Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘SEED Coalition’

Join us next Thursday, December 10th to help stop Texas from becoming the nation’s radioactive waste dump!

Please Come:

Texas Compact Commission Stakeholder Meeting
Thursday, December 10th at 9am
Texas Capitol, Extension Auditorium, E1.004

You are invited to attend the press conference as well, held by the SEED Coalition, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club, on stopping Texas from becoming the nation’s radioactive waste dump, the inadequacies of the west Texas dump site and the corruption surrounding the permitting process.

Thursday, Dec. 10th at 12:30 pm – Texas Capitol, Speaker’s Committee Room, 2W.6.

* Show your presence and that the public interest matters.

* Tell the Compact Commission not to allow import of radioactive waste into Texas from the rest of the country!

All of the State TCEQ scientists who worked on the permit for the West Texas dump site, owned by Waste Control Specialists (WCS), determined the site to be inadequate because of the possible radioactive contamination of our aquifers and groundwater. Corruption and politics led to the permitting of the site anyways, ignoring the entire TCEQ technical team’s recommendation against issuing the permit. 3 TCEQ employees quit over the decision.

Now the Compact Commission is putting rules in place, to let nuclear power waste from across the country into Texas, making this site the nation’s radioactive waste dumping ground. The Texas Compact Commission, appointed by Governor Perry, and responsible for managing so-called “low-level” radioactive waste generated within its boundaries, is developing rules for importation of radioactive waste from outside the compact (TX and Vermont), AGAINST the original intent of the law, which was for only the 3 states of the compact to be able to dump there.

The Commission is taking comments from stakeholders on the development of the import rule. We want to let them know that the generators of nuclear waste and the dump company that is profiting from taking the waste are not the only stakeholders in this process. Please come help make the voices of the public, Texas taxpayers, and water drinkers heard LOUD and CLEAR.

Learn more at:

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, 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 »

With just two days before San Antonio City Council was to vote to approve $400 million in bonds to move forward with the South Texas Nuclear Project two reactor expansion, officials announced yesterday that the cost estimate for the project had ballooned by up to $4 BILLION.  That means that the new price tag on the new reactors, up from $13 Billion, is now a whopping $17 Billion (and don’t forget that even $13 Billion was a big jump from the original cost estimate of $5.4 Billion).  As a result, the Council has postponed the vote until January.

This is a huge victory for environmentalists, social justice workers, and citizen activists who have been tirelessly organizing opposition to new nuclear reactors.  If these concerned citizens hadn’t gotten involved, the City Council would have voted to approve the bonds a month ago, with no option to renegotiate their contract or pricing.  Because citizens got educated and involved, City Council was forced to delay the vote until they had all the information.  And the information, as it turns out, is that the cost estimates that groups like Public Citizen and SEED Coalition have been predicting for more than a year (up to $17.5 Billion according to a 2008 study by Arjun Makhijani and as much as $22 Billion according to analyst Clarence Johnson), far from a Cassandra cry, have been right on the money all along.

For all the dirty details, be sure to read the San Antonio Express-News’ breaking article Nuclear cost estimate rises by as much as $4 billion and the San Antonio Current’s blog post Nuke Collider: San Antonio delays $400 million nuke bond vote over Toshiba cost surge.  And courtesy of the unstoppable Greg Harman at the Current, check out the following video from the emergency press conference CPS officials and the Mayor’s office held yesterday, a MUST WATCH:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwdivqvtjgc&feature=player_embedded]

What I find most interesting about this whole mess is that CPS insiders knew a week and a half ago that the costs were up by $4 Billion, but neglected to tell the Mayor or City Council until yesterday.  And even then, it didn’t come as a formal announcement — the cat was only let out of the bag because, as the Express-News reports, an aide of the Mayor confronted CPS about rumors of a cost increase.

CPS interim General Manager Steve Bartley said the utility’s main contractor on the project, Toshiba Inc., informed officials that the cost of the reactors would be “substantially greater” than CPS’ estimate of $13 billion, which includes financing.

He said utility officials found out about the increase “within the last week and a half or so.”

But the mayor said he only learned the news Monday night after an aide asked Bartley about rumors of a cost estimate increase.

Castro said he didn’t know whether CPS would have divulged the increase to the council before its vote Thursday had his aide not directly questioned utility management.

“One would hope otherwise, but the evidence seems to suggest that they were less than proactive,” he said.

Sounds like CPS was going to wait until after Thursday’s vote to share their special need-to-know information, and that if it weren’t for those meddling kids they would have gotten away with it too.

Any way you look at it, yesterday’s announcement is fortuitous for the City of San Antonio.  Now City Council has a better idea of the real costs they are looking at with the project, and hopefully will think twice about placing their trust in CPS Energy now that they’ve been burned by the utility’s untransparent business practices.  With two months time until the vote, City Council now has plenty of time to order an independent study to model various energy scenarios and present a slew of options (besides just “nuclear or nothing”) for San Antonio’s energy future — including a heavy mix of renewable energy and efficiency. An outside study to model alternatives would present City Council with the most cost-effective, least risky, most environmentally sustainable plan possible. CPS claims to have done a ‘thorough’ investigation of these options, but just as they conveniently underestimated the cost of nuclear, they have overestimated the cost of renewable energies such as wind, solar, storage, and energy efficiency to the point of absurdity.  With two months to work at it, there is no reason why San Antonio shouldn’t have a green plan to put up against the nuclear plan by January.  They nearly voted to approve the project this week without the full range of information.  San Antonio City Council can’t put themselves in that situation again.

But don’t take my word for it.  Check out the following statements from Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office and Karen Hadden, director of the SEED Coalition:

Cost Increase of South Texas Project Shows Nuclear Power Is Too Expensive, Too Risky

Statement of Tom “Smitty” Smith, Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office

We can’t think of any good reasons for the San Antonio City Council to continue with this project when there are far less expensive alternatives readily available. Investing in wind and solar makes much more sense and carries none of the risks – both the extreme financial risk that CPS wants taxpayers to bear and the health and safety risks inherent with nuclear power. If the City Council continues with this project, the average ratepayers will see their utility bills increase by 50 percent.

If San Antonio citizens hadn’t stepped to the plate, the City Council would have voted for the STP a month ago and the city would have been another $400 million in the hole with no option to renegotiate. But citizens got educated and got involved. Their involvement made the City Council delay the vote until they had all the information.

We know the San Antonio City Council is too smart to continue to support this boondoggle. Nuclear power is too expensive and too risky to use. It’s time for the San Antonio City Council to pull the plug on the STP expansion.

Statement of Karen Hadden, executive director, Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition:

We aren’t surprised to hear that the latest cost estimate for the South Texas Project puts the price to build two new nuclear reactors at $17 billion, $4 billion more than what CPS Energy said in June and more than three times the project’s original $5.4 billion price tag. We’ve been saying for two years that CPS has been feeding the public lowball estimates that wouldn’t hold up to reality.

Read Full Post »

Great news about the legal fight against STP.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel admitted four more of the contentions (all water related) brought by SEED Coalition, bringing the grand total to 5 contentions admitted for a hearing with 7 still pending.

This is more than anywhere else in the country.

This increased uncertainty *should* make CPS and San Antonio City Council think twice about going forward.

Look! A Press Release!  (fully continued after the jump if you want to get into all the legal contentions)  As always, for more info go read everything at NukeFreeTexas.org

For Immediate Release: September 30, 2009

Contacts: Karen Hadden,  SEED Coalition,

Susan Dancer, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy

Robert V. Eye, Attorney for Intervenors

Citizens Gain Ground in STP Intervention Over Water Concerns

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Admits

Four Additional Water Related Contentions for a Hearing

Citizen opposition to two proposed nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project (STP) continues with another success. Yesterday the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel ruled that South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) had failed to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of radioactive contaminated water and water availability, issues or “contentions” raised by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at STP. The Order is of national significance since STPNOC is the first in the nation to request licensing in 30 years.

“Citizens intervening in the South Texas Project’s licensing process gained significant legal ground yesterday when the ASLB Panel ruled that four additional contentions be admitted for a hearing,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED Coalition, one of the Intervenors. “Intervenors now have a total of five admissible contentions, with seven contentions related to fires and explosions and losses of large areas of the plant still pending.” The licensing process is likely to be delayed as a result of additional contentions. It was delay and construction problems that led to the first reactors at STP coming in six times over budget.

SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Bay City based South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (STARE) are Intervenors in the case. Attorney Robert V. Eye went before the ASLB Panel in June and argued the admissibility of 28 contentions challenging the license application for two additional reactors, Units 3 and 4, at the South Texas Project.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Still not sure what to do this weekend, Sept 25 – 27th? Come on out to Fredericksburg and join Public Citizen Texas at the 10th annual Renewable Energy Roundup and Green Living Fair!

Over the past 10 years, this community and family oriented Green Living Fair has grown to be the largest “green show” in the South. You can see the latest in eco-friendly technologies, learn how to save and create your own energy, attend informative talks by the experts, and visit with vendors to see contemporary green living and sustainability practices. It’s fun, environmentally friendly, and a great place tolearn how you can make a difference!

Aside from meeting with your friends at Public Citizen, at the Roundup you’ll be able to learn about:

Solar – Wind – Geothermal – Water Use & Reuse – Energy Conservation – Rainwater Harvesting – Green & Sustainable Building – Organic Growing – Alternative Transportation – Straw Bale Construction – Exhibits – Recycling – Composting – Eco Friendly Products – Natural & Organic Cooking Demonstrations – Educational Family Activities – Veggie, Organic and Natural Food Court

The gate entry fee is $10 Friday, $12 Saturday, and $10 Sunday – or get a three day pass for just $20. Children under 12 can enter free of charge.

Show Hours are: Friday – September 25, noon to 6 pm; Saturday – September 26, 9 am to 6 pm; Sunday -September 27, 9 am to 3 pm

Representatives from Public Citizen and our sister group, the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, will also be giving talks and presentations at the round up. Look for our director, deputy director, and the director of SEED at the following times:

Friday, 3:00 – 4:00: Karen Hadden – Why Efficiency & Renewables Are The Answer

Saturday, 3:00 – 4:00: Tom “Smitty” Smith – Creating New Energy Districts For Texas

Sunday, 10:00 – 11:00: David Power – Smart Meters & Net Metering

Hope to see you there!

Read Full Post »

Hey San Antonio! There will be a protest against nuclear power tomorrow at lunchtime downtown outside of City Hall.  Join us and the rest of the Energia Mia coalition and make your voice heard!  Details below.

WHAT: Protest against CPS Energy’s pursuit of more nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project. Not only is nuclear power the most expensive form of energy, it’s the most water intensive and it comes with enormous security, safety and health risks.

WHEN: Thursday, September 10th, Noon

WHERE: 114 W. Commerce, Outside of the Municipal Plaza Building, City Hall Complex

WHO: Concerned students, Members of Energia Mia and others.

Energia Mia includes members active in Southwest Workers’ Union, the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, Project Verde, the Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills and Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Associations, AGUA, the Texas Drought Project, the Green Party, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition, Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, Environment Texas and Clean Water Action.

WHY: Nuclear reactors come with serious health and safety risks. Exposure to radioactivity leads to cancer and genetic damage and after fifty years there is still no solution to storing radioactive waste. San Antonio needs drinking water. Vast quantities of water should not be wasted to cool nuclear reactors. Safer, more affordable energy choices exist today.

Spending billions of dollars for nuclear reactors is throwing money away that should be used for energy efficiency and renewable solar, wind and geothermal power, creating green jobs in San Antonio. Nuclear power would raise electric rates much more than other energy options, at a time when people are already struggling to pay their bills. The nuclear reactors should be halted now.

For More Information, Contact: Alice Canestaro, Energía Mía (713.480.8013) or Amanda Hoss, Esperanza Peace and Justice Center (210.228.0201)

Read Full Post »

San Antonio, TX —  Nuclear power is the most water intensive energy source available. When San Antonio and all of Texas are suffering from extreme drought and are increasingly in need of sources of drinking water, pursuing more nuclear reactors doesn’t make sense, especially true since cheaper, safer alternatives such as energy efficiency, wind, geothermal and solar energy are available. All use significantly less water than nuclear reactors.

Dr. Lauren Ross’ comments are timely in that the Texas drought continues to worsen, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is still considering nine water-related contentions submitted in opposition to additional reactors by SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and STARE, the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy.

“Nuclear reactors consume vast quantities of water,” said Dr. Lauren Ross, environmental engineer and owner of Glenrose Engineering. “The proposed STP reactors 3 and 4 would withdraw 23,170 gallons per minute from the Colorado River. The two proposed reactors would increase forced evaporation by an additional 37,400 acre-feet per year. The water withdrawal required from the Colorado River to replace evaporated water for all four reactors would be about 74,500 acre-feet per year.”

“Water withdrawal for STP’s nuclear reactors can be a significant fraction of the total river flow. Peak water use so far occurred on September 16, 2001, when the water withdrawal was 48% of the total Colorado river flow near the reactor site,” said Dr. Ross. “From January 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006 there were 69 days when withdrawal for existing STP reactors was equal to or greater than one quarter of the entire river flow.” With four reactors and an increase in the surface water demand, the river flow in the future could go even lower than it is now.

Estimated groundwater use would more than double from an average of 798 gallons per minute for the existing facility over the last five years to a level of 2040 gallons per minute for all four reactors, according to Dr. Ross, but STP wants to wait on analyzing groundwater availability until after the permit is issued.

The year 2008 was one of the driest years on record for Central Texas. Dr. Ross’s most recent research shows that in 2008 water use by LCRA’s firm water customers plus four irrigation operators was more than twice that of the Highland Lakes inflows for the same period, so losses are not being replenished. Moreover, STP’s authorized withdrawal is more than one-third of the total Highland Lakes inflow for 2008.

Water versus Energy

The San Antonio Water System recently filed suit for breach of contract against the Lower Colorado River Authority for $1.23 billion. The suit claims that the water-sharing project was killed by the river authority in order to make sure there would be enough water for power plant deals in Matagorda County. At the same time CPS Energy, the San Antonio municipal utility, seeks to be a partner in the proposed nuclear reactors for Matagorda County. STP’s annual permitted withdrawal from the Colorado River is 102,000 acre-feet per year, incredibly close to the amount in the canceled LCRA/SAWS water agreement, 102,500 acre-feet per year (average).

“Will we reach a point where San Antonio will have to decide which matters most, electricity from nuclear reactors or water for drinking?” asked Alice Alice Canestaro-Garcia, visual artist and member of EnergÍa MÍa. “It makes no sense to build two more reactors, which together would use enough water to fill 1,440 swimming pools in one day.”

Increasing Radioactive Contamination

South Texas Project’s license application fails to evaluate the increasing levels of groundwater tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that can be dangerous if inhaled, ingested or absorbed through the skin. Tritium emits Beta radiation that causes cancer, cell mutation, and birth defects. “Tritium has been detected in two of the pressure relief wells that collect water leaking from the unlined bottom of the existing main cooling reservoir. Concentrations of tritium have been increasing in both wells, and these concentrations could rise if two more nuclear reactors are built at the site,” said Dr. Ross.

A state water permit proposed for the site fails to address radionuclides such as tritium, and doesn’t require monitoring for total dissolved solids, some metals or the chemicals added by the facility, such as biocides, sulfuric acid, and anti-scalants. There are also no sulfur or sodium limits for the wastewater discharges, even though these are significant components of the water that would be released back to the Colorado River system.

The application’s Environmental Report relies upon a dilution factor of 10 to meet discharge standards, but fails to provide information about how much the waste discharge loads would change with two additional nuclear reactors. It fails to analyze the consequences of the load increases into a system with only a small change in the dilution factor, since the storage volume would increase only 7.4%.

The reactor application admits that “5,700 acre-feet per year leaks through the unlined bottom of the main cooling reservoir into the underlying Gulf Coast Chicot Aquifer” and 68% of it is recovered. The rest migrates underground, seeping into nearby surface water bodies, into pumped wells or the estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico.

“Failure to monitor and regulate leakage through the bottom of the main cooling reservoir constitutes a failure to protect groundwater and surface water from plant operations,” said Dr. Ross.

For more information, visit www.EnergiaMia.org

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: Safety panel hearing in the news: at the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express News

Citizen opposition to two proposed nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project continues with another success. On August 27th the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel found that the nuclear applicant, South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC), had failed to adequately analyze issues raised by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at STP.

“This is a major victory for those living in the South Texas Project region and throughout Texas,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED Coalition. “The decision recognizes that the South Texas Project reactor application is still inadequate, two years after it was submitted. We now have a case against the reactors that will move forward.”

SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Bay City based South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (STARE) are Intervenors in the case. Attorney Robert V. Eye went before the ASLB Panel in June and argued the admissibility of 28 contentions challenging the license application for two additional reactors, Units 3 and 4, at the South Texas Project. The ASLB Panel has ruled on 19 of the 28 contentions submitted and found that one of the contentions deserved further inquiry, giving Intervenors a case against the reactors. It is not known when a decision will be made on the remaining contentions.

“South Texas Project’s reactor application is seriously flawed.” said Mr. Eye. “They failed to analyze how a severe radiological accident or a major fire or explosion at any of the four units would impact the other remaining units at the site. This is a major omission and the issue should have been considered by STP.” The contention reads:

Contention 21 – Impacts from severe radiological accident scenarios on the operation of other units at the STP site have not been considered in the Environmental Report.

“A radiological accident at one unit could cause impacts and disruptions in operations at the other units,” said one of the Intervenors, Bill Wagner, a former STP Operations Supervisor. “How would operations at undamaged units continue in the event that the entire site becomes seriously contaminated? STP needs to address this.”

Water Issues Are Yet to be Decided

The ASLB panel delayed a decision on all nine of the Intervenors’ contentions that deal with water issues. The issues yet to be ruled on include: the build-up of radioactive particulate in STP’s Main Cooling Reservoir (MCR), increasing levels of groundwater tritium, the vulnerability of the MCR to flooding, insufficient limits on toxic discharges, reliance on dilution to achieve discharge standards, unregulated wastewater discharge, unevaluated reduction in groundwater supply for adjacent landowners, unevaluated reduction in surface water flow, and inadequate supplies of fresh water due to global warming impacts.

“Nuclear plants consume enormous amounts of water and are vulnerable to shutdown during drought and reduced river flows. The two proposed reactors would use over 23,000 gallons of water every minute.This is a real one-two punch. Not only would STP’s operations reduce water supplies for cities like Austin or San Antonio, but the plant might not even be able to operate if the Lower Colorado River has severely reduced flows from drought,” said Hadden. “These problems don’t exist for wind, solar and geothermal sources to generate electricity.”

“The current water shortages in our area are hitting us hard,” said Susan Dancer, a local wildlife rehabilitator and Chair of South Texas Association for Responsible Energy. “Livestock suffer since hay and other feedstuffs are in incredibly short supply and there is no grass left. We have personally spent over $5000 this summer having hay trucked in from other areas on semis and have gone deep into debt trying to keep the livestock fed and healthy. Everyone here is in the same situation, so selling off stock is not an option. Prices are at all-time lows due to the large number of producers who are dumping stock at the markets already.”

“Texas is in a Stage 4 drought and has been declared a disaster area. The Texas Department of Agriculture says there are no programs available to assist us,” said Dancer. “Granting more water to industry, especially nuclear reactors that consume vast quantities of water, is not an option. This drought and others to come may be even worse.”

When it comes to water, San Antonio and Central Texas citizens are feeling the pain as well. On Monday, the San Antonio Water System filed suit for breach of contract against the Lower Colorado River Authority for $1.23 billion. The suit claims that the water-sharing project was killed by the river authority to make sure there would be enough water for power plant deals in Matagorda County. At the same time CPS Energy, the San Antonio municipal utility, seeks to be a partner in the proposed nuclear reactors for Matagorda County. Will San Antonio have to decide which matters most, electricity from nuclear reactors or water for drinking?

Large Fires and Explosions that Cause Loss of Coolant and Meltdown

On August 14th, the Intervenors filed seven more contentions regarding STP’s failure to comply with a new NRC fire safety rule which says each licensee must “develop and implement guidance and strategies intended to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire.” The NRC now requires nuclear plants to deal with explosions and fires that would occur from the impact of a large commercial airliner. STP claims that their submittal brings them in accordance with the new NRC rule. Intervenors and their expert argue the opposite in the contentions. However, the Intervenors’ contentions that argue STP has failed to meet the fire and explosion regulatory requirements, STP’s submittal, and related documents are considered classified by the NRC and are not available to the public.

The NRC has also recently adopted regulations that require all applicants for new reactor licenses, including STP, to complete “a design-specific assessment of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft.” After 9/11 the NRC did its own assessments of aircraft impacts using state-of-the-art techniques and “realistic predictions of accident progression and radiological consequences.” “This regulation recognizes that nuclear plants are vulnerable to air attacks with potentially catastrophic effects,” said Hadden. “Nuclear plants could become weapons if targeted by those who would do us harm.”

The full order can be viewed online at www.NukeFreeTexas.org.

Read Full Post »

The US Chamber of Commerce wants to put the science of global warming on trial.  Not only that, they themselves claim they want this trial to be similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial where a Tennessee teacher was put on trial for teaching evolution, made even more famous by the play and film “Inherit the Wind.”

Seriously?  SERIOUSLY?

Because the only way to respond to this is through mockery and derision (surely they can’t actually be serious?), we present to you:

INHERIT THE HOT AIR!!! (a comedy in 3 acts)

[vimeo 6282295]

We apologize for the numerous Saturday Night Live circa 1989 references (especially the somewhat obscure “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer“) and the blatant callbacks to Inherit the Wind, and also ask people to please NOT place plastic bags on their heads and inhale deeply.  No Andys were harmed in the filming of this video and I was able to breathe freely at all times.  I promise.

On a serious note, what the Chamber is trying to do is to overturn and stall a process which is well underway.  In 2007, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v EPA stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is linked to climate change, and the EPA should regulate it under the Clean Air Act.  In compliance with this ruling, (and only after delays by the Bush Administration which kept this action from occurring), the EPA earlier this year presented an initial endangerment finding, the first step in allowing them to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  They then opened the finding for public comment, which could be sent in by writing, and also held public meetings in Arlington, VA and Seattle, WA to gather public input.

According to documents posted at the Wonk Room, the US Chamber’s main argument is that previous public comment periods have somehow “Tainted” the process and that only an elaborate show trial, orchestrated by them and by putting their junk scientists on the stand, can eliminate the “taint.”  (And you know, “Tainted Endangerment Finding” was one of my favorite 80’s songs.)

So, according to the Chamber, public comment is bad, but the opinion of big business and their sham scientists can remove the stain from input by the witless masses.

All of this seems far too much like the plot of a Coen Brothers (or Marx Brothers) movie.  These are serious times which require serious thought and reflection, not comical misdirection.  But like the Fool in King Lear, only through comedy can we confront the tragedy that surrounds us and point out the serious misdeeds taking place.  And this sham by the Chamber of Commerce is even more destructive, because as long as we keep endlessly debating “Is It Happening?” we will never get around to “How Do We Solve It?”

In the words of Stan Lee, “Nuff Said.”

Read Full Post »

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 »

Tonight, August 10, is Mayor Castro’s Town Hall Meeting, where he wants to allow the community to tell city council and himself what they think about going the nuclear route. This is so important to attend. It will be at the City Council Chambers downtown where Flores and Commerce meet (map below).

Sign-up to speak is 5:00-6:00 pm, meeting is 6:00-9:00 pm. Castro has already burst CPS’ bubble by saying he does not want to be a 40% owner in the project — he would prefer a 20% share. It is highly likely that the mayor has made this compromise in response to citizen’s protest.

But local activists are saying (and I would agree) that any nuclear is too much.  Even if San Antonio only goes with 20%, the environmental damage will be done, the water will be stressed, and the national “nuclear renaissance” will have begun. It still doesn’t make economic sense for SA, will bring no jobs here, and wastes city resources that could go to energy solutions which are lighter on the environment.

Energía Mía‘s message is, “We don’t want any part of nuclear for San Antonio; we don’t want 40%, we don’t want 20%, we don’t want any percent. If the project’s a bad one at 50%, it’s still a bad one at 20%. It’s just 30% less bad.”

Plus, if San Antonio only buys in at 20%, who are they going to get to cover the rest of the project?  Everyone knows how risky this investment is — that’s why Austin took a look at the numbers and said: No, thank you.  NRG certainly can’t foot the bill for this themselves — especially not with “junk” bond ratings!

Various community groups have entered their questions in advance and will have an opportunity to respond to CPS’ answers.  Tonight the mayor will hear from: Sierra Club, Public Citizen Texas, SEED Coalition, Consumer Energy Coalition, COPS/METRO, members of the business community, and the Hispanic, Chinese, and Greater San Antonio Chambers of Commerce.  Each city council person will also have a chance to ask a question, and the public will have a short period of time at the meeting’s close to make a short statement.

mayor town hall map

Read Full Post »

miaAs many of you already know, the nuclear battle is getting pretty heated in San Antonio these days.  That’s why a new citizen’s group, Energía Mía, has recently formed.  But they can tell you their intentions better than I can:

Citizens are uniting in efforts to halt CPS’ spending for more nuclear reactors. Speakers from many diverse organizations and businesses relayed their concerns about nuclear power as part of the newly formed Energia Mia network and are working to increase visibility and awareness of the problems of nuclear power.

“Energía Mía urges all citizens in San Antonio to get involved now and contact the mayor and city council. The rate hikes that would come from more nuclear power are unacceptable. They would create a severe economic hardship on many people and local businesses” said Cindy Weehler. “We have set up a new web site, www.EnergiaMia.org to provide information to the public and let people know how to get involved.”

According to the San Antonio Express-News, their membership includes representatives from

…the Southwest Workers Union, Project Verde, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association, Texas Drought Project, Green Party and the San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition.

Alongside fundamental concerns about water, security, radioactive waste, and health and safety risks, the group is concerned about the financial effect the project could have on the city and the rate hikes that CPS has said will accompany STP’s expansion.  CPS has already said that 5-8% rate hikes will be needed every two years for the next ten years to pay for this project, and that electric rates could increase nearly 50% as a result.

The good news is that all the noise these activists are making is starting to have an impact.  Already, Mayor Julian Castro is having doubts.  And apparently, “at every public meeting, city and CPS officials have run into a buzz saw of objections from ratepayers and business owners concerned about higher energy costs.” Some folks are even calling for a referendum on the issue — or at the very least, an honest debate and presentation of viable alternatives (that won’t cost $100 dollars a head).

Way to rouse that rabble, San Antonio.  You deserve answers, and for your concerns to be heard in a meaningful way.  If you agree with these folks (and if you’re a regular reader I bet you do!), sign their petition!

Read Full Post »

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 »

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 »

Environmental Groups See Clean Energy Groundwork Laid for the Future

(Austin) Senate and House members from both political parties showed unprecedented support for developing more renewable energy and energy efficiency in Texas by filing a large number of clean power, green jobs bills in the 81st Texas State Legislature. A number of major bills passed either the House or the Senate. Ultimately, political disagreements over other issues and over the size and extent of the programs delayed and killed most of these excellent legislative initiatives.

Environmental groups Sierra Club, SEED, Public Citizen, Environmental Defense Fund, and Environment Texas applaud the passage of some clean energy, green jobs legislation and view the Legislature as having laid ample groundwork for the future.

“The fact that both the House and the Senate passed major legislation on energy efficiency and renewable power with bipartisan agreement shows that Texas leaders are willing and able to develop clean power and green jobs for our state,” noted Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. “Nevertheless, leaders were distracted by undue influence from industry interests and by the Voter ID debate which hampered passage of clean energy bills and other more vital areas of legislation.”

“Texas is moving more slowly than a melting glacier toward developing global warming policy. Rather than implementing already available energy efficiency and distributed energy solutions, Texas’ response to global warming is to develop futuristic industrial-sized solutions. As a result the state has legislation pending that may develop standards for large scale carbon sequestration projects and provide incentives to get companies to develop the technologies,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, Director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “On the positive side, the state has passed a study to develop a series of ‘no regrets’ solutions to global warming that the State can achieve at no cost. Also, the Texas House, especially the House Committee on Environmental Regulation, should be applauded for their more open leadership style this session which lead to far more reasoned and less ideological bills being developed in the committee.”

Clean Power, Green Energy Bills that passed both bodies and will go to the Governor (as this release goes to press):

  • Green fleets legislation to promote low emissions and plug-in hybrid vehicles for fleets of major State Agencies (HB 432);
  • Legislation allowing cities to create financial districts to loan money for renewable power and energy efficiency (HB 1937).
  • Legislation setting a ‘no regrets’ strategy for greenhouse gas reduction in the State; a study of the state’s energy use to find ways to reduce our emissions and save money at the same time (SB 184)
  • A coordinated green jobs strategy including funds allocated for child care programs, vocational training initiatives, energy efficiency measures, the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), and/or any other recovery funds (passed as a Rider to Article 12).
  • Green fee bill passed allowing governing board of public colleges and universities to institute an environmental service fee once approved by student body election.

“This has been a disappointing session,” said Luke Metzger, Director of Environment Texas. “However, with the passage of HB 1937, we can start the ball rolling on developing Texas’ solar future, working with local communities one at a time to start financing solar and energy efficiency projects.”

Groundwork Laid for Next Session

The major Clean Power, Green Jobs bills that passed the House or Senate but did not ultimately make it to the Governor’s Desk include:

  • Raising the state’s minimum residential and commercial building codes from 2001 to 2009 standards (passed Senate as SB 16 and HB 2783 in House);
  • Raising the utility efficiency goal (SB 546 passed both houses but no agreement was reached between Senator Fraser and Representative Anchia on the size of the goals)
  • Adopting appliance efficiency standards for a variety of products, including pool pumps (passed Senate as SB 16)
  • Creating a 1,500 MW Emerging Technology Renewable Standard (SB 541 – passed the Senate)
  • Creating a $500 million solar incentive program (SB 545 – passed the Senate).
  • Creating a Policy requiring utilities and retail electric providers to pay consumers fair buyback rates for excess electricity generation from renewable energy (HB 1243 – passed House and Senate, but was killed in the House through concerns over germaneness and Senate amendments.);
  • High performance energy efficiency building standards for state buildings, including universities and public schools (HB 431). The Senate may pass the conference committee report today, on Sine Die.

Factors which prevented bills with bipartisan support from making it across the finish line:

  • The issue of Voter ID, which put many major efficiency and renewable bills too far down the calendar for consideration in the House;
  • A disagreement over the germaneness and concern over the possible costs to low-income residents of adding the solar incentive bill (SB 545) to the surplus electricity bill (HB 1234), which led Representative Turner to ultimately kill consideration of the bill on the House floor;
  • The election of a new Speaker and the naming of new Committee Chairman understandable led to some delays in getting the committees up and running to begin to consider bills;
  • Disagreement between House and Senate on size and scope of goals set by solar and energy efficiency bills (SB 545 & 546);
  • Disagreement over the potential costs and benefits of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (SB 541);
  • Opposition from the Texas Manufacturers Association, the Governor and many utilities against the Renewable Portfolio Standard.

“We were happy to find some new allies this session including certain members of the legislature and some electric utilities that said they supported renewable energy and energy efficiency legislation,” said Jim Marston, Director of Texas Regional Office of Environmental Defense Fund. “Sadly, some of the electric companies talked a good game, but their support evaporated when opposed by their affiliated retail electric providers or others in the industry. In the end, the Association of Electric Companies of Texas reverted to representing the interests of the regressive elements of their membership harming the ability of Texas to participate successfully in the new energy economy.”

“Moreover, the Texas Association of Manufacturers (TAM) while acknowledging that an expanded renewable portfolio standard was the way to bring clean technology jobs to Texas, distributed false cost information about solar legislation that was repudiated by the PUC and others. The bottom line, TAM fought legislation that would have brought new manufacturing jobs to Texas,” said Marston.

Nuclear Bills Blocked

Environmental groups blocked bad bills that would have removed citizen rights to contest permits and would have promoted nuclear power in the State which many view as a financial drain from investment in truly clean energy.

“Nuclear power is expensive, consumes vast quantities of water, comes with serious security and health risks and creates radioactive waste, for which there is no good storage solution. We were happy to block two bad bills this session that were designed to benefit proposed nuclear reactors in Texas,” said Karen Hadden, Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition.

The nuclear bills that were blocked:

  • Fast tracked water permits for nuclear power plants and cut out contested case hearings (HB 2721 was left pending in House Environmental Regulation Committee)
  • Subsidies for proposed nuclear power plants in the form of tax rebates (HB 4525 passed the House and was blocked in the Senate.)

“Representative Flynn’s bill would have fast-tracked water permits for nuclear plants, an outrageous attempt in a time of statewide drought,” said Hadden. “It would also have denied citizens an opportunity to contest issuance of the permits through hearings, an assault on democratic process. The other bad bill that we defeated would have given massive subsidies to nuclear power in the form of tax rebates.”

Miscellany

  • A good bill to address the Compact Loophole for the Andrews County Low-Level Radioactive Waste Dump bill, HB 3423 Lon Burnam did not get out of Committee.
  • Environmental groups blocked a bad provision that would have fast tracked water permits for “clean coal” plants in the final version of HB 469 and added cleaner emissions standards for those plants.
  • HB 821 passed, requiring television manufacturers that sell televisions in Texas to make free and convenient recycling available. Texas Campaign for the Environment successfully advocated for this bill.
  • Sen. Ellis used a threatened filibuster last night to kill HB 3827 which would have allowed oil companies to evade liability for MTBE water contamination;
  • SB 2169 Sets up an interagency working group, co-chaired by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Texas Department of State Health Services, the Texas Department of Transportation with other agencies to discuss smart growth and make recommendations for developing the state in a sustainable way.
  • An amendment to HB 300 creates a certification program for environmental coordinators in Texas Department of Transportation district offices. This bill is still in conference committee as this release goes to press.

“As it concludes, environmentalists can view this legislative session with some hopefulness – the Legislature is definitely involved and interested in clean energy and green jobs and did move these issues forward. But there is also some sadness – an opportunity to move significantly forward on clean energy was lost,” Cyrus Reed added. “Jobs that could have been created, and new sources of clean energy that could have been advanced in Texas were delayed this Session.”

Read Full Post »

A message from Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, and Environment Texas:

Your help is needed right away to put energy efficiency into place!

Please call or email your city councilmember today to tell them you support STEP – the new energy efficiency program for San Antonio!

Tomorrow, San Antonio City Council will decide on how CPS Energy can fund their energy efficiency programs known as STEP (Save for Tomorrow Energy Plan). CPS Energy has set a goal to save 771 Megawatts of power through energy efficiency programs by 2020.  This would be one of the most aggressive efficiency goals in the country and we support it!

Energy efficiency is the cheapest energy resource CPS Energy can invest in.  By spending money on weatherizing low income homes and providing rebates for people to purchase high efficiency appliances, CPS avoids having to purchase more expensive energy that would cost everyone more. In addition, people who take advantage of these programs will begin saving money on their utility bills immediately, offsetting the cost of the programs!

Call or email your city councilmember today to tell them:

-I support energy efficiency and urge you to approve STEP

-I want public accountability for these programs through quarterly reporting including information such as the amount of money spent on and energy saved from each program

-I want to be sure that CPS spends the money they collect for STEP on energy efficiency and solar rebates, not for other purposes like coal or nuclear plants!

Mayor   Phil Hardberger (210) 207-7060   phardberger@sanantonio.gov

District 1   Mary Alice P. Cisneros (210) 207-7279   district1@sanantonio.gov

District 2   Sheila D. McNeil (210) 207-7278   district2@sanantonio.gov

District 3   Jennifer V. Ramos (210) 207-7064   district3@sanantonio.gov

District 4   Philip A. Cortez (210) 207-7281   district4@sanantonio.gov

District 5   Lourdes Galvan (210) 207-7043   district5@sanantonio.gov

District 6   Delicia Herrera (210) 207-7065 district6@sanantonio.gov

District 7   Justin Rodriguez (210) 207-7044 district7@sanantonio.gov

District 8   Diane G. Cibrian (210) 207-7086 district8@sanantonio.gov

District 9   Louis E. Rowe (210) 207-7325 district9@sanantonio.gov

District 10   John G. Clamp (210) 207-7276   district10@sanantonio.gov

If you don’t know who your councilmember is, find out here.

If you are able to, show up at City Hall tomorrow and talk to City Council about STEP.  It is agenda item #5 and should be up before lunchtime.  If you would like to speak, though, you have to sign up in person between 8-9 AM (114 W. Commerce).  If you can’t sign up in time, come by and be there for support!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »