June 16, 2005 – The Bush administration calls it a "renaissance." Opponents call it a "relapse." As various economic, political and ecological debates converge over nuclear energy policy, the controversial power source -- which seemed to be entering its sunset twenty years ago -- now seems poised for rebirth.
With the country?s total energy consumption estimated to balloon by 50 percent from 2003 to 2025, as a relatively clean-burning alternative to coal, the country?s primary electricity supply, nuclear energy has received renewed attention from policymakers, energy corporations and even some environmentalists.
But as the campaign to promote nuclear energy heats up, complex realities and uncertainties have settled on all sides of the debate. Advocates for nuclear power say climate change, a strained domestic electricity supply, and recent advancements in technology and productivity all warrant a greater role for the industry.
Most environmentalists, meanwhile, warn that developing nuclear energy would pose severe ecological and health risks. They also say it will aggravate the problem of accumulating radioactive waste and divert resources from more sustainable alternatives.
Radioactive Resurrection
The energy bill recently passed in the US House of Representatives makes several overtures toward a significant expansion of the nuclear energy industry. The legislation authorizes the Department of Energy (DoE) to begin stockpiling uranium to "enhance national energy security," and to investigate the possibility of building reactors on federal property. It also tacks twenty years onto the life of the Cold War-Era Price Anderson Act, which caps the industry?s liability in case of a nuclear catastrophe.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission?s permitting and licensing procedures betray a fundamental tension in the regulatory system between the public interest and profits.
Speaking at a Small Business Administration conference in late April, President Bush pushed the key points of his "Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative": developing safer nuclear technologies, promoting investment in new reactors with federal support, and revising regulations to "reduce uncertainty in the nuclear plant licensing process." He declared, "It?s time to start building again."
Those were troubling words for some environmentalists, who view the campaign for nuclear power as a case of political amnesia.
"The quest for safe new nuclear power remains a pipe dream," said Paul Gunter, director of Reactor Watchdog program of the Nuclear Information and Research Service*, a coalition of groups opposed to nuclear power. "There?s nothing safe about an inherently dangerous process of splitting the atom? and the mysterious effects that still baffle this industry after 50 years."
No nuclear power plants have been built since a major reactor accident in 1979 at the Three-Mile Island nuclear facility. The ensuing political fallout capped a downward trend that had already begun to chill the industry in the mid-1970s. However, plants continued to operate, and today, 103 nuclear plants supply about 20 percent of the nation?s electricity.
As public concern over global warming grows, even some environmentalists have reconsidered nuclear development as an environmental strategy.
Now, energy corporations, backed by government subsidies, are taking the initial steps toward a resurgence in nuclear power, and licenses for construction and operation could be granted as early as 2010.
So far, three companies, all members of two major energy industry coalitions, have initiated the permitting process for three prospective reactor sites. The preliminary process enables them to reserve a site for up to 20 years, with the possibility of a 20-year extension, without fully committing to building a reactor.
Within the NuStart consortium, which includes Entergy, Exelon, and General Electric among others, and controls 58 percent of the country?s nuclear plants, Exelon and Entergy have applied for permits at two existing reactor sites in Clinton, Illinois and Port Gibson, Mississippi. Dominion Resources, the leader of another consortium that also includes Bechtel and General Electric, has applied for a permit for Dominion?s North Anna nuclear facility in Louisa, Virginia.*
Under the House energy bill, overlapping memberships among the consortia would be cushioned by an exemption from anti-trust laws. Through the Nuclear Energy 2010 program, both ventures can also seek federal matching grants to offset application expenses; the DoE awarded NuStart with $260 million in May.
After the applications for federal support were announced, Public Citizen, pointing to the $20 billion in profits posted by the ten public member companies in 2003, denounced the subsidies as "an affront to logic." But the group also found a "logical explanation" in the political donation records of the eleven US-based member corporations, which have collectively funneled $7 million into the Democratic and Republican parties and individual campaigns since the 2000 election cycle.
A Rigged Bureaucracy?
Opponents say the potential dangers and unfettered build-up of spent nuclear fuel are so great that there is no environmental justification for expanding the industry.
For the anti-nuclear community, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?s permitting and licensing procedures betray a fundamental tension in the regulatory system between the public interest and profits.
A community has a 60-day window to request a hearing or petition to intervene during permitting and licensing procedures. Over the protests of activists, the NRC has in recent years truncated the review process by combining the construction and operation licensing processes and making rules for public participation more rigid.
"It?s made it a heck of a lot easier for [the companies] and really hard for the public," said Michele Boyd of Public Citizen. She noted that many communities may not even learn about a permit application in time to protest it, and in any case, "don?t have any money to hire lawyers and experts," so local residents pose little threat to corporations that enjoy the financial and political support of the government.
Currently, plans to build new reactors are incubating in the Early Site Permit (ESP) process, which is designed to entice corporations into securing a site far in advance of actually initiating the construction of a reactor, which could cost several billion dollars.
Last year, Public Citizen and other organizations partnered with local groups to file petitions for the three pending ESP sites. The petitioners claimed the preliminary environmental reviews failed to adequately address contamination and waste disposal issues. The groups also said the reviews overlooked possible structural and technical impediments to an effective emergency response.
Another criticism held that the NRC had not sufficiently considered what petitioners called "lower-cost, safer and environmentally preferable" energy sources as an alternative to a new reactor.
The administrative judges presiding over the process, commissioned by the NRC?s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, rejected most of the contentions as inadmissible, but ultimately granted hearings in Clinton and North Anna.
The Grand Gulf petition was the only one fully denied, and both the petitioners and NuStart supporters are, for different reasons, hardly surprised.
The Grand Gulf site ? now moving toward future development after defeating the first intervention attempt? is already home to the Entergy-run Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, engineered by Bechtel, equipped with a 1200-Megawatt capacity General Electric reactor, and towering over a swath of forest, farmland and two local lakes.
"Nuclear power plants are welcomed here in Port Gibson, Mississppi," remarked Grand Gulf Station spokesperson Tim Crisler in an interview with The NewStandard. Crisler cited what he characterized as strong support from local officials and the promise that a new reactor "could benefit our electric customers, the environment and our country."
But from the vantage point of the surrounding Claiborne County, which is predominantly black and disproportionately poor, the benefits are not as apparent.
"Somebody?s not looking this way," said A.C. Garner, an activist with the Claiborne County NAACP who helped file the petition.
When the reactor first came online in 1985, Garner recalled, it was welcomed as a source of revenue for the local community. But in 1986, the state government revised its tax code to reapportion the property tax income from the reactor, distributing 70 percent of the funds to more than 40 counties across the state. The drainage of funds from the county has eroded the local infrastructure, he said, leaving residents more vulnerable than ever to the threat of a nuclear hazard.
The petitioners ticked off a list of deficiencies in local health and safety institutions: in the case of a nuclear disaster, the first-response team for the population of nearly 12,000 would consist of a county hospital that cannot even cover the cost of basic renovations, a severely under-funded fire station, and a police force of nine officers.
Pointing out that the immediate victims of a disaster would be the county?s 85-percent black majority, Garner surmised, "I don?t think the state of Mississippi really cares what really takes place here in this particular county."
"Claiborne County has been singled out," in Garner?s view, because officials have assumed that the local community -- about a third of which lives in poverty -- would not present a political challenge to the corporations and officials.
To some extent, he conceded, they are right. Local residents have reacted to the possibility of a new reactor with a mix of bitterness and resignation: "They feel helpless ? like there?s no route to take. You know: this is what we have, we have to accept what?s here."
In the five-page "Environmental Justice" subsection of the site?s 700-page draft environmental impact statement, maps of the surrounding 50-mile radius are riddled with dark clusters of census blocks indicating "exceptionally high" proportions of minority and low-income residents. The NRC?s report nonetheless recommends a site permit, citing that "there are no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites."
Dismissing the environmental racism concerns raised by the petitioners, the panel concluded, "[environmental justice] per se is not a litigable issue in our proceedings."
Nuclear Safety: Oxymoron or Modern Breakthrough?
The nuclear industry?s main selling point is that by splitting uranium atoms for energy rather than burning fuel, it provides a non-air-polluting alternative to coal and gas. As public concern over global warming grows, even some environmentalists have reconsidered nuclear development as an environmental strategy.
Stewart Brand, a commentator on environmental issues since the 1960s, argues that nuclear power?s potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions might outweigh its environmental risks. "It will be a great deal easier to improve nuclear power than it will be to fix a broken climate," he told TNS. "Unfortunately, that's the core of the choice we're facing."
Mitchell Singer, a spokesperson for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobby group, said the government had a responsibility to promote nuclear power both to meet energy demands and to cut back on polluting sources.
"The United States government, throughout its history," he said, "has always been a sort of venture capital firm, in the sense that it has made investments ? that are in the best interest of the country as a whole." In terms of economic and social benefits, he added, a bonus for the case of nuclear energy is that "the payoff down the line is tremendous."
But anti-nuclear energy groups strongly doubt that a shift to nuclear power could effectively remedy global warming. Since nuclear power is largely limited to electricity generation, which contributes roughly a third of US greenhouse gas emissions critics argue that a conversion from fossil fuel to nuclear power would leave untouched the majority of greenhouse gas sources, including the transportation sector, which churns out nearly 30 percent of emissions.
Moreover, opponents say the potential dangers and unfettered build-up of spent nuclear fuel are so great that there is no environmental justification for expanding the industry.
Anti-nuclear groups warn that the technological protections for the storage and transport of spent fuel are so weak that an accident or a terrorist attack could set off a catastrophic shower of radioactive emissions, leading to widespread death and long-term public health damage.
The total volume of radioactive commercial spent uranium is now roughly 50,000 metric tons and growing at a rate of 2,000 tons per year.
Critics say that even if existing waste were somehow safely shuttled across the country and permanently buried -- in keeping with the government?s current, yet controversial proposal -- it would quickly be replaced by fresh spent fuel, especially if new reactors are built and the current trend of extending the operating licenses of old power plants continues.
"We?ve been pouring money down this black hole for over half a century," argued Gunter, "and remain no better off today in terms of addressing the environmental catastrophe and the public health and safety issues, and now the security issues, that this industry raises."
In 2002, a near-disaster at the Davis-Besse power plant in Toledo, Ohio confirmed the fears of environmental groups: boric acid nearly ate through the protective wall surrounding the reactor core. An investigation by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a progressive environmental association, found that lax inspection policies of the NRC were a major factor leading up to the narrowly averted crisis.
"The system is set up to protect the industry from scrutiny, not to protect the public," said Deborah Katz, director of the Northeast-based anti-nuclear grassroots group Citizens Awareness Network.
Nuclear Energy as Business and Policy
The apprehensions of Wall Street may pose another significant impediment to a revitalization of the nuclear industry. According to Pietro Nivola, an energy policy analyst with the centrist think tank Brookings Institution, the investment community is not yet sold on the White House?s pro-nuclear campaign.
"Investors are going to be hesitant to take the plunge in this huge, up-front kind of expenditure that you need to build a plant," Nivola said. While investors are interested in "keeping their options open," he explained, they remain "skittish," mainly because the industry?s main competition, coal power, remains strong despite environmental issues.
Hoping to counterbalance the Bush administration?s attempt to inspire public confidence in nuclear power, the environmental community is pushing other possibilities for energy investment. Some scientists and public interest groups have envisioned a global energy system based on renewable sources, calling for a phasing out of nuclear power and a redirection of federal development dollars.
Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute called the idea of relying completely on renewables "a fantasy." Noting that renewables cover a paltry fraction of the country?s energy consumption, he said, "Any rational-minded economist or mathematician will tell you that those numbers will not add up."
Energy Department data indicates that renewables constituted only 6 percent of the country?s total energy supply in 2003, including electricity and other uses. Nuclear power, on the other hand, while responsible for roughly one-fifth of the country?s electricity, accounted for only about 8 percent of overall energy consumption.
According to policy paper published last year by the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups, a more "balanced" energy policy, involving significant investment in biomass, solar and wind power, could realistically raise the renewable share of the total electricity consumption to 15 percent.
Combined with conservation and efficiency measures, this alternative electricity blueprint would lead to a 20 percent decrease in carbon-dioxide emission rates, along with a 44 percent drop in nuclear energy generation within 20 years, whereas conventional energy policies would increase both nuclear power production and carbon-dioxide emissions.
To opponents of nuclear power, the roadblock to a sustainable alternative energy path is not a lack of environmentally sound options, but conceptual inertia among policymakers and the public.
"If we were only to make the commitment to increase our ability to use energy more wisely and more efficiently," said Gunter, "we could begin to cut emissions and at the same time, reduce demand."
For now, environmentalists aiming for their own version of an energy renaissance are struggling just to stave off what they see as a relapse into the nuclear perils of the last generation.
"We?re involved a process of trying to get out of a hole with a shovel, at this point," said Gunter, "and building more [reactors] is only digging us deeper into this problem."
