Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumAs Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags
The license for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, on the Connecticut River, expires Wednesday. Federal regulators plan to renew the license, but the State of Vermont is opposed.
By MATTHEW L. WALD Published: March 20, 2012
WASHINGTON The operators of 20 of the nations aging nuclear reactors, including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. If it turns out that they must close, the owners intend to let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues in the reactors retirement accounts.
Decommissioning a reactor is a painstaking and expensive process that involves taking down huge structures and transporting the radioactive materials to the few sites around the country that can bury them. The cost is projected at $400 million to $1 billion per reactor, which in some cases is more than what it cost to build the plants in the 1960s and 70s.
...
Bills that once seemed far into the future may be coming due. The license for Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vt., at 40 the nations oldest reactor, expires on Wednesday, for example. And while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted its owner, Entergy, a new 20-year permit, the State of Vermont is trying to close the plant.
...
Entergy is at least $90 million short of the projected $560 million cost of dismantling Vermont Yankee; the company is at least $500 million short of the $1.5 billion estimated cost of dismantling Indian Point 2 and 3...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/science/earth/as-nuclear-reactors-age-funds-to-close-them-lag.html
thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)They should be maintaining the power grid infrastructure, but instead, they are pocketing the money now.........and fuck the future. Bastards, all of them.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)When they "unbundled" the parts of our power system in the 90s, one of the problems was a lot of conflict in responsibility. Whereas there had previously been a coherent overall plan and clear assignment of responsibility to achieve the goals called for by the plan (including transmission and distribution) the new approach left a lot of gaps we are still struggling to fill.
enough
(13,237 posts)"The money is there, in the accounts. This has all been planned for years in advance." It's amazing what people will believe.
There's no PROFIT in decommissioning. Why does anyone think these corporations will pay for it? They'll go conveniently bankrupt before that happens.
Thanks for the post.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)But he gets antsy if he doesn't draw enough attention to a thread... so he'll either bump it multiple times himself... or repost it entirely.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112711733
What you were probably told is accurate (and is backed up by this account). The money IS there and HAS been planned in advance in almost every case (in fact it's required by law and they have to give an acconting). The issue here is that the nuke opponents don't want the accounting to assume the reactor will shut down when planned, they want to insist on acconting for the reactor to shut down when THEY want to close it (almost alwas "last week" .
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)He surely knew that he was spamming the group and wanted to bait new replies... But I wouldn't call it "flame bait".
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)"I know you are but what am I?"
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Would you care to point out how a prior post (mine or his - whichever you meant) is "flame bait" but this isn't?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your claims are directly refuted by the GAO report referenced in Markey's press release.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)"Could be further strengthened" is not the same thing as "money to close them lags" (nor even that the existing oversight is inappropriate) ... nor is Markey's spin on the report the same thing as what the report says.
There are really only four relevant bullets in your other post:
1 says the formula may be outdated. That really doesn't demonstrate much of anything... let alone that plants are running short of needed funds.
2 says that they aren't satisfied that the NRC has done enough to evaluate those funds... which isn't the same thing as saying that any of them are deficient.
3 says that the NRC doesn't have a policy for how to deal with identified shortfalls - which isn't the same thing as saying that there are any shortfalls.
4 implies that the NRC should audit some investment balances. A fine idea... so?
In short, it doesn't refute anything that I "claimed"... let alone directly. In fact there is nothing in the report (and yes, I've reviewed the actual report and not just Markey's spin) that indicates an actual funding shortage unless you score a particular plant as needing to close several years before the operator intends to close it... and even then the worst-case scenario is that the plant must sit additional years during decommissioning.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)1 NRCs formula may not reliably estimate adequate decommissioning costs. According to NRC, the formula was intended to estimate the bulk of the decommissioning funds needed, but the term bulk is undefined, making it unclear how NRC can determine if the formula is performing as intended. In addition, GAO compared NRCs formula estimates for 12 reactors with these reactors more detailed site-specific cost estimates calculated for the same period. GAO found that for 5 of the 12 reactors, the NRC formula captured 57 to 76 percent of the costs reflected in each reactors site-specific estimate; the other 7 captured 84 to 103 percent.
The rest tells us that the NRC really hasn't got a clue about the actual performance of the accounts being maintained to deliver these understated funding requirements.
Here is the link you omitted.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-258
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Which tells you nothing about how the amount they had in investments compared to that site-specific estimate, nor how the current balance compared to what it needed to be in order to get to that estimate in time to decomission the plant.
The rest tells us that the NRC really hasn't got a clue about the actual performance of the accounts being maintained to deliver these understated funding requirements.
It really does nothing of the sort... but let's pretend for a moment that it did. We can surely agree that oversight would need to be improved... but insufficient oversight is not at all the same thing as appropriate oversight demonstrating a deficiency (which, BTW, is what "directly refuted" would require). Nothing in the report (or anything else I've seen from Markey) says anything but "show me more". He never says "here's what we think plant X will cost in 22 years to decomission and here's how much they have in the account and the ammount they plan to add each year. The total isn't enough to close the plant as the vendor describes"
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The GAO report shows that 42% of the funding goals for the plants show the goals to be significantly below what would be required to decommission. Unless you can prove that the nuclear industry, famous for its corner cutting attitude, has been independently doing more than they are forced to do, your assertion is disproven.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)No it doesn't. It merely compared a small subset (without evidence that it's representative - in fact we know that it isn't)... and it only shows that the current balance is below what would be required at some point in the future. That's entirely different from what is required. They need to have enough set aside (and continue setting more aside) to decomission the plant as planned. Not according to someone else's artificial timetable.
Compare my current 401(k) balance to what I need in order to retire and you'll see a substantial deficiency. Compare it to the amount that needs to be in there now in order to grow (with ongoing contributions) to the necessary amount by my planned retirement age... and you get an entirely different picture. You have completely failed to demonstrate that this second figure (the only one that matters) is significantly deficient at any plant.
Unless you can prove that the nuclear industry, famous for its corner cutting attitude, has been independently doing more than they are forced to do, your assertion is disproven.
Oh? So the new standard for "direct refutation" really has nothing at all to do with actual evidence, but an insufficiency (by your standard) of evidence proving the point?
Why am I not surprised?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It simply isn't what the report says.
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Got anything at all to back it up?
I won't be holding my breath.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)See my #17.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)May. 7, 2012 --
Lawmaker queries NRC about plans to ensure adequate funds are available to permanently shut down Americas nuclear power plants safely
WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, released a new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that found that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may not be accurately estimating the costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants nor adequately ensuring that owners are financially planning for the eventual permanent shutdown of Americas nuclear power plants. The request was motivated by several other reports suggesting such inadequacies. For example, a 2009 review of licensee decommissioning funding status reports found that licensees for 27 out of 104 operating nuclear reactors had a combined shortfall of more than $2.4 billion in their decommissioning funds.
Because decommissioning a nuclear reactor costs hundreds of millions of dollars, the NRC is responsible for ensuring that licensees provide assurance that they will have adequate funds at the relevant time to decommission their reactors. The new GAO report, Nuclear Regulation: NRCs Oversight of Nuclear Power Reactors Decommissioning Funds Could Be Further Strengthened was requested by Rep. Markey in March 2010 to ensure that nuclear power plant licensees provide reasonable assurance of adequate decommissioning funds and to identify any improvements or weaknesses in NRCs oversight in this area. Rep. Markey long has been concerned about the strength of NRCs oversight of decommissioning funding over the past two decades, prompting his request for previous oversight reports from GAO in 2001 and 2003.
Decommissioning funds are the 401ks for Americas nuclear power plants, and this new GAO report indicates the nations plants are headed for a retirement meltdown, said Rep. Markey. The NRC appears to be inaccurately estimating the costs of decommissioning the nations nuclear power plants and inadequately ensuring that owners are financially planning for the eventual shutdown of these plants. It will be the public wholl pay the price if nuclear power plant owners come up short on the bill to safely close these plants.
A copy of the GAO report can be found HERE.
The GAO examined the overall strength of NRCs oversight of decommissioning funding. Key findings of the report include:
· The NRC decommissioning funding formula may be outdated since it was last updated in 1988 and is based on two studies published in 1978 and 1980 that used technology cost and other information available at that time.
· NRCs evaluation of licensees funding arrangements was not rigorous enough to ensure that decommissioning funds would be adequate,
· The NRC had not established criteria for taking action if it determines that a licensee is not accumulating adequate decommissioning funds and
· The NRC relies on licensees reports of decommissioning fund balances without verifying these balances
The GAO report makes a series of recommendations to the Commission that includes defining what the agency means by the bulk of the funds that licensees will likely need to decommission their reactors; documenting procedures describing the steps that NRC staff should take in their reviews analyzing licensee documentation and verifying that the amounts licensees report to NRC in their decommissioning funding status reports match the balances on their year-end bank statements; continuing reviews of fund balances in a way that is most efficient and effective for the NRC; and considering review of a sample of licensees investments to determine if licensees are complying with decommissioning investment standards and determine whether action should be taken to enforce these standards.
In light of the recommendations made in the new GAO report, Rep. Markey today sent a letter to the NRC asking for the Commissions responses to questions that include:
· What is the experience that leads the NRC to conclude the existing regulatory system is adequate?
· What are the NRCs plans to improve the ability to estimate decommissioning costs? What new inputs will be included in a revised decommissioning funding formula, and how will the revised formula be verified?
· How is the public to be assured that nuclear power plant decommissioning can be performed in a manner to protect human health and safety and the environment?
· How does the NRC specifically plan to implement each of these recommendations in the GAO report, and what is the timeline for implementation of each?
· Is the NRC considering discontinuing licensee site reviews to verify the accuracy of licensee fund balances in their decommissioning funding status reports as the GAO report indicates?
· What training programs or partnerships is the Commission considering to address lack the financial expertise of agency staff to evaluate compliance with investment restrictions?
· Will the Commission reconsider its October 2010 vote against the NRC staffs proposed change that would have directed nuclear power plant licensees to adjust decommissioning funds every year and within three months of the annual recalculation of the regulatory minimum needed?
"Adequate decommissioning funds are absolutely essential to reduce radioactive contamination after nuclear reactor permanently shuts down, wrote Rep. Markey in the letter to the NRC. Every one of the 104 currently active nuclear reactors across the United States will need to be decommissioned eventually. Having enough money to perform the shutdowns is critical for protecting public and environmental health and safety.
http://markey.house.gov/press-release/gao-report-finds-inadequacy-inaccuracy-nrc-oversight-funds-decommission-nuclear-power
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Delaying action for 60 years when Entergy might no longer even exist is offensive to the communities of Westchester County and the people of New York.
This approach is basically a coercive threat to local communities that is included in the relicensing process - if you derail the license extension you'll be saddled with decommissioning costs.
madokie
(51,076 posts)We took it on the front end now we're be taking it on the back end. In the meantime the power companies pocket gobs of money. Nuclear energy is the biggest boondoggle of all time. I can't think of anything that even comes close to the waste of money that nuclear has been.
That shit is going to be with us for a long time too.
zeaper
(113 posts)These greedy power companies are all publicly traded. You can easily get in on the action just by buying their stock.
madokie
(51,076 posts)With a reply like that
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Why can't the author tell the truth? Why can't he just say "The current regulations allow for certain dismantling options and I disagree with those regulations." ?
Instead he sets up an artificial expectation that reactors should be dismantled "promptly" (when no such requirement exists), and then tries to score them against the ability to pay for that. Then he goes even further and scores them not just on prompt disposal, but on a prompt disposal that begins years before a license runs out (again, not a requirement).
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Delaying action for 60 years when Entergy might no longer even exist is offensive to the communities of Westchester County and the people of New York.
This approach is basically a coercive threat to local communities that is included in the relicensing process - if you derail the license extension you'll be saddled with decommissioning costs.
However, I like your logic here Baggins. If a moneyed interest like Wall Street, the petroleum industry, the coal industry or the nuclear industry pays enough to get bad regulations favorable to them passed, then they are immune from criticism.
I can see how that would work for someone with your values.