The Opposition Coalition
A bi-national coalition of environmental groups formed to challenge the Fermi 3 application through legal and regulatory channels:
Groups Opposing Fermi 3
- Beyond Nuclear – Lead plaintiff in legal challenges
- Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario – Canadian environmental group
- Don’t Waste Michigan – State anti-nuclear organization
- Ohio Green Party – Regional political party
Legal representation provided by Terry Lodge, Toledo attorney
Environmental Concerns
The coalition raised multiple concerns about the proposed reactor’s impact:
Water Usage and Lake Erie
Nuclear reactors require enormous amounts of water for cooling. Located directly on Lake Erie, Fermi 3 would draw millions of gallons daily from the Great Lakes system, raising concerns about thermal pollution and impacts on aquatic ecosystems.
Nuclear Waste
With no permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste in the United States, opponents argued that building new reactors would only add to the growing stockpile of radioactive materials stored at plant sites indefinitely.
Safety and History
The Fermi site has a troubled history. Fermi 1, an experimental breeder reactor, suffered a partial meltdown in 1966 — an incident that inspired the book “We Almost Lost Detroit.”
The NRC Review Process
What Happened to Fermi 3?
Despite winning federal approval in 2015, DTE Energy ultimately decided not to proceed with construction. Several factors contributed to this decision:
- Economics: Natural gas prices dropped dramatically due to fracking, making nuclear less competitive
- Renewable Growth: Wind and solar costs fell faster than projected
- Post-Fukushima Concerns: The 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan renewed safety concerns about the ESBWR design
- Regulatory Uncertainty: Years of review added costs and uncertainty
The Site Today
The Fermi site continues to operate with Fermi 2, a boiling water reactor that has been generating electricity since 1988. DTE Energy maintains the option to build Fermi 3 in the future, but there are no current plans to proceed.
Michigan’s Nuclear Future
State experts note that a history of accidents and structural problems at Michigan’s nuclear plants has dampened enthusiasm for new construction. However, with growing focus on carbon-free electricity, the nuclear debate continues to evolve.
The Bigger Picture: Nuclear in Michigan
Michigan currently has several nuclear facilities that provide a significant portion of the state’s electricity:
- Fermi 2 (Monroe County) – 1,198 MW
- Cook Nuclear Plant (Berrien County) – 2,191 MW (2 units)
- Palisades (Van Buren County) – Closed 2022, potential restart under discussion
In 2023, nuclear power provided approximately 21% of Michigan’s total electricity generation.
Related Coverage
Energy Policy in Michigan
Learn more about Michigan’s energy mix and clean energy goals at the Michigan Public Service Commission.