Archive for the ‘Nukes’ Category

April 7^th – Licensing Board to Hear Oral Arguments on STP Application in Bay City, TX

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel will hear oral argument in the South Texas Project Combined License (COL) proceedings beginning at 9 a.m. CDT on Wednesday, April 7, in Room 100 of the Main Hall in the Bay City Civic Center, 201 7th St. in Bay City.

The ASLB is the independent body within the NRC that presides over hearings where the public can challenge proposed licensing and enforcement actions. The session is open for public observation, but participation will be limited to the parties admitted to the proceeding.  These include:

• the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy, Public Citizen  –  who have submitted several objections, or contentions, against the STPNOC application,
• the applicant – South Texas Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) – and
• NRC staff.

Early arrival is suggested to allow for security screening for all members of the public interested in attending. NRC policy prohibits signs, banners, posters or displays in the hearing room.

STP submitted an application Sept. 20, 2007, seeking permission to construct and operate two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project site near Bay City.  The ASLB panel will hear oral argument on several points: motions to dismiss several of the groups’ contentions; amended versions of some contentions; and the groups’ attempt to file additional contentions.

For access to documents:

• South Texas Project COL application are available on the NRC Web site at:
  www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/south-texas-project.html.
• ASLB proceeding documents are available in the agency’s electronic document library at:
  www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html.

April 15^th – Licensing Board to Hear Oral Arguments on Comanche Peak Application in Granbury TX.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel will hear oral argument in the South Texas Project Combined License (COL) proceedings beginning at 9 a.m. CDT on Thursday, April 15, in the Jury Selection Room of the Hood County Justice Center, 1200 W Pearl St. in Granbury. The session may extend into the evening if necessary

The ASLB is the independent body within the NRC that presides over hearings where the public can challenge proposed licensing and enforcement actions. The session is open for public observation, but participation will be limited to the parties admitted to the proceeding.  These include:

• the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, Public Citizen, True Cost of Nukes, and State Representative Lon Burnam –  who have submitted several objections, or contentions, against Luminant’s application,
• the applicant – Luminant – and
• NRC staff.

Early arrival is suggested to allow for security screening for all members of the public interested in attending. NRC policy prohibits signs, banners, posters or displays in the hearing room.

Luminant submitted a COL application Sept. 19, 2008, seeking permission to construct and operate two new nuclear reactors at the Comanche Peak site near Glen Rose, Texas.  The ASLB panel will hear oral argument on several points: motions to dismiss several of the groups’ contentions; amended versions of some contentions; and the groups’ attempt to file additional contentions.

For access to documents:

• Comanche Peak COL application are available on the NRC Web site
  at: www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/comanche-peak.html.
• ASLB proceeding documents are available in the agency’s electronic document library at:
  www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html.
• More information about the ASLB can be found at:
  www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html.

April 15^th – NRC Public Meeting regarding Exelon’s Early Site Permit Application.

Exelon has looked at building a plant in this area of Texas since 2007. It filed an early site permit application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 25, 2010.  If approved by the NRC this would give Exelon three to 20 years to decide whether to build a plant in Victoria County. It can be extended for another 20 years, giving the company up to 40 years to begin construction from the time that the NRC approves the permit.

Once the early site permit application is submitted, it undergoes a three- to four-year review process by the NRC in which it will evaluate the project’s environmental impact and safety preparedness.

The NRC will hold a public meeting in the Mini Dome of the Victoria Community Center, 2905 E North St. in Victoria, from 7 to 9:30 p.m.  The meeting will consist of NRC staff presentations describing the overall ESP review process, which includes safety and environmental assessments, as well as how the public can participate in the process. The NRC will host an open house for an hour prior to the meeting so members of the public have the opportunity to talk informally with agency staff.

Water use figures prominently into the concerns of many. The Guadalupe River is the designated water source for the possible power plant, and Exelon has a water reservation agreement with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) that expires in 2013.

In the agreement with the GBRA, Exelon reserved 75,000 acre-feet of water every year. The plant’s water use supercedes that of other water users, including the city of Victoria and farmers in the region.  Given other Texas river authorities’ concerns about adequate water availability coming of a 2 year drought, this should be a serious concern for the region.

More information on the NRC’s new reactor licensing process is available on the agency’s Web site at:  www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors.html

We strongly urge the public to attend this meeting.

March, 2010

Ron Pernick
CleanEdge.com

In early February, President Obama did something that his predecessor George W. Bush was unable to do: he pushed the restart button on the U.S. nuclear power industry. Obama announced the first loan guarantee to the nuclear industry in nearly three decades – a conditional guarantee of $8.2 billion for two proposed nuclear power plants in Georgia. In this single move, he may have jump-started the nuclear power industry in the U.S.

Or not.

The loans come with some strings attached – and Southern Company, the company behind the Georgia plants, may not accept those terms. Loans aside, the U.S. nuclear industry has a long history of cost overruns, production delays, and the inability to solve its most vexing problem: the issue of nuclear waste and containment. Until these issues are resolved, all the government money in the world may not be able to overcome public opposition and financial common sense.

So the question I’d like to ask the president is: why nuclear – and why now? If it’s a question of reducing carbon emissions, creating jobs, and ensuring U.S. energy and economic security, there are far better options. The DOE has reported on how the U.S. could get 20 percent of its electricity from the wind by 2030. Clean Edge, along with Green America, has outlined a pathway for America to get 10 percent of its electricity from solar by 2025. And a number of studies have shown that renewables and energy efficiency are far more effective at reducing carbon emissions than nuclear power.

Indeed, if you pair solar and wind up with other baseload-power-providing renewables such as geothermal and biomass; efficiency measures (green buildings, retrofits, and the like); limited natural gas in high-growth areas; and a smart grid –– then there’s no need to expand nuclear or coal. Just last month, for example, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council unveiled its 6th Power Plan for the Pacific Northwest. This well-respected and influential group, which shapes the power direction of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, outlined how the entire region could meet its increased energy demand primarily through conservation and efficiency measures.

The current proposed crop of nuclear power just doesn’t make financial sense, either. That’s why Wall Street has taken a big pass on nuclear power for more than three decades. Without the government insuring nuclear power plants (no private insurer will touch them) –– and the feds backing them with taxpayer guarantees –– they just wouldn’t get built. Sure, solar and wind require subsidies as well – but not wholly-run government insurance and financing programs.

Obama’s 2011 budget, for example, increases the Department of Energy loan guarantee authority for nuclear projects by $36 billion, to a total of $54.5 billion. Renewables’ potential share pales in comparison. The budget provides around one tenth of that amount for solar, wind, and other renewables – with just $3 to $5 billion of loan guarantees for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. To the budget’s credit, it also includes a 30 percent tax credit for qualified investments in new, expanded, or re-equipped advanced energy manufacturing projects, allocating $5 billion to provide this tax credit to energy manufacturing projects. But if all of the nuclear money is allocated, admittedly a big if, it would leave solar, wind, and energy efficiency far behind.

Nuclear power now costs around $6-$8 billion per installed gigawatt to construct — and 3-7 years to complete a power plant. Wind power, on the other hand, can be deployed far more rapidly (usually in a year or so) for far less money (around $1.5-$2 billion per gigawatt installed). And even solar is now getting competitive, with prices dropping nearly 50 percent in 2009 and with some systems being installed in the $3 billion per gigawatt price range.

Add in vexing nuclear containment and security issues (nuclear energy technology is basically a precursor to nuclear bombs), uranium mining pollution, and the fact that after decades of operation the nuclear power industry has still not figured out what to do with its radioactive waste –– it makes one wonder why the U.S. would want to reenter this game.

In a recent Facebook post, Energy Secretary Steven Chu makes the case that we need more nuclear power because solar and wind, as variable resources, can only provide up to 20-30 percent of our electricity supply without major advances in energy storage. But with all due respect to Dr. Chu, even if solar and wind tap out at 30 percent without advances in storage – that’s still a significant number (equal to more than what we currently get from nuclear power). And if we are going to spend tens of billions of dollars on nuclear power simply because of its baseload qualities – why not take that money and invest it in the next generation of energy storage (large scale and distributed) and smart grid deployment instead? I’d happily place a bet on which investment would make the U.S. more secure and competitive.

Looking at all the evidence above, it’s pretty clear that there’s nothing clean about the current crop of nuclear technology. So, let’s not muddy the waters. Until we see a new generation of nuclear power –– one that is modular, scalable, and finally addresses radioactive waste and containment issues –– let’s be honest about its considerable shortcomings. I understand that nuclear power will continue to play a role in the U.S. for some time to come – we live in a diverse energy world – but trying to revive nuclear power under the banner of "clean" is simple and utter madness.

———

Ron Pernick is cofounder and managing director of Clean Edge, Inc. and coauthor of The Clean Tech Revolution.

March 5, 2010

Karen Hadden, Guest
Corpus Christi Caller-Times

CORPUS CHRISTI – Heavily subsidized by taxpayers and ratepayers, nuclear power is susceptible to delay, cost overruns and significant environmental risks. Investing billions into more nuclear power threatens to derail funding that would be better spent on energy efficiency and safer, cleaner renewable energy.

Moody’s advises investors that nuclear projects frequently lead to financial crunch and credit rating drops. The two South Texas Project reactors proposed for the existing Bay City site were supposed to lead the so-called "nuclear renaissance," but there has been strong citizen and legal opposition and the cost has already skyrocketed. Estimates now exceed $18 billion, three times original projections. No shovel has yet been turned and no license granted.

Maybe you remember the massive boondoggle when the South Texas nuclear reactors ran six times over budget, were eight years late coming online, and were plagued with mismanagement, construction problems and lawsuits. Think déjà vu.

South Texas Project partners NRG and San Antonio municipal utility CPS Energy have not seen eye to eye. For more than a year a buyer was sought for a portion of the increasingly expensive reactor project, but none surfaced.

When CPS hid a $4 billion cost increase from the public for half a year, the backlash led the company to court to clarify terms for pulling out of the project. A settlement agreement now halts further CPS nuclear investment and shrinks its original 50-50 reactor share by 85 percent. The lesson: Nuclear reactors are simply too risky and too costly.

The good news is that effective and affordable energy solutions are already in place, growing and improving. Wind is a huge success story for Texas. We now lead the nation in wind power. Last October, a record was hit when wind accounted for 25 percent of the state’s electric generation.

Texas is perfectly positioned to demonstrate similar leadership on the solar front. Solar technology is advancing and costs are plummeting. Stimulus funding will help. We have a huge opportunity to develop new clean energy industries and create local jobs – if we do things right.

For example, West Texas wind that comes in at night can be perfectly paired with solar energy generated during the day. Natural gas and energy storage can bridge the gaps between them. Preapproved transmission is helping new wind and solar projects move forward. Geothermal power systems can help heat and cool homes. And "smart grid" technology will lessen the need for clunky baseload plants – the outdated cement trucks of the energy world. It’s time for zippy and flexible energy vehicles that can ramp up or down quickly to meet changing demand.

Energy efficiency is reducing electric demand. New homes and businesses are being built to use less energy and save on electricity bills. New legislation has allowed for better financing of energy upgrades. Those who wisely make improvements will be free of ongoing debt should they decide to sell their home.

In the end, who will want expensive nuclear power when more affordable options are available? Industrial customers want short-term, flexible energy contracts, not long-term burdens.

Texas ratepayers are at huge financial risk if NRG continues down the nuclear path. Luminant also seeks to build two more reactors. Their reactor design for Comanche Peak has never been built anywhere in the world. It’s time to drop expensive and risky nuclear power. We should pursue affordable energy efficiency first and then tap the free power of Texas’ sun and wind.

Karen Hadden is the executive director of the Texas based Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. She can be reached at (512) 797-8481. Copyright (C) 2010 by the Texas Lone Star Forum, Austin.

February 24, 2010

By MATTHEW L. WALD
New York Times

MONTPELIER, Vt. – In an unusual state foray into nuclear regulation, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 Wednesday to block a license extension for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, citing radioactive leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials and other problems.

Unless the chamber reverses itself, it would be the first time in more than 20 years that the public or its representatives decided to close a reactor.

The vote came barely over a week after President Obama declared a new era of rebirth for the nation’s nuclear industry, announcing federal loan guarantees of $8.3 billion to assure the construction of a twin-reactor plant near Augusta, Ga.

Vermont Yankee’s recent troubles are viewed by some as a challenge to arguments that reactors are clean, well run and worth the enormous investment involved in building and operating them.

In a small, ornate chamber packed with plant opponents, the state lawmakers voiced frustration over recent leaks of radioactive tritium at the 38-year-old plant as well as the collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and inaccurate testimony by the plant’s owner, the Louisiana-based nuclear operator Entergy. Plant officials had testified under oath that there were no underground pipes at Vermont Yankee that could leak tritium, although there were.

Experts tracking the leaks have found no evidence that the substance has entered the drinking supply or harmed a human being.

Lawmakers at Wednesday’s session also voiced doubts that Entergy would have enough money to decommission the plant in view of the costly tritium leak and other troubles.

"They’ve been their own worst enemy," said Robert Starr, a Democrat from the town of North Troy, although he proposed sending the bill for study to another committee. That vote failed 24 to 6.

In the decisive vote, senators defeated a resolution that would have authorized the state to issue a certificate of "public good," which would be necessary to keep Vermont Yankee operating.

Under Vermont law, any extension of the plant’s license beyond 2012 would have to be approved by both houses. So unless the Senate reverses itself and the House also approves an extension, the plant would have to close by March of that year.

The controversy in Vermont is viewed with deep apprehension and some anger by the nuclear industry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, which normally calls the shots on plant safety issues, has been poised to give the plant another 20 years. Commission officials have declined to comment on Vermont’s action. The last time a reactor in the United States was closed by a vote of the public or its representatives was in June 1989, when the voters of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District decided to shut the Rancho Seco reactor. The issues in that case were mostly economic; the plant kept breaking down, forcing the district to buy electricity from neighbors, and had been shut from December, 1985 to early 1988 for repairs.

Popular referendums to close reactors have been brought in several states but always failed. But several old reactors – including Maine Yankee, in Wiscasset, Me., Connecticut Yankee, in Haddam Neck, and Yankee Rowe, in Rowe, Mass., were closed by their owners because they had expensive safety problems and were not very profitable. The Yankee plants were of different designs but were owned by overlapping partnerships of New England utilities.

Commissioned in August 1966, and given its operating license in March 1972, Vermont Yankee is one of the older plants in the American inventory of 104 power reactors. The oldest still running is Oyster Creek, near Toms River, N.J., which is of a very similar design and opened in December, 1969.

It recently won a 20-year extension of its initial 40-year license although, to the indignation of its opponents, plant owners announced a few days after the renewal that it also was leaking tritium.

Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is supposed to have sole authority to regulate safety issues under a 56-year-old federal law that was intended to encourage the growth of civilian use of nuclear power, Entergy gave the state of Vermont a opening in 2004 when it bought the plant from a group of local utilities.

It agreed in a memorandum of understanding that the state’s "certificate of public good," a state-issued permit that all power plants must have, would expire with the original 40-year license and that another certificate would be required.

Then the plant went through a series of problems, including the collapse of the cooling tower in August 2007. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the three-story wooden tower, one of several, was not required for the safe shutdown of the plant and that its collapse was not a safety failure, but the distinction did little to buff the plant’s image.

In a move that has also deepened unease, Entergy has been trying to spin off the reactor and five others, including the Indian Point reactors in New York, into a new company that would borrow money to pay back Entergy and sell stock on Wall Street. Many opponents in Vermont worry that this would allow Entergy, based in New Orleans, to avoid legal liability for any problems at the plants and that a spinoff could be detrimental to the state.

"It’s a dump job," said Nancy Braus of Putney, a plant opponent who watched the Senate action from a corner of the chamber. She pointed out that the estimates of the cost of decommissioning the plant run over $1 billion, roughly the amount of the entire annual state budget, and that Entergy has only about $450 million on hand.

The tritium leak is an especially sore point. While there is no evidence that it has entered the drinking water or given any human being a dose of radiation, legislators were dismayed that plant officials had testified that there were no underground pipes at Vermont Yankee that the substance could escape from.

Before Senate debate began Wednesday morning, Entergy said it had instructed a law firm to examine the misstatements under oath and had concluded that officials had not intended to deceive the state. It said that communications had "led to misunderstandings" and had been taken out of context. The result, the company said, was that "the responses were incomplete and misleading."

Curt Hebert, a spokesman for the company, said Entergy had put five senior employees on administrative leave and that "all the discipline taken had financial consequences for the employees involved."

Mr. Hebert acknowledged in an interview that the leaks, the cooling tower collapse and other problems had been "almost a perfect storm" for the plant.

Adding to the uncertainty, all the members of Vermont’s Senate and House face re-election in the fall, and there will be a new governor next year as well.

Some plant supporters have raised the possibility of a lawsuit should the two houses decline to extend Vermont Yankee’s operating license next year.

But Christopher M. Kilian, director of the Vermont office of the Conservation Law Foundation, said that because of the structure of the law, requiring affirmative action of both houses for the plant to stay open, a suit would face difficult hurdles.

"There will not be an act of the legislature for anyone to challenge," he said.

For Immediate Release:
Feb. 22, 2010

Contact:
Eliza Brown (512) 637-9482
Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741

Agency Is Refusing to Adhere to an Order to Release Document That Would Help Determine Safety of New Nuclear Reactors

Download this release in pdf format for printing.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should stop balking and provide a critical document that would reveal how the owners of a Texas nuclear plant expansion project plan to deal with a fire or explosion, three public interest groups told the commission late last week.

Three administrative judges of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board have ordered the agency to provide at least a redacted version, but NRC staffers have refused. The NRC’s lack of transparency could impact the ability to get adequate safety-related information not only about the South Texas Project (STP) but about other proposed reactors around the country as well.

Late Friday, the groups – the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Public Citizen and the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy – filed a brief with the NRC. It noted that the NRC staff’s refusal to provide the information violated President Barack Obama’s new transparency policy. The groups also said the NRC is acting arbitrarily and trying to shut the public out of NRC proceedings.

"After the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress required new fire and safety standards for all new plants and the NRC developed rules to reflect this. Now, the NRC is trying to do its work behind closed doors, and its staffers are literally making up how to handle information as they go along, keeping as much secret as possible," said Karen Hadden, executive director of the SEED Coalition. "Without disclosure of this information, we can’t tell how well the NRC is doing in protecting the public."

Friday’s filing was the latest in a regulatory battle that began in April 2009 when the three groups intervened in the licensing of two new reactors at the STP in Matagorda County in southeast Texas. The groups contend that the application for a license is inadequate.

The NRC has a new rule that requires licensees to develop and implement guidance and strategies to protect nuclear plants from explosions or fires, including those that would result from the crash of a large commercial airliner. By signing non-disclosure affidavits, the groups gained access to STP’s plan to comply with this rule and nuclear industry guidance on how to adhere to it.

On Aug. 14, the groups filed new "contentions" that STP was not adhering to the new fire safety rule.

Then, in October, the NRC posted on its Web site the existence of a draft document, referred to as ISG-016, which provides guidance to nuclear plant operators as to how to comply with the new fire safety rule. The NRC maintains that it is not a public document because it contains security-related information. The agency has created a new classification of document, called "sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information," or SUNSI, and said that records in this classification, including ISG-016, are exempt from disclosure.

In November, the three public interest groups asked for the document but were turned down.

They appealed to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which on Jan. 29 ordered the NRC staff to provide at least a redacted version of the document. In the order, three administrative judges chastised NRC staff for imposing unwarranted burdens on the groups and for misapplying procedures. Further, they noted that requirements to access the document should not be more stringent than the Freedom of Information Act and told the staff to go through the document, paragraph by paragraph, to identify the sensitive, non-public information, and provide the rest of the information to the groups.

The NRC appealed the order, which prompted Friday’s filing.

"It is crucial for the public to be able to participate in the licensing of new nuclear reactors that may be in its backyard," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. "We cannot meaningfully participate in the licensing of the STP reactors if we can’t get adequate safety information, and that includes whether these new reactors will be able to withstand a commercial jet crashing into them."

Hadden noted that "the ability of the public to participate in licensing proceedings is particularly critical as the Obama administration is in the process of granting loan guarantees for new nuclear plants – the first to be built in the U.S. in decades."

Last week, the administration announced an $8.3 billion loan guarantee for Southern Company to build two new reactors at its Vogtle plant in Georgia, and the administration has asked Congress to expand the program from $18.5 billion to $54 billion. The owners of the planned STP reactors – which include NRG Energy, Toshiba, CPS Energy – are seeking federal loan guarantees as well.

"The NRC wants to barrel along and license these plants with blinders on and without any involvement by the public," Hadden said. "Well, the public has a right to be involved. People need to know what is being built in their communities and how safe it will be."

A copy of the groups’ filing is available at
nukefreetexas.org/downloads/intervenors_response_opposition_brief_ lbp_10_02.pdf.

The Atomic Safety and License Board order is at
nukefreetexas.org/downloads/nrc_public_order_012910.pdf.