nuclear-news

For relicensing nuclear plants, Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not consider costs of spent fuel disposal

Paradoxically, while the NRC allows potential earnings from a re-licensed plant to be considered as a way to cover the costs of plant shut-down, it does not consider the potential for those added years of operation to generate additional spent fuel when calculating the cost of shutting the plant down.

Group seeks to have spent fuel a factor in re-licensing Limerick plant The Mercury By Evan Brandt  07/17/12  LIMERICK — Despite a recent federal court ruling invalidating a rule that would allow storage of radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods at nuclear power plants for 60 years after they’ve closed, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no plans to consider the issue when deciding on whether to re-license Exelon Nuclear’s Limerick Generating Station    for an additional 20 years.

The   National Resources Defense Council    disagrees with that position and filed papers July 9 seeking to amend   its challenge to Exelon’s re-licensing  application on the grounds that the court decision should be another reason to require a site-specific environmental impact statement. Currently, the operating licenses on the plant’s two nuclear reactors expire Oct. 26, 2024, for Unit 1, and June 22, 2029, for Unit 2. Exelon has submitted a request for a
20-year extension on both licenses.

The NRDC has petitioned the Atomic Licensing and Safety Board, arguing, among other things, that the reactors should not be re-licensed without a new, site-specific
environmental impact review. Further, in addition to spent fuel being
a non-issue for re-licensing for the NRC, the agency also does not
consider the cost of long-term spent fuel rod storage when calculating
how much it will cost to de-commission a nuclear plat at the end of
its operation. Both these facts were confirmed recently by NRC
spokesman Neil Sheehan…..

Last year, NRC informed Exelon    that its calculation showed a
shortfall as of Dec. 31, 2010, in the amount needed to de-commission
Limerick’s Unit 1 reactor, the older of the two at the Limerick plant.
“This was based on fund earnings (as specified under NRC regulations),
a parent company guarantee and the company’s filing with the
Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission for a proposed cost
adjustment to the collection of annual payments from ratepayers for
decommissioning costs,” Sheehan explained in an e-mail Friday.

Paradoxically, while the NRC allows potential earnings from a re-licensed plant to be considered as a way to cover the costs of plant shut-down, it does not consider the potential for those added years of operation to generate additional spent fuel when calculating
the cost of shutting the plant down.

“The funding for the storage of spent nuclear fuel is not part of the evaluation of decommissioning funds,” Sheehan said in a June 29 email. He wrote that spent fuel is
covered under a different regulation “which requires a plant owner to only submit a financial plan towards the funding of irradiated fuel into the future.” “Some plant owners provide information for NRC staff evaluation that claims that there will be enough leftover
decommissioning funds, after dismantlement work to NRC standards, to
pay for storage of spent fuel,” Sheehan added. He said Limerick is not
one of those plants.http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/20120717/NEWS01/120719586/group-seeks-to-have-spent-fuel-a-factor-in-re-licensing-limerick-plant

July 19, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | decommission reactor, USA