Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Nuclear Regulatory Commission’

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 »

Citizen Filings Oppose Comanche Peak Reactors 3 & 4

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 9, 2009 |

simpson-nuke This week citizens submitted two separate filings to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) opposing Luminant (formerly TXU)’s proposed Comanche Peak nuclear reactors. Petitioners include state Rep. Lon Burnam, the SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Ft. Worth based True Cost of Nukes.

In the past, NRC has made  companies jump through two major hoops before their operating license is granted.  First, the company must complete the reactor design certification process which ensures that the design for the plant is safe.  If a company decides to choose a pre-certified design that has been built before and the NRC has vetted, they may get their operating license faster because they can skip dealing with design issues.  After their design is approved, the company can then file for their license to operate in a separate process.  This is when citizens have the opportunity to analyze such documents as the Environmental Impact Statement and file contentions.

But for this new fleet of nuclear plants being licensed, the NRC has streamlined this process, combining both the design certification and licensing process into one.  This is a major problem for reactors such as those proposed at Comanche Peak because they are submitting a design that has never been built before anywhere in the world.  It hardly makes sense that NRC can approve a plant to operate when they don’t even know if the plant design is feasible or safe, but that is exactly what is happening.  This is kind of like getting in car and driving off to the drugstore when you’re not sure where it is and… oops, might not even know how to drive.

“By 
moving 
the
 license 
forward
 without 
having 
certified
 the 
design,
 the
 NRC
 is
 violating
 its 
own 
rules,” 
said 
attorney 
Robert 

Eye,  “The
 licensing
 process
 should
 be 
halted 
until 
the 
NRC 
can 
honestly
 say 
that 
the 
reactor
 design 
is 
safe.”

Rep. Lon Burnam has compared what the NRC is doing to making those living near Comanche Peak “guinea pigs in a radioactive experiment.”  Other nuclear plants that have 
gone forth with construction before their design was finalized and approved by regulators have seen serious complications.

In addition to the madness of the NRC’s licensing process, there were even further contentions filed concerning defects in Comanche Peak’s license application.  These contentions include:

  • inadequate fire protection
  • no viable radioactive waste disposal plan
  • inability to secure against airplane attacks
  • financial, health and safety risks
  • vast water consumption
  • failure to address safe, clean energy alternatives

The next step in this process is for the NRC to respond to citizen’s petitions and contentions.

For further information on contentions filed, check out SEED Coalition’s press release after the jump. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Help Stop Nuke Waste Loophole; Show Support for HB 3423

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2009 |

Rep. Lon Burnam’s bill, HB 3423, will be heard on Wednesday, April 1st, in the House Committee on Environmental Regulation hearing at 10:30 AM or upon adjournment, in E1.014. If you are able to come, we’re trying to get as many people as possible to register their support of this bill (by filling out a witness affirmation form). That’s right, officially registering your opinion on a bill is as simple as filling out a card.  The bill closes the Compact Loophole, and requires other states who want to send radioactive waste here to get legislative approval first.

The Compact Agreement was originally between Texas, Maine and Vermont.  Maine pulled out of the Compact, and now Texas and Vermont are able to send their radioactive so-called “low-level” waste to be stored at the Andrews County dump in West Texas. A loophole in the Compact Agreement allows any state to send radioactive waste to Texas. We don’t need to be the nation’s nuclear dump!

The license for that dump was recently issued by the TCEQ, and the agency wrongly denied the opportunity for a contested case hearing (read: locals were not allowed to voice their opposition in any formal environment). Three long-term scientists at TCEQ recommended denying the permit — and actually left their jobs for ethical reasons once the permit was approved. The science is NOT solid for the Andrews County radioactive waste dump – and there are concerns that radionuclides could come in contact with underground water. It is possible that contamination could spread to the Ogallala Aquifer, which underlies eight states, including the nation’s wheat growing region.

96% of the radioactive waste slated  for the site would be from nuclear reactors — everything except the fuel rods. Radionuclides in the waste are dangerous today and remain dangerous for thousands of years. A recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruling reclassified depleted uranium from reprocessing, putting it into a less hazardous (Class A) category. Now up to 1.4 million tons of depleted uranium could go to the West Texas site and/or Clive, Utah sites.

If you can’t make it in person, calls to the Environmental Regulation committee in support of Burnam’s bill are needed! If you are a constituent, please let them know that.

Rep. Byron Cook (Chair) – 512-463-0646, Byron.Cook@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Warren Chisum (Vice-Chair) – 512-463-0736, Warren.Chisum@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Lon Burnam – 512-463-0740, (it’s his bill, give him a call to say thanks.)
Rep. Jim Dunnam – 512-463-0508, Jim.Dunnam@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Jessica Farrar – 512-463-0620, Jessica.Farrar@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Kelly Hancock – 512-463-0599, Kelly.Hancock@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Ken Legler – 512-463-0460, Ken.Legler@house.state.tx.us
Rep Marc Veasey – 512-463-0716, Marc.Veasey@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Randy Weber – 512-463-0707, Randy.Weber@house.state.tx.us

For further background on the Andrews County dump, check out Forrest Wilder’s article from the last Texas Observer, Waste Texas: Why Andrews County is so eager to get dumped on. Or if you’re more the auditory type, listen to the podcast.

Check out the press release after the jump.

(more…)

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 »

« Newer Posts