g ONGRESSIONAL . _ u _ , _ A ESEARCH Umversn of Missouri - Columbia 8 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIII1 IIIIIIIII I IIII IIIII IIIII Ill IIIII IIII Ill! UBRARY OF 0 0-103861233 CONGRESS NUCLEAR FISSION TECHNOLOGY (NON-BBEEDER) ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB77100 AUTHOR: Civiax, Robert Science Policy Research Division Segal, Higdon R. Science Policy Research Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEE DATE OBIGIHATBD ggggzgzz DATE UPDATED gggggggg FOR ADDITIOHALSIHFOBHATION CALL 287-5700 0220 cns- 1 11377100 upnu.-2-oz/19/30 ..T""“UE 2.§.I3.!{.I2.I.Q.! Nuclear power plants currently account for about 12% of 0.3. electrical energy production. with the projected depletion of knownv and anticipated resources of oil and gas over the next few decades, and thei difficulties “anticipated in bringing about large increases in coal production, nuclear reactors appear to play a critical role in the Nation's energy future. However, the pace of nuclear power development has been slow in recent years for many reasons, including controversies over environmental and safety concerns. The reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel also has become controversial because of the dangers associated with the plutonium recovered from spent fuel in reprocessing plants. At issue is Government policy for the future use of nuclear energy. some parts of our society favor nuclear power as a major new energy source usable within reasonable risks to public health and safety and to the henvironnent. other parts view these risks as unacceptable and would stop further growth of nuclear power or shut down the U.S. nuclear industry. This issue brief covers the technology of the nuclear fission reactor as well as nuclear accident possibilities, reactor experience to date, and the outlook for the future. Information on other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle -can be found in Issue Brief IB77126, "Nuclear Energy: Enrichment and Reprocessing of Nuclear Fuels." an overview of the nuclear field can bet found in Issue Brief IB78005, "Nuclear Energy Policy.‘ For information on the - nuclear breeder reactor or nuclear fusion, see IB770d8, Breeder Beactors:, i ; Clinch River Project, and IB760u7, Fusion Power: Potential EnergyV Source. Details of licensing, siting of plants, and concerns over nuclear proliferation, _nuclear terrorism, and disposal of nuclear wastes are discussed in other issue briefs (see IB74055, Nuclear Power Plants: Expediting of Licensing; IB75031, Energy Facility Siting; IB77011, nuclear weapons Proliferation; and. IB75012 Nuclear Haste Management) Also, see IB79035, Nuclear Power: The Three Mile Island Accident and its Investigation for detailed information concerning the Three hile Island accident and its consequences. " i All nuclear power plants work by converting mass into energy.. Nuclear fission reactors use the energy from the splitting, or fissioning of a uranium isotope into lighter fragments. In the reactor, when D-235 atoms are struck by neutrons, they fission with some conversion of bass into energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, where B is ener9Yo H is mass, and C is the speed light. The fission reaction also produces an average of about 2-1/2 more neutrons for each 0-235 atom split. ' Theo extra neutrons produced cause a chain reaction by causing other U-235 atoms to fission, thus releasing more neutrons and causing still more reactions. vEnergy‘is released 5 the form of heat, which is carried from the reactor by a coolant to heat elchangers, which raise stean to power conventional turbine ngenerators for electricity. The type of fission reactor most, generally used is the light water cas— 2 1377 100 UPDATB"02/19/80 reactor, often abbreviated as Lin. The name refers to the use of ordinary, or "light" water, as the coolant and as the moderator. (A "moderator' is la substance which slows down the fission neutrons sufficiently to permit their capture by uranium atoms, thus permitting the nuclear) chain reaction to sustain itself.) Enriched uranium is used as the fuel for the LWR. Hea water is also used as a coolant and moderator, but the cost and difficulty of obtaining it make the LWB more popular, despite the fact that the HHR can use natural (not enriched) uranium. Graphite can also be used as a moderator, as in some English and hussian nuclear power plants. These light water reactors fall into two categorieszy pressurized water reactors (PWB) and boiling water reactors QBWR). The pressurized water reactor was developed first, because design of the BWB was more technically difficult. However, today both the PRR and the BHR are in general use. I In the PER, water at pressures in excess of 2,000 lbs. per sq. in. is pumped through the reactor core, from which it removes heat. pIt is then pumped through an external heat exchanger to heat water in a secondary system, thereby producing steam. The steam drives a turbine generator to generate electricity. In the BWR, the secondary loop is not required, as steam is generated in the reactor vessel itself. For technical reasons, this has the advantage of being to some extent a more self-regulating system than the PS3. Both the PER and BWB systems are widely used today. In this country, PHR units are manufactured by Babcock and Wilcox, Combustion Engineering,) and Restinghouse, while BER systems are made by General Electric. The heavy water reactor system is manufactured by the Canadia 1 (specifically Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited), and is called “CANDU“. in the CANDD reactor, normal uranium is used for fuel while heavy water (deuterium oxide) is used as coolant and moderator. The coolant transports the heat to boilers where it generates steam in a secondary system, as with the light water PHR. The advantage of heavy water in the primary system is that it is the most efficienth reactor moderating» substance Known and ;therefore permits economical use of the uranium fuel. The disadvantage is the difficulty of obtaining heavy water, which must be extracted from "normal", light water at a fairly high cost. Heavy water is produced by the 0.5. and Canada, and Argentina is building a heavy water plant. Gas-cooled graphite moderated nuclear reactors fueled with natural uranium are in widespread use in the United Kingdom, vthough they have not become popular in the United States. In some gas-cooled reactors,‘ carbon dioxide 0 gas is used as the coolant. )The gas is heated in the reactor, and heat is itransferred towa secondary system where water is changed to steam, lthus .providing electric power generation. an improved version of the gas-cooled reactor now" entering commercial service is the high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGB). The HTGB uses highly enriched uranium as a fuel and helium as the coolant and heat transfer medium. hIn this country, an experimental HTGB was operated at Peachy Bottom, Pa., and a commercial unit was then put into service at Port St. Vrain, Colo. "InhJuly 1979, the DOE shifted the emphasis of) the development program yfnr HTGR's to accelerate their development for use in providing process heat 1’ synthet ic fuels plants . iThere, 6.128 a number Of other nuclear reactors types that are theoretically CRS- 3 1377100 UPDATE“02/19/80 worxable, but which for various reasons have not entered D widespread commercial use. These include: (1) the organic moderated and cooled reactors, which would use a high-boiling-temperature hydrocarbon liquid as m ‘erator and coolant, (2) the graphite moderated, sodium-cooled reactor, which uses liquid sodium as a coolant (a sodium-potassium alloy called NaK ‘can also be used), and (3) the molten salt reactor, in which the fuel itself is liquid (consisting of uranium salts among other materials), and the only remaining solid element is the graphite moderator. All nuclear reactors convert some non-fissionable material into fissionable nuclear fuel. The breeder reactor is a particularly efficient machine which converts more uranium-238 or thorium into nuclear fuels than it consumes. (see lB77088, Breeder Beactorsz. The Clinch River Project) T.I.1.e_.r!u9l.<2ar.l’.uel-912le The nuclear reactor is only one step in the overall process which results in the production of nuclear power. The entire process, beginning with the mining of uranium and ending with the disposal of radioactive wastes from fission, is called the “nuclear ful cycle". A brief summary of the steps through which the uranium passes in the fuel cycle follows: A. mining of uranium. B. Milling of uranium ore to produce uranium oxide. C. Conversion of the oxide into gaseous uranium hexafluoride. D. Enrichment. E. Fabrication. 3. Use in a nuclear reactor. 6. Reprocessing of spent fuel. H. Disposing of high-level radioactive wastes. I. Disposing of low-level radioactive wastes. v A The portions of the fuel cycle dealing with mining and milling of uranium ore, and with waste disposal, are beyond the scope of this issue brief. The following discussion deals with steps C, D, E., and G in the fuel cycle as shown above. Step F, the reactor, has been discussed in the previous section. . w T D p §§gp_§;_yggpgg;§;9g4 An oxide of uranium, Known in the industry as "yellow cake", is converted in a ,fluidized bed chemical reactor to form uranium hexafluoride. This is in gaseous form, and it can then be used as the feed material in the gaseous diffusion plants where xuraniun enrichment takes place. 0 a , §§gp_Q;_ gggiqhpgpgp Uranium, as it is found in nature, contains only 0.7% of 0-235, which is the fissionable isotope» of vuraniun. The rest is 0-238, which cannot be used directly as a fuel. In order for the uraniumt to w-be usable as a fuel for LHB-type reactions, the concentration of 0-235 needs_ to be increased to between 2% and 3%. (weapons-grade uranium, by contrast,y must contain more than 90% 0-235.) In the 0.5., uranium) is eenriched by‘ a feprocess known as gaseous diffusion. This process is based on the principle ithat, in a mixture of two gases of different molecular weights, molecules of the lighter gas will, on the average, be traveling faster than those of the iheavier gas. ‘If the mixed gases then have to pass through a porous barrier s“h as a membrane, the snaller and more mobile gas molecules, i.e., the lighter ones, will have a higher probability of getting ‘through. . Since in this case the molecular weights are very close (235 against 238), the 0-235 .will be only slightly more likely to pass through the barrier than the 0-238 molecules. Thus, the process must be repeated many times and can’ only CRS- u 1377100 npnamr—o2/19/so succeed in raising the 0-235 concentration at great cost. Uranium hexafluoride is used in this process because it is the only uranium compound which is a gas at a reasonable temperature and pressure. There.are other ways in which uranium can be enriched. Twov methc receiving current attention are a centrifuge process and isotope separation by lasers. For more discussion of uranium enrichment, see issue brief ,IB77126, "Nuclear Enrichment and Reprocessing.“ §§§p_§;_ ggbrigatignp The enriched gaseous uranium hexafluoride from the enrichment plant is chemically converted to the solid uranium dioxide. This is then pressed into the forms required for use in the reactor fuel elements. In BER and BIB reactors, the fuel elements are assemblies of long thin zirconium tubes containing pellets of uranium dioxide. The tubes are precisely spaced in order to obtain the maximum possible performance from the reactor. T §tgp_§;_ ggpggggggiggp Unlike the situation in fossil plants, which discharge ash with no residual fuel content, the spent fuel discharged from nuclear reactors contains appreciable quantities of useable 0-235 and plutonium. Until recently, conventional thinking in the nuclear industry has held that the conservation of nuclear fuel required the residual uranium and plutonium to be recovered at a reprocessing facility. The Carter Administration has discouraged reprocessing in order to restrict the production of plutonium. There are several reasons why the reactor fuel elements must be replaced when only partially consumed. First, the accumulation of fission products produced in the reactor act as “neutron poisons“ and tend to degrade the efficiency of the reactor. Second, the fissionable uranium is gradual‘“ _being depleted, and eventually the nuclear chain reaction can no longer -, sustained. Third, changes in the dimensions and shape of the fuel rods, brought about by bombardment of the fission fragments and by temperature stress, may degrade their structural integrity to the replacement point. any of these may be the limiting factor, causing the fuel to be replaced when only partially consumed. In a typical light water reactor, one-third of th fuel is replaced each year. t The spent fuel is first removed from the reactor and transferred to storage in pools of water, for several months in order to allow the intense initial radioactivity to partially decay. The fuel rods are then shipped. to the reprocessing plant in special casxs designed to, provide Safety againsty the escape of radioactive materials. on arrival at the reprocessing plant, the fuel rods are chopped up by mechanical shears, and ‘the’ fuel vpellets dissolved by. nitric acid. The * solution is then treated. by. a isolvent-extraction process to separate out the uranium and plutonium. The uranium is produced in solid oxide form, ready to shift back for conversion into uranium hexafluoride for re-enrichment. The plutonium can be produced in liquid nitrate or solid oxide form for shipment to a nuclearl fuel fabricator. Some of the remaining fission products, which include elements such as strontium-90 and cesium-137, may be used for medical applications. However, most of the fission products have no present use, and must be stored or disposed of in ways that will assure no release to the environment. Thus, a reprocessing plant would produce three products: uranium, whi is recycled to the enrichment plant; plutonium, for use as nuclear fuel; and nuclear wastes. wBecause reactor grade plutonium can be used to make. nuclear weapons and could theoretically be used as a chemical warfare agent by making cns—— 5 1377100 iJPDA‘].‘E-02/19/80 use of its toxic nature, the concept of nuclear reprocessing is now in question. It is the policy of, the Carter Administration to discourage. nuclear reprocessing internationally and to avoid it at home. If reprocessing is not carried out, the spent fuel, which still contain much of i J original U-235, plus by-product plutonium would have to be stored or .otherwise disposed of. This would have the effect of reducing the amount of electricity that can be generated from the supply of available uranium. In early 1978, a new scheme Known as “Civex" was proposed by the 0.5. Electric wPower Research Institute and the British Atomic Energy Authority to permit more proliferation - resistant use of breeders and reprocessing. The Civex process would produce two streams instead of three: one a combined uranium-plutonium mixture "poisoned" with highly radioactive fission products and the other containing the remaining high—level wastes.i The advantages claimed for Civex are that (1) the plutonium concentration always remains below weapons-grade levels, and (2) the fission products are so highly radioactive that a theft of such material would be nearly impossible. Thus the dangers of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism would be diminished if this concept is proved effective. [For more on the controversies associated with reprocessing, see issue briefs IB77126, "Nuclear Enrichment and Reprocessing,“ IB77011, "Nuclear Heapons Proliferation,“ and IB75012, ‘Nuclear Waste Hanagement.“] £!l1.‘.'..-3.3!-..e.§1.-‘.1l§$'.*.'—.Q£...5....§.e..‘EI Nuclear safety has been a controversial issue since the birth of the nuclear industry. That controversy has been greatly heightened by the ‘nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania, which began on dar. 28, 1979. Neither this -accident nor any other accident in a _ commercial nuclear power plant hast caused physical property damage or 5 xediate observable injury to the public. However, the possibility of am much more serious accident can never be ruled out. no assurance can be given of zero risk. Therefore, both proponents and opponents of nuclear power have spent a great deal of time and effort analyzing the possibilities for catastrophic nuclear accidents, and drawing their own conclusions from these analyses. The physical design of a nuclear power plant is governed in large part by safety considerations. Thus the reactor vessel is made of steel 8 to 10 inches thick, and steel piping 3 to 4 inches thick is used to circulate the reactor cooling water. A concrete shield 7 to 10 feet thick is used to protect operators and equipment from the core radiation. And the entire reactor area of the plant is enclosed by a “containment done“, which is intended to prevent the release of radioactivity etc the environment. Finally, nuclear -power plants are normally located some distance from population centers, so that even if all precautions wfailed,v the danger ito human life would be minimal. ~ 1 The results to date are impressive. No other major industry has caused less property damage or injured fewer publici citizens than the nuclear industry. a ' W However,‘ thee nuclear industry 7has not been totally accident-free. » Accidents have occurred, but have been generally contained by the built-in safety measures so that the public has not sheen‘ harmed. The accident at 1g;ee Mile Island is the most serious which has occurred to date. while it was substantially contained so that damage to the public was minimal, it may never be known how close the situation was to becoming a .major disaster. This accident and its consequences are discussed in issue brief LB 79035, cns- 5 I377 100 UPDATE-0z/ 19/an Nuclear Power: The Three aile Island Accident and its Investigation. Previous to this, the two most serious incidents occurred at Brown's Perry, in Alabama, and at the Fermi power plant in Detroit. At Brown's Ferry, because of faulty design, control cables for two operating nuclear plants and a third .under construction‘ passed through the same confined area. A \ construction worker testing for air leaks with a candle accidentally caused a fire which spread through that area, knocking out many of the controls. Although damage to the control systems was heavy, the operators were able to safely shut down the reactors by using backup equipment. The design fault shown by this incident has been recognized, and control areas in existing and proposed plants are being redesigned where necessary to prevent a repetition of this incident.. In Detroit, an accident resulted in the partial melting of some.of the fuel elements in the reactor core. A piece of metal inside the reactor was found to have broken loose and clogged the flow of coolant to those elements- The reactor was successfully shut down without injury or release of. radiation. The seriousness of the situation has been controversial; the nuclear industry claims there was never any danger to the public, while the nuclear critics claim there was great danger (a iD0Ok was written entitled "we almost Lost Detroit“). Such extreme differences in perception of danger between supporters and critics of nuclear power are typical of the nuclear safety controversy. The type of accident most to be feared, according to both critics and. supporters of nuclear power, is called a "loss-of-coolant accident", or LOCA. This would be an accident in which the water which cools the reactor vessel was lost, most likely by rupture of the pipes carrying the water. The radioactive materials within the reactor core emit heat continuously. Without coolant water to carry away this heat, the core could eventually become so hot that it might melt through the containment vessel, and then continue to melt its way down into the earth, releasing significant amour”: of radiation into the environment. This eventuality is known as 4 "meltdown". In order to prevent a meltdown, reactors are equipped with an “emergency core cooling system“, or BCCS. The ECCS is intended to flood the reactor core with water in the event of a LOCA. No ECCS has ever been fully tested, because (1) no LOCA has ever occurred, and (2) in the absence of a real emergency, testing a system which would put a nuclear reactor out of service for as much as a year is considered impractical. The reliability of the ECCS is tested instead by periodic testing of all of its component parts, by mathematical modeling, and by tests of small-scale equipment. T In the wake of them Three Mile Island accident, there has been some criticism that’ the nuclear industry and the 0.3. Nuclear Regulatory lcommission have placed too much emphasis on the catastrophic LUCA at the expense of investigations into accidents which would be less disasterous, but are more likely to occur. lIn addition, there has been serious questioning of the training o nuclear reactor operators and of the ability of operators and power plant management to run nuclear reactors in a safe manner. . In 1975 a detailed study of the reactori safety problem, known has the Rasmussen report, was issued. This study, sponsored by the Atomicl Energy ycommission, traced the sequence of events that might possibly lead to a LUCA, and assigned a probability to each such event. An “accident chain" is thus constructed, and the probabilities of every event occurrence in the chain a 2 multiplied together in order to determine the probability of the accident in question actually occurring. This is a way to assign a numerical« value to the probability of any particular accident taking place. of course, the CRS- 7 1377100 UPDATE-02/19/80 numerical values calculated in this way are open to criticism, as they represent the combination of a number of "best guesses“. They cannot be actually tested in the absence of many more years of actual operating ernerience with nuclear reactors. However, the Rasmussen figures Rub a present a reasonable attempt at quantification of accident probabilities. The results of the Rasmussen report were expressed in a series of calculations, in which the number of fatalities, or the amount of property damage, from a given nuclear accident were compared with the probability of an accident of that degree of severity. The frequency of a possible accident occurring is held to diminish with increasing severity of the accident. Thus, if the U.S. had 100 reactors operating, as is likely in the near future, an accident that would Kill 10 people would be expected to occur about once in 30,000 years. An accident that would kill 1,000 people would be expected about once in*a million years. with regard to property damage, an accident of greater than $500 million in liability would be expected about once in 5,000 years. The Rasmussen report, however, has its strong critics among the opponents of nuclear power. A typical comment, from l"Nuclear Power: the Fifth Horseman“, by Denis Hayes, follows: ...This calculation (in the Rasnussen report) presumes that the reactor is built with flawless workmanship and flawless materials, that it is operated only by highly skilled experts, that neither God nor terrorists intervene with , unscheduled events, and that Dr. Rasmussen's 9 9 assumptions are all.correct. on Jan. 19, 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a statement disavowing the executive summary of the Rasmussen report. This action followed a review of the report by a risk assessment review group headed by Dr. Harold Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Mac ‘has now declared that it "does not regard as reliable the Reactor Safety Study's numerical estimate of the overall risk of nuclear accident". The NRC statement was carefully worded, and perhaps as notable for what it did not say as for what it did say.w By» withdrawing its support from the Rasmussen conclusions, NRC is not saying that nuclear reactors are unsafe or dangerous. Nor are they offering new numerical conclusions to refute or replace those in the Rasmussen study. They are saying that there is now no officially endorsed numerical estimate of nuclear accident probabilities. Neither the Rasmussen report, nor any lfuture,y presumably more accurate mathematical analysis, can ever_answer the question, “Are nuclear reactors safe enough to use?“ A question of Rthatu kind anecessarily R involves qualitative value judgments, in which the benefits obtained from nuclear power are balanced against 'the risks of nuclear accidents. Such value njudgments must also take into account the harmful effects to they country of power shortages, or of having to import large quantities of energy from other nations: and it must also include consideration of the fact thatt other e irces of energy also include risks, e.g., pollution from coal, spills and f_;es at oil refineries, and the possibility that carbon dioxidevfrom burning fossil fuels could reach a concentration which would alter the Earth's climate. «The nuclearl reactor dis nperhaps» unique sin that its yoperation involves a very small probability of a great disaster taking place. whether c3s- 3 nIB77100 UPDATE-oz/19/so to continue with nuclear development in the face of that small but nonetheless finite possibility must ultimately be a political judgment. A comprehensive analysis of reactor safety, similar in scope to the Rasmussen study. prepared for the West German uinistry of Research :91 Development, was completed in August 1979. while German nuclear reactors ale slightly different than most American reactors, the accident probabilities calculated for this study were substantially in agreement with the results in the Rasmussen:report. The nuclear safety controversy took on a new dimension with the accident at the Three uile Island Plant, near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which began on mar. 28, 1979, and brought about a period of crisis lasting for several days thereafter.’ A combination of equipment failures and inappropriate operator actions led to insufficient cooling for a large part or the reactor core for several hours. This resulted in substantial damage to the reactor core and the release of radioactive gases to the‘ atmosphere. For a time the possibility of a "meltdown" was believed tom be serious, and. plans were prepared for evacuation of a six-county area in central Pennsylvania. Further information regarding the accident is contained in IB 79055 "Nuclear Power: The Three mile .Island Accident —- Initial Responses and Investigation.“ ‘ §2:e:z;ii2_r2zeiep.i§..22§1=_im:.g2.r:.ii.e._island . The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established a Lessons Learned Task Force shortly after the accident at Three Mile Island to make recommendations for safety improvements based on knowledge gained from an analysis of 1 : accident. The report of the task force was‘completed in July 1979. A series of short-term recommendations were made to improve the design; and operation of nuclear power plants. The NRC set a deadline of Jan. 31, 1980, for the nation's 70 licensed operating reactors to comply with the recommendations. The majority of nuclear plants were able to meet this deadline. However, 15 plants were given extensions because of difficulties in obtaining equipment. The NRC forced three plants to be shut down on Jan. 31 because they had not adopted the new safety°features. A second series of changes is to be completed by all plants by the end of 1980. The utility industry has taken a three-pronged approach to improving safety. The major pieces are a Nuclear Safety ‘Analysis ‘Center (NSAC), an Institute of Nuclear Power operations QIHPO), and a self-insurance program to cover replacement power costs. NSAC will be responsible for nuclear safety analysis. INPO will set standards for the training of nuclear operators and managers and will evaluate the operations of member utilities.~ An ‘approval by INPO inspectors will likely be necessary for a utility to participate in v the insuranceeprogram. The combined staff of ISAC and IHPO will be about 230 and the total annual budget in the vicinity of $17 million. Q 5 blue; as 222er.§:2erienc§ £2 Date ‘#1 F} T T * j T1 Tjj while the number of nuclear reactors licensed to operate has been steadily’ -increasing in recent years, the number of such plants on order. for futr 3 construction has been declining. The following table shows those trends: 1" CRS—-9 1377100 UPDATE-02/19/30 Status of Nuclear Power Generating units Q§§s§1L §BE;.1l $224-1; Q§§:-lL §2e:2§ 2222 2222 2222 1229 Operable Licensed by NBC 56 63 A 68 70 Authorized by DOE 2 2 2 2 Being.Built Construction permit 69 71 88 90 Limited site work 18 18 6 4 Planned -Ordered — 72 56 45 34 Announced 1 6 (not ordered) 21 22 7 5 Total 9 6 233 232 21b 2o5 The statistics appear to show ‘that, while nucleart plants alreadyo authorized continue to be built and licensed, some potential nuclear plant users are reconsidering and cancelling their orders. only four new nuclear power plants were ordered in 1977, two in 1973 and none in 1979. Reasons for the drop in new orders may include delays in_ construction, rising capital ‘ costs, difficulties .in obtaining permits and licenses ‘and in finding acceptable sites, operational ,difficulties in existing plants, and a slackening in growth of electrical power demand. The trend puts the future growth of the nuclear power industry in doubt. In this context, it should be noted that the President's National Energy Plan postulated a rise in nuclear—generated electricity by a factor of 3.8 before 1985. The time required to put a nuclear reactor into service is a matter of particular concern. According to DOE, the average length oft time lrequired for a nuclear reactor to become operational is 140 months, or almost 12 years. This breaks down as follows: Time for utility to prepare application —-24 months . Time for application to be granted -- 30 months. CRS—10 IB77 100 UPDATE-02/19/80 7 Time for actual construction -- 80 months. Time to reach fully operational status - 6 months. Total average time —- 140 months. The greatest variable in this listing is action on the construction permit application, which can require as few as 12 months or as many as 60 (30 is a rough average). In comparison, DOE estimates seven to eight years for a coal-fired electrical plant to become operational. as for operating reliability, the following statistics were obtained from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's "Operating Units Status Report“ for April 1979: For the year 1978, the reactors licensed to operate were available for service 74.8%»of the time. Allowing for shutdowns from all causes, including routine maintenance, refueling, safety precautions, and diminished electrical needs, the electricity generated in 1978 was b5.2% of the theoretical maximum design capacity. Statistics furnished by the Edison Electric Institute for the 10-year period 1967-4976 show the operating availability for nuclear plants over this period to be 72.2%. This is less than the availability for all fossil fuel electric.power plants, which was 80.5% for the same 10-year period. However, the operating availability of large fossil units is close to that for nuclear plants: 73.5% for fossil units of 600-799 awe, and 74.0% for fossil units of 800 nwe and over. This is probably a better comparison, since most nuclear power plants are larger than 600 awe in size. However, these figures from the Electric Institute have been challenged by nuclear critics, who cla‘w that actual reliability figures are far lower. .r!.t;s.l..2.e.1:-.B;t.=-.€z21.=9I.;-§1.rz>_<22;ense-.1.9.-2ais_;n-Qihe£-§e1:;92:5. In they United States in the first half‘ of 1978, 126,4#0,000 HRH (megawatt-Hours) of electricity was generated by utility-owned nuclear power plants. This figure represented 11.9% of the total U.S. generation for that period. The net generating capacity of licensed nuclear reactors in the United States is 49,8h0 awe (negawatts+electrical). Twenty—one nations in addition to the United States, now have. commercial. nuclear power plants in operation. The following table, adapted from the world List of Nuclear Power Plants in the February 1979 "Nuclear news," gives the generating capacity of all operational commercial nuclear power plants in the world, as of Dec. 31, 1978. C35-11 IB7710O upnamz-oz/19/30 Number of QQBEEEI QE§£§E$9Eél_!EEl§§£ I9Eé$-§§2§§;E2-l2-§E§ £9se£_£;an2§ 1 1!§Q2!§EE§:§;§EE£;E§$1 1. Japan 18_ 10,011. 2. Soviet Union_ 22 8,475 3. United Kingdos 33 8,070 a. West Germany 11 7,u35 5. France 13 5,u98 6. Canada 9 4,736 7. Sweden 6 3,700 8. Belgium 3 1,050 9.. East Germany a 1,390 '10. Italy 4 A 1,387 '11. Spain 3 1,073 12. Switzerland 3 1,020 13. Bulgaria 2 880 14. Rep. of China 1 804 15. India 3 602 16. Korea 1 564 17. Netherlands 2 493 18. Finland 1 420 19. Argentina 1 320 20. Pakistan 1 125 21. Czechoslovakia 1 110 TOTAL HON-U.s. 142 58,563 United States 68 47,991 q as actively tourting the idea of using nuclear power. cas-12 1377100 UPDATE-02/19/80 Thirteen other nations listed by Nuclear news as having nuclear power plants under construction or being planned, though not in commercial operation as yet, are as follows: a Austria . Mexico Brazil . Philippines Egypt Poland Hungary Bumania Iran South Africa Lybia Yugoslavia Luxembourg In addition.to the countries? mentioned thus far, four more nations, Australia, Denmark, Israel, and Thailand, are listed by World Watch Institut Adding together the 22 nations that now have nuclear power plants and the additional 17 listed here as likely prospects for nuclear power, a total of 39 nations either have commercial nuclear power now or are likely to have it in the foreseeable future. I §EEQ1EQ-L§!§;§ The Administration requested $541.3 million for civilian non-breeder fission technology for FY81. This compares with $454.7 million appropriated for corresponding programs for FY80 as part of P.L. 96-69. of the increase, *$79 million is in the Commercial Nuclear Waste program-the majority of which is for increased characterization of potential waste disposal sites. Tb‘:- includes $21 million for characterization of the site near Carlsbad, L 4 Mexico, which previously had been a part of°the WIPP. program under Defense Nuclear Wastes. A In the Converter Reactor program, the DOE budget request zeroed out funding for the High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR), which had been- authorized at $25 million in FY80. Light Water Reactor Safety and Three nile Island related studies received a combined increase of $13.5 million. In addition, a supplemental request for $7 million for Three Bile Island activities was submitted for FY80. 5 The table below summarizes the funding for the major DOB civilian non—breeder fission programs. CIVILIAN NON-BREEDER FISSIOH spent Fuel Storage Commercial Nuclear Waste Converter Reactor Systems Advanced Nuclear Systems 9 LWR Facilities Uranium Resource Assessment “Advanced Isotope separation ‘TOTAL GENERAL FISSION cRs—43 1377100 099472-o2/19/ao TECHNOLOGY FY79 FY80 FY80 2131 A22£22:-----§§922§£__.§22£22;_-__§§92§§: 11.4_ 20.5 15.5 20.5 212.2 232.0 220.1 293.9 4 70.9 49.0 55.3: 55.0 54.3 40.3 39.5 44.0 10.0 o o o 72.9 34.3 54.5 35.3 54.7 55.7 55.7 95.9 436.4 451.3 5454.7 541.3 *Includes $9.5 million supplemental request for FY80. cas-14 1377100 UPDATE-02/19/BO The FY79 appropriation was included in P.L. 95-482 (H.J.Hes. 1139), which was amended to include funding for DOE after the appropriations bill was vetoed in an unrelated dispute over water projects. The 95th Congress failed to clear.a DOB authorization bill for FY79 before adjournment. Action on t 1 FY80 and FY81 DOE authorizations'and appropriations for nuclear fission is discussed in the legislation section. £§§E§§.2§;QQBQ£§§§l22.l-§2EE§£B' Issues that most directly affect the future use of non—breeder nuclear fission reactors include: a (a) what role should nuclear power play in our energy future? Should nuclear reactors be discouraged) as many critics urge? If so. what are the alternatives? Can our needs be met through energy conservation and development of other sources, or will cutbacks in nuclear power lead to energynshortages? (b) Is nuclear safety adequate? How does one define “adequate* when attempting to evaluate a very small risk of a great disaster, which is the heart of the nuclear safety argument? Are there ways to better test such critical equipment as the emergency core cooling system, which has never been subjected to a full-scale test? How do the risks of nuclear power compare to the risks of other means of energy production? (c) The Carter Administration is discouraging the (reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel because of the dangers of.plutonium from the reprocessing plants falling into the wrong hands (unfriendly nations, terrorist groups). Is this a wise policy, when the alternative is the burial or other disposal of valuable fuel? (d) Are the licensing procedures for nuclear power plants satisfactory? Are safety issues adequately considered in the licensing procedure? can licensing be speeded up without sacrificing safety? L§§I§LAILQ!i P.L. 96-69 (H.R. 4388) Energyl and. water Development Appropriation Bill, .1980. makes the wfollowing appropriations for civilian non-breeder nuclear energy for FY80: $18.5 million for spent fuel storage; $187.6 million for Commercial Waste (Management; $131.5 million for Converter Reactor Programs; and $39.6 million for Advanced Nuclear systems. The bill was signed into law (P.L. 796-69) on Sept. 25, 1979. H.B. 3000 (staggers et al.)/S. 688 (Jackson by request) A Department of Energy Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1980 and 1981 -- V Civilian Applications. lheasure was approved by the House on Oct. 24, 1979 (H.Rept. 96-196, Part 3). Authorizing the following amounts for FY80: $6.7 million for Spent Fuel Storage; $212.6 million for Civilian waste hanagement; $129.7 million for Converter Reactor Programs; and $39.0 million for Advanr 1» Nuclear Systems. The Senate did not complete action on the DOE authorization during the 1st session of the 96th Congress. cns—15 IB77 100 upnu-3-02/19/so P”%§I!§§ 0.5. Congress, House. Committee on Government Operations. Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources. Nuclear power costs.. Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 2 vols. 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Energy and the Environnent. Reactor safety study review. Oversight hearing, 96th Congress, 1st-session. Feb. 26, 1979. -Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 412 p. "Serial no. 96-3' 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Comprehensive Nuclear Regulatory Act of 1978. Hearings on H.B. 9852, 95th congress, 2d session. Washington 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 445 p. —---- Nuclear Siting and Licensing Act of 1978. Hearings held July.18-20, 1978. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. 0rf., 1979. 1063 p. "Serial no. 95-187‘ 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production. Nuclear powerplant safety systems. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. ‘ Hay 22-24, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 1169 p. "No. 32" §.§20.....RT§-A§.2-S29!§B.§;§§.!9!;1L.2Q§;Q£1.§.£$§ 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. Atomic energy legislation‘through 95th Congress, 2d session. Washington. 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 892 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee print no. 14. 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Salient points of hearings on nuclear policy review; summary 0 prepared ny the Congressional Research Service, Library of: 'Congress., Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 127 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee print no. 0. A 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. Nuclear regulatory legislation through the 95th Congress, 2d session. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. #67 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee vprint no. I. U.S. O9/00/79 -- 07/00/79 03/28/79 09/00/78 08/07/77 .04/20/77 T 04/07/77 03/00/77 10/00/75 CBS-16 1377100 UPDATE-02/19/80 Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Authorizing appropriations for the Department of Energy (DOE) yfor fiscal year 1980; report, together with additional, and dissenting views, to accompany 5.3. 3000. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 532 p. (96th Congress, 1st session." House Report no. 96-196, Part 3) r.I.n<_>§9.I-..<2s=‘-.;-9§‘_13.!§:I.r§ The electric utility industry announced plans to establish an Institute for Nuclear Power operations. It will set standards for, and assist in, the training of nuclear reactor personnel and will also evaluate the operations of every nuclear utility in the country annually and make recommendations for improvement. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission published the report of the Lessons Learned Task Force, which makes recommendations for improvements in the design, analysis, and operation of nuclear power plants in light of the accident at Three mile Island. Incident began at Three Mile Island nuclear plant near uiddletown, Pennsylvania, which led to a drop in the water level in the reactor core, and the most serious nuclear power plant accident in the United States to date. Although damage to public property and safety was minimal, this accident has initiated a reevaluation of the role of nuclear power in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released the report of its Risk Assessment Review Group, chaired by H.H.-Lewis. This report was critical of the earlier Reactor Safety Study (Rasmussen Report). President Carter signed into law the Public works -Energy Research appropriations bill (H.R. 7553) as P.L. 95-96. .The Carter Energy Plan was announced, in which the President declared his intention to proceed with light water reactor development while discouraging work on reprocessing and on the breeder. ' hPresident Carter announced “indefinite' deferral‘ of reprocessing and recycle of plutonium as nuclear fuel in commercial reactors. » Ford Foundation report, “Nuclear Power Issues and Choices“ released. This report concluded that light water reactors should be used as a major energy source, that reprocessing and recycle should be deferred indefinitely and the breeder program “restructured'. This became the basis for the Carter Administration nu cl ear policy . but The Nuclear negulatory Commission began distributing cas—-17 1377100 upnun-oz/19/so copies of the final version of the "Rasmussen Report“ on nuclear power plant safety, released in draft form in August 1974 by the Atomic Energy Commission. 01/19/75 -- P.L. 95-438 went into effect, abolishing the Atomic Energy Commission and creating the Energy Research and Development Administration (EBDA), the Nuclear Regualtory Commission (HBC), and the Energy Resources Council. 08/00/74 —- "Rasmussen Report" on nuclear power plant safety (draft, HASH-1400) released by Atomic Energy Commission. 00/00/57 - Initial operation of the 60—megawatt Shippingport prototype pressurized~water nuclear power plant, at _Shippingport, Pa. This power plant was ABC-owned and built under a cooperative agreement with the Duquesne Power Company. V 00/00/57 -—-The Price—Anderson amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 were passed to provide insurance and partial indemnification of nuclear equipment suppliers and users for and from liability for damages arising from any nuclear accident. The purpose of these amendments was to further encourage the participation of private industry, consistent with the purpose of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 00/00/54 -- Atomic Energy Act of 1954 revised the 1946 Act to permit and encourage the participation of private industry in the development of nuclear energy. 7 00/00/51 -—-World's first electricity generated from nuclear energy by the experimental breeder reactor-I (EBB-I) at the sational Reactor Testing Station in Idaho.y 00/00/46 -- Atomic Energy Act of 1946 established a Federal Government monopoly of nuclear energy development. 12/02/42 - The first self-sustaining fission chain reaction was with the successful operation of Chicago Pile Ho. 1. American Nuclear Society. rnuclear power and the environemnt: questions and answers. Hinsdale, Illinois, American Nuclear Society, April 1976. 122 p.- Hayes, Denis. Nuclear power: the fifth horseman. worldwatch Institute, Washington, may 1976.1 68 p.v,"worldwatch Paper 6". iwarner, Andrew H. Understanding the nuclear reactor. Barrington, Ill. Technical Publishing Co., 1970. 106 p. dITRE Corporation. Nuclear power: issues and choices: report of the nuclear energy policy study group [sponsored by the Ford Foundation, administered by the AITBE Corporation]. Cambridge, nass., Ballinger Publishing Co., 1977. 405 p. CBS-18 1377100 UPDATE-02/19/80 Hurray, Raymond L. Nuclear energy: an introduction to the concepts, systems, and applications of nuclear processes. ‘New York. Pergmon Press, Inc., 1975. 278 p. Nero, Anthony W. ~A guidebook to nuclear reactors. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1979. 289 p. Nuclear electricity generation for June. Nucleonics week, July 28, Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group. Nuclear power issues and choices. Report of the Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group. Sponsored by the Ford Foundation and administered by the EIIBE Corp. Foreword by nceeorge Bundy, the Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group, and Spurgeon N. Keeny, Jr., chairman. Cambridge, Mass. Ballinger Publishing Co. 1977. 418 p. 0.5. Atomic Energy Commission. The nuclear industry:s 1974. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. off., 1974. 113 p. (WASH 1170-74). , 1 0.5. Energy Research and Development administration. 0.5. central station nuclear electric generating units: significant milestones. Apr. 1, 1977. 13 p. “ERDA 77-30/2" 0.5. Library of Congress. Congressional Research service. [ Breeder reactors: the Clinch River Project [by] Marcia S. Smith. [Washington] 1977. (Continuously updated) Issue Brief_77088 -=--- Fusion power: potential energy source [by] Lani Raleigh. [Washington] 1977. (Continuously updated) . Issue Brief 76047 N 0.5. ‘Library of Congress. [Congressional Research service. Nuclear energy policy [by] Marcia Smith and others. [Washington] 1978. (Continuously updated) Issue Brief 78005 ' ' 0.5. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Nuclear enrichment and reprocessing [by] nigdon Segal. [Washington] 1978. (Continuously updated) Issue Brief 77126 -**—— Nuclear exports: Congressional options and actions [by] Warren H. Donnelly and Donna 5. Kramer. [Washington] 1977. (Continuously updated) Issue Brief 76045 Nuclear waste management [by] Carl E. Behrens. .[Washington, 1977. (Continuously updated) Issue Brief 75012 °-t-e Weapns proliferation: legislation for policy and other measures [by] Warren H. Donnelly and Donna S. Kramer. [Washington] 1977. (Continuously updated) Issue Brief 77011 CRS—19 IB771OO UPDATE-Oz/12/30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operating units status report: 1July 1977. issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (various paglngs). “HUBEG 0020-77/6' World list of nuclear power plants operable, under construction, or on order (30 awe and'over) as of June 30, 1977. Huclear news,-Aug, 1977: 73+90. LIBRARY . OF WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ST. LQQES — MO. ?., ...