New Nuclear Reactors and Sea Level Rise: how long will it take to decommission Turkey Point, how much and at whose cost? by gimleteye

According to the Orange County Register (Calif), regulators are allowing at least 60 years to fully decommission two nuclear reactors at San Onofre. The duration-- six decades-- allows electricity rate payers to stretch out payments for the full costs of dismantling old reactors and keep the cost of current consumption low.

Safely closing the first reactor unit at San Onofre took a decade and, factoring inflation, cost nearly as much to take apart as it did to build. From there, decommissioning costs continue to escalate.

Over the weekend, I raised the issue of new nuclear built at sea level and the time scale predicted for sea level rise, as the central matter in Florida Power and Light's $20 billion plan to build new nuclear reactors at Turkey Point.

Follow this logic: the argument is not about whether nuclear power is good or bad, or, even whether it has a role in the effort to replace large scale coal-powered electric utility plants.

The two new nuclear reactors will take at least a decade to build. The service lifetime of these reactors is 40 years. They will take at least a decade to decommission. So, now we are into 60 years in the 100 year time scale for 3 foot sea level rise that scientists believe to be both too conservative and likely too optimistic.

Why do scientists reach this conclusion? Observable changes in melting glaciers and artic ice cover are occurring much more rapidly that computer models predicted even a few years ago.

FPL projects an "overnight" cost of $18 to $20 billion to construct. Those numbers presume the costs if the reactors were built today: they don't factor in inflation or a host of other infrastructure impacts to harden the facility from sea level rise.

What happens to the FPL business model and cost recovery for decommissioning if sea level rise dramatically cuts into Florida's economy during the service lifetime of the nuclear reactors? What are the contingency plans? FPL needs to show the public clearly how it will cover the costs of decommissioning under a worst case scenario, before any decision is made whether or not to permit these units to be built.

The Public Service Commission must include these questions in its review of Turkey Point and any other nuclear facility that is operating or planning to be permitted where sea level rise is a threat.

No one in positions of authority ever questioned whether the housing boom would collapse. But there were plenty of people and economists, too, who did. No one in positions of authority doubted the risk models and calculations that failed to protect financial debt markets from radical instability. Every gold star rating agency blessed the vast over-leverage that is harming the economy.

In South Florida, we cannot hold back the rising sea. We can't build dikes and sea walls because the underlying geology is porous as a sponge. It is time for a reality check on new nuclear at Turkey Point: one that FPL will not make unless government prods it in that direction.

Read about the San Onofre reactors, here:


Retiring San Onofre will cost ratepayers

By TERI SFORZA
June 10, 2009 - 12:00AM
Some stunning numbers:

It could cost some $3.7 billion to decommission the two working reactors at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. That's almost what it cost to build them.

Southern California Edison – which runs the plant – will have 60 years after the reactors close to do the job. Barring really major medical advances, we at The Watchdog won't be alive to frolic on the pristine bluff...

Cost of MOTHBALLING

Well, of course you'd need to plan for the eventual retirement of a nuclear power plant. But who ever gave it a second thought?

Since San Onofre was built, a small portion of rates – about 0.5percent – has been set aside in trust funds for mothballing all three units. Right now, SCE can collect $46.4million per year for the funds. It wants to raise that to $66.4million – a 43 percent increase.

Why? “The current annual contributions to the decommissioning trust funds will not provide sufficient funds to pay projected decommissioning costs, so increased contributions are required,” SCE's application says.

Trust fund collections are adjusted every three years. The projected shortfall during the coming period is, surprise surprise, due to the recession and its impact on investments. “Assuming an economic recovery, this component of rates could be reduced during the following three-year period,” Alexander says.

As of a January, the market values of those trust funds were: Unit 1, $132.4 million; Unit 2, $771.4 million; and Unit 3, $908.6 million. The money is in debt and equity investments that conform to guidelines established by the PUC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Alexander said.

WHAT IS DECOMMISSIONING?

Put simply, decommissioning means shutting down a nuclear power plant and taking steps to reduce radiation levels so the land can be used for other things.

“The process includes dismantling any equipment and structures on the site, placing in storage or recycling any used materials appropriate for such disposal methods, disposing of materials at licensed permitted landfills, and returning the property to a condition agreed on with regulators and, in the case of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, the landlord,” Alexander wrote.

“These costs can be substantial when a nuclear plant reaches the end of its expected service. Therefore, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires licensees to maintain adequate funding throughout the operating life of a plant to provide adequate resources for decommissioning.”

SCE has nearly finished decommissioning SONGS' Unit 1, the first reactor built at the site in 1966. It was shuttered in 1992; decommissioning began in 1999; and SCE is removing all structures down to the 8-foot building level, the NRC says. The final cost is expected to hit something like $805.6 million.

That SONGS 1 trust fund holds $136.9 million, and SCE is asking the PUC for permission to keep the money in the SONGS 1 trust fund, rather than transferring it to the SONGS 2 and 3 mothballing accounts. “You never know,” SCE is essentially telling the state. A surprise or two could still arise...