Archive for the ‘Nukes’ Category

June 7, 2013

by Citizen Carol
Texas VOX

Earlier today, Southern California Edison (SCE) announced that they will retire Units 2 and 3 of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), essentially closing the troubled nuclear power plant which is located between San Diego and Los Angeles.

SONGS, which has been in operation for 45 years, may be a harbinger for the future of our aging nuclear fleet, many of which are near the end their original license period and are applying for extensions.

• Unit 1 began commercial operation on January 1, 1968 and ceased operation on November 30, 1992. Since then it has been dismantled and is used as a storage site for spent fuel for Units 2 and 3,
• Units 2 and 3 were both licensed in 1982 and by license amendments in March, 2000 are currently licensed until 2022. However, unit 3 has been shut down since the detection of a leak in one of the steam generator tubes on January 31 and Unit 2 is off line, for routine inspections which found that design flaws appeared to be the cause of excessive wear in tubing that carries radioactive water at San Onofre.

SCE cited continuing questions about when or if the remaining SONGS units might return to service as the cause for their decision, concluding that the uncertainty was not good for customers or investors.

In a statement Friday, California Public Utility Commission’s President Michael R. Peevey called the decision “understandable,” and that the closure of the nuclear power generating station “will require even greater emphasis on energy efficiency and demand response programs.” Utility companies will also need to add transmission upgrade and find new generation resources.

Concerns in Texas

In Texas, both nuclear plants (Comanche Peak outside of Fort Worth, and South Texas Nuclear Generating Station (STP), between Houston and Corpus Christi on the Texas Gulf Coast) are nearing the end of their life expectancies as reflected in their original licenses which are due to expire in 2027 and 2028, and have filed for a license extension. STNP’s unit two has experienced nine months of outage during 2 prolonged shutdowns in 2 years. The second outage was triggered by a fire that occurred only days before the public hearing on the license extension application.

Environmentalists expressed concerns about the plant’s ability to operate safely beyond the original life expectancy of the plant.

"Relicensing should be halted while a serious, in-depth examination occurs," said Karen Hadden, executive director of the Austin-based SEED coalition, which advocates for sustainable energy, and member of the Austin Electric Utility Commission (Austin Energy owns 16% of STP Units 1 and 2). “I think it’s becoming increasingly unreliable, and it’s costing us money to fix it.” She noted that it was difficult to get information about the plant’s problems and she expressed concern that these aging plants will experience problems more often and of greater threat to the safety of the plant and the surrounding communities.

May 4, 2013

Barry Halvorson
Bay City Tribune

A federal law dating back to the Cold War is being used as the basis for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to oppose the licensing for units 3 and 4 of the South Texas Project.

In a news release issued by the SEED Coalition, a group that has intervened in the licensing process, along with the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy and Public Citizen, the NRC told an independent panel of judges assigned to hear the case that the applicant for the project, Nuclear Innovation of North America (NINA) "is subject to foreign ownership control or domination requirements and does not meet the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act."

"This NRC notice is great for us as opponents of two proposed reactors at the South Texas Project," said Karen Hadden, executive director of SEED. "We hope that we’ll soon see clean, safe energy developed in Texas instead of dangerous nuclear power. We must prevent Fukushima style disasters from happening here."

NINA Chief Executive Officer Mark McBurnett said his company does meet the standards and such questions being raised are simply part of the licensing process.

"We’ve had a dialogue going with the NRC for a couple of years on this," McBurnett said. "We pressed the NRC position to get this ultimately resolved. And NINA is committed to seeing this project through and fully expects to resolve this issue."

In looking at the project, Buddy Eller, STP General Manager for communications and external affairs, said the Matagorda County plant was actually designed with the proposed expansion included in the original plans for the site.

"It was designed for four units," Eller said. "We have the water, the transmission lines and the land to support the two additional units."

SEED, the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, gives an Austin address on its website. The site describes SEED as being a group that "works for clean air and clean energy in Texas" and an "advocate for energy efficiency, renewable solar, wind and geothermal power. We fight dirty coal power plants and dangerous nuclear plants."

At the local level, Matagorda County Judge Nate McDonald said he is unaware of any opposition to the licensing and construction of units 3 and 4.

"The support in Matagorda County is complete and unadulterated," the judge said. "Everyone I come in contact with only is concerned with the questions of ‘if’ and ‘when’ with the follow up being better sooner rather than later, I’ve never had anyone in my presence speak against it."

McDonald added units 3 and 4 will be an important part of the area’s future in terms of both investment dollars and employment.

"It would be another economic development cornerstone for the county," he said. "It is a project that would benefit several generations of Matagorda County citizens. A plant like this is going to be operating 40 to 60 years or more and that means billions of dollars of investment and tens of millions of dollars in terms of salaries and jobs. It is a huge, huge project for us and a very favorable one."

While an independent company, McBurnett said NINA is 90 percent own by NRG, a North American based company. The interveners (opponents) of the license application are claiming that it is actually owned by the Japanese Company Toshiba North America Engineering (TANE) based on funding. He explained that Toshiba does have a 10 percent stake in the STP expansion and is loaning NINA the funds to pay for the licensing process.

"Our position is that we are not a foreign owned company," McBurnett said. "Our ownership is domestic. This is a point on which we do not agree with the NRC position. And that is why you have this hearing process.

During the licensing process, McBurnett said, someone can intervene and then the NRC has to appoint an independent panel of judges to hear and rule on the case.

"There are three participants," he said. "The intervener, the applicant, which in this case is NINA, and the NRC staff. Each presents its arguments before the judges, who then make a ruling. After that, there is a period to appeal that ruling. But it is an independent review process."

McBurnett added all sides are anticipating the hearing will be heard sometime in a September to October time frame.

The interveners are basing their arguments on TANE’s funding the licensing process. TANE is a wholly owned subsidiary of Toshiba America, Inc, a Japanese corporation. Opponents contend that this makes them ineligible for licensing.

"Federal law is clear that foreign controlled corporations are not eligible to apply for a license to build and operate nuclear power plants. The evidence is that Toshiba is in control of the project and this precludes obtaining an NRC license for South Texas Project 3 and 4," said Brett Jarmer, an attorney representing the interveners. Attorney Robert Tye added, "Foreign investment in U.S nuclear projects is not per se prohibited; but Toshiba is paying all the bills for the STP 3 and 4 project. This makes it difficult to accept that Toshiba doesn’t control the project."

"Foreign ownership, control or domination policy is spelled out in the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954," said Tom Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office. "In Section 103d it says that no license may be issued to an alien or any corporation or other entity if the Commission knows or has reason to believe it is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government."

While not opposed to the process that is taking place, McBurnett did say the law being used was passed in a different political climate.

"When it was passed, we were in the middle of the Cold War," he said. "The provisions concerning not allowing foreign control was based on opposing the Soviet Union and preventing them from gaining access to either our nuclear materials, such as enriched Uranium, or our technology at the time.

"Today, you are looking at an extremely integrated industry where we are actually sharing information so that we can continue to improve both quality and safety."

The interveners’ release said the factors that will be considered in the hearing include the extent of foreign ownership, whether the foreign entity operates the reactors, whether there are interlocking directors and officers, whether there is access to restricted data and details of ownership of the foreign parent company.

Foreign Ownership Could Halt Licensing of South Texas Project Nuclear Reactors;
NRC Says NINA Doesn’t Meet Their Requirements

May 1, 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.

Contacts: Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition, 512-797-8481
Brett Jarmer and Robert V. Eye, Attorneys, 785-234-4040

Austin, Texas On Tuesday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told judges overseeing the licensing case for two proposed South Texas Project reactors that the applicant (NINA) is subject to foreign ownership control or domination requirements and does not meet the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act in this regard. This will help licensing opponents in the hearing that is anticipated this fall.

"This NRC notice is great for us as opponents of two proposed reactors at the South Texas Project," said Karen Hadden, executive director of SEED Coalition, a group that has intervened in the licensing process, along with the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy and Public Citizen. "We hope that we’ll soon see clean, safe energy developed in Texas instead of dangerous nuclear power. We must prevent Fukushima style disasters from happening here."

"Federal law is clear that foreign controlled corporations are not eligible to apply for a license to build and operate nuclear power plants. The evidence is that Toshiba is in control of the project and this precludes obtaining an NRC license for South Texas Project 3 & 4," said Brett Jarmer, an attorney also representing the intervenors.

"Foreign investment in U.S nuclear projects is not per se prohibited; but Toshiba is paying all the bills for the STP 3 & 4 project. This makes it difficult to accept that Toshiba doesn’t control the project," said Robert Eye.

Toshiba North America Engineering, or TANE, will assume exclusive, principal funding authority for the project, but they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Toshiba America, Inc, a Japanese corporation. Opponents contend that this makes them ineligible for licensing.

"National security and safety concerns justify NRC’s limits on foreign ownership and control of nuclear reactors," said Karen Hadden, Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. "What if a foreign company was careless in running a U.S. reactor? International allegiances are known to shift. Our own reactors could become a weapon to be turned against us in the future and be used to threaten civilians in a war against the U.S. The NRC is right to protect against this possibility."

"Even if the reactors are operated by the South Texas Nuclear Operating Company, they will get their orders from foreign owners. What if their concerns are more about cost-cutting and less about safety?" asked Susan Dancer, President of the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy. "Japanese investors would have us believe that they can come to America and safely build, own and operate nuclear plants, and that we should not concern ourselves with passé laws and regulations, but the recent Fukushima disaster has demonstrated the flawed Japanese model of nuclear safety and the lack of protection afforded the Japanese people. In such an inherently dangerous industry, the American people deserve protection through federal law, including that our nuclear reactors are controlled by the people most concerned about our country: fellow Americans."

"Foreign Ownership, Control or Domination policy is spelled out in the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office. "In Section 103d it says that no license may be issued to an alien or any corporation or other entity if the Commission knows or has reason to believe it is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government."

The NRC interprets this to mean that these entities are not eligible to apply for and obtain a license. According to Commission guidance, an entity is under foreign ownership, control, or domination "whenever a foreign interest has the ‘power,’ direct or indirect, whether or not exercised, to direct or decide matters affecting the management or operations of the applicant." There is no set percentage point cut-off point used to determine foreign ownership. The factors that are considered include:

• The extent of foreign ownership
• Whether the foreign entity operates the reactors
• Whether there are interlocking directors and officers
• Whether there is access to restricted data
• Details of ownership of the foreign parent company.

For further information please visit www.NukeFreeTexas.org

Related Material:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issuance determination letter in the South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4
4/30/13

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Bay News 9

In response to Duke Energy’s announcement to close the Crystal River nuclear plant, State Rep. Mike Fasano is calling for a billion-dollar refund to customers.

ST. PETERSBURG — In response to Duke Energy’s announcement to close the Crystal River nuclear plant, State Rep. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, is calling for a $1 billion refund to customers.

Fasano is calling for Duke Energy/Progress Energy Florida to refund all the money that has been collected from its customers in the name of a repair project that is now being abandoned.

The lawmaker says the plant has been plagued with problems and with the closure customers will not see any return on their forced investment. Fasano represents the state’s 36th district, which includes parts of Citrus, Hernando, Pasco and Pinellas counties.

"This utility has collected over $1.3 billion dollars from its customers for the repair of its broken power plant that apparently will now never be fixed," Fasano said. "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."

Repairing and improving the plant would have cost $3.4 billion and taken years. The 36-year-old plant has not produced power since 2009.

"All told, customer’s bank accounts are emptier, and their wallets are lighter, while the utility will pocket huge sums of money that doubtfully will ever be returned to the people who paid it," Fasano said. "The lack of transparency during this ordeal, the promises not kept and the false hopes all are dashed with today’s announcement."

More Reaction

Rep. Richard Nugent (R), Florida District 11

"For the six hundred families who are directly affected by Duke Energy’s decision, this is going to be a devastating blow. But the economic impact of the decision goes far beyond just the workers employed at the plant. The plant has been a key economic engine in this community for thirty years and all of Citrus County will be affected in a very real way.
"Community leaders all over the county have been pushing Progress and then Duke Energy to repair the plant for years now, including myself. I know all parties involved have worked as hard as possible to find a solution for Citrus County and the focus will now shift to making sure that Citrus will be home to future investments by the company. In particular, the natural gas-fueled plant being considered by Duke would be a tremendous asset for the state and for the community for years to come and I plan on working with both the leaders in this community and Duke Energy in the coming months to find a viable way forward. It’s energy and it’s jobs and Central Florida desperately needs both. I know we’re all going to do everything we can.

"The employees affected by this closure are extremely capable engineers and operators and they are truly an asset to this community and to the industry. I am extremely hopeful that as the Crystal River facility is taken offline and as the Levy facility is brought online, that these employees will continue to find a home with Duke Energy. It’s a mighty tough day for Citrus County, but I know we’re all going to turn our eyes now to the future to see what is possible."

Joe Meek, Citrus County Commission Chairman

"While we are disappointed in the decision to retire the Crystal River Nuclear Plant (CR3), Citrus County is committed to continuing to work with Progress Energy/Duke as we move forward. We are dedicated to having a solid relationship with Progress Energy/Duke and are committed to working through these difficult issues with them. Progress Energy/Duke will continue to be a vital part of our community both with their employees and with their investment in our county.

As the Chairman of the County Commission and President of our Economic Development Council, we have been working closely with Progress Energy/Duke on multiple economic development initiatives in our community. We will continue to work with them, as Duke explores their options for finding alternatives to replace power generating capacity, and potentially build a natural gas-fuel plant in Citrus County. We have had discussions with Progress Energy/Duke executives, and will continue to work closely with them on this important issue.
The decision today removes uncertainty about the future of CR3 for Citrus County, and further highlights the importance for us to work to diversify our local economy. The decision also highlights the drastic budget issues we are facing as a community. The County Commission has been preparing for this decision, and has made balancing the budget and diversifying our local economy the top priority.

While this decision will have a major impact on our community, it will provide an opportunity to redefine our priorities. We are a wonderful community, with a bright future. As a local government, we are dedicated and determined to work with our citizens, businesses, and community to make sure we do everything we can to ensure we are a successful and thriving County."

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.