California Energy Commission Overview of the 1976 Moratorium and It’s Impact on California’s...

California Energy Commission

Overview of the 1976 Moratorium and It’s Impact on California’s

Low-Carbon Future

California Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee Hearing on

Nuclear Power and California’s Clean Energy Future

October 26, 2010

James D. Boyd, Vice Chairman and

California Liaison Officer to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[email protected] / 916-654-3787


Federal vs. State Roles in Regulating Nuclear Power

• The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the primary responsibility for regulating nuclear power plants in the U.S.

• State governments regulate non-radiological environmental impacts, such as impacts from plant cooling, and assess the role of nuclear power as part of the state’s energy supply.

2


Energy Commission’s Role• California’s nuclear statutes (1976) and AB 1632

(Blakeslee, 2006) designated the Energy Commission as the lead agency for evaluating nuclear waste disposal technologies and for assessing the vulnerability of California’s nuclear plants to a major disruption from a seismic event.

• CEC examined the status of nuclear power in California as part of the 2005 and 2007 Integrated Energy Policy reports (IEPR).

• In 2008, CEC completed a comprehensive assessment of seismic and plant aging vulnerabilities for Diablo Canyon and San Onofre (AB 1632).

3


California’s Energy Policy Goals:

• Since 2003, California’s energy policies are based on the fundamental principle: Develop reliable and affordable energy supplies by pursuing least costly options first.

• Limit dependence on imported fossil fuels, while protecting the environment and benefiting the state’s economy.

• Pursue energy efficiency and demand response first (least expensive); second, increase use of renewable and distributed generation; and third, rely upon clean fossil-fueled resources.

4


Nuclear Power in California

• Nuclear power has played an important role in California’s electricity generation system for over two decades;

• Three operating nuclear power plants supply power to California: Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, SONGS Units 2 and 3, and the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Plant Units 1, 2, and 3 in Arizona.

• There are three retired commercial nuclear plants in California: Humboldt Bay, Rancho Seco and SONGS Unit 1.

5


Nuclear Power in California• Operating licenses (OL) for SONGS Units 2 and 3

expire in 2022. • OL for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 expire in 2024

and 2025, respectively.• Both plants are pursuing 20-year license extensions.• Concerns about seismic hazards and safety culture

have been raised for both plants.• The Energy Commission, the CPUC, and the

California Coastal Commission have called for advanced seismic studies at Diablo Canyon as part of the license renewal review.

6


California Nuclear Statutes (1976)

• No new nuclear plants can be built in California until the Energy Commission finds that the federal government has demonstrated and approved a means for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel from these plants.

• Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 (about 4300 MW) were exempted from these laws (grandfathered) and began operation in the mid-1980’s.

7


Conditions When CA Nuclear Statutes Enacted (1976)

• Utilities were planning 31 new large nuclear power plants serving California by 1994 -- an increase from 1440 MW to 35,000 MW (18% annual growth rate).

• Studies showed that conservation and efficiency could eliminate the need for additional new plants beyond those under construction.

• Nuclear power represented only 1440 MW in 1976 electricity generation capacity compared with 5500 MW in 2008, which produced 14.5% of total electricity serving CA. California’s operating plants in 1976 were Humboldt Bay, SONGS 1, and Rancho Seco.

8



• Nuclear power was expected to become the state’s largest electricity source.

• Spent fuel was accumulating at reactor sites; there was no means for commercially reprocessing or permanent disposal of these wastes.

• Spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste remain extremely hazardous for tens of thousands of years and must be isolated from the environment.

9



• In 1975, the CA Assembly held 15 days of nuclear hearings on the potential role of nuclear power in California’s energy future, reactor safety, nuclear waste disposal, security, and other issues; they concluded that plans for nuclear expansion in California should be given greater scrutiny and put on hold.

10


Energy Commission Findings Regarding the CA Nuclear Statutes

• In 1978 the California Energy Commission found that the waste disposal conditions could not be met.

• The 2005 and 2007 IEPR reaffirmed these 1978 findings that “a high-level waste disposal technology has been neither demonstrated nor approved”.

• The 2005 IEPR also concluded that “reprocessing remains substantially more expensive than waste storage and disposal and has substantial adverse implications for the U.S. effort to halt nuclear weapons proliferation.”

11


Energy Commission’s Findings Regarding the CA Nuclear Statutes

• The 2007 IEPR concluded that, “In the absence of a federal repository, California must plan for the continued accumulation and interim storage of high-level radioactive waste at reactor sites, even though none of these sites were originally designed for such long-term use.”

12


Since the 1976 CA Statutes Were Enacted:

• No nuclear plants have been ordered in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in 1979.

• Since the TMI accident, the nuclear industry has worked to improve its safety/plant performance.

• Construction costs for Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 exceeded original estimates by over $5 billion.

• Construction costs for SONGS 2 and 3 exceeded original estimates by over $4 billion.

13


State Laws Restricting Building New Nuclear Plants

• California and eight other states (Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, West Virginia, Wisconsin) have laws prohibiting the licensing and construction of new plants until the federal government resolves the waste problem.

• 16 states have laws restricting building new nuclear plants (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).

14


Status of Waste Disposal Problem

• No solution yet for the permanent waste disposal problem; no permanent repository exists in the world.

• Yucca Mountain Repository – the only repository that the U.S. tried to develop but has since abandoned -- had major technical, political, and legal problems.

• The Yucca Mountain site has only two of the four desirable characteristics for a repository.

• It is located in a seismically and volcanically active area in an oxidizing environment, which means that spent fuel buried at the site would not likely remain stable in the presence of water.

15


Status of Waste Disposal Problem

• NRC determined in September 2010 that spent fuel can be stored safely at reactors for 60 years beyond the life of a reactor, i.e., 100 years; however, extended at-reactor storage is not a permanent solution to the problem.

• Sending spent fuel to France is not a solution, since the spent fuel recycled in France generates high-level waste which requires permanent disposal; France by law returns high-level waste to the country of origin.

16


Status of Waste Disposal Problem• Studies by the National Academy of Sciences’ (2007)

and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010) concluded that commercial reprocessing in the U.S. is too expensive and adversely affects U.S. efforts to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

• In 2010, U.S. commercial reactors have generated enough spent fuel to exceed the statutory limit (70,000) for the Yucca Mountain repository; a second repository is needed.

17


California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies

• California is the second largest emitter of GHG in the U.S. and 12th largest in the world.

• AB 32 (Nunez, 2006) requires that California reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

• Achieving California’s AB 32 goals will require a combination of regulatory measures, programs and incentives.

• While advanced nuclear reactors may have a role in the long term for reducing GHG emissions, there are more cost-effective options available today.

18


Essential Elements of California’s Low-Carbon Energy Plan

• Consider life-cycle or “cradle to grave” environmental and economic implications of energy options;

• Nuclear power’s “cradle-to-grave” impacts include waste disposal; GHG emissions from fuel cycle, plant construction, waste disposal and decommissioning;

• Maximize investments in cost-effective energy efficiency to save money and reduce carbon emissions.

• Expand transmission system to link the areas of best solar and wind energy supply to population centers and industry.

19


Essential Elements of California’s Low-Carbon Energy Plan

• Substantially reduce carbon emissions from the electricity sector; electricity accounts for 28% of California’s carbon dioxide emissions.

• Develop low-carbon transportation options; transportation is the single largest contributor to California’s GHG emissions, producing 39% of the state’s total emissions.

• Expand cost-effective distributed renewable energy, combined heat and power, and demand response.

20


Status of “Nuclear Renaissance”

• Encouraged by federal regulatory and financial incentives (loan guarantees of $18.5 billion), there has been renewed interest in nuclear energy as a mitigation strategy for global climate change and reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

• Rising construction costs, low natural gas prices, reduced demand, and financial risks have resulted in cancellations or delays of many proposed new plant projects.

21


Conclusions

• Nuclear energy plays an important role in California’s current electricity supply;14.5% of the total electricity generation serving California is from Diablo Canyon, San Onofre, and Palo Verde in Arizona.

• Minimal progress has been made in solving the nation’s high-level waste disposal problem, since the California 1976 statutes were enacted.

• Renewed interest in nuclear power is due primarily to federal incentives and its possible role as a mitigation strategy for global climate change.

22


Conclusions

• Rising construction costs, low natural gas prices, reduced demand, and financial risks have resulted in cancellations or delays of many proposed new plant proposals.

23


For More Information

• California Energy Commission’s Final Consultant Report on Nuclear Power in California – 2007 Status Report: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/

CEC-100-2007-005/CEC-100-2007-005-F.PDF

• California Energy Commission Final AB 1632 Report (2008): http://www.energy.ca.gov/ab1632/index.html

24

California Energy Commission Overview of the 1976 Moratorium and It’s Impact on California’s...

Documents

Transcript of California Energy Commission Overview of the 1976 Moratorium and It’s Impact on California’s...