Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Nuclear Regulatory Commission’

Local organization fighting Exelon’s proposed new nuclear plant

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , on January 27, 2011 |

Whooping Cranes

Endangered Whooping Cranes in South Texas -byWikipedia

Texans For A Sound Energy Policy (TSEP) has filed formal legal contentions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) urging denial of Exelon’s application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for a proposed nuclear power plant site south of Victoria, Texas. The filing of these contentions will set the stage for a formal legal hearing on TSEP’s contentions regarding the site.

The voluminous contentions filed by TSEP provide an unprecedented level of detailed scientific analysis of the serious water, environmental, endangered species and site safety concerns surrounding the proposed Victoria County site that render it unsuitable for a nuclear power plant.

TSEP’s attorney, Jim Blackburn, offered, “We have extensively documented through thorough research and analysis extremely serious and far-reaching concerns with this proposed site. We are pleased to file them formally with the NRC and look forward to the opportunity to be heard on each of them.”

TSEP’s contentions regarding the proposed Exelon site center on several key issues, including:

  • Water Availability:  Exelon proposes to construct a nuclear power plant—one of the most water-intensive forms of electric power generation available—in one of the most drought prone regions of the state on an already severely over-allocated Guadalupe River Basin.  Yet Exelon’s selective use of data in its application fails to accurately represent current diversions of water from the Guadalupe River, and Exelon fails to establish that it can secure a “highly dependable” long-term water supply, which the NRC regulations require.
  • Endangered Species: TSEP’s scientific analysis demonstrates a direct and statistically significant relationship between the decline of Guadalupe River freshwater inflows and an increase in deaths of the federally protected, endangered Whooping Crane.  According to analysis provided by Dr. Ron Sass of Rice University, there is only a 1% chance that the whooping crane deaths observed over the last couple of decades are unrelated to river flows.
  •  Health & Site Safety: The presence of active geologic growth faults underlying the cooling pond and important plant infrastructure pose significant and unacceptable stability risks to the site. Additionally, the presence of an unprecedented number of active and abandoned oil and gas wells on the site (with over 100 known abandoned wells on the site) pose significant risks of explosion, releases of hydrogen sulfide and other poisonous gases.  The wells also pose the potential for water contamination—including potential tritium contamination.

Read Full Post »

STP license renewal – Opportunity for public participation

Posted in Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged , , , , on January 20, 2011 |

On January 13th, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced the opportunity to request a hearing on an application to renew the operating licenses for the South Texas Project (STP) Units 1 and 2 which will expire on Aug. 20, 2027, and Dec. 15, 2028, respectively.

South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company, submitted the renewal application to the NRC on Oct. 25, 2010. When the agency receives a license renewal application and it is docketed three actions are triggered:

  • technical safety reviews
  • environmental reviews
  • an announcement of an opportunity for a hearing

The deadline for requesting a hearing is 60 days following the publication of a notice in the Federal Register.   This means, by March 14, petitions should be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the license renewal and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding. (more…)

Read Full Post »

NRC and Comanche Peak meeting on an inspection finding of concern is open to the public on January 13th

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

According to a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission release, staff will hold a regulatory conference with Luminant Generation Co. officials on Jan. 13, to discuss the significance of an inspection finding at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant located near Glen Rose, Texas, just an hour west of Fort Worth.

NRC and Comanche Peak will discuss the significance, cause and corrective actions associated with the “apparent failure by the company to incorporate into station procedures information necessary to ensure continued operability of a water tank that supplies safety-related equipment”. Specifically, an NRC inspection revealed, the company failed to take steps necessary to ensure that a rubberlike bladder inside the tank was properly maintained.

The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will begin at 1 p.m. in the NRC’s Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas located at Texas Health Resources Tower, 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400.

The public will have an opportunity to observe and ask questions of NRC staff after the business portion of the meeting. Members of the public can listen to the meeting via a special telephone line by calling 1-800-952-9677 and asking to be connected to the meeting.

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a color coded process which classifies regulatory findings as either green, white, yellow or red, in increasing order of increasing safety significance. The NRC staff has preliminary determined that the significance of the violation is “white,” meaning it has a low to moderate safety significance.

No decision on the final significance, the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action will be made during the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later date.

###

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 »

South Texas (Nuclear) Project gets a new partner

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , on November 30, 2010 |

Seal of the United States Atomic Energy Commis...

Image via Wikipedia

 The Shaw Group is increasing its bet on nuclear power, announcing a role in the proposed 2,700-megawatt South Texas project making it the largest nuclear construction project in Shaw’s history.

Toshiba, the Japanese company, and NRG Energy Inc. jointly own Nuclear Innovation North America, which is developing the South Texas plant.

The Shaw Power Group will get the initial engineering, procurement and construction contract for the two-reactor expansion proposed at South Texas. But Shaw will be more than the contractor. It will be a partner with Toshiba in the project.

As part of its new agreement with Toshiba, Shaw has agreed to invest up to $250 million in nuclear projects. Of that, $100 million will initially be a loan guarantee for NINA for South Texas. If the project wins its combined operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that loan guarantee will be converted into an equity investment in the project.

The Shaw Power Group strategy is not without risks. There have been questions in recent months about whether the “nuclear renaissance” in the United States will actually occur. And there have been specific questions about the South Texas project, much of them through the SEED Coalition and Public Citizen interventions in the licensing process.

South Texas still on the hunt for partners

South Texas would be a merchant energy plant and they believe they are in line for federal loan guarantees. But another merchant plant, Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, ran into trouble when Constellation Energy pulled out. Constellation said the loan-guarantee conditions were too onerous and made the project financially untenable.

Every proposed nuclear expansion has come with the caveat that these projects are too expensive (and risky) to move forward without the federal loan guarantees.  Yet when the federal government tries to mitigate its own risk, the industry has protested.   

NINA has been looking for partners for the South Texas project since San Antonio’s municipal power company, CPS Energy, went from being a 50% partner to taking just a 7.6 percent ownership in the project.

Read Full Post »

Radioactive Waste Dump Ruling Comment Period Through Dec. 26th

Posted in Nuclear, Radiation, Radioactive Waste, Texas Legislature, tagged , , on November 29, 2010 |

People will have through Dec. 26 to provide feedback to a rule published by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission (the Commission) this weekend that could allow radioactive waste to be shipped from around the country to Andrews County for storage.

As proposed, the rule would give up to 36 states the ability to apply for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste at the Waste Control Specialists site in Andrews County. Presently the guidelines allow only Texas and Vermont — both states part of the compact that was initially established in 1998 — to ship waste there.

On Nov. 13 the Commission voted to allow for the publishing of the rule.  The rule was published in the Texas Register for public review on the Friday after Thanksgiving.  Comments being submitted on the document must be e-mailed or postmarked by midnight on Dec. 26, said Margaret Henderson, interim executive director of the commission.

Public Citizen believes the rule puts Texans in danger. The comment period should be longer than 30 days and the adoption of the rules should be put on hold at least until the Legislature convenes in January.

The comment period taking place now is the last step before the rule is accepted.

We will post additional information on how to comment with some suggested topics later this week.

###

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 »

Deadline for the opportunity for public intervention in Victoria County’s early site permit application for new nuclear plant

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , on November 23, 2010 |

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today announced the opportunity for public participation in a hearing on an Early Site Permit (ESP) application for a site in Victoria County, Texas.

Exelon submitted its ESP application on March 25, seeking the NRC’s determination on whether the site is suitable for a nuclear power facility, contingent on the approval of an additional application for a construction permit or combined license. An ESP is valid for 10 to 20 years and can potentially be renewed for an additional 10 to 20 years. The Exelon application, minus proprietary and security-related details, is available on the NRC website at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/victoria.html.

The NRC staff has determined that the application contains sufficient information for the agency to formally “docket,” or file, the application and begin its technical review. Docketing the application does not preclude requests for additional information as the review proceeds; nor does it indicate whether the Commission will issue the permit. The docket number established for this application is 52-042.

The NRC has issued in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity for the public to intervene inthe proceeding on the application (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-29481.pdf), and the deadline for requesting a hearing is Jan. 24, 2011. Petitions may be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the proposed license, who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding, and who meets criteria set out in the NRC’s regulations. Background information regarding the hearing process was provided by NRC staff to members of the public during an April 15 public information session in Victoria, Texas.

A petition to intervene must be electronically submitted in a timely manner to the NRC’s Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) system. The petition to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing Rule that appeared in the Federal Register on Aug. 28, 2007

(http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-16898.pdf). Additional guidance and instructions regarding electronic submissions to the NRC EIE system is available on the NRC web pages at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

Related Articles

Read Full Post »

G.O.P. Gains on Capitol Hill May Not Advance Nuclear Power

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , on November 21, 2010 |

In an article by New York Times reporter,  MATTHEW L. WALD  he writes, the outspoken supporters of nuclear power are mostly Republicans, and the Republicans are about to take control of the House of Representatives and gain six seats in the Senate. Is this good news for nuclear power?

Maybe. But the outlook for a new wave of reactors is still mixed at best.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

###

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.

Related Articles

Read Full Post »

STP Nuclear Plant (Units 1 & 2) up for renewal

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Toxics, tagged , , , , , on November 5, 2010 |

NRC ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The 22 year old South Texas Project (STP) Units 1 and 2 are up for renewal and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today that an application for a 20-year renewal of the operating licenses is available for public review.

The plant’s current operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 will expire on Aug. 20, 2027, and Dec. 15, 2028, respectively.  A 20 year license extension would have the two units in production well past their initial life expectancy, and the onsite spent fuel rod storage, well – that’s a whole other can of worms.

South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 are both pressurized-water nuclear reactors, located 12 miles southwest of Bay City, Texas.  When they were built, these plants were projected to have a 30 to 40 year life expectancy and STP says it has enough underwater storage capacity on site to safely store spent fuel for the licensed life of the plant.  Since it is up for a 20 year renewal, let’s hope that that means they have enough spent fuel storage capacity for at least that long.  They haven’t been very forthcoming about what their hoped for expansion would mean for their spent fuel storage capacity, continuing to hold forth the promise of a long-term storage solution (Yucca Mountain being the most frequently touted option). But with the development of Yucca Mountain in limbo, and the NRC extending the period for onsite storage past the production life of a plant, it seems likely that an off site long term storage solution is unlikely anytime soon.

The licensee, STP Nuclear Operating Co., submitted the renewal application Oct. 26. The application is available on the NRC website at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/south-texas-project.html. The NRC staff is currently conducting an initial review of the application to determine whether it contains enough information for the required formal review. If the application has sufficient information, the NRC will formally “docket,” or file, the application and will announce an opportunity to request a public hearing.

For further information, contact Carmen Fells or Tam Tran at the Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop O11-F1, Washington, D.C. 20555; telephone (301) 415-6337 for Carmen Fells and telephone (301) 415-3617 for Tam Tran.

###

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 »

Human error causes a partial shutdown of Texas nuclear plant

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , on August 27, 2010 |

STP

South Texas Project

Human error appears to have caused a partial shutdown last Friday at the South Texas Project, one of the state’s two nuclear plants.

Last week, prices spiked in the wholesale electricity market.  On Monday the 16th,  wholesale electricity, which had been selling for less than $30 per megawatt-hour spiked to more than $2,000.  That’s an increase of more than 7,000 percent. Prices also spiked several times to the $1,000 level. A price spike of $2,200 is especially startling, given that the regulatory cap is set at $2,250. That is, the wholesale prices legally could not have gone much higher.  At the same time, according to the Electric Reliabiilty Council of Texas (ERCOT), who manages the Texas electricity grid, a new record for statewide power use was set.

Then, to top off the week, Unit 1 of the South Texas Project apparently tripped off (also known in the industry as a SCRAM – an acronym for safety control rod axe man but which is essentially an emergency shutdown of a nuclear reactor).

The event, first reported in a trade journal SNL Power Daily, was apparently caused by human error. “The NRC said in its Aug. 23 event report that the unit experienced an automatic reactor trip that was caused by an inadvertent turbine signal initiated during testing,” reported SNL’s Jay Hodgkins, citing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The publication reported that power was restored by Monday. It’s unclear whether the outage contributed to the price spikes, although that seems likely.

I guess I’ll take a contribution to a price spike over a meltdown any day, but still kind of scarey!

###

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 »

NRC Staff Should Stop Balking, Provide Fire Safety Information, Groups Say

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 22, 2010 |

Agency Is Refusing to Adhere to an Order to Release Document That Would Help Determine Safety of New Nuclear Reactors

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should stop balking and provide a critical document that would reveal how the owners of a Texas nuclear plant expansion project plan to deal with a fire or explosion, three public interest groups told the commission late last week.

Three administrative judges of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board have ordered the agency to provide at least a redacted version, but NRC staffers have refused. The NRC’s lack of transparency could impact the ability to get adequate safety-related information not only about the South Texas Project (STP) but about other proposed reactors around the country as well.

Late Friday, the groups – the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Public Citizen and the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy – filed a brief with the NRC. It noted that the NRC staff’s refusal to provide the information violated President Barack Obama’s new transparency policy. The groups also said the NRC is acting arbitrarily and trying to shut the public out of NRC proceedings.

“After the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress required new fire and safety standards for all new plants and the NRC developed rules to reflect this. Now, the NRC is trying to do its work behind closed doors, and its staffers are literally making up how to handle information as they go along, keeping as much secret as possible,” said Karen Hadden, executive director of the SEED Coalition. “Without disclosure of this information, we can’t tell how well the NRC is doing in protecting the public.” (more…)

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 »

South Texas Nuclear Project: The Early Years

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on July 10, 2009 |

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.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

Read Full Post »

South Texas Project Nuclear Reactors Too Expensive, CPS Cost Estimate Overly Optimistic

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 7, 2009 |

Last week San Antonio’s CPS released their cost estimate for the proposed South Texas Project Nuclear Expansion, and we found their numbers naive optimistic ignored 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?

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.

Read Full Post »

Citizens Oppose South Texas Project Expansion before Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 19, 2009 |

Oral Hearing Set for June 23rd-June 24th in Bay City, TX

Citizen opposition to more nuclear reactors in Texas continues. On June 23rd-24th an oral hearing will be held before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on the Citizens’ Petition to Intervene in South Texas Project (STP) Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4.

SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and South Texas Association for Responsible Energy are petitioners seeking to intervene in the proposed expansion of South Texas Project.

“Building two more nuclear reactors at STP is not in the best interest of the local community,” said Susan Dancer, a local wildlife rehabilitator. “Pursuing the most expensive and most water intensive energy source in a time of extraordinary drought and economic recession makes no sense. The local community will get stuck with more radioactive waste and bear heavy infrastructure costs if the proposed reactors get built. The existing reactors have not solved local economic problems.” Dancer chairs the Bay City based organization South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (STARE).

Attorney Robert V. Eye will represent the petitioners before the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and argue the admissibility of the 28 contentions citizens filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on April 21st. These contentions point out the inadequacies and the incompleteness of South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company’s (STPNOC) combined operating license application (COLA) to construct and operate South Texas Project Units 3 and 4. NRG Energy and San Antonio’s municipal utility CPS Energy are both applicants for the proposed reactors, which fall within STPNOC.

“NRG 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. NRG’s noncompliance with these regulations puts citizens around South Texas Project in a dangerous position, which is completely unacceptable.” (more…)

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »