Terrorism Analysis Report 1 June 2011 Federation of Washington and Lee American Scientists University The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States By John F. Ahearne, Albert V. Carr, Jr, Harold A. Feiveson, Daniel Ingersoll, Andrew C. Klein, Stephen Maloney, Ivan Oelrich, Sharon Squassoni, and Richard Wolfson Edited by Charles D. Ferguson and FRANK A. SETTLE 1 Federation of American Scientists 2 The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States February 2012 FAS and WASHINGTON and LEE UNIVERSITY The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States By John F. Ahearne, Albert V. Carr, Jr, Harold A. Feiveson, Daniel Ingersoll, Andrew C. Klein, Stephen Maloney, Ivan Oelrich, Sharon Squassoni, and Richard Wolfson Edited by Charles D. Ferguson and Frank A. Settle 3 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org About FAS Founded in 1945 by many of the scientists who built the first atomic bombs, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is devoted to the belief that scientists, engineers, and other technically trained people have the ethical obligation to ensure that the technological fruits of their intellect and labor are applied to the benefit of humankind. e founding mission was to prevent nuclear war. While nuclear security remains a major objective of FAS today, the organization has expanded its critical work to issues at the intersection of science and security. FAS publications are produced to increase the understanding of policymakers, the public, and the press about urgent issues in science and security policy. Individual authors who may be FAS staff or acknowledged experts from outside the institution write these reports. us, these reports do not represent an FAS institutional position on policy issues. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion contained in this and other FAS Special Reports are the sole responsibility of the author or authors. About Washington and Lee University Washington and Lee University, the nation’s ninth oldest institution of higher educa- tion, is among the nation’s premier liberal arts colleges and universities. Washington and Lee University provides a liberal arts education that develops students’ capacity to think freely, critically, and humanely and to conduct themselves with honor, integrity, and civility. Graduates are prepared for life-long learning, personal achievement, responsible leadership, service to others, and engaged citizenship in a global and diverse society. For more information about FAS or publications and reports, please call 1-202-546-3300, email [email protected], or visit the website at www.FAS.org. Copyright © 2012 by the Federation of American Scientists and Washington and Lee University. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 978-1-938187-00-1 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org 4 The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States February 2012 FOREWORD In early 2010, when we began producing this report, we could not have predicted that one year later there would be a major accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in March 2011. Writing this foreword in February 2012, it is still too soon to know the full implications of this accident for the United States and the global nuclear industry. Instead of focusing on this issue, we, the principal investigators, will discuss the original motivations for this report. ese motivations are still relevant regardless of the accident. If anything, the accident further underscores that constant vigilance is needed to ensure nu- clear safety. e primary motivation is to educate policymakers and the public about where nuclear power in the United States appears to be headed in light of the economic hurdles confronting construction of nuclear power plants, the aging reactors (most of which were built more than 30 years ago), and the graying workforce (many of whom are nearing re- tirement age). A corollary motivation is to provide guidance to policymakers in their deci- sions about the complex subject of nuclear power. To acquire sage advice, we asked a distinguished group of experts to provide their insights about the safety, security, building, financing, licensing, regulating, and fueling of nuclear power plants. ese experts also addressed the issues of managing spent nuclear fuel and associated wastes, comparing nuclear energy to other energy sources, and assessing the potential commercialization of technologies such as small, modular reactors and Genera- tion IV reactors. Will nuclear power in the United States experience a revival in this and the follow- ing decade? It is too difficult to know at this time considering the complicated set of factors analyzed by this report’s group of experts. We did not ask the group to reach a consensus. Instead, each author focused his or her expertise on a particular aspect of nuclear power. Nonetheless, we believe that it is worth highlighting here some insights from the individual chapters. In the opening overview chapter, Sharon Squassoni assesses that “U.S. nuclear energy growth can only be achieved with a combination of aggressive government support and a complete revamping of the U.S. nuclear industry to stress standardization and modularization in construction. e best approach for the U.S. nuclear industry over the next five years will be to demonstrate that it can manage each stage of the licensing, construction, and operating processes of the first four [new] reactors competently and effi- ciently.” Concerning the challenges of financing the new reactors, Stephen Maloney under- scores the need for the United States to have a “viable bond market.” He advises that these “markets require Federal Reserve policies, low corporate tax and capital gains rates, a strong currency, and stable growth,” but the “deficit spending policies in place today do very little to create a viable bond market.” Even if the financing risk were more manageable, licensing and regulating are two additional requirements that can pose significant challenges. Albert V. Carr, Jr. provides a masterful explanation of the U.S. history of licensing and regulating nuclear plants and is cautiously optimistic that a nuclear revival is underway given the re- cent applications for new licenses. 5 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org Nuclear power also has to meet high safety standards. John F. Ahearne examines the question of whether nuclear plants are safe enough and emphasizes that safety “remains a mix- ture of design, construction, maintenance, and what has been called a ‘safety culture’: the need for all involved personnel to stress safety in all their practices.” Moreover, after “the two major reactor accidents of TMI and Chernobyl, designs have been scrutinized and improved, operating practices improved, and personnel training stressed,” and that reviews of the Fukushima Daiichi accident “may spur further design changes and safety retrofits.” While safety relates to unintentional accidents, security depends on keeping nuclear plants protected against intentional attacks or sabotage. Harold Feiveson provides an in-depth analysis of the design-basis-threat (DBT), which is an assessment of the plausible threats that nuclear plants confront and must defend against, but he points out that despite improvements in the DBT after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, “questions remain whether the DBT is yet realistic enough to capture plausible threats by terrorist groups, and whether the DBT and associated reactor security operations have been adjusted to accommodate industry concerns with cost.” Furthermore, “there will always be the possibility of a beyond-DBT attack on a reactor,” and he consequently recommends that the industry pursue new reactor designs, reactor site locations, and operational procedures that would boost the inherent safety and security of the plants. If nuclear power is to have a viable future in the United States, the plants will adequate supplies of fuel. Presently, U.S. nuclear power plants are fueled with uranium-based fuels. But in the future, they could use recycled plutonium for fuel. Ivan Oelrich addresses the reliability of uranium supplies and the possibility of a plutonium fuel economy. He concludes that “allowing for robust growth in nuclear-electric power generation and using fairly conservative assumptions about current and future reserves, decisions about building nuclear reactors should not today be constrained by concerns about fuel availability. The long-term fuel situation will be constantly reevaluated but, for decades to come, uranium availability will most likely not be the factor limit- ing nuclear growth.” Concerning a plutonium economy, he determines that because of “the technical uncertainties, making an irreversible decision today is ill- advised and it is unnecessary. While there is universal agreement that some form of longterm waste repository will be re- quired, wastes may not need to be committed to a repository right away. … Pending resolution of questions regarding long-term geological storage or fuel for fast reactors, the plutonium can sit in the used fuel rods where it is safe from theft and cannot be used for weapons.” A robust supply chain and highly skilled personnel are needed to ensure the future of nuclear power in the United States. Andrew C. Klein points out the reality that the U.S. nu- clear industry is embedded in an international supply chain. He underscores that “U.S. utili- ties and consumers of electricity will benefit from a competitive market for the supply of nuclear reactor systems, parts, and components.