Author Archive

South Texas 2 reactor to return by mid-April

March 1, 2012

Reuters News Service

HOUSTON, March 1 (Reuters) – The 1,280-megawatt Unit 2 at the South Texas Project nuclear station in Texas is expected to be back in service by mid-April, well before the state’s peak electric demand, NRG Energy officials told investors this week.

The unit has been shut since Nov. 29, when the main generator malfunctioned due to a ground fault that resulted in damage to rotor and stator coils, South Texas Nuclear Operating Co officials said previously.

The 72 coils have been replaced and the damaged rotor is being refurbished at a Siemens facility in North Carolina.

The Texas grid agency and regulators are watching the state’s generating supply after a heatwave in 2011 sent electric demand soaring, straining resources. The grid operator was forced to curtail power to some industrial customers on certain days, but avoided rolling outages.

The 1,280-MW Unit 1 has continued operating at full power.
————————————————————-

PLANT BACKGROUND/TIMELINE
STATE: Texas
COUNTY: Matagorda
TOWN: Bay City, 90 miles (145 km) south of Houston
OPERATOR: STP Nuclear Operating Co
OWNERS: NRG Energy, 44 percent;
City of San Antonio’s CPS Energy, 40 percent;
City of Austin’s Austin Energy, 16 percent
CAPACITY: 2,700 MW
UNITS: 1 – 1,280 MW pressurized water reactor
2 – 1,280 MW pressurized water reactor
FUEL: Nuclear
DISPATCH: Baseload

 

TIMELINE:
1976 – Start of plant construction
1988 – Unit 1 enters commercial operation
1989 – Unit 2 enters commercial operation
2007 – NRG files license application to build two new Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWR) at the site
2010 – STP files application to renew operating licenses for units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years
2011 – NRG ends investment in new reactors after Fukushima accident; COL process continues
2011 – Regulators approve amended ABWR design
2027 – Unit 1 license to expire unless renewed
2028 – Unit 2 license to expire unless renewed

 

Fair Use Notice
This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. SEED Coalition is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights, economic democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Top Republican Donor Runs Into PAC Trouble

February 24, 2012

By Nicholas Confessore
The Caucus Blog New York Times

A Texas political action committee controlled by the nation’s pre-eminent Republican donor asked more than a dozen state lawmakers to return campaign contributions they received from the PAC last year, acknowledging that the contributions had violated state law.

The PAC, known as WCS-Texas Solutions, gave $65,000 to 18 Republican and Democratic candidates in 2011. But all of that money came from a single donor: Harold C. Simmons, a wealthy Texas businessman who is one of the top donors to Gov. Rick Perry and has emerged as the top donor to Republican "super PACs" in the presidential race this year.

Texas law requires that a state PAC have at least 10 donors, a provision designed to ensure that such committees are not used as shell organizations for donors wishing to hide their identities. Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog organization, filed a complaint on Thursday with the Texas Ethics Commission alleging that the contributions by WCS-Texas Solutions PAC violated that rule. Waste Control Specialists is a Simmons-owned company that stores radioactive and other hazardous waste.

The PAC quickly acknowledged the violation and said it would ask the lawmakers to return the donations while it brought itself into compliance with the law.

"The PAC did commit a violation by exceeding the contribution amount allowable prior to securing 10 contributing members," said William J. Lindquist, the group’s treasurer and a senior executive at one of Mr. Simmons’s other companies, Valhi Inc. "As the treasurer of the PAC, that oversight was my responsibility. We are working with the Ethics Commission now to get into full compliance."

The decision was reported on Friday by The Texas Tribune and The Dallas Morning News.

Craig McDonald, the director of Texans for Public Justice, said in a statement, “quot;We can only pray Simmons is exercising more caution in handling his nuclear waste than he is handling campaign contributions."

Japan Weighed Evacuating Tokyo in Nuclear Crisis

February 27, 2012

By MARTIN FACKLER
New York Times

Tepco workers
Photo credit: Issei Kato/Reuters, via Bloomberg
Journalists, in protective gear, were taken on a tour last week of Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, at the center of the crisis last year.

TOKYO — In the darkest moments of last year’s nuclear accident, Japanese leaders did not know the actual extent of damage at the plant and secretly considered the possibility of evacuating Tokyo, even as they tried to play down the risks in public, an independent investigation into the accident disclosed on Monday.
Related

The investigation by the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation, a new private policy organization, offers one of the most vivid accounts yet of how Japan teetered on the edge of an even larger nuclear crisis than the one that engulfed the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. A team of 30 university professors, lawyers and journalists spent more than six months on the inquiry into Japan’s response to the triple meltdown at the plant, which followed a powerful earthquake and tsunami on March 11 that shut down the plant’s cooling systems.

The team interviewed more than 300 people, including top nuclear regulators and government officials, as well as the prime minister during the crisis, Naoto Kan. They were granted extraordinary access, in part because of a strong public demand for greater accountability and because the organization’s founder, Yoichi Funabashi, a former editor in chief of the daily newspaper Asahi Shimbun, is one of Japan’s most respected public intellectuals.

Read more at the New York Times website…

Fair Use Notice
This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. SEED Coalition is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights, economic democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Groups: Southern Company Does Not Have Real “Skin in the Game”

February 23rd, 2012
NC Warn

Groups: Southern Company Does Not Have Real "Skin in the Game" if Vogtle Reactor Loan Guarantee Defaults

Industry Group Spreading Falsehoods About Viability of Controversial Nuclear Project

WASHINGTON, D.C. – February 23, 2012 – With the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) believed to be just days away from awarding a $8.33 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantee to Southern Company/Georgia Power and their utility partners for the proposed Vogtle reactors in Georgia, concerned groups are warning that several falsehoods are being spread about the risks faced by U.S. taxpayers.

In particular, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and NC WARN pointed to a news release circulated on February 16, 2012 by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the trade organization for the nuclear industry. (See http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/doe-loan-guarantee-for-plant-vogtle-expansion-on-sound-financial-footing/.)

Among the falsehoods contained in the release are the following:

MYTH: Southern/Georgia Power is bearing a major financial risk along with U.S. taxpayers. As the NEI release states: "Georgia Power has considerable financial skin in the game with more than $4 billion already invested …"

TRUTH: Southern/Georgia Power is using ratepayers to cancel out its risks. In fact, Southern Company/Georgia Power are benefitting from a "construction work in progress" (CWIP) arrangement under which ratepayers are footing the bill in advance for much of the risk that otherwise would be borne by the utility. The risks of plant cancellation, cost overruns and the emergence of cheaper technologies have all been shifted from the company to its customers by recent changes in Georgia law. This is the crucial difference between the Vogtle reactor projects and the failed Calvert Cliffs project in Maryland and the South Texas Project, where utilities could not immunize themselves against risk by tapping up front the pocketbooks of ratepayers. Furthermore, the amount of money invested by Georgia Power under this no-risk legal framework does not approach $4 billion. According to filings with Georgia regulators, the company has not invested even half of that amount.

MYTH: The Vogtle project is on sound footing already. As the NEI release states: "In addition to the extensive due diligence activities conducted by the DOE loan guarantee program office, the Vogtle project is subject to rigorous federal and state oversight, including ongoing detailed project reviews being performed for the Georgia Public Service Commission."

TRUTH: The Vogtle reactors are already running behind schedule and heading into cost overruns. Last week, concerned organizations warned that Southern Company is deliberately keeping U.S. taxpayers in the dark by covering up the details of 12 sizeable construction "change order" requests that are expected to add major delays and cost overruns to the controversial reactor project. The secret cost overruns are discussed in a censored report from late 2011 by the independent Vogtle construction monitor, Dr. William Jacobs, who is a veteran nuclear industry engineer. Much of Jacob’s testimony was redacted by the utility in the attempt to keep the troubling information from the public, including the U.S. taxpayers who will be left holding the bag if Southern Company defaults on the federal loan guarantee. The groups are calling on the DOE to insist on full disclosure of the Vogtle delays and cost overruns before the federal agency moves ahead with a massive $8.33 billion taxpayer-backed federal loan guarantee that would be 15 times what was lost in the Solyndra debacle. (For more details, see http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Press-Update.html?form_id=8&item_id=278.)

MYTH: Unlike Solyndra, the Vogtle reactor risks are low because it is based on proven technology. As NEI states: "There is no factual basis for the nonsensical claims these groups are making about the loan guarantee for the new advanced-design reactors that will be constructed at Plant Vogtle. Solyndra was a start-up manufacturing company competing in the global solar panel technology market. It had no assets, was working with an unproven technology with no customer base or steady revenue stream and obviously no profits."

TRUTH: The AP1000 reactor is an entirely new and unproven technology. In addition to substantial legal and regulatory challenges, the AP1000 reactor faces the near-certainty of needing post-Fukushima changes to major components and systems, which would further delay reactor construction, increase costs, and boost the risk of default at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. There is no basis in previous experience to suggest that the AP1000 can come online on time or at cost; in fact, no AP1000 has yet to be completed or operated anywhere in the world. And Vogtle does have a history that should trouble taxpayers worried about assuming responsibility for the massive loan guarantee: The original two reactors at the Georgia site took almost 15 years to build, came in 1,200 percent over budget and resulted in the largest rate hike at the time in Georgia.

MEDIA CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf(at)hastingsgroup.com.


Here’s what NEI said:

Nuclear Energy Institute

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:202.739.8000
For Release:February 16, 2012
DOE Loan Guarantee for Plant Vogtle Expansion on Sound Financial Footing

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 16, 2012—Following is a statement from the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Richard Myers, vice president for policy development, planning and supplier programs, on the comparison by antinuclear organizations of the possible loan guarantee for Southern Co.’s Plant Vogtle to Solyndra.

There is no factual basis for the nonsensical claims these groups are making about the loan guarantee for the new advanced-design reactors that will be constructed at Plant Vogtle. Solyndra was a start-up manufacturing company competing in the global solar panel technology market. It had no assets, was working with an unproven technology with no customer base or steady revenue stream and obviously no profits.

In contrast, Georgia Power, the lead partner in the Vogtle expansion, is a subsidiary of Southern Co., which has been in business for over 100 years with annual revenue in 2010 of $17 billion that can back its commitment to the U.S. Department of Energy with $26 billion in assets. The electricity from these reactors will be sold into a market regulated by state public utility commissions.

Georgia Power has considerable financial skin in the game with more than $4 billion already invested, whereas Solyndra had virtually none. And just last week Fitch Ratings praised Southern Co. and its partners for the financial structuring of the project.

In addition to the extensive due diligence activities conducted by the DOE loan guarantee program office, the Vogtle project is subject to rigorous federal and state oversight, including ongoing detailed project reviews being performed for the Georgia Public Service Commission.

Fair Use Notice
This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. SEED Coalition is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights, economic democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

NRC approves Exelon-Constellation merger

February 16, 2012

PennEnergy

Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the proposed merger between Exelon Corp. and Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (CEG), including the indirect transfer of operating licenses for five commercial nuclear power plants and two spent fuel storage installations.

The merger would result in Exelon indirectly owning 50.01 percent of Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG), which is jointly owned by CEG and EDF, Inc., a subsidiary of Electricité de France SA. CENG currently holds operating licenses for five nuclear power plants – Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2, Nine Mile Point 1 and 2, and R.E. Ginna – as well as independent spent fuel storage installations at Calvert Cliffs and Ginna. EDF will continue to own the remaining 49.99 percent of the facilities. Existing Exelon licenses will not be affected.

Exelon and CENG requested NRC consent to the merger in May 2011. Approvals have been granted by the New York Public Service Commission, the Public Utility Commission of Texas, and the U.S. Department of Justice. It must still be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Maryland Public Service Commission.

 

<strong>Fair Use Notice</strong><br>
This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. SEED Coalition is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights, economic democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a &quot;fair use&quot; of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond &quot;fair use&quot;, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
REPORTS