Author Archive

September 23, 2010

by Mark Engebretson
Lake Country Sun

More than 100 people attended the public meeting held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tuesday to hear a presentation on the draft environmental impact study regarding the proposed construction of two additional towers at Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.

With the concerns across the country and in Congress regarding nuclear energy and the potential hazards, that was not the focus of comments at the meeting by elected officials and the public. The concern was water, water that would be needed to cool the towers.

Mike Willingham, the NRC environmental project manager, said the two towers would require 103,000 acre feet of water annually. Of that, 61,600 acre feet would be lost due to evaporation with the balance returned to Lake Granbury, the source.

Ellen Smith, with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, said the Brazos River Authority has reported that lake levels at both Lake Granbury and Possum Kingdom Lake would be modified.

"The EIS does indicate the average lake level at Possum Kingdom would be lower," she said.

The study notes that the lake levels at both Granbury and PK would be affected.

"Possum Kingdom Lake would be full about 34 percent of the time under current conditions and 26 percent of the time with CPNPP Units 3 and 4 operating," reads the study. "Operation of CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would reduce the average water levels by 0.6 feet in Lake Granbury and by 1.5 feet in Possum Kingdom Lake. The water level in Lake Granbury is estimated to fall 2 feet or more below full pool about 10 percent of the time under current conditions and about 25 percent of the time with CPNPP Units 3 and 4 operating. Possum Kingdom Lake water level is estimated to be 5 feet or more below full pool about 10 percent of the time under current conditions and about 25 percent of the time with CPNPP Units 3 and 4 operating."

While the Glen Rose meeting was the only public forum, NRC will still accept public comment by letter, e-mail or fax through Wednesday, Oct. 27.

On the Web, visit www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/form.html. The document title, a required entry, is Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4.

Mail letters to Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Service, Mailstop TWB-05-B01M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.
The fax number is 301-492-3446.

River authority appears likely to sell available supply to coal-fired plant, though rice farmers, environmental advocates joining in multipronged attack.

Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2010

By Asher Price
Austin American-Statesman

A proposed coal-fired power plant downriver of Austin is at the center of a tug-of-war over water in the Colorado River.

The $2.5 billion White Stallion Energy Center, which would be built just south of Bay City, would burn coal and petroleum coke to generate enough electricity to supply 650,000 homes.

But it would also require as much as 7 billion gallons a year of water, nearly the same amount under contract to the City of Leander, at a time when molecules of Colorado River water are increasingly valuable.

The plant proposal has galvanized opposition from rice farmers and environmental activists, who are sponsoring a benefit Sunday to "save Lake Travis" to win upriver support.

The plant, which is being developed by Houston-based Sky Energy LLC and would be within a few miles of the South Texas Project nuclear plant, got a boost in late September when the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality approved an air pollution permit over the protests of environmental groups and the agency’s own public interest counsel, as well as warnings from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the plant’s pollution might violate federal environmental rules.

But the developers still need to make a deal with the Lower Colorado River Authority to buy water out of the Colorado. Power plants need water to cool their machinery and for the steam that turns turbines.

"Given the proposed careful and efficient water use, the need for our project for Texas’ growth, and as a customer of LCRA within the basin," said Randy Bird , chief operating officer of White Stallion Energy Center LLC , "we would look forward to continuing to work with LCRA, as the water provider, as it responds to our needs."

The LCRA board has long held that it is obligated to sell water as long as it has water to sell and the use is a beneficial one. And with roughly 45 billion gallons of river water available, a deal appears likely.

But over the past couple of years, the river authority pulled out of a multibillion-dollar water-sharing agreement with San Antonio on the grounds that its reserves were shaky.

The drought that stretched through 2009 alarmed authorities and led the river authority to consider temporarily cutting off new contracts. And this summer, the LCRA raised its rates for water.

No date has been set for the LCRA to take up the contract, though it is unlikely to do so before its November meeting, board chairwoman Becky Klein said.

It will hear from the rice farmers and environmental groups, who have long had different, if not opposite, visions of how the river water should be used. Rice farmers have long used vast amounts of water for their crops, and environmental groups have generally wanted to reserve water for the benefit of fish and wildlife. Now they are turning together to oppose White Stallion, which spent as much as $90,000 on lobbyists last year.

The power plant’s backers also need a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because they plan to deepen the Colorado to bring in barges full of coal and coke, a similar carbon-heavy material.

Because the LCRA’s board members count rice farmers among the interests they represent, the water contract is where the plant is "most vulnerable," said Tom “Smitty” Smith, who runs the Texas office of Public Citizen. "It’s the place where we have the most political opportunity."

Major coalitions representing Highland Lakes residents and merchants have not taken a stance on the issue, despite exhortations from environmental groups.

"It seems like a legitimate project that serves a need," said Cole Rowland, president of the Highland Lakes Group, which puts out a newsletter on water issues to 2,500 subscribers. "Central Texas is running short on water, but it’s also running short on electricity."

Matagorda County itself appears divided on the plant. The plant "would be a very major boost" to the economy, said Owen Bludau, executive director of the Matagorda County Economic Development Corp., which aims to bring industry to the county.

The county has 12.1 percent unemployment, and the plant would draw 2,250 construction workers as the project gets off the ground and create 150 full-time, long-term jobs, Bludau said.

But County Judge Nate McDonald, dissatisfied that the plant’s backers have not provided legally binding assurances that the county will receive money or jobs and worried about stresses on the water supply, says the plant "doesn’t appear to be a very good business deal for Matagorda County."

McDonald said a majority of county commissioners are opposed to the plant.

Rice farmers, an influential group of his constituents who rely on water for their livelihood, are also suspicious of the plant’s water use.

The plant "will adversely affect future water supplies for irrigation in the lower basin," said Haskell Simon, a long-time advocate for the farmers based in Bay City.

asherprice(at)statesman.com; 445-3643

October, 2010
Lake Country Sun

Events at Glen Rose will have a significant impact at Possum Kingdom Lake.

With the proposed addition of two towers at the Comanche Nuclear Power Plant in Glen Rose, the Lake Granbury Waterfront Owners Association is fighting hard to maintain water levels.

The draft environmental impact statement shows significant amounts of water will evaporate from the cooling towers every year – in excess of 60,000 acre feet. That same report notes that PK Lake and Lake Granbury water levels will drop. And Lake Granbury property owners are seriously concerned about their lake level falling. For example, those owners refer to the “drought of 2009” when Granbury lake levels fell significantly while Possum Kingdom Lake water levels never fell more than just over 5 feet on a couple of occasions. That was without the additional two towers.

The WOA folks want assurances that their lake will be stable, even going so far as to solicit support for legislative action to force the Brazos River Authority to release more water from PK to do so. The organization is working very hard, through elected officials, to have Lake Granbury designated as a “recreational lake” with a stable lake level.

In addition, WOA members and Granbury city leaders want the generators at PK back on line, citing as a reason the additional release of water from PK. Granbury Mayor Ricky Pratt even suggested that Luminant, the Comanche Peak operator, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assume ownership and operation of the generators at Morris Sheppard Dam.

The stability of the water level at Lake Granbury would mean the water would have to come from PK, the generators operating would mean the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission stays. Both these situations would have a significant impact on not only PK leaseholders, land owners and businesses, but also Palo Pinto County businesses. With insufficient water levels, vacationers and weekend visitors could well decide to travel elsewhere.

The bottom line – PK water levels will fall if the towers are built. How much will depend a lot on what assurances property owners at Lake Granbury can get from the Legislature or BRA.

There are a number of pressures on PK already – the proposed Cedar Ridge Reservoir on the Clear Fork of the Brazos River, the property sale and a possible reservoir on the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos.

But there is common ground, The folks at Lake Granbury have as much heartburn with the Brazos River Authority as people at PK. Their experiences are as frustrating, if not more so. They are not opposed to the additional towers at Comanche Peak, they are opposed to using Lake Granbury as the water source without assurances the lake level will be stabilized.

They are worried about their lake, people at PK are worried about theirs. While some of the goals are directly opposite, others are in tandem. The point being, people at PK should become aware and involved in what WOA is working toward. With the property sale nearly done, it is time to look to other issues that will have a lasting and dramatic effect on the future of Possum Kingdom Lake. There is room for compromise, there are areas where joint efforts can pay off, bit only if everyone pays attention.

September 21, 2010

Jack Z. Smith
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Sept. 21–Anyone wanting to weigh in on the potential environmental impact of expanding the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant will have an opportunity in public meetings this afternoon and tonight in Glen Rose.

The meetings, held by staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, will be from 1 to 4 p.m. and from 7 to 10 p.m. at the Glen Rose Expo Center, 202 Bo Gibbs Blvd.

In addition, NRC staffers will be available for informal discussions with the public during “open house” sessions from noon to 1 p.m. and from 6 to 7 p.m. at the center, immediately preceding the three-hour meetings.

The NRC staff is seeking comments on its preliminary finding that there are no environmental grounds to preclude issuing combined construction and operating licenses to electric power generator Luminant for the addition of two reactors at Comanche Peak, four miles north of Glen Rose and 45 miles southwest of Fort Worth.

The NRC’s preliminary finding is contained in a draft environmental impact statement filed with the Environmental Protection Agency.

An opponent of the expansion, the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, is expected to address the preliminary finding.

Luminant plans to more than double Comanche Peak’s generating capacity by adding two 1,700-megawatt reactors for an estimated $15 billion to $20 billion.

A three-member panel of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has scheduled an Oct. 28 hearing for oral arguments on the contentions of the SEED Coalition and other opponents that renewable energy, such as wind power with backup natural gas-fired generation, is a more attractive option than expanding Comanche Peak. That hearing is set for 9 a.m. at the Hood County Justice Center, 1200 W. Pearl St. in Granbury.

Plant opponents argue that an expanded Comanche Peak would be a huge water consumer, create more radioactive waste and be a potentially vulnerable target for terrorists.

Luminant has countered that an expanded plant would recycle water, be secure, could handle additional nuclear waste and would have a major economic impact by providing jobs and tax revenue for local governments.

Jack Z. Smith, 817-390-7724

September 22, 2010

Jack Z. Smith
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Sept. 22–GLEN ROSE — Numerous elected officials, civic leaders and residents of Somervell and Hood counties expressed support for a multibillion-dollar expansion of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant at a public meeting here Tuesday.

But a series of speakers repeatedly expressed one nagging concern: whether the proposed addition of two 1,700-megawatt reactors would significantly lower water levels on Lake Granbury, which would be heavily tapped to provide cooling water for the new units.

"Such a huge drain on the water reserves does not seem prudent," said Sue Williams, who along with her husband, Joe Williams, cited their concerns. They live on the lake and are members of the Lake Granbury Waterfront Owners Association.

Significantly lower lake levels could hamper recreational activities such as fishing and boating and reduce property values of surrounding residences, some residents say.

Approximately 200 people packed the Somervell County Expo center for a lengthy afternoon meeting held by the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The officials sought comments on the commission’s preliminary finding that there are no environmental grounds to preclude issuing combined construction and operating licenses to Luminant, operator of the Comanche Peak plant, for building the two new reactors, which would more than double the plant’s generating capacity. The plant is four miles north of Glen Rose, the Somervell County seat, and is 45 miles southwest of Fort Worth.

Rafael Flores, Luminant’s senior vice president and chief nuclear officer, sought to reassure residents by pledging that the company would try to minimize the impact on the lake. Estimates in a draft environmental impact statement said that the percentage of time that Lake Granbury is at “full pool level” would drop from 57 percent to 46 percent. The percentage of time that the lake would be 2 feet or more below full pool level would go from 10 to 25 percent. On average, the lake level would be 7 inches lower.

Flores said the actual impact would likely be less.

Numerous speakers said the expansion would provide economic benefits by adding jobs and tax revenues for local government. They also said Luminant has been a model corporate citizen in terms of civic involvement by employees.