2

The Institutional Framework

This study examines the key institutional issues that have affected U.S. nuclear power development for the past 20 years. These issues will also strongly shape nuclear power's future and must be adequately accommodated to retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements.

The major issues that are examined here are not new--they have been widely recognized and discussed since at least the early 1980s. For example, one study in 1983 tried to identify what it is that prevents nuclear power from going forward in the United States by looking at “The Utility Director's Dilemma.”

. What is the risk to the company that after it invests $2-3 billion in a 12- to 14-year process of constructing a new nuclear power plant, the plant will not be able to operate? What is the risk to the utility that the return on the $2-3 billion invested will be zero? What is the risk that events beyond the control of the company, and beyond its analysts' best forecasts, will delay by several years the date on which the plant comes on line, will double the cost, or will otherwise affect its operation in a manner that could destroy the stockholders' equity and the utility?

If the decision to order the new nuclear power plant were made today [i.e., in 1983], the plant could begin producing power between 1995 and 1997. What could happen in the interim? Could some future president or Congress, governor or state legislature, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or public utilities commission (PUC) be antinuclear? Is there reasonable likelihood of an accident of Three Mile Island (TMI) proportions or worse during the ensuing 12-14 years at one or more of the 200 nuclear power plants operating in the world? How could that affect public opinion, political referenda, and, thus, the prospects for the utility's new nuclear plant?[Allison and Carnesale, 1983]



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 2 The Institutional Framework This study examines the key institutional issues that have affected U.S. nuclear power development for the past 20 years. These issues will also strongly shape nuclear power's future and must be adequately accommodated to retain nuclear power as an option for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements. The major issues that are examined here are not new--they have been widely recognized and discussed since at least the early 1980s. For example, one study in 1983 tried to identify what it is that prevents nuclear power from going forward in the United States by looking at “The Utility Director's Dilemma.” . What is the risk to the company that after it invests $2-3 billion in a 12- to 14-year process of constructing a new nuclear power plant, the plant will not be able to operate? What is the risk to the utility that the return on the $2-3 billion invested will be zero? What is the risk that events beyond the control of the company, and beyond its analysts' best forecasts, will delay by several years the date on which the plant comes on line, will double the cost, or will otherwise affect its operation in a manner that could destroy the stockholders' equity and the utility? If the decision to order the new nuclear power plant were made today [i.e., in 1983], the plant could begin producing power between 1995 and 1997. What could happen in the interim? Could some future president or Congress, governor or state legislature, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or public utilities commission (PUC) be antinuclear? Is there reasonable likelihood of an accident of Three Mile Island (TMI) proportions or worse during the ensuing 12-14 years at one or more of the 200 nuclear power plants operating in the world? How could that affect public opinion, political referenda, and, thus, the prospects for the utility's new nuclear plant?[Allison and Carnesale, 1983]

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE In the mid-1980s the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment found, after a major study, that Without significant changes in the technology, management, and level of public acceptance, nuclear power in the United States is unlikely to be expanded in this century beyond the reactors already under construction. Currently, nuclear power plants present too many financial risks as a result of uncertainties in electric demand growth, very high capital costs, operating problems, increasing regulatory requirements, and growing public opposition. If all these risks were inherent to nuclear power, there would be little concern over its demise. However, enough utilities have built nuclear reactors within acceptable cost limits, and operated them safely and reliably to demonstrate that the difficulties with this technology are not insurmountable.[U.S. Congress, 1984] At about the same time, a study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reached the following conclusion. Despite the best efforts at institutional reform and innovation in LWR [light water reactor] technology, the difficulties presently confronting the U.S. nuclear power industry are sufficiently serious and persistent that the utilities may not overcome their present unwillingness to order new LWRs during the 1990s, even if faced with a need to build large amounts of new central station baseload capacity at that time. [Lester et al., 1985] One senior electric utility executive put it another way in 1985. Apart from everything else, expansion of the nuclear power option in the United States is not likely to occur unless and until there is broad public and political support for it.[Willrich, 1985] In 1989, another study examined the question, “Will nuclear power recover in a greenhouse?” It contained the following summary: The major problems in the United States which led to removing nuclear power as a choice for new generating capacity were lack of growing demand for electricity, rising costs per plant, and bad management, as well as growing public opposition. Unless these issues are recognized and addressed, greenhouse warming will not lead to nuclear power being chosen when utility executives select technologies to pursue for meeting new demands. Actions by Congress, the public, and the industry are needed.[Ahearne, 1989]

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE The issues addressed by this Committee stem in large part from observations such as those cited above as well as from personal experience.1 Often interrelated in complicated ways, these issues include future electricity demand and supply, costs (and disallowances of costs), utility management, public opinion, safety, waste management, proliferation, and licensing and regulation. FUTURE ELECTRICITY GENERATION Future Demand Estimated growth in summer peak demand for electricity in the United States has fallen from the 1974 projection of more than 7 percent per year to a relatively steady level of about 2 percent per year. Table 2-1 shows the projected average annual rates of summer peak demand growth over various 10-year periods, according to the North American Electric Reliability Council The table also shows actual average annual growth rates in summer peak demand. The data indicate that projections made in the mid-to-late 1970s were too high. Enough time has not passed to know whether projections made in the 1980s will be correct. For the period 1990 to 1999, the North American Electric Reliability Council projects that summer peak demand will increase from about 539,000 megawatts electric (MWe) to about 646,000 MWe, an average annual growth rate of 2.0 percent per year. The Council estimates that there is an 80 percent probability that the actual average annual growth over the period will not exceed 2.7 percent per year or fall below 1.2 percent per year.[North American Electric Reliability Council, 1990] 1   There were, of course, other studies not mentioned here. See, for example, Nuclear Power in America, by William Lanouette [Lanouette, 1985], the Report of the Edison Electric Institute on Nuclear Power [EEI Task Force on Nuclear Power, 1985], An Acceptable Future Nuclear Energy System, Condensed Workshop Proceedings [Firebaugh et al., 1980], the Energy Research Advisory Board's Report to the Department of Energy, Review of the Proposed Strategic National Plan for Civilian Nuclear Reactor Development [DOE, 1986a], and other references in thing report.

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE TABLE 2-1 Projected and Actual Summer Peak Demand Growth Rates by Year of the Estimate Year of the Estimate Ten-Year Average Annual Projected Growth Rates (percent) Actual Average Annual Growth Rates (percent) 1974 7.6 2.9 (through 1983) 1978 5.2 2.3 (through 1987) 1982 3.0 3.5 (through 1990) 1986 2.2 *3.5 (through 1990) 1988 1.9   1990 2.0   * NOTE: This is only 4 years of data. SOURCES: [U.S. Congress, 1984; North American Electric ReliabilityCouncil, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, and 1986; DOE, 1986c] The Energy Information Administration has prepared long-range estimates of growth in U.S. electricity demand. The Energy Information Administration also compared its estimates to four other forecasts. Table 2-2 summarizes the results, which range from a low of 1.6 percent per year to a high of 2.6 percent per year average annual growth from 1988 to 2010.2 Finally, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) has prepared a forecast to the year 2015. The EEI estimates an average annual growth rate in electricity demand of about 2.6 percent per year for 1987 to 2000, dropping to 1.5 percent per year for 2000 to 2015.[EEI, 1989] Future Supply In 1989, the United States had an installed summer generating capacity of about 673,000 MWe. During the 1990 to 1999 period, the North American Electric Reliability Council estimates U.S. additions of about 86,000 MWe and retirements of about 4,000 MWe. Average projected annual growth in installed generating capacity equals about 8,000 MWe per year. The Council 2   DOE's National Energy Strategy, published in February 1991, provides the following growth rate projections for U.S. electricity consumption under the National Energy Strategy Scenario: 1990 to 2000 - 2.5 percent per year; 2000 to 2010 - 1.5 percent per year; 2010 to 2020 - 1.6 percent per year; and 2020 to 2030 - 1.3 percent per year.[DOE, 1991]

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE TABLE 2-2 Projections of Growth in U.S. Electricity Demand, 1988 to 2010 Source of Forecast Average Annual Growth Rates (percent) Energy Information Administration 2.1 to 2.6a Gas Research Institute 2.0 American Gas Association 1.9 WEFA Group 1.9 DRI/McGraw Hill 1.6 a The Energy Information Administration's Base Case fore cast is 2.3 percent. Ranges extend from 2.1 percent per year to 2.6 percent per year depending on assumptions about oil prices and economic growth rates. SOURCE: [DOE, 1990a] indicates that, in 1999, total U.S. installed summer and winter generating capacity will be about 761,000 MWe and 779,000 MWe, respectively.[North American Electric Reliability Council, 1990] Long-range forecasting has many uncertainties. Nevertheless, beyond the year 1999, a plausible scenario for supply growth rates might lie between 1.5 and 2.6 percent per year, the long-range demand forecasts given earlier. Starting from the larger estimated winter value of 779,000 MWe at the end of 1999, such growth rates would then produce supply growths of about 12,000 MWe per year to 20,000 MWe per year. If retirements of, for example, 1,000 MWe per year were assumed, new additions would need to be about 13,000 MWe per year to 21,000 MWe per year for the first several years of the next century.3 3   During the 1990s, the North American Electric Reliability Council estimated that the largest number of U.S. retirements would be about 700 MWe in the year 1996.[North American Electric Reliability Council, 1990] The use of such figures, especially after the year 1999, assumes that aging, clean air standards, or strong pressures to reduce carbon dioxide generation do not force large scale retirement of nuclear or fossil plants. Significantly larger numbers of retirements could, of course, directly affect the need for new capacity. For example, if the licenses of currently operating nuclear plants are not extended, nuclear retirements would be about 6,000 MWe per year during the period 2005 to 2010.[NRC, 1991a]

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE The new capacity would consist of both baseload and peaking units, which would be provided both by traditional utility rate-based sources and by “non-utility generators,” or independent power producers and companies with generating facilities that qualify under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). Such facilities would include cogeneration and small hydroelectric plants, for example. Finally, some additional supply capacity is likely to be satisfied by a combination of further energy-efficiency improvements, renewable energy technologies, gas, coal, and repowering.4 Thus, the annual need for new nuclear capacity, at least during the first several years of the next century, is likely to be only a portion of the new additions (which are estimated to be 13,000 MWe to 21,000 MWe per year). This prospect is in contrast to that of the peak years of nuclear plant orders when, from 1970 to 1974, new orders for nuclear units averaged about 31,000 MWe per year [DOE, 1989a], although many of these were later cancelled.5 Growth in Competition Due to high facility development and construction costs and state regulatory practices, utilities today are more often contracting with third party power producers through competitive bidding procedures designed to acquire new generating capacity.6 According to a recent national survey, since 1984, 4   Accompanying a warning of electricity shortages in this decade, the report of a recent conference stated “A full mix of options and enough lead time to make sound choices on both demand and supply sides is far safer than short-term decisions and catch-up policies. Choices need to reflect local, regional and global environmental priorities, as well as the economics and reliability of the entire electric supply and delivery system.”[Fowler and Rossin, 1990] 5   The Atlantic Council of the United States indicated that no nuclear power plants that have been ordered since 1973 have been put into construction for the simple reason that “about twice as many units were on order as were needed with the abrupt decline in the rate of growth of electric power demand. ”[Atlantic Council of the United States, 1990] 6   One review of responses to bidding requests for proposals indicates that, in 16 states, responses exceeded requests by a factor of 8 (38,674 megawatts in response to requests for 4,781 megawatts).[Blair, 1990]

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 27 states have adopted or are developing competitive procurement systems that, together with access already granted by PURPA, will affect the nation's electric power markets.7 [National Independent Energy Producers, 1990] Experience so far suggests that a substantial portion of new generating capacity can be purchased in this fashion.[DOE, 1989b] Because several years are often required to construct generating sources, utilities have little operating experience with competitively purchased electricity. Thus, the effects of competitive power purchases on the long-term reliability of electric service--which is affected by the reliability of all sources and transmission and distribution facilities--are not yet certain and difficult to assess.[U.S. General Accounting Office, 1990] According to the electricity supply estimates for 1990 through 1999 made by the North American Electric Reliability Council, about 18,000 MWe of non-utility generator additions are planned compared to about 68,000 MWe of utility generating unit additions.[North American Electric Reliability Council, 1990] In 1990, 6,000 MWe of non-utility generation went into service, bringing the total to 32,700 MWe.[National Independent Energy Producers, 1991] 7   The Congressional findings underlying PURPA are ” that the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare, the preservation of national security, and the proper exercise of congressional authority under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce require- a program providing for increased conservation of electric energy, increased efficiency in the use of facilities and resources by electric utilities, and equitable retail rates for electric consumers; a program to improve the wholesale distribution of electric energy, the reliability of electric service, the procedures concerning consideration of wholesale rate applications before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the participation of the public in matters before the Commission, and to provide other measures with respect to the regulation of the wholesale sale of electric energy; a program to provide for the expeditious development of hydroelectric potential at existing small dams to provide needed hydroelectric power; a program for the conservation of natural gas while insuring that rates to natural gas consumers are equitable; a program to encourage the development of crude oil transportation systems; and the establishment of certain other authorities as provided in title VI of this Act.”[U.S. Congress, 1978]

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Others estimate the likely non-utility share at 50 percent or more.[National Independent Energy Producers, 1990] The entities currently entering the independent power production bidding process are offering cost-competitive generating plants that use well-established gas-fired or renewable generating technologies with short construction lead times. In general, fixed-price contracts are used for construction. These circumstances do not now favor large-scale baseload technologies. Integrated Resource Planning The goal of integrated resource planning is to minimize the societal costs of the reliable energy services needed to sustain a healthy economy. Many utilities have installed or are installing new planning systems to assure that options to supply electricity are considered and the least-cost options are chosen.[National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 1988; EPRI, 1988] Untapped electricity savings from end-use efficiency improvements are treated explicitly as a resource option, functionally comparable to energy deliveries to consumers from power plants. Comparisons among resource options are made on the basis of life cycle costs, and efforts are often made to incorporate environmental costs in some fashion.[Cohen et al., 1990] These systems usually make the planning process more open and more competitive. Such systems have been pioneered in California and in the Pacific Northwest under the aegis of the California Energy Commission and the Northwest Power Planning Council. Integrated resource planning activities are also under way in many other states, including Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Wisconsin, and the New England States. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has formally endorsed this planning concept. These systems are intended to ensure that energy-efficiency improvements and supply-side technologies of all types, including future nuclear power generation, are compared on an equal basis. It remains to be seen whether these systems will favor, be neutral toward, or be negative regarding nuclear power. Environmental Factors Nuclear power plants emit neither precursors to acid rain nor gases that contribute to global warming, like carbon dioxide. Both of these environmental issues are currently of great concern. New regulations to address these issues will lead to increases in the costs of electricity produced by combustion of coal, one of nuclear power's main competitors.

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Technology is already available to limit emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from coal-based plants, the principal acid rain precursors, and new technology is being developed in the clean coal technology program at the Department of Energy (DOE) and elsewhere. However, even with this new technology, emissions of these pollutants will be much greater than those associated with the nuclear cycle. These technologies will add to the cost of electricity generated in coal-fired plants and will affect the future competition between coal and nuclear plants. Increased costs for coal-generated electricity will also benefit alternate energy sources that do not emit these pollutants. No practical way to capture and contain carbon dioxide emissions is now available. Depending on the growth in concern about global climate change, controls on the combustion of fossil fuels to reduce such emissions could severely limit the use of coal, oil, and to a lesser extent natural gas-fired generation and could make nuclear power more attractive. Energy efficiency and renewable generating technologies would realize similar benefits. ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS In order to deliver electricity, it must first be generated, then transported and distributed to individual users. This report considers only the costs of electricity generation, which consist of the sum of capital carrying charges, operation and maintenance costs, and fuel costs. Capital carrying charges are, in essence, the cost of capital and the depreciation and amortization of the costs of building and financing the plant.8 Such charges are the predominant cost of generating electricity with nuclear power. Furthermore, capital carrying costs are constantly changing as additional investments are required over the life of the plant. In this section, each of the components of costs of nuclear generated electricity is examined in order to understand its importance. Construction times for nuclear plants are discussed as well because of their significance to capital carrying charges. Some cost comparisons with coal are also presented. International data are provided where appropriate. 8   See Electric Plant Cost and Power Production Expenses 1988 [DOE, 1990c] for a more complete discussion of the costs included in capital carrying charges. Decommissioning costs can also be included.[DOE, 1982; Jones and Woite, 1990] Operation and maintenance expenses and fuel expenses will be defined later.

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Capital Carrying Charges The Energy Information Administration (EIA) analyzed the cost components in 1988 for major U.S. privately owned nuclear and coal-fired plants. There is wide variation among the highest and lowest total generation costs and among the components of that cost, as seen in Table 2-3. For example, nuclear plants have both the lowest and highest total generation costs in the table. The difference between the high and low ends is due almost entirely to large differences in the capital carrying charges (approximately a factor of 20 for both nuclear and coal). On the average, the data show that nuclear plant capital carrying charges are about three times that of coal plants, accounting for the major net difference between their total generation expenses.[DOE, 1990c] TABLE 2-3 Components of Highest, Lowest, and Average Total Generating Costs in 1988 for Nuclear and Coal-Fired Plants Owned by Major Private Utilities (Cents per Kilowatt Hour)a   Highest Total Generation Costs Lowest Total Generation Costs Average Total Generation Costs   Nuclear Coal Nuclear Coal Nuclear Coal Total Costsb 11.3 8.5 1.6 2.2 5.6 3.1 Componentsc Capital Carrying 9.4 5.4 0.4 0.3 3.4 1.1 Operation & Maintenance 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.5 0.4 Fuel 0.7 2.5 0.5 1.4 0.8 1.7 There were 179 major privately owned electric utilities in the United States in 1988. Specific definition of the term “major” is contained in the report entitled Electric Plant Cost and Power Production Expenses 1988.[DOE, 1990c] a These data can be interpreted as the price of electricity generated in 1988 from nuclear and coal-fired plants and do not represent the cost of producing electricity over the entire life of the plants. b Numbers may not add due to rounding c In the first four columns, these are the costs for each component for the plants whose total costs were highest and lowest. The last two columns represent the average plant (e.g., the average total nuclear costs are 5.6, made up of 3.4, 1.5, and 0.8). SOURCE: [DOE, 1990c]

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Existing nuclear plants have higher capital carrying charges, on average, for several reasons: (1) their equipment and buildings have been more expensive to acquire than those for coal-fired plants, (2) they have taken longer to build, thus accumulating more interest during construction (which is, in many cases, capitalized), and (3) in most cases, nuclear plant decommissioning costs are taken into account in the capital carrying charges. These are all reflected in capital carrying charges in Table 2-3. The large amounts of capital required to build and finance some U.S. nuclear power plants are a major cause of disenchantment with the technology. The Committee was unable to find a complete and consistent set of data on such costs. Therefore, to analyze the fundamental reasons for large differences in the costs among U.S. nuclear plants, the Committee makes use of the best data found. One measure of capital investment is called historical plant cost.9 Another measure is construction cost in mixed-current dollars.10 Although such measures mix dollars over many years, they do suggest that both nuclear and large (=300 MWe) fossil-fueled plants have exhibited cost increases over time. For example, large fossil-fueled plants that entered commercial service from 1976 to 1978 had average historical costs of about $300 per kilowatt electric, whereas those entering commercial service in 1987 had average historical costs of about $1,000 per kilowatt electric. Nuclear units beginning commercial operation from 1976 to 1978 had average construction costs (mixed-current dollars) of about $600 per kilowatt electric, whereas those beginning commercial operation in 1987 had average construction costs of about $4,000 per kilowatt electric.[DOE, 1990c and 1989d] Because historical plant cost and mixed-current dollar construction cost data are difficult to use for cost comparisons, analysts have devised ways of 9   Historical plant costs are the net cumulative-to-date actual outlays or expenditures for a facility. These costs are effectively those that enter the rate base and are recovered from ratepayers. Historical costs contain dollar values of the year in which the expenditure occured; thus they are a mixture of dollars in different time periods. Differences in accounting practices also affect such costs, for example, the inclusion or exclusion of time-related costs such as allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC). For more explanation see the report entitled Electric Plant Cost and Power Production Expenses 1988.[DOE, 1990c] 10   These costs are referred to variously as final reported completion costs and final estimates of total construction cost for nuclear units. The costs are in current dollars of a number of different years (e.g., expenditures in 1971 are in 1971 dollars).[DOE, 1989d]

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE REFERENCES Ahearne, J. F. 1989. Will Nuclear Power Recover in a Greenhouse? Discussion Paper. Resources for the Future. ENR89-06. Washington, D.C. May. Ahearne, J. F. 1988. A Comparison Between Regulation of Nuclear Power in Canada and the United States. Prog. in Nuc. Energy. 22: 215-229. Allison, G., and A. Carnesale. 1983. The Utility Director's Dilemma: The Governance of Nuclear Power. Uncertain Power, The Struggle For A National Energy Policy. Pergamon Press Inc. New York. 134-153. Atlantic Council of the United States. 1990. Energy Imperatives for the 1990s. Report of the Atlantic Council's Energy Working Group. Policy Paper. March. Bacher, P., and M. Chapron. 1989. Nuclear Units Under Construction. Revere Générale Nucléaire, International Edition, May/June. Bernreuter, D. L., et al. 1989. Seismic Hazard Characterization of 69 Nuclear Power Sites East of the Rocky Mountaing. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. NUREG/CR-5250. January. Birkhofer, A. 1991. (Lehrstuhl für Reaktordynamik und Reaktorsicherheit), Technische Universität München, Federal Republic of Germany. Provided to the National Research Council's Committee on Future Nuclear Power Development in February. Blair, P. (Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress.) 1990. Reflections on U.S. Electricity Demand and Capacity Needs. The Aspen Institute Policy Issue Forum, The Electricity Outlook. Aspen, Colorado. July 18-22, 1990 Boston Edison Company. 1990. Viewgraph: Getting A Competitive Edge, DPU Settlement Performance Incentives. Received by Archie L. Wood. Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Inc. 1990. Energy and the Environment: The New Landscape of Public Opinion. Cantor, R., and J. Hewlett. 1988. The Economics of Nuclear Power, Further Evidence on Learning, Economies of Scale, and Regulatory Effects. Resources and Energy 10.

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Carr, K. M., Chairman, NRC. 1990. Letter to Albert L. Babb, University of Washington June 14, 1990. Cavanagh, R. 1986 Least Cost Planning Imperatives for Electric Utilities and Their Regulators. Harvard Environmental Law Review 299. 10: 2. Chilk, S. J., Secretary of the Commission. 1991. Memorandum for James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations. Subject: SECY-90-377Requirements for Design Certification Under 10 CFR Part 52. February 15, 1991 Chilk, S. J., Secretary of the Commission. 1990a. NRC Memorandum for James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations. Subject: SECY-89102 - Implementation of the Safety Goals June 15, 1990 Chilk, S. J., Secretary of the Commission. 1990b. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Memorandum for James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations. Subject: SECY-90-16. Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (LWR) Certification Issues and Their Relationships to Current Regulatory Requirements. June 26, 1990 Chilk, S. J., Secretary of the Commission. 1979. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy Statement, NRC Statement on Risk Assessment and the Reactor Safety Study Report (WASH-1400) in Light of the Risk Assessment Review Group Report. Attached to Memorandum for Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations. Subject: Staff Actions Regarding Risk Assessment Review Group Report. January 18, 1979 Chung, K. M., and G. A. Hazelrigg. 1989. Nuclear Power Technology: A Mandate for Change Nuclear Technology. 88(November). Cohen, S. D., et al. 1990. Environmental Externalities: What State Regulators Are Doing The Electricity Journal. July. Cohen, S. 1989. Operating and Financial Risks in the Growing Capacity Shortage. A report prepared by Morgan Stanley. New York, N.Y. May. Collier, H., Chairman, High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Committee 1984. Report of Science Advisory Board. Letter to William Ruckleshaus. Report on Proposed Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes 40 CFR 191. High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Subcommittee, Science Advisory Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency February 17, 1984.

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Committee on Suggested State Legislation, The Council of State Governments 1991. Suggested State Legislation, Volume 50. deBoer, C., and I. Catsburg. 1988. The Polls-A Report, the Impact of Nuclear Accidents on Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy. Poll Report: Nuclear Energy, Public Opinion Quarterly. 52: 254-261. American Association for Public Opinion Research. University of Chicago Press. DOE. 1991. National Energy Strategy. First Edition, 1991/1992. Washington, D.C. February. DOE, Energy Information Administration. 1990a. Annual Energy Outlook, Long Term Projections, 1990. DOE/EIA-0383(90). Released for printing January 12, 1990. DOE. 1990b. Interim Report, National Energy Strategy, A Compilation of Public Comments. DOE/S-0066P. April. DOE, Energy Information Administration. 1990c. Electric Plant Cost and Power Production Expenses 1988. DOE/EIA-0455(88). Released for printing August 16, 1990. DOE. 1989a. Commercial Nuclear Power 1989, Prospects for the United States and the World DOE/EIA-0438(89). DOE. 1989b. Annual Outlook for U.S. Electric Power 1989, Projections Through 2000. DOE/EIA-047(89). DOE, Energy Information Administration. 1989c. Annual Energy Review 1989. Energy Information Administration. DOE/EIA-0384(89). Released for printing May 24, 1990. DOE, Energy Information Administration. 1989d. Nuclear Power Plant Construction Activity 1988. DOE/EIA-0473(88). Released for printing June 14, 1989. DOE, Energy Information Adminstration. 1989e. Historical Plant Cost and Annual Production Expenses for Selected Electric Plants 1987. DOE/EIA-0455(87). Released for printing May 8, 1989. DOE, Energy Information Adminstration. 1988c. An Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Costs. DOE/EIA-0511. Released for printing March 16, 1988; and letter dated August 10, 1990 from the Director of EIA's Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels to Archie L. Wood.

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE DOE. 1986a. Review of the Proposed Strategic National Plan for Civilian Nuclear Reactor Development. A Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy. DOE/S-0051. 1-4:(October). DOE, Energy Information Adminstration. 1986b. An Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs. DOE/EIA-0485. March/April 1986. DOE, Energy Information Administration. 1986c. Financial Analysis of Investor-Owned Electric Utilities. DOE/EIA-0499. November. DOE, Energy Information Administration. 1982. Projected Costs of Electricity from Nuclear and Coal-Fired Power Plants. DOE/EIA-0356/2. 2(November). EEI. 1989. Electricity Futures: America's Economic Imperative. January. EEI Task Force on Nuclear Power. 1985. Report of the Edison Electric Institute on Nuclear Power. February. Energy Daily. April 2, 1991. Appeals Court Reverses Earlier Ruling on NRC Licensing Rule. 19: 62 Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 191. EPRI. 1988. Status of Least-Cost Planning in the United States. EPRI. 1986. Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document, Executive Summary, Part I. The Electric Power Research Institute Advanced Light Water Reactor Program. June. Firebaugh, M. W., and M. J. Ohanian, eds. 1980. Gatlinburg II, An Acceptable Future Nuclear Energy System, Condensed Workshop Proceedings. Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge Associated Universities. March. Flavin, C. 1988. The Case Against Reviving Nuclear Power. World-Watch. July - August. 1: 4. Fowler, T. K., and A. D. Rossin. 1990. First 1990 Group on Electricity. University of California, Berkeley. January 12, 1990. Ganson, W. A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. Research supported by National Science Foundation grants SES-801642 and 8309343. University of Chicago. Reprints from Department of Sociology, Boston College.

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE George Washington University. 1989. International Conference on Enhanced Safety of Nuclear Reactors August 9-10, 1988. Proceedings published as ITSR Report Number 008 Institute for Technology and Strategic Research, The School of Engineering and Applied Science 192-193. Giraud and Vendryes. 1989. Main Issues Requiring Resolution for Large-Scale Deployment of Nuclear Energy International Workshop on the Safety of Nuclear Installations of the Next Generation and Beyond Chicago. August 28-31, 1989. Golay, M. W., and N. E. Todreas. 1990. Advanced Light-Water Reactors. Scientific American. April. GSA. 1990. Title 10 (Energy) Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52. Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Services, General Services Administration as of January 1, 1990. Hansen, Winje, Beckjord, et al. 1989. MIT Report, Making Nuclear Power Work: Lessons from Around the World Technology Review, February/March. Harris, L. 1989. The Harris Poll, Sentiment Against Nuclear Power Plants Reaches Record High. Louis Harris and Associates. Released January 15, 1989. IAEA. 1990. Nuclear Power Reactors in the World. Reference Data Series Number 2 Vienna, Austria. April. INPO. 1989. Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, 1989 Annual Report. March. Inside NRC. 1990. Outlook On State Regulation. April 9, 1990. Inside NRC. 1989. Boston Edison Rate Settlement Makes Use of SALP Scores, INPO Indicators An exclusive report on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission McGraw-Hill. 11: 22 (October 23). Jones, P. M. S. and G. Woite. 1990. Cost of nuclear and conventional baseload electricity generation IAEA Bulletin. Quarterly Journal of the International Atomic Energy Agency 32:3. Vienna, Austria. Jordan, E., NRC. 1991. Facsimile dated March 19, 1991 to Theresa Fisher, National Research Council staff. Lanouette, W. 1985. Nuclear Power in America. The Wilson Quarterly/Winter.

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Lee Jr., B., President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Management and Resources Council. 1991. Comments Letter to Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC Subject: Notice of Availability, SECY-90-347 “Regulatory Impact Survey Report,” 55 Fed. Reg. 53220 (December 27, 1990). January 28, 1991 Lester, R. M., Driscoll, et al. 1985. National Strategies for Nuclear Power Reactor Development Program on Nuclear Power Plant Innovation. MIT NPI-PA-002. March. (NSF Grant No. PRA 83-11777) Lewis, H. W. 1986. Oversight Hearings. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-Ninth Congress. June 10, 1986. Serial No. 99-68. (Lewis also provided testimony before this House of Representatives' Subcommittee on April 26, 1988 relating to creation of an independent Nuclear Safety Board. In addition, John F. Ahearne provided testimony relating to such a Board before the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on June 18, 1986, and Bill S.14 was introduced in the Senate on January 6, 1987 to amend the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to create an independent Nuclear Safety Board.) Lewis, H. W., Chairman. 1978. Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/CR-0400. September. Moynet, G., et al. 1988. Electricity Generation Costs Assessment Made in 1987 for Stations to be Commissioned in 1995 UNIPEDE (International Union of Producers and Distributors of Electrical Energy). Sorrento Congress. May 30-June 3, 1988. Myers, R. 1990. Nuclear Industry, Sitting Pretty. U.S. Council for Energy Awareness. Summer. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 1988. Least-Cost Utility Planning: A Handbook for Public Utility Commissioners Volumes 1 & 2. National Independent Energy Producers. 1991. Written Statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources February 21, 1991. National Independent Energy Producers. 1990. Bidding for Power: The Emergence of Competitive Bidding in Electric Generation. March.

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE National Research Council. 1990. Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal A Position Statement of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management National Academy Press. July. Nealy, S. M. 1990. Nuclear Power Development, Prospects in the 1990s. Battelle Press. Columbus, Ohio. North American Electric Reliability Council. 1991. Electricity Supply & Demand 1991-2000 July. North American Electric Reliability Council. 1990. 1990 Electricity Supply & Demand for 1990-1999 November. North American Electric Reliability Council. 1989. 1989 Electricity Supply & Demand for 1989-1998 October. North American Electric Reliability Council. 1988. 1988 Electricity Supply & Demand for 1988-1997 October. North American Electric Reliability Council. 1987. 1987 Electricity Supply & Demand for 1987-1996. November. North American Electric Reliability Council. 1986. 1986 Electricity Supply & Demand for 1986-1995 October. NPOC. 1990. A Perfect Match: Nuclear Energy and The National Energy Strategy A Position Paper by the Nuclear Power Oversight Committee. November. NRC. 1991a. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information Digest, 1991 Edition NUREG-1350. 3(March). NRC. 1991b. Preliminary Notification of Event or Unusual Occurrence. PNO-IIT-91-02A. August 22, 1991. NRC. 1991c. Preliminary Notification of Event or Unusual Occurrence. PNO-IIT-91-02. August 19, 1991. NRC. 1991d. Policy Statement, Possible Safety Impacts of Economic Performance Incentives. 7590-01. July 18, 1991. NRC. 1990a. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information Digest, 1990 Edition. NUREG-1350. 2(March). NRC. 1990b. Licensed Operating Reactors, Status Summary Report. Data as of 12-31-89. NUREG-0020. 14: 1 (January).

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE NRC. 1990c. 10 CFR Part 51. Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation; and Waste Confidence Decision Review. Final Rules, Federal Register. 55: 181 (September 18). NRC. 1990d. Survey of NRC Staff Insights on Regulatory Impact. SECY-90-250, July 16, 1990. NRC. 1990e. Industry Perceptions of the Impact of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Nuclear Power Plant Activities. NUREG-1395. Draft report. March. NRC. 1990f. Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Report (Data as of 12/31/89) NUREG-0020. 14: 1 (February). NRC, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 1990g. Letter to Chairman Carr. Subject: Review of NUREG-1150, “Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants.” November 15, 1990. NRC. 1989a. Information Digest, 1989 Edition. NUREG-1350. 1 (March). NRC. 1989b. Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data. 1989 Annual Report. Power Reactors. NUREG-1272. 4: 1. NRC. 1989c. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants NUREG-1150. 1 (June). NRC. 1989d. Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, 1989 Annual Report Power Reactors. NUREG-1272. 4: 1. NRC, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 1988a. Letter to Chairman Kenneth M. Carr, Subject: Program to Implement the Safety Goal Policy -- ACRS Comments. April 12, 1988. NRC. 1988b. Generic Letter No. 88-20, Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities - 10 CFR 50.54(f) November 23, 1988. NRC, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 1987a. Letter to Chairman Kenneth M. Carr, Subject: ACRS Comments on an Implementation Plan for the Safety Goal Policy. May 13, 1987. NRC. 1982. Nuclear Power Plants Construction Status Report (Data as of 6-30-82) NUREG-0030. 6: 2 (October).

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Nuclear Power Oversight Committee. 1991. Position Paper on Standardization. JJT/634P. January 9, 1991. Nuclear Power Oversight Committee. 1986. Leadership in Achieving Operational Excellence--The Challenge for all Nuclear Utilities. Chicago, Illinois. August. Called the “Sillin Report” (Lee Sillin chaired the report committee). Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. 1990. First Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy. p. 31. March. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency/International Energy Agency. 1989. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity from Power Stations for Commissioning in the Period 1995-2000. Paris. Pasternak, A. D. and R.J. Budnitz. 1987. State-Federal Interactions in Nuclear Regulation. UCRL-21090. S/C 5221201. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory December. Presidential Commission on Catastrophic Nuclear Accidents. 1990. Report to the Congress. Volume One. August. Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988. Public Law 100-408, 102 Statute 1066. August 20, 1988. Sagan, C. 1990. Tomorrow's Energy, How to Have Your Cake and Eat It Too. Parade Magazine. November 25, 1990. Seismicity Owners Group and Electric Power Research Institute. 1986. Seismic Hazard Methodology for the Central and Eastern United States EPRI NP-4726. July. Stello, Jr., V., Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissionion. 1989. Memorandum for the Commissioners. Subject: Implementation of Safety Goal Policy SECY-89-102. March 30, 1989. Union of Concerned Scientists. 1987. Safety Second. The NRC and America's Nuclear Power Plants Indiana University Press. U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. Nuclear Power in an Age of Uncertainty. OTA-E-216. February.

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE U.S. Congress. 1981. Nuclear Regulatory Legislation Through The Ninety Sixth Congress, Second Session. Prepared for the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 97th Congress. 1st Session. Committee Print. Serial Number 97-3. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section August. U.S. Congress. 1978. United States Code, Congressional and Administrative News, 95th Congress - Second Session. Volume 2. Public Law 95-617 (H.R. 4018). November 9, 1978. Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 1990. Opinion on Petition for Review of An Order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No. 89-138. Decided November 2, 1990. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1990. Electricity Supply, The Effects of Competitive Power Purchases Are Not Yet Certain. Report to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. GAO/RCED-90-182. August. Weinberg, A. M. 1989. Engineering in an Age of Anxiety: The Search for Inherent Safety Engineering and Human Welfare Symposium Program and Papers. National Academy of Engineering 25th Annual Meeting. October 4, 1989 Willrich, M. 1985. Nuclear Power in a Changing U.S. Electric Utility Industry. Information of Interest from Pacific Gas and Electric Company Corporate Communications. 10 CFR Part 50, Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants. Policy Statement. Republication in Federal Register, PS-PR-51. November 30, 1988. NOTE: The following goals, objectives, and proposed guideline are contained in the above reference. This policy statement contains two qualitative safety goals that are supported by two quantitative objectives. It also contains a general performance guideline. Qualitative Safety Goals: Individual members of the public should be provided a level of protection from the consequences of nuclear power plant

OCR for page 19
NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE operation such that individuals bear no significant additional risk to life and health. Societal risks to life and health from nuclear power plant operation should be comparable to or less than the risks of generating electricity by viable competing technologies and should not be a significant addition to other societal risks. Quantitative Objectives: The risk to an average individual in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant of prompt fatalities that might result from reactor accidents should not exceed one-tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of the sum of prompt fatality risks resulting from other accidents to which members of the U.S. population are generally exposed. The risk to the population in the area near a nuclear power plant of cancer fatalities that might result from nuclear power plant operation should not exceed one-tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of the sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes. The Commission proposed for further staff examination the following general performance guideline. Consistent with the traditional defense-in-depth approach and the accident mitigation philosophy requiring reliable performance of containment systems, the overall mean frequency of a large release of radioactive materials to the environment from a reactor accident should be less than 1 in 1,000,000 per year of reactor operation.