Archive for the ‘South Texas Project’ Category

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.

May 2, 2013

By Editors
Real Clear Energy

Is coal dead? Well maybe not entirely. Coal’s share of the electric grid has declined to 43 percent but companies are finding they can sell their surpluses abroad. Europe is moving back to coal after being stretched to the limit by Gazprom on natural gas prices. Illinois reports a record year for exports and Oklahoma is talking about a coal comeback. The railroads are gaining on new shipments. But Patriot Coal, one of the largest domestic producers, is caught in a vice with its unions and facing bankruptcy.

Nuclear continues to thrive abroad and wither at home. Mitsubishi and Areva have won a joint bid to develop a reactor in Turkey. Russia has announced it will invest $31 billion in developing its nuclear technology. But Southern California Electric says it may close its huge San Onofre Reactor if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t allow it to reopen soon. And in Texas, the NRC has killed the South Texas project on the basis of – get this – the two reactors were going to be built by a foreign company, Toshiba. Do they think there are any American companies left in the nuclear construction business?

Colorado will up its renewable requirement from 10 percent to 20 percent under a law now awaiting Governor John Hickenlooper’s signature. He’ll sign. But in Connecticut the state senate has undercut environmentalists’ push for more renewables by allowing Canadian hydropower to count under that category. The enviros wanted the mandate to be satisfied only by solar and wind.

Finally, Stuart Barns suggests on OilPrice that maybe the current energy boom is going to lead to a revival in manufacturing. There have been a lot of conflicting claims on this lately. In National Interest, Amy Harder notes that we have lots more oil and gas than we thought and the Texas Tribune says there’s lots more shale out there to be discovered And on Atomic Insights, And on Atomic Insights, NuScale CEO Paul Lorenzini tackles a ridiculous study that claims nuclear reactors kill more birds than windmills. He makes a good case for scientific fraud.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

By Nolan Hicks, Staff Writer
San Antonio Express-News

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission found this week that a foreign company is too heavily involved in plans to build two nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project installation.

Under federal law, companies that are owned, controlled or "dominated" by a foreign individual, company or country are barred from holding licenses to operate nuclear reactors. The regulator notified the groups involved of its finding in a letter that it sent Monday afternoon.

"We think it’s encouraging that the NRC is recognizing that this is the law and it needs to remain in effect," said Karen Hadden, executive director of the SEED Coalition, which has opposed the STP expansion from the beginning.

The matter will now go to a panel of three administrative judges in Washington, D.C., which previously dismissed a series of environmental challenges to the project, said Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the NRC.

"It’s part of the process that we need to proceed on to… to finally get the issue resolved," said Mark McBurnett, chief executive of Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, a joint-venture between NRG Energy and Toshiba Corporation, which has been leading the effort to acquire the licenses from the NRC to build the two reactors.

The project at STP, located in Matagorda County, has been fraught with delays and complications since it first applied for the nuclear licenses in 2007.

City-owned CPS Energy was one of the initial partners in the expansion project, which would have brought the number of reactors at STP to four. However, the utility ended its involvement after its senior management failed to disclose that unofficial estimates that showed the cost of the new reactors had risen dramatically, resulting in a political firestorm.

CPS, however, maintains a 7.625 percent stake in the expansion project.

The effort to add those two reactors at STP took another blow when NRG Energy, which owns 90 percent of NINA, announced that it was withdrawing direct support of the project in 2011, following the nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. It had hoped that the operator of the Fukashima plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company, would be a major investor in the expansion.

The remaining 10 percent of NINA is owned by Toshiba Corporation, a Japanese engineering and electronics conglomerate, which was left to foot the bill for pursuing the licenses from federal regulators after NRG ended its support.

This report includes material from the Express-News archives.

Twitter: @ndhapple

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

THERE WAS A FIRE AT THE STP NUCLEAR REACTOR SITE JUST THIS WEEK:

Event Text