|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2010. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
NUCLEAR POWER
TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Committee on Future Nuclear Power Development
Energy Engineering Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1992
OCR for page R2
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
This is a report of work supported by Contract Number DE-FGO2-88NE37983/R from the U.S. Department of Energy to the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Nuclear Power : technical and institutional options for the future / Committee on Future Nuclear Power Development, Energy Engineering Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-309-04395-6
1. Nuclear power. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Future Nuclear Power Development. II. National Research Council (U.S.). Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems.
TK1078.N86 1992
333.792'4—dc20
92-18493
CIP
Copies available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418
Copyright 1992 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
S634
Printed in the United States of America First Printing, June 1992Second Printing, August 1992Third Printing, December 1992
OCR for page R3
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
COMMITTEE ON FUTURE NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT
Chairman
JOHN F. AHEARNE, Executive Director,
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Members
SAID I. ABDEL-KHALIK, Associate Director,
Nuclear Engineering and Health Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
ADOLF BIRKHOFER, Lehrstuhl für Reaktordynamik und Reaktorsicherheit,
Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany
SOL BURSTEIN, former Vice Chairman,
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Milwaukee
RALPH C. CAVANAGH (Liaison to Energy Engineering Board), Senior Staff Attorney,
Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco
BENJAMIN HUBERMAN, Consultant,
Washington, D.C.
CHARLES R. IMBRECHT, Chairman,
California Energy Commission, Sacramento
PETER T. JOHNSON, former Administrator,
Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon
E. MARCIA KATZ, Associate Professor,
Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
EDWARD H. KLEVANS, Head,
Nuclear Engineering Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park
JOHN W. LANDIS, Senior Vice President and Director,
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts
TERRY R. LASH, former Director,
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, Springfield
EUGENE W. MEYER, former Managing Director,
Kidder, Peabody & Company, Inc., New York, New York
KENNETH J. NEMETH, Executive Director,
Southern States Energy Board, Norcross, Georgia
DAVID OKRENT, Professor of Engineering and Applied Science,
University of California at Los Angeles
ZACK T. PATE, President,
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, Atlanta, Georgia
HOWARD K. SHAPAR, Counsel,
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, Washington, D.C.
NEIL E. TODREAS, Professor,
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
GEORGES A. VENDRYES, former Director,
Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique, France
OCR for page R4
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
RICHARD WILSON (Liaison to Energy Engineering Board), Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
National Research Council Staff
ARCHIE L. WOOD, Executive Director,
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
MAHADEVAN (DEV) MANI, Director,
Energy Engineering Board
NORMAN M. HALLER, Consultant and Study Director
THERESA M. FISHER, Study Administrative Assistant
ENERGY ENGINEERING BOARD
Chairman
JOHN A. TILLINGHAST, President,
Tiltec, Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Members
DONALD B. ANTHONY, Vice President and Manager for Technology,
Bechtel Corporation, Houston, Texas
RICHARD E. BALZHISER, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California
BARBARA R. BARKOVICH, Partner,
Barkovich and Yap, Consultants, Berkeley, California
JOHN A. CASAZZA, President,
CSA Energy Consultants, Arlington, Virginia
RALPH C. CAVANAGH, Senior Staff Attorney,
Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California
DAVID E. COLE, Director,
Center for the Study of Automotive Transportation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
H. M. (HUB) HUBBARD,
Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
CHARLES R. IMBRECHT, Chairman,
California Energy Commission, Sacramento
CHARLES D. KOLSTAD, Associate Professor,
Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana
HENRY R. LINDEN, Max McGraw Professor of Energy & Power Engineering & Management, and Director,
Energy and Power Center, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago
S. L. (CY) MEISEL, former Vice President,
Research (retired), Mobil R&D Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey
DAVID L. MORRISON, Technical Director, Energy, Resource & Environmental Systems Division,
The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia
OCR for page R5
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
MARC H. ROSS, Professor,
Physics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
MAXINE L. SAVITZ, Managing Director,
Garrett Ceramic Component Division, Torrance, California
HAROLD H. SCHOBERT, Chairman,
Fuel Sciences Program, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
GLENN A. SCHURMAN, Vice President, Production (retired),
Chevron Corporation, San Francisco, California
BERTRAM WOLFE, Vice President and General Manager,
GE Nuclear Energy, San Jose, California
Ex-officio Board Member
RICHARD WILSON, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Energy Engineering Board Staff
MAHADEVAN (DEV) MANI, Director
CLARENDON, SUSANNA, Administrative Assistant
KAMAL ARAJ, Senior Program Officer
JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Senior Program Officer
NORMAN M. HALLER, Consultant
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
ARCHIE L. WOOD, Executive Director
MARLENE BEAUDIN, Associate Executive Director
Technical Editor
CAROLETTA LOWE, Columbia, Maryland
OCR for page R6
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an advisor to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth Shine is the president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R7
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Preface
In the Conference Report (100-724) accompanying the fiscal 1989 appropriations bill for Energy and Water Development (H.R. 4567, Public Law 100-371), the U.S. Congress requested that the National Academy of Sciences conduct “. a critical comparative analysis of the practical technological and institutional options for future nuclear power development and for the formulation of coherent policy alternatives to guide the Nation's nuclear power development.” The Senate Appropriations Committee Report 100-381 entitled Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill, 1989, which also accompanied the bill, noted:
The [Senate Committee on Appropriations] believes that nuclear fission remains an important option for meeting our electric energy requirements and maintaining a balanced national energy policy. The Committee continues to strongly support the need for a responsive nuclear fission program, but finds the current civilian nuclear power reactor program to be a deficient aggregate of numerous reactor types and conceptual variations being developed without the guidance of well-defined strategic objectives. The Committee finds further that the future development and institutionalization of nuclear power development should be rethought, newly defined, and directed to be responsive to current and projected conditions.
In response to the congressional request, the National Academy of Sciences formed the Committee on Future Nuclear Power Development under the Energy Engineering Board of the National Research Council. The Committee's formal Statement of Task appears below:
The committee will conduct a critical comparative analysis of the practical technological and institutional options for future nuclear power development and formulate coherent policy alternatives to guide the nation's nuclear power development. The Congressional intent in directing this study was that the future development and institutionalization of nuclear power development be rethought, newly defined, and directed to be responsive to current and projected conditions.
In conducting this critical comparative analysis, the committee will undertake the following tasks:
The committee will identify the full range of practical technological options for the next generation of civilian nuclear power reactors.
The committee will develop criteria to evaluate these options. These criteria should reflect the extent to which the technologies are likely to lend themselves to nuclear power plants that will exhibit characteristics such as the following:
OCR for page R8
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Safety in operation;
Economy of operation;
Suitability for the operational, institutional, financial, regulatory, and policy environments that are likely to prevail at the time such plants might be constructed;
Amenability to efficient and predictable licensing;
Environmental acceptability, both in day-to-day operations and with respect to the fuel cycles they employ; and
Resistance to diversion of sensitive nuclear materials.
The committee will evaluate the technological options in terms of these criteria.
The committee will review and assess development approaches for the next generation of reactors, taking into account likely federal funding limitations. Particular emphasis will be put on approaches to establishing the level of safety that can be achieved by these reactors, to defining regulatory requirements likely to be imposed on these reactors, and to establishing, during the research, development, and demonstration program, the extent to which such regulatory requirements have been met. The committee will also consider the appropriate role for and level of private sector involvement in the development program.
The committee will assess, in light of the technological options and development approaches under consideration, the relevance of existing facilities of the Department of Energy that support civilian power reactor development. The committee will also consider the need for any new facilities.
The committee will address other aspects of the future civilian power development program necessary for completion of the broad purposes of this study.
Based on the results of the foregoing tasks, the committee will develop a set of coherent policy alternatives to guide the nation 's future civilian nuclear power development program. The committee will formulate recommendations in terms of these alternatives.
The committee will document its conclusions and recommendations, and the reasoning therefore, in a final report.
The Committee was constituted to reflect a wide range of expertise and views in order to ensure that the study's conclusions and recommendations would take into account all relevant considerations and demonstrate the greatest balance possible.
OCR for page R9
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
The full Committee met on eight occasions from May 1989 through March 1991. Subcommittees and working groups also convened during this period to review the literature and other relevant materials provided by government, industry, academic, and public interest organizations, and to prepare working drafts. During the study, the Committee was briefed by representatives from many organizations, including the Executive Branch (the Department of Energy and the national laboratories); the Congress (the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Office of Technology Assessment); the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; domestic and foreign vendors of reactor systems; the academic community; and the Electric Power Research Institute. (Information regarding the Committee's meetings is provided in Appendix A.)
The Committee agreed not to examine the desirability of further developing and deploying nuclear power. Instead, the Committee sought to answer the following question: If nuclear power is to be retained as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements, what reactor technological options, associated Department of Energy research and development programs, and institutional changes would best serve that end? This study's purpose was not to advocate a new generation of nuclear power plants nor to assess the desirability of nuclear power relative to alternative energy sources. The Committee assumed that, at a later time, others would decide whether and under what conditions further development of nuclear power in the United States is warranted.
The Committee performed each of the tasks in its formal Statement of Task as follows:
The Committee identified the technological options for the next generation of reactors. In addition, after examining the range of reactor types that have active proponents, longer term options were identified (Chapter 3).
The Committee listed the criteria followed to address these options (Appendix B).
The Committee evaluated the options using these criteria as a framework (Chapter 3).
The Committee assessed the development effort required (Chapter 3) and prioritized what programs, in the Committee's judgment, should be funded (Chapter 4).
The Committee addressed which DOE facilities should be retained, depending on which alternative program is selected (Chapter 4).
The Committee addressed a variety of other aspects, primarily institutional, deemed necessary for retaining the nuclear option (Chapter 2).
OCR for page R10
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
The Committee developed policy alternatives in terms of near-term and long-term nuclear programs (Chapter 4).
The Committee provided its conclusions and recommendations (Chapter 5).
This report is the product of long hours of concentrated effort by the Committee members and the staff. The report benefited from the extensive comments provided by more than a dozen peer reviewers. Theresa Fisher devoted prodigious time to the many drafts. Norman Haller was extraordinary in his data searches and talent for accurate summarizing. His truly herculean efforts enabled this report finally to be produced. Archie Wood provided seasoned advice at critical times. Time and other constraints led several members of the original committee to resign. They nevertheless made important contributions, particularly Albert Babb.
John F. Ahearne
Chairman
Committee on Future Nuclear Power Development
OCR for page R11
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Table of Contents
SUMMARY
1
General Conclusions,
1
Electricity Demand,
2
Construction Costs and Times,
2
Performance,
3
Public Attitudes,
3
Safety,
4
Institutional Changes,
4
Industry,
4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
5
Industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
7
Department of Energy,
7
Environmental Protection Agency,
7
Administration and Congress,
7
Other,
8
Alternative Reactor Technologies,
8
Net Assessment,
9
Alternative Research and Development Programs,
13
1.
INTRODUCTION
15
The Committee's Charge,
16
References,
18
2.
THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
19
Future Electricity Generation,
21
Future Demand,
21
Future Supply,
22
Growth in Competition,
24
Integrated Resource Planning,
26
Environmental Factors,
26
Electricity Generation Costs,
27
Capital Carrying Charges,
28
Operation, Maintenance, and Fuel Costs,
34
Nuclear Costs in Other Countries,
37
Costs of Disallowances,
39
Liability Protection,
43
Utility Management of Construction and Operations,
43
Concurrent Design and Construction,
44
Standardization,
45
Plant Management,
47
Plant Performance,
49
Public Attitudes,
57
OCR for page R12
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Influencing Factors,
57
Ambiguity of Polls,
58
Improving Public Attitudes,
59
Safety Issues,
60
Prevention of Nuclear Accidents,
60
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Safety Policy,
61
Utility Improvement and Self-Regulation,
62
Safety of Existing Reactors,
62
High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal,
69
Licensing and Regulation,
71
The New Licensing Rule,
71
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
73
Impact of Advanced Reactors,
73
Relations with Licensees,
73
Possible Conflicts of Interest,
75
State Regulation of Nuclear Power,
76
State Safety Regulation,
77
State Economic Regulation,
77
References,
80
3.
ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES
91
Overview of Advanced Reactor Technologies,
91
Large Evolutionary Light Water Reactors,
93
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor,
95
Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor,
98
System 80+ Standard Design Pressurized Water Reactor,
100
Mid-Sized Light-Water Reactors with Passive Safety Features,
102
Advanced Passive Pressurized Water Reactor,
104
Simplified Boiling Water Reactor,
106
Other Reactor Concepts,
110
CANDU-3 Heavy Water Reactor,
110
Safe Integral Reactor,
113
Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor,
117
Process Inherent Ultimate Safety Reactor,
122
PRISM Liquid Metal Reactor,
125
Evaluation of the Technologies,
133
Safety,
135
Economy,
137
Market Suitability,
140
Fuel Cycle,
142
Safeguards & Physical Security,
144
Development Risks,
147
Licensing,
150
OCR for page R13
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Overall Assessment,
151
References,
156
4.
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
161
Current Programs,
162
Funding Projections for Near-Term and Long-Term Technologies,
162
Facilities Currently Supported by Department of Energy,
162
Federal Research and Development Alternatives,
163
Assumptions,
164
Irradiation Test Capability,
164
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Research,
165
Common Research Elements,
166
Reactor Research,
166
University Research,
166
Operational Performance Improvement and Plant Life Extension,
167
Alternative Program 1: Light Water Reactor Development and Common Research Elements,
168
Introduction to Alternatives 2 and 3,
170
Alternative Program 2: Alternative 1 Plus Liquid Metal Reactor Development,
171
Alternative Program 3: Alternative 1 Plus Accelerated Liquid Metal Reactor Development, Including Light Water Reactor Actinide Recycling Studies,
172
Excluded Programs,
174
Costs of the Alternatives,
174
Additional Considerations,
176
Summary,
176
References,
178
5.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
180
General Conclusions,
180
Electricity Demand,
181
Costs,
181
Construction Costs,
181
Construction Time,
182
Prudency,
182
Operation,
182
Performance,
182
Public Attitudes,
183
Safety,
183
Institutional Changes,
184
OCR for page R14
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Industry,
184
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
186
Industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
187
Department of Energy,
188
Environmental Protection Agency,
188
Administration and Congress,
188
Other,
189
Summary,
190
Alternative Reactor Technologies,
190
Large Evolutionary Light Water Reactors,
191
Mid-Sized Light Water Reactors with Passive Safety Features,
191
CANDU Heavy Water Reactor,
191
Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor,
192
Safe Integral Reactor and Process Inherent Ultimate Safety Reactor,
193
Liquid Metal Reactor,
193
Net Assessment,
194
Alternative Research and Development Programs,
197
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
199
APPENDIX A
203
Committee Meetings,
203
APPENDIX B
209
Criteria Developed for the Comparative Analysis of Advanced Reactor Technologies,
209
LIST OF ACRONYMS
214
OCR for page R15
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Illustrations
FIGURES
S-1
Assessment of advanced reactor technologies.
11
2-1
U.S. industry performance indicator trends through 1990.
52-55
3-1
Advanced boiling water reactor, pressure vessel and core.
96
3-2
Advanced pressurized water reactor integrated safety systems.
99
3-3
Elevation view of System 80+ containment.
101
3-4
AP-600 passive cooling systems.
105
3-5
The simplified boiling water reactor.
108-109
3-6
Steam supply system of CANDU-3.
111
3-7a
The safe integral reactor.
114
3-7b
The safe integral reactor heat removal systems.
115
3-8
The advanced modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor.
118
3-9
The process inherent ultimate safety reactor.
123
3-10
PRISM nuclear steam supply system and containment.
127-128
3-11
Advanced liquid metal reactor actinide transmutation recycling of light water reactor fuel.
132
3-12
Assessment of advanced reactor technologies.
153
5-1
Assessment of advanced reactor technologies.
195
TABLES
2-1
Projected and Actual Summer Peak Demand Growth Rates by Year of the Estimate
22
2-2
Projections of Growth in U.S. Electricity Demand, 1988 to 2010
23
2-3
Components of Highest, Lowest, and Average Total Generating Costs in 1988 for Nuclear and Coal-Fired Plants Owned by Major Private Utilities
28
2-4
Overnight Construction Costs for Selected U.S. Nuclear Power Plants, by Year of Commercial Operation
31
2-5
Construction Times for 110 U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
33
2-6
Comparison of U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Construction Time Spans with Those of Other Countries
34
2-7
Average Operation and Maintenance and Fuel Costs for Nuclear and Fossil-Fueled Plants Owned by Major Private Utilities
36
OCR for page R16
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
2-8
Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Disallowances by Issue During the 1980s
40-41
2-9
Nuclear Disallowances By Year During the 1980s
42
2-10
Comparison of Average Sizes of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants in Commercial Operation with U.S. Plants Receiving Construction Permits
45
2-11
Load Factors of Nuclear Power Plants (OECD Countries)
50
2-12
Number of Precursors and Associated Conditional Core Damage Probabilities
64
2-13
Mean Core Melt Frequency (Reactor Year-1)
66
3-1
Vendor Descriptions of Technical Aspects of Advanced Nuclear Reactors
92
3-2
Key Utility Design Requirements for Advanced Light Water Reactors
94
3-3
Estimates Provided by Vendors Related to Evaluation Criteria
134
3-4
EPRI-Estimated Overnight Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs (In December 1988 Dollars)
139
4-1
Near Term R&D Funding Required
175
OCR for page R17
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
NUCLEAR POWER
OCR for page R18
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
This page in the original is blank.
