Archive for the ‘Nukes’ Category

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!”

Climate Progress
January 5, 2009

A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour – triple current U.S. electricity rates! This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today – and ten times the cost of energy efficiency. Read More…

Download the study:

• Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power
  by Craig A. Severance, January 2, 2009

Download factsheets excerpted from this report:

• Impacts to Ratepayers
• History of Cost Overruns
• Effect of Economic Downturn
• Construction Schedules May Be Delayed
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• Texas environment and consumers’ groups point to new study saying Nuclear Power would deepen Economic Crisis Press Release 1/16/09

SA’s power plants skirt pressure test as federal regulators exempt industry from terrorism studies

By Greg Harman
San Antonio Current
November 19, 2008

The day before Hurricane Ike roared into Galveston Island and pressed deep into the Houston Ship Channel, a surge in internet search traffic googling "STNP" washed into my humble enviro blog. "So," a smaller, less-charitable part of myself exhaled as I charted the numbers, "now they’re worried."

Employees at South Texas Nuclear Project, a 2,700-megawatt complex of twin Westinghouse reactors located 10 miles from the impetuous Gulf, were getting ready to take the plant that supplies roughly 33 percent of San Antonio’s power offline while dispatching comforting press releases to the media. Outside the plant’s perimeter, netizens were eyeballing approximate storm-surge threats thanks to a University of Arizona computer model I had embedded at harman on earth.

A press release from the recently renamed South Texas Project, a partnership of the City of San Antonio and NRG Energy, preened over the hardiness of the reactor’s bunkers, the "steel-reinforced concrete walls, four to seven feet thick, that are built to withstand Category 5 hurricanes," guarding the reactors and spent radioactive fuel stored onsite.

The actual risk to the region’s residents dodged like an apparition between the industry’s assurances, red-lining computer models, and the eye of Ike itself, a growing Cat 4 now recognized as the largest Gulf hurricane ever recorded.

It would have been the perfect time for one of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s focus groups to break out the folding tables and plant a circle of chairs in the sand. After all, if you want to honestly gauge public attitudes about nuclear power, meltdowns, and evacuation knowledge, as the NRC busily set about doing in 2007, the place for unvarnished truths would have been under the eye of Ike.

NRC’s survey of those living inside the 10-mile evacuation zones of nuclear power plants was released last week. Most participants "were generally well informed about what to do in a nuclear power plant emergency" and "agreed they would evacuate, shelter-in-place or monitor for more information" in a radiological "event."

The findings will no doubt be used to provide additional support for the reviving industry. However, as coastal Texans know, the best intentions often fall by the drainage canal when the evacuation sirens blow.

Stealing heavily from the NRC’s survey framework, I reimagine a "live" survey proceeding slightly differently.

Sound of sand compressing under the weight of shifting chairs. Rising winds steadily rustling the Moderator’s papers.

Moderator: Hi. My name is < NAME >. Would you like to play a game?

Focus Group (FG): (Collective pause. Bead of sweat falls.)

Moderator: Great! I am going to walk you through a made-up story about what might happen if a nuclear-plant emergency took place.

FG A: Do I need my glasses? (Glasses, unfolded, fly from hands.)

Moderator: It’s 12:30 in the afternoon. You are getting ready to have lunch. You hear warning sirens at the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant. The sirens are not normally tested during the day. How do you rate your degree of concern, if any?

FG B: What am I having for lunch?

Moderator: Great! An Emergency Alert System message is broadcast. You hear the Texas Bureau of Emergency Management has declared a GENERAL EMERGENCY at South Texas Nuclear Power Plant …

FG A: Did you go to Bay City Middle School, sweetheart?

FG B: I don’t listen to the radio.

Moderator: Great! All residents north and west of South Texas Nuclear Power Plant are ordered to evacuate. Those to the east are asked to shelter in place. Do you have, A) General knowledge about seeking shelter? B) Little knowledge of shelter? C) Gnawing concerns of unspecific origin?

FG C: Is this going to be on TV? I mean, should I fix my hair?

FG A: Will it be a long drive, dear?

Moderator: Do you know how to shelter in place?

FG B: (Crawls under foldout table, tucking head between knees. Table blows away.)

FG C: That’s for an atomic attack. We’re not being "attacked," are we?

FG A: (Pulling roll from purse) Duct tape?

Moderator: Your potassium-iodide pills aren’t where you remember leaving them. The dogs want to come inside. There is a pizza-delivery car abandoned in your driveway.

FG B: Just like in Left Behind!

FG C: Was that pre-rapture or post?

FG A: (Working sand from ear) Would I like some toast?

Moderator: Great! On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I’d like to thank you for participating in our survey of community attitudes and behaviors. The resurgence in interest in new nuclear power plants has only been made possible by the sustained safe and reliable performance of the current fleet of operating reactors. The nuclear industry is now, and may always remain, just one accident away from retrenchment.*

(Alarm sounds. FG A, FG B, and FG C run in three diverging directions as moderator unfolds umbrella and spins off into vortex.)

If there’s a point to the preceding 428 words of fictionalized NRC smear it would be to suggest that public attitudes about nuclear power, having risen from 28-percent favorable to 35-percent favorable during the Bush years, according to MIT, are today the least of the nuclear industry’s worries.

After all, millions of gallons of tritium-contaminated groundwater leaking from a trio of Exelon nuke plants in Illinois and a leaking reactor vessel at the Davis Bessie plant in 2005 didn’t exactly gain traction in the popular press or incite the masses to action.

The industry’s real challenge will be getting the subsidies they need from Congress to move forward. However, Congress is already over-committed by trillions in bailouts already flowing to banks and lenders and (possibly) Big Auto in the hopes containing the current economic recession.

While President-elect Obama cannot be called anti-nuclear, per se, he has committed himself to stopping Yucca Mountain, Nevada’s high-level radioactive waste dump in the making, from opening – a step that will only increase the cost of nuclear power by forcing the utilities to continue to stockpile their highly toxic wastes onsite. And he’s not expected to lean on Congress for nuke subsidies the way McCain had committed to do.

In an effort to avoid a perfect storm capable of wiping the industry’s ambitions from the face of U.S. energy policy, and help salvage nearly two-dozen pending reactor applications, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been busy these past weeks.

Last Monday, NRC Commissioner Kristine Svinicki gave a pep talk to nuclear-industry reps in Reno, stressing the agency’s vigilance.

Two days later, NRC officials exempted STP from key provisions of its 10-year testing of the structural integrity of its containment vessels. STP officials complained the test would expose workers to too much radiation. NRG and the City of San Antonio, which last year filed the first new construction and operating licenses for new nuclear power plants in 29 years, are working to expand STP by two more plants.

Meanwhile, Exelon escalated its buyout offer to NRG Energy into a full-scale hostile takeover bid. NRG’s President David Crane chided Exelon CEO John Rowe, whose company has applied to build a pair of nukes near Victoria, in an open letter dated November 9:

Exelon … continues to pour development resources into an unproven design, not yet certified by the NRC, never before built and involving substantial first-of-a-kind engineering. As such, we are concerned that you are on a path to repeat the nuclear construction experience of the 1970-80s by taking nuclear completion risk "on balance sheet;&quot and that is a risk which, no matter how much you intend to grow your balance sheet, concerns us (on behalf of our shareholders) immensely.

And so, utility titans battle over the bottom line as the $18 billion in federal nuke subsidies look increasingly unlikely to stretch to the $122 billion the pending applications would require from the Fed, according to industry observers.

With spent fuel rods piling up at the nation’s plants – high-level radioactive waste that requires tens of thousands of years to degrade back into non-lethal matter – a small group of objectors suggested recently that a series of terror-attack scenarios should be considered. While a federal judge concurred, NRC’s Commissioners, in the midst of all their other activities last week, refused.

In a resounding pro-industry, three-to-one ruling Thursday, the NRC again made the economically challenging course as smooth as possible for new plants.

Terror be damned.

* NRC Commissioner Kristine Svinicki, November 10, 2008

Fair Use Notice.