Nuclear Energy- Environmental Issues

and Legislation
John Karlberg
School of Law
RGU
December 2015
 Agenda
 Strictly speaking, Nuclear Energy, as a major source of power, is not of
course derived from hydrocarbons such as oil and gas.
 But its environmental impacts and current and future role in the energy mix
in relation to hydrocarbon usage and the intensifying concentration of
greenhouse gases, are issues of increasing significance in our time.
 Until the disaster that took place at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Plant on 11th March 2011, nuclear energy was certainly undergoing a
renaissance.
 As a measure of its role in the energy mix, according to the
International Energy Agency in 2014, almost 22% of electricity supply in the
OECD area is derived from nuclear power, and its global significance can be
gauged in a 2014 EIA report which stated that nuclear power could generate
up to 24 percent of the world’s electricity by 2050.
 In this topic the evolution of the nuclear industry, its environmental impacts,
regulation and monitoring will be critically analysed.
 Nuclear – Carbon Neutral?
 The generation of electricity from fossil fuels, notably natural gas and coal, is a major and
growing contributor to the emission of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas that contributes
significantly to global warming (IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis)
 Influential Stern Review stated ―if no action is taken to reduce emissions, the concentration
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could reach double its pre-industrial level as early as
2035, virtually committing us to a global average temperature rise of over 2°C. In the longer
term, there would be more than a 50% chance that the temperature rise would exceed 5°C.
This rise would be very dangerous indeed.
 As well as causing climate change, fossil fuels are non-sustainable and finite, and will
eventually be depleted.
 While ideally renewables such as hydroelectric and wind might eventually substitute for
hydrocarbons, these are unlikely to meet global energy needs in time.
 Nuclear energy has the potential to again become a major future energy source, together
with renewable energy.
 The key decarbonisation advantages of nuclear power are discussed in the World Nuclear
Association‘s 2012 New Century Outlook.
 Nuclear v. Renewable Energy
 IAEA Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2013 : “GHG emissions from nuclear power
plants (NPPs) are negligible and nuclear power, together with hydropower and wind
based electricity, is among the lowest CO2 emitters when emissions over the entire life
cycle are considered.”
 Nuclear energy cannot of course be classified as renewable energy, since it is produced
by the splitting of the uranium atom
 Global supplies of uranium are finite but substantial, and in strict terms its use is non-
sustainable.
 But according to OECD/NEA in 2014, the total identified uranium resource base in
2013 is more than adequate to meet even optimistic (high case) projections of growth
in nuclear generating capacity. Meeting high case demand requirements would
consume less than 40% of the total 2013 identified resource base by 2035.
 However, total world uranium resources are dynamic and related to commodity prices.
 The uranium industry has reacted to recent increases in the price of uranium by
launching major new investments in exploration, which can be expected to lead to
further additions to the uranium resource base.
 Some Background
 In the 1950s when the use of nuclear power for generating electricity started, the
peaceful use of the atom became a symbol of human progress, as epitomised in
President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace speech of 1953.
 At that time, scientists and scientific achievements were highly regarded by the
media and the public.
 By 1980, there were 253 operational nuclear power plants with a total capacity of
135,000 MW(e) in 22 countries. In addition, some 230 units with more than 200,000
MW(e) were being built.
 Then two major nuclear power accidents, one in 1979 at the Three Mile Island plant
in the US, and the other in 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the USSR,
negatively impacted public confidence in nuclear power technology.
 The reaction in subsequent years was such that ―some people shudder at the mere
mention of the words “uranium”, “nuclear” or “atomic”, as if we were talking about
evil supernatural forces (Blix, 2001).
 According to the ENS as of August 28, 2014 in 31 countries 437 nuclear power plant
units with an installed electric net capacity of about 375 GW are in operation and 70
plants with an installed capacity of 68 GW are in 16 countries under construction.
 Changing Perceptions
 Although many Europeans are still afraid of nuclear power plants, a substantial
percentage do not consider them to be a risk to them and their families.
 The major risks are considered to be lack of security against terrorist attacks in NPPs, the
misuse of radioactive materials and the disposal of radioactive waste (EC, 2010).
 In 2008 the UK Govt. published its White Paper on Nuclear Power, “Without a clean,
secure and sufficient supply of energy we would not be able to function as an economy
or as a modern society. Climate change represents a significant risk to global ecosystems,
the world economy and human populations. The scientific evidence is compelling that
human activities are changing the world’s climate. Nuclear power represents a low-
carbon form of electricity generation”,
 According to DECC in 2015, Hinkley Point C will be the first nuclear power station in a
generation, with the plant expected to begin electricity generation in 2023.
 In 2014 the UK Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) announced that
“the first new nuclear power station in a generation has moved an important step
closer, as the European Commission announced that it has approved the Hinkley
Point C State aid case.”
 “
Nuclear is the technology that can provide the same quality of electricity at a similar scal
e in the medium and long term.”
 Nuclear in China
China’s policymakers are also moving rapidly and decisively towards the nuclear
energy option, because most of mainland China's electricity is produced from fossil
fuels (79% from coal, 2% from gas in 2011).  According to data published by the
WNO in 2014:
 Mainland China has 22 nuclear power reactors in operation, 26 under
construction, and more about to start construction.
 Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced,
to give more than a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe
by 2020, then some 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.
 The impetus for increasing nuclear power share in China is increasingly due to
air pollution from coal-fired plants.
 China’s policy is for closed fuel cycle.
 China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as
well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western
technology while adapting and improving it.
 China’s policy is to ‘go global’ with exporting nuclear technology including
heavy components in the supply chain.
 Nuclear: Post Fukushima Operational Safety:
Canada

OPG Unified Response

 Nuclear: Environmental Issues
 Although compared to the burning of fossil fuels nuclear energy
can be regarded as “clean technology”, there are significant
environmental issues associated with its production.
 The management of radioactive wastes, both in the short and
long term, is the major unresolved challenge facing the future
growth of nuclear power.
 Radioactive wastes are waste materials contaminated by, or
incorporating radioactivity above certain levels defined in
legislation.
 Solid radioactive waste is divided into three categories
according to its radioactivity content and the heat it produces.
 Deep Geologic Disposal
 Many unresolved environmental issues, despite the extensive regulatory regime, surrounding the long-
term storage of nuclear waste. As an influential interdisciplinary study put it in 2009 “Today, more than
forty years after the first commercial nuclear power plant entered service, no country has yet succeeded
in disposing of high-level nuclear waste – the longest-lived, most highly radioactive, and most
technologically challenging of the waste streams generated by the nuclear industry”.
 Most countries with nuclear power stations have stated their intention to dispose of their HL waste in
mined repositories, and the concept of deep geologic disposal, hundreds of metres below the earth’s
surface, has been studied extensively for several decades in Sweden, Finland, the UK and the US.
 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2009 “In a generic way, it can be stated with confidence
that deep geologic disposal is technically feasible and does not present any particularly novel rock
engineering issues. The existence of numerous potentially suitable repository sites in a variety of host
rocks is also well established”
 It is also worth examining the UK’s 2014 DECC document ”
Geological disposal of radioactive waste: a guide for communities” on radioactive waste management. It
concludes that “The Government is committed to strong and effective control and regulation of the
geological disposal facility development process. Robust, effective and independent regulation is vital for
public confidence in a geological disposal facility programme which meets high safety, security and
environmental standards based on comprehensive risk assessment and management.
 Despite such reassurances, there is no way of predicting exactly how the earth will respond. The waste
may be buried deep, but tectonic, sea level or water tables changes affects things.
 High level (or heat-generating) waste (HLW)
 Waste in which the temperature may rise significantly as a result of its
radioactivity, so this factor has to be taken into account in the design of storage or
disposal facilities.
 HLW arises in the UK initially as a highly radioactive liquid, which is a by-product
from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
 By 2015, the majority of HLW will have been made 'passively safe' by converting
the liquid HLW into solid form using a treatment process called 'vitrification'.
 This involves adding treated HLW to glass forming materials and pouring the
mixture into
150 litre capacity stainless steel containers and allowing the waste to solidify.
 Current scientific thought is that vitrified HLW be stored for at least 50 years, to
allow a significant proportion of the radioactivity to undergo a natural decay
process, for the waste to become cooler, and so make it easier to transport and
dispose.
 Intermediate level waste (ILW)
 Contains lower levels of radioactivity than HLW and does not generate
sufficient heat for this to be taken into account in the design of storage or
disposal facilities.
 ILW arises mainly from the reprocessing of spent fuel and from general
operations and maintenance at nuclear sites, and can include metal items
such as fuel cladding and reactor components, and sludges from the
treatment of radioactive liquid effluents.
 As decommissioning and clean up of nuclear sites proceeds, more ILW will
arise from these activities.
 Like other radioactive waste, ILW needs to be contained to protect
workers and the public from radiation.
 Typically, ILW is packaged for disposal by encapsulation in cement in
highly-engineered 500 litre stainless steel drums or in higher capacity
steel or concrete boxes.
 Low level waste (LLW)
 Much lower potential hazard than other categories, but still contains some
radioactive material so cannot be disposed as ordinary refuse.
 Consists of contaminated equipment and protective clothing from facilities that
handle nuclear material, or contaminated materials such as concrete rubble.
 Although LLW more than 90 per cent of the UK's waste legacy by volume, it
contains less than 0.1 per cent of the total radioactivity.
 Most operational LLW is super compacted to reduce its volume and sent for
disposal at the LLW repository (LLWR) near the village of Drigg in West Cumbria,
where it is encapsulated in cement and packaged in large steel containers.
 These are then placed in an engineered vault a few metres below the surface.
 A small fraction of the total volume of LLW cannot be disposed of in this way, due
principally to the concentration of specific radionuclides and so will need to be
disposed of in a geological disposal facility (WNA, 2013).
 EU and Nuclear Safety
 The European Union has the biggest number of nuclear power plants in the
world. As of June 2013 there were 132 operating reactors in 14 EU
Member States.
 According to the EU Energy Pocket Book of 2014, Nuclear Energy provided
28% of all power production in 2012, with France, which has 58 nuclear
reactors, providing almost half.
 The EU in November 2002, to foster continuous improvement of nuclear
safety and nurture a strong nuclear safety culture in Europe, proposed two
draft Directives on the safety of nuclear facilities and the management of
spent fuel and radioactive waste.
 Since a majority of Member States allowing the adoption or the rejection
of these draft proposals was not forthcoming, the Council adopted
conclusions on the subject in its June 2004 (COM(2004) 526 final), which
resulted in the creation of the Council Working Party on Nuclear Safety
(WPNS).
 Nuclear Safety Directive 2009/71/EURATOM
 Directive in Article 4 obliges Member States as a matter of EU law to “establish and
maintain a national legislative, regulatory and organisational framework (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘national framework’) for nuclear safety of nuclear installations that
allocates responsibilities and provides for coordination between relevant state bodies.
The national framework shall establish responsibilities for:
(a) the adoption of national nuclear safety requirements. The determination on how they are
adopted and through which instrument they are applied rests with the competence of
the Member States;
(b) the provision of a system of licensing and prohibition of operation of nuclear installations
without a licence;
(c) the provision of a system of nuclear safety supervision;
(d) enforcement actions, including suspension of operation and modification or revocation of
a licence.
 Implementation of the Directive does not limit Member States from taking tighter safety
measure than those covered by the Directive. Thus the Directive should be perceived as a
kind of nuclear safety net, to guarantee minimum levels of nuclear safety within Europe.
 Directive 2011/70/Euratom
 The Directive asks Member States to present national programmes,
indicating when, where and how they will construct and manage
final repositories guaranteeing the highest safety standards.
 The safety standards become legally binding and enforceable in the
European Union.
 Member States have to submit the first report on implementation
of their national programmes in 2015.
Deals with:
 (a) spent fuel management when the spent fuel results from
civilian activities;
 (b) radioactive waste management, from generation to disposal,
when the radioactive waste results from civilian activities.
 Stress Tests
 Post Fukushima, the European Commission and the European Nuclear Safety
Regulators' Group (ENSREG) agreed on 25 May 2011 on voluntary safety tests for
the EU's 138 nuclear power reactors known as “stress tests”.
 The "stress tests" are a set of additional safety criteria. The idea behind these EU
wide tests is that they would be applied in addition to safety standards already in
place at national level. Their aim is to assess whether the safety margins used in
the licensing of nuclear power plants are sufficient to cover unexpected events.

 On 25 March 2011, the Heads of States or Governments of the EU Member States

the EC and ENSREG to develop the scope and modalities of these tests, fully
involving Member States and the available expertise, notably the
Western European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA).
 WENRA is a network of Chief Regulators of 16 EU Member States and Switzerland,
as well as of other interested European countries which have been granted
observer status.
 During their plenary meeting in March 2011, WENRA developed a technical
definition of the 'stress tests', as well as an initial approach on how they should be
applied to nuclear facilities across Europe in terms of methodology and timeframe.
 EU: Results of Stress Tests
 European guidance should be developed on the assessment of natural hazards, including earthquake,
flooding and extreme weather conditions, and safety margins, in order to increase consistency
between Member States.
 The Western European Nuclear Regulators' Association (WENRA), involving the best available
expertise from Europe would be well placed to carry out this task.
 Periodic Safety Review (PSR) of each NPP should be carried out at least every 10 years, to maintain and
improve the safety and robustness of plants and revaluate the natural hazards to which plants may be
subject to.
 Recognised measures to protect containment integrity as the last barrier to protect people and the
environment against radioactive releases must be implemented.
 Accidents resulting from natural hazards should be prevented and/or mitigated so as to limit their
consequences.
 Measures to be considered include bunkered equipment to prevent and manage a severe accident,
mobile equipment protected against extreme natural hazards, emergency response centres
protected against extreme natural hazards and contamination, rescue teams and equipment rapidly
available to support local operators in long duration events.
 In 2012 the Final report on the Peer Review of EU Stress Tests was published. Section 8.2 concludes: “It
should be noted that the stress tests reports and the peer review could not provide exhaustive
verification of the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the provisions. Consequently, this process
cannot replace the more detailed work performed by the national regulatory bodies.
 UK Regulatory Regime for Nuclear Industry
 Nuclear power has been produced commercially in the UK since the 1950s
and grew out of the policy need for a UK nuclear deterrent.
 In its Annual Energy Statement 2013, the UK government confirmed its
energy policy to have “new low carbon energy generation” which includes
nuclear power.
 According to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) in 2014, there are
nine operating power stations producing electricity for the national grid
with three different types of reactors, while there are a number of other
nuclear facilities, which do not generate power but are dedicated instead
to activities such as producing nuclear fuel, processing used nuclear fuel,
and storing or treating radioactive material. Some of the sites are being
decommissioned because they are no longer needed.
 In the late 1990s, nuclear power plants contributed around 25% of total
annual electricity generation in the UK, but this has gradually declined as
old plants have been shut down and ageing-related problems affect plant
availability (OGEL, 2012).
 UK: Nuclear in Energy Mix
 In 2013 the UK electricity supplied by main source fuel type was coal (35%),
gas (27%), nuclear (18%),oil (1%) renewables (15%) and import (4%) (
DECC: UK Energy in Brief, 2014).
 Against the background of the supply vagaries of each component of this
energy mix, the surging global demand for energy, and the recent price spikes
for oil, it is doubtful if the UK, and other OECD countries, can afford to rule out
nuclear.
 Nuclear power has been making a significant contribution (16%-19%) to UK
electricity supply for several decades and it is unlikely that renewables would
be able to fill the gap at relatively short notice.
 Given that the substantial lead time for building new or upgrading existing
nuclear power stations, and the fact that UK technology for building new
facilities may be 20 years out of date, it was timely as seen earlier that the
January 2008 White Paper on Nuclear Power tackled the issue.
 High Hazard
 In the UK, the nature of nuclear regulation is, by necessity,
different from that of other high hazard industries.
 Potential human, environmental and economic consequences
of a serious release of radioactive material could be greater
by orders of magnitude than those of an accident in another
high hazard sector.
 The impact could extend far beyond national borders.
 Regulation must take account of risks broader than simply
those of health and safety at work.
 This is reflected in the security and safeguards regimes
described below.
Security and Safeguards Regimes
 Regulation of nuclear safety and of conventional health and safety at
nuclear sites (the safety functions);
 Regulation of civil nuclear security, including the security of sensitive
nuclear material in transit (the security functions);
 Regulation of the transport of radioactive materials, including nuclear
material, by road, rail and inland waterway in Great Britain (the
transport functions); and
 Ensuring that the UK and the UK Government fulfil their international
nuclear safeguards-related reporting obligations and overseeing the
application of international safeguards measures to ensure the UK is
complying with its obligations not to use civil nuclear material for
nuclear explosives purposes (the safeguards functions) (DECC, 2011)
 Office for Nuclear Regulation(ONR)
 The Office for Nuclear Regulation was established by the Energy Act 2013
as a statutory Public Corporation on 1 April 2014[1]. It provides the
framework of responsibilities and the powers of the organisation.
 ONR was formally established by Part 3 of the Energy Act 2013, and a
Commencement Order brought the relevant sections and the organisation
into being.
 The ONR functions as a sector-specific regulator for the nuclear industry
with additional responsibility for the transport of radioactive material by
road, rail and inland waterways.
 The regulatory functions previously carried out by the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE)’s Nuclear Directorate (ND) as well as some elements of
the regulation of the transport of radioactive materials previously carried
out by the Department for Transport (DfT) have been transferred to the
new regulator.
 Environment Agency
 The Environment Agency is responsible in England and Wales
for the enforcement of environmental protection legislation
in the context of sustainable development.
 It authorises and regulates radioactive and non-radioactive
discharges and disposals to air, water (both surface water and
groundwater) and land.
 The equivalent body in Scotland is the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and in
Northern Ireland this function is carried out by the
Environment and Heritage Service within the Department of
the Environment (DoEN).
 UK: Principal Legislation for Nuclear Waste
Significant body of legislation covering the nuclear industry in
the UK, as might be expected from its long scientific
involvement in nuclear energy research and development:
• Radioactive Substances Act 1993 
• Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended 1969) (for Nuclear
Licensed sites)
 
• Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Parts II and IIA) (as amen
ded) 
• Environment Act 1995 (Chapter 25)
• Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Act 1991 
• See “A guide to Nuclear Regulation in the UK, 2014”
 Regulations
 The Special Waste Regulations (As amended) 1996, SI 1996 No. 972 and 2019
 The Special Waste (Amendment) England and Wales Regulations 2001, SI 2001 No. 3148
 Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) (Amendment) (Hazardous
Waste Incineration) Regulations 1998, SI 1998 No. 767
 The Radioactive Substances (Appeals) regulations 1990 SI 1990 No. 2504
 The Hazardous Waste (England and Wales)Regulations 2005, Statutory Instrument 2005 No.
894
 The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) (Amendment and Related Provisions)
Regulations 2005 - Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 883
 The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(
No. 2) Regulations 2005 - Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1528
 The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(
No. 3) Regulations 2005 - Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1728
 ONR Annual Report 2013
“The civil nuclear reactor fleet is ageing, which presents challenges in ensuring
that reactor plant continues to meet appropriate safety standards. Furthermore,
the industry has signalled its desire to extend the operating life of the plant,
hence ONR has put in place strategies to ensure that information is available to
confirm the continued safety of those plants.”
 ONR Annual Report 2014
“We are also now realising the benefits of our
revised goalsetting regulatory framework for
nuclear security regulation that is improving
regulatory effectiveness and delivering greater
integration of safety and security regulation.
Further work is in progress to publish revisions
to our Safety Assessment Principles later this
year.” …Chief Nuclear Inspector’s Annual
Statement
 Post-Fukushima: Environmental Issues
 Environmental impacts of global warming on nuclear plants, usually sited close to the
seashore, or the threat of terrorist strikes, are unknown factors which could lead to
disastrous results.
 The Fukushima disaster of 2011 has undoubtedly renewed the debate on many of these
environmental issues.
 Yet in the long haul the prohibitive price and finite nature of oil and gas, and the carbon
neutral credentials of nuclear with regard to global warming might swing public opinion
again in its favour.
 MIT Study 2012
 Primary determinants of the future path of operation of existing nuclear plants and investments in new
nuclear power globally continue to be economic considerations, perceived energy security considerations,
environmental considerations, and public acceptance.
 Public acceptance of nuclear has not been shaken more by the accident at Fukushima although likely that
tighter safety requirements will increase the costs of both existing and new plants.
 While the international nuclear industry appears so far to have dodged being hit square in the head by a
bullet from Fukushima, it should not expect that it will get another chance if there is another serious
nuclear accident anywhere in the world.
BUT NOW: Significant debate on transboundary marine effects of Fukushima on US Pacific West Coast on
ecosystems/seafood/port workers/fishermen.
And finally…..Alex Coram
Questions?
 Suggested Reading
 BBC, Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant begins fuel rod removal, 18
November 2013. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-
24958048 HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, September 2011.
 Coram, A. and Gray, D.,2015. Reducing the Risk of Climate Disequilibrium:
Nuclear Energy and the Zero Emissions Solution
 DECC, 2015.Hinkley Point
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009, The Future of Nuclear
Power, An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (Update of 2003 Study)
 ONR, 2011: Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK
nuclear industry: Final Report.
 Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR), 2014: Annual Plan – 2014/15:
 The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015