BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AJR 29
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 29, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
AJR 29
(Chávez) - As Introduced January 28, 2016
SUBJECT: Interim Consolidated Storage Act of 2015: San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station
SUMMARY: Urges the passage of the Interim Consolidated Storage
Act of 2015 (House Resolution (H.R.) 3643), and urges the United
States Department of Energy (US DOE) to implement the prompt and
safe relocation of spent nuclear fuel from the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station to a licensed and regulated interim
consolidated storage facility. Specifically, this resolution:
1) Urges the passage of H.R. 3643 and supports the
development and passage of complementary legislation.
2) Urges the US DOE to implement the prompt and safe
relocation of spent nuclear fuel from the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station to a licensed and regulated
interim consolidated storage facility.
EXISTING LAW:
AJR 29
Page 2
UNDER FEDERAL LAW: Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) (42
U.S.C. § 10101, et seq.):
1) Supports the use of deep geologic repositories for the
safe storage and/or disposal of radioactive waste.
Establishes procedures to evaluate and select sites for
geologic repositories and for the interaction of state and
federal governments.
2) Directs the US DOE to consider Yucca Mountain as the
primary site for the first geologic repository.
3) Prohibits the US DOE from conducting site specific
activities at a second site unless authorized by Congress.
4) Establishes a commission to study the need and
feasibility of a monitored retrievable storage facility.
UNDER STATE LAW:
1) Prohibits any nuclear fission thermal powerplant
requiring the reprocessing of fuel rods from being
permitted unless the federal government has identified and
approved, and there exists a technology for the
construction and operation of, nuclear fuel rod
reprocessing plants. (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 25524.1
- 25524.3)
2) States, pursuant to the California Nuclear Facility
Decommissioning Act of 1985, that the citizens of
AJR 29
Page 3
California should be protected from exposure to radiation
from nuclear facilities. (Public Utilities Code § 8321, et
seq.)
3) Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to
assess existing scientific studies to determine the
vulnerability of very large generation facilities (1700
megawatts) to major disruptions due to aging or major
earthquake and the resulting impacts on reliability, public
safety, and the economy. Requires the CEC, in the absence
of a long-term nuclear waste storage facility, assess the
potential state and local costs and impacts associated with
accumulating waste at California's nuclear powerplants.
(PRC § 25303)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
Need for the resolution: According to the author, "We need to
ensure Californians are safe from potential nuclear disasters,
so we need to urge Congress to handle the San Onofre nuclear
waste quickly and securely before a natural disaster occurs that
could jeopardize the safety of our families."
Federal Nuclear Waste Policy: Under the provisions of the NWPA,
the federal government has the responsibility for managing spent
nuclear fuel produced by commercial reactors, and generators are
responsible for bearing the costs of permanent disposal. The
NWPA authorizes and requires the US DOE to locate and build a
permanent repository and an interim storage facility and to
develop a system to safely transport spent fuel from nuclear
power plants to the repository and interim storage facility.
AJR 29
Page 4
In 1987, Congress designated Yucca Mountain, a complex of
underground tunnels in Nevada, as a federal long-term geological
repository for nuclear waste. However, the Obama Administration
has decided not to use the site and has appointed a Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future (Commission) to find a
solution for permanent storage.
The Commission recommended that efforts be made to develop a
permanent disposal site for spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste.
Without a centralized repository for spent nuclear fuel, nuclear
rods are exponentially accumulating at reactor sites across the
country. In 2009, the United States had more than 60,000 tons of
nuclear waste at more than 100 temporary sites (primarily
nuclear power plants) around the country.
Plant owners thus continue to be responsible for the safe
storage of their spent fuel.
AJR 29
Page 5
Managing nuclear waste: Spent fuel can either be reprocessed to
recover usable uranium and plutonium, or it can be managed as a
waste for long-term ultimate disposal. Since fuel re-processing
is not commercially available in the United States and has not
been shown to be commercially viable in this country, spent fuel
is typically being held in temporary storage at reactor sites
until a permanent long-term waste disposal option becomes
available.
Following removal from the reactor core, spent nuclear fuel,
which is extremely radioactive and remains radioactive for
hundreds of thousands of years, must be stored at the nuclear
power plant in a spent fuel pool for a minimum of five years.
Under federal regulations, every one to two years, approximately
one-third of the nuclear fuel in an operating reactor needs to
be unloaded and replaced with new fuel. Plant operators transfer
used fuel rods, which are still hot and radioactive, to a nearby
spent fuel pool where they are stored underwater. The water acts
as a natural barrier for radiation from the spent fuel as well
as keeps the fuel thermally cool while it decays and decreases
in radioactivity.
For nuclear power plants governed by the United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), SAFSTOR (SAFe STORage) is one of
the options for nuclear decommissioning of a shutdown plant.
Under SAFSTOR, a nuclear facility is maintained and monitored in
a condition that allows the radioactivity to decay; afterwards,
it is dismantled. Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), soon
after the nuclear facility closes, equipment, structures, and
portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are
removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release of the
property and termination of the NRC license.
AJR 29
Page 6
Nuclear power in California: There are four nuclear power plants
in California, three of which have been closed or
decommissioned, including:
1. The Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant, located near
Eureka, which was closed in 1976 due to seismic concerns.
In December 2008, PG&E finished moving the spent nuclear
fuel into dry cask storage on site. That plant was placed
in SAFSTOR until anticipated full decommissioning in future
years.
2. The Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant, located about 25
miles south of Sacramento, was in operation until 1989 when
it was closed by public referendum. In 1996, the NRC
approved a decommissioning plan for the plant. Remaining
onsite are 493 spent fuel assemblies. Since no suitable
disposal facility exists for any of the material, the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District spends $6 million per
year to safely manage it.
3. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),
located midway between Los Angeles and San Diego, went
offline in January 2012 and was ordered by the NRC to stay
offline while tubing wear issues were investigated.
Subsequently, plant owners announced in June 2013 that
remaining Units 2 and 3 would be permanently retired (Unit
1 was closed in 1992). The storage canisters used in SONGS
are designed for a lifetime of 40 years. As of 2011, SONGS
AJR 29
Page 7
had an estimated 1,430 tons of spent nuclear waste on-site.
The remaining operating nuclear power plant in California is
Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County. Licenses
for the two reactors expire in 2024 and 2025, respectively. The
storage canisters used at Diablo Canyon are designed for a
lifetime of 50 years. As of 2011, Diablo Canyon had
approximately 1,126 tons of spent fuel located at its facility.
Since 1976, California has banned the construction of new
nuclear plants until a federal long-term waste disposal
repository is operating.
AB 1632 report: AB 1632 (Blakeslee, Chapter 722, Statutes of
2006), required the CEC to use existing scientific studies to
assess the potential vulnerability of California baseload energy
generating plants, Diablo Canyon and SONGS, to a considerable
interruption due to a major seismic event or plant aging. In
November 2008, CEC issued the study, "An Assessment of
California's Nuclear Power Plants: AB 1632 Report," which
recommended advanced 3-D and other seismologic techniques to be
used for updated studies on all faulting in the vicinity of
Diablo Canyon and SONGS.
Natural disaster: According to the California Seismic Safety
Commission staff, there is a risk of a major earthquake in
California on the order of 2 to 3 percent per year. According to
the 2007 State Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities,
California faces a 99.7 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or
AJR 29
Page 8
larger earthquake during the next 30 years. The likelihood of an
even more powerful quake of magnitude 7.5 or greater in the next
30 years is 46 percent. Modeling of the San Andreas Fault has
demonstrated the potential of an earthquake reaching a magnitude
of 7.8 along that fault.
Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand a magnitude 7.5
earthquake. The Hosgri Fault is 50 miles west of the plant and
is believed to have a maximum magnitude of 7.1. The San Andreas
Fault is east of the plant and has had magnitude 7.8 quakes in
the past but is also farther away than the Hosgri fault. In
2008, however, the United State Geological Survey located a new
active fault, the "Shoreline" fault, within 1800 feet of the
Diablo Canyon.
SONGS is designed to withstand a magnitude 7.0 earthquake. SONGS
is located five miles away from the Rose Canyon fault, which is
part of the Newport-Inglewood fault system. According to San
Diego County emergency planning documents, the Rose Canyon Fault
has the potential to reach a magnitude 6.9 to 7.2 earthquake.
In March 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake off the Pacific coast
of Japan created a tsunami and ultimately lead to a nuclear
meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant as a
result of serious damage to the plant's cooling systems. It is
the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of
1986 and the second disaster (after Chernobyl) to be given the
Level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event
Scale. The International Atomic Energy Agency had expressed
concern about the ability of Japan's nuclear plants to withstand
seismic activity. At a 2008 meeting of the G8's Nuclear Safety
and Security Group in Tokyo, an IAEA expert warned that a strong
earthquake with a magnitude above 7.0 could pose a "serious
AJR 29
Page 9
problem" for Japan's nuclear power stations.
Coincidentally or not, AJR 29 is being heard on the heels of the
5-year anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
Interim Consolidated Storage Act of 2015: H.R. 3643, also known
as the "Interim Consolidated Storage Act of 2015", would amend
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to authorize the secretary
of the DOE to enter into contracts for the storage of certain
high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, take title
to the material, and use interest from the Nuclear Waste Fund to
move forward with interim storage sites.
H.R. 3643 allows nuclear waste from SONGS to be temporarily
stored off-site. Much of SONGS's nuclear waste is currently in
cooling pools. If the bill passes, waste could be moved off-site
within a few years, when it is cool enough for transport. A
proposed interim storage site northeast of El Paso, Texas, has
been identified as a potential home for SONGS's nuclear waste.
H.R. 3643 allows nuclear waste to be moved from SONGS, as well
as from Diablo Canyon Power Plant and Rancho Seco Nuclear plant
in California, and other sites nationwide.
It has bipartisan co-sponsorship, including California
Representatives Darrell Issa (R - San Diego), Jared Huffman (D -
Marin), Ami Bera (D - Rancho Cordova), Duncan Hunter, (R - San
Diego ), Scott Peters (D - San Diego), Ken Calvert (R - Inland
Empire), and Doris Matsui (D - Sacramento).
AJR 29
Page 10
Local support: On January 6, 2016, Oceanside City Council
unanimously adopted a resolution to support H.R. 3643.
Point of clarification: AJR 29 would ask the Legislature to
support H.R. 3643 and "the development and passage of
complementary legislation." The author intends to suggest that
if Congress passes another, similar version to H.R. 3643, such
as an amended version, or the content of H.R. 3643 in another
bill number, that the California Legislation, in approving AJR
29, would be supportive of that similar legislation. However,
AJR 29 could be asking the California Legislature to support
unspecified legislation that may be related on the issue, but
substantively different from H.R. 3643.
To avoid confusion and prevent the California Legislature from
supporting unknown legislation, the committee may wish to make
the following amendment:
On Page 2, starting on line 16, strike out "and supports the",
and on line 17, strike out "development and passage of
complementary legislation" as follows.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file.
AJR 29
Page 11
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Paige Brokaw / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965