The Nuclear Series: Could the Fukushima Disaster Be Anything Other Than Man-Made?

By Johanna R. Thibault, Esq.
July 11, 2012

In the nuclear industry, safety is of the upmost importance. Governments, regulators, and the industry itself, know and have known this since the beginning of nuclear power generation. And yet it is the one area in nuclear oversight that continuously receives the least amount of scrutiny. The public can bark loudly, but the upper hand always wins. Why is that?

During the very week that Japan brought its first nuclear reactor back online since the Fukushima nuclear incident in March of last year, the independent commission created by the Japanese legislature released the conclusions of its investigation. According to the New York Times, the mere creation of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission set a new precedent in Japan following examples of those in the United States and other countries where independent investigative panels were developed to uncover the root cause of cataclysmic disasters gone wrong (i.e., Three Mile Island, September 11, and the Columbia and Challenger space shuttle disasters). The 10-member Commission was created by the legislature to probe the Fukushima nuclear crisis, and it was provided the power to obtain all documents and evidence relevant to the investigation.

After a six-month investigation, the Commission controversially stated that although triggered by cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident that occurred at the Fukushima Nuclear facility cannot be regarded as a natural disaster and was instead man-made. The bigger message provided by the report was more shocking, but should not have come across as a suprise: the disaster was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) with a complete failure within the regulatory structure.

This frightening, yet not terribly unexpected, result sounds eerily familiar to issues we have witnessed in the United States with cozy relationships between the industry and the regulator. The Commission's report stated that it "was a profoundly man-made disaster that could and should have been foreseen and prevented." And further that "Japan's regulators need to shed the insular attitude of ignoring international safety standards and transform themelves into a globally trusted entity."

TEPCO contends that the nuclear facility withstood any damage from the earthquake, and that it was the "once in a millennium" tsunami that was to blame for the disaster. Such a calamity would clearly be outside the scope of any safety contingency planning. Despite TEPCO's persistence in this view, the report is now stating otherwise. Based on its extensive investigation, it determined that substantive evidence did not exist to demonstrate the accident was caused by the tsunami alone, and it accused TEPCO of using such contentions to avoid responsibility by putting the blame on the unexpected.

Instead, the Commission determined that the earthquake might in fact have caused damage particularly to Reactor No. 1 resulting in the loss of coolant long before the tsunami hit the area. And thus, the direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable.

This begs the question, then, if the disaster that happened at Fukushima was not man-made, then what caused it? Nuclear power has many benefits; benefits of which countries all over the world take advantage. But if we continue to push safety aside and assume the risks are so far fetched they could never occur, then nuclear will continue to struggle its way back into the power sector.

As Steven Weissman with Legal Plant so elloquently puts the question: can the decision to construct a facility housing a nuclear reactor in an active earthquake zone be attributed to natural causes? The waves and the earth are just doing what the waves and the earth do, so does the decision to put such a facility in an area where the potential exists for disaster make that disaster unexpected?

At the very least, making the informed decision to site a nuclear facility in a high risk area should require the development of contingencies regardless of the calamity of the expectation. Moreover, why do we need to wait until these accidents occur to realize there is a risk that should be addressed?

According to CNN, the Commission stated in its report that "the root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions, rather than issues relating to the competency of any specific individual." And further that the operator, regulators and the government "failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirements -- such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans."

Our own Nuclear Regulatory Commission might be adverse to strong-handed regulation and oversight of the safety end of the industry. After the release of this report from the Japanese investigation, however, those recommendations made by the NRC's Fukushima Task Force might not be so unpopular afterall.

The Culture of the Car: A Need-Love Relationship

The car holds an iconic place in American culture and is a pillar of the American dream, however, the policy decisions of past generations make us beholden to them
By Rory T. Thibault, Esq. (Guest Contributor)
May 28, 2012

Dodge Challenger - epic muscle

America’s love of cars runs as deep as the love of apple pie and cold beer.  From the Model T to the early 1970's, the glory days of the muscle car, each new model year featured increasingly larger vehicles with ever more powerful engines burning leaded gasoline.  The oil shock of 1973 and the high tide of the environmental movement in the early 1970’s (e.g. the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act) spurred the introduction of a generation of vehicles that focused upon reduced pollution and greater fuel economy.

Ford Mustang II - it was fuel efficient!

As muscle cars such as the Ford Mustang went through tortured changes (the Mustang II) or went extinct (the Dodge Challenger) cars like the Honda Civic, Volkswagen Rabbit, and Ford Pinto became ubiquitous at shopping malls and on the interstates.  Economics meant that smaller and more efficient, if less glorious, vehicles were here to stay.

Nearly 40 years removed from the oil shock, cars on the road today are safer, more efficient, and incorporate complex computer systems that IBM engineers could only have dreamed at the time.  Technology has heralded great improvements in efficiency – use of lighter materials, computer controlled engine management, 6, 7, and 8-speed transmissions, turbochargers, and hybrid systems have wrung more mileage from each gallon of gas.  Likewise, automakers have successfully (to comply with Government regulations) built vehicles that emit drastically less sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter.

As much as the past 40 years are an environmental “win,” the road ahead is filled with pot holes and may be leading to a dead end.  Car culture in the United States is and always has been more than glamor, style, and horsepower.  Having a car is part of the American dream; it enables a sense of and an actual manifestation of independence that is fundamentally American.  A car is the ticket anywhere, be it a cross-country road trip or a cross-town Walmart run at 3am – either available on a whim with no planning or forethought.

While the focus on making each individual vehicle more efficient has been successful and is laudable, efforts to reduce the total number of vehicle trips or miles travelled have largely been ineffective.  Mass transit options in the United States are deplorable when compared to other developed nations such as Japan and Germany.  Likewise, with the exception of the limited Northeast corridor service provided by Amtrak’s Acela Express, long-distance rail travel in the United States has been moribund for decades.

The lack of developed, interconnected, and intermodal mass transit options between cities of even the largest size and the post-WWII pattern of suburbanization in the form of ribbon-sprawl or development concurrent with major roadways has left Americans beholden to the car.  Even if the high-speed rail corridors proposed by President Obama are built, they are likely to have little discernible impact on vehicle miles traveled unless the localities connected invest and upgrade their local transportation networks.  High-speed rail, if implemented, will likely be more of a competitor to air travel than to road travel.  

Sidebar: Illustration of Richmond, Virginia v. Nürnberg, Germany
Richmond, Virginia is approximately 110 miles from Washington, DC. The immediate metropolitan area includes over 1.2 million residents.
Nürnberg, Germany is approximately 110 miles from Munich, Germany. The city proper includes over 500,000 residents, with approximately another 210,000 in the nearest major towns (Fürth and Erlangen).
Both are served by international airports, have multiple rail links in and out of the city, and have a bus system. Both are served by major interstates or autobahns (I-95/I-64 and A3/A6/A9, respectively). The similarities end there however, Nurnberg, unlike Richmond, has 6 streetcar lines, a 2 line subway system (U-Bahn), a 4 line commuter rail system (S-Bahn), is the terminus of several regional rail lines, and is served by a high speed rail line. The U-Bahn, S-Bahn, and bus lines are integrated into a regional network that covers cities and towns are far as 40 miles away, meaning a ticket bought on a bus in an outlying town can be used all of the way to and throughout the city itself.
In terms of longer distance travel, Munich can be reached in 1:07 on a high speed (ICE) train or 1:44 on a regional train – the cost varies but is generally less than $55 on a high speed train or $30 on a regional train. In contrast, the rail connection between Richmond and Washington, DC takes 2:15 on the shortest journey, and 2:46 on the longest – for a price that starts at $32. In comparison, driving between the city-centers of Nürnberg and Munich, even at autobahn speeds, takes approximately 1:30. The Richmond-DC trip from station to station takes 2:00 according to Google maps.

In contrast to the United States, in many areas of Germany (a developed nation that loves cars) it is practical, acceptable, and easy for a family of 4 to rely on one vehicle.  The mass transit solutions available obviate the need in many cases for 2 vehicles, or at least as many trips with the vehicles.  Of course, the other BIG factor is the cost of fuel in Germany.  After the imposition of a per-liter fuel surcharge and the 19% value added tax, gasoline is typically $8.50 or more per gallon.  Thus, there is a pronounced financial incentive to avoid unnecessary driving that is absent in the United States.  Although state taxes vary, the federal government taxes fuel at the rate of $0.184 per gallon.

The sidebar comparison of Richmond and Nurnberg is perhaps unfair or akin to comparing Virginia peanuts with Franconian plums.  However, it illustrates the glaring absence of comprehensive mass transit in our cities and communities.  Such is the legacy of 50 years of planning and development focused on Levittowns and not downtowns.  How we have built our communities and where we have invested our transportation funds has been premised upon the auto.  Only now are we facing the consequences of that legacy – congestion on roads that carry more cars than they were designed to handle, wear and tear on a vast infrastructure of 4-8 lane interstates and bridges dating to the Eisenhower administration.  Accordingly, we are vested in and dependent upon the automobile.  The funds and wherewithal to develop mass transit will be stunted as long as we are stuck devoting billions every year to maintaining the road network we have created.  As such, the search for efficiency, not less cars or less trips has been the focal point of investment and legislation.

Gas prices are a political football in the United States and whether justified or not the economic optimism or pessimism of the moment is often tied to how much it costs to fill up.  The “pain at the pumps” has been a boon to the marketing of fuel efficient cars, but the threshold still has not been crossed to make hybrids or electric vehicles economically viable to the mass market – some have also questioned the marginal increase in economy when factoring in the [ ] environmental cost of manufacturing the batteries required. A conventional Ford Focus that averages 40mpg on the highway makes the $10,000 costlier Toyota Prius a tougher sell.  The decision to switch to an electric or hybrid vehicle appears to be one premised more upon virtue than upon economics.  The limitations presented by the current crop of electric vehicles further exacerbate the resistance to adopt the technology – as Jeremy Clarkson and James May discovered on the British series Top Gear, there are big problems if you cannot find a place to plug in… for 12 hours or more.  Making matters worse the transition to an electric vehicle may be a zero sum game if the grid power used to fuel the vehicle is derived from coal.

So, the internal combustion engine is here to stay for a while.  While BMW, Ford, and Toyota engineers lead the way wringing whatever efficiency gains are still possible from the internal combustion engine, and Mercedes and Volkswagen try to sell America on turbo-diesel technology, we must recognize that this road will ultimately lead to a dead end, or a cul-de-sac.  The policy choices adopted more than a generation ago have left us with one hand tied behind our backs in terms of reducing carbon emissions due to driving.  Without a comprehensive plan to reduce the need to drive, efficiency gains or the adoption of alternative fuels are the only options available.

The sustainable development of communities has caught on, but until adopted universally we’re accomplishing little more than building islands of pedestrian or mass transit friendly areas.  As long as land use laws allow for sprawl and do not require consideration of transportation links other than the auto, our dependency on the auto (and oil) will continue.  Likewise, as long as gas prices remain a politically charged topic we’re unlikely to see adoption of additional surcharges to discourage driving or provide funds for the long term development of better transit solutions.

As an environmentally minded individual, I hope we see a revolutionary path forward that includes a comprehensive transportation, energy, and community development strategy focused upon efficiency and sustainability in more than just one dimension.  In the meantime, dreams of fleets of electric vehicles supplanting mass transit and bullet trains aside, the realistic goal of environmentalists must be to push incremental changes to the internal combustion engine until we hit the dead end of the what technology and physics will allow.  Until we reach that limit or the oil market turns for good and the amount we drive becomes economically impractical it is unlikely sweeping change looms.

2013 Ford Mustang Boss 302: 444 hp and 26 mpg in style…

However, as a lover of NASCAR and fast cars, it is perhaps it is victory enough that the Camaro and Challenger have returned, and the Mustang finally rediscovered itself, this time gloriously running on unleaded gasoline and getting fuel mileage on par with my granola Saab.  Of course, my analysis could be woefully flawed if the reincarnation of the Boss 302 doesn't hold up to the electric-techno-dreamworld BMW i8. As a final note, it's possible to preserve the iconic status of the car, while still embracing a cleaner tomorrow - a 26 mpg car is tolerable if you need to drive 50% less of the time, and even more so if its your 35 mpg commuter that is used half as much...

The Nuclear Series: Should the Compromise Be With Safety?

By Johanna R. Thibault, Esq.
May 18, 2012


As operationally safe as nuclear reactors might be (or as safe as nuclear regulators claim them to be), a looming opportunity exists for a catastrophic event to occur at a nuclear power plant. Not accounting for these unforeseen events can be dismal and dangerous. If the Fukushima disaster taught us anything, one take-away message should be that adequate public protections are not born from cozy relationships between regulators and the nuclear industry.

Our country responded to Three Mile Island seemingly recognizing the dangers related to not having a separate, and unbiased, regulatory overseer of nuclear power. The President divided the Atomic Energy Commission, then regulating safety as well as promoting nuclear power, into two agencies: Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Whether the NRC truly remains impartial is the looming question.

The Fukushima disaster further disrupted an already tumultuous relationship among the NRC commissioners. The NRC Chairman, Gregory Jaczko, responded to Fukushima by assigning a high-level task force to propose necessary upgrades to nuclear power facilities in the U.S. to make them more safe in the wake of Fukushima. After the task force presented its recommendations, Jaczko was met with much opposition from the four other commissioners when he moved to publicize and adopt the new safety measures. The NRC continues to drag its heals in strengthening the safety of nuclear power amidst lessons learned at Fukushima.

The Agency has faced much criticism over the years for its chumminess with the nuclear industry. Applications for new reactors were met with smiling faces and pictures were presented on the NRC's website with the NRC representatives graciously shaking the hands of the applicant as if it were a prize. When Jaczko became chairman three years ago, he was aware of this perception and he wanted it to change. Shouldn't we want it to change?

To the contrary, Jaczko's tenure with the NRC was frought with opposition, and allegations of abuse of his staff, badgering of the other commissioners, and unreasonable behavior. Things among the commissioners turned so ugly that each of the other four commissioners individually wrote letters to Congress requesting Jaczko's removal. It appears these commissioners have achieved their goal, as Chairman Jaczko announced his resignation yesterday.

We can only hope that the President replaces Jaczko with a Chairman that has similar goals for safety. The NRC commissioners have had a history of internal battles, that you could assume fell along party lines; this was rarely the case, however. Instead, the arguments appeared grounded in beliefs on how to address nuclear safety and the commissioners pro-nuclear attitudes swaying that view.

Believing that nuclear is generally safe is among common viewpoints with nuclear scientists and engineers. Quite frankly, nuclear is much safer now than it has ever been. It is not the science that is making nuclear unsafe. It is the nonchalance and general, and sometimes blinding, trust of the industry that can lead to dangerous consequences.

The recent shut down at San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in California provides a good example. Several years ago, when Edison decided to upgrade the tubing within the plant, the technical report and design specifications provided to the NRC made it appear routine and inconsequential. The questions were not asked and the hand was waived. When Edison had to shut the plant down in January of this year when a radiation leak was detected, it was discovered that the leak was due to design issues leading to excessive vibrations in the tubing. Instead of scrutinizing Edison's design effectively, the NRC bought off on Edison's approach that it "was no big deal."

This is, in fact, a very big deal, and it's one that we should be much more concerned about. What was thought to have initially been only one tube, is now 1,300 tubes, or 3% of the plant, that are damaged due to unexpected wear. The NRC has ordered the continued shut down of San Onofre until Edison has adopted a plan to fix the current problem. The proper request perhaps a little too late, NRC?

Whether or not the litany of allegations against Jaczko carry any truth, one thing has been made clear through the process that has resulted in his resignation: When one pushes back against the NRC's desire to be friend rather than regulator with the nuclear industry, the effort is met with strong opposition. Delays in approvals and mandatory upgrades can be costly, so it's understandable why the nuclear industry might not be happy with either. A happy industry might not always be a safe one. Is safety really worth the compromise?

Are Legal Exemptions Good for the Environment?

By Johanna R. Thibault, Esq.
April 30, 2012

Environmental laws and regulations that were put into place in the U.S. in the 1970's have done wonders for the environment. Over the last 40 years, both Congress and regulatory agencies have created exemptions within the structure of those laws to help streamline processes. Are these exemptions helping or hurting the environment?

I came across an article by Eric Biber from Legal Plant where he suggests key principles for reasons why what is "good" for the environment is difficult to ascertain. He purports that "what is 'good for the environment' is often eminently contestable." Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? The two most contrary views being one, that the environment need be protected for human consumption, and two, that natural resources be protected for non-consumptive or intrinsic reasons. Environmental laws are written from both of these perspectives, and they can often come into conflict.

Also, environmental quality is difficult to quantify. Such measures involve extrapolation and inference, which generally translates into educated people forming intellectual debates over what is or is not "good" for the environment. "In other words, there is a tremendous amount of ambiguity as to what is environmentally beneficial." It is that ambiguity (coupled with numerous other political factors) that drive the public process for implementation of environmental laws. Input from the public is needed to keep legislatures from skewing an environmental issue a certain way.

Back to the original inquiry of whether exemptions then hurt or help the environment. These exemptions were born out of industry. Take the Clean Water Act, for example, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review of projects that result in dredge or fill material in wetlands. The process can be cumbersome and arduous (see prior post on the Mingo Logan Coal Company case), and also painfully time-consuming. In many instances that process is exceptionally important to ensure that environmental protections are in place before a project can move forward. Sometimes, however, the permitting process can be seemingly excessive.

Regulations were therefore adopted by the Corps to streamline this process to avoid the necessity of going through a long and detailed review under the Individual Permit Program. The Nationwide Permit Program provides over 50 instances where a more streamlined permitting process is permissible for a project. Are all of these "exemptions," if you will, beneficial for the environment? Perhaps not, but what they do allow is motivation from the development sector to design projects in a more environmentally friendly way. For example, as a consultant I often spent much of my time working with clients to design projects in a manner to avoid the environmental impacts triggering extensive permitting requirements. The end results would be a project with potentially significant reductions in environmental impacts to wetlands, endangered species, or air quality, etc.

Contrast this type of "exemption" with one that might not have a resulting benefit, but could instead cause the potential breakdown of critical environmental review legislation. For example, the State of California has often been known for its difficult environmental processes. Development in the state can take years, if not a decade, to progress through the regulatory requirements. One of the biggest culprits of this developmental challenge is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Similar to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CEQA was put in place to assist regulators and government decision-makers take all factors into account prior to approving a project. CEQA is farther reaching than NEPA, however, because unlike NEPA, which only comes into affect when a major federal action is initiated, CEQA is triggered when any local, regional, or state action is required. This could mean requiring a descretionary permit for building a structure in a county, for example.

CEQA is often a roadblock for many projects. The California legislature therefore adopted CEQA exemptions as a current attempt to boost the economy by creating jobs and encouraging the development of "good for the environment" projects within the state. Things like renewable energy facilities would fall under this "good for the environment" category. Being a huge advocate for these types of projects, I would be in full support of this exemption.

The exemption makes me wary, however, because the legislation does not define "good." As such I find myself falling into the same minority view expressed by Eric Biber in that without providing a regulatory definition, "good" can be made into whatever the decision-maker wants it to be. As Biber points out, California is a state with strong lobbying by special interests groups. Being that "good" is in the eye of the beholder, interest groups with a goal of weakening CEQA regulations could create relatively strong arguments to debate that a project is "good," and thereby substantially reduce the effectiveness of the legal oversight. It is more often that those subject to the regulation lobby for a position and not those that are benefiting from the environmental protection.

Overall, exemptions can be a vasty effective means to keep industry in check and the environment relatively protected. The truth of the matter is, development is going to occur regardless, so finding a means to work with both sides so that the development happens in the least impacting manner might be the most effective approach to sustaining the intrinsic value of our environment for use by future generations. At the very least, these processes require a look by government officials and agencies so that all impacts are hopefully considered. What we can hope for is a public interest strong enough to guide such development along a greener path.

How do you feel about exemptions in environmental laws? Do you think they weaken the protections provided by that legislation or do you think they are a necessary ill to ensure that the processes work effectively?

Electric Vehicle Emissions: Another Argument for Clean Energy Production

By Johanna R. Thibault, Esq.
April 19, 2012

Electric vehicles (EV) produce zero emissions from the tailpipe, but how much these vehicles contribute towards green house gas emissions depends entirely on the source used for powering the vehicle. The Union for Concerned Scientists released a report on Monday analyzing the green house gas emissions for electric vehicles. According to the report, as predicted, the amount of green house gas emissions depends entirely on where the EV is charged. The unanticipated part of the results is just how significant the difference can be from one region to another.

In the report, the greenhouse gas emissions incident to electric production for each locality are converted to EV emissions (based on the power needed to charge a vehicle) and then compared to the same emissions from a standard vehicle in miles per gallon (mpg). For example, the charging of an EV in Texas would emit the same amount of greenhouse gases as a vehicle with a rating of 47 mpg. Where the numbers really tell the whole story is when comparing a region that relies heavily on coal-fired plants for electric generation versus those regions that emplore more alternative means, such as hydro-power, wind, solar, or nuclear for power. The numbers demonstrate that an EV in Denver, Colorado, rates at 33 mpg versus an EV in Juneau, Alaska, rates at 112 mpg. That is a staggering difference.

Taking into account how the energy is produced, the country was divided into three separate regions defined as "Good," "Better," and "Best." The good news is that "nearly half of Americans live in BEST regions where charging an EV on the electric grid emits less global warming pollution than driving even the best hybrids." Contrary to what some might believe, the report was not discouraging the use of EV's in regions defined as "good," where mpg ratings were in the low 30's in contrast to those in the "best" regions where EV's emissions were equivalent to vehicles averaging 70 mpg or greater. Instead, the report is rather a tool that policymakers can use to support decisions for alternative energy production. The Union for Concerned Scientists took a snapshot of the global emissions picture of today with the full understanding that conditions are anticipated to keep getting better.

Global emissions from coal-fired power plants are nearly twice that of natural gas-fired power plants. Renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydro emit no operational green house gas emissions. Accordingly, the total contribution of these emissions from an EV is affected by the mix of energy sources. As a result of state and federal emissions policies and other regulatory controls, these emissions standards are predicted to improve by nearly 30 percent by 2020. Such an improvement also means that if you buy an EV today, the global emissions will continue to improve over the lifetime of that vehicle; something that you could never be promised from the other standard vehicles we are driving today.

Will reports like this one increase support for alternative energy? Will the increased demand for electricity from a large fleet of electric vehicles justify potentially huge capital investment required to make the grid more efficient?

The Nuclear Series: State of the Nuclear Renaissance

By Johanna R. Thibault, Esq.
April 13, 2012

The New York Times published an article this week discussing the state of the nuclear renaissance characterizing the death of nuclear being "somewhat exaggerated." Blaming the Fukushima disaster, the low cost of natural gas, and the aftershocks of the 2008 recession for any downturn in the support for nuclear power.

Of these factors, the Fukushima incident is by far the largest culprit in nuclear power's apparent demise. After the earthquake and ensuing tsunami caused a near catastrophic nuclear meltdown in March of 2011, the so-called nuclear renaissance has been all but put on hold as we are reminded yet again of the dangers associated with nuclear power. A year later, Japan's nuclear industry remains largely shuttered, and in response to Fukushima, Germany has implemented the rapid termination of its nuclear power program.
However, despite this hesitation for new nuclear facilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did grant permission for development of two nuclear reactors at the Vogtle facility in Augusta, Georgia, which is the first license granted for a new nuclear reactor in over thirty years.

Unlike other countries, the U.S. has been determined to continue utilizing nuclear power as a significant source of power, yet has not supported the addition of new facilities since the late 1970's. Whether or not supportive of nuclear power, most are able to agree that this has created somewhat of a conundrum for the nuclear industry and the safety of our nation. For example, Vermont Yankee was authorized by the NRC to uprate its output to meet increased demand, and more recently its federal license was extended for another 20 years, while at the same time the physical plant has shown its age - most notably in the collapse of a secondary cooling structure.
After the Three Mile Island incident 33 years ago, the nuclear industry watched its support diminish. The unfortunate byproduct of this downturn and shift in perspective has been the continued operation of facilities throughout the country beyond the anticipated lifespan of their reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the industry itself, has been under scrutiny for allowing the continuation of these "second generation" facilities creating and reinforcing a widespread public view of unsafe conditions and the potential for catastrophic failures.

The new "third generation" and "third generation plus" facilities are, to the contrary, designed to be much safer. While the development of new reactors in the U.S. stalled for years, Westinghouse, GE, and other reactor designers have continued developing new designs for France, Japan, and more recently China. The Vogtle license approves the installation of two new AP1000 reactors, which are otherwise described as having an "advanced passive" design. Effectively, if the reactors at Fukushima had been of this design, the catastrophe would not have occurred. The design uses a system employing gravity and convection instead of power-operated pumps for its emergency cooling, which eliminates the need for power sources in the event of a natural disaster.

If the U.S. is going to continue its use of nuclear power as a source for its electrical power grid, it begs the question, should we be averse to the installation of these new facilities? Should government subsidies be permitted for use in supporting the industry by allowing it to replace the "second generation" facilities with the new and advanced designs like the AP 1000? Can the promise of new, safer technology overcome the stigma that nuclear has earned in light of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima?

The Nuclear Series: An Introduction

By Johanna R. Thibault, Esq.
April 11, 2012

I am starting a new blog series regarding nuclear power. This is a controversial subject at best that is wrought with legal overtones as well as environmental impacts and benefits. It's the crossroads between the immediate gains and the potential for significant impacts that makes this a good topic for environmental discussion and legal debate.

Having worked for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for several years, I was consumed by the breadth of knowledge behind the regulatory side of the nuclear controversy. My job was decidedly unbiased as I clerked for the administrative law judges and was put in a position of viewing the issues relatively equal from all sides.

To this day, I remain uncertain how I feel about nuclear power. My goal is to provide an eminently fair view of the issues facing nuclear power and invite discussions from all angles. I invite you to convince me that nuclear power is the answer to climate change or that it should be abolished.

I hope you enjoy the series and I welcome your comments and suggestions on any future blog posts.