Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 050 CC RESO1981 050 CC RESO(Ììîªt RESOLUTION NO. 81-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK SUPPORTING LICENSING OF SAN ONOFRE UNITS II AND III WHEREAS, The City of Baldwin Park is vitally concerned that the economic, environmental and social well-being of the State of California be maintained; and WHEREAS, an adequate supply of energy is critical to meeting California^ economic and social needs while preserving the environmental gains of the past decade; and WHEREAS, this nation^ continued overdependence on foreign oil has caused major adverse economic impacts; and WHEREAS, there is a probability that instability in the Middle East will, at some near future time, result in reduced supplies of oil, thereby causing further social and economic chaos here at home, and WHEREAS, regulatory delays in the planning and licensing of needed energy facilities are costly to the consumer, damaging to the environment, and result in greater importation of foreign oil; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Baldwin Park supports licensing San Onofre Units II and III nuclear power plants; developing alternative forms of energy sucy as solar, goethermal and wind; and a continued commitment to conservation of our energy resources. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of J^e, 1981. ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF BALDWIN PARK I, LINDA L. GAIR, City Clerk of the City of Baldwin Park do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Baldwin Park at its regular meeting of the City Council on the 3rd day of June, 1981, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN KING, MC-NRTT.T.. HfTOMJ, AGUIIAR, AND MRYOR WRTTR NOES: COUNCILMEN S]QNE_______________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEN NOME BIB] 37679-U01 1981-U02 050-U02 CC-U02 RESO-U02 LI3-U03 FO2126-U03 FO10414-U03 DO10609-U03 C6-U03 RESO-U03 2/26/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 1981 050 CC RESO(ÌìîªCITIES ADOPTING RESOLUTION Upland City Council Sylmar City Council Fuller-ton City Council Santa Paula City Council Loma Linda City Council Rancho Lucamonga City Council CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE Fountain Valley Sanra Uara Orange Santa Ana Tustin Costa Mesa Upland Redtands BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS Orange County Goard of Supervisors As of May 19, 1981, Edison has obtained 113 petitions from various professional and service organizations, as well as from six city councils and 2U chambers of commerce. BIB] 37679-U01 1981-U02 050-U02 CC-U02 RESO-U02 LI3-U03 FO2126-U03 FO10414-U03 DO10609-U03 C6-U03 RESO-U03 2/26/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 1981 050 CC RESO(ÌìîªRESOLUTION WHEREAS, Name of Croup) is vitally concerned that the economic, environmental and social well-being of the btate of of California be maintained; and WHEREAS, an adeauate supply of energy is critical to meeting California's economic and social needs while preserving the environmental gains of the past decade; and WHEREAS, this nation's continued overdependence on foreign oil has caused major adverse economic impacts; and WHEREAS, there is a probability that instability in the Middle East wi11, at some near future time, result in reduced suppiies of oil, thereby causing further social and economic chaos here at home, and WHEREAS, there nust be a strong commi tment to conservation of the nation's limited resources and development of efficient and secure new sources of energy here at home, and WHPREAS, requlatory delays in the planning and licensing of needed one ray facilities are costly to the consumer, damaging to the environment, and result in greater importation of foreiqn oi1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Name of Group supports 1. licensing San Onofre Units II and III nuclear power plants 2. developing alternative forms of energy such as, solar, geothermal and wind 3. a continued commitment to conservation of our energy resources BIB] 37679-U01 1981-U02 050-U02 CC-U02 RESO-U02 LI3-U03 FO2126-U03 FO10414-U03 DO10609-U03 C6-U03 RESO-U03 2/26/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 1981 050 CC RESO(ÌìîªFACT SHEET SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION The Need For Nuclear Power Few would dispute the fact that energy is rapidly becoming the Achilles* Heel" of the United States. However, this country possesses energy options which are much more substantial than Achilles' mythical armor. One such option is nuclear power. * * * ENERGY REALITIES. During the next ten years, Southern California Edison does not expect to build any oil-fired electrical generating stations. Oil must be phased out as a fuel for electricity production due to soaring costs and dependence on other nations to supply it. National policy and current government regulations require that the electric utility industry reduce oil usage and phase out natural gas usage. Edison projects need for 6,000 megawatts of additional generating capacity by 1990. Where will this additional power come from? The answer is alternative and renewable energy sources, nuclear and coal generation. Southern California Edison has made a commitment to more than double the amount of electricity generated by solar, wind, geothermal» and other renewable sources over previous estimates. Current plans call for renewable energy sources to be responsible for generating over 30% of the projected increase in power needs by 1990. But what of the remainder? The answer in the 80s is nuclear power. Edison and the entire utility industry are convinced that nuclear power is one of the few viable alternatives to meeting energy needs effectively in the 1980s. It is vital that this safe, clean, and economical source of energy be developed. Is Nuclear Power Really Necessary? In a word, yes. Even with dedicated conservation efforts, the demand for electricity is expected to increase. Although alternate energy options such as solar, wind, geothermal and other renewables will make a significant contribution by 1990, they cannot effectively meet the energy needs of our customers during the 1980s. According to the National Academy of Sciences, as fluid fuels are phased out for electricity production, coal and nuclear power are the only economical alternatives for large scale application in the remai nder of thi s century." Due to envi ronmental and technologi cal considerations, the burning of coal in California for energy production is not feasible at this time. That leaves nuclear power as the primary alternative. Why Expand San Onofre? Although aggressive conservation and load management programshavehelped to reduce the demand for electricity, Edison will still need additional generating capacity in the next decade. To help meet these power needs, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is being expanded to include two more units, each capabt e of produci ng 1100 megawatts of e1 ectri ci ty i n addi ti on to the 450 megawatts already provided by the plant. Units 2 and 3 are now about 90 percent completed. San Onofre Units 2 and 3 are of vital importance to the economy of Southern Cali forni a. The Cali forni a Energy Commi ssi on has i ndi cated that the on-schedule operation of the two new units will be important in meeting the state's demand for electricity during the remainder of this century. In addition, Edison has a 15.8% interest 579 MW) in three 1,222-MW units being constructed at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near Phoenix, Arizona. The units are scheduled for firm operation in the 1983-86 period. These units are now about 50% completed. Any delay in the operation of the San Onofre or Palo Verde nuclear units wi11 cost consumers millions of dollars because expensive fuel oil will have to be burned to replace much of the power lost by their non-operation. * * in ECONOMIC REALITIES. Southern California Edison customers are facing the painful reali ty that eTectri ci ty i s no 1onger i nexpens i ve. Because of restri cti ve ai r quality regulations, Edison has relied heavily on low-sulfur oil and natural gas for its electricity generation. Back in 1970, oil cost about $2 a barrel. Edison now pays more than $34 a barrel for low-sutfur oil. BIB] 37679-U01 1981-U02 050-U02 CC-U02 RESO-U02 LI3-U03 FO2126-U03 FO10414-U03 DO10609-U03 C6-U03 RESO-U03 2/26/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 1981 050 CC RESO(ÌìîªHow Much Pit Will San Onofre Save? When operating at full power, San Onofre now saves the equivalent of 18,000 barrels of oil per day. When the two new units begin operating, the plant wilt save about 100,000 barrels of oil daily. How Much Does The Electricity Produced At San Onofre Cost? Nuct ear power i s the most economical major power source presently available to Edison. During 1979, the total cost of generating electricity at San. Onofre was approximately 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour kWh), compared to approximately 4 cents per kWh for oil-generated electricity and 2 cents per kWh for coal-generated electricity. In 1979 alone, San Onofre saved Edison customers approximately $95 million in fuel costs by negating the need to burn expensive oil. Furthermore, nationwide statistics compiled by the Edison Electric Institute show that the more utilities are able to utilize nuclear power, the more they are able to hold the line on rising electricity costs. While electricity costs across the nation rose 14.6 percent per year from 1973-77, utilities which had 50 percent or more nuclear capacity held their average annual increase to 9.2 percent. * * * ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCES. Edison has no favorite" form of producing electricity. Everyreasonable,cost-effective form of producing energy must be considered if Edi son * s responsi bi 1 i ty to the publ i c is to be met. In fact, the Company i s actively pioneering solar, geothermat, wind power and coat gasification as future energy sources. Recent developments Edison has made in the alternative energy field include the dedication of California's first Wind Energy Center near Palm Springs, and the first operation of our 3 MW wind turbine generator soon to be joined by a 500 kW vertical axis wind turbine generator; the site dedication of our 10-MW Solar One" project located near Daggett in the Mohave Desert; and the dedication and start-up operation of our 10-MW Geothermat-Etectric Station Unit 1 near Brawley in the Imperial Valley. We also are progressing in our research and development of the nation's first commercial-size coal gasification power plant, a solar salt pond and production of tow-cost photovoltaic celts. Some significant successes in a number of research and development areas prompted Edison to adopt a major corporate policy change in October 1980. The Company made a commitment to more than double the amount of electricity generated by renewable, rather than finite, power sources and to conti nue emphasi s on cogenerati on, conservation and toad management. The Company's current plans call for renewable energy sources to provide more than one-third or 2,000 MW of the 6,000 MW projected increase in power needs by 1990. Aren't There Any Economical Energy Sources Other Than Nuclear? Despi te these developmentsin therenewabt e energy field,nuclear power remains the lowest-cost method of generating electricity. Following is a comparison of the projected cost of generation alternatives: 1980 Levelized Power Cost 1980 Levelized Power Cost t/kWh) t/kWh) Nuclear Coat Wind Sotar-Photovottaic 8 Solar-Thermal 17 12 Geothermat 18 10 Fuel Celts 22 13 Combustion Turbines 20 Can Conservation Defer The Need For Nuclear Power? In a word, no. Southern California Edison has been in the conservation/toad management business for eight years. Presently, more than 70 programs are in operation impacting the entire spectrum of Edi son customers. At though it is of prime importance, conservati on atone cannot solve energy supply problems. Conservation and toad management efforts plus the impact of higher electric rates, are expected to reduce projected peak demand by about 5,000 megawatts by 1990. Even considering this reduction, 6,000 megawatts of new capacity witt be needed to meet increasing customer demand in the coining decade. That is equal to about 40% of present Company-owned capacity. Remember, conservation does not create energy; it saves it. Further development of nuclear power is important in meeting our customers' electricity needs during the next decade. SCE/December 1980 BIB] 37679-U01 1981-U02 050-U02 CC-U02 RESO-U02 LI3-U03 FO2126-U03 FO10414-U03 DO10609-U03 C6-U03 RESO-U03 2/26/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 1981 050 CC RESO(ÌìîªFACT SHEET SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Nuclear Power Plant Safety Since people tend to fear most what they understand least, safety has always been one of the most misrepresented aspects of nuclear power. This country has gained the economic and environmental benefits of two decades of nuclear power production without injury to the public or serious injury to plant employees by radiation exposure. The commercial nuclear power industry actually has mai ntai ned a safety record unparal1 eled by any other i ndustri a1 experi ence. However, the public has every right to demand assurance that plants, such as San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, are designed, constructed, operated and regulated to meet exacting safety standards. Insuring the safety of nuclear energy is a responsibility to which Southern California Edison is strongly committed. 3k * A SAFETY FEATURES AT SAN ONOFRE. A major nuclear power accident depends on a hi ghly unli Rely combi nation of circumstances. Even so, layers of engineered safeguards and structural protect!ve barri ers are empioyed i n nuclear power plants to control even the most improbable accident. Safety measures which would help prevent dangerous radioactive releases from a nuclear plant such as San Onofre include: Multiple Barriers The multiple barrier safety concept is achieved by keeping the fission products within ceramic fuel pellets, enclosing the pellets within metal tubes called cladding" and enclosing these metal tubes or fuel rods" within a steel vessel, concrete shield wall and leak-tight steel shell. Finally. a massive concrete containment structure surrounds the entire reactor and its primary cooling system to prevent release to the environment even if the several other barri ers are penetrated. To reach the envi ronment, radi oacti ve fissi on products would have to penetrate each of these barriers in succession and leak out of the concrete containment structure. However, if any potentially harmful radioactive materials did penetrate these barriers, San Onofre also has several systems which would trap and treat them so that they could be safely disposed of. Design Redundancy San Onofre has many overlapping safety features. There wouldstillbe sufficient additional safeguards to contain the radioactive elements, even if a disproportionate number of systems failed. Automatic Reactor Shut Down The reactor is remotely operated from a control room in a different part of the plant. In addition to its operators, San Onofre has automatic controls which will shut down the reactor if changes in normal conditions are sensed. Emergency Core-Cooling An Emergency Core-Cooling System ECCS) ensures that a back-up supply of water wilt prevent overheating if normal cooling water is lost. Because of redundant components, the ECCS essentially represents two separate safety systems. What Assurance Is There That Safety Measures At San Onofre Are Sufficient? Before they can go into service, alt nuclear power plants must demonstrate that their construction end operation win not present undue risk to public health and safety. During the licensing process, wore than two dozen permits must be secured to comply with federal, state and regional regulations. Preliminary and Final Safety Analysis Reports PSAR and FSAR) BIB] 37679-U01 1981-U02 050-U02 CC-U02 RESO-U02 LI3-U03 FO2126-U03 FO10414-U03 DO10609-U03 C6-U03 RESO-U03 2/26/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 1981 050 CC RESO(Ììîªs and detailed environmental Reports ERs) must be submitted, including an analysis of how systems and components respond to accident conditions. After the plant begins operating, Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC) inspectors make frequent announced and unannounced visits to make sure safety standards are being met. How Close Are We To No-Risk Nuclear Power? Some ri sks wi 11 always be present,ButtheySFesmallTnterms of 1ong-range probabi1i ty and stati sti cal analyst s. Furthermore, the Nati onat Academy of Sci ences released a report in January of 1980 which stated that, in terms of public risks from a11 types of electric power production, coal-fired generation presents the highest overall level of risk, with oil-fired and nuclear generation considerably safer....*' * * * IMPACT OF THREE MILE ISLAND. No one in the nuclear power industry minimizes the significance of the accident at Three Mile Island TMI)» the concern that it raised or the need to assure nuclear plant safety. However, it's important to remember that the safety systems at TMI worked as designed until over-ridden by human error and that no one was injured. In fact, because of the lessons learned from TMI, nuclear power is even safer today than prior to the accident. What Was The Most Important Lesson Learned From TMI? Most of the preventa- tive safety measures taken in nuclear power plants, as recommended by the NRC. were directed at coping with massive, credible accidents, since licensing policy focused on these rather than on a series of minor ones. TMI analyst s revealed that i nsuffi ct ent emphas i s may have been piaced on combinations of smaller incidents and operator actions. What Is Being Done To Eliminate Accidents In The Future? The uti1i ty industry has taken important steps In assuming greater responsibility for nuclear safety. A Nuclear Safety Analysis Center NSAC). designed to supply the industry with the best possible information on questions of nuclear safety, has been staffed by 50 technical experts. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations INPO), an even more ambitious response to TMI, will establish new standards for plant operations and operator training. INPO*s basic purpose is to help nuclear plant owners achieve higher levels of excellence in operations, training, management and emergency planning. The Institute is now building a professional staff of 200 people. * * * TMI-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS AT SAN ONOFRE. Lessons learned from TMI have resulted in $26 m'Hion in design and procedural changes at San Onofre Unit I and another $30 million in modifications at Units 2 and 3. These modifications were made at the request of the NRC. Steps have also been taken to further improve the training of San Onofre operators, even though an extensive 18-month training program already exists. Although a TMI-like sequence of events at San Onofre was already unlikely because of basic differences in plant design and operating philosophy, the new improvements win further reduce the chance or mitigate the consequences of such an accident. PrJorTo These Changes, Could San Onofre Have Suffered An Accident Similar o mi7Several safety features inherent in San Onofre's Hesign, Including larger volumes of-water in the steam generators permitting longer response r c times,^wouldAave^Bade a TMI-Ji^e accident highly unlikely. i r CE/December 1980 BIB] 37679-U01 1981-U02 050-U02 CC-U02 RESO-U02 LI3-U03 FO2126-U03 FO10414-U03 DO10609-U03 C6-U03 RESO-U03 2/26/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04