Understanding political pressures To shutdown nuclear power plants in the United States and South Korea

Abstract

Since the mid-1990s, thirty to forty-year-old nuclear power plants have been reaching their designed lifetimes. Many operating licenses, however, are being extended after regulators review safety considerations and environmental impacts associated with each extension. These regulatory reviews have become quite controversial, not just in the United States. I analyze a number of these in the United States and South Korea countries that are quite different in terms of their regulatory frameworks, electricity markets, safety requirements, and ways in which they engage the public in relicensing decisions. My findings are: 1) regulators, utility managers, nuclear professionals, and policy-makers in any country with aging nuclear plants are likely to face opposition from groups that do not trust the typical risk and safety assessment studies used to justify license renewals; 2) nuclear license renewal decisions are particularly prone to conflict if stakeholders are not involved early enough, and if they perceive that their concerns are repeatedly overlooked (on the grounds that only the results of professional risk modeling are valid); and 3) the credibility of license renewal decisions will hinge on site-specific information and local knowledge, not just generic national studies. Only if there is an earnest effort to engage potentially affected stakeholders, with the assistance of a neutral facilitator, can nuclear plant relicensing facilities be avoided. Stakeholders want an opportunity to focus on issues that are most important to them, particularly site safety, given the uncertainties involved in assessing the risks with continued operation of plants that had a limited design life.