Skip to main content

Why Buy A Shutdown Nuclear Plant? The Answer Might Surprise You

Today, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a public meeting to consider the latest development in what has become a growing trend in the nuclear power industry – accelerating decommissioning by transferring licenses to third parties after a plant shuts down. The topic of today’s NRC meeting was to provide an overview of Entergy’s plan to sell and transfer the NRC licenses for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station – which permanently ceased operations at the end of 2014 – to NorthStar Group Services, Inc., a company that specializes in nuclear decommissioning and environmental remediation. This meeting began the process by which the companies seek NRC approval of the transaction.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Why would anyone want to buy a nuclear plant? Because they can decommission it faster, with more certainty in schedule and costs,that’s why. In the nuclear decommissioning business, time is literally money. NRC regulations allow up to 60 years for completion of decommissioning, and waiting is a prudent and safe practice that often becomes necessary when plants shut down early. Plant owners are required to set aside money in a nuclear decommissioning trust fund while the plant is operating and to assure the NRC that this fund will be sufficient to decommission the plant. For early shutdowns like Vermont Yankee, additional time may be needed for the decommissioning trust fund to grow through the accumulation of investment interest before the more significant work can begin. What decommissioning companies are saying, though, is that their experience enables them to provide more certainty to efficiently and safely dismantle the plants without having to wait.

It is not surprising that much has been learned about nuclear plant decommissioning. The process has already been completed at 11 U.S. power reactors and dozens of additional facilities around the world, where radioactive systems and structures have been decontaminated and dismantled, with any remaining low-level radioactive waste shipped off to disposal sites. High-level radioactive waste, in the form of used nuclear fuel, is transferred to robust concrete and steel dry cask storage systems that are typically located at the site until a permanent disposal facility is developed by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Existing Vermont Yankee ISFSI pad and the cleared site for the second ISFSI
Recently, this experience was put to the test at the Zion Nuclear Power Station in Illinois. Shut down in 1998, Zion was in a holding pattern until 2010, when Exelon transferred the license to a subsidiary of decommissioning company Energy Solutions (now known as Zion Solutions). The project is now on track for completion well ahead of its 2020 deadline – more than a dozen years earlier than originally planned. A similar approach is now also being applied to the decommissioning of a reactor in LaCrosse, Wisconsin which ceased operations in 1987.

Although every plant is different, the Vermont Yankee, Zion and LaCrosse transactions have much in common when it comes to creating win-win business propositions. And the real winners in these transactions are the people who live around the plant. Under the agreement discussed today, Vermont Yankee decommissioning and site restoration will be scheduled for completion decades earlier, with cost certainty and additional financial assurances. This arrangement also will begin generating economic activity at the site during the active decommissioning phase many years sooner than originally planned, with benefits for the local and regional economy. 

While improved business models are making a huge difference, there are two additional obstacles that, if overcome, would further improve the process: 1) regulatory uncertainties that exist during the transition from operations to decommissioning (Vermont Yankee is past that phase) and, 2) the shipment of used fuel off the site to a federal facility (as required by law) so all land associated with the plant can be released. On the first issue, in November 2015, the NRC proposed a rulemaking that has the potential to make the transition more efficient. And regarding for the used fuel, just last week former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has been nominated to be Secretary of Energy, promised in his confirmation hearing that, "The time of kicking the can down the road — those days are over.”   

The above is a guest post from Rod McCullum, senior director of fuel and decommissioning at NEI.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…