Author Archive

Nuclear Information and Resource Service produced a briefing paper on the NRC licensing process:

Every atomic power reactor is licensed by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). By law, the licensing process is open to public participation. In reality, the process is deliberately designed to be difficult to understand and to discourage effective public involvement. Even so, a determined and knowledgeable public can affect nuclear licensing decisions. The purpose of this briefing paper is to provide a basic overview of the licensing process, as a first step toward helping grassroots groups, individuals, and state and local governments determine whether they want to participate in this process.

Download the report here.

What Nuclear Renaissance? Nuclear Power Opposition Strong in First Project

May 16, 2008

Statement by Karen Hadden, Executive Director – SEED Coalition, May 16, 2008

Austin, TX Opposition to investing in more nuclear plants is so strong in San Antonio, Texas, that the mayor and municipally owned CPS Energy were forced to take nuclear power out of the rate hike package. Instead of passing a 5% rate hike, the San Antonio City Council voted to approve only a 3.5% rate hike on May 15, 2008. As a result there is less money for CPS to stealthily apply toward nuclear power.

At the day long San Antonio City Council proceeding, citizens opposing nuclear power called for close scrutiny and more accountability of CPS Energy. Council Members echoed citizen demands for more energy efficiency and renewable power, and utility board members and executives were called on the carpet throughout the day. For too long CPS Energy has been operating in the dark, failing to provide answers to basic questions and calling on the attorney general to defend their  so called  "competitive trade secrets" claims frequently.

CPS Energy refuses to provide cost estimates for the proposed two nuclear reactors, STP 3 & 4, proposed for the existing Matagorda County site. Their would-be partner, NRG Energy, Inc. is seriously underestimating costs, which have risen 30% even before licensing. NRG went bankrupt in 2003 and has never built a nuclear reactor before. Inexperience led to delays and cost overruns for the existing two STP reactors, which ran six times over budget and eight years late.

CPS Energy has been spending money for preliminary design and engineering, the license application and nuclear reactor parts, including a reactor vessel, without a vote by either city council or the citizens.  Speakers questioned what authorization they had for this spending.

The $206 million allocated only by the CPS Board could retrofit over 50,000 homes in San Antonio, lowering utility bills and creating local jobs.

This first nuclear project to move forward in the country in 29 years has hit only roadblocks and opposition so far:

• The license application was so incomplete that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission halted their review. Numerous exemptions were sought to the presumably standardized design.

• SEED Coalition’s petition was successful, and the NRC gave an indefinite suspension of the licensing procedure.

• The City of Austin, a partner in the existing nuclear project, walked away from investing this time. The nuclear reactor portion of the rate hike package had to be removed in order to get any rate hike passed in San Antonio.

• On May 15, 2008, the rate hike was reduced from 5 to 3.5%. The additional rate hikes needed for expensive nuclear power are sure to hit serious resistance as well. Nuclear power could cause the currently low rates in San Antonio to increase by up to 60

###

Nuclear Deal Won’t Stand the Light of Day, Must Be Done in the Dark

May 9, 2008

Contacts Karen Hadden 512-797-8481, SEED Coalition
Loretta Van Coppenolle, 210-492-4620 Alamo Group of the Sierra Club
Eric Lane, 210-732-6564, Citizens’ Environmental Coalition

MEDIA RELEASE
For Immediate Release

Initial work toward first nuclear reactors in decades gets hidden
from the public in San Antonio, Texas

Download this press release in pdf format for printing

Citizen pressure in San Antonio has led to CPS Energy and Mayor Phil Hardberger’s altering of the electric rate hike request, nearly 20% of which was to fund two more nuclear reactors. The modified rate hike is scheduled to be voted on next Thursday, May 15, by the San Antonio City Council.

“This looks to me like a smokescreen,” said Eric Lane, a member of San Antonio’s Citizens’ Energy Coalition. “We are not fooled. The utility is still stealthily pursuing expensive nuclear power. In fact utility representatives have said that without this rate hike, the project can’t move forward. We call on the mayor and city council to halt the nuclear funding now.”

“The shift shows that nuclear power is so unpopular that it had to be removed from the rate hike proposal” said Karen Hadden, director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “However in order to accurately reflect their big agenda CPS Energy’s strategic plan should be renamed Muddying the Waters and Withholding Information: A Plan to Sneak Nukes Past the Public.”

“We’re happy to have more money going toward efficiency, but taking the nuclear title off the rate hike package won’t stop the utility from aggressively pursuing nuclear power. It just won’t show so clearly,” said Loretta Van Coppenolle, a member of the Citizens’ Energy Coalition and conservation chair of the Alamo Group of the Sierra Club.

Two reactors, STP 3 & 4, are planned for Matagorda County at an existing nuclear site. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission license for these plants is the first in the nation to move forward in 29 years.

The San Antonio municipal utility, CPS Energy, still refuses to reveal their cost estimate for the proposed two reactors, claiming first that they don’t know and secondly that they’re still negotiating. Other states require detailed cost analyses up front. Simple citizen requests for information go unanswered, and the utility got a ruling from the state’s Attorney General that they don’t have to answer some of them. Meanwhile CPS’s would-be partner, NRG, significantly underestimates costs.

“The utility has been asking for a rate hike for nuclear power but refuses to give a cost estimate. Who would put a down payment on a house without knowing how much the house costs? It’s not good business,” said Karen Hadden. “The shift in the rate hike funding is good, but it doesn’t stop CPS Energy from quietly pursuing the nuclear reactors in the dark. The public has never been given a chance to vote. In fact, when citizens tried to attend the CPS Board meeting where an initial $206 million was approved, they had to bang on the door for half an hour before being admitted to the room, after having been promised an opportunity to speak. Will we now see a massive shell game with money shifting all around?” asked Hadden. At least two more rate hikes will follow if the nuclear pursuit continues and former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford has said that bills could increase 50-60%.

The two existing nuclear reactors at the Matagorda County site ran six times over budget and construction ran eight years late. If the Moody’s Corporate Finance estimate of $16.2 billion for two of the reactors is accurate, similar cost overruns could lead to a final price tag of over $97 billion, enough to make 24 million homes more energy efficient.

The CPS Energy Board recently approved $206 million, presumably for a study of the nuclear project. Now they concede that this money is actually for preliminary design and engineering work. The San Antonio City Council was never asked for its approval.

Purchases of reactor components have begun and a down payment on one reactor vessel has been made. If approved, the rate hike will allow the utility to replenish their coffers. “There is no accountability for CPS Energy and simple, basic questions go unanswered,” said Eric Lane of the Citizens’ Energy Coalition. The Citizens’ Energy Coalition says the nuclear reactors aren’t needed and wants energy efficiency to replace the proposed reactors. The utility’s own 2004 efficiency study found that 1220 MW of energy could readily be reduced through existing programs, but CPS has only pursued energy savings of one tenth that amount. “Improving efficiency could reduce consumers’ bills, make homes and businesses more comfortable, build the local economy and obviate the need for nuclear reactors,” said Van Coppenolle.

Getting investors involved in the project may prove challenging since NRG went bankrupt in 2003 and has recently had poor credit ratings. The City of Austin (Texas) voted against becoming involved in the project. The federal loan guarantees needed for the project may or may not be available with a new Congress. NRG’s place at the head of the line at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could be called into question as a result of the indefinite suspension in the licensing process by the NRC, a decision made in response to petitions filed by the SEED Coalition and the Southwest Workers’ Union. The indefinite suspension was due to incompleteness of the NRG application.

Experts have been brought into town by citizens’ groups in an attempt to talk with the Mayor, City Council, CPS Energy and various organizations. Dr. Arjun Makhijani analyzed costs of the proposed reactors for the SEED Coalition, and estimated that the STP reactors would cost $12 – $17.5 billion. NRG’s questionably low estimates have risen from $6.6 billion to $9 billion, a nearly 30% increase in only a short period of time, and before the license application has even been completed. Although a supposedly standardized, pre-approved design has been chosen for the Advanced Boiling Water Reactors, numerous exemptions and changes to the design are being sought.

For more information regarding the proposed plants, the license application, petitions filed with the NRC and more, please visit www.NukeFreeTexas.org.

###

Austin Leaders ask San Antonio to Push the Pause Button on New Nuclear Plants

For Immediate Release
October 26, 2007

Contacts:
Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition 512-797-8481
Neil Carman, Lone Star Sierra Club 512-288-5772

Download this press release in a PDF file for printing.

AUSTIN, Texas – When NRG, of New Jersey, and CPS (City Public Service) a utility owned by the city of San Antonio, filed with regulators on September 24, 2006 for licenses to expand their Bay City plant it was the first nuclear power application since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island power plant in Pennsylvania. The accident halted plans for new reactors in the U.S. Austin city leaders are asking San Antonio and CPS Energy to slow down and do a full analysis of energy options before entering into any contract with NRG.

“Austin should be exploring all of our options with renewable energy sources, such as our recent vote to support Heliovolt to develop solar energy.” said Austin City Councilmember Jennifer Kim.

“It is far too big an investment with far too much financial risk to rush into without careful consideration,” said Karen Hadden, Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “The cost estimates on the two new reactors are significantly less than what financial analysts are predicting the real costs will be. We don’t want to end up making a mistake that will cost us more than six times more than we bargained for and take twice as long as expected to come on line, like the two existing reactors at Bay City did. The cost overruns and delays wreaked havoc on our city’s budget and bond rating for years.”

Aggressive energy efficiency initiatives allowed Austin to avoid building a 700 megawatt coal plant during a time of explosive growth in the city’s population. And that has resulted in some of the lowest electric bills and rates in the state. San Antonio could do the same. In a recent study commissioned by CPS, it was shown that energy efficiency programs, like stronger building codes and retrofit programs, could reduce San Antonio’s energy demand by 1,220 megawatts.

“I do believe we should work together with San Antonio and the LCRA, in a regional approach. For example, consider what we could accomplish with solar power if the region were coordinated. We could reduce central Texas’ global warming emissions, while bringing jobs to the region,” said Councilmember Jennifer Kim.

“There are many options that could reduce Texas’ global warming emissions, bring jobs and new industries to the region, and keep electricity rates affordable, while avoiding the construction of new nuclear plants,” said Karen Hadden, “Stronger building codes, greenbuilding programs and retrofit programs of new and existing buildings could reduce the region’s energy demand while creating a market for new local industries and allow us to avoid building a new nuclear plant.”

“Nuclear power is way too costly – for taxpayers’ pocketbooks and for human health and the environment,” stated Dr. Neil Carman, Clean Air Program Director for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. “We need to stay the course to meet our energy needs by vastly increasing energy efficiency across all sectors and by developing more renewable energy – more wind and more solar power. We join in the request to the CPS board to push the pause button on the new nuclear plant application.”

Nuclear Nightmares Could Haunt Texas
Clean Energy Could Save Texas From Wasting Billions

For Immediate Release
October 29, 2008

Contacts:
Karen Hadden – SEED Coalition 512-797-8481
Cyrus Reed – Lone Star Sierra Club 512- 477-1729
Eliza Brown – Public Citizen 512-477-1155
Dr. Elliot Trester – Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility

Download press release in pdf format for printing.

Austin – Texas consumer and environmental organizations held a news conference today to expose seven monstrous nuclear nightmares, all reasons to oppose the construction of more nuclear reactors in Texas. The press conference was held outside of two buildings near the Capitol that the activists called “nuclear catacombs” since they contain the offices of three companies trying to build six nuclear reactors in Texas, Luminant, Exelon and NRG. Two additional reactors are proposed by Amarillo Power, bringing the total to eight commercial reactors planned for Texas.

“Nuclear nightmares could haunt Texas forever if the nuclear energy dragon prevails,” said Karen Hadden, Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “These nuclear nightmares include economic disaster, sleeping security guards, massive water consumption and contamination risks, radioactive leaks, radioactive waste, routine radionuclide emissions, and terrorism risks, and accidents or meltdown. Nightmare enough?”

• Economic disaster could result from the high cost of building new reactors. Nuclear reactors will eat billions of dollars each year that could be used to feed less expensive and less polluting renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. Without being fed a vast diet of federal and state government subsidies these plants would never be built. The estimated cost of the proposed South Texas reactors have already more than doubled since they were announced. If they are built they will provide power that is far most costly than alternatives. The Exelon reactors could run up to $22 billion, before cost overruns.
• Most people laugh at the idea of Homer Simpson running a nuke, but guards have been caught and televised while sleeping on the job at Exelon’s nuclear reactors. Human error and mistakes are the most likely cause of a catastrophic reactor failure. Being asleep can’t help.
• Call Joe the Plumber- we’ve sprung a leak. Leaks from Exelon’s Braidwood, Dresden and Byron led to tritium-contaminated water in Illinois. Don’t Nuke the Guadalupe. Proposed nuclear reactors could suck the Guadalupe and the Colorado rivers almost dry, since they use vast amounts of water. More than 75,000 acre/feet of water could be consumed every year by Exelon’s proposed reactors.
• Radioactive waste lasts over a million years. Low-level radioactive waste could be hot for hundreds of thousands to over a million years. Texas’ waste disposal plan calls for a private company to manage a low-level dump, but the company would only be licensed to operate it for 15 years. The company could then renew its license or decide that it has profited enough, close the dump and walk away, leaving the mess to the state of Texas. This is also true if the company just folds up and vanishes into the night.
• What about terrorist attack? Security at the South Texas nuclear site has failed basic tests. Proposed nuclear plants don’t have to be hardened to withstand a jetliner hitting them. Has the NRC have forgotten about 9-11?
• Whoops… it’s just a little hole. A crack in one South Texas reactor led to the escape of a small amount of radioactive material from the reactor vessel. The Davis Besse Nuclear Reactor in Ohio developed a hole in the reactor vessel that was six inches deep and seven inches wide. This hole could have led to a serious accident if coolant water was lost. Nuclear plants are permitted to vent radioactive gasses as much as 22 times each year. Radioactive emissions cause cancer.
• Accidents happen and nuclear accidents are forever. We don’t need to learn the hard way.

Appearing in a skit as Mr. Burns (of The Simpsons) Reed said, “What good is money if it can’t inspire terror in your fellow man? New taxpayer-subsidized nuclear plants in Texas will allow me to make money and inspire terror!”