Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 149 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), 145, Alternative reactor systems, 83-109, 258 (see also nuclear powerplant technology) advanced light water reactor design concepts, 94-96 high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), 99-102, inherently safe reactor concepts, 102-105 light water reactors, safety and reliability of, 87-94, 102 comparison of fossil units to all nuclear units, 89 overview of U.S. reactors, 87 reliability concerns, 88 safety concerns, 87 probabilistic risk assessment, 88 unresolved safety issues, 91 small reactor, 105-107 standardized reactor, 107 American Electric Power Co., Inc., 136 American Nuclear Society, 88, 214 American Physical Society, 218 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 182 architect-engineers (AEs), 15, 22, 87, 107, 114, 135, Argentina, 200, 202, 203 Arizona Public Service Co., 115, 125, 127 Atomic Energy Commission, 101, 144, 218, 227 Atomic Industry Forum, 214 Audubon, 32 Australia, 197 Babcock & Wilcox Co., 87 Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 5 Bechtel Corp., 127 Bluefield Water Works and Improvement Co. v. West Virginia Public Service Commission, 51 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), 138 Boston Edison Co., 118 Brazil, 202, 203 Brown & Root, Inc., 127 Browns Ferry, 6, 87, 122, 123, 153, 213 Buss, David, 228 California, 136, 151, 216, 231 Calvert Cliffs plant, 5, 122 Canada, 17, 18, 23, 71, 96, 98, 99, 109, 138, 179, 182, 191, 200, 203, 237 Carolina Power & Light Co., 118 Carter administration, 203 case studies, 240-244 Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), 96 Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), 151 C. F. Braun, Co., 136 Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., 116, 157 Colorado Public Service Co., 101 combined construction and operating license (COL), Combustion Engineering, Inc., 87 Committee for Energy Awareness, 214, 236 (CRGR), 130, 157, 159 Commonwealth Edison, 59, 66, 67, 126, 148, 168 Congress: Congressional Research Service (CRS), 201 House Committee on Science and Technology, 8 House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 144 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 8 Conservation Foundation, 237 construction permit (CP), 145, 148, 151, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 165, 168, 170 Consumer Product Safety Commission, 164 Council on Environmental Quality, 149 Critical Mass Energy Project, 214 Data Resources, Inc. (DRI), 33, 34 Department of Energy (DOE), 33, 38, 44, 46, 60, 61, 65, 102, 136, 149, 154, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 165, policy options, 253 Department of Housing and Urban Development, 149 701 Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program, 151 Department of Justice, 132, 171, 260 Attorney General, 145 Department of Transportation, 149 Detroit Edison's Fermi Breeder reactor, 213 case study, 242 Donaldson, Thomas, 230 Duke Power Co., 5, 60, 66, 67, 136 DuPont, Robert, 222, 233 Ebasco Services, Inc., 127 Edison Electric Institute, 32, 214 Eisenhower administration, 144 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRS), 46, 62, 63, 73, Energy Information Agency, 32 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 145, 148, 168 Federal Aviation Agency, 149 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 138, 255 Federal Register, 166, 167 Federal Trade Commission, 163 financial and economic future, 13-15, 29-76 cost of building and operating nuclear powerplants, cost of electricity from coal and nuclear plants, 64 future construction costs of nuclear powerplants, 66 impact of risk on the cost of capital, 70 increase in nuclear construction leadtimes, 62 rapid increase in cost, 58 reasons for increased construction costs, 60 electricity demand, 13, 29, 31-42 sources of uncertainty, 33-41 estimated impact of industrial electrotechnologies in nuclear power in the context of utiltity strategies, 71-76 alternative utility construction plans, 73 estimated cost of nuclear plants under construction, implications for Federal policies, 74 rate regulation and powerplant finance, 13, 46-57 allowance for funds used during construction construction work in progress (CWIP), 50, 52, 56, history of the deterioration in the financial health of impact of changes in rate regulation in electricity implications of utilities' financial situation, 50 47 obstacles to a long-term commission perspective, 56 phased-in rate requirements, 52 public utility commissions (PUC), 50, 51, 52, 56, 57 utility accounting, 53 recent past, 29 reserve margins and retirement, 42-46 economic obsolescence, 43 loss of availability of generating capacity, 44 retirements due to age, 43 Florida, 59, 72, 92 Florida Power & Light Co., 59, 72, 115, 136 Font St. Vrain, Colo., 9, 101, 102, 128 France, 22, 23, 67, 189, 191, 196, 199, 200, 202, 203 siting of plants, 198 Fuel Supply Service, 136 Garrett, Pat, 240 General Accounting Office (GAO), 171 General Atomic Co., 101 General Electric Co., 87, 94, 180, 218 General Public Utilities (GPU), 68, 136 Great Britain, 22 Great Lakes Basin Commission, 149 gross national product (GNP), 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, 40, 41 Hodel, Donald, Secretary of Energy, 162 Illinois, 56, 136 India, 202, 203 Indian Point Station, 150 Indiana Public Utility Commission, 56 Industry Degraded Core Rulemaking Program, 88 Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, 9, 19, 20, 25, Significant Events Evaluation and Information Network Systematic Assessments of License Performance Japan, 22, 23, 102, 191, 194, 199, 200, 203 siting of plants, 198 Kasperson, Roger, 222 Kemeny Commission, 231, 233 Korea, 194, 200 League of Women Voters, 230, 236, 239 Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 164 Atomic Energy Act, 21, 22, 143, 144, 151, 154, 160, Clean Air Act, 151 Clean Water Act (CAA), 151 Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, 50, 51 Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 144 Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 203 Fuel Use Act, 72 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 151 Nelkin, Dorothy, 230 Netherlands, 231, 234 New England Electric System, 72 New Hampshire Public Service Co., 136 New Jersey, 68, 118 New York, 56, 135, 150 New Zealand, 197 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 202 Northeast Electric Reliability Council (NERC), 44, 45 Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. (NEIL), 68 assessments of efforts to improve quality, 132-134 classifications for INPO evaluations, 132 detecting and improving poor performance, 130 technical approach, 127 comparison of manpower requirements, 122 external factors, 121 technological factors, 118 new institutional arrangements, 134 larger role for vendors in construction, 135 138 service companies, 136 variations in quality of construction and operation, performance of selected U.S. LWRs, 117 nuclear powerplant technology, 15-18 light water reactors (LWRs), 15, 16, 18, 83, 84, 85, construction records, 115 process inherent ultimately safe reactor, 17, 18, 103, pressurized water reactor, 84, 85, 86, 90, 94, 95, 96 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 4, 5, 6, 16, 18, approval of site suitability, 170 Committee for Review of Generic Requirements, 130, 157, 159 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 145, 148, 149, 155 Performance Assessment Team (PAT), 131, 132 PSAR, 150 Regional Administrators, 167 Regulatory Reform Task Force, 158 Safety Evaluation Report (SER), 145, 148 Nuclear Safety Analysis Center (NSAC), 129 nuclear steam supply system (NSSS), 135, 145, 179, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, 227 Nucleonics Week, 181 NUS Corp., 118 Ontario Hydro, 138 operating license (OL), 148, 149, 151, 160, 161, 163, 165, 168 Oregon, 151, 215, 217, 221 |