back

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(updated on Dec. 2006)

1.  ENERGY, ECONOMIC AND ELECTRICITY INFORMATION

The United States of America's (U.S.) nuclear power industry is large and generally comprehensive. The industry includes most phases of the fuel cycle, from uranium exploration and mining to nuclear waste disposal, but does not include reprocessing. The recently proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) might eventually lead to the re-initiation of reprocessing activities in the United States. In addition to domestic contributions, many services and supplies to the nuclear power industry are also available and sourced as imports. Most of the U.S. nuclear power industry is privately owned and managed and is decentralised. Federal and State governments also play a significant role in the industry. Federal government and regional agencies own and manage nine operable power reactors and have partial ownership of other reactors.

1.1.  General Overview

The United States covers the midsection of North America, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean plus Alaska and Hawaii. The total area of the United States is over 3.5 million square miles (9.4 million square kilometres). Climate varies greatly across the nation. Average annual temperatures range from 9 degrees Fahrenheit (-13 degrees Celsius) in Barrow, Alaska, to 78 degrees Fahrenheit (26 degrees Celsius) in Death Valley, California. Rainfall varies from less than 2 inches annually at Death Valley to about 460 inches at Mount Waialeale in Hawaii. Most of the United States sees seasonal temperature changes and moderate precipitation. The Midwest, the Middle Atlantic States, and New England experience warm summers and cold, snowy winters. Summers are long, hot, and often humid in the South while winters are mild. Along the Pacific Coast, and in some other areas near large bodies of water, the climate is relatively mild all year. Hawaii is tropical. The moderate climate in much of the United States has encouraged widespread population settlement.

The population in the United States as of July 2004 was nearly 294 million people (Table 1). Population density is nearly 30 persons per square kilometre, with 80% living in urban areas. Economic statistics for the United States are regularly published by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Statistics. Table 2 shows the historical Gross Domestic Product (GPD) statistics. The energy situation in the United States is provided in the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) regularly updated Country Analysis Brief for the United States. Table 3 shows the US energy reserves and Table 4 the historical energy statistics.

TABLE 1. POPULATION INFORMATION

TABLE 2. GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP)

TABLE 3. ESTIMATED ENERGY RESERVES

TABLE 4. ENERGY STATISTICS

1.2.  Energy Policy

The United States has a market-driven economy. Decisions affecting resources, prices, technology development, and other matters pertaining to energy are made by the private sector within the context of government regulations and laws. However, federal and local governments encourage the development and use of selected energy resources through funding of research and development, tax allowances, service charges, regulations, and other mechanisms. Favoured resources can vary by jurisdiction. Additional features of federal policy are contained in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT1992) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT2005) which, included energy efficiency standards, nuclear power incentives, alternate fuels development, and renewable energy.

Energy statistics and projections for the United States are regularly published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). An EIA publications list is available through http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf.html. Publications include regular energy, electricity, and nuclear statistics and short and long term energy projections.

1.3.  The Electricity System

1.3.1.  Structure of the Electric Power Sector

The U.S. electric power industry is a combination of traditional commercial electric utilities and less traditional electricity-producing, transmission, distribution, and marketing entities. Utilities include investor-owned, publicly owned, Federal, and co-operative firms. Historically, the larger companies were vertically integrated though structures have changed in many regions from regulated service monopolies to more complex, unbundled arrangements. The Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978 and the continued deregulation of the industry encouraged the emergence of many types of non-utility power producers and marketers. These now number several thousand.

Approximately three quarters of the electricity generated by utilities is generated by investor-owned utilities though the distinction between such utilities and independent producers are sometimes hard to identify. These utilities are, for the most part, franchised monopolies that have an obligation to provide electricity to all customers within a service area. Most provide for transmission and distribution of electricity, though the distinctions among these services are breaking down as the electric industry becomes more deregulated. Their shares are publicly traded and their areas of business operation are expanding into new areas, sometimes unrelated to the provision of electricity or even energy. The role of utilities in electricity generation varies by jurisdiction though there has been a trend toward more competitive generation and transmission of electricity.

The EIA publishes data related to the electric power industry and to the energy industry in general. The EIA's Country Analysis Brief for the United States publishes data and assessments of the United States in particular. Forecasts and projections to 2025 for the United States are published in the Annual Energy Outlook. Historical data are provided in the Annual Energy Review. Current publication information is also available.

A number of utilities in the United States are publicly-owned with the most visible being the federally-owned Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), one of the nation's largest regional utilities. TVA is also one of the larger nuclear power generating organizations. Several other federal publicly -owned utilities also exist with responsibilities varying widely and often crossing state borders. Publicly -owned utilities also include municipal operations, public power districts, irrigation districts, and various State organizations. Many municipal electric utilities only distribute power, though some larger ones produce and transmit electricity as well. Federal Government utilities primarily produce and wholesale electricity.

Numerous co-operative electric utilities were established to provide electricity to their members. The Rural Electrification Administration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture was established in 1936 to extend electric service to rural communities and farms. Co-operatives are incorporated under State law and are usually directed by an elected board of directors.

Non-utility power producers include co-generators, small power producers, and independent power producers. These lack a designated franchise service area though they might provide power to specific clients under contract. Many are generally referred to as qualifying facilities (QFs) because they receive certain benefits under Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). To receive status as a QF, the co-generator must meet certain ownership, operating, and efficiency criteria established by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) such as producing electricity and other forms of useful thermal energy for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes. A large portion of the installed capacity of non-utility generating facilities is classified as a cogeneration QF facility. The greatest capacity share by fuel is natural gas. Renewable energy, including hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, wood and waste combined make up about a tenth of the capacity.

Independent power producers (IPPs) in the United States include wholesale electricity producers that are often unaffiliated with franchised utilities in the area in which they sell power. Utility-owned facilities within some jurisdictions might be required to behave as if they were IPPs. Thus distinctions among utility and IPP facilities are often unclear. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) established a new class of IPPs - exempt wholesale generators (EWGs) or "merchant plants". EPACT exempted EWGs from the corporate and geographic restrictions of earlier legislation. Public utilities are allowed to own IPP facilities through holding companies and have formed subsidiaries to develop and operate independent power projects throughout the world.

The historical pattern of an industry dominated by electric utilities continues, but has shifted shift toward a much more significant role for non-utilities, including affiliates of former utilities. The distinction between utility and non-utility has thus become very difficult to make.

1.3.2.  Policy and Decision Making Process

Public policy toward electric utilities is implemented through legislation and regulation of the industry. The decision making process in the industry is decentralized, because electricity generation is decentralized and generators are, mostly, privately -owned, though subject to Federal and State laws and regulations. There are at least six major pieces of Federal legislation that cover factors including the structure of the industry, interstate commerce (transmission), environmental issues, and operating procedures (see Section 5.2 for a brief description of these laws). Federal involvement in electric power regulation is based on a clause of the U.S. Constitution that only the Federal Government may regulate interstate commerce. Thus, not only does the Federal Government regulate interstate commerce, but State governments are prohibited from doing so. Federal regulation thus complements State and local regulation by focusing on the interstate activities of electricity producers, but leaving the regulation of intrastate activities to the States and other jurisdictions.

Three laws, the Federal Power Act, PURPA, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) have formed the basis for Federal regulation of wholesale electric power transactions. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the primary agency responsible for this Federal regulation. EPACT instructed FERC to order wholesale wheeling of electricity and authorized FERC to set transmission rates. Within the U.S., California originated the concept of separating operators from owners of transmission systems. FERC endorsed the idea in 1996 when it issued FERC Order 888 that defined rules under which utilities might operate their transmission systems, while allowing for a competitive wholesale electricity market (i.e., open access rules). This encouraged the creation of regional transmission groups or Independent System Operators (ISOs) under FERC jurisdiction. FERC Order 889 of 1996, established an electronic same-time information systems (OASIS) for available transmission capacity to give all customers equal, timely access to information. The concept of competition within the electric power industry is however still in its infancy and approaches to this complex subject are still evolving.

The States regulate most activities of privately -owned electric utilities. Federal, State, municipal, co-operative, and other utilities are often not directly regulated. Public Utility Commissions (PUCs), which exist in most States. In many States PUCs regulate the prices for electricity that privately-owned utilities might charge to retail customers while other States allow market or market-like mechanism to play a role in electricity pricing. After competition in the wholesale market was permitted through Federal legislation, interest arose in retail competition, especially in regions of the country where prices significantly exceeded the national average (i.e., California and the New England States). The process has not been smooth and consistent and several States have stepped back from initial market reforms. Several other States have taken a more deliberative approach toward deregulation, especially following unanticipated price spikes in California and elsewhere, and others have withdrawn from initial ambitious targets. The ultimate impact on electricity markets in the United States has yet to be determined and might in fact become a continually evolving process.

1.3.3.  Main Indicators

Electricity data (Table 5) and energy related ratios (Table 6) follow.

TABLE 5a.

TABLE 5b.

TABLE 6. ENERGY RELATED RATIOS

2.  NUCLEAR POWER SITUATION

2.1.  Historical Development and current nuclear power organizational structure

2.1.1.  Overview

The early growth of the U.S. commercial nuclear power followed President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace programme that encouraged civilian nuclear power applications while retaining a strong nuclear weapons technology. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 made possible several demonstration and development reactor programmes and created the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to supervise nuclear developments. Also in 1954, the AEC proposed a "Five Year Power Reactor Development Programme," which called for building five separate reactor technologies. The programme prepared the way for private industrial participation in the nuclear power field. Numerous joint industry-government study groups were established to examine power reactor concepts. The first nuclear power station in the United States began operating in Shippingport, Pennsylvania during 1957.

Utilities placed many orders for large reactor systems between the mid-1960s until roughly the time of the Three Mile Island event in 1979. The process of placing orders had however actually begun to decline prior to Three Mile Island as many projects were cancelled or deferred as anticipated electricity demand growth slowed, nuclear construction costs grew, and safety procedures were re-examined. A large number of construction projects continued after 1979 though sometimes schedules were deliberately drawn out to match regulatory and market conditions. Some of these projects were also later cancelled. The last new reactor in the United States, Watts Bar 1, was completed in 1996. No additional plants have been ordered. Only one construction permit (Watts Bar 2) remains in effect and the TVA is examining whether it might renew construction at the site.

As early as 2001 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) began to express a belief that nuclear construction might resume in the United States. This statement coincided with the inclusion of new nuclear construction objectives in the U.S. Administration's Energy Policy statement of 2001. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also included incentives to new nuclear construction, including production tax credits, loan guarantees, and insurance against regulatory delays. There have still been no firm utility commitments to order, build, and operate new nuclear power units, but utilities have come to the NRC with some sixteen proposals to license as many as twenty-five reactors for construction in the United States. A first commercial operation, if these applications are followed with commitments to build, could come as early as 2014.

2.1.2.  Current Organizational Chart

An extensive industrial base supports the operation of nuclear power plants in the U.S., including reactor manufactures, numerous companies supplying major system components, both mechanical and electrical, and companies supplying equipment and services to plants.

2.2.  Nuclear Power Plants: Status and Operations

2.2.1.  Status of Nuclear Power Plants

The nuclear power industry grew to its present size following construction programmes initiated during the 1960's and early 1970's that anticipated nuclear power would become a low cost source of electricity. Increases in nuclear generating capacity during 1969-1996 made nuclear power the second largest source of electricity generation in the U.S., following coal. Nuclear power has supplied nearly 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation for over a decade and a half. Better utilization of generating capacity permitted nuclear power to maintain this relative position despite the end of new plant construction during the 1990s and extended shutdowns of several reactors for maintenance and refitting especially during the late 1990's. Several nuclear reactors were permanently closed during the 1990s, though many were small or prototype units. The last reactors closed were during 1998. Firms that wish to leave the nuclear power generating business have since found more gain selling their reactor assets than closing them. The lack of any new reactor completion any earlier than the mid 2010s (beyond restarting Brown's Ferry 1 scheduled in 2007) and the unlikelihood of gaining significant additions to plant efficiencies mean that nuclear power's share of electricity in the United States should decline at least into the mid-2010s. If few commitments to build new reactors materialize, this anticipated period of nuclear power share decline might last even further.

Annual nuclear electricity generation has more than tripled since 1980 to 764 billion kW·h in 2003. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/nugen_data.xls) Nuclear power has accounted for around 20% of total electricity generation in the United States for well over a decade. The positive nuclear power record has been influenced by growth in reactor productivity as measured by an increase in capacity factors from 56% in 1980 to 66% in 1990 and around 90% at present. Many individual units have achieved 95% or higher capacity factors. There were 104 licensed nuclear reactors in the U.S at the end of 2004. One of the licensed reactors, Browns Ferry 1, has not "operated" since 1985 though the plant's owner/operator, the Tennessee Valley Authority, intends to restart the reactor by May 2007. Reactors are located at 65 sites (plants) with most located in the eastern half of the country. Reactors had a total net summer capacity of 99.988 MW(e) by the beginning of 2006. Table 7 shows the current status of nuclear power plants.

Nearly 50 years of operational experience and steadily improving licensee performance have changed the way that the U.S. regulates nuclear power to a more risk-informed and performance-based approach. To encourage a sustained high level of safety performance of U.S. nuclear plants, important oversight processes have incorporated risk insights from quantitative risk analysis. Efforts also continue to revise regulations to focus requirements on plant programs and activities that are most risk significant.

2.2.2.  Performance of Nuclear Power Plants

An increasing need for additional power in the U.S. along with improved economic and safety performance have led most licensees to seek to extend their operating licenses for an additional 20 years beyond the their initial 40-year limits. Forty-two reactors have had their operating licenses extended since 2000. Another nine reactors have license extension applications pending before the NRC. Applications to extend the licenses of at least 27 additional reactors are anticipated through 2015. Expectations are that essentially all operating reactors in the U.S. will eventually apply for and receive extended operating licenses. The NRC publishes the updated status of such applications on its website. A review of this list indicates that some of the oldest units in the U.S. have yet to apply.

2.2.3.  Plant Uprating

Licensees have also implemented power uprates throughout their history as a means to increase the output of their reactors. Power uprates are classified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in three groups: (1) measurement uncertainty recapture uprates of less than 2 percent implement enhanced techniques for calculating reactor power, (2) stretch power uprates are typically less than 7 percent and do not usually involve major plant modification, and (3) extended power uprates, larger than stretch power uprates, require significant modification to major balance-of-plant equipment. Extended uprates have been approved for increases as much as 20 percent, though these might take place over several stages of plant modification. As of April 2003, the NRC has approved 101 power uprates adding about 4619 MW(t) to the generating capacity in the United States. This is equivalent to more than 4 average sized nuclear power plants. The NRC publishes information on anticipated uprates on http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates.html#status. By the NRC's calculation approximately 807 MW(t) in additional uprate authorizations are pending and 3795 MW(t) are anticipated through 2011. Eight of the anticipated uprates would be extended uprates.

2.2.4.  Nuclear Power Development Plans

The future of nuclear power will depend on several factors including successfully dealing with nuclear waste issues, certainty of safety regulations, the reduction of nuclear construction costs, and favourable government policies. Progress has been made on each including the 2002 federal approval of a long-term high level waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain and vendor and utility efforts to reduce the costs of building new nuclear power plants. (The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site must still be licensed by the NRC.) The NRC has also streamlined its licensing process for future nuclear power reactors, an area in which it has lacked recent experience. The goal of each of these changes is to shorten construction lead-times and to improve the economics of new reactor technology. The U.S. government goal is that these and similar actions might restart the construction of nuclear power plants by the end of the decade.

The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy maintains material related to the status of U.S. nuclear power plants including links to additional information.

TABLE 7. STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

TABLE 7b. TABLE OF OPERATORS

TABLE 7c. TABLE OF NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM SUPPLIERS

2.3.  Supply of NPPs

2.3.1.  Nuclear Steam Supply Systems (NSSS)

Four companies supplied nuclear steam supply systems now operating in the United States. Westinghouse Corporation built the majority of pressurized water reactors (PWR) though Combustion Engineering (CE) and Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) also built PWRs. Babcock & Wilcox also supplied nuclear steam generators, replacement nuclear steam generators, and nuclear heat exchangers. Westinghouse and CE are now part of Westinghouse while Areva now owns elements of B&W's nuclear technology. General Electric designed all presently operating boiling water reactors (BWR) in the U.S.

Reactors that are to be sold in the United States must either have their designs certified by the NRC or have the equivalent of design certification occur during the COL process. There are now four new reactor designs certified by the NRC for construction in the United States; the System 80+ and AP600 and AP1000 of Westinghouse, and the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) from General Electric. Hitachi often cooperates with General Electric on the ABWR design in the United States. There are now several reactor designs that are either undergoing certification or pre-certification procedures with the NRC. General Electric's ESBWR reactor is now undergoing the certification process while Areva's Evolutionary Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) is anticipated to apply for certification during 2007. Designs undergoing pre-certification procedures include Westinghouse's IRIS, the South African/Westinghouse sponsored Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry's International Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US APWR). General Atomic's GT-MHR and the Atomic Energy of Canada ACR series of heavy water reactor designs are also facing continuing reviews.

2.3.2.  Equipment and Service Suppliers

A large number of companies in the U.S. provide equipment and services to the nuclear power industry. These services cover the entire nuclear fuel cycle spectrum, from suppliers of main components to providers of routine equipment and services found in most power plants. Reprocessing is not available in the U.S. Steam generators for PWRs and some high quality steel castings are no longer made in the United States for nuclear reactors. Domestic suppliers in the U.S. must often compete with imports. This has resulted in the slow growth of nuclear plant construction and the internationalisation of the nuclear energy business. The American Nuclear Society's annual Buyer's Guide, published in their journal Nuclear News provides a partial list of equipment and service providers to the nuclear industry.

To help assure high quality products, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) certifies nuclear equipment suppliers. To obtain a nuclear certificate of authorization, a company must comply with quality assurance requirements set forth by the ASME. This programme is open to foreign companies. Presently over 200 foreign and U.S. companies hold ASME nuclear certificates of authorization.

2.4.  Operation of NPPs

2.4.1.  Plant Operation

The 104 operable nuclear reactors in the United States are mostly privately owned and operated though nine are operated by government-owned entities. Other nuclear power plants have non-managing participation by municipal and cooperative electricity supply firms. If several announced mergers are completed, twenty-three companies or management organizations will have commercial reactor operating licenses from the NRC.

2.4.2.  Training Services

Several private companies provide training for nuclear plant operators. Training facilities also exist at each operating reactor. The Institute of Nuclear Power Plant Operations (INPO) sponsors a widely used training programme. INPO was founded in 1979 as industry's response to the Three Mile Island accident. It promotes the highest levels of safety and reliability in commercial nuclear power plants. Among its many activities, INPO manages a nuclear utility training accreditation programme.

2.5.  Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

All activities of the commercial nuclear fuel cycle are conducted in the United States, except reprocessing. Spent fuel reprocessing for waste management in the U.S. has been discouraged by public policy, and the once-through fuel cycle is the present policy along with an active R&D program on advanced fuel cycle alternatives. A re-examination of reprocessing is included in the National Energy Policy of 2001 and subsequent policy expressions. The United States government is now promoting a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) that could lead to the resumption of reprocessing activities. Each fuel cycle stage is subject to competition and supply from international sources which in many cases dominate the industry segment. At present the U.S. nuclear fuel supply is highly dependent on imports for mined uranium concentrates, uranium conversion, and enrichment. Virtually all fuel fabrication requirements are met by domestic sources. The Energy Information Administration publishes data on the nuclear fuel cycle.

2.5.1.  Uranium Production and Conversion

There were two uranium mills and four uranium in-situ leach plants in production in the United States in the first quarter 2006. One conventional uranium mill and two in-situ leach plants were in standby status in the first quarter 2006. These numbers reflect a minor recovery in the industry. There is increased interest in uranium mining and milling while uranium prices are at elevated levels. Uranium concentrate was produced at one mill from mine water during that year. During 2005, 3.0 million pounds of uranium concentrate (U3O8) were produced in the United States. Canada is the major source of concentrate imports though supplies have also come from Australia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Namibia, and a few additional locations.

The United States has one uranium conversion plant located at Metropolis, Illinois. Major sources of conversion service imports include Canada and Russia.

Data on uranium is published on http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/dupr.html.

2.5.2.  Uranium Enrichment

The uranium enrichment business in the United States was transferred in 1993 from DOE to a government-owned company, the USEC Inc. USEC was created in 1992 under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to make the U.S. more competitive in the global enrichment industry. USEC was privatised in 1998 via an initial public offering of common stock. USEC operates an enrichment facility (leased from DOE) at Paducah, Kentucky. A second facility at Portsmouth, Ohio has stopped operations. The facilities used gaseous diffusion technology that is seen as dated and expensive. Both USEC and a second group, Louisiana Energy Services (LES), are licensing more modern facilities, gas centrifuge enrichment facilities. USEC has developed a DOE gas centrifuge technology demonstration facility to be built at Portsmouth, Ohio. LES proposes to use Urenco Technology currently used in Europe for a facility to be built in New Mexico. Operations at the new facilities should reach initial target capacity by 2010 or shortly thereafter. At that time the future of the gaseous diffusion facilities at Paducah and Portsmouth will have to be decided.

The Russian Federation and U.S. signed a 20-year, government-to-government agreement in February 1993 for the conversion of 500 metric tons of Russian highly enriched (HEU) from nuclear warheads to low-enriched uranium (LEU). The LEU value at the time was $12 billion ($8 billion for enrichment and $4 billion for natural uranium and conversion components). By the end of 2004, of 6,824 metric tons of LEU derived from 231.5 metric tons of HEU were delivered to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), the United States executive agent for the HEU Agreement. (Megatons to Megawatts) This represents the equivalent of over 9,300 nuclear warheads, and over 46 percent of the agreed 500 MTU of weapons derived HEU. USEC is responsible for the purchase of the enrichment component of the HEU-derived LEU. Under an Agreement signed in March 1999 the natural uranium and conversion components are purchased by a partnership of three uranium suppliers (Cameco, Cogema and RWE Nukem) known as the Western Consortium. Russia has recently indicated that it will not renew the arrangement after it expires in 2013.

Enrichment services have also been imported from facilities in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, and elsewhere.

2.5.3.  Fuel Fabrication

Three companies (Framatome ANP, Global Nuclear Fuels, and Westinghouse) fabricate uranium fuel in the United States for light-water reactor fuel. Plants are located in Columbia, South Carolina; Wilmington, North Carolina; Richland, Washington; and Lynchburg, Virginia. Some product is exported to Japan.

2.5.4.  Nuclear Waste Management

Commercial nuclear power reactors currently store most of their spent fuel on-site at the nuclear plant, although a small amount has been shipped to off-site facilities. The spent fuel inventory in the United States was 42.7 thousand metric tons of uranium as of December 2000. In 2000 EIA projected that by 2010, the reactors in the United States will be discharging ~2,000 metric tons annually and the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) discharged over the decade would amount to approximately 23 thousand metric tons of uranium.

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) manages nuclear wastes for the U.S. Department of Energy. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, provides for the siting, construction, and operation of a deep geologic repository for disposal of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The NWPA limits the emplacement of waste at the first geologic repository to 70,000 MTHM until such time as a second repository is in operation. DOE will provide a report to the U.S. Congress between 2007 and 2010 on any need for a second repository.

The President signed the Congressional Joint Resolution on July 23, 2002, designating the Yucca Mountain site to be considered for licensing based on the results of more than 20 years of intensive science and engineering work. DOE is preparing a license application for submission to NRC to receive authorization to begin construction of a repository at Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is located about 160 kilometers northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, on unpopulated desert land owned by the Federal government. NRC will review this license pursuant to 10 CFR Part 63 after it is submitted. DOE has the responsibility to transport spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high level waste (HLW) from storage locations to an NRC-licensed geologic repository. Spent fuel and HLW disposed at Yucca Mountain are expected to include about 63,000 MTHM of commercial spent fuel, about 2,333 MTHM of DOE spent fuel, and the equivalent of about 4,667 MTHM (or MTHM-equivalent) of DOE HLW from defense-related activities.

2.6.  Research and Development

Both private industry and the Federal Government conduct research and development (R&D) for the nuclear industry. Private companies actively investigating reactor technology, enrichment technology, and nuclear fuel design. One of the main institutions for private research funding is through the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). EPRI, through membership fees, conducts R&D in many nuclear-related areas as well as other areas of the electric power industry.

The Federal Government supports R&D through specific budget allocations for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and for the Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. Private companies, under contract with DOE, operate a series of national laboratories. DOE includes 26 laboratories and institutes, many of which are involved with the nuclear fuel cycle.

In response to a 1997 Presidential Advisory Committee recommendation, the DOE created the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) in 1998 to overcome the principal technical and scientific obstacles to the future use of nuclear energy in the United States. NERI also helps preserve the nuclear science and engineering infrastructure within our Nation's universities, laboratories, and industry to advance the state of nuclear energy technology and to maintain a competitive position worldwide. The original NERI program addressed a wide spectrum of R&D topics:

• proliferation-resistant reactors or fuel cycles;
• new reactor designs with higher efficiency, reduced cost, and enhanced safety;
• smaller reactors for applications where larger reactors may not be advantageous;
• new techniques for on-site and surface storage and for permanent disposal of nuclear waste;
• advanced nuclear fuel and;
• fundamental nuclear science and technology.

The NERI program was refocused in 2004 to allow universities to participate prominently in the principal DOE programs that address advanced nuclear energy systems.

2.7.  International Co-operation and Initiatives

During 2006 the United States government proposed the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) with a goal of seeking "to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of economical, carbon-free nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand. This will use a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation. It would achieve its goal by having nations with secure, advanced nuclear capabilities provide fuel services - fresh fuel and recovery of used fuel - to other nations who agree to employ nuclear energy for power generation purposes only. The closed fuel cycle model envisioned by this partnership requires development and deployment of technologies that enable recycling and consumption of long-lived radioactive waste. "Elements of the program would include the development of fast burner reactors to dispose of long lasting components of spent fuels and a series of small-scale reactors to meet the needs of more limited power markets.

During 2003 the director of the US Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology was elected Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Nuclear Energy Agency. The United States Secretary of Energy also signed an agreement with the Republic of Korea's Minister of Science and Technology to conduct joint research on advanced proliferation resistant fuel cycle technologies. The United States also signed International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (I-NERI) agreements with Brazil, Canada, France, Japan and the Republic of Korea to foster collaborative research and development (R&D) on advanced nuclear technologies.

In January 2000, the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology sponsored an International Workshop on Generation IV Nuclear Power Systems in Washington, D.C. Participants from 10 countries, the IAEA Office of Nuclear Energy, and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency agreed to move forward and consider joint collaborative research and development of next generation nuclear power technologies. This initial workshop resulted in the official establishment of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) in July 2001.

The objective of GIF and the U.S. Generation IV program is to develop and demonstrate advanced nuclear energy systems that meet future needs for safe, sustainable, environmentally responsible, economical, proliferation-resistant and physically secure energy. Under U.S. DOE leadership, this initiative has led a group of ten countries, the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States) with Euratom to jointly plan the fulfillment of this objective. In 2001, the GIF was chartered, establishing a Policy Group as the highest policy-making body, an Experts Group as the technical advisory body, and a Secretariat to administer and coordinate GIF activities. In 2003, the GIF, together with the Department's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, issued A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. Based on the Roadmap, GIF countries are jointly preparing collaborative R&D programs to develop and demonstrate candidate concepts.

A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems documents a comprehensive evaluation of nuclear energy concepts and selects the most promising ones as candidates for next-generation nuclear energy system concepts. For these concepts, detailed R&D plans were developed for establishing technical and commercial viability, demonstration and, potentially, commercialization. More than 100 experts from twelve countries and international organizations collaborated to complete the Roadmap over a period of two years. The Roadmap was submitted to Congress, followed by the U.S. Generation IV Implementation Strategy, which provides the strategy for implementing the Generation IV program in the United States.

While the Department is supporting research on several reactor concepts, priority is being given to the Very High Temperature Reactor technology and advanced hydrogen and electricity generation capabilities. The United States is currently working closely with France, Japan, Korea, South Africa, and the United Kingdom through the GIF to establish a multinational research program to develop the technologies needed to support the design and construction of the VHTR.

In addition, R&D has been initiated on Generation IV fast-spectrum reactor concepts under existing bilateral International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (I-NERI) agreements. Effective and early collaboration was established with France and Korea; other active collaborations on fast-spectrum and thermal-spectrum systems have been established with Canada, Euratom, and Japan.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's international program activities are wide-ranging. They encompass nuclear policy formulation, international safety cooperation and assistance, international technical information exchange, and cooperative safety research. These activities support NRC's domestic mission, as well as broader U.S. domestic and international interests. Maintaining a program of international cooperation enhances the safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable civilian uses of nuclear materials in both the U.S. and throughout the world. As a regulator of the world's largest civilian nuclear program, the NRC's extensive experience contributes to international programs in areas such as nuclear reactor safety, nuclear safety research, radiation protection, nuclear materials safety and safeguards, waste management, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission helped found the International Nuclear Regulatory Association (INRA) in 1977, an organization of senior regulators from nations operating a substantial majority of the world's commercial nuclear reactors. The NRC also benefits significantly from the regulatory experience and safety research programs of other countries.

The United States has also actively participated in the policy and implementation aspects of nuclear initiatives under the Group of Seven (G-7) industrialized nations, the Group of 24 Nuclear Safety Coordination (G-24NUSAC) mechanism, and the Nuclear Safety Account administered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD/NSA). These institutions have focused on coordinating multi-layered international efforts to enhance nuclear safety in countries with Soviet-designed nuclear power reactors. The NRC works with other nations with major nuclear power programmes to further nuclear safety research. These nations include France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

The NRC has concluded technical information exchange and general safety cooperation arrangements with the regulatory authorities of 34 countries plus Taiwan. These arrangements serve as communications channels for the prompt and reciprocal notification of safety problems that could affect both U.S. and foreign plants. They also provide the framework for bilateral cooperation in nuclear safety, safeguards, waste management, and environmental protection as well as for NRC's assistance activities to help other countries improve both their regulatory skills and their health and safety practices.

NRC currently participates in cooperative research with other countries, directly through bilateral agreements as well as multilateral agreements with OECD - NEA member States, and the European Union (EU). These programs examine key technical safety issues in regulating the safety of existing and proposed U.S. commercial nuclear facilities and in the use of nuclear materials. At present, NRC manages and coordinates approximately 90 bilateral and multilateral energy agreements with 25 countries which include, but are not limited to, research activities in the areas of: Thermal-Hydraulic Code Application and Maintenance, Severe Accident Research Program, Probabilistic Risk Assessment Program, Steam Generator Tube Integrity Program (SGTI), Instrumentation and Controls, Human Factors, Nuclear Fuels Research, Advanced Reactor Design, Fire Modelling Research, and Aging Research of Safety Components and Wire Systems. NRC also includes support for the Agency for International Development (USAID)-related work for Russia, assisting the Russian Regulatory organization (GAN) in developing analytical risk assessment methods and evaluation techniques for light water reactors.

The U.S. continues nuclear safety cooperation with countries of the former Soviet Union and countries of central and Eastern Europe. These activities strengthen their regulatory organizations, train foreign inspectors, and work toward operational safety and risk reduction. Countries receiving assistance include Armenia and Kazakhstan.

The United States played a leading role in resolving implementation issues for the International Convention on Nuclear Safety, which entered into force in October 1996. The United States also participated in the successful negotiation of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, as well as the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage.

2.8.  Human Resources Development

The United States has turned around the trend of declining enrolment at nuclear engineering schools over the past five years. The work force in the nuclear power industry is aging and it is feared that many professional skills might vanish as the staff at nuclear power and research facilities, universities and national laboratories retire. Without any active program of construction in the nuclear power industry, it is not clear what level of trained personnel will be required by the industry in the future. The long term trend toward a decline in the number of university programs offering nuclear engineering degrees reversed course in the late 1990's and several schools have added programs in the past few years.

The U. S. DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology has an active program to encourage the development of academic programs related to nuclear power. The American Nuclear Society, a professional organization, also promotes the improvement of academic work related to nuclear power at higher education institutions.

3.  NATIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

3.1.  Safety Authority and the Licensing Process

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the principal regulator of the nuclear power industry. The NRC's mission is to regulate the Nation's civilian use of by-product, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defence and security, and to protect the environment. The NRC has regulatory responsibility for:

• Commercial reactors for generating electric power and nonpower reactors used for research, testing, and training
• Uranium enrichment facilities and nuclear fuel fabrication facilities
• Uses of nuclear materials in medical, industrial, and academic settings and facilities that produce nuclear fuel
• Transportation, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials and waste, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities from service

3.2.  Main National Laws and Regulations in Nuclear Power

The U.S. Congress has enacted several laws, which delineate a comprehensive regulatory programme governing the design, construction, and operation of nuclear energy plants. Transportation and disposal of radioactive waste is a major concern of the industry and the public, and there is specific legislation to address such activities as well.

Legislation outlined in Table 8 affects the U.S. nuclear industry but also covers the entire electric power industry. The legislation outlined in Table 9 affects the nuclear power industry specifically. These lists are not exhaustive; additional national legislation affecting the nuclear industry also exists. Although the Federal Government has an extensive role in the nuclear industry, there is also a regulatory role for the individual states and some local jurisdictions.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT2005) included several provisions to promote the development of advanced nuclear power technology in the United States. Promotional elements of the act included production tax credits for the first advanced reactors being built, standby support for the first reactors to allow for compensation of if regulatory bodies fail to meet their timetables for project licensing, and potential loan guarantees for new plants. Many of these incentives would apply only to the first plants being built. Other features of EPACT2005 included the renewal of the Price-Anderson Act which governs the liabilities of nuclear power generators in the United States and the promotion of a Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) which would permit the implementation of a new reactor design.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT1992) specified a new nuclear power plant licensing process. Under the new licensing procedure, an applicant who seeks to build a new reactor, can use off-the shelf reactor designs that have been previously approved and certified by the NRC. After reviewing the application and holding public hearings, the NRC may issue a combined construction and operating license (the previous process separated these licenses and which were issued at different times). When the applicant uses an NRC-certified design, safety issues related to the design will have been already resolved, and the main concern will be the quality of reactor construction.

Before authorizing power operation at a reactor, the NRC performs comprehensive testing and acceptance procedures. The new licensing process is codified in part 52 of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations and is ready for use after certification of the new designs is completed. The new license procedure seeks a more predictable process and less financial risk to the applicant.

In 2001, NRC completed its rule for the licensing of a geologic disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada in 10 CFR Part 63. Thus, a comprehensive regulation framework is now in place for use in reviewing a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain facility.

The revised 10 CFR 70 became effective on October 18, 2000. The revised safety regulations for special nuclear material provides a risk informed and performance-based regulatory approach that includes: (1) the identification of performance requirements for prevention of accidents or mitigation of their consequences; (2) the performance of an Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) to identify potential accidents at the facility and the items relied on for safety; (3) the implementation of measures to ensure that the items relied on for safety are available and reliable to perform their functions when needed; (4) the maintenance of the safety bases, including the reporting of changes to the NRC; and (5) the allowance for licensees to make certain changes to their safety program and Fabrication Facility and gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facilities will be reviewed for compliance with 10 CFR 70.

TABLE 8. IMPORTANT LEGISLATION COVERING THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY

Two important issues of national concern are the disposal of spent fuel and decommissioning of retired nuclear plants. The Federal Government collects a fee of one mill (one-tenth of a cent) per kilowatt-hour from companies for nuclear-generated electricity under a general contract with nuclear-generating firms. This money goes into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which pays for all aspects of nuclear waste disposal, including the geologic repository, transportation of the waste, and support of State and local government involvement in the project. The DOE annually evaluates the adequacy of the fees collected for nuclear waste disposal. Expenditures of all waste fund monies are subject to Congressional oversight and authorization. While these charges are passed on to consumers in a regulated environment, they are treated as costs under competitive electricity provision.

The NRC has established procedures for site release and minimum funding levels for decommissioning. Under NRC rules, the minimum financial assurance that licensees must provide to decommission each reactor is determined by a sliding scale that considers primarily the type and size (as measured in megawatts-thermal) of a reactor. Required decommissioning funds for individual reactors amount to several hundred million dollars for each unit. Controversies have arisen at specific sites regarding whether funding is sufficient or in excess and whether decommissioning funds are the property of the ratepayers or of the reactor owners. The resolution of these issues has varied from reactor to reactor.

TABLE 9. IMPORTANT LEGISLATION AFFECTING THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY

Starting 2003 the United States Congress considered an Energy Policy bill the encompassed a broad area of energy reforms. The bill failed to pass in the Senate during 2003 and 2004 and was deferred until at least 2005 for further consideration. If the bill is passed in both legislative houses and signed by the President it could have major effects on US policy toward nuclear power and energy in general. There is no certainty regarding passage or content prior to those events.

4.  CURRENT ISSUES AND DEVELOPMENTS ON NUCLEAR POWER

4.1.  Energy Policy

Federal Government policies concerning commercial nuclear power are carried out through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Active DOE programs involve new reactor and fuel cycle technologies, reinitiating power plant construction, and radioactive waste management.

The DOE has recently initiated a Generation IV (GenIV) program to develop innovative and new commercial reactor designs by 2030. This program has both domestic (US) and international components. In 2002 the Generation IV International Forum selected six reactor design concepts for research attention through broad consortia of international supporters. Individual GenIV participant nations are not committed to each of the design concepts, thus many, including the U.S., might limit their research support within this group. Significant progress was made during Energy Secretary Abraham's meeting with other energy ministers in Tokyo in September 2002. A multilateral Framework Agreement was signed in February 2005, permitting planning of specific collaborative R&D.

The Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) was established on October 1, 1998 to provide the Department of Energy (DOE) and Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) with independent advice to on science and technical issues related to the DOE's nuclear energy programme. NERAC reviews elements of the NE programme and provides advice and recommendations on long-range plans, priorities, and strategies. NERAC also provides advice on national policy and scientific aspects on nuclear energy research as requested by the Secretary of Energy or the Director, NE.

In response to advice of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), DOE created its Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) to address the technical and scientific issues affecting the future use of nuclear energy in the United States. NERI is expected to help preserve the nuclear science and engineering infrastructure within the Nation's universities, laboratories, and industry; to advance the state of nuclear energy technology, and to maintain a competitive position worldwide. DOE also established the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (I-NERI) to serve as a key mechanism for bilateral international collaboration in developing Generation IV energy systems. Both NERI and I-NERI have recently been refocused on supporting the principal Office of Nuclear Energy R&D programmes: the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.

The DOE's Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) Programme, initiated during fiscal year (FY) 2000, is a programme focused on performance of operating nuclear power plants. The primary areas of focus for the NEPO programme include plant aging and optimisation of electrical production. NEPO is also a public-private R&D partnership with equal or greater matching funds coming from industry.

The Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) programme sponsors nuclear research at colleges and universities with nuclear engineering programmes, options, or research reactors. The programme seeks to support basic research in nuclear engineering, assist in nuclear engineering student development, and strengthen the academic community's nuclear engineering infrastructure.

The DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible for developing a geological repository for the disposal of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The DOE plans to store the radioactive waste in a deep geologic repository at Yucca Mountain Nevada. The proposal was approved by federal agencies, including the Congress during 2002 though challenges by local government agencies remain active. The project's long-term objective is to initiate repository operations during 2010.

4.2.  Privatisation and deregulation

Restructuring of the electric power industry to provide customers a choice among competitive energy providers varies in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. The Energy Information Administration publishes a information on the present status of electricity restructuring in each State. As of September 2002, programs to provide retail access to competitive energy providers were active in 17 States and the District of Columbia. Restructuring programs were delayed in several States and suspended in California. Many states do not have retail choice programs. However, virtually all states had some elements of restructuring within their wholesale electricity supply systems and no state has fully abandoned a government role in electricity supply. Moreover, the Federal Electricity Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires a degree of open access to electricity transmission facilities, though in practice open transmission access is limited by available transmission facilities.

One early concern regarding nuclear-based power generation was the existence of "stranded costs" within the industry. Stranded costs are basically cost structures, including debts, which accepted and passed along to consumers under a regulated system but which are not involved in pricing under a restructured system. Among those restructuring states, which had nuclear power generating facilities, most have built allowances for nuclear power stranded costs into their reorganization programs. Moreover, most nuclear power generators have proven to have lower short term variable costs than competing generation facilities. (Hydroelectricity is a notable exception to this generalization.) This has resulted in high rates of capacity utilization (recently averaging around 90% among operable units) at existing nuclear facilities and generally profitable operation under restructuring.

While operating nuclear power plants have managed to meet the requirements of any restructuring, the question of whether restructured markets favour or discourage nuclear power investments has yet to be resolved. Two reasons for this situation stand out. First, existing licensed designs for nuclear power have been "too expensive" to yet attract serious new investor attention in the United States. Also, historic construction periods, perhaps seven years or more, were too long to attract investor attention in a competitive environment where short-term profits are a major concern and prolonged dilutions of earnings diminish corporate common stock values. In addition to these factors, new investments in the U.S. electricity market as a whole have nearly ceased during 2001-2002 in the face of a slow economy.

4.3.  Role of the government in the nuclear R&D

The United States government's involvement in nuclear research and development includes both programs supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology and in activities conducted at an array of national laboratories. Financial support is also provided to research at several private and state government funded universities scattered throughout the nation. Research covers a variety of topics ranging from commercial nuclear power to the fuel cycle to weapons technology to basic nuclear physics.

4.4.  Nuclear Energy and Climate Change

The relationship between nuclear energy and climate change is an active area of government and private sector interest in the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration publishes many documents on climate change issues. The Environmental Protection Agency coordinates most U.S. activities related to global warming. There are many nongovernmental agencies that also discuss the interactions of nuclear energy and climate change. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) which represents U.S. nuclear energy industry interests discusses industry views on nuclear power and climate change. The lead agency in the U.S. hydrogen policy is the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

4.5.  Safety and waste management issues

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the primary agency involved in nuclear safety regulation. This regulatory responsibility includes safety evaluations and rules related to waste management. The management of commercial spent fuel waste is the responsibility of the nuclear utility generators. DOE manages nuclear waste generated from the Government's national security and energy programs, and is also responsible for developing a geological repository for the disposal of the Nation's spent fuel and high level waste.

4.6.  Other issues

The Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology's Nuclear Power 2010 (NP2010) intends to complete the construction of the next commercial nuclear power plant in the United States within the next ten years or less. In the NP2010 process the Department of Energy intends to provide financial assistance in key licensing/regulatory areas including combined operating licenses and reactor design certification. Government sites might also be made available for nuclear power investments. The Department of Energy also is a key player in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) which is intended to contribute to the commercial development of next generation reactor designs by 2030. Congressional websites (Senate and House of Representatives) can often be accessed for transcripts and broadcasts of committee hearings on nuclear power.

The decline of the domestic uranium mining industry in the United States has been a matter of concern to some authorities. At present most uranium used in the United States is imported and services processing and enriching uranium fuels are also imported. At present the United States does not reprocess spent fuels though the topic is now subject to review under the present Administration's Energy Policy guidelines. Other items and goals subject to investigation include research into spent fuel waste transmutation and the advancement of advanced commercial reactor designs.

REFERENCES

Appendix 1

INTERNATIONAL MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL AGREEMENTS

Appendix 2

DIRECTORY OF THE MAIN ORGANIZATIONS, INSTITUTIONS AND COMPANIES INVOLVED IN NUCLEAR POWER RELATED ACTIVITIES