By David G. Eselius
The political intent for more than the past three decades is to subvert U.S. nuclear energy with U.S. federal and state nuclear laws, legislation, and regulation.
To supply the U.S. with clean energy requires new nuclear support from state Governors.
ELECTRICAL ENERGY DEREGULATION AND MERGERS
In 1994 California enacted legislation intended to deregulate the electric power business within the state and establish a competitive market. By January 2001, flaws in the California approach had become evident with the state's utilities driven to the brink of bankruptcy and Californians suffering electricity shortages and blackouts. California's disaster was of its own political making and largely avoidable. Other states had different results with electrical energy deregulation.
By 1990 over 100 commercial power nuclear reactors had been commissioned. Most of these were built by state regulated utilities, which means state rate payers absorb the capital cost (whatever it turned out to be after, for example, delays) into their rate base and amortised it against power sales. With electricity deregulation in some states, the utility shareholders bear any risk of capital overruns and power is sold into competitive markets. Within the new nuclear industry there are unnecessary increased state risks, delays, and costs.
Most of the of U.S. state nuclear generation capacity involved in energy consolidation announcements has been associated with mergers, some of which failed due to regulatory opposition. In the last ten years, there have been 19 reactor purchases.
At the end of 1991 (prior to passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, there was 97,135 MWe of operable nuclear generating capacity in the USA. Seventeen years later, in March 2009, it was 101,119 MWe (a 4.1% increase from 1991). The small generating capacity increase conceals some significant changes. A decrease of 5,709 MWe, due to the shutdown of eight reactors and a net increase due to changes in power ratings.
A significant achievement of the US nuclear power industry over the last 20 years has been the increase in operating efficiency.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 addressed innovative "renewable green technologies." The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also provided a small amount of financial incentives for the construction of advanced nuclear plants. After putting this program in place in 2008, the DOE received 19 applications for 14 plants involving 21 reactors. The total amount of guarantees requested is $122 billion, but only $18.5 billion has been authorized for the program. In light of the interest shown, industry has asked that the limit on total guarantees be raised to $100 billion.
Today the importance of nuclear power in USA is geopolitical as much as economic, reducing dependency on imported oil and gas. The operational cost of nuclear power – 1.87 ¢/kWh in 2008 – is 68% of electricity cost from coal and 25% of that from gas.
NRC DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATIONS FOR NEW REACTORS
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the federal government agency established in 1974 to be responsible for regulation of the nuclear industry, notably reactors, fuel cycle facilities, materials, and wastes (as well as other civil uses of nuclear materials).
By issuing a design certification, NRC approves a new nuclear power plant design, independent of an application to construct or operate a plant. A design certification is valid for 15 years (or 20 years) from the date of issuance, but can be renewed for an additional 10 to 15 years. To build a nuclear plant requires an approved application for a combined license (COL). It is unknown if there are any U.S. fully approved nuclear design. It is known there are no NRC member approved COLs.
Westinghouse has 75% of the NRC design certifications, which assure Westinghouse dominance in U.S. and global sales of nuclear reactors. President Obama has assured Westinghouse AP1000 construction within China by approving the transfer of 75,000 drawing design/construction drawings from U.S. to China.
NRC NUCLEAR DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS
The USA has 104 nuclear power reactors in 31 states, operated by 30 different regional power companies. For more than three decades the U.S. NRC members remain in place to decommission nuclear facilities—not to build new facilities.
Despite a near halt in new nuclear construction of more than 30 years, U.S. reliance on nuclear power has continued to grow. However, the politics of the NRC members meet neither existing nuclear demand nor global warming temperature increase reduction demands.
Following the 30-year period in which few U.S. new reactors were built within states, it is expected that not more than 4-6 new units may come on line by 2020, the first of those resulting from 16 license applications to build 24 new nuclear reactors made since mid-2007. To help remove the threat of human races termination, a large number of nuclear reactors within the U.S. need to come online prior to 2020. THE NRC APPLICATION PROCESS IS GREATER THAN AN UNACCEPTABLY LONG 13-YEARS.
NRC political members issuance of design certifications does not authorize construction of any specific new nuclear power plant. The issuing site permits is another NRC process after design certification. There are qualifications to U.S. design certifications which introduce uncertainties to the development of state nuclear projects.
Currently there are four certified reactor designs that can be referenced in an application for a combined license (COL) to build and operate a nuclear power plant. Being referenced in a COL application is not the same as having a politically unencumbered “design certification.” 75% of the reactors that can be referenced in a COL application are Westinghouse. They are:
1. ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor) design by GE Nuclear Energy (May 1997);
2. System 80+ design by Westinghouse (formerly ABB-Combustion Engineering) (May 1997);
3. AP600 design by Westinghouse (December 1999); and
4. AP1000 design by Westinghouse (January 2006).
The NRC staff is reviewing the following design certification applications. How long the applications have been under review is not clear. NOTE: Site COL permits to construct a nuclear facility are held up until all applicable pending applications to the NRC are approved by NRC members (which includes AP1000 COLs and ABWR COLs who have “certified” reactor designs):
● AP1000 Amendment, Westinghouse Electric Company
● ABWR Design Certification Rule (DCR) Amendment, South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company
● Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR), GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy
● U.S. EPR, AREVA Nuclear Power
● U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor (US-APWR), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
● ABWR Design Certification Renewal, Toshiba Corporation Power Systems Company
● ABWR Design Certification Renewal, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy
On paper the NRC political members may have recently approved reactor designs. However, the reality is that the NRC political members still have not approved any politically-unencumbered reactor construction.
ANTI NUCLEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA
The decommissioning of U.S. nuclear facilities were completed. On October 1, 2010, President Obama put the nails in the U.S. nuclear industry coffin with his CLOSURE OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN geologic nuclear repository.
In October 9, 2009, President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize ($1.933 million) based upon his opposition to civilian and military use of nuclear energy.
In 2009, President Obama has approved the transfer of 75,000 Westinghouse AP1000 design and construction documents (which are national security nuclear assets) to the Chinese. Such a shift of AP1000 nuclear assets not previously approved by Congress requires a national security commission of inquiry by the U.S. House.
POLITICAL REGULATION OF THE NRC DESIGN CERTIFICATION REVIEW PROCESS
The NRC design certification review process is an open ended process and has approval for only 15-years duration—most nuclear reactors’ “design life” exceeds 60 years. Additionally, NRC members design certification and site approvals (COLs) have moving design approval requirements generated by the NRC political members.
Other than Westinghouse approvals, it is unlikely the politics of NRC members will allow others to be approved in a reasonable and timely manor.
The NRC problems are the result of systemic state and federal problematic legislation, litigation, and regulation politics. Political control of the U.S. nuclear energy sector is assured by NRC MEMBERS who have oversight of the workings and approvals of NRC STAFF.
Much unnecessary delays and misleading information is produced by NRC staff under the direction of the politics of the NRC members. For more than three decades, the U.S. anti nuclear movement has controlled the politics of the NRC members who control NRC staff through internal rule-making:
“The review process for new reactor designs involves certifying standard reactor designs, independent of a specific site, through a rule-making (Sub-part B of Part 52). This rule-making can certify a reactor design for 15 years. Design certification applicants must provide the technical information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the safety standards set forth in applicable NRC regulations (10 CFR Parts 20, 50, 73, and 100). Applicants must also provide information to close out unresolved and generic safety issues, as well as issues that arose after the Three Mile Island accident [on March 28, 1979, suicide attacks by terrorist upon the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and now the Fukushima Nuclear Accident of 11 March 2011]. The application must include a detailed analysis of the design vulnerability to certain accidents or events, and inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria to verify the key design features. The NRC is considering a new rule that would require design certification applicants to assess their plant’s level of built-in protection for avoiding or mitigating the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact, reducing the need for human intervention to protect public.”
If anything, the NRC political members do not “improve” nuclear “safety.” Only the reactor designer has fiduciary duty for the safety design and operation design of a nuclear reactor.
Nuclear investment inefficiencies are political - Historically, state, federal, and NRC political members increase nuclear delays, increase costs, and increase uncertainty of the future of nuclear engineering projects by the use of legislation, litigation, and regulation. Therefore, the costs, time, and risks of investment within the U.S. nuclear energy sector have experienced unnecessarily significant investment and operation cost and risk increases.
STATE GOVERNORS WILL SAVE US
For the states that have interests in nuclear plant construction and operation, I suggest the Governors of those states devise a response plan to reduce nuclear costs, delays, and decrease uncertainties. If the offices of state Governors discuss nuclear industry issues directly with the nuclear industry, a great deal of progress can be made toward restarting the U.S. clean nuclear energy.
Remember, it is the utility rate payers who pays for the bills and political waste. Governors talking directly with nuclear industry designers, developers, and operators will aid in developing short-term and long-term state nuclear energy plans. A dialog with the nuclear industry is the only way to understand how to make long-term cost-effective energy change improvements.
Some nuclear industry construction and operator representatives are: Pacific Gas and Electric Co (PG&E), AmerGen Energy Co, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Exelon Nuclear Co, Ameren, Duke Power Co, TXU Electric Co, Detroit Edison Co, Alabama Power, Entergy Nuclear, Public Service Electric and Gas Co (PSEG), Exelon Nuclear Co, Dominion Virginia Power, Arizona Nuclear Power Project (ANPP), and Southern California Edison.
U.S. nuclear design representatives are: GE Nuclear Energy, Westinghouse, AREVA, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (South African firm), and Toshiba. Reference: U.S. NRC "New Nuclear Plant Design"
CONCLUSION
Since neither the news media nor the highest levels of global leadership show any interest in global warming temperature increase—it is concluded that there is no hope for a timely change to global warming greenhouse gases and the resulting global temperature increase.
President Obama has devastated the U.S. competitive viability of the U.S. nuclear sector and international nuclear trade, which is a national security concern.
It is President Obama and the Euro-U.S. left socialist leadership’s cabal who has limited clean nuclear energy expansion and has killed the human race 2050-2099.
