Nuclear Renaissance: Dead in the

Water

A comprehensive review of issues new nuclear

construction faces in the U.S.

By

John Clark
Dale Gursey
Jason Shidaker
Joseph Smith
Abstract
We set out to take a comprehensive look at the issues facing the Nuclear industry in the US. John
Clark selected the topic based on his concern when trying to find employment in the industry after leaving
the Naval service.​S.O. 9​ The group was inspired enough by his pitch that they asked him to take the lead.​S.O.
5.a ​
Dale Gurnsey provided an in depth section on nuclear technology of the day.​S.O. 5.b​ John Clark wrote the
economic section, focusing on the capital and operational costs that leave nuclear unable to compete with
conventional generation.​S.O. 5.b​ Jason Shidaker has given us an insight into the political hurdles for the
industry.​S.O. 5.b​ Lastly Joseph Smith has explored how past accidents have poisoned the well of public
opinion against Nuclear energy.​S.O. 5.b
The future for Nuclear energy is not bright. The long lead times and high capital costs make new
plants risky investments. Government programs have been enacted to assist, but even still the challenges
are daunting. Only in tightly regulated environments are companies even attempting construction. In the
deregulated markets in the US, the uncertainty and high competition have placed even existing plants in
jeopardy.
While there has been seemingly unlimited support from the U.S. government since the inception
of nuclear power, the political support for growth in the nuclear power industry has closely followed the
need for nuclear weapons. Since the end of the cold war that need for nuclear weapons has been in a
decline and in return the growth in the nuclear sector has been waning.
From the perspective of a typical citizen the thought of nuclear bombs and weapons is an
unavoidable association with nuclear power. This combined with the nuclear plant incidents at Three Mile
Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi leaves the industry with an uphill battle for support from the
social sphere of influence.
A thorough examination of the economic, social and political aspects of the nuclear renaissance
combined with a background in the engineering principles in nuclear power production will allow the
reader to come to the realization that nuclear power has a place in the energy production portfolio if we
are willing to make a decision based on good engineering practices vice public fear.

1
Table of contents

Abstract………………………………………………..1

Table of Contents……………………………....……..2

List of figures……………………………………….....3

Introduction…………………………………………....4

Engineering……………………………………………6

Economic……………………………………………...15

Political………………………………………………...23

Social…………………………………………………..29

Conclusion…………………………………………….36

Acknowledgements…………………………………..38

References…………………………….……………...39

Appendices……………………………………..……..45

2
List of figures

Figure 1: Nuclear Power Plant System……………………..6

Figure 2: Reactor System…………………………………....8

Figure 3: Boiling Water Reactor System…………………...8

Figure 4: Pressurized Water Reactor System……………..14

Figure 5. Fig.3 Overnight Construction Cost and ………...15

Construction Duration of US Nuclear
Reactors (Lovering et al., 2016) (Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No
Derivatives License (CC BY NC ND)

Figure 6. Summary of Overnight Capital Cost and ……….16

Lead Time for nuclear and competing
technologies from Table 8.2 of Cost and
Performance Characteristics of New
Generating Technologies, Annual Energy
Outlook 2017

Figure 7. Map showing Status and Year of ………………..19

Deregulation of electric markets by state.
(Courtney, 2012)

Figure 8.​ ​U.S. Operating Commercial​ ​Nuclear Power…….26

Reactors. (Map of Power Reactor Sites, 2017)

3
Introduction

On December 18th, 1957 Shippingport Atomic Power Station synchronised with Duquesne Light

company. With this auspicious event, utilities across the nation eagerly pursued construction of these new

plants. However, by the early 1970’s cost overruns had taken the bloom off the new technology. Public

trust wavered in the face of meltdowns and disasters at home and abroad. One by one utility companies

cancelled planned reactors. Suppliers left the market, or spun off their nuclear divisions to foreign buyers.

In 1996 Watts Bar 1 was commissioned and there were no plans to build any other plants. This continued

until 2005 when The Energy Policy Act attempted to encourage new investment. There was a flurry of

interest, with Thirteen companies submitting 31 license applications. The prospect of clean, secure, and

reliable power lay on the horizon. Moreover an aging workforce on the brink of mass retirement had

young operators dreaming of glowing employment prospects out of school or the Nuclear Navy. Today

that is sadly not the case. Of those 31 reactors, only five progressed past licensing. Of those, four are

now imperiled by Westinghouse seeking bankruptcy protection.

We intend to make a comprehensive examination of why the Nuclear Industry is stalled.​S.O. 5.b​ The

issues the industry faces are multifaceted.​S.O. 7.b​ The plants themselves are intricate engineering works,

with complex systems that must function under all conditions. This level of design makes them a

challenge that not just any contractor can construct, and not just any utility can operate.​S.O. 2​ Market forces

have correlated against nuclear plants. From the crash in Natural Gas prices, to Energy Deregulation, to

the Bond market crash of 2008, each one is a nail in new nuclear’s coffin. Even with the government’s

attempts to jump start construction significant regulatory hurdles lie in the path of any new plant. This

combined with the outstanding issue of long term disposal of spent fuel and other high level waste throw

up additional roadblocks. Lastly the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have scarred the public

against nuclear energy. This backlash has reached a point where some nations are more willing to burn

lignite than allow their reactors to operate.

Nuclear is a critical part of the fuel mix for our nation’s energy. The high availability and stability of nuclear

4
fired generation is critical for maintaining the stability of the nation’s electrical grid. With the increased

push for CO​2​ emission controls, coal is becoming less and less viable as a fuel. While we currently have

very large newfound reserves of natural gas, there is intense pushback from environmental groups on

hydraulic fracking and pipeline construction. We will present options to possibly ameliorate the issues we

have identified.​S.O. 6​ Only a holistic approach, attacking every facet, will make nuclear energy viable

again.​S.O. 6.a

5
Engineering Section

Nuclear power plant

Electricity and energy are generated through electromechanical generators that are driven by

some form of motion that causes turbines to turn and generate energy that is tapped and distributed (Bird,

(SO 7.g)
2017). The nuclear renaissance caused nuclear energy to be used in the production of electricity.

This involves the application of the basic principles of tapping energy, but in a form that utilizes nuclear

power.

Like all other forms of energy generating plants, the nuclear power plant is one that provides

energy which moves turbines and generate energy which is distributed to a grid system. This involves five

key components as presented in Figure 1 below: the reactor, the pressurizer, the steam generator,

turbine generator and cooling tower.

Figure 1: Nuclear Power Plant System​ (SO 7.e)

The nuclear power system is powered by steam. This is because the movement of steam forces

the turbine to move the rotor in a generator thereby generating electricity. The unique nature of a nuclear

6
power plant lies in the way the steam is generated. The reactor is made up of nuclear fuel assemblies

which are long slender metal tubes that contain pellets of fissionable materials (US NRC, 2017). (SO 8.c) An

average Pressurized Water reactor has 187 nuclear fuel assemblies which are shown as control rods in

​ 7.c)
Figure 1 above. (SO

When they are activated, they all give a huge amount of heats through fission or attempts to split

the uranium pellets which are in the nuclear rods. And a huge amount of pressure caused by suppressing

the space within the reactor causes the heat to intensify, thereby heating water in the reactor. The pellets

are made up of uranium oxide and when their atoms are broken apart with neutrons, high energy is

released and this causes the nuclear rods to heat. The fission process involves the split of one atom

leads to further splitting of neutrons which are split further thereby heating the system. The introduction of

water causes the fission process to go on over and over again and this creates a sustainable system of

keeping the water heated for a long period of time.

The heat from the reactor causes the water in the steam generator to heat which produces steam

that is tapped into the steam line and released to the blades of the turbine. The turbine blades are

mechanically attached to the rotor of the generator. As the turbine moves, electricity is generated and

​ 7.d)
distributed into the bulk electric system. (SO

Reactor Systems

The main function of a nuclear reactor is to provide heat through a sustained nuclear chain

reaction. This chain reaction is done through fission. Nuclear fission is a process of splitting the atomic

nucleus of the uranium or plutonium atom. This triggers a fission event which releases more atoms and

the process continues over and over again. The kinetic energy of the fission process provides thermal

energy which is due to the collision of the atomic nuclei. (SO 1.a) The reactor absorbs the gamma rays from

the fission and converts it to heat which is essential for the heating up of the nuclear reactor and its

surrounding areas. Usually, a fluid is circulated around the reactor core with the view of absorbing and

transmitting the heat to the steam generator.

7
 Figure 2: Reactor System

There are numerous technologies and approaches used to tap energy from the reactor system.

This include the boiling water reactor and pressurized water reactor. They all use different mechanisms

and systems to gather and mobilize the energy from the reactor.

BWR

The boiling water reactor (BWR) is a light water system that mobilizes and deals with the nuclear

reactor system. The BWR has a reactor core that heats the water and converts it to steam. After the

conversion, the BWR drive the steam turbine. The reactor core heats and the reactor vessel which

contains water is also heated. This boils the water which is turned into steam and transferred by pipes to

the turbines. The steam is cooled and converted into water. This is sent back into the reactor and boiled

into steam again.

Figure 3: Boiling Water Reactor System

8
 Figure 3 above shows that the BWR system is one where water is turned into steam from the

reactor core. This steam water is moved to the turbines (depicted in red) and the steam is used to power

the turbines. From there, it is condensed into water again and presented back to the reactor core to be

heated again. This shows the system is a sustainable one that can keep the reactor operational for a long

time without any outside interference or help.

PWR

In the pressurized water reactor system, the main coolant is water which is heated and pumped

under high pressure to and from the reactor core. This heated water is circulated and in the process,

water in the area above the pressure zone is converted to steam which is distributed to the turbine region

in order to spin the turbine. The fundamental difference between the PWR system and the BWR system is

that it is more advanced and keeps the water under a pressurized region. This water heats other water

connected to an external source that turns to heat. Thus, the PWR water that is heated by the nuclear

reactor remains constant and is efficiently handled since it is kept under pressure and becomes optimized

in usage.​ (SO 7.b)

Figure 4: Pressurized Water Reactor System

Fuel

The thermal reactor is fueled by refined and enriched uranium. In some reactors, there is the use

of a mixture of plutonium and uranium which is used to provide energy to keep the reactor heated (Stacy,

(SO 7.a)
2015). The uranium includes U-235 which is enriched because less than 1% of uranium can be

9
fissionable easily. Hence, the enrichment ensures that the uranium pellets have the power to generate

heat and power the plant.

Support systems

The nuclear power plant has a lot of support system since it has various risks which could lead to

problematic situations. As such, the support system is necessary to ensure that the plant can be used

safely without problems to the environment and wider society.

Cooling system

The steam from the reactor is something that can be converted into water. Thus, the final end of

the steam used to power the turbine is to be settled and cooled in order to become water which can be

reused in the system. Thus, from figure 1, we see a cooling tower which is a place where normal water is

made available and stocked up in order to be utilized for the cooling of the steam in order to make the

system sustainable.

Feedwater system

The feedwater system is meant to supply an adequate volume of high quality water to the steam

generator. This is because there is always the need for an injection of freshwater that is necessary to

keep the reactor going. The feedwater tanks and pumps forms a system through which steam that has

been condensed into water is transmitted back into the system to be reused.

Containment

The containment building is a reinforced metallic structure that encloses the nuclear reactor. In

Figure 1, it is labelled as the “containment building” but this also includes the encasement around the

reactor. This keeps the environment around the nuclear reactor hot and allows for the heat to be spread

(SO 10.c)
to the water. As such, it prevents the radioactive particles from coming out of the system. It is

designed to be thick and must be hard enough to withstand pressure from outside without exploding.

10
 Primary

This is made up of metal and concrete structure that contains the reactor vessel. This is the area

that holds the radioactive substances and systems and it is designed to hold a lot of internal pressures

and leakages from the internal vessel.

Secondary

This is the external containment building which is around the primary containment system. This

often includes many different elements and aspects of the entire system and is the first line of any

external rupturing.

Safety systems

The radioactive substances of a nuclear reactor are strong and could create large-scale havoc for

the environment around. Thus, there are emergency systems that have three core objectives (1) to

shutdown the reactor in emergency situations (2) maintain the system during shutdown and (3) control

and prevent the release of radioactive substances during shutdown.​ (SO 2)​ (Kok, 2016)​(SO 8.a)

Reactor Protection System

This is internal and it is designed to terminate the nuclear reaction when there is a problem or

issue. It breaks the chain reaction with the view of eliminating the source of heat. In more advanced

systems, it is used to remove decay heat form the central part of the reaction system. This is mandatory

​ 1.c)
and seem to be something that every reactor has. (SO

Emergency Core Cooling System

This shuts down the nuclear reactor during emergencies. It introduces redundancy so that there

could be the control of various aspects of the operation of the reactor during subsystem failures. They

enable the plant to respond quickly in order to stop heat generation when there is a problem. This include

a high-pressure coolant injection system which automatically injects coolants when the level falls below a

certain level. This way, there is stability during unusual situations and circumstances.​ (SO 4.a)

11
 Core catching

This is an installation of a special ceramic concrete which is designed to melt and dilute the

corium in order keep a molten core inside of the containment building. This is because most nuclear

plants have a concrete floor meant to catch up and control nuclear materials. Since concrete cannot

withstand so much heat, there is the need for a core catching system.​ (SO 4.b)

Relief valves

Relief valves provide protection against overpressure. They include several pipes which carry

steam from the reactor vessel to the turbine. They automatically open when the pressure levels are

exceeded until the pressure levels drop to the normal level.​ (SO 6)

Nuclear waste

Nuclear materials used in nuclear power plants are not kept forever. When necessary, they are

removed from the reactor and disposed of.

Production of nuclear waste

After an average of four to six years, used nuclear fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor

(Kok, 2016). This is after there is an exhaustion of the nuclear fission reaction potential of the uranium

fuel pellets. This is removed and it is often in the form of metal alloys within the fuel rod.

Types of waste

There are numerous levels of nuclear waste that comes out of a unit and this is classified

according to the level of uranium tailings.

Low level

These contain very small amounts of radioactive substances. They are often short lived nuclear

processes.

Intermediate level

These have higher radioactive levels than the low-level waste. They often require shielding in

order to be made appropriate for disposal.

12
 High level

These are uranium generated nuclear waste from nuclear reactors. They are often in the form of

fuel rods that have completed the fuel cycle within the core of a reactor. They include fission outputs and

elements in a reactor’s core.

Very low level

These are elements that have come in contact with some radioactive activities. And are

considered to be without risks.

Management

The United States has a federal program that requires nuclear waste from reactors to be

(SO 13.a) (SO 10.d)

managed within a specific context. Most countries have similar programs. In the US, the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act 1982 sets out the guidelines for the disposal of nuclear waste from reactors and

plants.​ (SO 11.a)

A nuclear facility must use safe methods and technology to remove nuclear materials, store them

and present them to a common point where federal disposal is required. (SO 10.a) This involves stakeholder

engagement and proper monitoring, control and documentation.​ (SO 10.b)

Storage

Radioactive wastes are required to be stored in ways that will reduce the chance of radiation

exposure to people or cause pollution. Radioactivity reduces with time and usually, after 50 years, they

lose their radioactivity. Thus, in most cases, they are to be stored under water for at least five years. After

which they are kept in dry storage.​ (SO 1.b)

At-reactor

There is the need for a facility to collect, segregate, chemically adjust and decontaminate the

waste from the reactor and undertake an interim storage. This leads to the isolation of non-radioactive

materials that is recycled. From here, there is the compaction of dry solid waste and the filtering of liquid

waste as well as a change in the chemical composition. Afterwards, there is the conditions for

transportation, storage and disposal.​ (SO 8.b)

13
 Off site

This is handled by government-oriented waste disposal system. Usually, there are demarcated

water bodies for initial storage, followed by a period of dry storage after about 5 years.​ (SO 7.f)

14
Economic Section

Capital Costing​S.O.7.b

Nuclear was not always plagued with very high initial capital costs. Lovering et al (2016) found

that the initial years, 1954 through 1968 saw a gradual reduction in the overnight capital cost of

construction of 81%, $6800/kW to $1300/kW.​S.O. 3.a,b​ This makes sense as it was a new technology and

with each new plant and with larger plants the costs would fall.​S.O. 3.c​ They go on to find that plants

completed and licensed to operate prior to the Three Mile Island accident only experienced mild

escalations in cost and construction time.​S.O. 3.c​ However, post Three Mile Island construction saw

considerably longer construction times and higher costs on average.​S.O. 3.c​ In 1980, not long following the

accident, new fire protection requirements for nuclear plants were adopted.​S.O. 13.a​ This was due to the

Browns Ferry fire in 1975.​S.O.11.a​ These regulations affected all plants, in operation or under construction,

causing the expensive delays due to re-engineering plant layouts (Lovering et al, 2016).​S.O. 13.a​ These two

events heralded a precipitous rise in cost and construction time due to licensing, regulatory delays, and

back-fit requirements (Lovering et al, 2016).​S.O.3.c

Figure 5. ​Fig.3 Overnight Construction Cost and Construction Duration of US Nuclear

Reactors (Lovering et al., 2016) (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No
Derivatives License (CC BY NC ND)​S.O. 3.b, 7.e

15
 As of 2016 the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy estimates a overnight

capital cost for an dual AP1000 reactor plant of $5880/kW (Cost and Performance Characteristics of New

Generating Technologies, 2017).​S.O.3.a​ This estimate seems reasonable compared with the earlier 2010

calculations of $3886/kW for Plant Vogtle and $3617/kW for VC Summer by Hezir and Davis in 2011.​S.O.

3.b​
With the current concerns about the primary contractor Westinghouse seeking bankruptcy protection,

the potential for these costs to spiral is very real.​S.O. 10.c ​ On Feb 14 of 2017 SCANA Corporation issued a

press release which stated they “...have received information from Westinghouse Electric Company

(WEC) officials that indicates WEC and its parent guarantor, Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba), are

committed to completing the two new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear units being constructed in

Jenkinsville, SC.”​S.O. 10.b​ However, even with this hopeful statement a Quarterly report prepared for the SC

Public Service Commission detailed further issues.

Westinghouse has provided SCE&G with a revised estimate of the cost to complete the
Units, which has been compiled with the assistance of Fluor and WEC’s consultant, PwC.
That analysis indicates that the cost to complete the Units will be approximately $829
million more than the cost that WEC will be entitled to charge SCE&G under the EPC
Contract. SCE&G is evaluating this estimate and has not yet validated it. (Quarterly
Report, 2017)​S.O. 10.a

In comparison other sources of generation are far less costly both in capital expense and time to

build. Figure 26 shows the capital challenge of building nuclear generation.​S.O.3.b

Technology Lead Time (years) Total OCC (2016$/kW)

Coal w/30% CCS 4 5030

Coal w/90% CCS 4 5562

Conv Gas Comb Cycle 3 969

Adv Gas Comb Cycle 3 1094

Adv Gas Comb Cycle W/ CCS 3 2153

Conv Combustion Turb 2 1092

Adv Combustion Turb 2 672

Adv Nuclear 6 5880

Wind onshore 3 1686

Wind offshore 4 6391

Photovoltaic 2 2277

Costs shown do not include tax credits

Figure 6. ​Summary of Overnight Capital Cost and Lead Time for nuclear and competing `
technologies from Table 8.2 of Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Generating Technologies, Annual Energy
​
Outlook 2017 S.O.7.e

16
 This data taken from the EIA 2017 Annual Energy Outlook Assumptions is daunting for any

nuclear supporter.​S.O. 10.d​ With these estimates of overnight capital costs for natural gas fired generation,

nuclear’s current major competitor, ranging from a fifth to less than half of nuclear, it is no surprise that

most utilities have decided to not pursue new nuclear plants.​S.O. 2, 3.c, 6

This report has focused on the Overnight Capital Cost as a metric for comparing different

generation technologies.​S.O.3.a​ However the OCC does not contain the costs of financing these very long

term projects.​S.O.3.a​ Currently both Southern Company and SCANA are making use of Construction Work

In Progress to raise the funds for construction from ratepayers (Barrett, 2015).​S.O.13.b​ Southern Company

also received 8.3 Billion dollars in loan guarantees from the Federal Government (Barrett, 2015).​S.O. 13.a

Both of these methods were needed for these projects to happen at all.​S.o.6.a​ This is due to an

unwillingness of Investment bankers to loan the money at any rate of interest for projects of that

size.​S.O.10.c​ Even prior to the economic crash of 2008 and the resulting tight money market, the 6 leading

investment banks in the US were unwilling to take the financial risks of nuclear projects without Federal

​ 10.c
loan guarantees (Roy, 2007). S.O.

These loan guarantees are part of a comprehensive plan of governmental incentives to build new

plants.​S.O.13​ The Energy Policy act of 2005 provided in conjunction with the guarantees a production tax

credit of 1.8 US¢/kWh during the first eight years of operation, capped at $125 million total a year per

plant for the first 6.000 MW of capacity built nationwide.​S.O. 13.a​ However this generation had to be in

operation prior to Jan of 2021 to be eligible.​S.O.13.a​ SCANA Corporation initially expected completion dates

of Apr 1, 2016 for unit 2 and Jan 1,2019 for unit 3 (Combined Application, 2009).​S.O. 8.a​ The most current

estimates from the 1st quarter 2017 report lists in Appendix 1 an expected completion date of April 2020

for Unit 2 and December 2020 for Unit 3. (Quarterly Report, 2017).​S.O. 8.a​ These delays have placed the

potential production tax credits in peril and forced Representative Tom Rice, and Senator Tim Scott to

17
rush legislation through to remove the deadlines for the plants (Dumain, 2017).​S.O. 10.c​ This legislative

uncertainty only adds to the financial risks and drives up the cost of borrowing.​S.O. 2, 6.a

Risk is a major concern for nuclear power not just in a financial sense, where bankers worry

about the safety of their bonds, but in the very real risks of a catastrophic accident that could cause nearly

incalculable losses to a utility.​S.O. 10.c,d​ The Energy Policy act of 2005 took the critical step of extending the

protections of the original Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957 until 2025.​S.O. 4.a, 13.a

That act controlled the level of risk the individual utilities were exposed to by capping the total liability of

any one company.​S.O. 13.a​ This was done by requiring each company purchase the maximum insurance

coverage possible with damages above that policy paid for from a collective fund of all reactor operation

companies.​S.O. 10.b, 13.a​ Each company would have to contribute to a capped amount based on the total

number of reactors they owned.​S.O. 13.a​ If damages exceeded that secondary collective fund, the Federal

Government would pay the balance (Price-Anderson Act, 1957).​S.O. 13.a​ At this time each nuclear utility

carries $450 million of primary insurance, and secondary coverage for the collective fund in the amount of

$121,255,000 for each reactor (Increase in the Maximum Amount of Primary Nuclear Liability Insurance,

2017).​S.O. 13.a​ This insurance is underwritten by American Nuclear Insurers, an insurance pool formed of 21

separate companies, each of which is limited to no more than 10% of assets committed to the domestic

liability pool (About ANI, 2015).​S.O. 10.a​ Originally that act had been meant to sunset on 1 August of 1967

when it was believed that the nation’s insurance industry would be willing and able to fully indemnify the

nuclear industry (Price-Anderson Act, 1957).​S.O. 4.a​ This has not come to pass. The governmental support

of the Price-Anderson act forms a critical part of the financial risk mitigation needed to make nuclear

plants commercially viable.​S.O. 2, 4.a, 6.a, 13.a

18
Operational Costing​S.O. 7.b

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 created the groundwork for the current state of the Electric

markets in the US by amending the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 to allow for competition in

the wholesale electric markets.​S.O 13.a​ This has been implemented in several states, while others have

considered deregulation and have suspended efforts at this time (Courtney, 2012).​S.O. 13.b,c

Figure 7. ​Map showing Status and Year of Deregulation of electric markets by state.
(Courtney, 2012)​S.O. 7.e

Here in Connecticut and surrounding states, Independent System Operator-New England (ISO-NE),

serves as the clearinghouse for Generation suppliers and utility consumers.​S.O. 10.a​ ISO-NE has two

markets: Day-Ahead,and Real-Time Energy Markets. Day-Ahead conducts operations as such:

the ISO determines the least-cost means of satisfying the cleared Demand Bids, cleared
Decrement Bids, Operating Reserve, Replacement Reserve, Local Second Contingency
Protection Resource requirements and other applicable Ancillary Services requirements
of Market Participants, including the reliability requirements of the New England Control
Area. (Market Operations, 2017)​S.O. 8.a,b

ISO-NE primary concern is building a generation mix that provides the lowest cost power to the grid.​10.a

This is tempered by reliability standards from NERC.​S.O. 13.a​ The important consideration is everyday is a

scramble to have your generator’s capacity purchased.​S.O. 6.a​ Few customers lock into extended power

purchase agreements, preferring to play the market to save where they can.​S.O. 10.b,d​ This uncertainty

19
makes the capital investment in capacity a risk even for gas fired units, and simply not on the table for

Nuclear.​S.O. 6.a​ Geoffery Haratyk posits that with just $3.5-5.5/Mw support via existing market structures

existing nuclear generation can be maintained (2017).​S.O.3.c​ New Nuclear in deregulated markets is a dead

letter.​S.O. 2, 6.a​ Constellation at Calvert Cliffs has dropped their plans for a 3rd unit, citing “A merchant

regulatory environment makes any new reactors a non-starter from a business perspective given the long

term outlook for low natural gas prices.” (Yurman, 2016).​S.O. 3.c, ​ Also DTE after having received NRC

approval for Fermi 3 has no plans to commence construction (Reindl, 2015).​S.O. 10.c​ These utilities in

deregulated markets simply cannot bet the company on a plant that may not have a market waiting for it

when it’s finally constructed.​S.O. 2, 6.a

Conversely, if you review ​Fig. 7​ It is plain to see that Watts Bar, Vogtle, and VC Summer are all

within Regulated markets.​S.O. 7.e​ State Public Service Commissions serve to tightly control both investor

owned utilities and Public utilities.​S.O. 13.b,c​ In the case of investor owned utilities their profits are calculated

by a ratemaking formula.

R = Oc + (V-D)rr

where:

R = Revenue justified by cost and return

Oc = Operating cost including depreciation

V = Value, always first costs

D = Depreciation

rr = Rate of return allowed by regulators

(Clarkson, 2016)​S.O. 3.a,b, 13.b

The “rr” is set by the state’s commission so as to make the company profitable enough to attract

investment, while still keep rates reasonable for consumers.​S.O. 13.b,c​ This adds a level of predictability to

revenues, and even makes the capital investment of new plants welcome as it allows for more profits for

the companies.​S.O. 2,6.a,13.b,c​ It is important to note that Public Utilities are major partners with both Vogtle

and Summer, and TVA is sole owner of Watts Bar. Publicly owned utility companies do not have the profit

20
drive that rules operations in an investor owned utility.​S.O. 10.a,b,c,d​ This allows a focus on reliability and

planned growth that is served well by nuclear generation.​S.O. 2

In a regulated state each Utility is responsible for its territory, from generation, to transmission, to

distribution.​S.O. 10.b, 13.a,b,c​ While there are no daily markets for power, companies can execute power sales

on the wholesale level if needed (VACAR SOUTH, 2012).​S.O. 8.b​ So instead of an ISO clearinghouse

building the generation mix, there is an entity known as a Reliability Coordinator, merely ensuring NERC

standards are met (Reliability Review, 2016).​S.O. 8.b, 13.a​ This may seem less flexible, but predictable

​ 2, 6.a
demand is a necessity for making a large investment like a nuclear plant viable. S.O.

Grid stability is a major concern for everyone.​S.O. 6.a​ While a residential consumer will probably

only notice a voltage or frequency transient if the lights dim or it’s large enough to damage their

electronics, an industrial customer will have equipment costing thousands fail catastrophically.​S.O. 10.b,d​ We

think of dirty power as a 3rd world problem, but it’s not.​S.O. 10.d​ Germany began a program titled

“Energiewende” in 2010 (First Monitor, 2012).​S.O. 10.c,d​ This “energy change” has the goals of phasing out

fossil and nuclear generation in favor of biomass, wind, and solar.​S.O. 10.c,d​ Currently Germany is phasing

out all nuclear generation by 2022 (First Monitor, 2012).​S.O. 10.d, 11.a​ This has not gone without issue. On Jan

24 of 2017, cloud cover and doldrums created an emergency for grid operators; unable to buy nuclear

generated power from France, they were forced to call on every conventional asset to prevent a blackout

(Zu wenig Wind und Sonne, 2017).​S.O. 6.a​ There had been disruptions prior, enough that FERC sought

comments in 2016 on frequency stability (Richardson, 2016).​S.O. 6.a​ Here in Connecticut, as part of ISO-NE

several procedures are used for maintaining reliability.​S.O.8.b​ In OP-8 ISO is required to maintain an

operating reserve equal to the “First Contingency loss” asset. plus a Contingency Reserve factor adjusted

quarterly (2017).​S.O.8.b​ The first contingency loss asset is the largest single generation entity operating in

ISO-NE (OP-8, 2017).​S.O.8.b​ Often it is Millstone Nuclear Power Station at 2037 Mw (CONNECTICUT,

2017).​S.O.1.c, 8.a​ Nuclear generation’s greatest strength is its reliability and stability.​S.O.2, 6.a​ This cannot be

said for the new renewable generation coming online now.​S.O.2, 6.a​ Even natural gas generation in New

England is threatened every winter.​S.O.10.c​ In a State of the Grid presentation on 30 January, 2017, ISO-NE

21
CEO Gordon van Welie used the term “just skated by” to describe operations during winter months.​S.O.8.b

There are simply not enough pipelines to transport enough gas into New England.​S.O. 2, 6.a​ The other option

is using LNG, but LNG is a global commodity that will erase Natural Gas fired generation’s cost

advantage (van Welie, 2017).​S.O.8.b

22
Political Section

To understand the politics of nuclear energy it is important to first have a review of the United

States Constitution and what it says about government. Article four of the United States Constitution

guarantees a republican form of government to each state. A republican form of government, at the time

of the writing of the constitution, meant that the states were to elect or appoint officials who represent the

citizen body and the handling of affairs was to be public in nature. Furthermore, in the Bill of Rights, more

specifically the tenth amendment to the Constitution, the power of the federal government is limited to the

powers which are specifically granted by the constitution and that all other power lies with the individual

state governments (United States Constitution, 2017). As we continue keep these key concepts of the

United States government in mind.

In the beginning, nuclear research was mainly driven by the United States government after we

were ripped into World War 2 following the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor. The Manhattan

Project was started prior to our entry into the war but gained full buy in following the events of December

the 7th, 1941. Early nuclear reactors were mainly used for the generation of plutonium for use in

weapons, however the potential for use in power generation was realized as well and the nuclear energy

industry was thus born (Manhattan Project, 2017). Little could be done by state and local governments

during this time to contest the building of sites for research reactors and uranium enrichment facilities.

The declaration of war against Japan and subsequently Germany, allowed the U.S. government to, in

effect, do what they wanted. Research on the Manhattan Project reveals that there was much contest

against the building of several of the facilities used, most notably Clinton Engineer Works in Oakridge

Tennessee (Clinton Engineer Works, 2017). (SO 13.c) The United States Navy led by Hyman G.

Rickover led the charge in using nuclear fission for power generation (Nuclear Navy, 2017). With the

United States Government funding and backing Nuclear energy production it seemed, at the time, that the

sky was the limit. Since its inception nuclear power has been driven by the U.S. Government in the

interest of the country. Every phase of growth in the nuclear energy industry followed closely with the

23
wartime necessity for nuclear arms. Since the end of the Cold War we have witnessed the decline of the

nuclear industry as well. While, in large part, the politics of nuclear power have not prevented the nuclear

renaissance, in recent years they haven’t helped the cause either.

Since its inception, the United States has been at the forefront of nuclear technology globally.

Thankfully so, during the early years and the Cold War because we could live in a vastly different country

had we not. However, recently the tide has been shifting and Russia and China seem to be edging us

out. The difference comes in the government funding of research and development in these two

countries. (SO 10.d) Westinghouse’s recent bankruptcy is a huge blow to one of the largest global

suppliers of nuclear technologies. Without the United States embracing the global geopolitical influence

that being the world’s nuclear powerhouse brings, I believe, we will continue to see a decline in the

industry (Conca, J., 2017).

Nuclear energy as an industry is largely supported by the majority of politicians and lawmakers.

Keeping in mind, as president Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg Address, the United States exists

as a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, without a wartime necessity for

nuclear, politics becomes supporting the ideology of your constituents (President Abraham Lincoln, 1863).

Historically Democrats have represented the population that is scared of nuclear power generation and its

perceived dangers and republicans have largely supported nuclear. (SO 10.c) This is somewhat of a

strange arrangement considering the Democratic party has embraced the climate change due to

greenhouse gases theory and Republicans have been less certain and backed the use of fossil fuels

much more. Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations have been supportive of nuclear, more so

the Obama administration, however the major issue of long term storage of high level radioactive waste

and spent fuel has not been embraced by either. (SO 1.a) It seems that the Obama administration loved

to hate nuclear. President Obama recognized the importance of nuclear energy to America’s low

emission energy portfolio and he said many things to indicate this, however, actions speak louder than

words and his time in office only hurt the industry. (SO 10.b) He set up and carried out a series of global

nuclear security summits and advocated for the necessity of nuclear in combating global warming. (SO

10.a) He also publicly supported Small Modular Reactors and he also produced an executive order

24
which defined energy from Small Modular Reactors as an alternative energy source alongside solar,

geothermal and biomass (Conca, J., 2016). (SO 4.a) On the other hand, Obama turned a blind eye to

premature reactor closings, did not provided any substantial funding for advanced reactor research, and

did not support recycling of spent fuel. (SO 4.b) The biggest impact, I believe, that his administration had

on the nuclear industry was he effectively circumvented the law passed by congress and the nuclear

waste policy act. He was able to stall the research and development of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the

long-term storage facility that was identified by congress to be the final resting place for Americas spent

fuel and high level radioactive waste (DiChristopher, T., 2017). We will discuss Yucca Mountain and the

politics associated later in this paper.

The Republican party has largely supported nuclear as previously stated, most notably the

George W. Bush administration. During George W. Bush’s time in office the Energy Policy Act of 2005

was passed which provided a generous package of subsidies to build new nuclear reactors, including

loan guarantees, federal risk insurance, and tax credits (Bush Calls for New Nuclear Plants, 2006). (SO

13.a) This was a huge stride toward new reactors being built but the administration was not able to close

the door on the long-term storage issue at hand as previously discussed. In the early months of the

Trump administration there is hope for a future at Yucca Mountain. In his budget blueprint President

Trump has asked congress to approve 120 million dollars to restart licensing activities at Yucca Mountain

and to fund an interim storage program. He also recently placed nuclear at the top of his energy agenda

promising to perform a complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy looking for ways to revamp the

industry (Trump Puts Nuclear First on America's Energy Agenda, 2017). (SO 11.a)

The Constitution allows states to control commerce and business within the individual states

borders. This has created somewhat of a divide between east and west in the support of nuclear energy.

As depicted on the national map of nuclear generating stations, it is plain to see that the more densely

populated eastern states were forced to embrace nuclear as power demands grew rapidly (Map of Power

Reactor Sites, 2017). However, the western states were able to manage energy demands without

nuclear and continue to hold to that mentality today, with the exception of the one active site, since San

Onofre’s closure in 2013, on the California coast and in southern Arizona.

25
 Figure 8 ​U.S. Operating Commercial​ ​Nuclear Power Reactors. (Map of Power Reactor Sites, 2017)

Nuclear waste disposal is the biggest “hot topic”, from a political standpoint, in the nuclear energy

industry. There is currently over seventy thousand metric tons of spent fuel and high level nuclear waste

stored on site at nuclear power plants, current or former uranium enrichment sites, and nuclear weapons

development sites across the country. The map on this page shows the distribution of this nuclear waste

across the United States (DiChristopher, T., 2017). The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982

directed that the Department of Energy survey and study ten different sites in two phases in order to

identify two, permanent underground nuclear waste repositories. (SO 8.a) Additionally, the act provided

provisions for the temporary storage of spent fuel at Monitored Retrievable Storage facilities, of which

none exist to date. In 1987, the NWPA was amended to identify Yucca Mountain Nevada as the sole site

to be characterized as a permanent repository for all of the nation’s nuclear waste. (SO 8.b)

Furthermore, in 2002, the Secretary of Energy recommended to president Bush that Yucca Mountain be

26
the only repository, temporary or permanent, for the nation’s nuclear waste. This recommendation was

approved by the President, much to the state of Nevada’s dismay. Nevada exercised its right to veto per

the NWPA but in July of 2002 the veto was overridden by both houses of the United States Congress.

The state of Nevada continued to fight against the development of Yucca by challenging the

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 10,000-year compliance period for isolation of radioactive

waste. They contested that it did not align with the National Association of Science’s recommendation

that the recommended standards be set for the time of peak risk, which might approach a period of one

million years. This challenge was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit

and the EPA subsequently revised the standards to extend out to one million years. In 2008, a license

application was submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Committee and is still under review today (Nuclear

Waste Policy Act of 1982, 2017). The Yucca Mountain license is still under review today because the

Obama Administration rejected the use of the site in the 2010 United States Federal Budget, which

eliminated virtually all funding for the approval of the site, while the administration devised a new strategy

for the disposal of nuclear waste. The legality of this action was questionable as the president did not

suspend the licensing directly, but indirectly by putting a kibosh on the funding for the licensing. It is

believed that this action was to keep Senator Harry Reid of Nevada loyal, who was, at the time the

Senate majority leader. Senator Reid is longtime foe of Yucca Mountain. However, both Obama and

Reid left Washington this year (Siciliano, J., 2016).

The anti-nuclear movement of the 1970’s in the state of California resulted in the majority of the

state’s nuclear power plants closing by the early 80’s. In 1976, an activist group called Californian’s for

Nuclear Safeguards succeeded at getting Proposition 15 on the ballot for the June vote. Proposition 15

proposed that new nuclear facilities be banned entirely and that additional safety requirements be placed

on existing nuclear sites. (SO 13.b) The initiative failed to pass thanks to millions of dollars spent by the

nuclear industry to influence the outcome. However, as a result of the publicity the state legislature

passed a moratorium on further nuclear development until a permanent solution to high level waste was

in place (Anti-nuclear Movement in California, 2017). The moratorium states that new nuclear power

plants will be allowed only when the California Energy Commission determines that the federal

27
government has identified and approved a demonstrated technology for the construction and operation of

nuclear fuel rod reprocessing plants, and the permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste (The

California Nuclear Waste Act, 2016). (SO 1.c)

While United States nuclear plants continue to be the safest and cleanest form of baseline energy

generation, only time will tell whether the political issues, or any other issues for that matter, result in the

demise of the industry. (SO 2) Overall, it is a very uneasy time to be in nuclear energy.

28
Social Section

It's been said that worst mistake ever made in the nuclear industry was its introduction to the

world as a weapon of mass destruction. The average person’s first thought when asking about anything

nuclear is an atomic bomb. During a walk around my neighborhood, the question was posed to 10 people

as they walk by, 9 out 10 of the participants answered bomb, with remaining individual being a nuclear

worker​ (SO 3.c)​. Professor Paul Slovic of the University of Oregon did a study on this exact topic in the

1990s; primarily focusing on what people associate with nuclear power. He found that a high percentage

of the people surveyed thought of bombs and weapons (Landau, 2011)​ (SO 8.a)​. This fear has led to many

concerns and opinions over the years in the public and political spheres. Coupled with lingering unease

resulting from the world’s three major nuclear incidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima

Daiichi), this has had a severe influence on the nuclear renaissance (Green, 2016). First, let’s examined

the incidents and how they change the history of the nuclear industry.

TMI

Three Mile Island (TMI) occurred on March 28​th​, 1979 and was due to a failure in the secondary

cooling system of Unit 2; resulting in a rise in the primary coolant temperature and severe core damage.

The initial malfunction generated a SCRAM of unit two as designed but, a pilot-operated relief valve (A

component of the reactor cooling system) failed to close. This allowed primary coolant to drain away

without performing its function of removing the decay heat from the reactor core. This resulted in severe

damage to the fuel assemblies of Unit 2. According to the World Nuclear Association, Unit 2 utilized

pressurizer water level to indicate the reactor cooling water level. However, the pressurizer water level

continued to increase due to the failed pilot-operated relief valve. This provided a false indication that the

reactor cooling system was full of water. Additionally, the operators were concerned about damage to the

cooling water pumps from vibration and shut them down. This action ended the forced pumping of cooling

water into the reactor. This allowed cooling water to boil away; resulting in fuel damage and releasing

radioactive material into the system. Approximately two hours later, the operators determined that a relief

29
valve failed and closed a block valve to the PORV and the pressurizer. This stopped the loss of cooling

water through the valve. However, steam and gases hindered the flow of coolant to the core. Operators

attempted to increase the pressure in the vessel, using high-pressure injections of water collapse any

steam or bubbles that had formed. After water began reaching the core, operators began venting the

radioactive gases from the reactor cooling system to the waste gas decay tanks. However, the

compressors used in this process leaked and released radioactive material into the environment. The

release was contained and passed through HEPA and charcoal filters to remove the majority of the

radionuclides. During this entire time, a chemical reaction between the zircaloy metal and water was

generating hydrogen gas. This led to a fear of a hydrogen deflagration within the primary structure. The

hydrogen gas was periodically removed by opening a vent valve on the reactor cooling water system

pressurizer. After natural convection or coolant was established, the reactor was considered shutdown

(World Nuclear Association, 2012)​ (SO 7.d)​. According to Dr. Charles Ebinger “In the aftermath of TMI, nearly

100 orders for commercial nuclear reactors were canceled, but this was not nearly as significant as the

fact that only one reactor which had started construction in 1976 was completed in TMI’s wake”

(Ebinger,n.d.). The public perception was at an all-time low, Bruce Williams, a vice president of Exelon

Nuclear stated that "The credibility of an industry was lost," (Behr, 2009). To ensure that industry would

be ready for another incident Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and its National Academy for

Nuclear Training were established in 1979 promoting excellence in the area of conduct of operations and

accrediting their training programs (World Nuclear Association, 2012)​ (SO 11.a)​. A few of the major changes

caused by this incident from the NRC website were Installing additional equipment by licensees to

mitigate accident conditions, and monitor radiation levels and plant status, This includes fire protection,

piping systems, auxiliary feedwater systems, containment building isolation, reliability of individual

components (pressure relief valves and electrical circuit breakers), and the ability of plants to shut down

automatically, Enacting programs by licensees for early identification of important safety-related

problems, and for collecting and assessing relevant data so operating experience can be shared and

quickly acted upon, Enhancing emergency preparedness, including requirements for plants to

immediately notify NRC of significant events and an NRC Operations Center staffed 24 hours a day​ (SO

30
13.a)​
. Drills and response plans are now tested by licensees several times a year, and state and local

​ 13.b)​,
agencies participate in drills with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and NRC (SO

Upgrading and strengthening of plant design and equipment requirements, and finally Expanding NRC's

international activities to share enhanced knowledge of nuclear safety with other countries in many

important technical areas​ ​([Link], 2014)​ (SO 10.a)​.

Chernobyl

In 1986, the Chernobyl occurred in the area of the former USSR that is now Ukraine. The root

causes of this incident were the lack of a safety culture, a system design flaw, and inadequately trained

personnel. Operators attempted to test how long the turbines would continue to spin during a shutdown

(‘spin-down’). The ‘spin-down’ of the turbines was utilized to continue to supply power to the main

recirculating pumps of the reactor cooling system. This test had been completed during a previous outage

and failed. The failure forced a redesign of the voltage regulator and a necessary retest. The Nuclear

Energy Agency cites multiple operator actions throughout the test as contributing to the accident. First, to

support the test, the automatic shutdown mechanisms were disabled because the reactor would need to

be started up and shutdown. Second, the operator to shutdown the reactor at 30 MWt to when the test

required the unit to be stabilized at 1,000 MWt in an attempt to avoid a positive void coefficient prior to

​ 13.c)​. This led to an unstable reactor condition. And third, the operator failed to comply with
shutdown (SO

the standard operating procedure to maintain a minimum of 30 control rods in the reactor. Ultimately, a

power surge led to the rupture of the fuel and a steam explosion. A second explosion lifted the 1,000 ton

cover off of the reactor and released the contaminated steam into the atmosphere. Contamination spread

across the world as far as the eastern coast of the United States and caused the evacuation of over

335,000 residents in the surrounding areas (NEA, 2002)​ (SO 7.c)​. The Soviet reactor, unlike western

designs, lacked a secondary containment structure. This would have considerably mitigated the release

​ 4)​. Unlike the TMI incident the Soviet Union did self-report immediately, they
of radioactive material (SO

downplayed the incident and refused to provide information to neighboring countries that had seen an

increase in radioactivity. The Washington Post writes that American scientist in Sweden stated that “If the

31
radioactivity is a few millirem 700 miles away, I'd hate to be within 10 miles" and they go to say that the

Union blamed the western world for spreading propaganda and “sensationalizing the accident to poison

the international atmosphere". The Post quoted then President Nixon saying, “the Soviets' handling of this

incident manifests a disregard for the legitimate concerns of people everywhere" and "A nuclear accident

that results in contaminating a number of countries with radioactive material is not simply an internal

matter" (Vitkovskaya, 2016)​ (SO 10.d)​. Once the Union revealed what at Chernobyl the shock sent waves

through the world; leading most to the world to move away from atomic power, apart from France and

Japan (Ebinger, n.d.)​ (SO 11)​. In the 15 years before the Chernobyl accident, an average of about 20 new

nuclear power reactors came online each year. By 1991, the average had dropped to four a year (Green,

2016). In 1987, the Soviet Union created its own version of INPO, the Institute for Nuclear Safety and

Development, and created a robust safety culture in its reactor operations. Today, the area is nearly void

of human life but, it is abundant with wildlife from moose to owls. Biologist Jim Beasley, of the University

of Georgia’s Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, states that the population of large mammals on the

Belarus side has increased since the disaster, despite high radiation levels (Wendle, 2016).

Fukushima Daiichi

The most recent event, Fukushima Daiichi in 2011, was a core meltdown resulting from a

combination of natural phenomena and design errors. According to Malcolm Grimston, there were 11

reactors operating in the region and they all activated their SCRAM systems in response to a magnitude 9

earthquake that struck off the coast of Japan. At Fukushima Daiichi, the backup generators for the

emergency cooling water pumps came online as designed when main power was lost. However, these

generators were disabled when a 15-meter tsunami hit the power plant. The sea wall in place to protect

the plant from the tsunami was designed to withstand a 6-meter wave and could not adequately protect

the plant. All the units at the plant, except 1, 2, and 3 were in cold standby. Without the ability to circulate

the cooling water via the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system, the cooling water temperature reached

its boiling point due to the decay heat of the shutdown units 1, 2, and 3. This raised the pressure inside

​ 2)​ and the operators feared that the increasing pressure would
the reactor (Gay-Lussac’s Law) (SO

32
overcome the vessel seals, allowing the material to escape into the environment. To prevent this, the

operators vented the vessel. However, fuel rods had already melted; exposing fuel pellets to a mixture of

​ 7.b)​. The vented hydrogen gas mixed with oxygen in the

steam and water and generating hydrogen gas (SO

atmosphere and resulted in a deflagration in Unit 1​ (SO 2)​. Two days later, a similar event occurred in unit 3

(Grimston, 2011). The Japanese prime minister declared a Nuclear Emergency within hours and issued

an initial evacuation order for a 2Km radius of the plant​ (SO 10.b)​. The evacuation was extended three times

to a final radius of 20Km (World Nuclear Association, 2017). Early evacuations mitigated the effects of the

airborne and seaborne releases. The World Nuclear Association stated that “the Nuclear & Industrial

Safety Agency (NISA) estimated in June 2011 that 770 PBq (iodine-131 equivalent) of radioactivity had

been released, but the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) in August lowered this estimate to 570 PBq.

The 770 PBq figure is about 15% of the Chernobyl release of 5200 PBq iodine-131 equivalent (​SO 3.b)​.

Most of the release was by the end of March 2011” (World Nuclear Association, 2017)​ (SO 7.g)​. Once the

power was restored to cool the RPVs, the unit went into cold shutdown and the remediation process was

begun by the Tokyo Electric Power company (Tepco), which owns the reactors. The 2015 IAEA

(International Atomic Energy Agency) final report on the incident states in the foreword “A major factor

that contributed to the accident was the widespread assumption in Japan that its nuclear power plants

were so safe that an accident of this magnitude was simply unthinkable. This assumption was accepted

by nuclear power plant operators and was not challenged by regulators or by the government. As a result,

Japan was not sufficiently prepared for a severe nuclear accident in March 2011.” The accident exposed

“certain weaknesses” in Japan’s regulatory framework, with responsibilities divided among a number of

bodies. It was also said there were certain weaknesses “in plant design, in emergency preparedness and

response arrangement and in planning for the management of a severe accident” (World Nuclear

Association, 2017)​ (SO 8.c)​. To date, Japan has spent 1.5 billion dollars on the remediation of Fukushima

Daiichi and the surrounding area. It is expected that significant monetary and physical resources will be

required in the future to complete the cleanup. Like Chernobyl, Fukushima’s effects spanned the globe.

Richard Meserve, head of the International Working Group on Nuclear Safety, writes in a letter to the

IAEA “Every user of nuclear power is hostage to the safety performance of other users because of the

33
 ​
adverse consequences that would arise if there were a nuclear accident anywhere” (Johnson, 2011) (SO

11.a)​
. Public credibility took a hit with a focus on the natural disasters. To ease public perception, the IAEA

endorsed a plan to prevent an accident like Fukushima (Johnson, 2011). The United States Department

of Energy began an extensive study into its reactor ability to withstand those disasters known as Beyond

Design Basis Accidents or BDBA leading to considerable changes to many plant’s Safety Basis

documents, which used by utilities to provide assurance that a DOE nuclear facility can operate safely to

​ 13.a)​.
protect workers, the public and the environment (SO

Current opinions and concerns

Now that we have examined the incidents and how they change the history of the nuclear

industry, let’s look at how they affect the current opinions and concerns for new reactor construction.

Since the nation has licensed its first new reactors in 20 years, only one has come online, Watts Bars II,

which started construction in 1973 with construction stopping in 1980 following TMI, completed in 2016

after the unit’s purchase in 2005 by the Tennessee River Valley Authority. Cost overruns and poor

material fabrication have been a major factor in the U.S. and around the world, delaying the completion of

some plant by as much as 10 years. The major opinion appears to that the economic cost of construction

is too great, Toni Johnson writes “many supporters and critics say nuclear power’s biggest impediment is

economic”. She continues to say that “projects are expensive and slow-developing, with a number of

basic logistical hurdles that make them less competitive than other types of energy, even the inclusion of

a carbon price” (Johnson, 2011)​ (SO 10.c)​. Safety comes at a cost; the improved safety measures

(defense-in-depth) of generation III have increased the price of plant construction. One thought to

alleviate the cost of construction is to design and construct smaller reactor used to supply regions versus

supplying the grid, called modular reactors. In 2015, the U.S. government completed a report on the

modular reactor and other advanced reactor designs, the report stated that units provided some benefits

but the cost will be one to two billion dollars to certify and license, with an additional cost of several billion

during the construction process (Green, 2016), still a significant investment from investors initially​ (SO 3.b)​.

34
 As for concerns, we have radiological releases and waste management. The three incidents

clearly demonstrate the concern over releases, currently the United States plans to follow through with

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and certify a permanent repository, the Yucca Mountain site, which

was selected by Congress in1987 and has yet to be certified, even though the government has collected

over 40 billion in taxpayer money from the ratepayers via the nuclear waste fee (tax added to energy

rates to pay for nuclear waste management)​ ​(Green and Flores, 2017) (SO
​ 8.b)​. Without the repository, most

utilities maintain control of their waste in on-site storage pools, the lingering question is when will the

waste leave the states that hold them. The Social review has shown several concerns and opinions

regarding the nuclear renaissance, but the economic challenges of reactor construction have presented

​ 7.a)​.
the biggest challenge (SO

35
Conclusion

In this report, we analyze the engineering, economic, political, and social spheres of the current

era to provide a comprehensive examination of why the Nuclear Industry has stalled. Our finding shows

that the spheres are connected and have collectively contributed to the stall in the United States. Modern

nuclear reactors are a marvel of engineering with passive safety systems, integrated DCS (Distributed

Control Systems) that can direct emergency response actions, and massive energy production capability,

along with world’s emphasis on fighting climate change through a reduction of greenhouse gases, nuclear

power was seen as the front runner with its carbon monoxide production as a result of material

fabrication, backed by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change​ (SO 1.c)​
. Nevertheless, the

industry’s alternatives seem to be closing the gap, especially the renewables, solar and wind. The

nation’s current fleet seen a rise in plants retirements, some citing financial issues and lack of state

legislation that would help support them, while other simply met their end life. Yet, both of those

renewables also have flaws what happens when the wind does not blow, gas power generators turn the

blades of wind turbines and the production of solar has shown itself not to as green as people thought

​ 7.f)​. Even if the country decided to invest more in the industry

with the production of silicon tetrachloride (SO

the result would not be seen for at least a decade with the slow contraction of plants and who would

financial those plants, whose construction lead to Westinghouse Electric Company’s bankruptcy. The

future is not all grim, there few steps the industry could take to rejuvenate the renaissance. First, allow the

technology to continue to develop, due of the first two of the three major nuclear incidents the

development of nuclear energy technology halted and has recently begun new research in the field like

​ 4.a)​. Second, have the request for government

the use of Molten salts in place of traditional mediators (SO

production tax credits approved to receive funds that renewables receive for not producing air pollution.

Third, truly streamline the production process that Westinghouse marketed with the AP1000, using

prefabricated parts to assemble units. This would require contracts with manufacturers to ensure material

quality and construction companies that specialize in the assembly of nuclear reactors, along with a

​ 4.b)​. Those suggestions accompanied with

renovation of energy markets and regulatory requirements (SO

36
continued public education and understanding that everyone must continuously improve themselves to

ensure the safe operation of nuclear power around the world could rapidly change the state of the nuclear

renaissance​ (SO 11)​

. The industry will never be perfect, nor should it be, a quote from David M. Burns “Aim

for success, not perfection. Never give up your right to be wrong, because then you will lose the ability to

learn new things and move forward with your life. Remember that fear always lurks behind

perfectionism.”. In our interpretation, it means that mistakes happen but it’s our right to learn from them,

make corrections and move on and that’s what we believe the industry has attempted to do. To help met

this goal, we as a team have committed to lifelong education and professional development in all areas
1
​ 9)​.
from communications to ethics (SO

1
● The team used a general vote to determine our topic from our member’s subject lines within
teaming forum. By doing this we ensured that the topic appealed to all members thereby
increasing quality.​ (SO 12.a)
● The team members exchanged sections for proofreading, an example would be Joseph adding a
transition paragraph at the request of John.​ (SO 12.a)
● The team has met every assignment due date and gone beyond the requirements discussion
forum replies. We achieve this by setting a team due a day before the course due date.​ (SO 12.b)
● Discussions throughout the course on the topic of continuous improvement led the conclusion of
continue education. Example of this topic is each member completing research and reviewing
information learn throughout our educational and professional careers.​ (SO 12.c)

37
Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Uncle Sam for graciously paying for our education. We’d also like to thank

Rae Doherty-Clark for her design work to give us a set of very slick slides for our Oral Presentations.

38
References

Engineering Section

Bird, J. (2017). ​Electrical and Electronic Principles.​ London: Routledge.

Kok, K. (2016). ​Nuclear Engineering Handbook.​ New York: CRC Press.

Stacy, W. (2015). ​Nuclear Reactor Physics.​ Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

US NRC. (17 de Apri de 2017). ​Fuel Assembly (fuel bundle, fuel element) ​. Fonte: United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission:
[Link]

Economic Section

About ANI. (2015, May 11). Retrieved June 30, 2017, from ​[Link]

Barrett, P. (2015, October 27). What Killed America's Climate-Saving Nuclear Renaissance? Retrieved
November 26, 2016, from
[Link]
r-renaissance-

Clarkson, J. (2016, March 23). Public Utility Ratemaking 101 (the problems of rate base, cost
passthrough). Retrieved July 01, 2017, from
[Link]

Combined Application of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company for a Certificate of Environmental
Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity and for a Base Load Review Order for the
Construction and Operation of a Nuclear Facility in Jenkinsville,South Carolina. (THE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA DOCKET NO. 2008-196-E - ORDER NO.
2009- J04(A)). (2009, March 2). Retrieved June 30, 2017, from
website:​[Link]
[Link]

CONNECTICUT State Profile and Energy Estimates. (2017, June 15). Retrieved July 1, 2017, from
[Link]

Courtney, J. L. (2012, March & april). Expansion and Consolidation in Retail Power. Electric Energy T&D
Magazine, 16(2), 28-31. doi:​[Link]

Dumain, E. (2017, June 20). House passes nuclear production tax credit extension; could provide lifeline
to embattled South Carolina plant. Post and Courier. Retrieved June 29, 2017, from
[Link]
ld-provide-lifeline/article_4fae976c-[Link]

39
Haratyk, G. (2017, March). Early Nuclear Retirements in Deregulated U.S. Markets: Causes,
Consequences and Policy Options Research Brief [Scholarly project]. In MIT Center for Energy
and Environmental Policy Research. Retrieved July 2, 2017, from
[Link]

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005)

Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992)

First Monitoring Report “Energy of the future” (pp. 1-11, Rep.). (2012). Berlin, Germany: Federal Ministry
of Economics and Technology (BMWi).
doi:​[Link]
[Link]?__blob=publicationFile&v=3

Hezir, J. S., & Davis, E. M. (2011). ANALYSIS OF GW-SCALE OVERNIGHT CAPITAL COSTS (pp. 1-60,
Tech.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
doi:​[Link]
Prepared for Argonne National Laboratory

Increase in the Maximum Amount of Primary Nuclear Liability Insurance, 10 CFR 140 (2017).

Longin, C., & Plück, M. (2017, February 27). Zu wenig Wind und Sonne: Deutsches Stromnetz schrammt
am Blackout vorbei. Retrieved July 02, 2017, from
[Link]
bei-aid-1.6636489

Lovering, J. R., Yip, A., & Nordhaus, T. (April 2016). Historical construction costs of global nuclear power
reactors. Energy Policy, 91, 371-382. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from
[Link]

Lovering, J. R., Yip, A., & Nordhaus, T. (2016, February 2). Fig. 3. Overnight Construction Cost and
Construction Duration of US Nuclear Reactors. Color indicates the commercial operation start
date. [Digital image]. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from
[Link]

Market Operations, M-11 (Rev. 54., pp. 1-47, Manual). (2017). ISO New England Inc. Retrieved July 1,
2017, from
[Link]
[Link]​.

Operating Reserve and Regulation, OP-8 (Rev. 10.2., pp. 1-10, Operations Procedure). (2017). ISO New
England Inc. Retrieved July 1, 2017, from
[Link]
.pdf

Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957, Pub. L. No. 85-246, 71 Stat. 576 (1957)

40
Quarterly Report to the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff Submitted by South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company Pursuant to Public Service Commission Order No. 2009-104(A) (Rep.). (2017,
May 5). Retrieved June 29, 2017, from SCANA Corporation website:
[Link]
(final-5-5-17)-[Link]?sfvrsn=2

Reindl, J. C. (2015, May 1). Regulators OK Fermi 3, but DTE has no plans to build it. Detroit Free Press.
Retrieved November 26, 2016, from
[Link]

Reliability Review Subcommittee's 2016 Annual Report to the SERC Engineering Committee (Rep.).
(2016). Retrieved July 2, 2017, from SERC Reliability Corporation website:
[Link]
al-report/[Link]?sfvrsn=2

Richardson, J. (2016). Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary
Frequency Response (pp. 1-47, Docket No. RM16-6-000). Washington , DC: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. ​[Link]

Roy, M., Greenwald, S., Gilbertson, H. J., Sauvage, J., Bailiff, J., Kroner, A., . . . Spitzley, R. (n.d.).
Comments in response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Loan Guarantees for Projects that
Employ Innovative Technologies (RIN 1901-AB21), 72 Federal Register 27471 (May 16, 2007)
[Letter written July 2, 2007 to Mr. Howard G. Borgstrom]. Retrieved June 29, 2017, from
[Link]
ments_2007_comment29.pdf

SCANA Corporation, Nuclear Development. (2017, February 14). SCANA Receives Reaffirmation from
Westinghouse Regarding Completion of VC Summer New Nuclear Project [Press release].
Retrieved June 29, 2017, from
[Link]
[Link]?sfvrs
n=0

United States, Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. (2017, January). Cost and
Performance Characteristics of New Generating Technologies, Annual Energy Outlook 2017 .
Retrieved June 29, 2017, from ​[Link]

VACAR SOUTH RELIABILITY PLAN Rev. 2 (Publication). (2012, February 16).

doi:​[Link]
y_Plan-February_16_2012-Final%20(2).pdf

Van Welie, G. (2017, January 30). State of the Grid: 2017. Lecture. Retrieved July 1, 2017, from
[Link]
.pdf

Yurman, D. (2016, January 08). What happened to the U.S. nuclear renaissance? Retrieved November
26, 2016, from
[Link]
41
Political Section

Anti-Nuclear Movement in California. (2017, June 30). Retrieved July 06, 2017, from
[Link]

Bush Calls For New Nuclear Plants. (2006, May 25). Retrieved July 08, 2017, from
[Link]

Clinton Engineer Works. (2017, June 14). Retrieved July 08, 2017, from
[Link]

Conca, J. (2017, May 19). The Global Nuclear Landscape Is Changing And America Better Get On
Board. Retrieved May 19, 2017, from
[Link]
nd-america-better-get-on-board/ - 45c0fed473d4

Conca, J. (2016, June 01). Obama's Uneven Scorecard On Nuclear. Retrieved July 02, 2017, from
[Link]
dd477861e5

DiChristopher, T. (2017, March 16). The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, a political hot potato, is
back. Retrieved May 31, 2017,
from ​[Link]
[Link]

Flows, C. (2017, April 24). An America Without Nuclear Power. Retrieved May 19, 2017, from
[Link] -
6cb100f750d2

Maize, K. (2015, August 15). Illinois Nuke Rescue Package is Alive but Sketchy. Retrieved November 26,
2016, from ​[Link]

Manhattan Project. (2017, July 08). Retrieved July 05, 2017, from
[Link]

Map of Power Reactor Sites. (2017, April 21). Retrieved July 08, 2017, from
[Link]

Martin, G. (2017, May 26). GAO outlines $330M 'roadmap' to restart Yucca Mountain licensing. Retrieved
May 25, 2017,
from ​[Link]
admap-to-restart-yucca-mountain-licensing/

Mckinley, J. (2016, October 19). Lawsuit Seeks to Halt New York Subsidies for Upstate Nuclear
Plants. Retrieved November 26, 2016, from
[Link]
[Link]

Miller, C., Cubbage, A., Dorman, D., Grobe, J., Holahan, G., & Santilippo, N. (2011, July 12). ​Enhancing
Reactor Safety in the 21st Century​(Rep.). Retrieved June 3, 2017, from
[Link]

42
Nuclear Navy. (2017, May 23). Retrieved July 05, 2017, from ​[Link]

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. (2017, July 4). Retrieved July 08, 2017, from
[Link]

Siciliano, J. (2016, January 10). The 2016 Politics of nuclear energy. Retrieved May 30, 2017,
from ​[Link]

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. (2017, June 1). Retrieved June 03, 2017, from
[Link]

The California Nuclear Waste Act. (2016, February 26). Retrieved May 31, 2017,
from ​[Link]

Trump Puts Nuclear First on America's Energy Agenda. (2017, June 29). Retrieved July 02, 2017, from
[Link]
nergy-Agend

Trump's budget draws fire from Nevada delegation. (2017, May 23). Retrieved May 30, 2017,
from ​[Link]

United States Constitution. (2017, July 07). Retrieved July 02, 2017, from
[Link]

US Nuclear Power Policy. (2017, March). Retrieved May 26, 2017,

from ​[Link]
[Link]

Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report​(Tech.). (2002, February). Retrieved June 3, 2017, from
U.S. Department of Energy website: ​[Link]

Social Section

Barrett, P (2015, October) What Killed America’s Climate-Saving Nuclear Renaissance? Retrieved May
31, 2017, from
Bloomberg: ​[Link]
saving-nuclear-renaissance-

Ebinger, C (​n.d​.) Three Strikes and Out? Nuclear Energy in the United States in the Wake of Three Mile
Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Retrieved May 31, 2017, from
[Link]: ​[Link]
[Link]

Green, J (2016, January) Nuclear Renaissance? Failing industry is running flat out to stand still Retrieved
May 31, 2017, from the
[Link]: ​[Link]
ling_industry_is_running_flat_out_to_stand_still.html

Green, J (2016, June) Did Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima kill nuclear power? Retrieved
May 31, 2017, from World Information Service on

43
 Energy: ​[Link]
d-fukushima-kill-nuclear-power

Green, G. and Flores, B. (2017, June). ​Green, Flores: U.S. must better manage nuclear waste storage​.
from Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 14 July 2017 from the Houston Chronicle:
[Link]
[Link]

Grimston, M (2011, April). Fukushima: What still needs to be done? Retrieved 29 Jun. 2017 from BBC
News: ​[Link]

Johnson, T (2011, September) Nuclear Power Safety Concerns Retrieved May 31, 2017, from Council on
Foreign Relations: ​[Link]

Landau, E (2011, March) Why does 'nuclear' scare us so much? Retrieved May 31, 2017, from The Cable
News Network: ​[Link]

[Link]. (2014, December). ​NRC: Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident​. [online] Retrieved 27
Jun 2017 from [Link]:
[Link]

Nuclear Energy Agency (2002) "Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts." Chernobyl:
Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact - 2002 Update of Chernobyl: Ten Years On
Retrieved 25 June 2017 from [Link]: ​[Link]

Wendle, J (2016, April). Animals Rule Chernobyl Three Decades After Nuclear Disaster Retrieved 28 Jun.
2017 from National Geographic:
[Link]
ence/

[Link]. (2017, April). Fukushima Accident - World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 29 Jun.
2017 from [Link]:
[Link]
[Link]

Vitkovskaya, J. (2016, April). ​How the Soviet Union stayed silent during the Chernobyl disaster​. Retrieved
5 Jul. 2017 from Washington Post:
[Link]
lent-during-the-chernobyl-disaster/?utm_term=.457219fab155

44
 Appendix 1

Rubric – NUC 495 Based on ABET and TESU Identified Student Outcomes
Rev 1, 2012-07-05

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 1 Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginal Little to no evidence
Demonstrate a fundamental mastery of critical selection and demonstration of demonstration with of applying nuclear
the knowledge, techniques, skills and application of application of some deficiencies in technology
modern tools required for nuclear facility nuclear technology nuclear technology proper selection and principles to derive
operations and/or related fields. principles. principles. use of nuclear desired results.
technology
principles.
a. Demonstrate mastery of knowledge of Utilizes relevant and Utilizes examples of Minimal use of Little or no reference
nuclear operations. illustrative examples nuclear operations relevant examples of to nuclear
- describe nuclear process as it relates of nuclear processes in nuclear operations operations
to field of study operations assignments and processes in processes in
processes in discussions. assigned class work. assigned class work.
assignments and
discussions.
b. Demonstrate mastery of knowledge of Demonstrates by Utilizes examples in Occasionally uses Little to no use of
techniques and skills utilized during examples used in assignments and examples which examples in
nuclear operations assignments and discussions which illustrate some assignments which
- relate the techniques and skills discussions, keen illustrate understanding of would indicate
required in the field of study insights and understanding of nuclear operations understanding of
understanding of nuclear operations techniques and nuclear operations
nuclear operations techniques and skills. techniques and
techniques and skills. skills.
skills.
c. Demonstrate mastery of knowledge of Makes liberal and Makes use of Seldom references Little to no use of
modern tools utilized during nuclear proficient use of modern tools in modern tools in modern tools,
operations/related field of study modern tools in assignments and assignments and demonstrates little
- identify the modern tools employed in assignments and online discussions, online discussions, knowledge of their
the field of study (computers, online discussions. demonstrates limited existence or use.
instruments, etc.) knowledge of tools. understanding of
modern tools.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 2 Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginal Little to no evidence
Demonstrate an ability to understand and complete demonstration of demonstration of understanding of
apply current concepts in the areas of understanding of the understanding the showing some the application of
mathematics, science, engineering, and applications of application of understanding of the mathematics,
technology to engineering mathematics, mathematics, application of science,
technology/nuclear facility problems science, science, mathematics, engineering, and
using proper application of principles and engineering, and engineering, and science, technology
applied procedures or methodologies. technology technology engineering, and methodologies.
methodologies. methodologies. technology
methodologies.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 3 Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginal Little to no evidence
Demonstrate the ability to conduct mastery of in-field / demonstration of demonstration with of using in-field /
standard tests and measurements in the experimental in-field / some understanding experimental
lab or in the field; similarly, to conduct, processes; presents experimental of in-field / methods for
analyze, and interpret experiments; and a detailed solution processes; presents experimental obtaining or
apply results to resolve technical characterized by a detailed solution processes; adopts a interpreting results.
challenges and improve processes. logical sequencing characterized by reasonable strategy
and systematic logical sequencing for solving most of
progression; and and systematic the problem; and
solutions reflect progression; and shows some

45
 excellent solutions reflect understanding of
problem-solving appropriate concepts.
skills. problem-solving
skills.
a. Demonstrate ability to conduct field/lab Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginal Little to no evidence
measurements and tests. mastery of in-field demonstration of demonstration with of understanding the
- provide examples of field/lab processes / in-field processes some understanding in-field processes /
experiments, tests, etc. performed in experiments; /experiments; of the in-field experiment; little
the field of study and conclusions presents a detailed presents a plan and processes / knowledge of the
reached. plan and solution solution experiments; adopts resulting
characterized by characterized by a reasonable conclusions.
logical sequencing logical sequencing strategy for solving
and systematic and systematic most of the problem;
progression; offers progression; offers displays solution in a
strong supporting good supporting manner indicating a
arguments; uses arguments; uses simple
relevant information; relevant information; conceptualization of
and solution reflects and solution reflects the problem; and
excellent appropriate shows
problem-solving problem-solving understanding of
skills. skills. some of the
problem’s concepts.
b. Demonstrate ability to analyze and Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginal Little to no evidence
interpret experimental results. complete demonstration of demonstration with of collecting reliable
- show examples of field/lab results and mathematical mathematical some inaccuracy logged data, poor
analysis/interpretation and accuracy; logged accuracy; logged such as minor manipulation of
conclusions reached. data collection and data collection and arithmetic errors; mathematical
solutions are clearly solutions are sufficient expressions;
displayed with displayed with most understanding of the commits numerous
various computation computational steps logged data arithmetic errors;
steps shown; shown; executes collected to work the and fails to present
executes algorithms algorithms problem and data in graphical or
completely and completely and provides graphical tabular format from
correctly; presents correctly; presents representation but which a conclusion
data in an data in graphical or cannot extract can be drawn.
appropriate tabular format; abstract information
graphical or tabular provides or interpretation;
format; provides a interpretation and presents
clear interpretation conceptualization of calculations in an
and results and displays orderly manner,
conceptualization of results graphically. misses some details;
results and displays and represents data
results graphically in graphically but
a clear and commits errors.
illuminating way.
c. Demonstrate ability to apply results to Fully illustrates and Illustrates and Summary of in-field Little to no evidence
resolve technical challenges. summarizes in-field / summarizes in-field / experimental results that the student has
- describe how field/lab results were experimental results experimental results is weak with completed the
applied to the resolution of issues in clear and certain using sound logic. questionable in-field assignments
terms. Conclusions Conclusions are approach and logic. / experiments, or
are well founded and based on Conclusions are does not understand
based on experimental results based on the results.
experimental results of the student, and experimental results
of the student, and reference to related of the student alone.
supported by related research.
research.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 4 Fully demonstrates Acceptable selection Marginal Little to no evidence
Demonstrate the ability to design or critical selection of of quality processes demonstration of of selecting quality
redesign systems, components or quality processes or or models for safe selection of quality processes or models
processes that are used for efficient and models for safe and and efficient design / processes or models for nuclear plant
safe operation of a nuclear facility. efficient design / redesign of nuclear for safe and efficient design / redesign.
redesign of nuclear design / redesign of

46
 plant systems and plant systems and nuclear plant
components. components. systems and
components.
a. Demonstrate the ability to recognize the Given a scenario of Given a scenario of Given a scenario of Given a scenario of
need for design / redesign a nuclear plant a nuclear plant a nuclear plant a nuclear plant
requirements. primary system or primary system or primary system or primary system or
- describe a requirement for a design / process with flawed process with flawed process with flawed process with flawed
redesign in the field of study characteristics, the characteristics, the characteristics, the characteristics, the
student clearly student explains student provides student is not able to
identifies the acceptable some, but not all of provide basic
required basis for knowledge of the the basic design / information
the system process redesign regarding design /
configuration or requirements and requirements to redesign
processes and demonstrates design restore the system / requirements to
design / redesign / redesign process to safe and restore the system /
requirements to requirements to efficient operation. process to
restore the system restore the system operation.
or process to safe or process to safe
and efficient and efficient
operation. operation.
b. Demonstrate the ability to properly Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginal Little to no evidence
choose design applications for required knowledge demonstration of demonstration of of knowledge for
improvements to safe/efficient for design / redesign required knowledge basic knowledge for selection of
operations. and critical selection for design / redesign design / redesign materials or
- describe a design / redesign effort of materials and and selection of and selection of processes to design
including: processes to ensure materials and materials and or redesign
● system safe / efficient processes to ensure processes to ensure operational systems.
● component operations using safe / efficient safe / efficient
● material selection sound technical operations using operations using
● process or procedure rationale technical rationale technical rationale.
● key considerations

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 5 Acts as a role model Plays an Acts as a follower in Little participation in
Demonstrate effective leadership and in forming, instrumental role in forming, organizing, or accountability for
participation as a member of a technical organizing, and forming, organizing, and contributing to the success of the
team. contributing to the and contributing to the success of the team.
success of the the success of the technical team.
technical team. technical team.
a. Demonstrate leadership attributes. Acts as a role model Plays vital role as Supports technical Does not support
- command & control by giving the assigned to support team when given technical team when
- organization technical team technical team direction. Supports given direction.
- resource management direction and direction and the overall success Does little to support
- lead by example mission. mission. of the team. the overall success
Coordinates the Coordinates of the team.
group activities in a subgroup activities
cohesive fashion or individual efforts
that facilitates the to facilitate the
overall success of overall success of
the team. the team.
b. Demonstrate effective team participation Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginal Little to no evidence
on technical teams. accountability and demonstration of demonstration of of performance of
- roles & responsibilities performance of all accountability and accountability and accountability and
- individual accountability duties assigned to performance for performance of duties assigned to
- cooperation team. nearly all duties duties assigned to team.
- participation assigned to team. team.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 6 Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginal Little to no evidence
Demonstrate a capability to solve use of logical demonstration of the demonstration with of identifying root
technical problems through proper technological tools use of logical some deficiencies in cause and/or use of

47
identification, research, and systematic and principles for technological tools identifying logical technological
analysis of the issue. resolution of root and principles for challenges and/or tools and principles
cause of issue. resolution of root using logical for resolution.
cause of issue. technological tools
and principles for
resolution of root
cause of issue.
a. Demonstrate use of problem solving Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginal Little to no evidence
techniques through proper identification, critically selecting demonstration of the demonstration with of selection and
analysis and corrective action taken. and applying selection and some deficiencies in application of
- describe the processes and principles processes or models application of proper selection and processes for
used in correct problem identification for problem processes or models application of problem resolution.
- describe root cause methodology resolution using for problem processes or models Results are missing
utilized technical rationale. resolution using for problem or questionable.
- describe the successful corrective Results are technical rationale. resolution. Results
action taken well-founded and Results are may be
defensible. reasonable. questionable.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 7 High quality oral, Oral, written, and Information is No evidence of
Demonstrate proficiency in oral, written, written, and graphical presented in understanding
and graphical communications in a graphical communications in standard English, content due to
technical and non-technical setting communications in standard English are but with some absence of
utilizing standard English. standard English are utilized to effectively difficulty. Content organization,
fully utilized to deliver the content of has erratic topical structure, standard
effectively and written materials. shifts and jumps. English, and
efficiently deliver the Use of graphical graphical
content of written communication is communication.
materials. limited.
a. Organization, structure, and Fully demonstrates Demonstrates Marginally No evidence of
presentation of oral communication information is information is mostly demonstrates understanding
facilitates ease of understanding for the presented in a presented in a information is content due to
intended audience. logical, interesting logical, interesting presented but with absence of
and sequential and sequential some difficulty organization and
manner, so that it is manner, so that it is because content has structure.
easy to follow. reasonably easy to erratic topical shifts
follow. and jumps.
b. Organization, structure, and Fully demonstrates Demonstrates Marginally No evidence of
presentation of written communication information is information is mostly demonstrates understanding
facilitates ease of understanding for the presented in a presented in a information is content due to
intended audience. logical, interesting logical, interesting presented but with absence of
and sequential and sequential some difficulty organization and
manner, so that it is manner, so that it is because content has structure.
easy to follow. reasonably easy to erratic topical shifts
follow. and jumps.
c. Content and knowledge of oral Fully demonstrates Demonstrates Marginally No evidence of
communication illustrates technical complete knowledge familiarity with demonstrates grasping information
understanding of the material. of the subject with content and the understanding of about the subject;
good explanations ability to explain and difficult information lacks the ability to
and elaboration. elaborate to some with limited ability to elaborate or explain.
degree. elaborate or explain.
d. Content and knowledge of written Fully demonstrates Demonstrates Marginally No evidence of
communication illustrates technical complete knowledge familiarity with demonstrates grasping information
understanding of the material. of the subject with content and the understanding of about the subject;
good explanations ability to explain and difficult information lacks the ability to
and elaboration. elaborate to some with limited ability to elaborate or explain.
degree. elaborate or explain.
e. Demonstrate proficiency in use of Fully demonstrates Demonstrates good Marginally Little to no evidence
graphical communication, both technical that presented use of graphical demonstrates of the use of
and non-technical, such as: product is reinforced communications application of graphical
- visual aids by use of graphical related to presented graphical communications.
- power points communications that product. communications that
- tables, graphs, or figures enhance barely support
- other formats or tools presented product.

48
 communications and
understanding.
f. Spelling and grammar used in written No misspellings Minor misspellings Some misspellings Multiple misspellings
documentation is high quality. Standard and/or grammatical and/or grammatical and/or grammatical and/or grammatical
English language is used throughout. errors that would errors, few of which errors, which detract errors, which
detract from detract from from understanding seriously detract
understanding the understanding the the document. from understanding
document. document. the document.
g. Reference to research citations and All TESU approved TESU approved TESU approved No evidence of use
document format are in accordance with reference and reference and reference and of proper reference
approved TESU guidelines. formatting guidelines formatting guidelines formatting guidelines and formatting
are followed were followed with were used, but with guidelines.
throughout the few minor major deviations.
document. deviations.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 8 Utilizes correct Recognizes and Limited use of the Does not recognize
Demonstrate an ability to identify and use technical documents uses applicable technical documents or use appropriate
appropriate technical literature, and procedures technical documents / procedures that technical documents
documents and procedures. whenever and procedures apply to the topics / procedures in
applicable. Displays most of the time. being discussed or behaviors or
a thorough Identifies the basis presented. presented products.
understanding of for using these
their purpose and documents when
content. prompted.
a) Demonstrate ability to use appropriate Several examples of Some examples of Few examples of No examples of
technical literature and documents. technical documents technical documents technical documents technical documents
- provide examples of technical used in discussions / used in discussions / used in discussions / used in discussions /
literature/documents utilized in field of presentations. presentations. presentations. presentations. No
study and describe their value Exhibits and defends Understands the Limited understanding of the
the value of using value of using these understanding of the value of using these
these documents in documents in field of value of using these documents in field of
field of study. study. documents in field of study.
study.
b) Demonstrate ability to use appropriate Utilizes correct Recognizes and Limited use of the Does not recognize
procedures. procedures uses applicable procedures that or use procedures in
- describe the hierarchy of procedures whenever procedures, apply to the topics behaviors or
- describe the methodology and value applicable. Displays acknowledging the being discussed or presented products.
behind procedure usage a thorough hierarchy when presented products.
- describe the administrative processes understanding of appropriate.
for procedures in the field of study their importance and
hierarchy.
c) Research citations in oral and written All sources cited are Most sources cited Most sources cited No evidence of
communication are derived from reliable from appropriate and are from appropriate are from sources sources cited or
sources such as technical documents reliable technical and reliable that may not be many are from
and professional journals. and scholarly technical and entirely reliable. unreliable sources.
sources. scholarly sources.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 9 Fully demonstrates Demonstrates the Marginal Little to no evidence
Demonstrate the need for and the desire and desire and behavior demonstration of a of desire for
commitment to engage in self-directed application of a of a commitment to desire for commitment to
continuing professional development and commitment to lifelong learning as commitment to lifelong learning.
life-long learning in one’s discipline. lifelong learning as evidenced by some lifelong learning as
evidenced by active documentable evidenced by little
and documentable professional non-work activity.
continuous learning advancement
activities. activities.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

49
Student Outcome # 10 Fully demonstrates a Demonstrates an Marginal Little to no evidence
Demonstrate professional, ethical, and clear understanding understanding of demonstration with of any appreciation
social responsibilities within the nuclear of concerns in concerns in some deficiencies in and/or
energy field, while recognizing differences addressing issues addressing issues
appreciation and/or understanding of
due to culture and diversity. related to integrity related to integrity
and ethics. and ethics. understanding of professional integrity
professional integrity and ethics.
and ethics.

a. Demonstrate professional behavior. Fully demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates

- provide examples of experiences in professional professional professional unprofessional
the field of study behaviors. behaviors most of behaviors behaviors most of
the time. approximately 50% the time.
of the time
b. Demonstrate ethical behavior. Fully demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates
- provide examples in the field of study ethical behaviors ethical behaviors ethical behaviors unethical behaviors
and decision and decision making and decision making and decisions most
making. most of the time. approximately 50% of the time.
of the time
c. Demonstrate social consciousness. Fully demonstrates Demonstrates social Demonstrates social Seldom
- provide examples of social social consciousness most consciousness demonstrates
consciousness in field of study consciousness. of the time. approximately 50% behaviors that
of the time illustrate social
consciousness.
d. Demonstrate recognition of culture and Fully demonstrates Demonstrates Demonstrates Shows disrespect for
diversity differences. and demands respect for cultural respect for cultural cultural diversity.
- provide examples of respect for cultural diversity most of the diversity
incidents/behavior/recognition of diversity. time. approximately 50%
culture and diversity of the time.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 11 Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginal Little to no evidence
Demonstrate recognition of the impacts of understanding of demonstration of demonstration of of societal
nuclear technology solutions in an applied societal understanding of understanding of perspectives on the
expanding societal and global context. perspectives with applied societal applied societal impacts of nuclear
respect to existing perspectives with perspectives to power technology.
and potential growth respect to existing existing and
of nuclear power and potential growth potential growth of
technology. of nuclear power nuclear power
technology. technology.
a. Demonstrate knowledge and awareness Fully conversant Cognizant of recent Cognizant of recent Unaware of
of global nuclear industry with recent operating global operating global operating operating events
problems/incidents and application of experiences in experiences. experiences. Does and unable or
technical solutions. nuclear power Contributes to not contribute to unwilling to
- describe recent problems or incidents generation. discussions with meaningful participate in
in the field of study and the Demonstrates realistic engineering discussions of meaningful
application of solutions understanding of the perspectives. engineering engineering
/improvements as a result engineering solutions. discussions
- describe implementation of lessons solutions or regarding the
learned prevention of similar events.
events.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 12 Fully demonstrates Adequately Marginally Little to no evidence
Demonstrate a commitment to quality, commitment to demonstrates demonstrates of commitment to
timeliness, and continuous improvement professional nuclear commitment to commitment to professional nuclear
in professional activities. power activities. professional nuclear professional nuclear power activities.
power activities. power activities.
a. Demonstrate a commitment to quality. Fully demonstrates Adequately Marginally Little to no evidence
- illustrates examples of behaviors or critical selection of demonstrates demonstrates of selection of
activities materials and selection of selection of materials or
materials and materials and

50
 - provide an example of quality processes to ensure processes to ensure processes to ensure processes, and
improvement suggestion quality results. quality results. quality results. results are poor.
b. Demonstrate a commitment to Fully demonstrates Adequately Marginally Little to no evidence
timeliness. critical selection and demonstrates demonstrates of applications of
- illustrates examples of behaviors or application of selection and selection and processes or models
activities processes and/or application of application of and results are not
models for processes or models processes or models timely.
timeliness. for timeliness. for timeliness.
c. Demonstrate a commitment to Fully demonstrates Adequately Marginally Little to no evidence
continuous improvement. critical selection of demonstrates demonstrates of selection of
- illustrates examples of behaviors or materials and selection of selection of materials or
activities processes to ensure materials and materials and processes for
- provide an example of continuous continuous processes to ensure processes to ensure continuous
improvement suggestion improvement. continuous continuous improvement.
improvement. improvement.

Topic Exceptional (4) Acceptable (3) Marginal (2) Unacceptable (1)

Student Outcome # 13 Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginally Little or no evidence
Demonstrate knowledge and an understanding of demonstration of demonstrates of understanding or
understanding of the Federal, State, and related Federal, understanding of understanding of appreciation of
Local regulations, standards, and rules State, and Local related Federal, related Federal, Federal, State, and
applying to operations and safety in the regulations, State, and Local State, and Local Local regulations,
nuclear energy field. standards, and rules regulations, regulations, standards, and rules
applying to standards, and rules standards, and rules applying to
operations and applying to applying to operations and
safety in facility. operations and operations and safety in facility.
safety in facility. safety in facility.
a. Demonstrate a knowledge of nuclear Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginally Little or no evidence
Federal regulations, rules and standards an understanding of demonstration of demonstrates of understanding or
as it applies to safe operations of a related Federal understanding of understanding of appreciation of
nuclear facility. regulations, related Federal related Federal Federal regulations,
- describe the Federal regulations standards, and rules regulations, regulations, standards, and rules
applicable to the field of study applying to standards, and rules standards, and rules applying to
operations and applying to applying to operations and
safety in facility. operations and operations and safety in facility.
safety in facility. safety in facility.
b. Demonstrate a knowledge of State Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginally Little or no evidence
regulations, rules and standards as it an understanding of demonstration of demonstrates of understanding or
applies to safe operations of a nuclear related State understanding of understanding of appreciation of State
facility. regulations, related State related State regulations,
- describe the State regulations standards, and rules regulations, regulations, standards, and rules
applicable to the field of study applying to standards, and rules standards, and rules applying to
operations and applying to applying to operations and
safety in facility. operations and operations and safety in facility.
safety in facility. safety in facility.
c. Demonstrate a knowledge of Local Fully demonstrates Acceptable Marginally Little or no evidence
Regulations, rules and standards as it an understanding of demonstration of demonstrates of understanding or
applies to safe operations of a nuclear related Local understanding of understanding of appreciation of Local
facility. regulations, related Local related Local regulations,
- describe the Local regulations standards, and rules regulations, regulations, standards, and rules
applicable to the field of study applying to standards, and rules standards, and rules applying to
operations and applying to applying to operations and
safety in facility. operations and operations and safety in facility.
safety in facility. safety in facility.

51