NEI Nuclear Notes

It’s been awhile since I’ve debunked a report so I thought I’d break my hiatus by starting on a new one. This one is from the Council on Foreign Relations titled Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks . To start off this post, readers should note that our CEO (Skip Bowman) and CNO (Marv Fertel) were on an “Advisory Committee” for this report noted on page 37. By reading the paper one would of course think that NEI endorsed the report. Quite the opposite. The two raised serious objections to their conclusions but apparently had no weight. However, as the long disclaimer at the front of the report notes, the advisory committee “are not asked to sign off on the report or otherwise endorse it.” Instead, these advisors are a “sounding board” to provide comments on the report after it is drafted. While Mr. Ferguson addresses the challenges to a greater role for nuclear energy, he doesn’t recognize the efforts being made today to overcome those challenges. In any event, to address clim...

The following guest post comes from Victoria Anderson, senior project manager for risk assessment at NEI. Since the NRC published the Probabilistic Risk Assessment Policy Statement in 1995, both the industry and NRC have worked to use risk information to better focus implementation of regulations at our country’s nuclear reactors. Risk information has helped advance maintenance efforts, routine inspections and testing procedures to ensure that licensees direct resources to the equipment and practices that are most important to safe, reliable operation of their plants. In one such effort, in 2004, the NRC published a voluntary rule – 10 CFR 50.69 , Risk-informed categorization and treatment of structures, systems and components for nuclear power reactors – that would allow licensees to refocus their equipment special treatment requirements on the structures, systems and components that are the most important to protecting the plant. Specifically, licensees implementing this volunta...

It’s a short story in Scientific American that might make you say, Uh-oh, here we go: Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready in a decade. Now, Lockheed Martin is certainly a legitimate outfit – my father worked there for years - and likely wouldn’t make a statement of this sort unless it were serious. Still, there are some red flags: Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work. Words such as secretive don’t inspire confidence, especially for what would be a gigantic breakthrough. Four years also seems odd, given the much longer amounts of time that other fusion projects, such as ITER and ...

Yesterday I was fortunate enough to hear a presentation by Gene Grecheck of Dominion . He discussed progress on the North Anna early site permit (ESP) process. That’s a subject that dates back to some of the earliest days of this blog . Since the presentation ran for a full hour, I won’t try to repeat it here, but a couple of points seemed to be of particularly broad interest. The first point was about how we in the industry continue to wait impatiently for a new plant order. On a personal note, I would like to observe that it’s funny how our perspectives change. Five years ago, we were thrilled when anyone would say "nuclear" in a context that was not pejorative. One year ago, we were thrilled to hear that Duke was going to pursue a construction and operating license . Now, we really want to hear about a contract to build a new plant. In a few years, even that won’t satisfy us, and we will want to hear about concrete pours. But I digress. Gene did not discuss changes in per...

By now, most of our readers have seen the coverage coming out of Monday's announcement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new carbon emission regulations . According to the Washington Post , the new rules will require states to cut carbon emissions from the electric sector by as much as 30% by 2030 - something that will be impossible to achieve without preserving and perhaps expanding the nation's fleet of nuclear power plants. So where can you find the nuclear references in the new rules, known better as 40 CFR Part 62 ? NEI's own Scott Mantsch went to the trouble earlier this week of doing the hard work for us. Please note that we've added paragraph breaks to aid with readability in this format. Page 39: States may also identify technologies or strategies that are not explicitly mentioned in any of the four building blocks and may use those technologies or strategies as part of their overall plans (e.g., market-based trading programs or const...

Bull Dog Pundit, one of the contributors to the popular Ankle Biting Pundits , has some specific problems with Senator John McCain's position on energy policy in general , and a few concerning nuclear energy in particular: Like McCain, I’m all for more nuclear power. However, here’s the problem I see with that. There hasn ’t been a nuclear power plant built in the United States for decades. The reason? Well, for one they cost a great deal of money, but in terms of the long-terms cost savings it’s well worth the price. The other big problem with building nuke plants is that the government has so regulated the industry, that it makes it nearly impossible to get one built. Further, lawsuits by environmental groups can delay the start of construction for years. Even a site that gets the initial permit from the NRC can take decades to be built, even assuming no opposition. So what that means is that while the stated goal of greater reliance on nuclear energy is great in theory, the real...

Last week, the Council on Foreign Relations sponsored an online discussion on nuclear energy and climate change between NEI's Steve Kerekes and Michael Mariotte of NIRS. To say the least, I think Steve got the better of the exchange, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves. Click here to read it right now.

The nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations surveys the economic and political landscape of nuclear energy in an article, Challenges for Nuclear Power Expansion , written by Toni Johnson . Even with these challenges, some still believe climate change policy will soon make nuclear power more competitive. James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, said in a 2007 CFR symposium that when the life cycle cost of nuclear is accounted for, nuclear power "is still the best way to produce electricity with zero greenhouse gases from the actual operation"—even compared with energy sources such as wind. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in May 2008 that a carbon price of between $20 and $45 per ton , which many projections say is feasible, would make nuclear competitive with coal. But other experts point to a climate change policy model (PDF) that indicates at least 700 gigawatts in additional capacity would be needed for nuclear power to make any measureable additional con...

Dan Lipman The following is a guest post from Dan Lipman, Executive Director, Policy Development and Supplier Programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Prior to his stint at NEI, Dan was responsible for managing the global deployment of new power plants at Westinghouse. While there, he led new plant projects in Korea and the deployment of 10 new AP1000 EPC contracts in China and the U.S.  Later this morning, I will be testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on The Future of International Civilian Nuclear Cooperation . Having spent several decades around the world working for Westinghouse, I've seen first-hand how international nuclear commerce  can help support American influence abroad as well as create  jobs and economic growth back home .  NEI believes that the global expansion of nuclear energy infrastructure provides the United States a unique opportunity to meet several national imperatives at the same time:  (1) increasing U.S...

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) today introduced legislation designed to enhance the management and disposal of used nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and high-level radioactive waste from U.S. defense programs at a geologic repository planned for Yucca Mountain, Nev. According to handouts at a press briefing Domenici held this morning , the bill: authorizes the Department of Energy to permanently withdraw 147,000 acres for purposes related to used fuel storage, in addition to land required for rail transportation repeals the 70,000-metric-ton statutory limit on emplacement of radioactive material at Yucca Mountain (the capacity of the mountain should be determined by scientific and technical analysis) gives DOE authority to begin construction of infrastructure for the repository and surface storage facilities as soon as DOE completes an environmental impact statement that evaluates these activities requires DOE to issue contracts for used fuel and high-level waste accepta...

For the past several months, we've been following the efforts of Private Fuel Storage (PFS) to open a private used fuel facility in Utah on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians , about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The facility is important, because many utilities are seeking an interim storage solution for used nuclear fuel as they begin to run out of storage space in their spent fuel pools. Today, the project moved closer to reality. The following was just released by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission : The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today denied the state of Utah'’s final appeals in the adjudication on an application by Private Fuel Storage to construct and operate an independent spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Skull Valley, Utah, and by a 3-1 vote authorized the NRC staff to issue PFS a license once the staff has made the requisite findings under NRC regulations. Utah petitioned for Commission review of a Feb. 24 decision by the ...

Over the past few months, anti-nuclear groups have regularly attacked our industry for allegedly resisting implementing changes at our facilities in the wake of the incident at Fukushima Daiichi. While that’s simply not the case , it’s a perception that often gets reinforced in the press—and this morning’s mailbag contained yet another example. Politico Pro posted an article this morning, “ NRC Won’t Make Post-Fukushima Safety Recommendations Mandatory ,” that is misleading and egregiously inaccurate. At issue is how the term “mandatory” is used to show how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will both implement and mandate its post-Fukushima recommendations. The lede states: The NRC on Thursday cemented a to-do list of post-Fukushima safety recommendations for U.S. nuclear plants but won't make them mandatory. That caught the attention of Jason Zorn, NEI’s assistant general counsel, who made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that this is incorrect. I spoke with him ...

Back in April when Chernobyl's 20th anniversary was approaching, Greenpeace published a report titled An American Chernobyl: Nuclear "Near Misses" at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 . In Greenpeace's report, they claim that an American Chernobyl could happen due to a "nuclear reactor meltdown and the subsequent failure of containment." On the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the worst commercial nuclear power accident in history, Greenpeace has documented nearly 200 "near misses" at U.S. nuclear reactors since 1986. I'm not sure how Greenpeace defines "near miss" but the NRC uses the terms "significant", "important" and "precursor" when categorizing events. This categorization is based on event probabilities. To give you a general background, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear industry measure and run reactors based on probabilities of the risks for core damage. As a reactor runs, ev...