| On December 6, 1971, a feasibility study was created | | | | rehabilitation in its steam-driven auxiliary feed water |
| to come up with anuclear plant that was estimated | | | | pumpson February 1993. It took more than a year to |
| to cost at around $974 million. Thegroup of people | | | | restore the two units'service, as it was able to |
| who initiated this move are the Houston Lighting & | | | | provide service on March 1994. |
| Power | | | | Today, this nuclear plant is known as the South |
| Co.the City of Austin, the City of San Antonio (CPS | | | | Texas Nuclear Generating |
| Energy), and the | | | | Station or South Texas Project (STP). Located at 55 |
| Central Power and Light Co. The result of the study | | | | miles of thesouthwest part of Bay City, Texas, this |
| seemed to get apositive result because on the year | | | | nuclear plant covers 12, 200acre of land on the |
| 1973, they have initially chosen Bay | | | | Colorado River. This was the first nuclear plant in |
| City as the location of the project. In the year 1976, | | | | Texas. The two Westinghouse pressurized water |
| construction forthis nuclear plant started. | | | | reactor units wereincluded as the top 20-electricity |
| In the year 1981, the construction was behind by | | | | generating nuclear units worldwide. |
| four years compared totheir schedule and there | | | | The first unit took the first position as the highest |
| were problems with the cost. The estimated | | | | output capabilitywith 1,251 megawatts. The second |
| ($974 million) amount turned out to be quite a small | | | | unit comes in second place with 1,250megawatts. |
| amount because itturned out to cost at around $5 | | | | CPS Energy owned by the city of San Antonio |
| billion. The selected architect andconstruction | | | | provides powerfrom these units to San Antonio real |
| company, decided to re-schedule the completion of | | | | estate. CPS Energy owns 41% of the |
| theproject to June 1989. However, the contractor | | | | South Texas Nuclear Generating Station. |
| decided to quit their postas the construction | | | | STP has a unique design wherein it took full |
| company for this project. Because of thecontractor's | | | | consideration of itssafety. Instead of having two fully |
| decision to quit, they received a lawsuit due to | | | | independent emergency core coolingsystems and |
| breach ofcontract on December 26, 1981. The lawsuit | | | | associated support systems in the two units, STP |
| was settled when thecontractor agreed to paid $750 | | | | installedthree. However, this feature did not fully |
| million on May 30, 1985. It was on | | | | convince the nuclear safetyregulations during the |
| February 1982 that Ebasco Constructors was hired as | | | | licensing process of the nuclear plant. |
| replacement. | | | | There was a proposal to expand the South Texas |
| On March 18, 1988, the first reactor unit reached | | | | Project. Last June 19, |
| initial criticalityand was able to operate on August 25 | | | | 2006, the NRG Energy submitted a letter of intent to |
| the same year. A little more than ayear after, unit | | | | the Nuclear |
| two was able to reach initial criticality and | | | | Regulatory Commission to build two 1358-MWe |
| becameoperational on June 19, 1989. However, these | | | | Advanced Boiling Water |
| two units encounteredseveral defects and were | | | | Reactors to the site. |
| temporarily turned offline. The two unitsunderwent | | | | |