William D. Magwood, IV Commissioner

Nuclear Energy After Fukushima

Oak Ridge Associated Universities

Symposium

Patrice M. BubarChief of Staff – Commissioner Magwood

March 5, 2014

!2

!3

Clockwise: December 1951 photo of EBR-1 team after the first production of electric power from atomic energy. Hanford PUREX Process “Canyon” Building, circa 1956. Shippingport Atomic Power Station outside Pittsburgh, PA, circa 1957. All photos courtesy the U.S. Department of Energy.

The AEC’s Role in Nuclear Power

• AEC was created in 1946 to take over Manhattan Project assets and develop civilian applications for nuclear technology. !

• The AEC: – Sponsored or supported early commercial plants – Created and managed the uranium market – Supplied essentially all uranium enrichment services to US plants

and to allied countries – Conducted and supported most U.S. reactor R&D – Regulated nuclear power and nuclear safety !

• However, by the late 1960s, AEC’s power, scope, and potential conflicts of interest became a matter of public debate.

!4

Glenn T. Seaborg Chaired AEC from 1961 to 1971

• The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 divided the Atomic Energy Commission into a “promotional” technology development agency – the Department of Energy – and a regulatory agency – the NRC.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Who We Are

• NRC is 4000 people dedicated to assuring the safe and secure use of nuclear materials in the United States in order to protect the health and safety of the American people.

!5

Nuclear Regulatory Commission What We Regulate

• Nuclear Reactors - commercial power reactors, research and test reactors, new reactor designs. !

• Nuclear Materials - nuclear reactor fuel, radioactive materials for medical, industrial and academic use. !

• Nuclear Waste – transportation, storage and disposal of nuclear material and waste, decommissioning of nuclear facilities.

!6

• The Commission is a collegial, quasi-judicial body !• Five members with staggered five-year terms:

– Each is nominated by the President, approved by the Senate !– President designates one commissioner to serve as Chairman !

• Decisions on all regulatory issues are determined by majority voting:

The Commission Independence and Transparency

!7

Regulatory Independence in the United States

• Independence from economic interests regarding the use of any nuclear materials or technology. – NRC does not consider financial costs to nuclear plant operators when

considering matters of safety significance. !• Independence from policy interests.

– NRC’s actions are based on scientific analysis and legal precedent – not on energy policy considerations. !

• Independence from political interests. – NRC does not report to a Ministry or to the White House – Standing committees of Congress oversee NRC operations – NRC decisions are subject to review by the courts.

!8

Why Is Nuclear Power Different?Because it is

!9

• Accidents are Rare, But Can be High-Consequence !

• Nuclear Waste !

• Plants Must Operate at a High Level of Safety for 60 years – perhaps longer !

• Most Difficult of all Industrial Activities to Explain to the General Public !

• Among Others Globally, the U.S. Industry is Unusual − The largest program – 99 operating power reactors − Almost entirely privately-owned, operating on a commercial

basis

Fukushima Daiichi Leading to Changes in Regulation

10

Fukushima Daiichi on March 11 A Bad Day At the Plant

!11

!• Magnitude 9.0 earthquake followed by 15

meter tsunami at the plant !• Extended Station Blackout !

• Batteries depleted and subsequent loss of all reactor cooling !

• Core damage in units 1, 2, and 3 !

• Hydrogen explosions in reactor buildings housing units 1, 3, and 4

NRC Near-Term Task Force U.S. Plants Are Safe – But More Can Be Done

• Continued operation and licensing of nuclear power plants do not pose an imminent risk to safety.

!• Mitigation measures already in

place (i.e., “B.5.b”) could reduce likelihood of core damage and radiological releases. !

• 12 technical recommendations to further enhance nuclear safety.

12

After Fukushima Learn the Big Lessons

• Must Understand the Natural Hazard Risks Facing Each Plant !

• We Can’t Predict Every Event !

• Recovering from Disaster is At Least as Important as Preparing for Disaster!

• New, Challenging Scenarios: − Multi-Unit Events − Potential for Common Cause Failure of On-Site and Off-

Site AC Power (SBO)13

Fukushima Teaches The Public Also Learns

!14

!15

After Fukushima Reinvigorated Anti-Nuclear Protests

Recent Nuclear Power Plant ClosuresA Trend in the Making?

Plant IssueSONGS (CA) Installation of Flawed

Steam GeneratorsCrystal River (FL) Flawed Civil Work Damaged

Concrete ContainmentKewaunee (WI) Not Financially Competitive in

Wisconsin MarketVermont Yankee (VT) Significant Local Political and

Financial Challenges

!16

!“The AEO96 reference case forecast assumes that all nuclear units will operate to the end of their current license terms, with 49 units (37 gigawatts) retiring through 2015. !Given these assumptions, 61 nuclear units are projected to provide 10 percent of total electricity generation in 2015…” !!

U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 1996

!17

A Look Back The Future Outlook 17 Years Ago

0

500

1000

1500

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

U.S. Undergrad Nuclear Engineering Enrollment

(1990-1999) !Through the 1990s,

the U.S. experienced: !▪ A sharp decline in number of

research reactors (66-24) !

▪ Collapse in enrollment in nuclear engineering programs !

▪ A negative shift in public perception regarding the future of nuclear energy

U.S. Nuclear Technology EducationA Decade of Decline

!18

U.S. Nuclear Technology EducationReversing the Trend

!19

• Federal (DOE and later NRC) Investments in: • Scholarships and fellowships • Research • Minority Institutions • Research reactors and other infrastructure • Time !

• Resurgence of Prospects of New Plants • Onrushing Retirements • High Salaries

!20

Nuclear Engineering Enrollment (2004-2011)

0

1500

3000

4500

6000

2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 2010-2011

1620

1687

1482123911531110

1092 39853065

23232102193318311520

Undergraduate Graduate

2941 3086 33413805

4752

2612

5605

Undergraduate enrollment increased 30% in one year

NRC Grant Program History

• NRC Implemented Grants to Universities – Made First Grant Awards for Curriculum Development in 2007 for total of $4.7M

!• NRC Implemented Scholarship (including scholarships

to 2-year community college and trade schools) and Fellowship, and Faculty Development – Made First Grant Awards in 2008 for total of $15M

21

Programs – NRC Grants Today

• Two Nuclear Education Grant Programs Currently !

– Grants to Universities Program (Up to $5M ) • Curriculum Development

!– Integrated University Program (Up to $15M)

• Faculty Development • Scholarships and Fellowships • Scholarships to 2-year Trade Schools and Community

Colleges

22

Grants to Universities – Curriculum Development

• Supports Development or Enhancement of Curricula Related to Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Security, or Nuclear Environmental Protection (or other areas)

!• Funding - Up to $5M Annually !• Awards - 2-Year Grant Awards for up to $200,000 !•All Grants Fully Funded Upon Award

23

Integrated University Program

• Scholarships* – For undergraduate students – 2 years, up to $200,000 – Maximum of $10,000 per student per year

• Fellowships*

– For graduate students – 4 years, up to $400,000 – Maximum of $50,000 per student per year

• Trade Schools/Community College Scholarships*

– For undergraduate students at 2-year educational institutions – 2 years, up to $150,000 – Maximum of $10,000 per student per year

24

• *NOTE:Service Agreement Component to all scholarships and fellowships – 6 months in nuclear-related employment for each year or partial year of academic supportFaculty Development:- For probationary, tenure-track faculty during the first 6 years of their career- 3 years, up to $600.00 ($450, 000 from NRC; $150,000 institution match)

Integrated University Program

25

Awards Overview

Total Dollar Amount of Grant Awards

Dol

lars

in M

illio

ns

$0.0

$4.0

$8.0

$12.0

$16.0

FY 2007 FY 2009 FY 2011 FY 2013

26

NRC Grant Outcomes To Date

• 487 Individual Grants Awarded to 141 Institutions – 204 Curriculum Development Grants – 87 Faculty Development Grants – 67 Fellowships – 69 Scholarships – 4-year institutions – 60 Scholarships – 2-year Trades/CCs

• Over 1700 Students Supported by Scholarships/Fellowships

• 89 Faculty Supported • Over 200 Courses Developed/Modified

27

FY 2014 IUP Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Schedule

• FOAs for IUP only issued on January 29, 2014 (no new FOA for Curriculum Development) – posted on www.grants.gov

!• Applications due March 31, 2014 !• Review Panels to be held in April/May 2014 !• Final award notifications by August 2014

28

Grant Program Integration with Recruitment

• Nuclear Safety Professional Development Program (NSPDP) – entry-level hiring program – 15% of 2013 NSPDP hires were NRC

Scholarship/ Fellowship recipients

29

Grant Program Integration with Recruitment (continued)

• All of these institutions have received NRC grant funding2013 NSPDP Hires by Educational Institution

* Min

ority

Ser

ving

In

stitu

tion

Drexel UniversityGeorgia TechNC StateOregon State UniversityPenn State UniversityPurdue UniversityRenssalaer Polytechnic InstituteSC State*The Ohio State UniversityUniversity of MDUniversity of MichiganUniversity of MOUniversity of MO S&TUniversity of New MexicoUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez*University of South CarolinaUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUniversity of TennesseeVirginia Commonwealth UniversityVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

11

4

1111111

2

1111111111

31

What’s Next? Prognostications of the End

Georgia Power has initiated full scale construction of Vogtle units

3 and 4 after receipt of a combined Construction and

Operating License from the NRC

!32

What’s Next?The Work Continues

SCANA was the most recent power company to receive a license to

build and operate a Generation III+ nuclear plant. Work is now

underway at the V.C. Summer site in South Carolina to construct two

AP1000 reactors

!33

What’s Next?The Work Continues

NRC continues to evaluate: !• Four additional ALWR designs !• 8 additional new plant

applications !• Power uprates !• License renewals

• A New Deployment Model—Modules can come online as investment continues to build additional units !

• Higher Flexibility—small reactors can be deployed in more places by a wider range of users !

• Manufacturability—enables factory construction of more or less complete units, increasing quality and reducing cost, uncertainty, and schedule risk

Key Regulatory Issues !• Control Room Staffing !• Security !• Emergency Planning

Zone Requirements

What’s Next?Small Modular Reactors

!34

WWW.NRC.GOVWWW.NRC.GOV