Archive for the ‘Nukes’ Category

Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe in Texas

Lessons We Must Learn and Actions We Must Take In Light of the Fukushima Disaster

Media Release
March 7, 2012

Contacts:
Karen Hadden, Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition
Rep. Lon Burnam, District 90, Ft. Worth
Chiaki Kasahara and Ivan Stout, a couple who lived in Japan, but left because of the Fukushima nuclear disaster
Robert V. Eye, Attorney, legally challenging proposed STP and Comanche Peak reactors,
Susan Dancer, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy

Austin, TX Concerned citizens in Texas are calling on U.S. leaders to do more to prevent a U.S. nuclear disaster. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster that began nearly a year ago, on March 11, 2011, resulted in explosions, releases of radioactive materials and complete meltdowns of three reactors. 160,000 people were evacuated. Radioactive Iodine-131 and Cesium-137 was detected around the world and large amounts of radioactive materials were released into the Pacific Ocean. Only two of Japan’s 54 nuclear reactors are operating today and they are also expected to be shut down by the end of May. In light of the meltdowns, Germany now plans to shut down all 17 of its reactors and replace them with renewable energy. Post-Fukushima safety improvements have been recommended by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s task force.

"The lesson we absolutely must learn from Fukushima is that any nuclear reactor can have a meltdown. U.S. reactors are at risk from hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, 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. "We’re urging Congress to halt nuclear licensing and nuclear loan guarantees, subsidies which would allow billions of taxpayer dollars to flow into dangerous new reactor projects. Old reactors get metal fatigue and accident risks increase. They should be retired, not re-licensed for another twenty years."

The group calls on Congressional leaders, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy to prevent a US nuclear disaster by taking action to:

  • Halt licensing of new reactors
  • Halt nuclear "loan guarantees" that would use billions of taxpayer dollars for new reactors
  • Halt re-licensing of aging reactors, which should be shut down on or before their original retirement date
  • Plan for a transition away from nuclear power to safer, more affordable and reliable means of electric generation
  • Initiate more thorough and realistic disaster scenario testing of U.S. diesel generators
  • Better information through EPA regarding Fukushima radiation releases, hot spots, food supply safety and exposure risks from radioactive transport and product importation here and around the globe. Cows shipped in July 2011 from Fukushima Prefecture to Tokyo had three to six times the legal limit for radioactive cesium.
  • Demand that detailed and accurate public health information be made available in Japan and in the U.S., including more radiation monitoring, and ensuring healthy food and water supplies. More evacuations may yet be needed.

"We cannot afford to have a Fukushima style disaster here in the United States. Nuclear reactors are inherently unsafe and the nuclear disaster in Japan provides additional evidence of the need to transition away from nuclear power to safer forms of electric generation," said Ft. Worth Representative Lon Burnam. "There is still no safe way to store the waste generated by nuclear reactors and now much of the country wants to dump their radioactive waste on Texas, at a site that risks radioactive contamination of fresh water supplies for generations to come."

The number of lives that will be lost due to cancers as a result from the Fukushima explosions and meltdowns is unknown. Eighteen years later, a Russian study found that 985,000 people had died as a result of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, mainly from various cancers.

"In order to protect ourselves and our four-year-old son from radiation exposure, we had to leave the home we loved and had spent our adult lives working towards in Japan, and now live in Texas. We only had two hours to decide what to take with us and had to leave most of our belongings behind. It broke our hearts to leave family and friends that we loved without saying goodbye, but our health was at risk," said Chiaki Kasahara.

The nuclear industry and public officials minimized health risks, but the science is clear that exposure to radioactive contamination through the air, water or food leads to various illnesses that can take even decades to manifest." said Chiaki’s husband, Ivan Stout. "We worry about Chiaki’s mother, who stayed in Japan, and the many friends we left behind, especially the young children who may be impacted by radiation exposure. However, we understand the huge financial burden of moving out of a home no one is willing to buy. No one should be forced to decide between financial ruin and the health of their family."

The Comanche Peak and South Texas Project sites in Texas have two nuclear reactors each, but the counties in which they have operated for decades still have no paid full-time professional fire departments.

"What would happen if there were fires and explosions at the reactors here?" asked Susan Dancer, who lives eight miles from the South Texas Project reactors and is Director of the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy. "People were barely able to evacuate this area with several days notice of a recent hurricane, but there would be no advance notice for a nuclear disaster."

"The diesel generators didn’t hold in Japan and would probably fail here too. U.S. diesel generators aren’t tested for realistic disaster scenarios. They should started up quickly and run for two weeks or more to see if they could meet the demands of a real disaster, not simply tested for a matter of several hours."

"In the Comanche Peak, South Texas Project and other reactor cases, Information regarding nuclear reactor fire and explosion risks and the inadequate plans to address them is wrongfully being withheld from the public. Basic nuclear safety information is being labeled as classified, when in fact it is crucial information that the public not only has a right to know, but should know," said Robert V. Eye, attorney for intervenors opposing new reactors in Texas. "Congress should require that this most basic crucial safety information be made available to the public and not be kept hidden behind a veil of secrecy. The requirements put in place to protect against aircraft impacts and the Fukushima Task Force safety improvement recommendations have not been incorporated into new license applications. Issuing any new reactor license without doing so is irresponsible and likely to have consequences."

Texas events related to the anniversary of the Fukushima disaster include:

Austin – Saturday, March 10th at Noon, Prevent Fukushima Texas, to be held at the river (Lady Bird Lake) immediately across from the front of the Austin City Hall (301 W. 2nd St.) – just West of 1st Street. Speakers will include Chiaki Kasahara and Ivan Stout, who lived in Japan at the time of the nuclear disaster and had to leave their home, family and friends in order to protect their health and that of their young son. Sponsored by SEED Coalition and Nuke Free Texas. www.NukeFreeTexas.org

San Antonio – Candlelight Vigil, Saturday, March 10th at 6 pm, at the Federal Building at 727 E. Cesar Chavez Imagine a World Without Nuclear Disasters – www.EnergiaMia.org 210-667-5695

Dallas – March 11th at 3 pm at the Cancer Survivors’ Plaza, 635 N. Pearl. The Nuclear Free World Committee of the Dallas Peace Center will host an observation of the Fukushima Disaster Anniversary. www.DallasPeaceCenter.org

###

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.
REPORTS