Student Post: Electricity and the Environment

Today’s reading is an introduction to electricity. Currently, nuclear power accounts for nearly twenty percent of the United States’ electricity. On February 9, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted to allow two new nuclear reactors to be constructed by Southern Co. for a new power plant in Georgia. If constructed, this will be the first new nuclear power plant built in the United States since 1978. The NRC’s decision comes less than one year after the deadly tsunami and subsequent nuclear disaster at Fukushima plant in Japan. Already, environmental groups have banded together to challenge the NRC’s decision in Federal Court. In a lawsuit expected to be filed next week, these groups will argue that the NRC’s decision violates federal law because it did not consider lessons learned in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. However, Southern’s CEO, Thomas Fanning has stated that his company has taken the Japanese disaster into consideration.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), federal agencies are required to develop an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”. Granting a license for a nuclear facility is considered by the NRC to be a “major federal action” that requires an EIS under NEPA. The content of the EIS is generically covered by 42 U.S.C. § 4332, which states that the Federal government shall:

(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on --
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

While a year may be an insufficiently long period of time in which to assess the lessons and environmental impacts of the Japanese nuclear disaster, it is possible that many of the problems that plagued Fukushima have been addressed. In the 40+ years since the Fukushima plant was commissioned, it is possible that the structural concerns which played a part in last year’s disaster have been addressed through research and technological advances. Additionally, there have been earthquakes in the eastern parts of the United States recently, and it seems unlikely that the NRC would approve the building of the reactors without a proper assessment of this danger. Hurricanes are a common occurrence in Georgia, and one would hope that the possible occurrence of a hurricane has been accounted for by the EIS as well. Similarly, containment of hazardous materials following a nuclear meltdown has been studied in great detail since the Three Mile Island disaster of 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 (although it is debatable as to how well those lessons have been put to use in Japan).

Ultimately, the sufficiency of the EIS for the Southern nuclear plant will probably come down to what a court believes a “detailed statement” should contain. If the courts feel that decades of nuclear research has brought the industry to a point where new plants can be constructed safely and securely for almost any contingency, then Southern will likely prevail. However, if the courts decide that Fukushima disaster’s causes and effects have not been encountered before, then Southern may have to wait a while to build.