Author Archive

Feb 05, 2013

By Ivan Penn, Times Staff Writer
Tampa Bay Times

Duke Energy announced early Tuesday it will permanently close the Crystal River Nuclear Plant that has been shut down since late 2009.

CRYSTAL RIVER — Duke Energy announced early Tuesday it will permanently close the crippled Crystal River nuclear plant that has been shut down since late 2009.

The company said it is reviewing alternatives, including building a new natural gas plant, to replace the power produced by the nuclear facility.

For customers, the final costs to resolve the loss of Duke’s sole nuclear plant in Florida could become staggering – upwards of $3 billion.

Customers already are on the hook for $1.3 billion in upgrades and maintenance costs to the nuclear plant, improvements that will now never produce any power. And a new natural gas plant will cost more than $1 billion. They also must pay the growing replacement power bill that has been accumulating since the plant went off line.

"This is a stark reminder of some of the of the risks you face in nuclear generation and construction,"said Charles Rehwinkel, deputy state public counsel who represents consumers before the Public Service Commission. "Unfortunately for the customers, it’s a heavy price too, at least it could be."

But Duke argues that closing the plant was the best course of action, given the risks and costs of repairing the 36-year-old plant.

"We believe the decision to retire the nuclear plant is in the best overall interests of our customers, investors, the state of Florida and our company,"said Jim Rogers, chairman, president and CEO of Duke Energy. "This has been an arduous process of modeling, engineering, analysis and evaluation over many months. The decision was very difficult, but it is the right choice."

"The Crystal River Nuclear Plant has been an important part of our generation fleet for three decades,"said Alex Glenn, state president of Progress Energy Florida, a subsidiary of Duke Energy. "We are very sensitive to the impact on our employees at the plant and on the Citrus County economy.

"We are working to place as many employees affected by today’s announcement in other positions within the company, and we are committed to working with Citrus County to lessen the effects as much as possible,"he said.

The decision to retire CR3, means it will become the first nuclear plant to close in Florida and the first major one to close in the entire southeast United States.

"The Commission is currently analyzing and reviewing information to determine the appropriate procedures for retiring CR3,"said Cindy Muir, a spokeswoman for the state Public Service Commission.

The move to close the nuclear plant was the culmination of a series of events that began in 2009.

That year, Progress Energy Florida, now part of Duke, planned to replace two steam generators and do upgrades that would increase the plant’s generating capacity by 20 percent.

The work is relatively routine, having been performed successfully at dozens of plants across the country.

Progress, however, self-managed the steam generator replacement rather than hire one of two companies all the other U.S. utilities used to oversee that work. The idea was to save money.

More problems followed.

In fall of 2009, as workers began the project, they cracked the reactor’s 42-inch thick concrete containment building. They repaired the wall only to discover their efforts had cracked the wall again. The plant has been idle since and costing as much as $300 million a year just to buy replacement power.

"This is a problem that came about as a result of an effort to extend the life of the plant,"said Rehwinkel, the consumer advocate.

Though other utilities had performed the work successfully, Rehwinkel said, "it just wasn’t in the cards for this plant. It’s a very unusual case."

The unusual case led to unusual agreements.

A year ago, state regulators approved the state’s largest utility settlement because of damage at the Crystal River plant. The settlement means Duke’s Florida customers are receiving $388 million for money spent buying replacement power with Crystal River out of service.

In addition, Duke reached a separate agreement with its insurance company, the Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited, for damage to the plant. The insurance is paying Duke a total of $835 million – the insurer’s largest claim in its history.

Mike Hughes, a Duke spokesman, said the insurance money also will benefit customers by covering some of the costs for initial repairs and some of the replacement power bill.

But customers still are left with billions in expenses, some yet to come.

First, Duke will have to resolve the debt for upgrades and maintenance on Crystal River since 2009 that include $1.3 billion.

With the decision to close the plant, there are calls now for that money to be borne by Duke.

"The poor choices made by Duke/Progress Energy’s present and former executives leave customers with nothing to show for the huge bills they have been forced to pay,"said Rep. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey.

Now, Duke has resolved to build a natural gas plant in place of the nuclear plant that would come online "as early as 2018,"Duke said in a statement.

Replacing CR3 with a natural gas plant would be costly for customers. Florida Power & Light, the state’s largest utility will open a new roughly 1,000 megawatt natural gas plant later this year at Cape Canaveral for about $1.2 billion.

Duke Energy says customers will benefit from the decision to delay the full dismantling of the plant for 40 to 60 years to allow its decommissioning fund to grow and cover the costs.

A 2008 study on the Crystal River nuclear plant estimated that decommissioning the reactor in 2013 would cost $936 million.

At the end of the third quarter of 2012, Duke’s Florida subsidiary, Progress Energy Florida, reported $621 million in its decommissioning fund.

The last nuclear plant to go through that process was the Maine Yankee plant in Wiscassett, Maine, that like CR3 was about a 900 megawatt plant. It took eight years to complete that process, which began in 1997.

Duke owns about 92 percent of the Crystal River plant. The co-owners’ share of 8 percent means they also will have to pay some of the decommissioning costs, an amount of less than $100 million.

Duke’s four coal-fired plants will remain in service at the same Citrus County complex where the nuclear plant, known as CR3, is located. But the utility plans to close the two oldest coal units within the next two to five years.

"It’s hard for the customer to find much to celebrate here,"said Peter Bradford, former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and senior fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. "Yes, it puts an end to the seemingly bottomless exposure that they, the customer, had to imprudent conduct at Crystal River. But there’s all that money gone.

"And unless the Florida regulators have a major change of heart – or of brain – there’s no prospect of (customer) refunds for imprudent conduct,"Bradford said.

CR3 employed 600 workers. Shutting down the plant will reduce that to about 200 while Duke moves to decommission the reactor, said Hughes, the Duke spokesman.

Some of those workers will be relocated outside of Florida to other nuclear plants Duke owns.

Times staff writer Jeff Harrington contributed to this report. Ivan Penn can be reached at ipenn@tampabay.com or (727) 892-2332.

March 19, 2011

By John Couwels,
CNN

Texas ranchers David Huber, on the right, and his son Jason Huber consider the risks of a proposed nuclear plant, seven miles from their property.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Exelon wants to build a $16 billion nuclear plant near Victoria
• Supporters say it will be a boon to the small town’s economy
• The plant would lie on a "growth fault" that opponents say could be unsafe
• Exelon says growth faults are not seismic and do not pose a risk

Victoria, Texas (CNN) — This small Texas town is half a world away from the nuclear disaster unfolding in Japan.

Nevertheless, the calamity is having a ripple effect.

This week, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a scheduled two-day public hearing on a nuclear power plant near Victoria.

There, Texans for Sound Energy Policy got a chance to voice their opposition on the proposed plant that would be built by electric power giant Exelon Generation.

Those who support the plant repeatedly stated, "Nuclear power is a safe energy source" at the two-day hearing.

How close are you to a nuclear plant?

In addition, supporters argued that the $16 billion project would add over 750 permanent jobs and 2,500 temporary construction jobs.

The money spent on the plant would be nearly five times more than Victoria’s yearly budget, said Don Pozzi, an administrative judge and lifetime resident of Victoria County.

"That’s a lot of money," said Pozzi,.

In addition to the jobs, he argues the project would help add to the town’s coffers through sales taxes and real estate taxes from new housing.

That, he says, will help the small town of about 87,000 people continue to grow. And that’s exactly what rancher David Huber is afraid of — a larger Victoria with a nuclear power plant.

"I’ve been opposed from the beginning and I’m still opposed," said Huber, 62.

The proposed site for the reactor is located in a rural farming district approximately seven miles from Huber’s ranch. Huber, a 6-foot-2 rancher with a thick Texas accent and an affable personality, said he loves his land and his way of life. His family has been a part of the Victoria farming community since the late 1800s.

"The road Exelon is planning on using for heavy hauling, my grandfather built around 1920," the rancher said, while driving around his ranch with his son, Jason Huber.
Along the way, he proudly points the results of his family’s hard work.

"Our roots are in the ground."

His concerns over the dangers of a possible nuclear reactor so close to his ranch have increased since the nuclear disaster triggered by last week’s quake and tsunami in Japan, he said.

Japan’s nuclear crisis explained

Prior to choosing the location, Exelon Generation studied the possible impact of a nuclear power plant on Victoria’s community, water and ecology.

Exelon is the United States’ largest nuclear power plant operator, running 17 plants in 10 states.

See locations of U.S. nuclear power facilities

After studying the Victoria site, the power company found the risks to be low. But not everyone agrees.

"Nuclear power is a high risk, high stakes business," said Jim Blackburn with Texans for Sound Energy Policy at this week’s NRC public hearing.

There are plane crashes, people continue to fly. There are car accidents, people continue to drive. There’s going to be nuclear power.
–Don Pozzi, Victoria resident, supporter of proposed nuclear plant

The NRC must grant final approval before any new nuclear plants can be built and operated. No new nuclear plant has won final approval in the United States since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, although site work is being done at a couple of locations around the country.

At this week’s hearing, Exelon representative William Scott acknowledged the events in Japan, but he urged people not to overreact to what’s going on in light of the continuous news coverage of the unfolding crisis.

"Everyone here should be sobered by the events in Japan and by the seriousness of matters at hand," Scott said. "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people in Japan."

Texas town OK with nuclear plant expansion

He said he understands people’s concerns and why politicians have taken a closer look at the safety plans for nuclear plants in their states.

"That’s a perfectly natural reaction. We expect to be held accountable, that’s part of our commitment to safety," said Scott.

The situation in Japan doesn’t seem to have any effect on those who steadfastly support the proposed nuclear plant near Victoria, Pozzi said.

"I don’t expect people will change their minds," he said. "I think people have had their minds made up."

He pointed to an unscientific online poll in the local newspaper, the Victoria Advocate, which found that despite the Japan incident, 53% of the 394 people polled said they favor the Victoria plant compared to 23% who oppose it.

"There are plane crashes, people continue to fly. There are car accidents, people continue to drive," Pozzi said. "There’s going to be nuclear power."
Victoria’s Mayor Will Armstrong agreed.

"My support hasn’t wavered at all," he said.

Victoria county commissioner Gary Burns said he and other city officials have "wined and dined" Exelon in hopes of bringing billions of dollars to Victoria’s economy. Burns said if the deal falls through, the town’s economic future is at risk.

Those who oppose the plant said the site where Exelon would build the plant lies on a "growth fault" which doesn’t trigger earthquakes but can cause the Earth to shift.
Blackburn and his Texans for Sound Energy Policy group fears the ground beneath the proposed nuclear site could sink, causing the cooling water ponds, vital to a nuclear plant, to drain away.

"It has active oil and gas extraction," Blackburn said about the proposed site. "It can and will change over time."

[What if] all of a sudden that [proposed] plant has a problem and there’s an evacuation for a 10 mile radius? I’m in the 10 miles radius. What do I do? Try and pick up and try to run? This is my life.
–David Huber, Texas rancher

Blackburn said Exelon has not addressed the growth fault issue in its filings with the NRC. But Steve Frantz, an attorney representing Exelon pointed out that the growth faults are "are not tectonic in nature."

A study of the area shows one growth fault in the area moved only 8 inches over 40 years.

"They pose no seismic threat," said Frantz. "The only threat is a possibility of surface deformation if the growth faults were to move."

He did say all safety structures including vital safety cooling ponds would be located away from the growth faults.

"We did find it and studied it," said Frantz. "We planned the safety-related structures 500 feet away, which we felt was more than adequate."

Blackburn insists that even though growth faults are not seismic, they still pose "potential dangers to the safe operation of a nuclear facility."

"TSEP believes that good engineering can address many potential safety issues," he said. "However, you cannot engineer around issues that are not recognized, studied and evaluated."

Some residents, like Huber, who would live near the proposed site, feel that it’s a risk that is not worth taking.

"(What if) all of a sudden that (proposed) plant has a problem and there’s an evacuation for a 10-mile radius?" the rancher wondered.

"I’m in the 10-mile radius. What do I do? Try and pick up and try to run? This is my life."

"Why would you even want to risk this natural beauty?" he asked, as he stood on the banks of the San Antonio River next to his ranch at sunset.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

By Keith B. Richburg and
Washington Post researcher Wang Juan in
Shanghai contributed to this report
Washington Post

BEIJING — In a dramatic reversal, China’s State Council, or cabinet, announced Wednesday that it was suspending approval for all new nuclear power plants until the government could issue revised safety rules, in light of the unfolding crisis at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan.

The State Council, chaired by Premier Wen Jiabao, also announced the government would conduct safety checks at the country’s existing nuclear facilities and those under construction, according to a brief statement issued after the meeting and reported by the state-run Xinhua News Agency.

"We will temporarily suspend approval of nuclear power projects, including those in the preliminary stages of development," the statement said.

With 13 nuclear reactors in operation, at least 26 others under construction, and more in the planning stage, China has by far the world’s most ambitious nuclear power program. But that program has attracted little or no public debate or scrutiny in this authoritarian country where decisions are handed down by the ruling elite and most traditional media is tightly controlled.

Last week, when the crisis in Japan first began, Zhang Lijun, China’s vice minister for environmental protection, told reporters that there would be no change in China’s nuclear plans. "Some lessons we learn from Japan will be considered in the making of China’s nuclear power plans," he said. "But China will not change its determination and plan for developing nuclear power."

But the disaster at Fukushima across the East China Sea has riveted the Chinese public, prompting a debate for the first time over the country’s growing reliance on nuclear power for its energy needs and causing panic on China’s southeastern coast, closest to Japan.

In Shanghai, residents were stocking up on iodine pills and face masks, fearing that the radioactive steam cloud above the Fukushima plant may drift across the sea toward China.

At Shanghai’s Lei Yun Shang pharmacy, a worker said the store sold out its entire stock of 300 boxes of iodine Tuesday — more than is sold in a typical month — and then another 600 boxes Wednesday. The worker said the pharmacy also sold about 1,000 face masks, its entire supply.

Chinese authorities began radiation checks of people, luggage and goods arriving at airports and seaports from Japan. In Heilongjiang province in northeast China, environmental officials began taking air samples and conducting around-the-clock monitoring for radiation.

So far, no abnormal levels of radiation have been detected.

A group of Chinese nuclear scientists and other experts publicly called on the government to quickly pass the country’s first atomic energy law to regulate more clearly the growing nuclear industry here, including safety supervision at nuclear power stations.

Also Wednesday, the Global Times newspaper, whose editorials often reflect the thinking of its owner, the ruling Communist Party, called for more public debate over China’s nuclear expansion.

"China has seen little debate over nuclear power safety as compared with other countries," the Global Times’ lead editorial said. "It is questionable whether China will stick to a proper pace of nuclear power development, and maintain strictest safety standards in selecting its construction sites."

It added, "It always takes more time when the public joins in debates and supervision. However, such costs are certainly worthwhile when we consider the importance of nuclear power."

richburgk(at)washpost.com

Washington Post researcher Wang Juan in Shanghai contributed to this report.

THERE WAS A FIRE AT THE STP NUCLEAR REACTOR SITE JUST THIS WEEK:

Event Text

Media Release:
January 11, 2013

Contact:
Karen Hadden, Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, 512-797-8481
Susan Dancer, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy, 361-588-2143

Download this release in pdf format for printing.

Austin, TX A fire that shot 50 foot flames into the air erupted January 8th in the main transformer at the South Texas Project site near Bay City, Texas, about 90 miles southwest of Houston. Reactor 2, which was out of commission for five winter months in 2011-2012, has not been operating since the fire.

The fire occurred just one week prior to a hearing on re-licensing the two South Texas Project reactors, which will be held January 15th from 2-5 pm and 7-10 pm at the Bay City Civic Center, 201 Seventh St.

“Nuclear reactor fires and explosions create serious safety risks, and are of great concern to those of us who live close by. While the South Texas Project fire was burning I found myself trying to decide which of our rescue ranch horses we could take if my family had to evacuate due to radioactive releases, and which we would have to leave behind,” said Susan Dancer, who lives 8 miles from the reactors.

“The two South Texas nuclear reactors have been here for decades but Matagorda County still has no full-time, paid fire department. Who knows how long it would take for Houston teams to arrive if needed. Meantime, plant managers have been busy cutting personnel in hopes of higher profits, instead of putting safety first.” The STP reactors are owned by NRG, Austin Energy and San Antonio’s CPS Energy.

“Any nuclear reactor is at risk from fires, explosions, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, lack of cooling water and terrorist attacks, as well as accidents due to human error and mechanical failure,” said Karen Hadden, Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition.

“This is like a used car deal – made fourteen years in advance. Why not wait until 2025 to see what shape the reactors are in before even considering re-licensing? The reactors, now 24 and 25 years old, are licensed to run 40 years – until 2027 and 2028. It’s time to plan for their replacement, not court disaster by giving aging reactors twenty additional years.”

The NRC Event report and hearing information are online at www.NukeFreeTexas.org.