The need to support a community when a nuclear power station closes

Regional and national conversations about nuclear power center on electricity supply and cost, environmental goals and radiological safety. But we focus on how closure looks from the host community’s standpoint. There are substantial financial and social losses that pose major, long-term risks to local and regional economies.

The foreseeable losses from plant closures are substantial enough to merit major planning efforts. Economic impact studies forecast the nature and scale of losses, but it’s not clear what to do next to prepare, beyond bracing for the worst and slashing budgets.

Unfortunately, no targeted programs or funding exist to support nuclear host communities doing this kind of planning. The accelerating pace of nuclear power plant closures has exposed a problem that will affect quality of life for hundreds of towns, many in rural or economically depressed areas. There are no model practices or policies, and no federal entity that assumes responsibility beyond radiological safety, environmental cleanup and monitoring of spent fuel.

A decade ago, community leaders in Southern Vermont asked what might happen to the regional economy if their plant shut down. They conducted a study to understand the problem, and produced the first-ever Comprehensive Economic Development Strategyincorporating nuclear plant closure impacts into economic planning. They had realized it was up to the region to take action because no help would be offered. By the time Vermont Yankee announced closure, work was already underway to replace Vermont Yankee losses with new jobs and businesses.

Today, the community around the Diablo Canyon Power Plant is at the start of a long journey. As home to many of the earliest plant closures, New England offers a network of people with experience, many of whom are also working to improve federal policies that will frame your future experience. This includes engaging with two current initiatives; NRC rulemaking on decommissioning and the Department of Energy consent-based approach to the spent fuel siting process.

Hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent to decommission the nuclear power plants that supply one-fifth of our nation’s energy. Additional billions are going into spent fuel handling and related litigation.

Currently, the best-case closure scenario is simply restoring nuclear sites to a natural state, erasing the past with no attempt to generate new economic activity.

We can do more. Only a few decades ago, America lacked a coherent approach to polluted sites. Now brownfield programs commonly transform polluted sites into new assets that attract investment.

Military base closures have been devastating, but over time Base Realignment and Closurepractices are evolving to help create new economic activity and redevelopment.

The local, county, regional and state agencies responsible for each community need enough funding and authority to implement timely and sufficient mitigation of all risks — to economic, environmental and human health. Decommissioning creates unfunded mandates precisely at the point when revenues are dropping. Ultimately, we need a national solution that makes the long-term economic health of host communities a policy goal. We need a federal agency that assumes responsibility for achieving that goal.

We urge California’s policymakers to join a growing body of state and federal legislators and regulators who believe we can do better when it comes to caring for the communities providing our nation’s energy.