CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Issue Briefigé IIIIIWW[flilflIET@ifl]Wfli@fiiIHJIII! NUCLEAR POWER: TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW, STATISTICS: AND PROJECTIONS ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB8lO7O AUTHOR: Robert L. Civiak Science Policy Research Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED O4/O7/81 DATE UPDATED O7/20/82 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0824 CRS- l IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 SSUE DEFINITION Seventy—eight operable nuclear power plants currently account for about l2% of the electricity generated in the United States, and an additional 82 plants are under construction or planned. However, the continued development of nuclear power is still at issue. This Issue Brief explains the technology of nuclear power production and gives statistics and projections relating to nuclear power. Specifically, information is provided on the nuclear fuel cycle, conventional nuclear reactor technology, nuclear power production in the United States and abroad, historical and current Federal support to nuclear power development, forecasts of nuclear power growth, and estimates of uranium resources in the United States. There are numerous specific issues of congressional concern regarding nuclear energy that are treated in several other Issue Briefs. An overview of nuclear policy issues is given in IE 78005, Nuclear Energy Policy. Specific issues are elaborated upon in: IB 80081, Nuclear Power Plant Safety and Licensing; IB 77088, Breeder Reactors: The Clinch River Project; IB 750l2, Nuclear waste Management; IB 77126, Nuclear Energy: Enrichment and Reprocessing of Nuclear Fuels; and IB 81014, Nuclear Weapons: U.S. Non-Proliferation Policy in the 97th Congress. BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS Nuclear power plants are similar to conventional fossilvfueled power plants insofar as both produce heat to boil water and make steam. In general, the steam is used to drive a turbine which generates electricity. Heat iS produced in a nuclear reactor through the process called nuclear. fission. Fission is the splitting of the nucleus of a heavy atom, such as uranium-235 (U-235), into two or more lighter nuclei, which are referred to as fission products. when a heavy nucleus fissions, some mass is converted into energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, where E is energy, M is mass, and C is the speed of light. Most of the energy is released in the form of heat. Many of the technical terms used in this Issue Brief are defined the first time they are used. However, readers who are unfamiliar with nuclear terminology may wish to refer to the glossary that appears at the end of -the Background and Policy Analysis section. The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Operation of a nuclear reactor is only one step in the overall process in which uranium is used to produce useful energy. The entire process, beginning with the mining of uranium and ending with the disposal of radioactive wastes, is called the "nuclear fuel cycle". The steps in the nuclear fuel cycle are: 1. Mining and milling of uranium ore; 2. Conversion of uranium oxide into uranium hexafluoride; 3. Enrichment; 4. Fuel fabrication; CRS- 2 IB8l070 UPDATE-07/20/82 5. Use in a nuclear reactor; 6. Reprocessing of spent fuel; and 7. Disposal of radioactive wastes. A brief description of the steps in the nuclear fuel cycle follows. 1. Mining and Milling of Uranium Ore The first step in the nuclear fuel cycle is uranium mining, which is done both underground and in open pit mines. Most of the uranium mined in the United States comes from New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. The uranium ore, normally containing 0.2% or less uranium oxide (U308), is shipped to an ore concentration plant, or mill, usually located close to the mine. The mill extracts uranium by mechanical and chemical processing of the ore and produces a product containing about 80% U308, called yellowcake. To supply the annual fuel requirements of a typical 1,000 megawatt (MW) light water reactor, about 90,000 tons of ore must be mined, which yields l80 tons of U308. 2. Conversion into Uranium Hexafluoride From the mill, the yellowcake is shipped to a conversion plant where it is chemically processed to produce uranium hexafluoride (UF6), which is a gas at temperatures slightly above room temperature.’ Nearly 100% pure uranium hexafluoride is needed as feed for the enrichment process. There are two commercial plants for the conversion of yellowcake into UF6 in the United States. The Allied Corp. owns a plant at Metropolis, Illinois, and Kerr-McGee has a plant at Sequoyah, Oklahoma. 3. Enrichment Uranium, as it is found in nature, contains only 0.7% U—235, which is the. fissionable isotope of uranium. The rest is U-238, which cannot be split without an intermediate step. To be usable as a fuel for light water reactors, the concentration of U—235 in the uranium must be increased (enriched) to about 3%. (Weapons-grade uranium, by contrast, must contain more than 90% U—235.) In the United States, uranium is enriched by a gaseous diffusion process in three federally owned plants, which were built in the 1940s and 1950s to supply enriched uranium for weapons purposes. The Department of Energy. which manages these plants, is building a new enrichment plant near Portsmouth, Ohio, that will use a gas centrifuge process. That plant is scheduled for partial operation beginning in 1989. The Federal Government sells enrichment services to private customers on a cost recovery basis. For more information on enrichment, see Issue Brief 77126, Nuclear Energy: Enrichment and Reprocessing of Nuclear Fuels. 4. Fuel Fabrication At the fuel fabrication plant, the enriched UF6 is converted to uranium dioxide (U02). U02 is a ceramic—like material with a very high melting temperature, making it a suitable material for reactor fuel. The U02 is formed into cylindrical pellets about 1/2 inch high and 3/8 inches in diameter. These are placed into long, thin tubes, made from zirconium me .l, to form fuel rods. A number of rods are joined together to form fuel assemblies. About 40,000 fuel rods are needed to fuel an average sized reactor. There are about 20 privately owned fuel fabrication plants in the United CRS- 3 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 States. 5. Use in a Reactor See discussion below. 6. Reprocessing of Spent Fuel The spent fuel discharged from a nuclear reactor may be directly disposed of as waste; however, it contains appreciable quantities of U-235 and plutonium, which in principle, could be used to fuel other reactors. The recovery of this fuel by mechanical and chemical methods is called reprocessing. A single large plant could reprocess all the spent fuel that is currently produced in the United States. Until 1977, conventional thinking held that reprocessing would eventually take place to reduce fuel costs and conserve resources. Construction of a large commercial reprocessing facility was near completion at Barnwell, South Carolina, at that time. However, in April l977, because of concern over the potential diversion of reprocessed plutonium for weapons purposes, President Carter took steps to ban reprocessing in the United States. President Reagan has stated that his Administration will encourage commercial efforts to reprocess spent fuel, but will not use Federal funds for reprocessing. There are currently no operational reprocessing plants in the United States, nor plans to construct a plant. For more information on reprocessing, see Issue Brief 77126, Nuclear Energy: Enrichment and Reprocessing of Nuclear Fuels. 7. Disposal of Radioactive Wastes The end-product of the production of energy by nuclear fission is highly radioactive. This end-product may be in the form of spent fuel rods or may be liquid waste from a reprocessing plant. In either case, because Of the_ potential adverse health effects of exposure to the radiation emitted by nuclear wastes, they must be isolated from the biosphere for at least several hundred years. Spent fuel rods are currently stored underwater in pools located at reactor sites. While this form of storage presents little immediate danger, it is not suitable as a long—term disposal method, because the pools must be continually monitored to insure safety. Of several possible alternatives for the long-term disposal of highly radioactive wastes, the method that will most likely be used entails solidification of the waste and placement underground in repositories in stable geologic structures. The Department of Energy is performing research and development to identify sites for repositories and to develop technology necessary for the design, licensing, construction and operation of a geologic repository for high level radioactive wastes. For more information on radioactive waste disposal see Issue Brief 75012, Nuclear waste Management. General Nuclear Reactor Design Principles There are several different types of nuclear reactors. While they all depend on the fissioning of heavy nuclei to produce energy: they differ in the coolant used, the control and moderation of neutrons, and their conversion ratios. CRS- 4 IB8l07O UPDATE-O7/20/82 Reactor”Coolants Heat is generally removed from a reactor core (the region in which ,he fuel is located) by a fluid, called the coolant, that circulates through the core. Among the coolants used are water, heavy water, helium gas, and sodium (which is a liquid at the operating temperature of a nuclear reactor). Reactor types are generally named for the coolant used (see below). Neutron Control and Moderation when a nucleus of uranium splits, about 2 or 3 neutrons are produced, in addition to the larger fission products. These neutrons are important, because they hit other nuclei and cause them to split, which in turn produces more neutrons, which cause more nuclei to split. The continuation of the process in this manner is called a chain reaction. The chain reaction can be controlled by Varying the number of neutrons that are available to induce fission reactions. In all common reactor types, the chain reaction can be stopped by inserting "control rods" made from a material (such as boron) that absorbs neutrons, but other control mechanisms are possible. H The average speed at which the neutrons travel in a reactor is important to reactor design and is a fundamental difference between reactor types. In some reactors, called thermal reactors, the speed of the neutrons must be decreased before they cause nuclei to fission. Materials that slow down neutrons, but do not absorb them, are incorporated into the cores of these reactors. Such materials are called moderators. The principal moderators used are graphite, water, and heavy water. Other reactors do not use moderators and are called fast reactors. Conversion Ratios and Breeding Another factor that distinguishes different reactor types is their_ conversion ratio. As already mentioned, U—238 cannot be directly fissioned like U-235. However, a U—238 nucleus can absorb a neutron and be transmuted to plutonium-239 (Pu-239). The Pu-239 that is produced can fission when another neutron hits it. The conversion ratio can be defined as the number of plutonium nuclei produced for each U-235 nuclei that is split. In general, other nuclei can be included in reactor fuels, so the conversion ratio is more broadly defined as the ratio of the number of fissile nuclei (nuclei that can be split by thermal neutrons) produced by conversion to the number of fissile nuclei consumed. It is possible for reactors to have conversion ratios greater than one. Such reactors are called breeder reactors, because they produce more fissile fuel than they consume. While many experimental breeder reactors have operated in the United States and elsewhere, there are, as yet, no commercial breeder reactors. Breeder reactors can be thermal reactors or fast reactors and they can be cooled by water, gases, or liquid metals. However, the most developed breeder reactor design is the liquid metal cooled, fast breeder reactor (LMFBR). For further information on breeder reactors see Issue Brief IB77088, Breeder Reactors: The Clinch River Project. Conventional Reactor Descriptions There are three basic types of reactors in widespread use today: light water, heavy water, and gas cooled. CRS- 5 IB8l070 UPDATE-07/20/82 Light Water Reactors (LWRs) All but one of the reactors in commercial use in the United States are -hermal reactors that use ordinary (light) water as both a coolant and a moderator. These reactors are called light water reactors (LWRs). The fuel in today's LWRs is made from uranium dioxide (U02) pellets in which the uranium has been enriched to contain about 3% U-235 and 97% U-238. However, LWRs can be fueled with plutonium or uranium- 233/thorium mixtures. The fuel pellets are encased in l2 to l5—foot long tubes (fuel rods) made of zirconium metal, which is chosen because it absorbs very few neutrons. The fuel rods are fabricated into arrays to form fuel assemblies. A large LWR contains about l00 tons of fuel, one-third of which is replaced annually. The reactor core, comprised of the fuel assemblies and control rods, is enclosed in an 8-l0 inch thick steel pressure vessel. The pressure vessel is filled with water, which can be made to flow in the spaces between the fuel rods and between fuel assemblies, to remove the heat produced in the reactor. The water is also needed to moderate the neutrons in order to maintain the chain reaction. An inherent safety feature of this design is that in the event of an accidental loss of the coolant water, even if the control rods should fail to be inserted, the rate of fissioning would slow to nearly zero, because the water would no longer be present to moderate the neutrons. However, even if fissioning is completely halted, about 6% of the heat produced at full power is still produced for a while from the radioactive decay of the fission fragments produced earlier. Hence, backup cooling systems are required to prevent serious consequences in the event of a loss-of-coolant-accident yLOCA). The safety features of light water reactors and estimates of their effectiveness are discussed in Issue Brief 80081, Nuclear Power Plant Safety and Licensing. There are two types of LWRs in use that differ from each other in the way‘ that the cooling water is circulated and used to make steam. About two thirds of the LwRs in the United States are pressurized water reactors (PWRS) and the rest are boiling water reactors (BWRs). In PWRS, the cooling water in the primary cooling system (which includes the reactor vessel and related piping and pumps) is kept at a pressure of about 2200 lbs. per sq. in. (l50 times atmospheric pressure) so that it will not boil at the reactor’s operating temperature, which is about 650 degrees F. The water is circulated through the core and out to large heat exchangers called steam generators, where the heat is given off to water in a separate secondary cooling system. The water in the primary system is returned to the reactor core and the steam created in the secondary system is used to drive a turbine to produce electricity. About half of the PWRs in the United States are made by Westinghouse Electric Corp. and the rest are produced by Babcock and Wilcox and Combustion Engineering. In BWRs, the secondary cooling loop is not required. The cooling water in ?WRs is kept at a lower pressure than in PwRs and it boils at the top of the geactor vessel. The steam produced in the reactor vessel is channeled to the turbine directly and is then condensed and returned to the reactor vessel. All BWRS in the United States are made by General Electric- Heavy water Reactors (HWRs) CRS- 6 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 Heavy water Reactors (HWRs) use heavy water as both a coolant nd moderator. The advantage of using heavy water in a nuclear reactor is that it absorbs fewer neutrons than light water. The extra neutrons make it possible to maintain a fission chain reaction with a lower percentage of fissile nuclei, so that unenriched uranium can be used in HWRs. The only commercial heavy water reactors in use in the world today are imanufactured in Canada, by Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., and are called CANDU reactors. There is currently no heavy water reactor development program in the United States. The fuel in CANDUs is uranium dioxide pellets similar to that used in LwRs. However, CANDUs use naturally occurring uranium (with 0.7% U-235), thus obviating the ‘need for the expensive enrichment operation. Heavy water reactors can also use enriched uranium, plutonium-239, or uranium-233/thorium mixtures as fuel. A An additional advantage of CANDUs compared to LWRs arises from the low neutron absorbtivity of heavy water which allows the fuel assemblies to be further apart in an HWR than an LWR. The extra space makes it posible to have individually cooled fuel channels each containing one fuel assembly. CANDU reactors contain a lattice of hundreds of individual channels through which the pressurized heavy water coolant flows, rather than a single large pressure vessel. An advantage of this arrangement is that individual channels can be closed off for maintenance or refueling without shutting down the entire reactor. As in PWRs, the heavy water coolant in CANDUs is pressurized so it does not boil at the 600 F operating temperature of these reactors. Also as in PWRs, the heavy water flows in a closed loop from the reactor to a steam generator, where it gives up its heat to ordinary wate in a secondary cooling system. The secondary cooling water boils to produce the steam that drives the turbine. ' The chief disadvantage of CANDU reactors compared to LwRs is that they. require large amounts of costly heavy water, which makes them more expensive to operate. Gas-Cooled Reactors Air, carbon-dioxide, helium, or other gases can be used in a reactor as a primary coolant instead of water. Gas-cooled reactors generally use graphite to moderate the neutrons. Graphite is not as effective a moderator as water, which means that large amounts of graphite are needed to slow down the neutrons in a reactor. Thus the core of a gas-cooled reactor is much larger than the core of an LWR of equal power. Gas-cooled (carbon—dioxide), graphite moderated reactors are in widespread use in the United Kingdom. The older British gas reactors, called Magnox reactors, are fueled with natural (unenriched) uranium. More recent reactors, including several under construction, use enriched uranium and are called advanced gas reactors (AGR). In the United States, gas-cooled reactors have been built by the General Atomic Corporation (GA). The GA reactor, which uses helium gas as he coolant and is graphite moderated, operates at higher temperatures -xan Magnox reactors or AGRs (l3OO to 1500 degrees F), and is called a high temperature gas reactor (HTGR). The first HTGR in the United states was a 40 megawatt prototype plant operated at Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania, from l967 to l974. A 330 megawatt commercial HTGR has been operating at Fort St. Vrain, Colorado since 1976. However, orders for several l,OOO Mw HTGRs were CRS- 7 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 cancelled in the IIIid'l97OS fOI' economic reasons, and I10 HTGRS are currently being built in the United States. The high temperature of the helium gas coolant in HTGRs increases the Ithermal efficiency of the plant for electricity generation compared to LWRs. The higher temperatures may also allow HTGRS to be used to supply process heat for industrial applications, such as metal refining or the production of synthetic fuels from coal. HTGRS might also be operated in a cogeneration mode producing both process heat and electricity. The HTGR core is made up of thousands of graphite blocks piled on one another. The blocks have holes which enable the fuel rods and the control rods to be inserted and many additional holes which allow the helium gas to circulate. The core of a 1000 megawatt HTGR would be about 40 ft. in diameter and 50 ft. high. Rather than a steel pressure vessel, an HTGR core is enclosed in a prestressed concrete reactor vessel (PCRV),‘ which also encloses the pumps that circulate the helium coolant, and the steam generators. Because of the large size of the reactor core, HTGRs may be more expensive to build than LWRs of equal electrical capacity. However, this could be offset by the higher efficiency of these plants. HTGRs may have a safety advantage over LWRS, because the graphite could absorb large amounts of heat in the event of a cooling loss and make melting of the fuel all but impossible. In the HTGRS that have been built thus far, the helium coolant transfers its heat to water to produce steam in_a secondary coolant system as in a PWR. “his design is called the steam-cycle HTGR. A variant is the direct-cycle HTGR, in which the hot helium gas is used directly to drive a gas turbine and is then returned in a closed cycle to the reactor core. This design could further improve the thermal efficiency of HTGRs and could also reduce the capital costs. However, this design has not been demonstrated, and commercial plants of this design are at least 20-30 years away. Another variation of helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactors is called the very high temperature reactor (VHTR). This design is similar to the HTGR, but the helium is heated to temperatures near l800 degrees F compared to l400 degrees F for steam-cycle HTGRS and 1600 degrees F for direct-cycle HTGRS. If materials-related and other problems with this design can be solved, VHTRs could be used to provide process heat for applications needing these high temperatures, such as gasifying or liquefying coal. U.s. Nuclear Power Industry Nuclear Power Generated in the United States The first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States began operating at Shippingport, Pennsylvania in 1957. From l957 through the end of 1981, 670 reactor-years of operation were accumulated and nuclear power plants produced over 2 trillion kilowatt—hours of electricity in the United states. I In 1981, 285 billion kilowatt—hours (MWH) of electricity were produced in U.S. nuclear plants or about 12% of the total U.S. electricity generation. The net generating capacity of the 78 operable nuclear reactors in the United States as of May. l, 1982, was 59,149 megawatts compared to a generating CRS- 8 IB8l070 UPDATE-07/20/82 capacity of about 630,000 megawatts from all sources. Nuclear power plants are in operation or under construction in 38 States. The following table shows the production of nuclear power by State for l980. Note that the table refers to the electricity generated in the particular States and not the electricity consumed. In some instances, electricity in one State is sold to consumers in another. CRS— 9 IB81070 UPDATE-07/20/82 ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY NUCLEAR POWER BY STATE-1980* (million kilowatt-hours) Nuclear Total State gwh gwh % Nuclear Vermont 2,979 3,820 78 Maine 4,404 7,903 56 Connecticut 11,835 24,698 48 South Carolina 17,404 41,858 42 Arkansas 7,833 19,685 40 Nebraska 5,783 16,313 35 Maryland 10,947 32,174 34 Virginia 11,466 34,306 33 Minnesota 10,027 31,537 32 Alabama 23,497 78,292 30 Illinois 27,741 103,420 27 New Jersey 7,627 29,425 26 Wisconsin 9,111 37,836 24 Michigan 15,891 74,850 21 New York 19,276 108,599 18 Florida 16,737 95,903 17 Oregon 5,395 36,559 15 Georgia 8,435 63,308 13 Iowa 2,563 21,805 12 Pennsylvania 12,091 122,390 10 Massachusetts 3,232 34,846 9 North Carolina 5,775 72,069 8 California 4,920 140,341 4 Colorado 668 23,638 3 Washington 2,042 92,325 2 Ohio 2,119 110,247 2 Tennessee 519 60,211 1 *Source: U.S. DOE. Energy Information Administration. Power Production, Fuel Consumption, and Installed Capacity Data 1980 Annual. DOE/EIA-0049(80). June 1981. CRS-10 ~ IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 Nuclear Plants Operating, Under Construction, and Planned The number of operable nuclear reactors in the United States increased from 20 in 1970 to 58 in 1975, and is currently 78. However, in recent years, due to a marked decline in new reactor orders and numerous plant cancellations, the total number of plants operating, under construction, or planned has decreased from 220 to 166. In 1973, the peak year for reactor orders, 41 nuclear reactors were ordered in the United States. However, from 1975 through 1978 only 13 new plants were ordered, and none have been ordered since December 1978. In addition to the decline in new orders, over 40 plants that were once planned have been cancelled since the beginning of 1979. The following table summarizes the status of nuclear plants in the United States since 1976. CRS-ll IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 STATUS OF U.S. NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS Jan. 1 Jan. 1 Jan. 1 July 1 Status 1976 1979 1981 1982 Operable Licensed by NRC 56 68 69 76 a/ Authorized (DOE-owned) 2 2 2 2 Licensed, but Indefininetly Shut Down b/ 0 2 3 3 Being Built Construction permit A69 90 87 69 Limited site work 18 4 2 2 ordered 2 72 34 17 9 TOTAL 219 200 180 161 a/Includes four plants licensed for fuel loading and low power testing only (San Onofre 2, Lasalle 1, Grand Gulf and Diablo Canyon 1). b/Humboldt Bay, shut down since July 1976; Dresden 1, _ shut down since Oct. 1978; and Three Mile Island 2, shut down since March 1979. CRS-l2 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 Reasons given for the decline in new reactor orders and cancellation of plants include: a slackening in the growth of demand for electric po ,r, increased regulatory uncertainties, high interest rates, difficulties in financing the large capital costs of a nuclear plant, and increases in the time required to construct and license new plants. Foreign Nuclear POWEF Experience Twenty-one nations in addition t0 the Untied States DOW have commercial nuclear power plants in operation. During 1980, these nations increased their nuclear capacity by 13%, and by January l98l, over 2200 reactor-years of operating experience had been accumulated worldwide. The following table, from the January l982 issue of the DOE publication "Worldwide Nuclear Power," gives the generating capacity of all operational commercial nuclear power plants in the world as of Oct. 31, l98l. CRS-l3 IB8l070 UPDATE-07/20/82 NUCLEAR CAPACITY OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES Number of Operational Nuclear Total Capacity in Mwe (Megawatts- Country Power Plants electrical) France 3l 2l,665 Japan 24 l6,077 Soviet Union 35 l4,046 west Germany 14 8,608 United Kingdom 34 7,629 Sweden 9 6,415 Canada ll 5,494 Finland 4 2,160 Taiwan 3 2,159 Spain 4 l,973 Switzerland 4 1,940 East Germany 5 1,712 Belgium 4 1,675 Italy 4 1,382 Bulgaria 3 l,224 Czechoslovakia 3 952 India 4 808 Yugoslavia l 632 Korea 1 564 Netherlands 2 499 Argentina l 335 Pakistan 1 l25 TOTAL NON-U.S. 202 98,074 CRS-l4 IB8lO70 UPDATE-07/20/82‘ Sixteen other nations are listed by DOE as having nuclear power pl ts under construction or planned. They are: Austria Mexico Brazil Morocco Cuba Philippines Egypt Poland Hungary Rumania Iraq South Africa Lybia Syria Luxembourg Turkey. About 250,000 Mwe of nuclear generating capacity is under construction or” planned outside the U.S. Federal Support to Nuclear Power Development Since the creation of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in l948,’ the Federal Government has spent a considerable amount of money in support of civilian nuclear power development. However, it is difficult to determine what to include in arriving at the total Federal cost. Problems arise in separating civilian from military nuclear programs and also in considering Government involvement in uranium enrichment, nuclear regulation, uranium pricing, nuclear assistance to foreign countries and research in physics, nuclear science, radiation safety and other related fields. Estimates of the total Federal support to nuclear power vary widely depending upon he assumptions that are made regarding these and other factors. While .most estimates of Federal support to nuclear power development are in the range of from l0 to l5 billion dollars, other estimates that include Federal spending not usually associated with civilian nuclear power development range as high as $40 million. One measure of Federal assistance to nuclear power is funds spent for civilian nuclear fission research and development. However, there is no clear way to separate the funds spent on civilian from military reactor development, since much of the same technology applies to both. The table below is one way to account for civilian nuclear research and development funding from 1948 to the present. The figures for the period 1948-1954 include all civilian and military research and development spending of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Civilian R&D was a small part of that total during those years, but the technology developed for military reactors during that time period was largely applicable to civilian reactors. The figures for 1955-1969 give the funding of the AEC's civilian reactor R&D program. From l970 to the present, the figures include civilian fission reactor development, reactor safety research, and fuel cycle and waste management activities of the AEC, the Energy Research and Development‘ Administration (ERDA), and DOE. The latter three activities were not listed as separate activities before 1970. Funds spent on uranium enrichment, uranium resource estimates, and activities such as development of power supplies for spacecraft have been excluded where it was possible to separate them out, El 1945 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1955 1957 1955 1959 SOUITCGS 2 Funding 54.1 17.0 27.6 40.5 62.8 92.4 87.6 58.1 79.7 77.2 110.9 135.5 21 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1955 1957 19681 1969 1970 1971 CRS-15 Funding 167.3 179.4 188.6 194.8 207.6 207.4 193.4 205.8 242.2 218.7 231.0 265.6 CIVILIAN NUCLEAR FISSION R&D FUNDING: (figures in millions of current dollars) E1 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 TQ 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Total IB81070 FY48--FY81 Funding 324.0 385.8 478.8 625.4 635.0 202.9 875.2 1031.7 960.4 964.5 1010.1 1088.1 llr827.l UPDATE-O7/20/82 l948—l974-—Appendices to the Budget of the United States. Technology. Brief 78005, 1975-1978--DOE. Nuclear Branch. Nuclear Energy Policy. Office of Budget. 1979-1982-—CRS Issue Energy CRS-16 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 An additional sum that may be considered Federal assistance to the nuclear industry comes from the Government supply of uranium enrich. nt services. Enrichment services are supplied to domestic and foreign customers from plants that were originally built for defense purposes. while by law (P.L. 91-560) the price that the Department of Energy charges for enrichment services "shall be on a basis of recovery of the Government's cost over a reasonable period of time," the price does not include charges for insurance, taxes, or return on investment that utilities would have to pay if enrichment were supplied by a private company. A 1978 study by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories determined that the U.S. nuclear industry had saved $1.7 billion from the Government supply of enrichment services, over what private enrichment would have cost. A January 1981 study by the DOE Energy Information Administration estimated that enrichment costs not covered by the present pricing formula totaled $2.2 billion through FY79. A further cost to the Government that may or may not be considered assistance to the nuclear industry is the cost of Federal regulation of nuclear power by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission. The Battelle study placed regulatory costs at $1.2 billion through FY 1977. From FY 1978 to FY 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission spent an additional $1.5 billion. Additional expenditures that may or may not be considered as Federal assistance to the nuclear power industry include a proportion of AEC, ERDA, and DOE spending on biology and medicine, education and training, physical research, and program management. The Battelle study determined that 1.8 billion 1976 dollars in Federal Government expenditures in these areas c ld be attributed to commercial nuclear energy. Perhaps the most difficult Federal assistance to the nuclear industry to quantify is the value to the industry of the liability insurance provisions. of the Price—Anderson Act (P.L. 85-256), enacted in 1957. The Act limits private liability in any nuclear accident to $560 million. A share of that $560 million has been insured by the Federal Government (originally $500 million, now about $50 million). without this law it is unlikely that commercial nuclear power would have developed in this country. However, the Price-Anderson Act has not resulted in any Federal expenditures and its value to the industry cannot be measured. Current DOE Funding for Civilian Nuclear Fission The total FY82 appropriation for DOE's civilian nuclear fission reactor programs was $1126 million. The majority of that was for breeder reactor development and waste management, which accounted for $910 million. The table below summarizes funding for DOE civilian nuclear fission reactor programs. CRS-17 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 NUCLEAR FISSION REACTOR PROGRAMS (in millions of dollars) FY81 FY82 FY83 Appr. Appr;. Request Converter Reactor Systems $ 82.9 $106.2 $ 32.0 Commercial Waste Management 188.8 210.0 80.5(a) Remedial Actions 43.1 43.4 50.3 Nuclear Fuel Cycle 82.8 52.7 59.3 Advanced Nuclear Systems 40.5 38.0 30.6 Breeder Reactor Systems 6l0.8(b) 656.1 577.5 Clinch River Breeder Reactor (l72.0)(b) (195.0) (252.5) Policy and Management 141 l;§ 146 Total Fission Reactor Programs $l050.6(c) $ll26.l(c) $83l.8(a) (a) Does not reflect $185 million in planned waste management activities proposed for funding by fees received from electric utilities. (D) Does not include $48 million for Clinch River deferred from FY80 to FY81. (c) Funds totalling $37.2 million were deferred from FY81 to FY82 to finance the FY82 appropriations as shown above. Source: DOE FY83 budget documents. CRS-l8 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 Breeder reactor funding is discussed further in Issue Brief 77088, wtste management funding is discussed in Issue Brief 75012, and funding .or enrichment and fuel cycle R&D is discussed in Issue Brief 77126. Funding for Conventional Reactor Systems is discussed below. Conventional Reactor Systems There are three major subprograms in DOE's Conventional Reactor Systems Program: Light Water Reactor Systems, High Temperature Reactors, and Three Mile Island Activities. Light Water Reactor Systems. The Light Water Reactor Systems Program involves the development and demonstration of technology to improve the utilization of uranium in light water reactors, reduce occupational radiation exposures, and lower the probability and consequences of nuclear accidents. The FY81 appropriation for these programs of $35 million includes: $16.6 million for uranium utilization, $9.4 million for occupational dose reduction; and $8.0 million for light water reactor safety. For FY82, the appropriation for these programs was cut to $22.7 million. The occupational dose reduction program received $0.3 million to close out the program; funding for the uranium utilization program was reduced to $11.0 million to complete the work of existing contracts; and safety research was increased to $11.4 million. For FY83 the Reagan Administration proposes no funding for occupational dose reduction and closeout funding of $3 million for uranium utilization and $1 million for LWR safety. High Temperature Reactors. The Department of Energy has supported the development of high temperature (gas) reactors (HTGRs) in the past becaus of the possibility of using the high temperature heat produced in these reactors for industrial processes, such as the production of synthetic fuels. In FY81, the Carter Administration attempted to terminate the HTGR program, because of the large amount of funding that would be required to commercialize HTGRs- However, Congress appropriated $40.0 million for HTGRs for FY81. The Reagan Administration also tried to terminate the HTGR Program and requested a rescission of $22 million in FY81 funding and no new funding for FY82. However, Congress has not agreed to terminate HTGR research. The FY81 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission Act, P.L. 97-12, restored $21 million of the $22 million requested for rescission by the Administration, and deferred the other $1 million and the FY82 DOE appropriation (P.L. 97-88) included $38 million for HTGR R&D. For FY83 the Reagan Administration has again requested no funds for HTGR development. Three Mile Island. Since the accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant, DOE has conducted a program to examine the accident sequence and the existing condition of the reactor in order to improve the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants and to develop technology to safely recover nuclear power plants from accidents. The FY81 appropriation for these activities was $6.5 million. For FY82, the Reagan Administration proposed increasing the funding for the existing program to $10 million and requested an additional $27 million to broaden its Three Mile Island Activities to resolve technical issues that impede the cleanup of the r‘ant and provide cleanup assistance. The new efforts will include assistanct by DOE to General Public Utilities (the owner of the TMI Plant) in the removal of the reactor care and in the disposal of some of the intermediate level radioactive wastes that are being produced by cleanup operations. P.L. 97-88 appropriated $35 million for TMI activities for FY82. For FY83 the Administration has requested $27 million for TMI activities. For additional CRS-l9 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 information on the cleanup of TMI, see Issue Brief 81176. uclear POWGI‘ and Uranium Supply Forecasts Nuclear Power Capacity Projections of U.S. nuclear power capacity have been sharply reduced over the past several years. In 1975, the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) estimated that U.S. nuclear power capacity in the year 2000 could be as high as 1,250 gigawatts (1 gigawatt = 1,000 megawatts, and is roughly the capacity of one large nuclear power plant). This estimate was revised downward by ERDA in July 1976 to range from 450 to 800 gigawatts, and in September 1976 ERDA's predictions of nuclear capacity in the year 2000 were further reduced to between 380 and 620 gigawatts. The table below shows some more recent Department of Energy forecasts of nuclear power capacity. These forecasts are from the Annual Report to Congress of the Energy Information Administration of DOE. The release dates of the Annual Reports are indicated in the table. It can be seen from the table that the downward trend in U.S. nuclear capacity forecasts has slowed somewhat, but still continues. FORECASTS OF U.S. NUCLEAR POWER CAPACITY, l985- 2000 (Nuclear capacity at year end in gigawatts-electric) 1985 1990 1995 2000 1981 Annual Report Feb. 1982 86-98 116-124 123-142 145-185 1980 Annual Report Mar. 18, 1981 86-102 123-136 135-155 155-195 1979 Annual Report July 1980 86-109 121-139 137-160 160-200 1978 Annual Report Summer 1979 102-118 142-171 186-225 235-300 1977 Annual Report April 1978 100-122 157-192 200-275 255-395 For comparison, current U.S. nuclear capacity is 59 gigawatts and total U.S. electrical generating capacity from all sources is about 630 gigawatts. Certain staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission take a more pessimistic view than does DOE of the number of nuclear plants that will be completed in the United States. In a Mar. 8, 1982, memorandum from NRC Executive Director for Operations, William Dircks, to Commissioner Ahearne, the staff projects that U.S. nuclear capacity will be only 114 Gw in 1990 and 115 Gw in the year 000. However, that memorandum has not been officially endorsed by the NRC Commissioners, and several utilities have publically stated that they intend to complete plants that the March 7 memorandum projects they will not complete. CRS-20 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 Uranium Reserves The Department of Energy estimates uranium reserves in four categories of decreasing certainty--reserves, probable resources, possible resources, and speculative resources. DOE also presents its predictions for several different cost categories. The "costs" used by DOE are "forward" costs comprising operating and capital costs, in l980 dollars, that a firm would incur in producing uranium. The cost categories are independent of price as determined by market forces. DOE estimates that the price which would support a 15% rate of return on investment would be about l.5 times the forward cost. Current uranium prices are about $25/lb U308. In contrast to the case with nuclear power projections, DOE's estimates of uranium resources have not changed markedly in the past few years. The major changes have been small shifts from the more speculative categories into less speculative categories, a small decrease in the totals, and a shift to higher cost categories with inflation. The table below shows DOE's Jan. 1, l98l, estimate of uranium resources. URANIUM RESOURCES IN THE UNITED STATES (recoverable resources in thousands of tons U308) $30/lb $50/lb $100/lb U308 U308 U308 Reserves 470 787 l034 Probable Resources 885 l425 2080 Possible Resources 346 641 l005 Speculative Resources 311 482 696 TOTALS 20l2 3336 4815 A typical nuclear power plant (1000 Mw) requires roughly 200 tons of U308 yearly to supply its fuel. Hence, the current U.S. nuclear capacity requires about ll thousand tons of U308 per year. According to the most recent nuclear capacity predictions, U.S. plants will require 29-37 thousand tons per year in 2000 if there is no large change in uranium utilization. However, if reactors are made more efficient, spent fuel is reprocessed, gains are made in uranium enrichment techniques, or breeder reactors are introduced, uranium consumption levels could be lower. Glossary of Nuclear Terms Atomic number: The number of protons in an atomic nucleus. Boiling weater reactor (BWR): A reactor whose primary coolant is allowed to boil. Breeder reactor: A reactor that converts fertile material into fissile CRS-21 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 material faster than the fissile material is consumed in the reactor. seeding ratio: the conversion ratio when it is greater than one. Chain reaction, nuclear: A series Of nuclear reactions in WhiCh one Of the agents necessary for the reaction to take place is itself produced by the reaction. Control rod: A rod containing a material that effectively absorbs neutrons. The control rods can be inserted into or withdrawn from a reactor core to adjust the rate of nuclear reactions in the reactor. Conversion: Nuclear transformation Of a fertile substance into a fissile substance. Conversion ratio: The ratio of the number of fissile nuclei produced by conversion to the number of fissile nuclei destroyed by either conversion or fission. Converter reactor: A reactor in which significant conversion takes place, but the conversion ratio is less than one. coolant, primary: A fluid (liquid or gas) circulated through a reactor core tO remove the heat produced in the core. Coolant secondary: A coolant used tO remove heat from the primary coolant. Core: That region of a nuclear reactor in which a chain reaction can take place. Deuterium: An isotope Of hydrogen With one proton and one neutron in its nucleus, in contrast tO the more common isotope Of hydrogen WhiCh contains only one proton. Enrichment: Any process by which the proportion of a specified isotope in a mixture of isotopes of the same element is increased. Fast reactor: A reactor in which fission is induced predominantly by neutrons with velocities above a critical velocity. ertile: An isotope that is capable of being transformed, directly or indirectly into a fissile isotope by capturing a neutron. Fissile: An isotope that is capable of undergoing fission by interaction CRS-22 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 with slow (thermal) neutrons. Fission: The division of a heavy nucleus into two (or, rarely more) parts of near equal masses, usually accompanied by the emmission of neutrons, gamma radiation, and sometimes small ' Fission fragments: Nuclei produced through fission reactions. Fission products: Species produced either directly by fission or by the subsequent radioactive decay Of species thus formed. Fissionable: Fissile Fuel assembly: A grouping of fuel elements which is not taken apart during the fueling or discharging of a reactor. ‘»» Fuel cycle: The sequence of steps, such as mining, fabrication, utilization, reprocessing, and disposal, through WhiCh nuclear fuel may pass. Fuel element: The smallest discrete part of a reactor which contains fuel, Fuel pellet: A small body of fuel, often cylindrical and designed to be stacked in a tube t0 form a fuel element. Fuel fOd: A fuel element in the form Of a rod. Gamma radiation: Electromagnetic radiation (similar to X-rays) that is usually emitted during or following nuclear reactions. Heavy water: Water made from deuterium instead of ordinary hydrogen. Heavy water reactor (HWR): A nuclear reactor that uses heavy water as a coolant or moderator, or (more commonly) for both purposes. High temperature gas reactor (HTGR): A reactor in which the primary coolant is a gas at all operating temperatures. Isotopes: Atoms or nuclei having the same number of protons (hence the ame chemical properties), but different numbers of neutrons. A Light water reactor (LWR): A reactor that uses ordinary (light) water as both a primary coolant and a moderator. Boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors are two types of LWR. CRS—23 IB8lO70. UPDATE-O7/20/82 Moderator: A material used to reduce neutron energy (velocity) ymscattering the neutrons without absorbing appreciable Neutron: An elementary particle having no electric charge and a mass close tO that Of a proton. Nuclear reaction: An event in WhiCh an atomic nucleus iS changed in mass, charge, or energy state. Nuclear reactor: A device in which a self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction can be maintained and controlled. Nucleus: The positively charged central portion of an atom, with which is associated almost the entire mass of the atom, but only a minute part of‘ the volume. Plutonium: A man-made element of atomic number 94 with the chemical symbol Pu. A fissionable isotope of plutonium, Pu-239, is produced in nuclear reactors through the conversion of U-238. ‘ressurized water reactor (PWR): A reactor whose primary coolant water is _maintained under such a pressure that no boiling OCCUIS. Proton: An elementary particle having a positive charge and a mass about a billionth Of a billionth of a billionth Of a kilogram. Radioactive decay: A spontaneous nuclear transformation in which particles or gamma radiation is emitted. Reprocessing: The processing of nuclear fuel, after its use in a reactor, to remove fission products and recover fissile, fertile, and other material. Thermal reactor: A reactor in which fission is induced predominantly by neutrons whose velocities have been slowed to their equilibrium velocity at the the temperature of the reactor. Thorium: A naturally occurring element, of atomic number 90, with the chemical symbol Th. The most common isotope of thorium, Th-232, is fertile. ranium: The heaviest of all naturally occurring elements, with an atomic number of 92 and the chemical symbol U. Three isotopes are of interest-- U-238, which is fertile and comprises 99.3% of naturally occurring uranium; U—235, which is fissile and comprises 0.7% of naturally occurring uranium; and U-233, which is fissile and can be produced by the conversion of thorium. CRS-24 IB8l070 UPDATE-07/20/82 LEGISLATION P.L. 97-12, H.R. 35l2 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission Bill, 1981. In nuclear fission programs, the Reagan Administration requested $68 million in supplemental appropriations for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and a $22 million rescission from the high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) program. Congress did not go along with either of these proposals in the bill (H.R. 3512) passed by both Houses on June 4, 1981. However, Congress did include a total of $24 million in rescissions and deferrals of other nuclear fission programs including: a rescission of $9 million from the spent fuel storage program, a deferral of $6 million for the commercial nuclear waste program, a $5 million deferral from breeder reactor development programs, a rescission of $1.5 million from advanced nuclear systems, and a $1 million deferral for HTGR development. The bill was signed into law June 5, 1981. P.L. 97-35, H.R. 3982 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. Includes the FY82 Authorization for the Department of Energy. Provides a total of $1,174 million for nuclear fission and uranium enrichment. Passed Senate (S.Rept. 97-139) June 25; passed House (H.Rept. 97-158) June 26. Conference report agreed to by both houses July 31; signed into law Aug. 13, 1981. P.L. 97-88, H.R. 4144 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act. Provides a total of 1,061 million for nuclear fission and uranium enrichment. . Passed House (H.Rept.. 97-177) July 24, 1981; passed Senate (S.Rept. 97-256) Nov. 5. Conference report (H.Rept. 97-345) agreed to by both Houses Nov. 21; signed into _law Dec. 4, 1981. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. Nuclear economics. Oversight Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. July 12 and Sept. 11, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 720 p. "Serial no. 96-8, part VII" ----— National and regional power needs through the year 2000. Oversight Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. July 16, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 147 p. "Serial no. 96-8, part VIII" U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production. New directions for nuclear RD&D, post-INFCE. Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d session, June 4, 5, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 401 p. "No. 152" CRS-25 IB8lO7O UPDATE-O7/20/82 --—-- Nuclear energy production in the coming decade. Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session. Sept. 20, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 197 p. ' "No. 86" REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. Atomic energy legislation through 95th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 892 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, lst session. Committee print no. 14. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. subcommittee on Energy and Power. The energy factbook; data on energy resources, reserves, 5 production, consumption, prices, processing, and industry structure. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 0ff., Nov. 1980. 809 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, 2d session. Committee print 96-IFC-60. ----- Federal Government incentives to coal and nuclear energy. Prepared at the request of the subcommittee by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 65 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, lst session. Committee print 96-IFC-20. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS N/A ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES American Nuclear Society. Nuclear power and the environment: questions and answers. Hinsdale, Illinois, American Nuclear Society, April 1976. 122 p. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. An analysis of Federal incentives used to stimulate energy production. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Division of Solar Applications. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 265 p. plus 6 appendices. Prepared under contract EY-76-C-06-1830 PNL-2410 Howles, L.R. Nuclear station achievement 1980. Nuclear engineering international v. 26, no. 310, p., 43-45. March 1981. MITRE Corporation. Nuclear power: issues and choices: CRS-26 IB8lO7O UPDATE-OT/20/82 report of the nuclear energy policy study group [sponsored by the Ford Foundation, administered by the MITRE Corporation]. Cambridge, Mass., Ballinger Publishing Co., 1977. 405 p. National Research Council. Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES). Energy in transition, l985-2010. Washington, National Academy of Sciences, 1979, c. l980. 577 p. Nero, Anthony V. A guidebook to nuclear reactors. Berkely, University of California Press, 1979. 289 p. President's Commission on the accident at Three Mile Island report; the need for change. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., l979. 201 p. (Kemeny Commission Report) U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual report to Congress. (Annual) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 3 vols. DOE/EIAéOl73,‘ ----- Federal support for nuclear power: reactor design and the fuel cycle, ,[Washington] Feb. l98l. 67 p. "Commonly called the Bowring Report" ----- Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy. U.S. central station nuclear electric generating units: significant milestones. (published quarterly) DOE/NE-0030 U.S. General Accounting Office. Nuclear power costs and subsidies: report to the Congress by Congress Comptroller General of the United States. EMD-79-52, June 13, 1979. Washington, l979. 28 p. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operating units status report: licensed operating reactors. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., (published monthly). NUREG-0020; commonly called the Gray Book.