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.

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:

1. The committee will identify the full range of practical technological options for the next generation of civilian nuclear power reactors.

2. 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:

• 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.

3. The committee will evaluate the technological options in terms of these criteria.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The committee will address other aspects of the future civilian power development program necessary for completion of the broad purposes of this study.

7. 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.

8. 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.

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:

1. 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).

2. The Committee listed the criteria followed to address these options (Appendix B).

3. The Committee evaluated the options using these criteria as a framework (Chapter 3).

4. The Committee assessed the development effort required (Chapter 3) and prioritized what programs, in the Committee's judgment, should be funded (Chapter 4).

5. The Committee addressed which DOE facilities should be retained, depending on which alternative program is selected (Chapter 4).

6. The Committee addressed a variety of other aspects, primarily institutional, deemed necessary for retaining the nuclear option (Chapter 2).

7. The Committee developed policy alternatives in terms of near-term and long-term nuclear programs (Chapter 4).

8. 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