ML19323A493
| ML19323A493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1980 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Boyles E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323A494 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004210275 | |
| Download: ML19323A493 (15) | |
Text
-
- ?"
gb8 MG(,f y.
(o UNITED STATES g
g 3 ) >.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- E W ASHINGToN, 0. C. 20555
\\.'f3 i
g w.
f 137t03'.980 Mr. and Mrs. Edward Boyles RFD 1, Box 176B Versailles, Indiana 47042
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Boyles:
Your letter to the Department of Energy was referred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on January 22, 1980.
You propose that a coal-fired plant be built near Patriot, ladiana.
The NRC has no responsibility with regard to the building of coal-fired plants, which would be up to the utility concerned and the State authorities. However, you may be interested in the enclosed excerpt from the Second National Energy Plan transmitted to the Congress by the President on May 7,1979 This excerpt is Chapter V on " Coal and Nuclear: The Transitional Energy Sources."
The policy stated there is as follows: "The Nation's mid-term energy situation depends on successfully maintaining and expanding the use of coal and nuclear power. These two sources are commercially available today and can be enlarged if the markets grow and their critical environmental and social problems are overcome."
Sincerely, M
a-Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated s
800.4210275
..a
- f' g u u q sr s u a 'N
tMkh Congress,1st SeWon - - - - - - - - Ilouse Document No.96-121 SECOND NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN MESSAGE FROM THE PRR9IDENT OF TIE UNITED 8TATES TRAN8MITTING TIIS BECOND NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN, PURSUANT TO BBOTION 801 OF THE DEPAltTMENT QF ENERGY ORGANIZATION ACT i
mir 7,1979.-hiessage and accompanying papers referred to the l
Committee of the Whole Ilouse on the State of the Union i
and ordered to be printed e
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 4,_
45-004 O WA8IIINGTON : 1979
p-
{
135 l
CHAPTEg V COA 1. AND NUCLEAga THE YgANSITIONAL ENEgGY SOUgCES Coal and nuclear power now supply 22 percent of the Nation's energy and must provide an increasing share se convent ional oil and gas resources are depleted. Over three-fourths of domestic coal comeuap-tion and virtually all of the nuclear energy is now used to generate electric power, with oil and gas dominating transportation, space t
hearang, and moet indust rial uses.
Although the Administration is i
encouraging the direct use of coal in industry, electric generation will continue to be the chief use of both coal (and nuclear energy)
(
for at least the neat 40 years.
The growth is comeumption of coal l
and nuclear depende la large measure on their environments 1 and public l
acceptability, and their competitivenese with one another and with seg technologies yet to come.
soth of these energy sources face two basic challenges:
o the need to resolve institutional and environaestal problems that limit the use of esisting direct coal-fired and light water reactor plant cachnology; and the timing and pice of development of more resource-ef ficient o
technologies, such as advanced coal-fired power cycles, alter-active aucteer fuel cycles, and advanced nuclear reactors.
The first challenge is one of technology survival rather thee econceice.
Unless direct coal burning and light water reactor power plante can achieve environmental and public acceptability, they will not be able to carry their projected share of new electric power generation. If either one falters, then the other will have to grow that och faster, further aggravating its own dif ficulties.
And without competition from the other, the added pressure placed on the reesiaing cource will drive its costa higher.
The second challenge ~ technology development--depende on the outcome of the first and on the growth in electricity consumption and develop-ment of other new energy sources. The role for technologies such as Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) coal fuel celle, and the liquid metal f eet breede r reactor will depend on how expensive they are compared to a lt e r na t ive s.
la the yeare since the embargo, perceptions of the role for these technologies have changed radically.
Electricity consumption, which has doubled every decade O percent per year) for more thaa half a o
s e
136 137 c e nt u r y, as now espected to rise sore slowly. The gruwth rate should lua3Jad appsoach about halt the historic average by the end of the century.
g g
g g
This slower growth in demand. though welcome for many reasons, haa O
seriously daerupted utiltty construction planning, particularly for C
O nuclear plante.
On the other hand. the slower demand gruwth will O
I l
g g
postpone the potential depletion uf uranium resources, avoide greater U
C new technologies, and removes any urgent need to commercialise the E
g
'} E E
W
+
environmental problems from more coal use. allows more time to develop e #
o I
breeder reactor.
3 3
/ 8L rs t
e m
g 2
e m
e i
A.
Coal g
o
/
O
/
O During the tiret half of this century, coal was the preJominant fue!
4 in the United States. In the late 1940s, however, its dominance began to erode se consumers shif ted to cleaner.*more convenient, and f re-primarily oil and gea.
Figure V-1 9
/
quently cheaper energy forms shows how the use of coal changed both as a f raction of total energy C
a' W
)
use and in ph)eical terms.
- ,o
~
8
/
9 i!
For many years, coal was a dominant fuel in all demand sectors.
I N
including t ransportation. in which it supplied the railroads. As coal O
b
,/,.
declined in the 1950s. and even when it revived again la the late 1960s and 1970s, it came to depend on one major market-utilities. la O
1978 78 percent of the coal used la the U.S. was burned by the 7
f
%(
- 3 >I' O
e electric utilities.
> C l.;
O e
I
0 *M Even today, however.
U.S. coal reserves are still hundrede of times 6
greater than annual production levels. While domsetic oil and natural 3 U
]r g
gas use is limited by supply, coal consumption is limited primarily Mw g
a j' d
by constraints on demand.
Even when the fuel cost economics favor C IA=
coal, firms have been willing to pay sizable premiums for cleaner, g
' 'j
,,[
Il more convenient fuels.
g e
/
Many people remember the time when clouds of smoke hung ove r U.S.
g
..i strikes, which threatened the entire economy.
Coal mining hee g
1(
cities.
People also remember production di s ru ptions, such as coal g
~~,
On
' y historically been a dangerous calling, and the health and safety of g
minere an urgent social concern. Even if past problema do not recua-E i
a the attitudes that were created by these problema may persist.
3 y :
e la the past 15 years. coat's environmental problems beve been curbed C
(
o by Federal and State actione dealing with air and water pollution.
O
(
g
} }
underground mine health and safety, and, most recently, surf ace mining O
/
e
- i ;,
j}
and reclamation.
Howsver, utilities and industry often found it
(
}
8 easier to meet new air emission rules by switching to oil, gee, est lower sulfur coals, than by festalling pollution control equipment.
gf, g
p aag g
- g. g s
o-v-=
=
a 1
JeeA dad suoi uogn V-3 e
t b
l l
1
138 139 Mining safety regulations helped reduce f atalities and disabling injur-The program for coal emphasises direct coal combustion. eioce about ies in both underground and surface mines, but worker productavaty 90 pescent of the coal consumed in this country in the seat 20 yeare necessarily fell. and labor coste rose (especially in underground will be burned directly. Coal gasification. liquefaction, and other mining). Partly because of increased safety costa and other economic advanced technologies will probably not account for a large share of reasona. there has been a shift from underground, to surf ace manang.
coal use before 2000.
As the new surface Mining and geclamation Act ta amplemented ove r the meat few years, however, the costa of surf ace mine productive may Coal Conversion Regulations also begia to rios. Meanwhile, concern with another problem of fossal f uel use, especially coat use. has been growing -- the accumulataca of The Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA) carbum dioside in the atmosphere f rom coal combustion, which maght provided the authority to require coal use in boilers capable of raise temperatures and affect the earth's climate.
burning coal.
The National Energy Act eatended and improved on the ESECA authority through the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act.
STkAILGY F0s COAL which authorises a variety of regulations for requiring existing and new boilere to use fuele other than oil or gas.
la particular.
The U.S. has nearly 4 trillion tone of coal in place, and has econon-utility and large industrial boiler usare may be prohibited free ically recoverably reserves that approach 200 to 300 billion tone.
burning oil or gas is new unite unless they show that they cenaat use gut annual proJuct ion of coat has risen to only 660 ma,llton toma per coat or another alt e rnat ive fuel.
gegulatione under the statute year.
The Adminastration seeks to increase production and encourage will be promulgeted shortly and will indicate how au6a more costly greater reliance on coal. To carry out this strategy, the U.S. wall:
coal use must be before an esemption to use oil or gas is granted.
o Espand domestic coal maskete by vigorously implementing regu*
The Department of Emergy intende to use its statutory authority lations that prohibit the use of oil and gas la utility and vigorously, and thereby reduce oil importe by an estimated 300.000 to large industrial boilers, under the Powerplant and ladastrial 450.000 barrels per day by 1935. The Department is also working with Fuel Use Act of 1978.
Other agencies to assure that other Federal regulations, policies, and programa do not asedlessly hamper utilities and industry fue con-o Encourage the development of betten emiselon control technologa,es verting to coal, so that both esisting and new utility and industraal facilities can burn coal directly and still comply with current and antici-One provision of the Fuel Use Act deserves special mention, gefota cipated environmental standards, certain exemptione can be granted, it nuet be shown that use of coal-oil mixtures is not feasible.
These elurry-like mistures costein Demonstrate the capability to produce ayathetic liquide and gas pulverised coal and oil. They can be burned es liquide la an ell-fired o
from coal by the mid 19COs so that signi{icant capacity can be furnace -- either is esistics oil burning f acilities vbes it le set built in the 1990s--if increasing world oil prices make them feasible to convert eactualvely to coal, or la new facilities whea
' competitive.
eactusive use of coal is foreclosed for environmental reasone, o Develop technologies that will allow a more efficient and The technical feasibility of such mistures has been demonstrated environmentally acceptable use of coal in the 1990s and beyond.
only for short periode. hore information is needed on long-term per-formance.
Improve the competitive economics of coal by correcting oil and the range of applicatione, and especially on the ability to o
transport and store the elurries. If the mistures could be produced gas price distortions; develop cheaper ways to mine coal la as at a central plant and shipped to a variety of users, they could be environmentally acceptible manner; and discourage increases in used more widely than if they had to be produced on site.
Currect coal prices that do not reflect real increases in the cost of testing prograne should answer many of,these questiose.
producing and deliverlag coal.
V-4 V-5 e
l 1
~. -
e 140 141 f avironment al Problems of Coal Comt wetion Nitrogen saide emissione depeaJ on the amount of nitroges la the coal, sad the combustion conditions that can convert mitrogen in the air into Compliance with environmental standarde poses the greatest potential astrogen onidea. Coal contains more mitrogen than other fuela aggre-constraint ce increased direct use of coal. Unless these standards can voting the general fossil fuel problem. Special combustion techniques be met at competitive costa, many firms that might use coal will tura can reduce nitrogen oxide emissions slightly. But major new technolo-to other fuele instead. The Department of Energy has accelerated its gies. such as " poet-combustica" controle, will be necessary if reduc-efforts to develop new technologies for improved emissiona control.
tiene is nitrogen omide emissions f rom stationary sources are needed.
The Department is work ing with the Environmental Protection Agenc y (EPA) and other agencies to develop appropriate control strategies f or Partaculate emissione can be ef fectively reduced wita current technolo-complying with environmental regulatione. The future of coal conver-gaes such as electreatatic precipitatore.
But current technologies eion depende la large measure on the success of these efforts.
are not se effectave 6ar the very small, respirable particulates most
[
closely as sociat ed with health and visibility effects.
These small 8
Although coal utilisation is affected by many environmental standards, particulates act as carriers for trace elemente and hydrocarbone, many air pollution is'the major problem.
Some of the water pollution and of which may be tonic or carcinogenic. Alternative controle, such as solid wastes problema affecting coal use arise from the techniques
" bag houses." may be neeJed to reduce respirable particulate emissione, used to reduce air emiselona (rom coal combustione.
Such controle have act yet been used widely by utilities.
The air pollution control standards that individual utility and Water po!!utica and solid waste problema have plagued cost use for industrial coal-burning plante met meet depend largely on the age and many years. More stringent standarde set by the Federal Water Pollu-g location of the facility. Mos t plante that esisted la 1975 must meet t aos Cont rol Act Amendmeats of 1977 and the Resource Conservation and the emission standarde in the Clean Air Act's State implemmatation Recovery Act (RCga) of 197b may create new sets of problema for the i
Flame (Stre). New facilities met meet New Source Perf ormance Stan-technologies used to control sulf ur dioside emissione, p.
dards (NSFS) =4ich are currently being revised. Those new f acilities for which construction was started before September, 1978, emot meet This brief review shoue that the problema of coat coat,us t ion are the emiating MSPS standards. Facilities for which construction began veracus and formidable. Several post-combustion cleanup technologies k
later will have to meet the forthcoming NSFS standards and the still are being introduced to mitigate these problems.
If succeaeful they undefined new requimente for visibility maintenance.
By 1985 less vall f acilitate the continued direct use of coal as a primary source 4
than 15 percent of coal burned na the U.S. will be af fected by the of, electricity until improved and ineshaust ible energy sources are revised MSFS. but by 1990 more than one third will be subject to the avaalable.
Also, synthetic fuels and improved ef ficiency technole-A mew standards.
In addition to these minimum standarde. epecial gles, discussed later in this Chapter, ces inherently avoid eene of permitting procedures are required by the Clean Air act that will lead the emissione probleen of direct combration techniques.
D f to tighter controle in pristine areas and la areas not attaisias beelth etendarde.
Sulfur Oside Controle - Sulfur saide emissione from direct coal combustion can be controlled in three general wayan i
Air Pollutant Riske -- Coal combustion emite a variety of air polle-r tante that may damage the environment and public health -- including sulfur dioside, nitrogen osides. particulates, hydrocarbpas, and o at the front end (before combustion). thsough use of low carbon monomide.
Compliance with esisting sulfur dioside esassion sulfur coat or cleanias of higher sulfur coat; etandarda is the most costly. Closely related and possibly even mos's dif ficult to (egulate and control are the sulf ates formed from sulfur o at the back end (after combustica) through the removal of dioside and particulate matter. Sulf ates may have sagnaficant effecte sulfur osades from the flue gas; and 4
on human health and ecology. They can be transported several hvadred miles in the atmosphere and them " washed out" in the form of " acid o during specialised combustion processee (for instance, flu-
!l renne." which adversely af fect both plante, animal life, and humane.
idased bed combustiM. throush chemical capture of sulfur un Together, sulfur asides and sulfates are likely to constitute the caldes as se part of the combustion process.
lk eingle most important near-term constraint on direct coal use.
V 'i V-6 j.
e
\\
1
- g.
142 Fluidised bed combustion (FSC) is another way to meet air pollution use el low aultur cual or clemaang of higher sulf ur coal are two common standards with high sulfur coats.
The coal burne is e fluidised bed ways to meet current MsFS and SIFe. especially for older plante. T%ey of coal and limestone. Sulfur dioside is captured chemically by the may not estaofy the standards for new plante required by the Clean Aar limestone and discarded with the ash.
Small industrial scale FSC Act Amendmeate of 1977.
Use of lower sulfur coal, obtenaed with or units are available now and the Departeemt of geergy le encouraging without physical cleaning, is an attractive method to meet current dem>astratione.
Larger-scale utility systema require more technical emission eteadards because is coste less than back-end (post-combue-development and initial commercial demonstratione. In the near term, tion) controle. Dog is funding RD&D for pre-combustoon coal cleaning iaJustrial FSC systema should provide energy at about the same cost as at $10 million in FY 1979 and $14 million in FY 1960.
~
coeventional coal combustion with FCD. Aside from their environmental advantages. F3C systems could also become more economical and ef fi-Movever, revised MSFS will require removal of a substantial Part of cient once they ha o been fully demonstrated and are belag built the coat's original sulfur content.
Without use of another cont rol in comartclat quantities.
Developaeot of fluidised bed combustice technolody (such as flue gas deoulfurisation), most f ront-end cleengp systema is funded at $41 million in FT 1979 and $4s million in FY will act meet the new etsedarde. One method that will. however, as 1980.
solid solvent refined coat (SRC-1), an ash-free. hydrogenated Solid coal product that may meet the stricter standards for new plante Because of the critical importance of environmental controle for direct wit hout post-combustaca control.
On the other head, sees of the cool use and the uncertain relative costs of all these approaches in int e rmediat e products of such technologies have been found to contata the face of current and projected standards, the Government's strategy I
potentietly carcinogenic and toxic substances. Although there se no is to develop several mejor technology optione on an accelerated basis.
regulation of these by products presently, it is clear that worker and Total funding for these ef forte jumped f ree $17 million in FY 1979 to public health imeet be protected from such effluente. la recent years.
$57 million la FT 1980.
=
'i the Government has supported RD&D on two Proceso l{or,solventrefined aguad. Funding for Synthetic Liquide and Casee coal -- one that produces a solid and Lee other a one commercial demonstration plant has bee n linked to an upcomang competition between the SEC solid and SEC liquid processee., Fundans The Government intende to demonstrate the capability to produce synthe-f or a second commercial demonstration plant would now be provided f ro" tic liquide and gas from coal by the aid 1980s so that significent the goergy Security Fund.
capacity can be built when oil prices rise enough to make eyothet!ce competitive.
Technologies for making premium synthetic liquide and i
Back-end control sys*ema, particularly flue gas desulfurination (FGid.
Pipeline quality gas free coal ces be modified to make lower cost are now being used to meet sulfur omide emission stoodards. However*
industrial fuela.
ladustrist use of synthetic fuele w!!! depend on 3
their economics and reliability have not been demonstrated fully.
the acomonic conditione in the industry and whether health and envi-New FGD systems to meet even more stringent standarde are beang rommental probleme associated with productice and use of synthetice f
developed. These improved TGD technologies particularly regenerable can be resolved.
In f act. satisfactory develoyeemt of all of these ayetana. limit the values of wastes collected and thus reduce many of technologies depende on solving environmental and worker eefety issues the water pollution and waste disposal problems which f ace,the throw-in parettel with economic and technical issues.
away" processes.
The gaergy Department's ayathetic fuel program includes a number of The new "regenerable" systems are espected to be available in the different research, pilot, saJ demonstration projects as we!! es par-Control coste for ease improve ticipation in internaticaal 360 progrees.
The following ec.ivities
$.40 to $.70 per milla, ting and 1960s.
The sulfug emission os Stue (compared systems will range from about are underways 6
with coal costs of $1.00 to $1.50 per million stue). FCD as a c_riti-can control technology that requires high priority if coal as to o
Demonstrations of the manuf acture of boiler fuele from coal to realise its full market potential. The anergy Department a budget to improve FCD technology hee been increased f ree $) million in FY 19H dispisce residual fuel oile and other products. Demonstration of a Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) process on a commercial-scale to $15 million in FY 1980.
has high priority, and related processes are being pursued la the pilot plaat phase.
V-8 V-9 4
t
m 144 145 Limited investmente in alternative ways to produce coal substi-TA3Lg y-!
o tutes for lighter oil products--such as gasoline, distillate fuels, and methanol.
FUNDINC FOR COAL SYNTHETICS (Mi!! ion Dollars) o Commercial scale use of a conventional gasification process to convert noncahing Westera coal to pipeline gee.
FY 1979 FY 1980 o support of an advanced gasification procese to demonstrate the ability to use a broader range of coals and to lower costa.
Liquefaction 204.4 122.3 Papeline (Mi-Bau) Gaeification 67.0 85.0 o Espended RD6D to stimulate industrial uses of medium Stu gas.
Low-and Medium-Stu Gao
$4.0 40.7 low stu gas and synthesis gas from coal.
Advanced Research 42.6 39.9 and Support o Development of methods to reduce synthetic fuel costs by work on highly advanced (" third generation") processes.
Total 366.0 291.7 o Research and development to define the environmental and safety effects associated with the production and use of coal-derived The pund could also make available loan guarantees for selectad coal-liquide and gases. These ef forte will ateo develop appropriate synthetic projects which need Federal assistance to overcome market barriere.
authora,Although current Federal statutes give generic loan guaren-f control technologies and the operational environmental data on which to base future standards and regulations.
tes ty to the Department of georgy, they include a nuater of r equire me nt s that inhibit the issuance of the guarantees.
The These activities spaa a wide range of processes and fuel products. But Administration will profese e difications of esisting statutes to certain elements are common to many of the processes and specitic streamlaae procedures f or making losa guarantees.
applications. Virtually all of them involve gasification, either to i
convert raw coal into gas for further processing or to convert a Improved Coal Use Efficiency residual char into hydrogen for subsequent use.
- For this reason. it abound not be necessary to build separate pilot or demonstration Many advanced coal technologies for the generation of electricity hold I!
plante f or every possible combination of processes to make liquide or the promase for much higher e f ficiencies in the convare ton f rom coal to gases.
Judicious select, ion of 860 projects, pilot plante, and com-electracaty. These technologies also reduce pollution as sa integral mercial demonstrations can develop useful informatico on a wide spec-part of the process rather than la back end clean up systems. There trum of cual synthetic options.
are several major technology optione As Table V-1 shows, the Administration contiones to support a robust o Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) uses advanced generation techniques mis of programs for synthetic fuete. Due to stringest budget require-and very high temperatura coal combustion process to generate mente the Administration had to be more selective when funding demon-electricity at high efficiency for base load applicatione.
stration projects in FY 1980. However, c.reation of the Energy Security Advanced fuel celle convert synthetic gas f rom coal to electri-Fund will help support more projecte to develop major technology o
city is electrolytic ce options.
For esample, the Fund will make it annecessary to choose between the SRC-1 (solida) and the SRC-!!,(liquida); the Federal share mediate ! wad generation.pe--another option for base or inter-j for a second SRC plant would come out of the Fund.
g 1/ Fuel calle that use natural see or petroleum-based maphtbe as Q
a V-10 fuel are becoming commercial now; but fuel celle that use coal-based fuele still require entensive development.
[t e
V-11 i
i l
l
-c..
O 146 147 o Presserized fluidised bed (PFS) combustion links fluidized bed o Timely leasing at fair market value of Federally owned coal coeluation with advanced turbines and other heat recovery reserves in the West will help increase competition withis systems to achieve high efficiencies in the generation of the industry.
This leasing program is intended not caly to electricity. This technology may be more effective is reducing permit greater coal production on Federet lande, but also to emissions than ataopheric fluidised bed combustion.
assure that such production is consistent with comprehensive land use management principles.
I o terrowed turbines can attain higher operating temperatures maJ o Fede r al B&D will seek to develop louer cost. more efficient higher efficiencies, as well as handle heavier and dirtier mining technology. The R&D program for underground and surface fuele within environmental limitations.
coal mining is funded at $4 million in FY 1979 and $4 mittion
[
in FY 1960. The Energy Security Fund will support the acceler-Most of the advanced electric generating systems that emphasise fuel sted development of eining systems that will increase both efficiency will play a longer term role la *be Nation's energy worker esfety and labor productivity, as well se meet water and strategy. One exception is a technology that combines coal gasifica-land reclamation regulatione.
(16o witd a gas turbine and a staae cycle. With advanced high-temper-ature turbines, this " combined cycle" system can raise efficiency.
e The Department of Energy will intervene as necessary before the lower generating costs, and reduce emiselone in the long term.
With Interstate Commerce Commission to accure that railroad rates conventional turbines; the efeten still has significant environmental properly reflect the marginal cost of transporting coal.
advantages; and it may permit coal-fueled electric generation, though at higher coat, even is areas with severe environmental constraints.
o Coal slurry pipelines will improve the Nation's ability to use Accordingly, one Californie utility syates and a consortium of Midwest Coel. and to deliver it economically from areas where it is utilities intend to demonstrate such a coal-fired combined cycle aimed to plaats where it can be used.
The Administration system.
supporte legislation to eneuse that coal slurry pipelines can secure necessary rights of way.
UaJer appropriate conditione, d
The Administration will fund programa for the advanced converei coal slurry pipelinee can improve competition and offer a technologies at $184 millica in FY 1979 and $142 million la FY 1980.g cheaper way to move coal.
Each systee approval requires a careful asoceement of impacts on water availability, local Coal Supply and Production ecology, and competing modes of transportation.
The Admini-h stration will work with the Congrees to develop an efficient 4
Coal use will not increase if suppliae are too costly.
Movement review procedure to minimise the time required for these toward replacement-coat, pricing for oil and gas will make coat use acessemente and to aneure prompt decisione.
much more attractive.
But coal prices are not regulated, and some oil-import savings may not occur if those prices needlessly increase.
The President,has also directed the heads of the three Federal agencies
]
having the mejor responsabilities for coal regulation--the Department t
l The Administration intende to discourage higher coal prices that do not of the, laterior, the Department of Energy, and the Environesot al i '
reflect real ircreases in the cost of producing and delivering coal Protect ros Agency--to report to him within 60 days concerning ways to t?
supplies.
It will also support development of more cost-effective increase coal production, developomat and use.
e' '
methode to mine and transport coal in an environmentally acceptable
(-
manner. Specific actions include the following:
}-
V-13 1
f 1/ This accounting does not include fundias for fluidised bed combus-tion.
I 3
V-12 Ig h
i h'
e
{
I I
t
148 149 B.
Nuclear power rical demand until new sources suc h as solar were developed.
This would cause sertove environmental. occupational safety, and social Although nuclear power has its origtsa la nuclear weapon research problems as well as the possib!!ty of a e1gatticent rise la coal conducs.d durias World War II. nuclear-generated electricity was not pricea.
1sgortant la the civ111aa economy untti the early 1960s. At t hat time.
et ter government and ladustry had jotatly funded and operated several STRATEGY FOR NUCLEAR F0WER demonstration plante, electric utiliths began to place orders for large numbers of commercial nuclear reactore. The stret of these began First, the Adelaistration seeks to re-establieb the light water reactor I
operation la the early 1970s. Ordere f or new nuclear plaats esceeded (LWR) with the once-through fuel cycle se a viable supply option and 1
orders f or coal-f ired plants through the late 1960s and early 1970s.
thereby ensure that nuclear power v111 be a algafficant sour'ce of From 1971 thruugh 194, utilittes placed ordere f or 105 auclear plante.
energy for the rest of this century.
Second. it will continue the By 1978 38 of these orders had been cancelled. In all of 1978. only developaeot of nuclear power as a poteottal backup technology for the i
two new plants were ordered.
mest century. To laplement thle strategy, the Adelaistration to pursulas two courses la part, this sharp dec!!ne reflects the downward revisions of elect-ricity. grauth f orecaste.
Equally taportant, however. public concerna o To establish the saf ety of nuclear power and resolve other have increased ovs r a settee of unresolved guentions about nuclear technics! and institutional teaues now impeding nuclear growth!
pwe r--e pe c i fica lly. the managemaet of auclear wastes, the saf ety of
,,3 reactor operations. health and environaestal riske, and pr. liferetton
,8 of nuclear weapone. Permitting delays arising from the public contro*
e To develop new technologies that permit espanded use of nuclear versies over these critical issues colacided with a substantial resources.
)
decitas la laber productivity. Some nuclear projects experienced large
]
cost overruns and of ten required what some utility eascutives viewed me If aht Water Reactore-The Techescal And institutional Teeves excesolve managenest attention.
To reestablish the Itabt water reactor se a viable supply option, three The recent accident at the Three Nile Island plant,la Pennsylvania has teoues must be resolved-reactor safety, nuclear weste management, and reinforced safety and other public concerne. But as the U.S. regards nuclear siting and liceastag. Until reactor safety and waste manage.
tte energy options af ter Three Mile Island, the role of nuclear power meat laeues are resolved. ut!!!ttee will heettate to commit to new must receive a coseidered and objective assessment.
The future of nuclear plante. Improved atting and licensing procedures are needed to d'
nuclear power will change-f.or the better. 1; eafety and other teaues ease the trasettica through this period of uncertainty by changtag the i
are succeaef ully resolved.
requiremente for planalog additional plante.
Other Federal programa are destaaed to taprove urastum utilisation so that antattag urastua The U.S' now obtates 13 percent of its electricity from auclear power
- resources can fuel a larger number of !!sht water reactare, meias a Any precipitate action to cause a large number of reactore la operation once-through fuel cycle.
This will estand the time available before noe could seriously aggravate U.S. e11 toport dependence. la the long breeder reactors need to be commercialised.
tera, auclear energy can help ensure a balanced energy supply system.
gl' la the abeence of a nuclear power. alternativa domestic energy supplF Reactor Saf etv-In response to the Three Mlle Island arctdent, the I
sources (e sp ecially coat) would be harder pressed, and their costo Frasident has established a f ully independent Presidential Coasteetos pushed higher.
Includlag nuclear esparts. The Comatoston will lavestigates
- !a rhe past, coal, oil, gas, uranium, and hydropower have coepeted with a the circumstances that led to the accident and the evente ghe.t d
each other for shares of the electricity market.
Begionak factere gegicued; h]
determined the ala, and the price of electricity has been stable. In the future, howe ve r. coal le espected to replace large quantitles of o the technical questions that the accident raises about the oil and gas la electricity and many ladustrial uses.
Coal use la operattom of safety and back-up systeam for thte plant and plant espected to double cr triple by the end of the century and contimse to deatgag and y ;,
grow at 3 percent a year thereafter. If nuclear power were act avail-f
,; [
able, coat would have to supply most of the mid and long tera elect-V-15 pn V-14
?
1'(-
p 4
,' t,
'E
'6
1 150 151 e A number of potential attee la a verlety of geologic environ -
o the nature and adequacy of the response to the accident by all levels of government.
ments should be identified and early actica should be tekee to resolve whethei to use them at em appropriate time.
A stagle nettomal repeattery for wastes abound be evolded.
Near-tera The prealdent has asked the Nuclear Re gulatory Commisatos (NEC). am independent regulatory boJy. to accelerate its schedule for puttlag s t r at egy should seek to have at least two (and poestbly three) permanent realdest NBC taspectors at every reactor ette.
Unde r repositories in operation within this centuryg tasofer as a program started to 1978, the WRC now has pernament taepectors at 20 technical sad other consideratione permit, these repositories reactor ettee coverta's 26 individual reactor units. The Freeldent has should be la different regions of the country.
Under euch a also instructed the Department of F.nergy to work closely with the NEC restomal approach, t,he geolostc. hydrologic, and other techatcal j
characteristice of the ettee and safety considerations will to de te rmine what ad ditional safety precautione may be neces sa ry.
cometitute the primary beels for selection.
Nuclear Waste Management-Radioactive wastes are generated to a wide Cometruction and operettom of eact. repository should proceed la variety of a c tivi t t ee-resea rc h, medictas, defense-related nuclear o
operettone, and la the operattom of commercial nuclear power reactore.
steps. Initial emplacement of waste, at least in the first Over thu laat decade, the public has become Sacreastagly concerned over repository. should be planned on a technically conservative whether these westes can be safely managed. This concera hea been tied beats. The wastes should be retrievable f or ses Initial period
- I r8***
The manner and circumstances la which waste would be to the queettom of whether nuclear power generettoa should be allowed to espand.
retrieved and the technical especto of waste packastag, contata-meat and handling auet be further defined.
Recogatains the urgest need to find an ef f ective soluttom to the A second mejor waste assagement concera to the dispoettion of antattag problem, the April 1977 National gaergy plea pledged to develop e national nuclear waste management po!!cy and program.
To acquire the and future uraaium mill tralitage. la the case of safettaa ettee that vieve of partirent Federal agencies and State and local interests, the pose eacesolve health riske, the Departamat of Emergy se developtag Free 1 dent establiehad an Interagency Review Group (IRG) and eeked it to prograne to stablatae taillage at the ette or remove them to other locations.
In addittom, new technologies to stab 111se tal!! age era deelga a strategy f or deallag with the weste management probles.
currently belas develged to meet the most strissent criteria.
The primary objective of waste management planalog and implemmatation away-froe-reactor (AFR) storage of spent cammercial reactor feel to to sa assure that "estettag and future nuclear waste f rom military and needed as a teaporary bridge between storage of opent fuel at the l
civ111aa acitvittee (includtag opent fuel) shon14 be teolated f rom the i
reactor ette and permansat repoettories. Possible approaches teclude bloophore and pose no eigotticant threat to pub!!c health and eefety.=
modification of as amteting storage f act!!ty (either la prowell. south The IRC developed the concept of as "interia strategic plemalag Caroltaag Norris. 1111 moles or West Valley. New York)1 cometruction beste" to use during tho' interia, atace the required environmental and 8
safety studies had not yet been cosyteted and final decastoma could of a new f acility with8s the U.g.
or cometruction of a new f acility in a remote off-ehore area.
{
not be reached.
The Adelaistrettom tekee the poettion that eoes AFE storage capacity to The IRC found the most urgent need was for a safe, permaneet respos-itory ' for high-level military and c1,111ea wastas (teclud tag eyest needed by 1983 for domestic spent fuel.
Because of thte dead 11me, use h
fuel).
Such an effort will require detailed studies of repoettery of some amisting storage f acility is preferred. Furthermore, the U.3.
3 wishes to eseure foreign usere that the it will be able to receive ettes la a wide variety of geologic environmente and diverse media, using a systems approach. Pendtas completion of the decteton procese limited amante of f oreiga apent fuel to the estaat thse serves non-under the National Environmental policy Act, the IRG has recommended Pro 111'eratica objectives.
gavironasotal impact statemente sa Aya the f ollowing actions from the interia planalogs home antattag storage f acilities were built by ladustry se a part l
V-16 I
+
of commercial reprocessing plante. Stace reprocesetag to not permitted, these f acilittee are not betag fully ut!!! sed by their ladustrial owners.
}
V.17 i!
f f
4 152 153 domestic f uel storase. foreign fuel storage and fee charges for auch it is sesential that quantione about eef ety and envirossental protec-storage shuuld be completed this year.
la addittoa, an aavironmental tion and the time 11mese with which the process 1? carried out be imp act s t a t eme nt on three poteattet ABF sites le now betag prepared.
reviewed thoroughly and necessary c hanges made.
The Administration The Adataistration has subattted legislation to Congrees to f eelemmat espects to work with the Congrees to fled the appropriate mest steps to this AFE program.
Saprove the sittas and licautas process to assure both t reater saf ety and efficiency. The Secret u of Energy will submit nuclear sittaa and The Energy Department has funded waste managemaet programa la the sauunte shawa on Table V-2.
licenatag legteletion to Compees.
Utentum Besources and Their Use E U2 Concera over whether the U.S. urastus resource base la adequate has led to preneures to accelerate the breeder program and to commit to FUNDING FOR NUCLgAR WASTg pumEMENT recehg. hcun M ne We ucmeWu h prend MWm (M1111oa of Dollare) e eyetematic appraisal of domestic urastua resources le beleg conducted through the National Urastua Resource Evaluation program (NIRg).
It g gp9 yy 1930 te destaaed to lay an adequate foundation for future feql cyc1q dectolone and domestic and foreiga attlity planalog.
Connercial III Defense U1 To recover the ma alaus energy from the domestic resource bese, the Spent Fuel Dispos.1 II 21.
Department of Energy has developed prograan to Away from Reector storese gl
[
o Sa taulate private industry R&D to taprove light water reactor operattag ef ficiency.
Total 4$9 8
o Cons t ruc t an energy efficient gas centrifuge enrichment plant deelseed to produce 3 3 millica " separative work unite" (sW).
Nuclear Sittna and Licensina 1.eatolecion--l.ast y' ear the Adalaistration The first 2.2 million SW are acw planned to be la operation proposed legislation to reduce the uncertalattee la the nuclear power around 1933.
Addittomal 1.1 million SW modules can be adJed up plant atting and licenates process ar.J to shorten the 10 to 12 year to destga capacity ao demand grows.
The added capacity permits f
period it ouw takes to plan, deetga and build a plant.
The Adata-operettom of the enrichment enterprise la a way that conserves 1stration will coatinue to work with Congrees to reduce unnecesesty and urastus resources by recoverlag a greater portion of the fleelle dup!!cative steps la the esting and 11constag process without comp ro-uranium isotope, statsg safety.
I o Develop advanced lootope. separation technology (AlsT).
This f
The key provietone of the bill tecluded early alte selection. envirun-technology. if succeaefully developed, would permit ecomonte
' I mental and saf ety review. and "banktag" of a ette bef ore construction production of nuclear fuel from depleted urastua "taile "
l peraita are filed for. It also provided for early approval of stanJar-thereby lacreestag by abou t 20 percent the omriched urent b
dised plant designe ladspenduet of the ette selection process and recoverable from known reserves.
'l comblains the application f or a cometruction permit and an operettas l
license. The bill transf erred much of the reeponsibility to the States o
Emantee advanced converter reactor concepte in cooperetten and called for more public tavalvement to the decletoamaking process.
with foreiga developers an alternative voy to Sacrease as urastua conversion officioney.
I e De taent's f undlag for these activities le summarised la 1/ Special authorisattoa request accompanytag proposed legislation l
for away f rom reactor storage f acilities, y.gg b
V V.18 O
e 4
i o g
154 155 TABLg v.3 This Administration. however, believes that sapid steps toward breeder comme rcialis ation are not needed now.
The gialog of the breeder FUNDING Fut It! PROVED URANital UTILIZATON progree depende on the econoesc need ior the technology and on monpro-Otillion Do11ere) literation leeuse.
It to also A tok ed to resolution of the reactor safety and weste assagenett problema effecting the whole nuclear FT 1979 FY 1980 option. The leading breeder candidate (11gund metal iaat breeder). It c omme rcialis ed, would necessarily lead to reprocessing a nd to wide-Matsonal Urantua Easource spread use of plutonium.
The president. In the content of his ace-Evaluation (MURE) 69 84 proliferation policy directed def erral of such activittee and cancel-1.ight Water Reactor 24 8
lation M the C11ach River greeder Reactor prMec t wMle alteras-ggg, g tive fuel cycles are essained.
Cas Centrifuge Operations 241 409 While preliminary results of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle
& Support (including Evaluation (INFCE) do not suggest the likelihood of risk-proof breeder cometruction) al t e rna t ine. Imp rovement s over current and p roposed practices are being developed. The INFCE la considering various technical approaches Advanced lootg e Separation 54 55 to improving the pro!!!aration resistance of breeder and converter reactor fuel cycles.
It le also studytag the appropriate timias for Advanced Converter Progree 3
E their development and commercial use.
(Cao Cooled Therme1 Reactore)
Over the past decade, economic arguments beve been used to justify the Total ig
}{1 pace of the breeder program.
Such justifications hinge on a fear key f actore-the overa!! demand f or electricity, the urangue resource base.
Revenues f rom Enrichmeng
-262
-493 reactor efficiency. sad the relative capital coets of light water Operatione Eactuding reactors and breeders. If the demand f or electricity stowe rapidly. If l
Centrifuge Plant but domestic uranium resources are limited, and if breeders coat little Including Sales of more than light teater reactore, then rapid commercialisation would be Enrichment Services.
economically ettractive. Such perceptione prevailed is the late 1960s and early 1970s when electricity generetton, particularly nuclear electricity, was growing rapidly.
New Technoloates Since the 1973-74 c11 embargo, several circumetances have changed.
In the long tera, the U.S. will rely increasingly on renewable or Projections of electricity growth rates have dropped from 7 percent a essentially inexhaustible sources of energy.
The breeder reactor is year to around 3 to 4 percent for the long tera.
Light water reactor f
one long-term energy option because it has the capability to produce growth has slowed because of the problems noted earlier. ladicacias more fissile (" burnable"s f uel than it comeunes. The breeder reactor that uranium resources will last longer.
Finally. early optimistic would not only sustata itself but would also generate fuel f or light eettmates of breeder
- t. actor capital costo ranging from 03 to I.3 water reactore.
times those of itght water reactore have been replaced by estimates of 1.2 5 to 1.75.
Interest to the breeder reactor grew out of a desire for an option that would not 41eappear with the inevitable exhauettom of natural fiselle These changed f actors have been reflected in a recent analysis of the urastua.
The interest intenetfied when early settantes pronteed even pace of breeder de ve lopment.
Typical of thle analyste is the case lower cost electricity from the breeder than from the 11ght water ausmarised la Figure V-2.
Nuclear electricity demand la described by reactors, and resulted la programs for early commercieltaation.
the amount of installed nuclear capacity in 2P00 and in 202C; uranium resources are described in terme of price; and breeder capital costo are described la relation to LWR capital coats.
Figure V-2 shove that V-20 with reasonably attainable tapiovemente in current LWR f uel ef f iciency, breeders would not be needed u nt il after 2020 to aves cases.
The exceptione are when uranium costs are high. nuclear demand is high, and V-21 O
4 c
156 157 0 2 breeder capital costs are low. Daly under the most extreme cases would g
the breeder be economically justified in the 2000-2010 period. succese-fut development of advanced tootope separation technologies would ease
.I O
the pressure for ao early breeder even further.
In auch a case, the 5
osed for se early breeder occure only f or 400 GWe on 11ae in 2000, for breeder capital costs of 1.25 times those light water reactor, and for E sO high uraniu. prices.
h k
la light of this economic analysis, the f our pose 1ble 3D&D program a
=
strategies will be considered belows
{
=
5 I
o Late Breeder.
This strategy assumes that the resource base la O
W adequate for a long period of once-through light water reactor 2
N
.t: _
N operatione, that the nuclear growth rate will be low, or k
=
that breeder economice 6111 be unfavorable. Consequently, g
a o gg d3 breeder development would be pursued at a low level and commer-E cialisettom of the breeder would be deferred se long se poe-uj N
e sible.
A decistos on a demonstration plant would be deferred k
h G
until the 1990s, as would be reprocessing development.
Light g
w O
E
.p water reactor improvemente, advanced converter reactor develop-O 3 $$
3 ment, advanced tootope separation, ureatum resource evaluation.
l k
2j and cent,rifuge facility deployment and development wou11 be S,E_ 3 *9
, s..
se g
'gNg,I.
=.
3.dae.
.,.ed.r.
T,1..tr.t.3,.... e. t me r..o.c e...e.
b 8b auclear growth, and breeder economica do not require rapid 1
~E~
3 e
g Q
commercialisettoo of the breeder.
gewever. because of uncer-
)
g Sg M
\\N talaty, the otrategy would maistela sufficient floalbility and h-m-O optione so that program shif ts could be made easily and eff ec-J tively whenever information or events dictate.
The programs g.,
for light water reactore, advanced converter reactors. advanced
= Y.g l *C tootope separatica, urentum resource evaluation, and centrifuge g
f acilities would be eaghaelsed, but lose strongly than la the g,C g
g late breeder.
8 E
I I
E greeder development would continue at a moderate level with h
as emphaste on engineering and component development. A decioloe 3
t c
on a demonstrattoo plant could be taken in 1981. but ateo could g
,g S
.g I
be deferred until 1986-1990.
plane for both a 20-year and a O,
--)
g
,c
'g C
g C,
I g
30-year commercialisation program could be developed.
gopro-gg o
cesslag technology would be developed, but commercialisation deferred. This program attempts to aloimise risk at a moderate E
a coat.
F ta o Early Breeder. This otrategy soeunes that the ureatus are base gg g
g g
to limited, that the nuclear growth rate will be high, and/or p
S that breeder economics will be very favorable. It taplice p
g,$
a V-23 mm0 V-22 e
e o
158 159 an early commi tment to the breeder, with complettom of a con-C.
Policy for Coal and Nuclear Power captual design study by 1981, comattaent to a demonstration factitty by 1982, and initial commercial deplayment 20 years The Nation's ald-term energy attuation depende on successfully mata-thereafter.
Reprocesstag development would be given high tatning and espanding the use of coal and nuclear pouer.
These two priority through commercialisation.
Progrees for ligh t water sources are commercially available today and can be enlarged if the reactor taprovement, adva nced converter reactor development, markets grow and their critical environmental and social problems are adva nced tootope separation, and uranium resource evaluation overcome.
would be de-esp haels ed.
This strategy would require a reld-
=
tively high cost. high risk program.
The markets for coat and nuclear pouer are closely tied to the growth in demand for electricity, although coal can also be used la large o
Espanded Nuclear. This strategy assumes that nuclear power will ladustrial facilittee. The Fuel Use Act gives the Department of play' a predominant role la our energy future, with lastalled Energy the regulatory tools to attentate the use of coal and nuclear capacities at least equal to the highest values soeused la the energ'y resources.
analysis.
Aggremelve prograne would be. indica t ed for light water reactore, advanced converters, and breeders--with commit The primary constraints on this movement away from oil and gas artee mente to commerciattaa them at the earliest posolble dates.
f rom the regulatory and technical problems surrounding coal and nuclear For the breeder, this would call for a demonstration plant power.
Development of methods to use coal more ef ficiently, convert dettelon la 1981 and plannlag f or both a 20-year and a 30-year coal tato clean f uela, saJ 1mprove breeder reactors will be taportant deployment schedule.
Reprocessing, through the commercial-for the long term as coal and conventional uranium f uels are exhausted.
1:ation stage, would be accelerated. The program would be very It w111 be different to make thie long-term tranettion, however, costly but would provide the greatest assurance of malateintag without increased use of direct coal burning and light water reactore.
and deploying the nuclear option.
If forts to develop long-term optione must be balanced with programs to soeure that direct use of coal and nuclear power will be available la The Adminis tra tion favors the hedaed stratenv.
The breeder program the aid cere, consistent with pub!!c safety and maalaan envirosasatal j
itself includes the 11guld metal f ast breeder (1JiFBR) as the prima ry protection.
option. but would also support two othere-the light water breeder V_25 reactor (LWBR) and the gas cooled fast reactor (CCFR). Each has particular strengths and weaknessee and provides a hedge against fallure of one particular, approach.
j-The Administration *e dec1ston act to build the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, a la rge I.MFBR demonstration plaat, needs to be visued to light of the analysis that has taken place over the past decade.
l
=
Furthermore, for a variety of technical and economic reasone, the r
C11ach River ?lant le no longer considered to be adequate la else or design for a comme rcial demonstration. Those elemente of the Clinch
}
River project which can be used 1ste!!1 gently will be completed. The f
erstema design will be completed together with certata components which l
have value f or test purposes.
In place of the C11ach River plant, the Administretton proposee sub-
&eeptual deetga study as the central focun of the statuttom of a l.MF8R program. The roeutta of thte study together with recommendatione regarding the future cca:ee of this program will be presented to the Congrees in March 1981.
V-24
. t e
O 6.
f
.