Archive for the ‘South Texas Project’ Category

South Texas Project Reactors 1 & 2 are applying for relicensing,
which would extend their operating life by 20 years

Information for How to Intervene or Comment on licensing renewal of the two
existing South Texas Project reactors:

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/south-texas-project.html

For further information, contact Carmen Fells or Tam Tran at the Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Mail Stop O11-F1, Washington,
D.C. 20555;
telephone (301) 415-6337 for Carmen Fells and
telephone (301) 415-3617 for Tam Tran.

Deadline for comments on the scoping of the environmental report – April 1, 2011

The reactors came online in 1988 and 1989. A summary of
their troubled history is online at www.NukeFreeTexas.org 

Issues that could be raised include, but are not limited to: 

• Risks of an accident, fires, or explosions at one or more
  reactors at the site, risks that could increase with aging reactors 

• Safer, cleaner alternative ways to generate the same power exist today and
  should be used, 

• Vast consumption of water use, largely Colorado River water, which is
  increasingly needed for drinking water, livestock and farming

• The main cooling reservoir is leaking out the bottom. How and when will
  this be repaired? 

• Climate change – rising temperatures could affect whether
  there is enough cool water to cool the reactors.

• There is no adequate solution for radioactive waste,
  so it makes sense to stop generating more.

from TexasVox:

NRC ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The 22 year old South Texas Project (STP) Units 1 and 2 are up for renewal and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today that an application for a 20-year renewal of the operating licenses is available for public review.

The plant’s current operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 will expire on Aug. 20, 2027, and Dec. 15, 2028, respectively.  A 20 year license extension would have the two units in production well past their initial life expectancy, and the onsite spent fuel rod storage, well – that’s a whole other can of worms.

South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 are both pressurized-water nuclear reactors, located 12 miles southwest of Bay City, Texas .  When they were built, these plants were projected to have a 30 to 40 year life xpectancy and STP says it has enough underwater storage capacity on site to safely store spent fuel for the licensed life of the plant.  Since it is up for a 20 year renewal, let’s hope that that means they have enough spent fuel storage capacity for at least that long.  They haven’t been very forthcoming about what their hoped for expansion would mean for their spent fuel storage capacity, continuing to hold forth the promise of a long-term storage solution (Yucca Mountain being the most frequently touted option). But with the development of Yucca Mountain in limbo, and the NRC extending the period for onsite storage past the production life of a plant, it seems likely that an off site long term storage solution is unlikely anytime soon.

The licensee, STP Nuclear Operating Co., submitted the renewal application Oct. 26. The application is available on the NRC website at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal applications/south-texas-project.html. The NRC staff is currently conducting an initial review of the application to determine whether it contains enough information for the required formal review. If the application has sufficient information, the NRC will formally "docket", or file, the application and will announce an opportunity to request a public hearing.

For further information, contact Carmen Fells or Tam Tran at the Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Mail Stop O11-F1, Washington,
D.C. 20555;
telephone (301) 415-6337 for Carmen Fells and
telephone (301) 415-3617 for Tam Tran.

March 9, 2011

The QueQue
San Antonio Current

As city-owned CPS Energy re-enters talks with NRG Energy about possibly buying more deeply into the proposed nuclear power plant expansion they only recently largely extracted themselves from, local and Austin-based activists are fighting a sense of regret and déjà vu. "We wish CPS would have learned the lesson that it should have learned a year ago. I wish we didn’t have to go through this again," Cindy Weehler, of the anti-nuclear group Energía Mía, said at a Tuesday press conference in front of City Hall.

After getting clearance from the CPS Energy Board of Trustees last week, CEO Doyle Beneby is planning to entertain proposals that could once again throw CPS and NRG into deeper partnership, priming the city to either further invest in the group’s two proposed South Texas Project reactors or agree to a long-term power purchasing deal.

Just a year ago, CPS and NRG’s equal partnership in the proposed nukes imploded in a $32-billion lawsuit amid allegations of fraud and manipulation on the part of NRG. quot;The history is so messy, so why would this even be considered again?quot; Weehler asked.

Karen Hadden, director for Texas clean-energy group SEED Coalition, said she has approached city council members and found "no excitementquot; about Beneby’s move. quot;Our concern is these talks just came up so quickly. We’re worried that serious arm-twisting could occur to push this thing through,quot; Hadden said.

Constellation, officials working to keep CC3 project going

Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2010

By Meghan Russell,
Staff writer
Southern Maryland Newspapers Online

The nuclear ball is now in EDF’s court.

A letter from Constellation Energy to its UniStar Nuclear Energy partner went public on Friday as the company announced its proposal to sell its 50 percent investment of its nuclear venture in the hopes that Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant’s third reactor can move forward.

In the letter to Constellation’s partner, Electricite de France (EDF) SA, company vice Chairman Michael J. Wallace proposed transferring its 50 percent interest in UniStar, including the land where the third reactor is set to be built, for just $1. The company requested reimbursement of $117 million in generic development costs for the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR), just a fraction of the two companies’ joint investment of $817 million in the Calvert Cliffs 3 venture.

In addition, Constellation pledged its full support and cooperation in seeing through the transfer’s terms and assisting EDF however it can in bringing the reactor to Calvert.

"Having invested considerable time and resources into our partnership, we agree with you that there is significant market value in UniStar," Wallace’s letter states. "Our proposal provides a solution by which our companies can quickly resolve UniStar’s ownership structure, so that EDF can preserve and maximize UniStar’s value and advance the prospects of CC3 with confidence."

In the terms listed at the letter’s end, Wallace said that Constellation will continue to provide administrative services for a period of up to one year after the deal’s closing, when new terms will be discussed.

Furthermore, the option to sell $2 billion of fossil fuel energy to EDF — an issue that has raised concerns over their partnership’s future — is a separate issue altogether, Wallace continued, and Constellation will address it as such: "That commercial dispute should not be used to hold the prospect of CC3 hostage."

But even if EDF agreed to take the project under its wing, many skeptics, like the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, doubt the conditions are right for a "nuclear renaissance" and believe Calvert Cliffs 3 was doomed from the start.

"Calvert Cliffs’ demise was a result of several factors, the most important of which were: soaring construction cost estimates; increased and aggressive competition from other generation sources; falling electrical demand coupled with increased energy efficiency programs; serious reactor design deficiencies; and overreliance on government handouts," NIRS Executive Director Michael Marriotte said in a press release Thursday. "The Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Energy are responsible for none of these factors. In fact, their loan offer for Calvert Cliffs 3 was overly generous considering the overwhelming array of market forces and roadblocks facing this project."

Marriotte said the "simple reality" is that a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. will be impossible if new reactors remain too expensive to build and natural gas remains "dirt cheap" while renewable energy costs continue to decline and consumer demand remains on a downward spiral. The same forces acting against Calvert Cliffs will most likely cause the remaining nuclear reactor loan guarantees to fall through for the South Texas Project and Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station reactor project in South Carolina as well.

Peter Bradford, a commissioner with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the former chairman of the New York State Public Service Commission, added, "The four pillars of the nuclear revival — underestimated costs, ignored risks, political ballyhoo and prodigious but inadequate subsidies — now make clear that we are dealing not with a renaissance but with a bubble. The main remaining question is just how much taxpayer money will go into keeping it inflated."

Constellation addressed the unfavorable conditions in its letter to EDF but also acknowledged a herd of Calvert Cliffs 3 supporters, hoping they might continue to fight for the project.

"We have had the firm support of the Maryland Congressional delegation, the Governor, our allies in labor and the public officials and the people of Calvert County," Wallace wrote. "House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md., 5th), in particular, has been a stalwart supporter of the project and has done and will continue to do all he can to improve conditions for the renaissance of new nuclear. And for this we are very grateful."

Hoyer said he is also optimistic about the third reactor. He, along with Gov. Martin O’Malley and Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), sent a letter to Mayo A. Shattuck III, president and CEO of Constellation, and Henri Proglio, chairman and CEO of EDF, on Friday.

The letter urged the two companies to engage in active negations immediately regarding Calvert Cliffs 3.

"The [third reactor] is extremely important to the State of Maryland, and especially the Fifth District, for its promise to create jobs and invest in the next generation of nuclear energy," Hoyer said in a press release.

Cardin, who also sees merit in the new nuclear future, said, "The quality jobs and economic opportunities for communities in Maryland are undeniable, but the benefits that next-generation nuclear facilities like this will bring to our nation are even greater. Nuclear energy is an essential component of a new, clean-energy economy and an energy-independent United States. Projects like [Calvert Cliffs 3] will strengthen our national security, economic security and our environment."

Former Republican governor and gubernatorial candidate Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. has touted the project during campaign stops in Southern Maryland and has used its deterioration as further fuel in his run against O’Malley.

Ehrlich met last Thursday with several local business owners, mostly from the Lusby and Solomons area, who had been anticipating the arrival of 4,000 new workers and made plans to either expand or hire new employees. Now, along with Unit 3, those plans are on hold.

"Just last week, Martin O’Malley had the ear of the President of the United States – an extraordinary opportunity to make a personal appeal in support of this project," Ehrlich said in a statement released last Friday. "Instead, he put his reelection campaign ahead of the interests of everyday Marylanders who would benefit from the thousands of new jobs associated with this project."

Del. Anthony J. O’Donnell (R-Calvert, St. Mary’s), congressional candidate Charles Lollar and Calvert County Commissioner Jerry Clark (R) joined Ehrlich at the roundtable discussion in Solomons.

"We’re in desperate need of new revenues," O’Donnell said Monday night following a candidate forum in Leonardtown. "The business community is afraid they’ll need to pick up the slack through their taxes."

O’Donnell placed the blame of the project’s downfall on O’Malley, saying the governor’s attempts to extract rate relief from Constellation while the Maryland Public Service Commission reviewed the company’s merger with EDF delayed the project eight months. "We shouldn’t be here," O’Donnell said. "My assessment is this patient is on life support, but there’s a faint pulse."

mrussell(at)somdnews.com

October 20, 2010

Media Release

Oral Argument Oct. 21 In Bay City, Texas

Download this press release in pdf format for printing

Bay City, Texas Opponents of two proposed South Texas Project nuclear reactors will present their case at an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel on Oct. 21st in Bay City, Texas. The hearing will begin at 9 a.m. in the Bay City Civic Center, 201 7th St. in Bay City.

Attorney Bob Eye will represent SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy. Among the concerns that will be raised in the South Texas Project Combined License (COL) proceeding is the co-location issue -would other reactors at the site be able to operate safely if a fire or a serious accident damaged one or more reactors? Another issue at the hearing will be the failure of the license applicant, NRG, to analyze cleaner, cheaper and safer energy alternatives.

New contentions have been filed based on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed reactors. Twenty new contentions focus on the inadequate analysis of the need for power (14 subparts), alternatives to nuclear power to meet the stated purpose and need, and the effects of global warming on plant water use and water availability.

"Nuclear power is the most expensive way to generate electricity. Costs for proposed South Texas Project nuclear reactors have already tripled. The $18.2 billion estimate doesn’t include cost overruns from delay and construction problems, costs of radioactive waste disposal or decommissioning reactors. Nuclear reactors simply don’t make sense financially," said Karen Hadden, Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. "In fact, Constellation Energy just withdrew their license application for a Maryland nuclear reactor due to high costs."

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) 2009 State of the Market report says "Estimated net revenues for nuclear and coal resources were also insufficient to support new entry in 2009."

The Associated Press recently reported, "Even companies that are finalists for federal loan guarantees, NRG Energy and Constellation Energy, announced recently that they have nearly stopped spending on their projects… Analysts say low natural gas prices are making the project uneconomic. NRG chief executive David Crane said he will not pursue the company’s two-reactor project in South Texas if gas prices stay low, even if his project is offered a loan guarantee."

"Austin decided not to participate in the reactor project due to expected delay and cost overruns. San Antonio’s CPS Energy got a good look at the return on investment and pulled way back. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board needs to realize that there are safer, more affordable ways to supply our power," said David Power, an expert in the case.

"Today Texas has excess energy capacity and leads the nation in wind generation. Solar costs are plummeting and cheap gas can be used to back up renewable solar and wind power. The proposed reactors are a hazard to our health, safety and our pocketbooks," said Power.

The ASLB is the independent body within the NRC that presides over proceedings involving the licensing of civilian nuclear facilities, such as nuclear power plants.

The session is open for public observation, but participation will be limited to the parties admitted to the proceeding, the public interest groups, the applicant – STP Nuclear Operating Company – and NRC staff. Early arrival is suggested to allow for security screening for all members of the public interested in attending.

STP Nuclear Operating Company submitted a COL 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 granted intervenor status and an opportunity for a hearing to the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development SEED Coalition, the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy, and Public Citizen.

The groups have submitted objections, or contentions, challenging the COL application. The ASLB panel will hear oral argument on several matters: two motions to dismiss the groups’ admitted contention; the groups’ request to file additional contentions based on the NRC staff’s draft Environmental Impact Statement; and the groups’ request for access to a draft NRC document regarding new reactor reviews.

February 6, 2008
FuelFix

When the South Texas Project (the nuclear plant near Bay City) was being built in the 1970s and 1980s one of its most persistent opponents was San Antonio lawyer Lanny Sinkin.

As the voice for groups like Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Inc. and South Texas Cancellation Campaign he badgered regulators and the plant owners at every chance, getting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow arguments in its formal hearings on the competence of the owner, HL&P, and its contractors, Bechtel and Ebasco.

Tom "Smitty" Smith, the current head of the Texas office of Public Citizen, says Sinkin played a big part in getting reports on the poor quality of construction at the plant to see the light of day. That led to a number of improvements at the plant.

Sinkin’s would put it another way. They accused him of unleashing "a blizzard of paper" in a mischievous and groundless attempt to thwart the project.

"He is just in the wrong forum with the wrong material and the wrong information," said Maurice Axelrad of Washington, D.C. in a May 1985 Chronicle article.

Sinkin now lives in Hawaii but he was back in Texas this week to help activists fire up their campaign against the planned expansion at the plant. He attended the public hearings in Bay City on Tuesday, sitting in a corner of the room typing away on a laptop.

Sinkin said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s application process has changed significantly from the 1970s and 1980s. The process allowing the public to intervene in the process is much more difficult he said, with a shorter time window for groups to sign up as interested parties (Feb. 25) and greater specificity required in their complaints.

"There’s no way I could do today what we did back then," Sinkin said Tuesday.

He heads back to Hawaii soon but, likely to the chagrin of the plant operators, will be back later this year.

Our colleagues at the San Antonio Express-News (a fellow Hearst newspaper) also covered the event.