Since the day plans were announced for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, controversy has surrounded it. Now, since PG&E announced plans not to seek relicensing of the plant, questions have come to light. Specifically, what will become of the waste generated? What are the long-term impacts of so many years of operating a nuclear power plant? What will happen to the local economy? And will PG&E even hold true to its announcement to decommission the plant?
An era of nuclear power
When PG&E announced plans for a nuclear power plant in the 1970s, it was the start of an exciting promise of clean and efficient energy, jobs, and an economic boost to the local economy.
Not everyone was convinced that building a nuclear power plant on the Central Coast was a good idea, however. Since 1973 Mothers for Peace has intervened in litigation involving seismic safety, radioactive waste storage, consequences from a possible terrorist attack, and opposition to license renewal.
The group has argued that the plant poses physical and environmental dangers. Members say the plant’s location on an open, unprotected section of coast at Avila Beach, leaves it vulnerable to terrorist attacks. It’s also costly to maintain and creates radioactive waste that can’t be easily disposed of, they argue.
Linda Seeley, spokesperson for Mothers for Peace, said the group’s role as a watchdog over Diablo has been important and effective.
“It’s only really because of Mothers of Peace that Diablo Canyon has been as safe as it is,” she told the Sun. “Because we’ve been at the heels of PG&E for 43 years.”
She said one of the problems is the plant’s age. She said it’s old technology, comparing it to an “old Ford Falcon on the freeway trying to keep up with today.” Plans for the site were created in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but the site wasn’t built until the 1980s. The structure’s age leaves the plant susceptible to leaks and damage from seismic activity, she said.
Seeley added that the plant is also expensive to operate and interferes with bringing renewable energy online: “It’s a behemoth of technology. It’s not for today or the future,” she said.
After PG&E made its announcement last month, Mothers for Peace released a statement applauding the decision to close the plant, but also the decision to deliver a different type of energy.
“Mothers for Peace is also pleased that under the settlement, PG&E will replace the energy from Diablo Canyon with renewables. The settlement confirms expert testimony submitted by Mothers for Peace in 2015—which PG&E disputed at that time—that the power from Diablo Canyon can easily be replaced with solar, wind, wave, and geothermal energy,” Mothers for Peace spokesperson Jane Swanson said in the statement. “We are pleased that PG&E now recognizes that renewables can replace Diablo Canyon economically.”
But the members of Mothers for Peace don’t believe it’s time to breathe easy just yet. The group remains concerned about the safety and environmental risks posed by current operation of the reactor, Seeley said.
In the group’s statement after PG&E’s announcement, Seeley said the members will continue their work as watchdogs over the plant.
“During the next eight years, we will heighten our vigilance over safety at the reactors,” Seeley said. “Our work to safeguard public health and the environment is needed now more than ever. Every day that Diablo Canyon is online, PG&E is playing Russian roulette with the safety of our community.”
Health concerns were the focus of other groups that spoke out about Diablo.
A high incidence of cancer in residents living near the plant was alleged in a 2014 report titled “Report on health status of residents in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties living near the Diablo Canyon Nuclear reactors located in Avila Beach, California,” authored by Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA of New Jersey on behalf of Santa Barbara-based think tank World Business Academy.
According to the report, as of 2010 the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant held 1,126 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste. The report said that waste contained more radioactivity than was released during the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. “Diablo Canyon emitted more highly toxic liquid tritium into the environment than any U.S. plant during the late 2000s,” the report stated.
Among the findings outlined in the report: Since the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant opened in the mid-1980s, San Luis Obispo County has changed from a relatively low-cancer to a high-cancer county, with rapid increases in highly radiosensitive cancers like thyroid and female breast cancer. Cancer incidence in SLO County rose from 0.4 percent below to 6.9 percent above the state average during the time period of 1988-1990 to 2003-2010, with the current cancer rate the highest of all 20 counties in Southern California.
“These findings strongly suggest that federally permitted radiation releases pose a health risk to the public, especially to people living near Diablo Canyon in California,” the report stated.
In response, the SLO County Department of Public Health with input from state and Santa Barbara County epidemiologists, replied by saying that after review of the study and the methods used, “none of these claims hold up.”
The report stated, “There are substantial and obvious problems in methodology wherein basic statistical precepts were overlooked. In addition, the study shows selection bias in choosing case and control groups.”
But adverse health effects haven’t been the only concerns.
Some residents take issue with seismic safety, specifically the plant’s ability to safely shut down in the event of such a disaster like Fukushima Daiichi. Several faults are reported to be located near the plant, and/or have been discovered since Diablo was built, raising questions about whether the plant can withstand the high magnitude temblors that such faults could potentially produce.
However, in September 2014, Pacific Gas & Electric and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued separate reports that concluded that the plant is safe from the largest conceivable earthquakes and is properly licensed.
A future with renewable energy
PG&E’s joint proposal to decommission the plant by 2025 was an agreement made along with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California, and Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. PG&E said it plans to replace Diablo with efficient and renewable energy. Part of the reason behind that decision, according to the company, is that Diablo Canyon’s output is falling due to California energy policies and changing market conditions. The state has set a target to rely on 50 percent renewable energy, and the PG&E proposal offers a commitment to 55 percent renewable generation by 2031.
In a statement, PG&E Corporation Chairman, CEO, and President Tony Earley said that California’s energy landscape is changing dramatically, with energy efficiency, renewables, and storage becoming central to the state’s energy policy. As this transition takes place, Diablo Canyon’s full output will no longer be required.
“Importantly, this proposal recognizes the value of [greenhouse gas, (GHG)]-free nuclear power as an important bridge strategy to help ensure that power remains affordable and reliable and that we do not increase the use of fossil fuels while supporting California’s vision for the future,” Earley said in the statement.
He added, “Supporting this is a coalition of labor and environmental partners with some diverse points of view. We came to this agreement with some different perspectives—and we continue to have some different perspectives—but the important thing is that we ultimately got to a shared point of view about the most appropriate and responsible path forward with respect to Diablo Canyon and how best to support the state’s energy vision.”
But what that will look like and what it will mean to the community is not completely clear.
Under the joint proposal, PG&E will retire Unit 1 in 2024 and Unit 2 in 2025. It will begin ensuring greenhouse gas (GHG)-free replacement of nuclear energy by following procurement requirements laid out in the settlement starting in 2018 and continuing through 2031.
According to the joint proposal: “In step 1, PG&E will procure 2,000 GWh of new energy efficiency projects and programs to be installed from 2018 to 2024. In a second step, PG&E would procure another 2,000 GWh of energy efficiency or GHG-free energy to be initiated between 2025 through 2030. As a final step, PG&E commits to procure the necessary levels of additional GHG-free energy required to meet a 55 percent RPS [renewable portfolio standard] by 2031.”
The plant is estimated to provide nearly $1 billion each year for SLO county’s economy through various means, like taxes it pays and the jobs it provides, and the money those employees subsequently contribute through their own spending.
The plant provides an estimated 1,500 jobs, most of which will be lost when the plant closes.
To remedy that, PG&E is providing retention and re-training programs for its employees, and will offer severance payments at the end of their employment.
To offset the loss of property taxes, Blair Jones, PG&E spokesperson, told the Sun that the company will commit to paying $50 million to San Luis Obispo County. This money will be paid out over the next 10 years. Jones explained that annually PG&E pays $22 million in property taxes, however because of the devaluing of the property the amount owed annually would gradually decline over the years before closure. To offset that, PG&E will make up the devalued amount, up to $50 million, so that the county gets a steady $22 million each year until the plant closes.
In addressing fears of the closure resulting in a steep hike in electricity prices, PG&E added in its statement that it doesn’t believe customer rates will increase and said that implementing the proposal will likely have a lower overall cost than relicensing the plan and operating it through 2044.
But you can’t just shut down a nuclear power plant and sweep it away.
PG&E will spend the next two years preparing a site-specific decommissioning plan for Diablo, which will include a post-shutdown treatment of spent fuel. The joint proposal states that PG&E will pursue “dry cask storage” as promptly as feasible.
Diablo Canyon uses a system of moving spent fuel from the cooling pools where it’s initially stored for a period of seven years, and placing it into large concrete and steel containers, called “dry casks,” which are stored on-site. There were about 2,848 spent fuel assemblies stored in pools or casks at Diablo in 2013 according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data, and that number is likely to increase during Diablo’s last nine years of operation.
But PG&E spokesman Jones said the site’s current dry cask storage capacity can handle the amount.
“There is enough space in the dry cask storage facility to hold all the fuel that has currently been used to date, as well as the fuel that will be used to get us out to 2025,” Jones told the Sun.
PG&E President Geisha Williams confirmed at a June 28 California State Land Commission hearing that the spent fuel would be stored on-site. The on-site storage would remain until the federal government “delivers on its promise” of a long-term, off-site storage facility, Williams said at the meeting.
That off-site storage facility refers to federal attempts to create an integrated system to store spent fuel from nuclear sites and store it in underground repositories. However, the Department of Energy states on its website that such a solution will take decades to implement.
PG&E will likely face the same fate that other decommissioned plants face: decades of storing, managing, and guarding spent fuel on-site.
Seeley, of Mothers for Peace, said that’s part of the problem even if PG&E does ultimately shut down, an event that Seeley wants to actually see before getting too excited. She told the Sun that nine years is a long time.
“People are excited to know there’s a light at the end of the tunnel but that light is far away and a lot of things can happen during that time,” she said.
Editor Shelly Cone can be reached at scone@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jul 14-21, 2016.