MEMORANDUM

To:
From:
Date:
Subject:

Lois Capps, United States Representative, Californias 24th District

Ryan Staples. California Polytechnic State University Undergraduate
11/5/15
Recommendations on Future Nuclear Power Capabilities of the US

This recommendation report was requested by Representative Lois Capps, D24-CA,

with the purpose of recommending future nuclear energy options to guide
Congressional policy making.
Background:
Since the dawn of nuclear energy in the 1940s with the Manhattan Project, nuclear
technology has greatly shaped the history of the modern world, with both intended and
unintended consequences. The discovery of nuclear fission took place in 1938, when a
pair of German physicists discovered that neutrons fired at uranium atoms would cause
them to break apart and release energy.[1] Once World War II had enveloped the globe,
the United States sought to use this new discovery to create a weapon of magnificent
destruction, and thus the Manhattan Project was born. While weapons were the
intended goal of the program, the study of the nuclear reactor branched from the
program.
As nuclear technology spurred the Cold War, new nuclear reactors were being built and
improved at an extraordinary rate. Some of the reactors built during this scientific blitz
are still in commission today. However, the testing of nuclear weapons, the possibilities
of nuclear war, along with the culmination of several nuclear power plant disasters, have
shrouded nuclear power in uncertainty. These events have spawned global opposition
and calls for ceasing nuclear technology investments, saying that all nuclear technology
is a threat. Nuclear technology production and research has all but stagnated, so it
remains to be seen what will come of this electricity workhorse.

Statement of Issue:
Today, the United States is facing an energy policy dilemma, and a decision that will
shape the future of the infrastructure of the United States. The average age of nuclear
power plants in the US is 34 years,[2] and only recently have plans been approved for
the new construction of power plants. In the wake of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster,
controversy surrounding nuclear energy has grown and opposition is growing stronger.
Despite new breakthroughs that increasing efficiency while using less fuel, other
renewable and non-renewable sources of power are seeing growths in their industries.
The report aims to address the issue: What is the role of nuclear energy in the United
States for the future, with regards to future energy needs and technology, while
addressing public stigmatism and growing competition?
Key Stakeholders:
The primary stakeholder for this recommendation report on nuclear energy is
Representative Lois Capps of District 24 in the State of California. The secondary
stakeholders who would have interest in this recommendation report are the United
States Congress and the general public. The recommendation report is written to inform
these stakeholders about the controversies and proposed solutions facing nuclear
power in the United States.
Information on Nuclear Technology and How It Works:
Currently, humanity has discovered and developed technology based on nuclear fission,
which is the breakdown of an atom into smaller atoms or components while releasing
energy, and is the process that creates all electricity from nuclear power in the world
today. Nuclear fusion, or the combination of smaller atoms or components into a larger
molecule while releasing energy, is currently in the very pioneering stages of
development.[3]
Most nuclear fission in the world occurs when neutrons, or negatively-charged particles,
are fired at atoms of Uranium-238, a large radioactive atom. When they collide, the
uranium is broken down into smaller atoms, while releasing huge amounts of heat and
radiation. While the radiation of the reaction is contained within nuclear reactors, the
heat is used to boil water. This water is then used to generate electricity.
Uranium is a naturally-occurring element, is 40x more abundant than silver, and was
created during the very early stages of the birth of the universe. To be used in power
plants, the uranium must first be mined: in 2014, there were ten active mines in the
United States that produced uranium ore. The ore is extracted with other unwanted
rocks and minerals, so the ore is sent to a uranium mill, where the ore is pulverized and
separated. This process leaves just the desired uranium. However, it must then be
made suitable for use in nuclear power, so the ore is enriched, which is the process of
removing more impurities and improving its capabilities for fission. Next, the ore is

packed into tubes, called fuel rods, which are then grouped together into nuclear fuel
assemblies. [4]
The assemblies are then placed into the reaction chambers of nuclear reactors, where
during their service life will produces steam for millions of watts of energy, before
becoming depleted and replaced. A spent fuel rod (depleted) means that the uranium
inside can no longer produce enough energy to create electricity, and is usually
because the chain reaction inside has reduced most of the uranium in the rod into
isotopes (atoms with more neutrons than their naturally-occurring counterparts).
Depending on their usability, spent fuel rods will either be recycled into new nuclear
capabilities or be disposed of. Disposal of fuel rods occurs in two stages:
decommissioning and disposal. During decommissioning, spent fuel rods are placed
into a pool of water, where they will continue to decay and lose heat until becoming
radioactively safe for transport. Once fuel rods reach this status, they are taken to a
nuclear waste repository site, where it is sealed in concrete and buried deep
underground.
Included on the next page is a graphic that depicts the generation of electricity in a
nuclear power plant.

Analysis of Current Public Opinions on Nuclear-Related Topics:

Public interest and opinions are the integral component of domestic and foreign policy
of the United States government. Therefore, in order to gauge current public
perceptions on nuclear technology, a survey was commissioned; a total of 50
anonymous responses were recorded and the results were studied. The results of the
conducted survey were close to a nationwide Gallup survey, and therefore accurately
represent the views of the general public on nuclear energy-related topics. [6]
To begin, 56 percent of survey responders claimed they were favor of nuclear
technology, which is close to the Gallup national average of 51 percent in favor of
nuclear technology [7]. When compared to renewable and other non-renewable sources
of energy, nuclear energy was shown to be somewhat more preferable than other
energy methods: 64 percent of responses preferred nuclear energy over fossil fuels,
whereas there was an even 50-50 split that nuclear energy was better than renewable
sources of energy.
When asked about the safety and security of nuclear power in the United States, the
majority of responders were content with living within the vicinity of a nuclear power
plant, and felt that Americans should not be quick to condemn nuclear power. However,
where was a dominant mindset amongst the responses that supported increased
measures on nuclear energy: 84% of total responses supported the claim that the
nuclear disasters of the past could have been prevented with increased protective
measures, and 62% of responses would like to see more regulation and oversight of
nuclear technology in the United States.
In gauging future nuclear technology opinions, 34 percent of responses called for the
end of nuclear power in the United States, as compared to 42 percent opposed to
ending nuclear power and 24 percent indifferent. Meanwhile, 64 percent of total
responders believe that the United States should be expanding our nuclear power
capabilities and technologies for the future.
After analyzing survey results, it is clear that the majority of Americans approve of the
presence of nuclear power in the United States. Despite a handful of prominent nuclear
disasters, many Americans believe nuclear power to be safe and optimal for meeting
energy needs. However, there is strong support increased oversight on nuclear power
technologies, so that consequences are mitigated and chances for disasters are
diminished.

Arguments on Nuclear Power and Addressing Concerns:

Since the 1960s, there has been a presence of anti-nuclear sentiment in the United
States, with organizations like GreenPeace, Friends of the Earth, and individual activists
working towards the end of nuclear power. GreenPeace bases their opposition on the

belief that all nuclear technology is harmful to the environment and to people, and that
the only solution is to immediately halt all funding and support for nuclear technology. [8]
While the concerns on the dangers of nuclear technology are valid, they have been
addressed already by the nuclear industry, and and steps have been taken to advert
potential disaster.
An example is the safety measures taken by the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in
Avila Beach, California. Since it first opened in 1985, the power plant has been a source
of controversy for the San Luis Obispo area, as some were against its construction and
the threat it imposed on them. Specifically, there were concerns that its construction
near known fault lines could cause the plant to catastrophically fail, while endangering
thousands of lives with the immediate radius of the plant. [9]
Despite these concerns about the Diablo Canyon facility, the Pacific Gas & Electric
company, which is the operator of the nuclear power plant, has demonstrated that the
plant has the capabilities to be safe. First, scientists performed seismic tests in the area,
and determined that the plant can withstand the most destructive earthquake predicted
within the next 10,000 years. [10] In addition, the power plant is outfitted with redundant
safety mechanisms, which means that they are able to perform under extreme
conditions and not affect the plant should it fail. Thus, these opponents of nuclear power
are quickly silenced once it is clear: that nuclear power is safe, it is efficient, and it is
necessary.
Proposed Solutions and Recommendations:
In order to address concerns on nuclear safety and increase public approval, I would
recommend first that the United States move to increase safety regulations on nuclear
power plants and processes. Despite already intense guidelines, there is always a risk
when working with dangerous, radioactive materials. Thus, increased safety measures
and oversight is needed to prevent catastrophe.
Next, aging nuclear power plants will need to be decommissioned and replaced with
improved models of nuclear reactors. With most of our nations nuclear power plants
30+ years old, immediate action is needed to end this system of extremely old nuclear
reactors and place them with better ones, in the name of safety. In addition, new
reactors mean better electricity production in the future.
Ultimately, the construction of new nuclear power plants is necessary to quench
Americas thirst for electricity. About 20 percent of Americas energy needs are met with
nuclear technology, and this number will go up as fossil fuels become more scarce.
When this occurs, the United States will need to make sure the energy needs of the
nation are met.

References:
1. Tretkoff, Ernie. "This Month in Physics History." This Month in Physics History. APS
Physics, Dec. 2007. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
2. "How Old Are U.S. Nuclear Power Plants and When Was the Last One Built?" U.S.
Energy Information Administration. United States Department of Energy, 20 Feb.
2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
3. "Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion." Bodner Research Web. Purdue University,
1999. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
4. Marks, Alan. "Physics of Uranium and Nuclear Energy." World Nuclear. World
Nuclear Association, Sept. 2014. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
5. Chris. "How Does Nuclear Power Work?" Nuclear Energy Today. N.p., 18 Apr. 2014.
Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
6. Staples, Ryan. Nuclear Power in the United States: Public Opinion Survey Survey.
3 November 2015.
7. Riffkin, Rebecca. "U.S. Support for Nuclear Energy at 51%." Gallup.com. Gallup, 30
Mar. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
8. "Nuclear Stance." Greenpeace. Greenpeace International, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.
9.

Brunell, Scott, and Lara Uselding. "The Latest Chapter in Diablo Canyon's Seismic
Saga." US NRC Blog. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 12 Sept.
2014. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.

10. Baker, David. "Feds to Decide Whether State's Last Nuclear Plant Stays or Goes."
SFGate. Hearst Communications, 8 July 2015. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.