Professional Documents
Culture Documents
George W. Bush signing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was designed to promote
US nuclear reactor construction, through incentives and subsidies, including costoverrun support up to a total of $2 billion for six new nuclear plants. [1]
The nuclear energy policy of the United States developed within two main periods, from
19541992 and 20052010.[dubious discuss] The first period saw the ongoing building of nuclear
power plants, the enactment of numerous pieces of legislation such as the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, and the implementation of countless policies which have guided
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy in the regulation and growth
of nuclear energy companies. This includes, but is not limited to, regulations of nuclear
facilities, waste storage, decommissioning of weapons-grade materials, uranium mining, and
funding for nuclear companies, along with an increase in power plant building. Both legislation
and bureaucratic regulations of nuclear energy in the United States have been shaped by
scientific research, private industries' wishes, and public opinion, which has shifted over time and
as a result of different nuclear disasters.
In the United States, there have been numerous legislative actions and policies implemented on
a federal and state level to both regulate atomic energy and promote its expansion. Growth of
nuclear power in the US ended in the 1980s, however the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed
in 2005 which aimed to jump starting the nuclear industry though financial loan-guarantees for
expansion and re-outfitting of nuclear plants. The success of this legislation is still undetermined,
since all 17 companies that applied for funding are still in the planning phases on their 26
proposed building applications. Some of the proposed sites have even scrapped their building
plans, and many think the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster further dampen the success of
expansion of nuclear energy in the United States.
In 2008, the Energy Information Administration projected almost 17 gigawatts of new nuclear
power reactors by 2030, but in its 2011 projections, it "scaled back the 2030 projection to just
five".[2] Following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, public support for building nuclear
power plants in the U.S. dropped to 43%, slightly lower than it was immediately after the Three
Mile Island accident in 1979, according to a CBS News poll.[3] A survey conducted in April 2011
found that 64 percent of Americans opposed the construction of new nuclear reactors. [4] A survey
sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, conducted in September 2011, found that "62 percent
of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity
in the United States, with 35 percent opposed". [5]
Contents
[hide]
3 Nuclear renaissance
o
8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links
Almost a year after World War II ended, Congress established the United States Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) to foster and control the peacetime development of atomic science and
technology. Reflecting America's postwar optimism, Congress declared that atomic energy
should be employed not only in the Nation's defense, but also to promote world peace, improve
the public welfare, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise. Later legislation enacted
by Congress split the AEC into our current Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.[6]
In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the nuclear energy
industry more strictly than most other industries.[7] The NRC and the Department of Energy
(DOE), work together to insure plant safety, building and operational permits, movement and
storage of nuclear waste, management of weapons-grade byproducts of plants, radiation
protection, and loan guarantees.[8]
The United States has more active nuclear power plants than any other country in the world, with
104 plants out of the total 441 active sites and another 62 under construction worldwide. This is
nearly twice as many sites as the next two countries, France (58) and Japan (55), combined.
[9]
Construction of U.S. nuclear facilities peaked between the 1970s and 1980s, during which
time, these facilities were granted 2040 year operational permits.[10]
The administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower ushered in the first nuclear age with
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
In the early days of nuclear energy, the United States government did not allow for any private
sector use of nuclear technology. In 1946, President Harry Truman signed the Atomic Energy Act
of 1946 into law, which prohibited the dissemination of nuclear technology or information to other
entities, both domestic and abroad. This act represented the fear that foreign nations, including
allies, would gain the technology and use it against the U.S. As time went on, this fear subsided
and interest from the public sector emerged, in the hope that nuclear power could provide a
viable energy alternative to coal.[8]
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, also under the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower,
amended the earlier act and ushered in the first nuclear age in the U.S. This amendment allowed
the private sector to use certain government information about nuclear technology and establish
private energy facilities. However, these facilities would have to abide by government rules and
regulations and work closely with the government regarding the plant safety, mining, storage,
transportation, and the use of weapons-grade byproducts.[8]
first nation to create a nuclear power plant. Both Russia and England managed to establish
small, limited power plants before the U.S. Although developments were taking place in the U.S.
private sector before the 1954 act, it was not until mid-1956 that the Shippingport Atomic Power
Station in Pennsylvania came online. This facility, which generated 50 MW of power per year,
and later up to 200 MW, was the first full-scale nuclear power plant in the U.S. and the world.
[11]
In the coming years, more and more plants were built by regulated utility companies, often
state-based. These companies would "put the capital cost into their rate base and amortize it
against power sales. Their consumers bore the risk and paid the capital cost." [12]
Some nuclear experts began to voice dissenting views about nuclear power in 1969. [13] These
scientists included Ernest Sternglass from Pittsburg, Henry Kendall from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Nobel laureateGeorge Wald and radiation specialist Rosalie Bertell.
These members of the scientific community "by expressing their concern over nuclear power,
played a crucial role in demystifying the issue for other citizens", and nuclear power became an
issue of major public protest in the 1970s.[13][14]
Reorganization plans[edit]
See also: Environmental Protection Agency
Reorganization Plan No. 3 was an executive order by President Richard Nixon in 1970, which
created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This plan directed the EPA to establish
"generally applicable environmental standards for the protection of the general environment from
radioactive material." Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980 strengthened the executive and
administrative roles of the NRC chairman, particularly in emergencies, transferring to the
chairman "all the functions vested in the Commission pertaining to an emergency concerning a
particular facility or materials ... regulated by the Commission." This reorganization plan also
provided that all policy formulation, policy-related rulemaking, and orders and adjudications
would remain vested with the full Commission.[8][15]
A Nuclear Waste Container coming out of the Department of Energy runNevada National
Security Site on public roads traveling to an unknown final location, March 2010
(Photographer Bill Ebbesen))
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) was designed to establish
programs for the stabilization and control of mill tailings of uranium or thorium mill sites, both
active and inactive, in order to prevent or minimize, among other things, the diffusion
of radon into the environment. Title II of the act gives the NRC regulatory and licensing authority
over mill tailing at sites under NRC license on or after January 1, 1978. [8][19]
This also gave the DOE the responsibility of stabilizing, disposing, and controlling uranium mill
tailings and other contaminated material at twenty-four uranium mill processing sites located
across ten states and at approximately 5,200 associated properties.[20]
In the 1950s and 1960s, private firms processed most uranium ore mined in the United States.
After uranium mining came under federal control, companies abandoned their mill operations,
leaving behind materials with potential long-term health hazards. These mills contained low-level
radioactive wastes and other hazardous substances that eventually migrated to surrounding
soil, groundwater, surface water, and emitted radon gas.[20]
Under the Act, the DOE established the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project
to monitor the cleanup of uranium mill tailings. The UMTRCA gave the NRC regulatory authority
over the cleanup and licensing of mill tailing facilities at sites under NRC license. The EPA had
the task of developing cleanup strategies and recording standards for mills. The UMTRA used
on-site disposal methods for eleven of the mills, while excavating and disposing of the wastes
found at the remaining thirteen sites to remote off-site disposal locations owned by the DOE. [20]
Nevada and California Highway Patrol Officers conduct radiological surveys and
mechanical inspections on the first Nevada Test Site transuranic waste shipment at the
Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex located on the Nevada Test Site. The
shipment is destined for theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant located nearCarlsbad, New
Mexico on January 4, 2004.
A waste removal project at the former Fort Greely Nuclear Power Plant. Seen here,
workers attempted to remove 1500 cubic yards of soil contaminated with extremely low
levels of nuclear waste
The current locations across the U.S. where nuclear waste is stored
The United States originally planned to store nuclear waste at the south portal of
the Yucca Mountainfacility.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established both the federal governments responsibility to
provide a place for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear
fuel, and the generators' responsibility to bear the costs of permanent disposal. The Act provides
for extensive state, tribal, and public participation in the planning and development of permanent
repositories.[8][21] Amendments to the Act focused the federal government's efforts, through the
DOE, on studying a possible site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, but the project was canceled in
2009. Without a long-term solution to store nuclear waste, a nuclear renaissance in the U.S.
remains unlikely. Nine states have "explicit moratoria on new nuclear power until a storage
solution emerges".[22]
Nuclear renaissance[edit]
See also: Nuclear renaissance
The nuclear renaissance of nuclear energy in America denotes the time period where political
legislation was passed to promote the expansion of nuclear power in the United States. This
second age started with the passing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which made significant
changes in nuclear policy and funding options for nuclear energy.[dubious discuss] Congress hoped
this act would help encourage utility companies to install more reactors and build more nuclear
plants to meet the demands of the country's growing energy needs. [28]
Production tax credit of 2.1 /kWh from the first 6,000 MWe of new nuclear capacity in
their first eight years of operation.
Extension for 20 years of the Price Anderson Act for nuclear liability protection.
$1.25 billion was authorized for an advanced high-temperature reactor (Next Generation
Nuclear Plant) at the Idaho National Laboratory, capable of co-generating hydrogen. Overall,
more than $2 billion was provided for hydrogen demonstration projects. Called the Nuclear
Power 2010 Program.[12][29]
In total, over almost $5 billion, as well as extensive tax breaks, were originally designated for
nuclear funding, but far more would be put forth to back the loan guarantees. [29][12] Within the
actual legislation, the Secretary of the Interior was charged with carrying out the legislation. In
the matter of new funding for next-generation reactors, the Secretary's decision should be in line
with the recommendations of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee in the report
entitled "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010." [29] In
other sections, the Secretary was required to work with the Director of Nuclear Energy, Science
and Technology in the Department of Energy. This legislation jump-started the nuclear industry
again by firmly establishing it as the alternate energy source that politicians wanted. Moreover, it
provided financial backing for building, tax incentives, risk insurance, and repealed the Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 which allowed utility companies to merge.[29]
Soon after its passage, The Washington Post critically analyzed the legislation and found that the
nuclear industry received serious concessions from the government in the Environmental Policy
Act of 2005. It wrote:[30]
"The bill's biggest winner was probably the nuclear industry, which received billions of dollars in
subsidies and tax breaks covering almost every facet of operations. There were subsidies for
research into new reactor designs, "fusion energy," small-particle accelerators and reprocessing
nuclear waste, which would reverse current U.S. policy. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Tex.) even inserted a
$250,000 provision for research into using radiation to refine oil...The bill also included $2 billion
for "risk insurance" in case new nuclear plants run into construction and licensing delays. And
nuclear utilities will be eligible for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees of as much as 80 percent the
cost of their plants."[30]
changes, the chance of continuing is extremely daunting and at this point not particularly likely..
[32]
Even though "The plan was for the South Texas Project 3 and 4 reactors, and was identified
more than two years ago by the Energy Department as one of the four candidates for loan
guarantees that were authorized by the 2005 Energy Act," [32] NRG notes that there is a surplus in
Texas of Natural Gas utilities and the nuclear incident in Japan has led to further funding
problems for the facilities.[32] Although NRG still plans on paying the full licencing costs to the
NRC for the two proposed facilities, Crane told to the Dallas news that even if the project is
resurrected, it will have to be fueled by somebody elses financial resources. [33] The halting of
construction of these reactors marks the "second of the four to die; Calvert Cliffs 3, in Maryland,
seems unlikely at this point, because Constellation Energy could not reach financial terms with
the Energy Department. The department has granted a conditional loan guarantee to one project
in Georgia and may give another to a project in South Carolina."[32][33]
10
Mile Island accident in 1979, according to a CBS News poll.[3] A survey conducted in April 2011
found that 64 percent of Americans opposed the construction of new nuclear reactors. [4] A survey
sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, conducted in September 2011, found that "62 percent
of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity
in the United States, with 35 percent opposed". [5]
As of December 2011, construction by Southern Company on two new nuclear units has begun,
and they are expected to be delivering commercial power by 2016 and 2017. [42][43] But, looking
ahead, experts see continuing challenges that will make it very difficult for the nuclear power
industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide
to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that
ratepayers pay for construction in advance".[44] On February 9, according to a Southern Company
press release, the NRC voted and approved for the full issuance of the Combined Construction
and Operating License for Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4. [45] These two unites, if completed, would
be the first two new reactors to be built in American in almost 30 years. [45] According to Southern
Company, they plan on utilizing $1 billion in benefits from the Department of Energy loan
guarantees, production tax credits and recovering financing costs during construction. [45] If
construction proceeds on schedule, Georgia Power expects Unit 3 to begin operating in 2016
and Unit 4 in 2017. [45]
Over the years, public opinion about the nuclear industry, both in the United States and
worldwide, soured significantly after several nuclear-related incidents. According to Benjamin K.
Sovacool, writer and professor at Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and a
leading environmental researcher in nuclear energy policy, in the United States alone, there were
over 52 different incidents from 19592010, ranging from leaks, cooling rod malfunctions,
explosions, cracks in the core, electrocutions, core overheating and other issues. These
incidents led to the deaths of seven individuals and to costs estimated at $8.56 billion (inflation
adjusted to 2006).[49]
President Jimmy Carter leavingThree Mile Island, shortly after the accident
Aerial photo of Chernobyl, taken from the Russian space station, Mir
12
for a test of the reactor's turbine. During the test, the site experienced a loss of their main
electrical power supply [55] Because of this loss of power, the automatic shutdown mechanisms
failed, and the reactor started to become unstable. As the Chernobyl operators tried to cool the
rods by inserting them into the reactor core, a large power surge occurred. This is generally
believed to be from a design flaw in the rods.[55]
This power surge combined with the hot fuel rods touching the water in the reactor caused "fuel
fragmentation along with rapid steam production and an increase in pressure." [55] This led to the
fuel rods to rupture, and the safety protocols for the reactor core could not withstand the damage
of 3-4 of its fuel rod assemblies. The resulting pressure inside the core forced the covering plate
of the reactor to dislodge itself, also "rupturing the fuel channels and jamming all the control rods,
which by that time, were only half-way down." [55] The resulting steam from the incident caused
many of the emergency cooling circuits to malfunction. This led to a large fission explosion which
released radioactive materials into the atmosphere. In a period of a few seconds, a second
explosion occurred which caused graphite fragments of the fuel ruptured rods to be blasted into
the atmosphere, although debate still exists, some scientists believe that it was caused by a
"zirconium-steam reactions" [55]
13
14
meeting future energy demand and environmental goals, but it coincides with statements by
President Obama and other national leaders who have voiced strong support for more nuclear
power plants."[64]
2007 image of the Fukushima Nuclear Plant before the meltdown and explosion in 2011
What had been growing acceptance of nuclear power in the United States was eroded sharply
following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, with public support for building nuclear power
plants in the U.S. dropping slightly lower than it was immediately after the Three Mile Island
accident in 1979. Support had been at an all-time high of 69 percent in 1977, according to polling
by the New York Times and CBS News.[65] 43 percent of those polled after the Fukushima
nuclear emergency said they would approve building new power plants in the United States.
[3]
This represents a decline from a high of 57 percent in July 2008.[66]
Activists who were involved in the U.S. anti-nuclear movements emergence (such as Graham
Nash and Paul Gunter) suggest that Japans nuclear crisis may rekindle an interest in the
movement in the United States. The aim, they say, is "not just to block the Obama
administrations push for new nuclear construction, but to convince Americans that existing plants
pose dangers".[67]
March 2011 satellite photo of the damaged reactors at the Fukushimafacilities after
the earthquake andtsunami
Public opinion appears to have been aroused with regard to the re-licensing application of
the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials had already planned to
conduct a series of public meetings in January, February and March 2011 as public attention in
San Luis Obispo County turned towards the question of whether the plant should be re-licensed
subsequent to public disclosure of a third major earthquake fault close to the plant. Protest
leaders contend that there is no safe way to store spent reactor fuel, but other community
leaders such as the mayor of a nearby town dispute that contention. [68] In a review of current
trends, state Sen. Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo), who holds a doctorate in geophysics,
was quoted as stating:
"The fundamental question is whether these facilities should be located next to active faults and
whether they are operated safely", said. "With what's unfolding in Japan, why would anyone
approve a permit for these plants to keep operating until every question is answered?" [69]
In March 2011, 600 people gathered for a weekend protest outside the Vermont Yankee nuclear
plant. The demonstration was held to show support for the thousands of Japanese people who
are endangered by possible radiation from the Fukushima I nuclear accidents.[70]
15
The New England region has a long history of anti-nuclear activism and 75 people held a State
House rally on April 6, 2011, to "protest the regions aging nuclear plants and the increasing
stockpile of radioactive spent fuel rods at them".[71] The protest was held shortly before a State
House hearing where legislators were scheduled to hear representatives of the regions three
nuclear plantsPilgrim in Plymouth, Vermont Yankee in Vernon, andSeabrook in New
Hampshiretalk about the safety of their reactors in the light of the Japanese nuclear crisis.
Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim have designs similar to the crippled Japanese nuclear plant. [71]
It was the anniversary of the US Three Mile Island nuclear incident which was the occasion of a
substantial rally in South Korea in March 2011. South Korean environmental activists staged an
anti-nuclear rally on Monday, marking the 32nd anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear
power plant accident in the United States. In Pennsylvania, "dozens" reportedly turned out for the
32nd anniversary of the Three Mile Island event.[72] In contrast to the apparently reinvigorated
protests in Europe, California and New England, the dozens of protesters gathering at the gates
of the TMI plant received and in the coverage received, organizers referred only obliquely to the
Fukushima incident. "Plants age, we knew that [industry] profit motives rather than safety
motives meant there was going to be another accident, said Gene Stilp, the organizer of the
Three Mile Island protest and No Nukes Pennsylvania member, to the German Press Agency
DPA. He urged the United States to discontinue producing nuclear energy, expressing doubt in
U.S. nuclear power plants preparedness for unforeseen natural disasters. "You can't control
mother nature," he reasoned." [73]
The article continued to quote the U.S. Nuclear Energy Foundation to the effect that too much
stock is being put into the fear surrounding Fukushima power plant. On a policy level, United
States officials were wary. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu told Congress that the Obama
administration intends to hold the course on underwriting new nuclear power plants. "The people
in the United States, U.S. territories, are in no danger, Chu said during a Fox News
Sunday broadcast. "It's unlikely they will be exposed to danger." [74]As the ARPA-E Energy
Innovation Summit 2011 Keynote Presentation, he skirted the nuclear issue and argued for a
"longer term more measured approach". He emphasized lithium-ion batteries, high-speed rail,
computerized design for streamlining long-haul trucks, carbon capture and other technologies,
emphasizing that Europe and China may be surpassing the USA in clean energy and roboticized
manufacturing. The power point presentation,[75] and a video of the presentation, are available
online. The US is in the lead of venture capital financing, technology adaptation and deployment
but in many areas is neck and neck with China. Many of his comments seem[according to whom?] broadly
applicable to nuclear policy, such as that "just because we've lost a lead doesn't mean we can't
recover it." ARPA-E is Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, a relatively new United
States government agency set up to promote and fund research and development. [76]
Nevertheless, the nuclear disaster in Japan is likely to have major effects on US energy policy,
according to billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Speaking on CNBC in March, Buffet said that the
"United States was poised to move ahead with nuclear plans here, but the events in Japan
derailed that".[77] "Radiation terrifies people", Buffett told CNBC. "It's unseen, there's no way to
quantify sort of the limits of what might happen from it so I would say that I would be very
surprised if there's any nuclear facilities built in the United States for a long time." [78] Moreover,
Japan's government and TEPCO response to the Fukushima Daiichi incident has been criticized
worldwide, and Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, broke
with ordinary protocols by overruling the Japanese with regard to the public exclusion zone. As a
result of the harshly criticized Japanese handling of the crisis, there has been a scramble by the
EU to reform nuclear policy. Some commentators expect that US will have greater influence on
nuclear policy worldwide.[79]
16