Nuclear Power Regulation: Japan and US compared

Introduction

Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor (NuclearHealth.org)

Nuclear Power is power produced by nuclear fission or fusion. Nuclear fission implies a nucleus splitting and hitting another particle to release energy, while nuclear fusion is the practice of fusing two nuclei to form a heavier nucleus capable of releasing energy. The energy produced in nuclear power plants is often used to produce heat and electricity. Nuclear fission is the more useful of the two processes, because of the inability to truly harness the energy produced by fusion. According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear energy provides approximately 14% of the world's electricity [1]. Many scientists hope to increase use of nuclear power in future generations because they emit no carbon dioxide, effectively aiding in the fight against global warming. In addition, one kg of uranium produces more energy than thousands of barrels of oil and tons of coal.

Though nuclear energy does have its benefits, there are many drawbacks as well. First, nuclear power plants need massive amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to produce. Secondly, these power plants release radioactive waste that are dangerous to both humans and other organisms. Depending on the half life of the radioactive materials, the consequences of exposure can vary from a few minutes to as much as a few billion years. Radioactivity has the ability to spread in many forms including air, water, and even soil. Because of the hazardous health risks, governments need to employ vigorous regulations.

The number of nuclear regulations have only grown, since the increase of nuclear accidents including Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and most recently Fukushima. Regulations can cover areas such safety systems, testing and maintenance, training and skills, and waste disposal [2]. The chance of a nuclear power plant meltdown in the United States after 1979 (Three Mile Island) is extremely slim because of the numerous licenses required but the United States. Japan, on the other hand, has had eight nuclear accidents between 1999 and 2007. In contrast, the U.S. has only had one during the same period. Differences in nuclear accidents can be explained by differences in regulations and safety standards

United States

Nuclear Power Plant Locations in the US (Argonne National Laboratory)

On March 28, 1979 the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear power plant malfunctioned, leading to the most serious U.S. commercial nuclear operating accident in the history of the United States.There were no deaths or injuries due to the incident; however, there were numerous changes to training, engineering, emergency response, and radiation protection [3].

Ever since the TMI accident in 1979, there have been no new contracts for nuclear reactors. The United States government still has 18.5 billion dollars in federal loans guaranteed for additional nuclear power plants. Obama has plans to increase the loans to 54 billion dollars. However, fear and uncertainty in the market have prevented people from taking advantage of these loans, in addition to the high cost of constructing a nuclear power plant [4].

Currently, there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States. These plants are governed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which provides legislation and enforces the policies set for nuclear power plants [5].

Policies

Major policies surrounding U.S. nuclear power plants are divided into two major categories: (1) civilian use and government regulation and (2) nuclear waste management.

Civilian Use and Government Regulation

Policies regarding civilian use and government regulation, include the management and control of safety regulations along with, the division of regulatory power among government agencies.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954

The Atomic Energy Act governs both military and civilian uses of nuclear materials and facilities. This act also gives the NRC the power to enact regulations enforce standards for these uses. It demands a civilian license for nuclear power plants. This policy declares that atomic energy shall only be used to: improve the general welfare, promote world peace, strengthen competition and private enterprise, and to raise the standard of living. As stated in the act, “The Commission may deem necessary or desirable in order to protect health and safety and minimize danger to life or property."

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (California)

Reorganization Plans of 1970

Established the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and gave it a role in creating general environmental standards for the protection of the environment from radioactive material. Reorganization Plan No.1 (1980) strengthened the role of the NRC in terms of policy formation and rule making.

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

The Energy Reorganization Act split the functions of the Atomic Energy Commission into two programs; the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Through this act, the NRC was given responsibility for all regulations, while DOE was given oversight for the development of nuclear weapons and the promotion of nuclear power.

Nuclear Waste

Policies for nuclear waste in the U.S. involve waste management during the entire life-cycle of a plant. These policies include regulations from the mining of uranium to the storage and control of high-level radioactive waste.

Uranium Mill Trailings Radiation Control Act of 1978

This Act manages programs for the control and stabilization of both active and inactive uranium mill tailings. This management will prevent or minimize the diffusion of radon into the environment.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act states that it is the job and responsibility of the federal government to create a place for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It also emphasizes that while it is the government’s responsibility to provide a place for the waste, it is the financial responsibility of the generators for this disposal.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985

This act declares that it’s the State’s responsibility to manage low-level radioactive waste. These policies must be regulated by the NRC. They are allowed to form contracts with other states to have one facility for multiple states. Finally, it requires the NRC to establish standards for radionuclides present in waste streams within the states.

The NRC mandates that spent nuclear fuel be stored on site in NRC-approved dry storage tanks or water-filled pools. NRC regulation states that facilities must frequently test and monitor the storage and handling of the fuel [6].

Regulatory Agencies of Nuclear Power

These acts, essentially give the NRC complete control over the processes, licensing, and development of nuclear power plants. In doing this, it allows for a system in which all facets are regulated and up to code, and safety and environmental impacts can be easily monitored. These acts also provide a system of checks and balances, protecting both the rights of the companies involved, and more importantly, the public. This is done by allowing the citizens the opportunity to voice concerns over nuclear power construction or potential environmental damage. Finally, in the system of checks and balances, the federal government is given the authority to interject and approve all rules put forth by the NRC, to ensure a fair system. These acts help make nuclear power in the U.S. a more in depth, detailed process, allowing for more safety prevention, less accidents, and a more conscious environmental impact. These acts include:

Administrative Procedure Act

The Administrative Procedure Act governs the rulemaking processes of the administrative agencies. This act includes:

1. Requirement of sufficient notice of the rules must be given allowing for appeals and hearings to take place
2. The Freedom of Information Act. Which states that all facets of NRC operations must be public
3. The Privacy Act. Which restricts the public from having knowledge regarding specifics of an individual.
4. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act. Which permits consensus rulemaking through negotiation to avoid litigation
5. The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. Which promotes the use of arbitration or mediation in place of enforcement or court litigation.
6. The Regulatory Flexibility Act. Which requires the concerns of small groups, be included in the rule making process.
7. The Congressional Review Act. Which states that all rules must but approved by Congress sixty days before being put into effect.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act states that every major law regulation that could affect the environment must include an environmental impact assessment for the proposed action.

Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Processes

Nuclear Power licensing processes are divided into three major licensing categories: the two-step process, combined license process, and early permits process. These categories reflect the differences in construction speed, development costs, and administrative protocol. All licensing processes must also include the addition of nuclear insurance, which is essential to the operation and development of nuclear power.

Two-Step Process

In the United States, all regulatory and licensing permits for nuclear power plants are directed under a two-step process. The first step of the process includes an environmental, antitrust, and safety review conducted by the NRC. Under the safety review, an applicant must submit a Safety Analysis Report, which looks at design information involving the reactor, along with data on the proposed building site. The review also considers accident situations and preventative measures. Under the environmental review, an impact assessment of the plant, its regulatory processes, and its potential effects are required, while the antitrust review requires basic antitrust information.

In the next step, a public meeting is held to familiarize the public with the project, along with its safety and environmental reports. An NRC staff will then review the applications and decide whether the application meets all regulations including environmental discharges, response to accidents, and the design of the plant. Once the committee has made its final choice regarding the application, another public meeting is held. This one being conducted by the Atomic Energy Safety and Licensing Board, who listen to public concerns and take a final look at safety and environmental reports: especially, the radioactive and human health reports. After this hearing the application will then provide a Final Safety Analysis Report to supports its operating license application, showing the final design of the facility, along with safety and accident procedures. The NRC will then publish a Final Safety Evaluation, and if the application is successful, will publish a notice on the Federal Register about the acceptance of the application.

Combined License

A combined license process is almost exactly like that of a construction permit under the two step process. It includes almost all the same information, criteria, reports and inspections in an application, and includes a mandatory hearing. After acceptance of the application, the NRC will grant a combined license after verifying that all required tests, inspections, and analyses were completed. This results in a published notice of accepted operation by the NRC a least 180 days before the plant is scheduled to load its initial fuel. The NRC will consider petitions against the plant at this time, but only if demonstration of failed acceptance criteria is clearly shown.

Early Site Permits

Early permit applications are accepted if a resolution in environmental protection, emergency preparedness, and site safety are made independent of a plant design. As long as specific safety and environmental characteristics of the site are evaluated.

An early site permit resolves site safety, environmental protection, and emergency preparedness issues independent of a specific nuclear plant design. The early site permit application must address the safety and environmental characteristics of the site and evaluate potential problems that may occur. The NRC will then produce its own report and findings in regards to safety and emergency preparedness, along with environmental impacts in a Safety Evaluation Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, before allowing construction. The permit then only authorizes limited work on the plant, before a combined license is later issued after final safety reviews by the NRC and a mandatory public hearing occur.

Nuclear Insurance

In 1957, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which was created to ensure that sufficient funds would be available to pay for public liability claims. The act stated that in the event of property damage or personal injury due to a nuclear accident, that funds would be available to pay for the damages. More importantly, it placed a limit on the total amount of liability each holder had in the event a nuclear accident. Under the act, owners of plants are liable to pay a $375 million premium every year, for maximum liability coverage. In the event of an accident, in which damages are above $375 million, money from a second tier private pool is extracted. Each plant being assessed a prorated share of the excess, up to $111.9 million, in addition to the original $375 million. With 104 reactors in the U.S., the maximum amount in the second tier fund equates to about $12.6 billion [6].

Costs of Nuclear Power Plants

Energy markets expose power plant owners to the risk of cost overruns and plant unreliability The EPA attempts to protect the owners from any economic crisis that could occur for their company in the future. EPACT of 2005 allows a specific number of new nuclear power plants to have a production tax credit, federal loan guarantees, and risk insurance. Without any of these subsidies the U.S. companies are extremely unlikely to put in the effort and money to obtain a nuclear plant. There cannot be any governmental guarantees to take nuclear plants off the market, because taxpayer money would be going straight to this cause. Therefore, there must be cost-effective proof that this subsidy route is a worthwhile way to spend taxpayers’ money.

Projection of Rise in Costs for Future Nuclear Power Plants (NC WARN)

The economic performance of nuclear power is heavily dependent on construction costs. The longer it takes to build a plant, the more of an impact there is on the economics.

Two thirds of generation costs are accounted for by fixed costs. These fixed costs include: the construction cost, paying back the loans, and reliability costs. It is hard to determine construction costs because the contractors cannot predict the exact amount. The government normally bases this cost off past costs; however, these are not always correct. Construction materials chosen are typically of high quality. If the parts fail, then a new one has to be bought, increasing the construction costs. The cost of capital depends on the United States' “country risk” and how the “electricity sector is organized”. The cost of the capital is also affected by the electricity companies, by shifting the risk from the consumers to the nuclear plant owners/contractors. There is also a problem with decommissioning costs; no one knows exactly where to put waste. If there is funding, it may not cover the total decommissioning cost. If this happens, the amount that would needed to be paid off would come out of taxpayers’ pockets; something that the United States must avoid [7].

Japan

Nuclear Power Plant Locations in Japan (The Rumor Mill)

A research program looking into nuclear power was established in 1954. 230 million yen was budgeted to fund nuclear energy. The switch to nuclear can also be partly attributed to Japan’s dependence on imports for over 50% of its energy. This funding was not without stipulation, and the Atomic Energy Basic Law (1955) which was introduced a year later stated 3 goals for nuclear research: democratic methods, independent management, and transparency. This law limited the harnessing of nuclear power to times of peace.

The Atomic Energy Commission and three lesser groups, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), Atomic Fuel Corporation, and the Science & Technology Agency, (1956) were founded to promote development and use of nuclear power around the country. The first reactor was a boiling water reactor (BWR) built by GEC and imported from the United Kingdom in 1966. It remained in use until 1998. In 1970, the country built 3 more reactors: pressurized water reactors (PWR’s) and light water reactors (LWR’s). Next, Japan began importing designs from the United States which were in part constructed by Japanese companies.

A strong native base for nuclear construction was built throughout the 1970s as a few Japanese companies, including the well-known Mitsubishi, Toshiba, and Hitachi, became capable of constructing reactors without importing designs or parts. However, there were no standard designs of LWR’s, and so the successful LWR Improvement & Standardization Program was established in 1975 by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). MITI was enacted to regulate design and improve average capacity, which hovered around 46% from the 1950s-70s, by 1985. In response, a three-phase program was implemented:

1. Modification of BWR to improve operation
2. Modification of PWR to improve operation
3. BWR and PWR designs changed and size of reactors increased to Advanced BWR and PWR’s.

The Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC) was begun in the late-90s to explore new uranium sources, (because while nuclear reactor construction is a domestic industry, uranium fuel remains, like much of Japan’s energy, an import) as well as, methods for high-level waste disposal, among other responsibilities. However, PNC did not fulfill government expectations after two accidents, and in 1998 was re-fabricated as the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC). JNC was put in charge of the present day’s hotly contested fast-breeder reactor program (FBR).In 2005 the JNC and JAERI became one unit, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) [8].As of early March 2011, 54 functioning nuclear power plants exist in Japan with 30 more were in the works for completion by 2030.

Reasons for strong nuclear power support can be traced back to World War II. To compete with other developing nations, it was necessary for Japan to break its import-energy dependence. The economy was rapidly changing, and domestic and imported coal and oil could not keep up with the demand. Corporations like Mitsubishi, Hitachi, and Toshiba backed government nuclear policies and programs because it offered the chance for business expansion through construction [9].

Nuclear Accidents

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster March 11, 2011 (Indonesia Pagi).

Japan has experienced almost a dozen accidents at nuclear power plants in the past decade. Though most were non-fatal, a few have led to numerous worker injuries and even death. In 1999, workers at Tokaimura plant violated safety standards while mixing uranium. This mistake exposed hundreds to radiation and two workers died from high-level exposure. In 2004, a cooling pipe burst and scorched four to five workers to death by hot water and steam. Three years later, in 2007, an earthquake in northwest Japan damaged the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant and killed eight workers, though in this incident no radiation escaped to harm the public [10]. Finally, on March 11, 2011 a tsunami and an earthquake, ranking a 9.0 on the richter magnitude scale, devastated northeastern Japan. The Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant's reactors overheated, leaked massive amounts of radiation to the public and necessitated large-scale radiation testing in the area. At least 26 workers were injured in the process and as of March 24, 2011 the death toll from the earthquake-tsunami surpassed 9,700, with 16,500 people missing [11]. This accident was by far the worst in the history of Japanese nuclear power.

Economics

Nuclear Energy Budget in Japan (CNIC)

Table 1: shows the costs of general hydro, three types of fossil fuels, nuclear power based on 40 years of operation. As this table shows, nuclear power is promoted as being a cheaper fuel source or at least as expensive as other alternatives (CNIC).

The Japanese government spends more than any other country on nuclear energy. The budget consists of around 500 billion yen per year (6 billion USD). About 1/3 of Japanese energy budget is from general revenue; the rest of the budget comes from special accounts. There are two special accounts: one for the “diversification of electric power” and one for “site establishment”. These funds come from a special purpose tax: the Electric Power Development Tax, which collects money from energy consumers via their electricity bills at a rate of 400 yen per 1,000 kWh. 64% of Japan's nuclear energy budget is reserved for nuclear energy, whereas only 8% is spent on renewable resources and 12% is spent on efficient energy sources.

The government provides nuclear power plants with huge subsidies. In 2004, the nuclear energy budget was 465 billion yen. 37 billion yen was allocated to accelerator and fusion-related work, which is deducted from this budget. Therefore, the 2004 nuclear budget amounted to 428 billion yen. Only 282.442 million kWh of nuclear energy was generated in 2004, creating a 1.5 yen/kWh government subsidy. This subsidy cannot cover the cost of nuclear energy generation, as seen in table one [12].

Policies

While Japan suffered devastating effects of nuclear weapons in wartime, Japan has embraced a peaceful use of nuclear technology for the production of a substantial portion of the country’s electricity. The Atomic Energy Basic Law of 1955 limited the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes and ensured three principles as the basis of nuclear research and international cooperation: democratic methods, independent management, and transparency. Today nuclear power equates to about 30% of the country’s total electricity production and with recent legislation, the role of nuclear power in Japan will only continue to grow.

In 1973, in response to the oil shortage, Japan realized the vulnerability of being dependant on other countries for energy. At that time, 80% of the country’s energy was imported, with most of its energy being fossil fuel dependent.

Recently, Japan’s energy policies has been driven by the concern of energy security and limiting energy imports to decrease dependence on outside countries. Japan’s newest legislation has been enacted in order to keep nuclear power as major provider of the country’s electricity, recycle uranium and plutonium from used fuel, develop better reactors to improve uranium utilization, and promote nuclear energy to the public, while placing emphasis on safety and non-proliferation. Two such policies that illustrate concern for energy security adnd energy imports are:

Energy Policy Law June 2002: set basic principles for energy security. This policy focuses on providing the country with a stable supply of energy and gave greater authority to the government in establishing energy infrastructure for economic growth. This policy also promotes greater consumption of nuclear energy and a decrease of dependence on fossil fuels.

Coal Tax November 2002: this tax was placed along side the tax on oil, gas, and LPG (liquefied petroleum gas). This tax generated 10 billion yen by October 2003. Ths government also reduced its power source development tax, which increased the amount of funding for nuclear generation.

July 2005: the Atomic Energy Commission reaffirmed its policies directed towards the expansion of nuclear power in Japan.

With 30% of Japan’s energy coming from nuclear power and Japan’s recent legislation, the government as resolved to increase energy self-sufficiency to 70% by 2030. The Atomic Energy Commission of Japan has modeled a 54% reduction of CO2 emissions from the 2000 levels by 2050. This reduction will lead to a 90% reduction by 2100. With this model set in place, 60% of Japanese energy will come from nuclear power [8].

Japan and the US Compared

Japan and the United States serve as global leaders in nuclear energy. However, in their respective industries there are major differences. These include: total generation, costs, location, regulatory commission structures and plant workers.

Electricity Generation from Nuclear

Electricity generation in Japan (EIA)

Electricity generation in the US (EIA)

The United States currently generates about 20% of total electricity consumed from nuclear power. One-fifth of this generated electricity is generated in Pennsylvania and Illinois alone. Pennsylvania currently has 5 operating power plants and produced 78,658 Thousand MWh of nuclear generation in 2008. While Illinois has 6 operating nuclear power plants and generated approximately 95,152 Thousand MWh in 2008. Nuclear capacity in the United States is predicted to increase 0.2% to 0.4% every year due to upgrades in existing plants [13]. Japan, on the other hand, generates approximately 27% of total energy consumption in nuclear energy. This is a significant increase from the 11% generation in 2008. Japan has taken a new initiative to become more energy independent. Currently, Japan imports about 63% of their energy generation in the forms of coal, oil, and natural gas. Japan is the third highest nuclear consumer in the world behind the U.S. and France. The discrepancy in the percent generated between the U.S. and Japan can be accounted for by population differences (U.S. population is roughly 307 million while Japan's is only 127 million). Generation from nuclear power is planned to increase to 50% by 2030 [14].

Costs

Generally, the cost to obtain 1 kg of uranium that can be used as reactor fuel is 0.77 cents per kWh. This is strictly the cost for enriching and converting the uranium, it does not include costs of building the power plant in the first place or transporting the resulting electricity. 1 kg of uranium burns to generate 360,00 kWh, laying out a total cost of $277,200.00 per kg of uranium. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States spends 2.25 cents per kWh of nuclear energy. This cost is including both production and fuel costs and is considerably lower than fossil fuel energy generation costs. Despite the low costs due to the high efficiency of uranium, each new nuclear power plant is projected to cost between $3 and $5 billion dollars simply to construct. Decommissioning costs in the U.S. and spent fuel storage could add $2.3-$4.1 billion. Many of these costs stem from the high safety regulations the United States has in place [15]. Japan, on the other hand, tends to have higher costs for starting a nuclear power plant, despite lower safety standards. This is primarily due to the fact almost all materials must be imported before construction begins. In 2004 a reprocessing plant was constructed at a final cost equivalent to $20 billion U.S. dollars [6]. The necessity of high import costs may be a contributing factor to less capital available for safety. Decommissioning costs, again add a large amount of money into the equation. The estimated cost of entombing Fukushima, granted it is after a major accident, is $12 billion. This number is significantly higher than any U.S. decommissioning costs. Though there are some discrepancies between costs in the U.S. and Japan, overall nuclear power costs are nearly impossible to accurately calculate. Overrun costs are unpredictable and the true cost of safe waste disposal is unknown. Lastly, the risk of a major nuclear accident could potentially add billions of dollars into the costs [16].

Nuclear Plant Locations

With an area about 26 times larger than Japan, the United States can afford to use more discretion when picking locations for new power plants. The NRC requires site evaluation as part of the application for new nuclear power plants in the United States. Typically, a nuclear power plant location is determined by factors such as: (1) characteristics of reactor designs (2) population density and (3) physical characteristics such as geology, meteorology, and hydrology. If any of these characteristics are not favorable, many times the reactor will still be built only with additional safeguards. Again, because the U.S. has significantly more land mass, there is more freedom in picking site locations. In addition, Japan tends to find a viable site and build two or three plants near each other in order to take advantage of the location. The United States typically has power plants more spread out. Location, therefore, contributes to added costs and risks. In the case of Fukushima, the plant was adequately prepared for the earthquake. However, because of the proximity to the ocean, the tsunami caused the majority of the damage [17].

Regulatory Commissions

The United States has two distinct regulatory agencies to monitor nuclear energy. The NRC was founded "to be responsible for regulation of the nuclear industry, notably reactors, fuel cycle facilities, materials and wastes (as well as other civil uses of nuclear materials)" [4]. While the Department of Energy responsibility is "to ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions" [18]. These are two distinct missions and therefore avoid overlap or miscommunication. In contrast, Japan has numerous commissions which frequently overlap. The Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) is in charge of nuclear power regulation, licensing and safety. The Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) has a similar description as it is responsible for developing policies along side the Atomic Energy Commission. Scandals are common in the Japanese system and have led to reactor shutdowns such as ten Tepco reactors in 2003. Though the outlook after the Fukushima accident in March is still uncertain, Japan is looking to restructure their regulatory system more like the U.S. [8].

Workers

Workers in the United States nuclear industry have one of the most intensive training programs out of all economic industries. The regulatory agencies of the United States set up the National Academy for Nuclear Training to ensure that all employees were adequately capable of preforming required tasks safely. This helps to ensure all training is standardized throughout the country. Nuclear power plant operators are constantly in training and spend one out of every six weeks in training throughout their employment. In addition, all employees must partake in a screening process to ensure further safety.This screening process includes several tests and background checks before workers are allowed to enter the building unaccompanied; random drug and alcohol tests also occur [19]. In contrast, Japan's primary training facility is the Nuclear Power Training Center in Kutsumi, Japan. Here nuclear power plant operators are trained using simulators. Initial classes take twenty weeks to complete, but are only trained one week per year after initial training [20].

Conclusion

A pet dog being scanned for radiation after the Fukushima accident in Japan ( wausaudailyherald.com).

In comparing the different nuclear power systems of both countries, it is clear that the United States has a superior approach and method. The United States is able to exercise far more discretion when deciding where to safely locate a plant. Thanks to the size of the country, plants are more likely to be built in areas with low earthquake or other natural disaster activity. Most Japanese nuclear power plants are located in clumps of two to three in coastal regions. There is not enough area area to locate plants more safely inland. The regulatory agencies of the nuclear system are more streamlined in the United States, and consist of two main governing bodies. Japan has more regulatory agencies and thus more confusion. PNC was re-fashioned as JNC in 1998 when it fell short of government expectations in response to an accident. This agency was merged with JAERI to become JAEA only seven years later. This activity is evidence that Japanese regulatory bodies struggle to be efficient and to meet outside expectations. United States workers are also the better choice for the nuclear system. Workers that are hired are specialized and must pass stringent tests in order to be employed by plants. These trained workers are less likely to make the mistakes than Japanese workers, who are largely untrained and generally recent immigrants or of the lower classes. Japan may generate more of its overall electricity from nuclear power, but the United States generates its power in a smarter, more efficient way. However, in light of the recent Fukushima disaster, Japan may look into redesigning its system. Perhaps it will draw inspiration from its neighbor to the east. The future of Japanese nuclear power is, for now, uncertain.

References

1. "World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power," World Nuclear Association, Accessed April 28, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf16.html.
2. "Nuclear Power Explained: Nuclear Power and the Environment," U.S. Energy Information Administration, Accessed April 28, 2011, http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_environment.
3. "Accident at Three Mile Island," Almanac of Policy Issues, Accessed April 25, 2011 http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/three_mile_island.shtml.
4. "US Nuclear Power Policy," World Nuclear Association, Accessed April 24, 2011 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41_US_nuclear_power_policy.html.
5. "Our Governing Legislation," U.S. NRC, Accessed April 24, 2011 http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/governing-laws.html.
6. "The Economics of Nuclear Power," Greenpeace,Accessed May 1, 2011, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2007/9/the-economics-of-nuclear-power.pdf.
7. "Operator Licensing," U.S. NRC, Accessed May 2, 2011, http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing.html.
8. "Nuclear Power in Japan," World Nuclear Association, Accessed April 28, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html.
9. Drash, Wayne, "Why Japan Relies on Nuclear Power - CNN," CNN World, Accessed April 28, 2011, http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-14/world/japan.nuclear.history.qa_1_nuclear-power-power-plants-reactor?_s=PM:WORLD.
10. Press, Associated, "A Look at Japan's History of Nuclear Power Trouble - BusinessWeek," Businessweek, March 17, 2011. Accessed April 27, 2011. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M0VHR82.htm.
11. Press, Associated, "Japan Earthquake Death Toll Rises to 10,000," ABC News, March 24, 2011. Accessed April 27, 2011.http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=weather/earthquake_center&id=8031574.
12. "Cost of Nuclear Power in Japan," CNIC, Accessed May 7, 2011, http://www.cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit113/nit113articles/nit113cost.html.
13. "State Nuclear Profiles," U.S. Energy Information Administration, Accessed May, 6 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/state_profiles/nuc_state_sum.html.
14. "Today in Energy," U.S. Energy Information Administration. Accessed May 8, 2011, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=550.
15. "Some Important Facts bout Nuclear Power," Nuclear Energy Information Service, Accessed May 8, 2011, http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm.
16. "The Incalculable Cost of Nuclear Power," The Guardian, Accessed May 8, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/03/nuclearpower-japan.
17. Abdelaty B. Salman, “ Nuclear Power Plant Site Selection” (Powerpoint presented) http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/TM%20JOR/26%20NUCLEAR%20POWER%20PLANT%20SITE%20SELECTION%203.pdf.
18. "About DOE," US Department of Energy, Accessed May 8, 2011, http://www.energy.gov/about/index.htm.
19. "Personal Training and Screening," Nuclear Energy Institute, Accessed May 8, 2011, http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/personneltrainingandscreening/.
20. "Nuclear Power Training Center," NTC, Accessed May 8, 2011, http://www.jntc.co.jp/e/index.html.
21. "Are you Prepared for a Nuclear Reaction," NuclearHealth.org, http://www.nuclearhealth.org/
22. "Is the NRC Abandoning California," California, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/03/24/18675478.php
23. "Map Showing Location of Japan's Nuclear Power Plant," The Rumor Mill, http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes%3Bread=198887
24. "Where are all the Nuclear Power Plants in the US," Argonne National Labratory, http://crasstalk.com/2011/03/where-are-all-the-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-us/
25. "Solar and Nuclear Costs, the Historic Crossover," NC WARN, http://www.ncwarn.org/2010/07/solar-and-nuclear-costs-the-historic-crossover/.
26. "Fukushima Disaster Of The Nuclear Power Plant in Japan Pain Blasting Jet Pack," Indonesia Pagi, http://www.indonesiapagi.com/fukushima-disaster-of-the-nuclear-power-plant-in-japan-pain-blasting-jet-pack/92238/.
27. "Wisconsin's Radiation Levels Remain Minuscule," wausaudailyherald.com, http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20110405/WDH0101/104050486/Wisconsin-s-radiation-levels-remain-minuscule.
28. "Energy in Brief," U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/images/charts/nuclear_capacity-large.jpg