Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Tue May 15, 2012, 03:39 PM May 2012

As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags

As 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 nation’s 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 nation’s 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
25 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
As Reactors Age, the Money to Close Them Lags (Original Post) kristopher May 2012 OP
The power companies are making billions by shirking their responsibilities thelordofhell May 2012 #1
One thing universally acknowledged is the need to upgrade and modernize our grid. kristopher May 2012 #3
I brought this up a few months ago and was assured that there was no problem. enough May 2012 #2
So did Kris FBaggins May 2012 #4
Flame bait ... eom Kolesar May 2012 #5
Oh... I wouldn't go that far. FBaggins May 2012 #7
You're the fat kid from Pee Wee's Big Adventure Kolesar May 2012 #8
Hmmm... interesting response. FBaggins May 2012 #9
Hmmm Interesting response kristopher May 2012 #10
Nope. FBaggins May 2012 #11
Yep. kristopher May 2012 #12
Then please provide such evidence. FBaggins May 2012 #13
You asserted that the money "is" there. kristopher May 2012 #14
And you haven't given anything that refutes that (let alone "directly refutes") FBaggins May 2012 #15
That's BS Baggins. kristopher May 2012 #16
Wow... What a rebuttal FBaggins May 2012 #17
What do you say to someone that says water isn't wet? kristopher May 2012 #18
Easy to answer that one. FBaggins May 2012 #19
GAO Report Finds Inadequacy, Inaccuracy in NRC Oversight of Funds to Decommission Nuclear Power Plan kristopher May 2012 #6
The plan of the nuclear plant operators amounts to blackmail... kristopher May 2012 #20
We're taking a shaft for what 20 Percent of our electrical power madokie May 2012 #21
If you are so jealous of the money then sign up and get some. zeaper May 2012 #22
Where the hell did you come from madokie May 2012 #25
Hardly. The author's BS amounts to lying. FBaggins May 2012 #23
The plan of the nuclear plant operators amounts to blackmail... kristopher May 2012 #24

thelordofhell

(4,569 posts)
1. The power companies are making billions by shirking their responsibilities
Tue May 15, 2012, 03:46 PM
May 2012

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)
3. One thing universally acknowledged is the need to upgrade and modernize our grid.
Wed May 16, 2012, 12:25 PM
May 2012

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)
2. I brought this up a few months ago and was assured that there was no problem.
Tue May 15, 2012, 03:57 PM
May 2012

"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)
4. So did Kris
Wed May 16, 2012, 01:08 PM
May 2012

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&quot .

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
7. Oh... I wouldn't go that far.
Wed May 16, 2012, 01:56 PM
May 2012

He surely knew that he was spamming the group and wanted to bait new replies... But I wouldn't call it "flame bait".

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
9. Hmmm... interesting response.
Wed May 16, 2012, 03:07 PM
May 2012

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)
10. Hmmm Interesting response
Wed May 16, 2012, 03:14 PM
May 2012

Your claims are directly refuted by the GAO report referenced in Markey's press release.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
11. Nope.
Wed May 16, 2012, 03:58 PM
May 2012

"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)
12. Yep.
Wed May 16, 2012, 04:18 PM
May 2012

1 NRC’s 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 NRC’s 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 reactor’s 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)
13. Then please provide such evidence.
Wed May 16, 2012, 04:35 PM
May 2012
GAO found that for 5 of the 12 reactors, the NRC formula captured 57 to 76 percent of the costs reflected in each reactor’s site-specific estimate;

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)
14. You asserted that the money "is" there.
Wed May 16, 2012, 04:48 PM
May 2012

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)
15. And you haven't given anything that refutes that (let alone "directly refutes")
Wed May 16, 2012, 05:05 PM
May 2012
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.

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)
6. GAO Report Finds Inadequacy, Inaccuracy in NRC Oversight of Funds to Decommission Nuclear Power Plan
Wed May 16, 2012, 01:41 PM
May 2012
GAO Report Finds Inadequacy, Inaccuracy in NRC Oversight of Funds to Decommission Nuclear Power Plants
May. 7, 2012 --

Lawmaker queries NRC about plans to ensure adequate funds are available to permanently shut down America’s 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 America’s 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: NRC’s 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 NRC’s oversight in this area. Rep. Markey long has been concerned about the strength of NRC’s 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 401k’s for America’s nuclear power plants, and this new GAO report indicates the nation’s plants are headed for a retirement meltdown,” said Rep. Markey. “The NRC appears to be inaccurately estimating the costs of decommissioning the nation’s nuclear power plants and inadequately ensuring that owners are financially planning for the eventual shutdown of these plants. It will be the public who’ll 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 NRC’s 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.
· NRC’s 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 Commission’s responses to questions that include:

· What is the experience that leads the NRC to conclude the existing regulatory system is adequate?
· What are the NRC’s 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 staff’s 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)
20. The plan of the nuclear plant operators amounts to blackmail...
Wed May 16, 2012, 06:48 PM
May 2012
Gil C. Quiniones, the president and chief executive of the New York Power Authority, a state utility that sold Indian Point 3 to Entergy in 2000, called Entergy’s failure to plan for or finance the decommissioning of Indian Point in real time “stunningly irresponsible.”

“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)
21. We're taking a shaft for what 20 Percent of our electrical power
Wed May 16, 2012, 08:54 PM
May 2012

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)
22. If you are so jealous of the money then sign up and get some.
Thu May 17, 2012, 09:20 AM
May 2012

These greedy power companies are all publicly traded. You can easily get in on the action just by buying their stock.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
23. Hardly. The author's BS amounts to lying.
Thu May 17, 2012, 09:47 AM
May 2012

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)
24. The plan of the nuclear plant operators amounts to blackmail...
Thu May 17, 2012, 11:01 AM
May 2012
Gil C. Quiniones, the president and chief executive of the New York Power Authority, a state utility that sold Indian Point 3 to Entergy in 2000, called Entergy’s failure to plan for or finance the decommissioning of Indian Point in real time “stunningly irresponsible.”

“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.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»As Reactors Age, the Mone...