DOCSLIB.ORG

The Economics of Nuclear Power: an Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Economics of Nuclear Power: an Update The Economics of Nuclear Power: An Update By Steve Thomas March 2010 Edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Schumannstraße 8 10117 Berlin Die grüne politische Stiftung Telefon 030.285 34-0 Fax 030.285 34-109 www.boell.de Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) www.psiru.org The Economics of Nuclear Power: An Update Steve Thomas March 2010 Edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation PSIRU University of Greenwich – www.psiru.org Contents 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. THE WORLD MARKET FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS: EXISTING ORDERS AND PROSPECTS................ 7 3. KEY DETERMINANTS OF NUCLEAR ECONOMICS .................................................................................. 13 3.1. CONSTRUCTION COST AND TIME ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1. Unreliability of data................................................................................................................................ 15 3.1.2. Difficulties of forecasting....................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.3. Learning, scale economies, and technical progress ................................................................................ 17 3.1.4. Construction time ................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2. COST OF CAPITAL............................................................................................................................................. 20 3.3. OPERATING PERFORMANCE.............................................................................................................................. 22 3.4. NON-FUEL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST........................................................................................... 24 3.5. FUEL COST ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 3.6. ACCOUNTING LIFETIME.................................................................................................................................... 26 3.7. DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE DISPOSAL COST AND PROVISIONS .................................................................. 27 3.8. INSURANCE AND LIABILITY .............................................................................................................................. 28 4. EXPERIENCE AT OLKILUOTO AND FLAMANVILLE............................................................................... 29 4.1. OLKILUOTO...................................................................................................................................................... 29 4.2. FLAMANVILLE.................................................................................................................................................. 31 5. THE US PROGRAMME....................................................................................................................................... 32 5.1. LIKELY OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................................................... 36 6. THE UK PROGRAMME...................................................................................................................................... 38 6.1. LIKELY OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................................................... 39 7. GERMANY ............................................................................................................................................................ 40 8. OTHER MARKETS.............................................................................................................................................. 41 8.1. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES................................................................................................................................. 41 8.2. SOUTH AFRICA................................................................................................................................................. 42 8.3. CANADA .......................................................................................................................................................... 43 8.4. TURKEY ........................................................................................................................................................... 44 2 PSIRU University of Greenwich – www.psiru.org 8.5. ITALY............................................................................................................................................................... 45 8.6. BRAZIL............................................................................................................................................................. 45 8.7. EASTERN EUROPE ............................................................................................................................................ 46 8.7.1. Slovak Republic ..................................................................................................................................... 46 8.7.2. Romania ................................................................................................................................................. 46 8.7.3. Bulgaria .................................................................................................................................................. 47 8.7.4. Other countries ....................................................................................................................................... 47 9. REVIEW OF UTILITY CONSTRUCTION COST-ESTIMATES................................................................... 48 9.1. UNITED STATES ............................................................................................................................................... 48 9.2. OTHER COUNTRIES........................................................................................................................................... 49 9.3. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................ 49 10. NEED FOR AND EXTENT OF PUBLIC SUBSIDIES...................................................................................... 51 11. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX 1 REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES, CURRENT DESIGNS, AND VENDORS ............................... 56 APPENDIX 2 DISCOUNTING, COST OF CAPITAL, AND REQUIRED RATE OF RETURN.................... 66 APPENDIX 3 DECOMMISSIONING.................................................................................................................... 68 APPENDIX 4 STATUS OF THE US PROJECTS ................................................................................................ 72 3 Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) www.psiru.org Author’s note Since the following text was finalised in March 2010, there have been a number of new construction starts and completions of nuclear plants. The table below shows the seven plants on which construction has started between March 2010 and the end of August 2010. Work has also restarted on the Angra 3 plant in Brazil on which construction started in 1976 (see Table 3 for details of the plant). Four units (see Table 2 for more details) have been completed: Rajasthan 6 (India), Lingao 3 and Qinshan 2-3 (China), and Shin Kori 1 (South Korea). The net result of these changes is that by August 2010, there were 59 reactors under construction of which 37 had construction starts after 2005. Of these 37, 23 are in China, 6 are in Russia, 5 are in South Korea, 2 are in Japan and 1 is in France. The picture of new orders still being dominated by a few countries generally using home suppliers and relatively old designs remains. Table Nuclear capacity with construction starts between March 2010 and August 2010 Country Site Reactor Vendor Size type MW China Taishan 2 PWR Areva 1700 China Changjiang 1 PWR China 1000 China Haiyang 2 PWR China 1000 China Fangchenggang 1 PWR China 1000 Japan Ohma BWR Toshiba 1325 Russia Leningrad 2-2 PWR Russia 1080 Russia Rostov 4 PWR Russia 1080 Source: PRIS Data Base, http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html PSIRU University of Greenwich – www.psiru.org 1. Introduction The severe challenge posed by the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, especially in the electricity generation sector, has led to renewed interest in the construction of nuclear power plants. These would initially replace the aging stock of existing reactors, then meet electricity demand growth, and eventually replace some of the fossil-fired electricity-generating plants. They would also be built in new markets that up to now have not used nuclear power. In the longer term, the promise is that nuclear power could take over some of the energy needs currently being met by direct use of fossil fuels. For example, nuclear power plants could be used to manufacture hydrogen, which would replace
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Equipment for Current Nuclear Plant Projects
    Ikata Nuclear Power Plant on the island of Shikoku, Japan. Owned and operated by the Shikoku Electric Power Company. This PWR has no cooling tower but cools by direct exchange with the ocean. Equipment for current nuclear plant projects The nuclear industry is undergoing a globalisation process. Companies like Westinghouse, GE, Areva and MHI are increasingly selling their expertise beyond their national borders; technology transfers and tie-ups are more frequent; plans are being laid to harness nuclear energy for desalinisation projects and - an industry first - for the manufacture of steel. Focus on Nuclear Power Generation surveys the scene, casting a particularly close eye on the role of suppliers in the slow but steady resurgence on the nuclear power industry. By James Chater he much talked about “nuclear still small. No wonder, then, that the 2007 the Finnish steel company announced renaissance” is happening, but progress is construction of nuclear power stations is put it had teamed up with Sweden's Boliden, Tslow. It takes time to choose a location, forward as a way of plugging the energy gap Rauman Energia, Katternoe and E.ON to ensure the investment funds are in place, seek - even though, if we are to believe critics of form Fennovoima, which aims to construct a the approvals, consult local communities and nuclear power, the new wave of power 1000-1800MW nuclear power plant in address the safety issues. And the market has stations being planned will not be built in Finland. Power generation requires steel, several options to choose from: APWRs from time to avert an energy shortage.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Nuclear Power: Analysis of Recent Studies
    Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) www.psiru.org The economics of nuclear power: analysis of recent studies by Steve Thomas July 2005 PSIRU University of Greenwich www.psiru.org 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. THE WORLD MARKET FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS: EXISTING ORDERS AND PROSPECTS................ 4 3. OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN THE UK ................................................................................ 7 4. CURRENT DESIGNS ............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1. PWRS ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1.1. EPR........................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.2. AP-1000.................................................................................................................................................. 10 4.1.3. System 80+/APR-1400............................................................................................................................ 10 4.1.4. APWR ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
    [Show full text]
  • EPRI Journal, Spring 2010: Nuclear Modular Construction
    nterest in nuclear power is growing The STory in Brief globally. A number of countries with- I out any previous nuclear history— Builders of new nuclear plants will save substantial such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Vietnam, time and money with modular construction tech- Belarus, and the United Arab Emirates— are actively pursuing nuclear power plant niques—installing large, integrated component development. Asia, which didn’t experi- ence the slowdown in nuclear power plant packages that have been tested at the factory development that has gripped the West for the past 20–30 years, is rapidly adding to rather than assembling and testing individual pieces its nuclear fleet. New reactors are now at the construction site. EPRI is working with utilities under construction in Europe, and the United States will likely see the first new and manufacturers to ensure that module inspect- reactors built in three decades now that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has ions, tests, and qualifications will be robust and offered conditional commitments for loan certifiable. guarantees to Southern Company. But the new generation of reactors will to ensure that inspections, tests, and quali- hours. The target for the thirtieth is below not be built the same way as those built fications conducted on the modules are not 8 million. Hitachi-GE said that since 1990, decades ago. Modular construction tech- invalidated when the modules are shipped, construction time for its projects has been niques used in Japan and by the U.S. Navy stored, and installed.” reduced by nearly 20%, and site construc- are being adopted, with the result that tion worker-hours, by nearly 40%.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2
    Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2 Robert Rosner and Stephen Goldberg Energy Policy Institute at Chicago The Harris School of Public Policy Studies Contributor: Joseph S. Hezir, Principal, EOP Foundation, Inc. Technical Paper, Revision 1 November, 2011 1 The research described in this paper was funded by the U.S. DOE through Argonne National Laboratory, which is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract No. DE-AC02-06CH1357. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or the institutional opinions of the University of Chicago. 2 This paper is a major update of an earlier paper, July 2011. This
    [Show full text]
  • MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107
    MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD. 16-5, KONAN 2-CHOME, MINATO-KU December 19, 2008 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Mr. JefferyA. Ciocco, Docket No. 52-021 MHI Ref: UAP-HF-08278 Subject: MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107 Reference: 1) "Request for Additional Information No. 107-1293 Revision 0, SRP Section: 03.09.04 - Control Rod Drive Systems, Application Section: 3.9.4," dated 11/24/2008 With this letter, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ("MHI") transmits to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") documents as listed in Enclosure. Enclosed is the response to 1 RAI contained within Reference 1. As indicated in the enclosed materials, this submittal contains information that MHI considers proprietary, and therefore should be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.390 (a)(4) as trade secrets and commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential. A non-proprietary version of the document is also being submitted with the information identified as proprietary redacted and replaced by the designation "[ ]". This letter includes a copy of the proprietary version (Enclosure 2), a copy of the non- proprietary version (Enclosure 3), and the Affidavit of Yoshiki Ogata (Enclosure 1) which identifies the reasons MHI respectfully requests that all materials designated as "Proprietary" in Enclosure 2 be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.390 (a)(4). Please contact Dr. C. Keith Paulson, Senior Technical Manager, Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems, Inc. if the NRC has questions concerning any aspect of the submittals.
    [Show full text]
  • Amended MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107-1293 Revision 0 (SRP 03.09.04)
    At MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD. 16-5, KONAN 2-CHOME, MINATO-KU TOKYO, JAPAN March 12, 2013 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Mr. JefferyA. Ciocco Docket No. 52-021 MHI Ref: UAP-HF- 13041 Subject: Amended MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107-1293 Revision 0 (SRP 03.09.04) References: 1) "Request for Additional Information No. 107-1293 Revision 0, SRP Section: 03.09.04 - Control Rod Drive Systems, Application Section: 3.9.4," dated November 24, 2008 2) "MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107 Revision 0," MHI's Ref: UAP-HF-08278," dated December 19, 2008 3) "MHI's Amended Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107-1293 Revision 0, UAP-HF-09273," dated March 29, 2009 4) "Amended MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107-1293 Revision 0 (SRP 03.09.04), MHI Ref: UAP-HF-11257" dated August 11,2011 5) "Revised Design Completion Plan for US-APWR Piping Systems and Components, MHI Ref: UAP-HF-12322" dated December 7, 2012 With this letter, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ("MHI") transmits to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") a document entitled "Amended Response to Request for Additional Information No. 107-1293 Revision 0" Enclosed is the third amended response to Question No. 1293-01 and 1293-06 of the RAI No. 107-1293 contained within Reference 1. The first amended response Reference 3 is submitted to reflect the estimated result of CRDM Analysis Result in the transmitted answers Reference 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors - Focus on Radiolysis and Corrosion Damage Mi Wang
    Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors - Focus on Radiolysis and Corrosion Damage Mi Wang To cite this version: Mi Wang. Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors - Focus on Radi- olysis and Corrosion Damage. 2013. hal-00841142 HAL Id: hal-00841142 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00841142 Submitted on 19 Aug 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Laboratoire des Solides Irradiés, UMR 7642 Bibliography Report June 2013 Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors – Focus on Radiolysis and Corrosion Damage Mi WANG 1, 2 1 Laboratoire des Solides Irradiés – Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS, CEA, Palaiseau, France 2 Laboratoire d’Etude de la Corrosion Aqueuse – CEA/DEN/DPC/SCCME, Centre de Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France Laboratoire des Solides Irradiés Tél. : 33 1 69 33 44 80 28, route de Saclay, F91128 Palaiseau Fax : 33 1 69 33 45 54 http://www.lsi.polytechnique.fr 2 Contents 1 Light Water Reactors5 1.1 General Introduction.....................................6 1.1.A Main Components..................................6 1.2 Classification of Nuclear Reactors..............................8 1.2.A Classified via Nuclear reaction............................8 1.2.B Classified by Coolant and Moderator........................8 1.2.C Classified via Generation...............................8 1.3 Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs)..............................9 1.3.A Introduction......................................9 1.3.B Water Chemistry Control in BWRs........................
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of the 586Th ACRS Meeting
    Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Docket Number: n/a Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: September 8, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1108 Pages 1-328 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 DISCLAIMER UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS The contents of this transcript of the proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, and edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + + 4 586TH MEETING 5 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 6 (ACRS) 7 + + + + + 8 THURSDAY 9 SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 10 + + + + + 11 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 12 + + + + + 13 The Advisory Committee met at the 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint 15 North, Room T2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, at 8:30 16 a.m., Said Abdel-Khalik, Chairman, presiding. 17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 18 SAID ABDEL-KHALIK, Chairman 19 J. SAM ARMIJO, Vice Chairman 20 JOHN W. STETKAR, Member-at-Large 21 SANJOY BANERJEE, Member 22 DENNIS C. BLEY, Member 23 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 24 MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, Member 25 DANA A. POWERS, Member NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 2 1 HAROLD B. RAY, Member 2 JOY REMPE, Member 3 MICHAEL T.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Prepared for Greenpeace International  the Economics of Nuclear Power Contents
    The economics of nuclear power Report prepared for Greenpeace International 2 The economics of nuclear power Contents Executive summary Part 3: A Nuclear Revival? Rising construction costs 1 Finland: The Olkiluoto order 32 Rising construction times 1 Finland’s background in nuclear power 32 Falling construction demand 1 The commercial arrangements for the order 32 Untested technology 1 The buyer 33 Unfavourable market place 2 Experience to date 33 Unreliable forecasts 2 Lessons 34 Subsidies needed 3 France: Flamanville 34 Contemporary case study: Finland’s Olkiluoto plant 3 The UK 34 The alternative 4 Scale of programme, government support and benefits 35 Biographies 5 Assumptions 36 Reactor technology and vendor choice 38 Part 1: The technology: status and prospects Evaluation of the UK’s proposed programme 39 Past experience 6 USA 39 Analysis of past construction: evidence of learning 6 China 41 Longer construction 8 Planned units 41 Economic impacts 8 Proposed units 41 Western Europe - UK 9 Declining construction 9 Part 4: The alternatives The current order book 10 Resource and potential: overview 42 A nuclear revival or decline? 10 Economic overview 43 Hang-over plants 11 Future prospects 43 New orders 13 Generation III/III+ plants: experience and status 14 Costs 43 Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) 15 Wind energy 43 Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) 16 Photovoltaics 45 Candus 17 Solar Thermal Electric 46 High temperature gas reactors (HTGRs) 17 Hydro 46 Generation IV plants 18 Biomass 46 Technological gaps 18 Geothermal energy 46 Economics
    [Show full text]
  • The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011: Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World
    THE WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY STATUS REPORT 201 0–2011 Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 YEARS AFTER THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT Mycle Schneider Antony Froggatt Steve Thomas Mycle Schneider Consulting THE WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY STATUS REPORT 2010–2011 Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 Years After the Chernobyl Accident By Mycle Schneider Independent Consultant, Mycle Schneider Consulting, Paris (France) Project Coordinator and Lead Author Antony Froggatt Independent Consultant, London, U.K. Steve Thomas Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University, U.K. Modeling and Graphic Design Julie Hazemann Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris, France Editing Lisa Mastny Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Paris, Berlin, Washington, April 2011 Commissioned by Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. with the support of the Greens-EFA in the European Parliament About the Authors Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997, he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, USAID, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament’s Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Panel and its General Directorate for Research, the Oxford Research Group, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. Since 2004, Mycle has been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies lecture series for the International MSc in Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering Program at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes.
    [Show full text]
  • [Document Title]
    [EHNUR WP 4] ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONCEPTS AND TIMETABLES FOR THEIR COMMERCIAL DEPLOYMENT Steven C. Sholly1 VIENNA, June 2013 1 Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Copyright Vienna, June 2013 Media owner and editor: University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Department of Water, Atmosphere and Environment, Institute of Safety and Risk Sciences, Borkowskigasse 4, 1190 Wien, Austria URL: http://www.risk.boku.ac.at ReportWP4 – Advanced Nuclear Power Plant Concepts and Timetables EHNUR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Most currently operating nuclear power plants are Generation II reactors (except for a few remaining Generation I units and a few Generation III units). Generation III and Generation III+ nuclear power plant concepts are widely recognized to be significant improvements over Generation II reactor designs. Both Generation III designs (standardized designs safer than Generation II) and Generation III+ designs (standardized designs safer than Generation II and with the expectation of greater economy of scale) are available for immediate deployment. The absolute minimum schedule for a Generation III or III+ nuclear power plant project is 10 years from feasibility study to completion of startup testing. Such a schedule is only achievable by: (a) an experienced utility, (b) with the reactor sited at an existing nuclear power plant site, and (c) with a design for which first-of-a-kind engineering (FOAKE) is complete. Under other circumstances (e.g. a utility new to nuclear generation, a greenfield site, a utility in a country without significant nuclear infrastructure, a nuclear power plant design where FOAKE has not yet been accomplished), the schedule would extend from fifteen to seventeen years and perhaps more.
    [Show full text]
  • NEAC 2008 Report
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT THE NUCLEAR ENERGY ADVISORY COUNCIL REPORT 2008 Established Pursuant to Public Act 96-245 John W. Sheehan, Chairperson Pearl Rathbun, Vice Chairperson December 11, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2008 Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (NEAC) Report Page Charge to the Council……………………………………………………………………1 Council Members………………………………………………………………………..1 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………..2 Council Activities in 2008………………………………………………………………2 Report on Issues………………………………………………………………………….3 Millstone Operations……………………………………………………………..3 Decommissioning………………………………………………………………...4 Millstone 1……………………………………………………………….4 Connecticut Yankee……………………………………………………...4 High Level Nuclear Waste……………………………………………………….5 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………..6 State………………………………………………………………………………6 NEAC………………………………………………………………………….…6 Appendix 1 - 2008 Nuclear Energy Advisory Council Membership Appendix 2 - 2008 NEAC Meeting Minutes Appendix 3 - 2008 Millstone I Decommissioning Advisory Committee (MIDAC) Members CHARGE TO THE COUNCIL Section 17 of Public Act 96-245 created the Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (NEAC) and requires it to: 1. Hold regular public meetings to discuss issues relating to the safety and operations of nuclear power plants and to advise the governor, legislature, and municipalities within a five-mile radius of the plants on these issues; 2. Work with federal, state, and local agencies and the companies operating such plants to ensure public health and safety; 3. Discuss proposed changes in, or problems arising from, the operation of the plants; 4. Communicate, through reports and presentations, with the plants' operators about safety or operational concerns at the plants, and 5. Review the current status of the plants with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. COUNCIL MEMBERS The Council consisted of twelve (12) members appointed by the Governor, legislative leadership, and the executive bodies in the towns in or near which the state's nuclear power plants are located (Appendix 1).
    [Show full text]