After CPS Energy unveiled its optimistically low $13 billion proposal for South Texas Project reactors three and four, I decided to look into the history of the construction of the first two reactors. What I found was troubling, but it seemed to be pretty much in line with my understanding of problems with nuclear projects during the 70s and 80. Here is a brief time line:
1971:Houston Lighting and Power presents proposal for South Texas Nuclear Project, with an estimated cost of 1 billion dollars for the entire project.
1973: Construction begins, with contractor Brown and Root.A $1 billion cost is agreed upon and the first reactor is projected to be finished by 1980 and the second by 1982.
1979:Brown and Root Inspector Dan Swayze gives interview with CBS Magazine, discussing his decision to stop inspecting concrete pours after a 1977 incident at STP in which concrete workers at STP threatened his life and physically assaulted another inspector.“They beat the hell out of him” -Swayze
1979:Estimated costs rise to $2.7 Billion and completion of the reactors is postponed
to 1984 for the first and 1986 for the second.
1979:Three Mile Island accident.San Antonio reevaluates its role in the project.
1980:After 3,000 complaints reports of work deficiencies, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues a report citing 22 violations and fines HL&P $100,000 and issues a “show cause order” requiring the company to explain why the project should be allowed to continue.
1980:HL&P voluntarily stops work after problems are discovered in the welding and concrete.The projected is rated below average by Ralph Nader’s Critical Mass Energy Project.It is ranked among the top 4 worst ongoing projects.
1981:HL&P fires original contractor Brown and Root (who had no previous experience with nuclear reactors) and replaces them with Bechtel Corporation. Estimated completion costs increase to $4.5 billion.
1985: Brown and Root looses a $750 million law suit, filed by Houston Lighting & Power, San Antonio City Public Service, Central Power, Light of Corpus Christi and the city of Austin.At the time this was the largest cash legal settlement in U.S History.
1987:HL&P receives low-power operating license for Unit 1 nuclear reactor.
1988:The Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts last minute inspection of facility after hundreds of allegations of poor construction, over 50 of which were made by plant workers through the Government Accountability Project.Among the allegations was a claim that roughly 20% of the plant’s safety valves were installed backwards.This was never corrected after it was concluded that the plant could still function with backwards safety valves.
1988:Completion is announced 7 years late and 500% over budget.
1989:City of Austin files lawsuit against Houston Lighting and Power for unexpected expenses and delays during the construction of STP.Texas Court in Dallas Rules in HL&P’s Favor.
Since 1990:STP and other nuclear plants spend an average of $45 million each year disposing of waste.To clarify that is average is per plant.
CPS energy is giving an optimistically low estimate of the total cost of the project. Estimates that consider the cost overruns and construction delays that plagued STP and similar projects last time peg the plant at no lower than $17 billion. This look at STP’s history provides a good example of what can happen when we don’t recognize the likely additional expenditures an expensive project like this will have and operate on an unrealistic time frame. San Antonio is on the verge of repeating many of the mistakes of the past, and it is the citizens that will have to pay.
Proponents of nuclear power do a lot to paint it as an environmentally friendly, cheap fuel source.It is not, and we at Public Citizen work hard to dispel these kinds of myths.We have said a lot about how expensive a major nuclear undertaking can be (San Antonio is on verge of dumping several billion dollars into one of these projects) and how they emit radiation into the air and produce radioactive waste that hangs around for thousands of years and can be a huge contamination risk.None of this gets much attention in mainstream discourse, so it is up to concerned citizens like us to shed light on these things.
There is one destructive aspect of nuclear power that public discourse tends to be especially silent on.Just as coal industry apologists brush over the enormous damage caused by coal mining, any discussion of nuclear is power is likely to be silent on the damage done by uranium mining.
The damage to human health associated with uranium mining is huge.Historically, uranium miners have had a significantly higher risks of developing small cell Carcinoma, which is a likely product of their exposure to Radon-222 — a cancer causing agent created by decaying uranium.The presence of Radon gas also makes uranium mines a very dangerous work environment.This led to the 1990 passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which awards $100,000 to miners, millers, and transporters who subsequently got cancer after exposure to uranium — though families of many of the victims have had difficulty receiving this money (many cancer stricken miners were Navajo, and their marriage licenses were not universally recognized).
Last year the French mining company Areva was nominated for a Public Eye Award (a recognition intended for companies who brought about the most social or ecological damage) by Pro Natura (Switzerland’s branch of Friends of The Earth), and the Berne Declaration development campaign.The nomination came from the company’s perceived failure to adequately disclose the risks associated with uranium mining to its workers in Niger, as well as neglecting to treat patients who are unable to pay at company hospitals.Workers also mentioned deaths caused by radioactive contamination of air and ground water.
Aside from the dangers of uranium exposure, mining projects also cause considerable damage to the local environments and to the health of people who live nearby.The American Southwest is covered with abandoned uranium mines from the Cold War Era that have yet to be cleaned up, not to mention waste piles, open tunnels, and pits — all of which emit cancer causing radiation and leach arsenic and heavy metals into the soil and drinking water.Oddly enough, much of this radioactive debris eventually came to be used as building material for local houses.It is likely that exposure to this material is at least partially responsible for the increased cancer rates among Navajos (from almost non-existent) to well above the national-average by the end of the cold war.
Currently all uranium mining done in the United States is in the form of in-situ leaching, a process in which boreholes are drilled into a deposit, it is filled with an acid or alkali, and the dissolved ore content is pumped to the surface for recovery.It is a controversial process, often objected to by local land owners, because it acidifies ground waters and can release toxic heavy-metals as well as radioactive materials.There have also been concerns about spillage of acid leachates into the soil or water supplies.In other parts of the world, open pit mines and underground mines are still used, which continue to expose workers to danger, damage the local landscapes, and create waste heaps of toxic and radioactive waste rock.
There are a lot of hidden expenses and environmental as well as human health problems with nuclear power, despite claims that it is a “clean” fuel source.I think we need to be a lot more skeptical and a lot more forward in our rejections of these claims.I also think that the dangers of uranium mining give us another reason to support new clean energy sources like wind and solar power.
Last week San Antonio’s CPS released their cost estimate for the proposed South Texas Project Nuclear Expansion, and we found their numbers naiveoptimisticignored history wanting. To find out why, check out this Guest Column, printed in today’s San Antonio Express-News, from Public Citizen’s own Energy Policy Analyst Matthew Johnson.
Matthew Johnson: Why not cheaper, safer sources of energy?
Nuclear reactors too expensive
By Matthew Johnson – Express-News Guest Voices
CPS Energy announced its cost estimate for two more nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project near Bay City last week. The $13-billion price tag is the latest estimate in a sustained and systemic low-balling by utilities wishing to receive government subsidies.
CPS’ partner, NRG Energy, recently pegged the cost of units 3 and 4 at $10 billion, a figure that has jumped nearly 50 percent from its original estimate of $5.4 billion.
Other analyses, however, have estimated the cost of two new reactors to be nearly 100 percent higher than the CPS estimate. Former Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel official Clarence Johnson recently estimated the cost of STP expansion to be $20 billion to $22 billion, while nuclear engineer and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Dr. Arjun Makhijani estimated a cost of up to $17.5 billion in 2008.
A new study by Mark Cooper, of the Vermont Law School, analyzed numerous cost estimates of the so-called nuclear renaissance beginning around 2001. He discovered that early estimates of new nuclear reactors were made predominantly by industry and academics and were optimistic and eager to rejuvenate the industry.
Since then, utilities’ estimates have shown similar wishful thinking, but continue to rise. Independent analysts and Wall Street, Cooper shows, offer the most realistic estimates that are much higher.
The history of the STP expansion effort follows this pattern. CPS and NRG have been attempting to gain support in federal, state and city government since they submitted their application to build two new reactors to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2007.
Wall Street estimates also place a similar and continuously rising price tag on new reactors. The bond-rating agency Moody’s predicted $5,000-6,000 per kilowatt for new reactors almost two years ago, which translates to $16.2 billion for STP expansion, and recently indicated that it could downgrade bond ratings on utilities constructing new nuclear reactors.
The federal government established an $18.5 billion subsidy to back loans taken out to construct new reactors. STP expansion advocates brag about being on the short list for part of these loan guarantees, but proponents and opponents agree that more reactors won’t be built if the feds don’t pony up the dough.
The reason is simple. Investors are squeamish to lend money for projects with such a high risk of defaulting on repayments. Delay and cost overruns increase risk. STP’s original reactors took eight years longer than planned to complete and costs soared six times over original estimates.
CPS Energy has faster and cheaper alternatives. Their recent announcement on the 27 megawatt solar plant in West Texas, the Mission Verde plan to develop 250 megawatts of solar and new wind contracts plus their goal to save 771 megawatts through energy efficiency by 2020 are shining examples of the path they should focus on to keep rates stable and low in the future. This path also creates more local jobs.
City Council will soon have to decide on San Antonio’s involvement in new reactors. It must vote no on nuclear to protect San Antonians from bearing the overwhelming economic burden of building costly, dangerous and unnecessary nuclear reactors.
Matthew Johnson is an energy policy analyst for Public Citizen’s Texas office.
Now that we’ve celebrated another birthday for America, it’s time for the weekly Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup. Here are your highlights from the holiday week.
Neil at Texas Liberal says that while people went on about Michael Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court was making it more difficult for black folks to get promoted at work.
Mr. The Plumber took some time out recently to talk about much the Founding Father’s hated those Godless Communists. McBlogger, obvs, thinks he’s kind of a dummy.
Ouch!! While I don’t think Mr. Lloyd literally supports imprisoning his political adversaries and their supporters, it is somewhat surreal to hear one of our public figures suggesting it. I’ve been told that people often express their true feelings when they are joking, especially when they are not comfortable saying these things in any other context. No matter how you look at it, it is a little troubling that the Governor’s Advisor would suggest that we lock up people who disagree with him.
Mr. Lloyd’s quip was offered as an explanation for the failure of certain Solar Bills this session, but of course the real culprit here was the voter ID bill introduced by the conservative wing of the Republican party in both houses. This created a lot of partisan heat but no light as it killed not only legislation that would have promoted solar energy here in Texas, but also the Sunset safety bill (for which a special session was held last week). This exchange shows that Mr. Lloyd dismisses those of us who are concerned about the environment as minor irritants and our concerns as ill-conceived. I hope he will note that while he does dismiss our concerns, we our numerous and we can influence policy.
Southwest Key is launching their East Austin Summer Speaker Series this week, starting with a panel tomorrow evening, July 7th, on the History of Activism in East Austin and Its Emerging Political Influence. Come check it out!
The Texas Legislature failed to update state energy codes for new commercial, industrial, and residential buildings. That doesn’t mean Texas can’t move forward. We can get the job done in other ways.
There is a silver lining to this spring’s legislative shortfall: proposed rulemaking at the State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) to update the state minimum building codes from 2001 to 2009 may move faster than the proposed legislation would have required.
Adopting the 2009 IECC or IRC will lead to the following changes in residential construction:
Homes will be tested or inspected to allow less air leakage and less thermal infiltration, leading to less energy use.
Ducts will be sealed and tested or located in conditioned space to ensure that heating and cooling equipment functions efficiently.
Windows will meet lower U-factor and lower SHGC requirements, leading to substantial reductions in the amount of air conditioning needed. (Note that the IECC sets a more stringent SHGC requirement than the IRC.)
At least half of light fixtures will have to be “high efficacy.” (Lights have not been included in previous residential energy codes.)
Failure to update our standards quickly and effectively would be a step backwards and could potentially impact current or future funding from the federal government. Texas lags behind many states on its Energy Codes (see map). The nation is moving to update energy efficiency codes, with Congress considering a single national building code standard. Under the American Renewal and Recovery Act (the federal economic stimulus program), Texas has submitted a letter to the Department of Energy saying it has a process to update its standards, allowing SECO to accept certain grants for energy efficiency.
Take action today and send your comment to SECO to support new, green energy codes in Texas!
Neil at Texas Liberal suggests that instead of blowing of your fingers lighting fireworks–during a drought in Harris County no less—that maybe you would be better off reading a book instead.
With 2010 spinning up, it’s funny to watch all the different players already on the field line up to take their first hits. McBlogger, of course, thinks they’re all deeply in need of a little advice which he graciously provides (with surprisingly sparse use of profanity)!
WhosPlayin.com Video bring you EXTREME Congressional Town Hall – Special “Losing our freedoms” edition, sponsored by Prozac.
Over at TexasKaos, Libby Shaw calls our attention to Confessions of a Former Health Insurance Exec: “We Dump the Sick”. Who knew? All the posturing , hypocritical , offers of self-reform and insurance relief are just so much bogus cover up for an industry too greedy to ever be trusted to regulate themselves!
A new iPhone application My Texas Lege will make it even easier for constituents to contact elected officials and their staffers. The app, which has both a paid (Plus) and free version (Lite), is a nonpartisan directory of the Texas Legislaturethat will allow users to dial members’ offices directly, find district offices using Google Maps, and email members and staffers directly from your phone. The application is available now, and starting in Fall 20090 will include a 2010 Campaign Expansion Pack with information on all state races.
ReEnergize Texas is having a party to kick-off our Summer of Solutions program and your 4th of July weekend! Join us at Public Citizen (1303 San Antonio St.) this Thursday 6pm-9pm for music, food, and beer (for those of age)!
Come show your support for joint projects being run by Resolution Gardens, ReEnergize Texas, American Youthworks, Rosewood-Zaragosa Community Center, PODER, and more all with the support of Austin Energy and Public Citizen. You can learn more about these groups, sign up to volunteer, or make contributions at our silent auction or in the tip jar!
Bring some food to share if you have it, and enjoy beer on the house. Music, food, and good company… what better way to start your 4th of July weekend?
For more information and to RSVP, add yourself to the Facebook event and come on out!
At our last party, Ryan spun fire. I’m not saying that that’s going to happen again tomorrow… but I am saying we are awesome and know how to have fun. Come check it out.
After CPS Energy unveiled its optimistically low $13 billion proposal for South Texas Project reactors three and four, I decided to look into the history of the construction of the first two reactors. What I found was troubling, but it seemed to be pretty much in line with my understanding of problems with nuclear projects during the 70s and 80. Here is a brief time line:
Now that we’ve celebrated another birthday for America, it’s time for the weekly Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup. Here are your highlights from the holiday week.
The word, according to the 
It’s Fourth of July week, and so it’s time for an extra-patriotic rendition of the Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup.
A new iPhone application 
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
