Nuclear Energy Summary By

Nuclear Energy Summary By:

Emily Yandle

Luke Macdowell

Taylor Noland

Taylor Noland:

Section A:

Nuclear Energy was first used with the dropping of the atomic bombs Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are two forms of nuclear energy: fission and fusion. I highly recommend reading this webpage as a quick crash course:

Nuclear Fusion is the type of energy the sun creates and also the hydrogen bomb. Fusion is what happens when two atomic nuclei are forced together by high pressure ... high enough to overcome the strong repulsive forces of the respective protons in the nuclei. When the nuclei fuse, they form a new element, and release excess energy in the form of a fast-moving neutron. The energy is 'extra' because the mass of the newly formed nucleus is less than the sum of the masses of the original two nuclei; the extra mass is converted to energy according to Einstein's equation E=mc2 This energy can be used to do useful work!.....In the sun, the energy to force nuclei together comes from the sun's immense internal temperatures, approaching 40,000,000 or more degrees at the center! In order to cause nuclei to fuse here on earth (and release their stored energy), they must either be heated to that temperature, or caused to move fast enough to simulate a correspondingly high temperature....That has been done already, more than 50 years ago. The energy to set off the fusion reaction was supplied by an atomic bomb, and the fusion reaction that resulted was called a 'hydrogen bomb'! But the energy release was all at once, and uncontrollable. While scientists were easily able to control atomic explosions, to create reasonably safe nuclear energy in atomic power plants, no such controlled reaction has yet been achieved for fusion.

Quoted from this website:

The major difference between fission and fusion reactors is that there is no possibility of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor resulting in major release of radioactivity to the environment. The primary reason is that nuclear fusion requires precisely controlled temperature, pressure, and magnetic field parameters to generate net energy. If the reactor were damaged, these parameters would be disrupted and the heat generation in the reactor would rapidly cease. In contrast, the fission products in a fission reactor continue to generate heat through beta-decay for several hours or even days after reactor shut-down, meaning that melting of fuel rods is possible even after the reactor has been stopped due to continued accumulation of heat.

Quoted from this website:

Uranium, a primary element used in nuclear technology, is highly prevalent in Utah. Uranium oxide is then “enriched” to increase the percentage of the isotope uranium 235 and eventually transformed into “fuel rods”. These fuel rods produce the heat that boils water, which creates steam and drives turbines that create energy. These boilers and turbines are essentially that same as ones found in any other steam power plant. The only distinguishing characteristic is how we have created that steam.

Nuclear Energy became privatized under the “Atoms for Peace” program of the Eisenhower administration. Companies such as Westinghouse and General Electric owned some of the first nuclear power plants. The federal government regulated all nuclear energy under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The act set up the Atomic Energy Commission (now known as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). In 1957, the Price-Anderson Act capped private liability and also provided reinsurance for nuclear accidents; this legislation significantly promoted the development of nuclear energy. That same year, the first nuclear power plant went into operation in Pennsylvania. It was not until 1965 that the world began to embrace nuclear fission power plants. Nearly 300 had been commissioned by 1975. However, the meltdown at the Three Mile Island power plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania abruptly slowed down the progress of nuclear energy.

Lastly, here is another website I liked:

Section B:

This section discusses the growth of Nuclear Power, especially in Asia. There are a total of 436 nuclear power reactors worldwide as of 2010, which is about 14% of the world’s electricity generation. Currently, there are 56 reactors being built across the globe, and the majority are to be located in Asia. Europe has also embraced nuclear power, having 94 reactors.

However, there have been issues across the globe, just as the U.S. experienced with the Three Mile Island disaster. In 1986, a USSR nuclear power plant experience a meltdown in present day Ukraine. The “Chernobyl” power plant released large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere, creating one of the largest and potentially devastating environmental disasters ever. The USSR had initially not fully disclosed all of the details of the accident. This fueled public fears about nuclear power. The USSR had to eventually evacuate the entire region, and banned nearly all activity (other than keep the power plant in operation).

The United Nations has estimated that 4,000 people may eventually die from exposure to the radiation. However, as of 2005 only 70 deaths related to Chernobyl have been reported. The reaction to Chernobyl in Europe was mixed. The majority of Eastern European countries continue to rely on nuclear energy. However, some countries, like Germany, have adopted policies to phase out nuclear energy.

On the other hand, Asia has gone full steam ahead with developing nuclear power. China currently leads the world in nuclear reactors under construction, and is expected to build up to 50 by 2020 (interestingly, the book notes the rest of the world is projected to only build 15). This section wraps up with a more “economic” discussion on the nuclear industry in Asia. The gist of the excerpt is that Asian mega-corporations, with the backing of their home countries, are leading the world in developing nuclear energy. Whereas in the U.S., we are probably falling behind quickly in this race. The excerpt essentially stressed that for American firms to compete, our federal government must promote and help develop nuclear technology.

Section C:

I personally was not intrigued by this section, mainly because I thought the topic could have gone a lot more in-depth. The reading points out that nuclear energy, for the past 30 years has kind of flown under the radar in the U.S. However, those electric companies who operate reactors have quietly enjoyed a great deal of success. Nuclear power plants are able to, more than ever, generate cheap and reliable energy. For instance, in 1990 nuclear facilities were operating at 70% efficiency, and as of 2004 were operating at over 90%. This increase in efficiency is essentially like adding 25 new nuclear reactors to the power grid without having built one additional facility. The NRC has also become more willing to increase the capacity of these facilities. The bottom line is that nuclear energy is reliable, pollution-free, has a strong safety record compared to other energy sources, and provides a wealth of jobs. Furthermore, as we develop a renewable energy policy, Nuclear energy will probably be exempt from allowances and taxes, since they do not emit greenhouse gases.

Section D:

This section discusses building new nuclear reactors in the U.S. Currently, the NRC is considering applications for 26 new reactors. Most of these are additional reactors on an existing nuclear plant site. The reading then takes us down a road of slamming coal-powered energy, and the benefits of nuclear power. The author uses coal energy as the barometer, because both sources are the major providers of “baseload power”. The primary benefit, is that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases. The reading suggests that the potential risk of radiation exposure to the environment is overblown. Other than Three Mile Island, there has not been a significant release of radiation outside of the nuclear plant site.

The first subsection discusses the role of state law in nuclear energy. The Atomic Energy of Act of 1954 established the NRC. The NRC was given exclusive authority to regulate the safety of nuclear facilities. Therefore. Federal law preempts all state laws regarding the safety of nuclear power. However, state laws are effective for any measure that is not safety-related. For instance, in California the stated purpose of a regulation was “economic”, which helped it stay outside the scope of a safety regulation. Another state law issue occurring is the “restructured” electrical power system. These systems, as discussed in Chapter 9, have essentially separated the companies that generate electricity from the ones that distribute/transmit electricity. This allows generating plants to choose who to sell their electricity to with a wide latitude of discretion. A supplier can even choose to not sell its energy within its own state, and also avoids the traditional need to prove the existence of a local market.

Lastly, the EPAct of 2005 promoted the used of baseload power by requiring all utilities to make available “time of use” rates. This subsequently has encouraged the use of “smart grids”. Nuclear power is a primary source of baseload power, thus just another reason to promote its production.

The reading then moves towards the “Federal Licensing Process”. Up until 1989, nuclear reactors were licensed under a two-step process. The first step was the construction permit, and the second step was the operational permit. However, this system did not work well and received criticism from many different angles. Thus, the NRC adopted a new nuclear reactor licensing process. It involves 3 separate standardized licenses: the Early Site Permit, the Combined Operating License, and the Design Certificate. This system, despite some criticism, has been successful. As of 2009, the NRC was reviewing 17 COL applications, approved 4 EPS licenses, and approved 4 DC licenses.

Early Site Permits The ESP is a site permit that allows for the holder of the permit to “bank” that site for future construction of a nuclear power plant. The ESP is meant to be filed before filing a COL. The process was put into place to resolve licensing issues related to siting before an applicant would commit resources and funds to construction. Whenever an ESP holder applies for a COL, it can just reference back to the ESP for all siting issues. An ESP application must contain a complete Environmental Impact Report, a Safety Analysis Report, an Emergency Plan, and a profile of the surrounding area. Once all the relevant documents have been approved, the NRC will either issue the ESP with any conditions, or deny. An ESP is valid for a period of 10 to 20 years. As of 2009, the NRC had approved all 4 ESPs which were applied for.

In the application process, there is a board hearing, where contentions can be raised. The contentions are typically either environmental or safety concerns. However, no contention has prompted the NRC to deny an application yet.

The ESP process has been effective. Exelon, one of the four ESP holders has said that it will not seek a reactor at its ESP site in the near future, and seems to just be “banking” its permit. The other three permit holders have applied for COLs and are referencing them in their applications. Both are examples of streamlining the application process.

Design Certificates The NRC has designated three issues it focuses on in issues with ne nuclear reactors: (1) a certification process that will be flexible enough to promote safer, more efficient designs; (2) avoidance of repetitive questions in the application process between construction and operational issues; and (3) standardizing the criteria so to lessen the burden on a company constructing a new nuclear reactor which has already been designed by another company.

The NRC uses the DC to streamline the licensing process. A reactor vendor/designer can apply for a DC, and once its approved it can then go out into the market and sell its “off-the-shelf” design to companies seeking to build a nuclear power plant. That company who purchased the design will only need to reference the DC in its COL application. The DC certification licensing process is a “rulemaking process”. (I was confused as to what the reading meant by this). One benefit of the DC is that it enables companies who are seeking for a DC to only focus its attention on the design issues, and not the other issues in a ESP or COL process. The inverse is true for the company seeking to just purchase a DC. The regulations make sure to try to deter future companies from changing desigins, or using non-standard designs. Part 52 places stringent restrictions on design changes, and essentially any amendment to a DC will ultimately result in an entirely new DC application process. This is so because the NRC is seeking to standardize the design of nuclear reactor facilities. So far the NRC has approved 4 DCs: General Electric’s Boiling Water Reactor, two designs by Westinghouse, and the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor.

The section on DC concludes by questioning the future of DCs. There is a bit of uncertainty as to how the process will fairly handle changes to the certifications and modifications of new technology. There is also expected to be a fair amount of litigation over COL applications that reference non-certified designs and designs that need to be amended.

Emily Yandle:

Combined Operating Licenses

The COL was designed to replace the old system where it was possible for a nuclear plant to be constructed and never actually be able to run. However, there is still another round of tests that is required at the end of the COL application. They are a series of “detailed last minute tests” without which, the plant is not allowed to operate called ITAAC. I found it interesting that the contentions that could be raised at this stage in the process were severely limited because one of the goals of the COL process is supposedly to encourage public involvement.

Contentions raised at the COL proceedings are similar to what is expected and have included: NEPA required alternatives analysis, environmental effects on local wildlife, water amounts, safety of spent fuel pools, means of disposing of spent fuel, quality of aircraft assessment, and the carbon footprint of the entire cycle. To be admitted, the applicant must not have sufficiently dealt with the issue in their application or there must be a question about their treatment of the issue. The NRC Commission seems to occasionally change its mind on whether a particular issue is available for raising a contention or not. Additionally, contentions related to design are not allowed in the COL process because the DC application is required. If a contention is admitted, there is a mandatory discovery process followed by a hearing in front of a three judge panel. Because of the often technical nature of the contentions, the panels normally include one law judge and two technical judges.

In State of New York v. NRC, the Second Circuit considered whether spent fuel is a significant environmental issue that must be considered by NEPA. The court seemed to give significant deference to the NRC because this was a scientific dispute. The court also focused on the fact that because the NRC mandated so many safety requirements, it could consider the pools lower risk.

NRC’s Revised Hearing Procedures

In Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. NRC, a citizen group challenged changes to the hearing process. First, it challenged that the hearings were not on the record. The First Circuit found that the APA did not require a formal hearing on the record. Instead, all that was necessary was a hearing before a neutral decision maker. Second, the group challenged whether eliminating discovery and replacing it with mandatory disclosure was sufficient. The court found that mandatory, full discovery was not necessary, and that the NRC had a rational basis for replacing discovery. From involvement with the process, mandatory disclosure almost provides more information because it requires the applicant to provide to the other party everything related to a contention. For example, if the contention related to spent fuel, everything the company has in its possession related to spent fuel for the new plant must be produced. I wonder if in some ways this isn’t more beneficial to parties raising contentions. Further, the court found that only allowing cross-examination in certain circumstances was sufficient, and the decision to do away with part of the cross-examination was given sufficient consideration by the NRC. I wonder if this one is not far more detrimental to parties raising contentions because they are typically public interest groups with fewer resources than the companies they are raising the contentions against. In general, the court seemed again to defer to the NRC because of its technical expertise.