Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘comanche peak’

NRC 2010 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , on May 3, 2011 |

NRC WILL HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 2010 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Comanche Peak

Most of us are familiar with the 10 and 50 mile zones around Fukushima, this map shows those same zones around the Comanche Peak nuclear plant located just 38 miles outside of Fort Worth.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet in Glen Rose, Texas, on Thursday, May 12, with representatives of Luminant Generation Co., to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located near Glen Rose.

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Somervell County Expo Exhibit Hall, 102 Northeast Vine Street, Glen Rose, Texas.

In addition to the performance assessment, the NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the safety performance of Comanche Peak and the NRC’s role in ensuring safe plant operation.

The meeting will provide an opportunity for NRC to discuss their annual assessment of the plant with the company, local officials and the public.   NRC will answer any questions attendees may have about their oversight.

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during 2010 and will serve as the basis for discussion. It is available on the NRC website – click here to read the letter.

In light of public concerns that have emerged regarding the safety of nuclear plants here in the U.S. in the wake of the Japanese nuclear disaster at Fukushima, this public meeting provides an excellent opportunity for citizens living 10, 50, or even 150 miles away to find out what measures are in place at Comanche Peak to protect it’s neighbors.

Related Articles

Read Full Post »

Texas nuclear plants’ ability to handle a blackout

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , on April 7, 2011 |

A 2003 Nuclear Regulatory Commission report shows the susceptibility of US nuclear power plants to blackouts that could lead to core damage.

Click here to read the 2003 NRC report and click here to read the 2005 re-evaluation report.  Draw your own conclusions but be warned, these are not user friendly reports.

Click here to go to MSNBC”s interactive US map showing the risk for plants around the country.

Read Full Post »

Take Action Today! Texas Representative Chet Edwards is pushing for $25 billion in US taxpayer backed loans for nuclear reactors

Posted in Global Warming, Good Government, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , on July 14, 2010 |

On Thursday, July 15, the House Energy and Water subcommittee is scheduled to vote on $25 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors in the FY2011 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Only last month, the House passed $9 billion in nuclear loan guarantees in the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations bill (it has not yet passed the Senate). Together with the Department of Energy’s existing nuclear loan guarantee authority, the US taxpayer’s burden would be tripled to an enormous $52.5 billion.

The additional $25 billion in nuclear loan guarantees comes at the behest of Rep. Chet Edwards (D) to fund two proposed reactors at Comanche Peak in his district in Texas.  The proposed new reactors have an uncertified and untested design, and are years away from licensing approval. There are also two reactors proposed for the South Texas Project site in Bay City, Texas.  

Putting another $25 billion into costly, economically risky and polluting new reactors will be at the expense of solving climate change with clean, renewable energy and efficiency.  Call or email your Representatives today and tell them that these subsidies are unacceptable! 

(Find out who represents you at http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us)

Feel free to use this message or edit as you’d like:
————————————————————–

Dear Representative __________________,

I am writing to urge you to oppose $25 billion in additional nuclear loan guarantee authority in the FY2011 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.  Given the nuclear industry’s inability to reduce the soaring capital costs of new reactors, assure the safety of its technology, or resolve radioactive waste storage issues, burdening U.S. taxpayers with tens of billions dollars of additional liability for new reactors is irresponsible.  

The Department of Energy currently has over $10 billion in unallocated existing authority. The House has passed an additional $9 billion in nuclear loan guarantees in its 2010 Supplemental Appropriations bill. Together, this would triple the nuclear loan guarantees to a massive $52.5 billion. Many of the proposed new nuclear projects even have designs that are certified.

Moreover, according to a recent Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report, the DOE’s loan guarantee program does not even have a way to evaluate whether the program is meeting its goals.  GAO also found that DOE has provided preferential treatment to nuclear applicants that it has not given to renewable and efficiency applicants.  Additional nuclear funding will only exacerbate these structural problems.

Please oppose an additional $25 billion in nuclear loan guarantees in the FY2011 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.  US taxpayers should not be expected to bail out yet another industry.

Sincerely,

—————————-

Read Full Post »

Worried About Comanche Peak Water Use?

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , on January 12, 2010 |

Are you worried about the water usage of the proposed 2-unit expansion at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant up near Glen Rose, Texas?  Then you might be interested in the Brazos River Conservation Coalition meeting tonight at 7pm in Granbury, where they will discuss the impacts of increased water consumption if the project is completed.  The meeting is open to the public and will be held in the Hood County Annex 1 meeting room at 1410 W. Pearl St.

Lake Granbury - Comanche Peak in the background

The Brazos River Conservation Coalition, “a citizens group that kind of monitors things that are going on along the river” in the words of their president, will host Comanche Peak’s nuclear environmental manager.  The environmental manager will discuss water requirements and answer questions from the public.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Citizens Groups Win Right to a Hearing for Comanche Peak Intervention

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 22, 2009 |

Citizen opposition to more nuclear reactors at Comanche Peak continues. On August 6th the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel found that Luminant had failed to adequately analyze issues brought by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.

“This is a major victory for those living near Comanche Peak and throughout Texas,” says Karen Hadden, Executive Director of Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “The ASLB Panel has recognized in their decision that Luminant has not sufficiently analyzed alternatives to nuclear power as the law requires.”

The Comanche Peak Interveners (formerly referred to as Petitioners) include SEED Coalition, Public Citizen, Ft. Worth-based True Cost of Nukes and Texas Representative Lon Burnam, District 90, Ft. Worth. On June 10th-11th, the Interveners’ attorney, Robert V. Eye, went before the designated ASLB Panel and argued the admissibility of the 19 contentions filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on April 6th challenging the adequacy of Luminant’s application to construct and operate Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4. Four months later, the ASLB Panel found that two of the contentions deserved further inquiry and delayed a decision on the Interveners’ contention dealing with the Luminant’s lack of plans to deal with catastrophic fires and/or explosions.

“The Environmental Report in Luminant’s application is seriously flawed,” says Mr. Eye. “The collocation of Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Units 3 and 4 is never considered in light of various accident and radiological release scenarios. A radiological accident at one unit could cause collateral impacts and disruptions in operations at the other units, and Luminant should have considered this.”

The contentions admitted for further adjudication in the August 6th ASLB decision are as follows:

Contention 13. Impacts from a severe radiological accident at any one unit on operation of other units at the Comanche Peak site have not been, and should be, considered in the Environmental Report.

Contention 18. The Comanche Peak Environmental Report is inadequate because it fails to include consideration of alternatives to the proposed Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4, consisting of combinations of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, with technological advances in storage methods and supplemental use of natural gas, to create baseload power.

Read Full Post »

Nuclear plans hurting Texas power companies’ (already poor) credit ratings

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , on July 30, 2009 |

Power companies’ plans to pursue new nuclear projects are damaging their credit ratings, which may mean higher costs will be shifted onto ratepayers. In a new report by Moody’s Investors Service titled “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing”, the firm raises concerns about investing in new nuclear plants with great risks and capitol costs at a time when national energy policy is uncertain.

Of the 17 proposed reactor projects Moody’s analyzed, two already have obligations rated as speculative or “junk”, and both are in Texas: NRG’s South Texas Project (“questionable credit quality”) and Energy Future Holding’s Comanche Peak (“generally poor credit quality”).

Exelon’s proposed two unit reactor in Victoria was rated as one step above junk status (between Baa1 and Baa3).

“If these guys are already having trouble with their credit ratings, why should Texans mortgage their future building new plants that even the builders can’t finance?,” asks Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office.

Good question.

Read Full Post »

Worried About Water

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 22, 2009 |

water header

I’ve been thinking (and worrying) about water a lot lately.  I suppose that the drought has brought all this concern along.  Just a few months ago, folks were comparing this drought to the one that devastated Texas agriculture in the ’50s (when crop yields dropped by as much as 50%, all but one county in Texas was declared a federal drought disaster area, and grasslands were scorched and ranchers that couldn’t afford high hay prices resorted to a mixture of prickly pear cactus and molasses), but now folks are saying that this drought is well on its way to being worse, and certainly more costly, than any other dry spell in Texas history.

We’re already seeing ranching and agriculture suffer substantially from this drought.  Agricultural officials are now pinning crop and livestock losses at $3.6 billion.  Just 12% of the cotton acreage planted this year will be harvested, and many gins won’t open up this season because there isn’t enought work to justify it.  Ranchers are also buying high priced hay and feed supplements because their own pastures haven’t produced enough to feed their herds.  Ranchers are selling off calves younger and thinner than usual, and even letting go of the mature females that sustain their herds.  In the last week, Bastrop County alone lost 12,000 cattle from the drought.  As Roy Wheeler, an Atascosa County rancher told the San Antonio Express-News, “We’re selling the factory, so they say.”

So why worry about the weather,  you may ask.  Haven’t farmers and ranchers been scraping by and beaten by the weather since the first man stuck a seed in the ground?  Perhaps, but during the dust bowl and in this last great drought in the ’50s, we could still shake our fists at the sky and vow never to go hungry again — but now we can only shake our fists at ourselves.  There’s not a doubt in my mind that this drought is a result of human interference.  I’m no scientist, just an educated girl with a blog, but I’d bet the farm that we’re seeing global warming in action.

But you don’t have take my word for it.  Take the word of Dr. Gerald North, a climate scientist at that notorious liberal holdout Texas A&M, who says that this drought is the beginning of a permanent trend for Texas.  He cites the 2007 IPCC report, which shows trends toward hotter and drier summers.  In reference to this weather pattern, North told the Environment News Service that, “It could be just a fluke that persists for a decade… But my guess is that it’s here to stay, but with fluctuations up and down.”

Of course we can’t point at any one weather event and say that it is a direct result of global warming, but we can take events as indicative of what is to come as global warming progresses.  Just as Hurricane Katrina woke up the world to the devastation that will ensue as storms of increase in frequency and severity from climate change, this current drought can give Texans a hint of what the future of Texas weather will look like.

There’s a terrible element of irony here.  Our current trajectory of unsustainable growth and energy consumption increase the likelihood that drought in Texas will become the new norm.  AND those same industries and energy sources which have poisoned our atmosphere and raised global temperatures… use enormous amounts of water.  Coal, natural gas, and nuclear — which propents are trying to sell as “the low-carbon cure we need” — are incredibly, enormously, despicably water intensive. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Emergency preparedness at nuclear plants: Let’s discuss

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , on June 10, 2009 |

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will hold two public meetings tomorrow in Irving, Texas, on a proposed new rule that would change the emergency preparedness requirements for existing and proposed nuclear power plants. Since 9/11, there has been growing concern that the country’s 104 existing reactors are potential terrorist targets and are more vulnerable to major disasters if attacked. There is additional concern that the nuclear reactors being proposed across the country, six of which are in Texas, would not be able to sufficiently mitigate a terrorist attack such as by aircraft.

In their 2007 report, Nuclear Power in a Warming World, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a set of recommendations that address shortcomings of current NRC regulations including a recommendation that the NRC treat the risks of sabotage and attacks on par with risks of nuclear accididents, and require all environmental reviews during licensing to consider such threats. This issue is particularly relevant to Texas because the NRC is currently hearing oral arguments by the SEED Coalition, Public Citizen, Rep. Lon Burnam, and the local citizen’s group True Cost of Nukes, who seek to intervene in the application by Luminant to expand the Comanche Peak nuclear plant near Glen Rose, Texas.

A contention regarding the lack of safeguards and emergency preparedness for the crash of an airliner into nuclear reactors is among the issues being raised by the groups, who point out that concerned citizens and groups have not had access to the full information needed in this regard.

Public Citizen intends to file comments on the proposed rule, which are due no later than August 3.

The meeting is an opportunity for the public to learn about the proposed rule and ask questions. It will take place at the Westin Dallas Fort Worth Airport; 4545 W. John Carpenter Freeway; Irving, Texas. The meeting will have two sessions, from 2:00 to 4:30 and from 7:00 to 9:30 PM.

The NRC press release for the meeting is available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-019.iv.html.

For those who cannot attend in person, the meeting will be webcast. To participate, register ASAP at https://www.livemeeting.com/lrs/8001607981/Registration.aspx?PageName=bg8044041h843dp2 and call in to 1-800-779-8609 (PIN 21726). For more information, contact Annette Stang with the NRC at 1-800-368-5642.

The proposed rule is published in the Federal Register at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-10947.pdf

The UCS report is available at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf.

Read Full Post »

Citizens Oppose Comanche Peak Expansion before Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2009 |

stop nukeOral Hearing Set for June 10th-11th in Granbury, TX

Citizen opposition to more nuclear reactors in Texas continues. On June 10th-11th an oral hearing will be held before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on Citizens’ petition to intervene in Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4.

“I have many grave concerns about building more nuclear reactors in Texas,” said Texas Representative Lon Burnam, District 90, Ft. Worth, one of the petitioners seeking to intervene in the proposed expansion of Comanche Peak. “The risks are simply too high. As the most expensive and most water intensive energy source, and with the unsolved problem of how to handle the radioactive waste, Texans deserve better.”

SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Ft. Worth-based True Cost of Nukes are also petitioners. Attorney, Robert V. Eye, will go before the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and argue the admissibility of the 19 contentions citizens filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on April 6th. These contentions point out the inadequacies and the incompleteness of Luminant’s combined operating license application (COLA) to construct and operate Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4.

“Luminant has failed to comply with new federal regulations regarding aircraft impacts,” stated Mr. Eye. “These new regulations are very specific and require the applicant to plan for catastrophic fires and/or explosions that would cause the loss of major critical functional components in the plant. After 9-11, an aircraft attack on a nuclear power plant is a real and credible threat. Moreover, fire hazards represent about half of the risk of a nuclear reactor meltdown. Luminant’s noncompliance with these regulations puts citizens around Comanche Peak in a dangerous position, which is completely unacceptable.”

“Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and obsolete,” says Karen Hadden, Executive Director of Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “Wind energy is booming and the cost of solar is coming down, while the costs of proposed nuclear plants is skyrocketing. Although they’re required to do so, Luminant failed to fully consider safer, more affordable alternatives to nuclear in their license application.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Proposed Nuclear Projects in Texas Could Cost $22 Billion

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 30, 2009 |

Impressive nuclear headlines in the papers these days, largely as a result of a new report released by our office entitled: “Costs of Current and Planned Nuclear Power Plants in Texas: A Consumer Perspective.  The report finds that the proposed expansions of nuclear power plants in Bay City (South Texas Project) and Glen Rose (Comanche Peak) could cost $22 billion, boost the cost of electricity for consumers and curtail investment in energy-efficiency programs and solar power.

The headline in the San Antonio Express News yesterday morning, just below the banner no less, read: Nuke Plan May Cost $22 Billion

This morning the Fort Worth Star Telegram also ran an article titled Anti-nuclear group: Comanche Peak expansion could cost $27.6 billion

The San Antonio Current’s Queblog also reports: Projected nuke power’s price tag inflating.  

In addition to a real cost estimate for nuclear power plant expansions in Texas, the report also compares the cost of nuclear power to the cost of alternatives such as wind, solar, and energy efficiency.  I’d encourage anyone who complains about the expense of renewable energy but claims that nuclear power is “cheap” to take a gander at the following graph: 

estimated-installed-cost-per-kw-11

Wow.  Even on the low estimate end, energy efficiency costs just a fifth of what we would spend to get that kind of power from a nuclear plant, and wind and solar both come in well under that cost of nukes.  Take that, naysayers!

A major concern brought up in this report is that the massive capitol outlays for nuclear power options may drain available financial resources for making advancements in deploying more cost effective alternative resources.  In San Antonio, this could mean that CPS Energy chooses to partner with the South Texas Project Nuclear Expansion at the expense of Mission Verde, Mayor Phil Hardberger’s aggressive plan to green the city’s infrastructure, businesses, energy sources and technology.

“This new report indicates that we’re going to have to decide now which energy future we want for San Antonio,” said Bexar County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson. “If CPS becomes a partner in the South Texas Project expansion, we are simply not going to have the financial resources to front Mission Verde. We can either choose the most expensive option possible and send our jobs to Bay City and overseas contractors, or pay a fraction of the cost to create thousands of jobs here at home and power the city with clean, green energy.”

For more information on how consumers could get stuck with the check if the nuclear plant goes over-budget or can’t meet its construction schedule (as they are notoriously wont to do), check out our press release.

The San Antonio Current’s Queblog reports,

Prior to deregulation in 2001, ratepayers were drained of $5 billion in capital costs for the nukes in North Texas and Bay City, according to Johnson’s “Costs of Current and Planned Nuclear Power Plants in Texas.”

Also, much of the overruns associated with Comanche Peak and STP have been borne by electric consumers in Texas’ deregulated market since, who “continue to pay off at least $3.4 billion for nuclear assets through transition charges, as well as $45 million in annual payments for nuclear decommissioning,” Johnson writes. 

Additional associated STP costs have also been passed along by AEP and CenterPoint to their customers.

Those interested in the report may also download either the full report or a short fact-sheet detailing the report’s major findings.

Along these same lines, turns out today is the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)’s national call-in day to end coal and nuclear subsidies. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Citizens File in Opposition to South Texas Project Reactors 3 and 4

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2009 |

This Tuesday citizens submitted a filing to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission opposing NRG’s proposed South Texas Project (STP) nuclear reactors. Petitioners included the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Public Citizen and the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy.

This may sound familiar.  “Didn’t citizens just file opposition to the nuke a couple weeks ago?”  Well, yes they did, but that wasn’t “the” nuke, it was just one of them.  Texas actually has six proposed nuclear reactors; two each at Comanche Peak (near Fort Worth),  STP (by Bay City), and Victoria.

That’s right, folks, six proposed nuclear plants and 12 proposed coal plants, despite the fact that just yesterday the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said that no new nuclear or coal plants may be needed in the United States, ever.

Said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED Coalition,

Our contentions laid out the many defects in the South Texas Project license application, including inadequate fire protection, the lack of viable radioactive waste disposal plan, an inability to secure against airplane attacks, vast water consumption, water contamination risks, the failure to analyze clean, safe alternatives and an array of other financial, health and safety risks.

Furthermore, STP has failed to provide cost estimates for their proposed reactors, leaving citizens with no idea of the expense they’ll be buying in to — despite the fact that one of the major partners, CPS Energy in San Antonio, is a municipal utility.

I know that when I walk in to a store and everything looks really nice but there are no price tags — I probably don’t even want to ask. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rates nuclear power as the most expensive form of electric generation. An analysis by Dr. Arjun Makhijani has estimated costs for the two reactors at between $12.5 – $17 billion.

Check out the press release for more information.

Read Full Post »

Nuclear Sneak Attack

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on December 29, 2008 |

compeakIn an era dubbed a “nuclear renaissance” by the nuclear industry and during which the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has indicated that they expect up to thirty applications to be filed to build additional nuclear plants.  Currently, five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process.  Of these early applications, three of them (for 6 nuclear units, 2 per application) are proposed for Texas.

One of these applications is for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, located four and a half miles northwest of Glen Rose in Somervell County and about 80 miles southwest of downtown Dallas.  Luminant (formerly TXU) filed an application September 19, 2008 to build two additional nuclear units on this site.

The Fort Worth Weekly summarizes the history of Comanche Peak:

The process of building and licensing the original pair of reactors at Comanche Peak turned into one of the most contentious – and frankly scary – developments that North Texas had seen in many years. By the time the plant was finished, it had come through major problems in the construction process, was hugely over budget and more than 10 years behind schedule, and had gone through a hard-fought licensing process that many believe added greatly to the safety of the plant. During that process, activists often questioned the objectivity of the NRC inspectors involved.

Given the problematic history of this plant’s previous licensing process, one would think that the NRC would take particular care in making sure the public felt included in the process. But environmentalists, concerned citizens and the media were caught off guard when federal authorities waited until Christmas Eve to send out notice of a public hearing on the proposed expansion scheduled for January 6th.

Officials confirmed that electronic notices of the Jan. 6th meeting were sent Wednesday, Dec. 24th. In defense of their timing, the NRC pointed the media to an online news release dated Friday, Dec. 19th. Though dated for Friday, the release was not actually posted to the website until Monday, Dec. 22nd.

The notification system is supposed to let interested parties know when these events are occurring in a timely fashion.  Burying the notice on Christmas Eve hardly holds to this standard. (more…)

Read Full Post »