I :i I United States General Accounting Office i GAO Report to Congressional Requesters May 1990 NUCLEAR SCIENCE U.S. Electricity Needs and DOE’s Civilian Reactor Development Progrm 141706 <;AO,‘RC:ED-90-15 1 United States GAO General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-239101 May 29,199O The Honorable John Glenn Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate The Honorable Marilyn Lloyd Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Research,and Development Committee on Science,Space, and Technology House of Representatives In responseto your letters dated September 11,1989, and August 30, 1989, and subsequentdiscussionswith your offices, we agreed to pro- vide information on (1) projected U.S. electricity needsuntil the year 1998 and (2) the status of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Civilian Reactor Development Program to meet future electricity needs.In addi- tion, we agreed to obtain the views of selectedutility company and nuclear industry officials on DOE'S efforts to promote the development of advanced reactors. Electricity projections developed by the North American Electric Relia- Results in Brief bility Council (NERC) appear to be the best available estimates of future U.S. electricity needs.NERC, which represents all segmentsof the utility industry, forecasts that before 1998 certain regions of the country, par- ticularly in the more heavily populated eastern half of the United States, may experience shortfalls during summer peak demand periods. These forecasts consideredthe utility companies’ plans, as of 1989, to meet electricity needsduring the period; these plans include such mea- sures as constructing additional generators and conducting demand management programs. Working closely with the nuclear industry, DOE is supporting the devel- opment of several reactor technologiesto ensure that nuclear power remains a viable electricity supply option. In fiscal year 1990, DOE'S Civilian Reactor Development Program was funded at $263 million. DOE is using these funds to support industry-led efforts to develop light- water reactors (LWR), advanced liquid-metal reactors (LMR), and modular high-temperature gas-cooledreactors (MHTGR) that are safe, environmen- tally acceptable,and economically competitive. The utility company Page 1 GAO/RCED-90-181 Civilian Reactor Development Program E!239101 officials do not expect these reactors to be operational until shortly after 2000. Utility company officials in the Southeast and nuclear industry officials that we interviewed generally support DOE’S approach to developing advanced nuclear reactors. However, the utility officials do not plan to purchase advanced nuclear reactors until after 2000 becauseof the high costs of constructing the reactors and public opposition to nuclear power. One official said that DOE should nonethelesscontinue its work in this area in the event these circumstanceschange and nuclear power becomesan option in the next 6 to 10 years. We performed our work between October 1989 and February 1990 in Scopeand accordancewith generally acceptedgovernment auditing standards. To Methodology assessfuture U.S. electricity needs,we relied, for the most part, on pro- jections developed by NERC, an independent council representing all util- ity industry segments(including investor-owned, federal, state/ municipal, and rural electric cooperatives). DOE officials recommended that we use NERC’S annual lo-year electricity needsforecast.4NERC devel- oped its forecast by extracting data on the peak demand, capacity resources,generating unit planned additions, and retirements from data provided to DOE by utility companies,and from regional data submitted to it directly from its member councils. We interviewed NERC officials who prepared these projections. To determine the status of DOE’S Civilian Reactor Development Program, we reviewed planning documents, strategy papers, schedules,and other DOE reports related to the program. We also analyzed DOE budget data and verified this information with DOE officials. In addition, we inter- viewed officials in DOE’S Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program, and the Advanced Reactor Program. We also discussedDOE’S Civilian Reactor Development Program with officials representing five Southeastern util- ity companies and nuclear industry officials from General Electric, Gen- eral Atomics, and Westinghouse. We discussedthis report with DOE and NERC officials, all of whom gener- ally agreed with its contents, and incorporated their clarifications where Y 41989 Reliability Assessment: The Future of Bulk Electric System Reliability in North America 1989- 1998 (Sept. 1989) and 1989 Electricity Supply and Demand for 1989-1998 (Oct. 1989). Page 8 GAO/RCED-90451 Civilian Reactor Development Program Page 6 GAO/RCED-90-181 Civilian Reactor Development Program Appendix V Descriptions of Light-Water Reactors Modular High-Temperature Gas-CooledReactors Civilian Nuclear Liquid-Metal Reactors Reactors Appendix VI 32 Major Contributors to Resources,Community, and Economic Development 32 Division, Washington, D.C. This Report Tables Table I. 1: Electricity Share of All Energy Consumedby 11 the Industrial, Residential, and Commercial Sectorsin 1988and2000 Table II. 1: DOE Expenditures in Civilian Reactor 18 Development Program Figures Figure I. 1: NERC-U.S.Additions by Fuel Source(1989 13 Through 1998 ForecastedPercentages) Figure 1.2:Peak Demand and Projected Available 16 Resources(1989-98 Forecast) Figure 111.1:NERC4J.S.Map 26 Page 7 GAO/RCED-90-161 Civilian Reactor Development Program Page 9 GAO/WED-90-151 Civilian Reactor Development Program Appendlx I pr0jeet.d U.S. Energy Needa 198998 As an end-useconsumer of energy to fuel their generators, electric utili- ties consumedabout 31 percent of the total U.S. energy consumption in 1979. This share of total U.S. energy consumption increasedto 36 per- cent in 1988 and, according to the Department of Energy (DOE), is expected to rise to about 42 percent by 2000. When the amount of energy used in transportation is excluded from the total of all U.S. energy consumed,electricity made up about 49 percent of the total U.S. energy consumedin 1988 and is expected to increaseto about 66 percent by 2000. Current DOE electricity forecasts indicate that the industrial, commer- cial, and residential sectors are all expected to substantially increase their consumption of electricity during the decade.Table I. 1 illustrates the actual and projected growth in electricity used in these sectors in 1988 and 2000. Table 1.1: Electrlclty Share of All Energy Consumed by the Industrial, Residential, Percent of total energy consumption which is electricity and Commercial Sectors In 1988 and Sector 1988 2000 2000 Industrial 14 18 Commercial 41 48 Residential 32 39 Source: Prepared by GAO from DOE data. US. utilities are undertaking efforts to meet this increased demand for Utilities *r Are Taking electricity that may occur in the 1990s.Although many existing electri- steps to Meet the cal generating units are projected to be retired by 1998, utilities are Increased Demand for planning to construct additional electricity generating units and better managetheir existing capacity by increasing the use of demand manage- Electricity ment programs.” Generating Unit Additions According to NERC, approximately 729 new electrical generating units and Retirements are planned to be added to the nation’s supply system between 1989 and 1998, which will increase the supply by about 71,400 MW." Nonutility “Demand management programs include all activities undertaken by electric utilities or their custom- ers to influence the amount and timing of electricity use to reduce peak demand. “This total excludes the Shoreham nuclear plant. According to Long Island Light Company officials, Shoreham will not be permitted to operate as a nuclear facility in the state of New York, and power generation is not expected to occur ln this assessment period. Page 11 GAO/RCED9@151 Civilian Reactor Development Program Projected U.S. Energy Needs ifi8fi.98 Figure 1.1: NERC4J.S. Additions by Fuel Source (1989 Through 1998 Forecasted Percentages) 3 ;;-FIRED HYDRO NUCLEAR 3% PUMPED STORAGE NON-UTILITIES (includes different fuel sources) 5% OIL-FIRED COAL-FIRED 8% OTHER FUEL TYPES (includes refuse, solar, biomass, etc.) Source: Prepared by GAO using NERC data. Demand Management Demand managementprograms provide the utilities with the ability to Programs to ReducePea,k reduce demand and to possibly delay the need for somefuture electric generating capacity. NERCprojects that the utility companies’ demand Demand managementprograms will reduce the U.S. peak demand for electricity in 1998 from 623,000 MWto 608,000 MW. According to NERC’S1989 Relia- bility Assessment, Demand management includes conservation programs, improvements in the effi- ciency of both primary energy and electricity use, utility control of certain customer loads, economic incentives embodied in rate design, contractually interruptible cus- tomers, and many other similar activities. Only that portion of demand managementunder the direct control of electric utility system operators or interruptible by the customer at the Page 13 GAO/WED-90-151 Civilian Reactor Development Program .* Appendix I Projected U.S. Energy Needu 1989.99 Figure 1.2: Peak Demand and Projected Avallable Rerource8 (1989-98 Forecast) 500 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1QM lSS6 1997 1996 Thousands ot MW (Summsr) - ProjectedAvailableResources ---- ForecastPeakDermandless LoadManagement Source: Prepared by GAO using NEW data. Although figure I.3 indicates that, according to NERC'S data, a shortfall nationally will not occur until 1998, forecasted electricity demand in someregions may exceedexpected available capacity generation earlier than expected, particularly if peak demand continues to exceedfore- casts. The following summarizes NERC'S forecasts of anticipated electric- ity needsin someof its regions within the next 10 years. (App. III provides additional information about the NERC regions.) East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement: A small decline in the availability of generating equipment, a slight increase in the rate of demand growth, or other factors such as implementation of mandated air pollution control strategies and transmission limitations, could quickly reduce the future electric system reliability to unacceptable levels. Mid-Atlantic Area Council: More capacity additions are required in some years to provide adequate capacity margins, although planned capacity additions have been increased as a result of higher peak demands. Page 15 GAO/RCED-SO-161 Civilian Reactor Development Program B-239101 ,i officials we spoke with, all of whom were in the Southeast, generally supported DOE’S efforts in developing these technologies.However, most of the officials do not plan to purchase nuclear reactors until after 2000 becauseof the high costs of constructing nuclear reactors and current public opposition to nuclear power.’ Electricity supply relative to demand remains an important area of con- Meeting the Nation’s tern. According to NERC, from 1989 to 1998 the U.S. summer peak Electricity Needs Is a demand for electricity is projected to increase approximately 2 percent Concern per year from 622,000 megawatts (MW) in 1989 to 623,000 MW in 1998.2 During this period, the projected available electrical generating resourceswill increase about 1 percent per year from approximately 644,000 MW in 1989 to 606,000 MW in 1998.3Certain US. regions, partic- ularly in the more heavily populated eastern half of the country, may experience shortfalls during projected summer peak demand periods. In 1989, when these forecasts were made, utility companiesindicated that they were completing the construction of nuclear generators, as well as adding primarily oil-fired, coal-fired, and gas-fired generators. Also, they planned to use demand managementprograms, such as agree- ments with industrial users to interrupt their power supply during peak demand periods. Utility company officials we interviewed said they would take whatever measureswere necessaryto ensure that their areas had sufficient electricity during projected shortfall periods. DOE Working With ment of several reactor technologiesto ensure that nuclear power Nuclear Industry on remains a viable energy supply option. DOE expects to obtain Nuclear Advanced Reactors Regulatory Commission (NRC) design certification for a large-sizeLWR in 1991 and two mid-size LWRSin 1995. In addition to water-cooled reac- tors, DOE is also supporting the development of MHTGRS and LMRS. DOE lElectricity Supply: What Can Re Done to Revive the Nuclear Option? (GAO/RCED-89-67, Mar. 23, 1989) contains a more detailed discussion of possible government actions to revive the nuclear option. 2According to NERC, many factors can influence electricity use and peak demand to the extent that the actual peak outcomes could vary from those projected. There is an 80 percent probability that the peak 1998 summer demand would fall within 666,000 MW to 673,000 MW. “According to NERC, the possible loss of existing capacity, due to legislative changes such as amend- ments to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, *seq.) and to delays in completing construction of new generating capacity, could reduce projected available resources. Page 2 GAO/RCED-90-161 Ch4lian Reactor Development Program 5229101 appropriate. However, as agreed with your offices, we did not obtain written agency comments on this report. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announceits contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Energy. Copieswill also be made available to others upon request. Pleasecall me at (202) 276-1441 if you have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. Victor S. Rezendes Director of Energy Issues Page 4 GAO/RCED-W161 Civilian Reactor Development Program contents Letter 1 Appendix I 10 Projected U.S. Energy Electricity Demand Expected to Increase 10 Utilities Are Taking Steps to Meet the Increased Demand 11 Needs 1989-98 for Electricity Projected Shortages 14 Appendix II 17 Status of Civilian DOE’sCivilian Reactor Development Program 17 Nuclear Industry and Utility Company Comments 23 Reactor Development and Utility and Nuclear Industry Comments Appendix III 26 North American East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement 26 Electric Reliability Council of Texas 26 Electric Reliability Mid-Atlantic Area Council 26 Council- U.S. Mid-America Interconnected Network 26 Mid-Continent Area Power Pool 26 Regions Northeast Power Coordinating Council 26 Southeastern Electric Reliability Council 27 Southwest Power Pool 27 Western Systems Coordinating Council 27 Appendix IV 28 Major Shifts and Program Shift or Decision 28 Decisions in DOE’s Civilian Reactor Development Program Page 6 GAO/RCFD4JO-151 Civilian Reactor Development Program Chhmta Abbreviations DOE Department of Energy F&AR East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement EPRI Electric Power ResearchInstitute ERCUI’ Electric Reliability Council of Texas GAO General Accounting Office LMR liquid-metal reactor LWR light-water reactor Mid-Atlantic Area Council MAIN Mid-America Interconnected Network MAPP Mid-Continent Area Power Pool MHTGR modular high-temperature gas-cooledreactor MW megawatts NERC North American Electric Reliability Council NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission SERC Southeastern Electric Reliability Council SPP Southwest Power Pool wssc Western Systems Coordinating Council Page 8 GAO/RCED-90-151 Civilian Reactor Development Progrean Appendix I ProjectedU.S. Energy Needs1989-98 The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) projects that from 1989 to 1998,’ U.S. electrical peak demand2will increase from 622,000 megawatts (MW) to 623,000 MW.3 The utility companies’ demand managementprograms will reduce this amount to 608,000 MW by 1998. Utility companieswill also increasetheir electrical generating capacity to attempt to meet demand by taking such measuresas constructing additional electrical generators and purchasing electricity from nonutil- ity generators. Despite these efforts, NERC projects that by 1998, availa- ble resourcesin the United States will reach 606,000 MW, resulting in a possible 2,000 MW national shortfall. Prior to 1998, certain U.S. regions, particularly in the more heavily populated eastern half of the country, may experience shortfalls during summer peak demand periods.4Utility company officials told us they would take whatever measureswere neededto ensure that their areas had sufficient electrical generating capacity during projected shortfall periods, The use of electricity has been growing, and this trend is expected to Electricity Demand continue. In the United States, peak demand for electricity occurs during Expected to Increase the summer months when businessesand residencesmake greater use of air conditioning. According to NERC, electrical peak demand is projected to grow at an annual rate of 2 percent over the 1989-98 forecast period, increasing from 622,000 MW to 623,000 MW. However, NERC pointed out that, becausemany factors can influence electricity use and peak demand, the actual peak demand could vary from that projected.. According to NERC, there is an 80-percent probability that the peak 1998 summer demand would fall within 666,000 MW and 673,000 MW. ’ 1989 Reliability Assessment: The Future of Bulk Electric System Reliability in North America 1989- 1 998 (Sept. 1989) and 1989 Electric Supply and Demand for 1989-1998 (Oct. 1989). ‘Peak demand is the highest electrical requirement experienced by a power system in a year. “Projections of peak demand and generating capacity are both subject to forecasting error. As a result, computations which rely on them are also subject to forecasting error. Based on NERC projec- tions, the most likely outcome is a shortfall of the reported amount. However, because of the forecsst- ing error, it is possible that the actual shortfall will be greater or smaller, or no shortfall will occur at all. 4We did not review the NERC statistical analysis or the baseline projections in detail. NERC aggre- gates the projections supplied by utility load forecasters from its member councils. Using a statistical analysis technique, NERC calculates the bandwidths that establish an 8Opercent confidence interval around the baseline projections. This confidence interval represents a range in which the actual peak demand is expected to fall with an &JO-percentprobability. That is, NERC believes that there is a lo- percent chance that peak electricity demand will exceed the top of the bandwidth, and a lo-percent chance that peak demand will be below the bottom of the bandwidth. However, because the growth in demand for electricity is heavily influenced by the growth in the gross national product, we did compare NERC’s gross national product base line forecast of 2.6 percent annual growth to that of the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates and found it to be generally consistent. Page 10 GAO/RCED-SO-161 Civilian Reactor Development Program Appendix I ProJected U.S. Energy Needa lB8@-BB generators7are expected to provide about 18,100 MW, or about 26 per- cent, of this new generating capacity. The planned additions during the assessmentperiod are shown in figure I.1 by fuel source.NERC estimates that of the total planned new capacity, approximately 16 percent of the power will be from nuclear power plants currently under construction. The retirement of old generating units will offset the new capacity addi- tions, reducing the total new capacity by about 6,540 MW. According to DOE data, plants to be retired will range in age from 40 to 46 years. According to NERC, the net gain in generating capacity over the 1989-98 time period will thus be about 64,860 MW. However, 63 percent of the total megawatt additions are not yet under construction and someof the planned capacity probably will not be completed on schedule. 7NERC defines nonutility generators as facilities for generating electricity that are not owned exclu- sively by an electric utility but which operate connected to an electric utility system. Page 12 GAO/RCED-@B-Ml Civilian Reactor Development Program , ” ProJected U.S. Energy Needs 1088-98 utility’s request is called load management.For example, a large indus- trial user, such as a chemical company, may enter into a contractual agreement that allows the utility to turn off a portion of its electrical power during peak demand periods. Usually, large industrial users have the capability to reschedule certain work, for example, from normal daylight hours to nighttime hours for this purpose. In its 1989-98projec- tions, NERC indicates that about 2.8 percent of the U.S. summer peak demand, or approximately 17,400 MW, will be under utility-controlled managementor interruptible by the customer at the utilities’ request by 1998 as compared to 2.2 percent in 1989. Currently, load management ranges from 0.9 percent to 3.2 percent of peak demand in the NERC regions, and this range is expected to increaseto 1.1 percent to 6.3 per- cent of projected peak demands by 1998. Many factors can affect the availability of electricity generation, Not all Projected Shortages installed capacity is available at any given time due to full or partial forced outages,”deratings,gand downtime neededfor maintenance requirements. Therefore, in making its projections, NERC reduced the planned capacity resourcesto reflect the unavailability of certain elec- trical generation equipment during peak demand periods. NERC refers to this reduction as the “projected available resources.” Given the fore- casted peak demand (minus savings from load managementand demand management) and the projected available resources,figure 1.2 shows that NERC’S data indicate that a capacity shortfall of approximately 2000 MW could occur in the United States by 1998. According to NERC, the pos- sible loss of existing capacity, as a result of legislative changessuch as amendmentsto the Clean Air Act’” (42 U.S.C.7401, et seq.) and delays in completing construction of new generating capacity, could causethis shortfall to occur by 1996. sA forced outage occurs when a problem causes equipment to be taken out of service. sDerating occurs when a unit’s power is decreased because of modifications, such as the installation of environmental machinery on an older unit or changes in a fuel source, that may be necessary for economic reasons. ‘“New legislation could require reductions in the emissions from fossil-fueled electric power plants. The additional costs of installing emission control equipment may not be economical for the utilities, resulting in earlier than anticipated equipment retirements. Page 14 GAO/BCED-SW-151 Civilian Reactor Development Program Appendix I Projected U.S. Energy Needs 1989-98 Transmission reliability to deliver emergencyassistanceis another con- cern wherein there could be significant shortfalls in planned capacity if peak demand continues to grow faster than projected. If this occurs, large amounts of additional capacity resourceswould be required in a short time period. Mid-America Interconnected Network: Generating capacity may be less than required for adequate reliability in the mid to late 1990s.Addi- tional load managementor short-lead time capacity will be neededto ensure reliability. Another reliability concern in this region is the unknown effects that acid rain regulatory actions related to pollution control may have on future generating capability. Northeast Power Coordinating Council: In the New York subregion, Long Island may experience shortfalls if required capacity resource additions do not materialize and capacity under construction and planned energy purchases are not available as scheduled.Continued marginal resource adequacy in the area will result from the closing of the Shoreham Nuclear Unit (809 MW) until additional generating capacity is added. In the subregion of New England, generating capacity now under construc- tion, planned energy purchases,and demand managementprograms must be available as scheduledto provide for adequate capacity by the winter of 1993-94. Southeastern Electric Reliability Council: Maintaining adequate capacity margins in the latter portion of the assessmentperiod, particularly in Virginia, Florida, and the Carolinas, will depend on projected resources materializing as planned and continued high availability of existing gen- erators. However, capacity may be less than required if conservation and direct control load managementprograms decreaseand transmis- sion systems are unable to supply the contracted power transfers. Page 16 GAO/RCED-90-151 Civilian Reactor Development Program Appendix II Status of Civilian ReactorDevelopmentand Utility and Nuclear Industry Comments The Department of Energy (DOE) is supporting the development of sev- eral reactor technologiesto ensure that nuclear power remains a viable energy supply option. In fiscal year (FY) 1990, DOE’S Civilian Reactor Development Program received an appropriation of $263 million to develop these technologies.To meet the nation’s 6- to lo-year electricity needs,DOE, in partnership with the nuclear industry, is developing improved water-cooled reactor designs.DOE expects to obtain design approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) for a large-size light-water reactor (LWR) in 1991. In I996 DOE expects design approval of two mid-size LWRS, which incorporate passive safety features, such as natural coolant circulation and increased use of gravity for coolant sup- plies, and modular designs.’ In addition to water-cooled reactors, DOE is also supporting the development of advanced reactors that have the potential to incorporate a greater degreeof passive safety than water- cooled reactors. DOE’s advanced reactor program is centered on develop- ing modular high-temperature gas-cooledand liquid-metal-cooled reactor designs.According to DOE, neither the modular high-temperature gas- cooled reactor (MHTGR) nor the liquid-metal reactor (LMR) will be in oper- ation until the next century. Utility company and nuclear industry executives that we interviewed generally support DOE’S approach in developing advanced nuclear reac- tor designs.However, someof these utility companiesdo not plan to purchase nuclear reactors to meet their electricity needsat least until after 2000 becauseof the high costs of constructing nuclear reactors and public opposition to nuclear power. According to these officials, light- water reactors will remain the leading candidate of choice until the advanced technologies have been successfully demonstrated. In the 1960s and early 19709,nuclear power promised to be a safe, eco- DOE’s Civilian Reactor nomical energy source. However, since then, safety concernsand soaring Development Program costs have clouded its future. As a result, the viability of nuclear power as an energy supply option is being increasingly questioned. To ensure that nuclear power remains a viable option, DOE, under its Civilian Reac- tor Development Program, is supporting industry-led efforts to develop ‘Modular designs use factory-built, factory-inspected construction modules. These modules are then shipped to the site and joined together. Page 17 GAO/RCED-90-161 CMlian Reactor Development Program Appendix II Status of Clvlllan Beactor Development and Utility and Nuclear Industry Commenta light-water reactors and advanced reactors that are safe, environmen- tally acceptable,and cost-effective.2’ The Civilian Reactor Development Program, under DOE’S Nuclear Energy Office, supports the development of improved light-water reactors to meet near-term energy needsand advanced reactor designswhich will not be commercially available until after 2000. The light-water reactor program is part of a nationally coordinated effort to improve the techni- cal, licensing, and institutional requirements to construct and operate water-cooled reactors. DOE’S advanced reactor program supports the development of alternative designsthat have the potential for break- throughs in economics,safety, licensability, and waste management options. The primary emphasis of this program is to support continued work on LMRS and MHTGRS. Historical Funding of Actual Civilian Reactor Development Program expenditures declined 74 Civilian Reactor percent, from $978 million in fiscal year 1980 to $263 million in fiscal year 1990. In constant 1989 dollars, as shown in table 11.1,the decline Development Program over this period was almost 84 percent. DOE has requested $219 million for the program in its FY 1991 budget request. Table 11.1:DOE Expenditure8 in Civlllan Reactor Development Program Millions of 1989 constant dollars Fiscal year Program area 1980 1981 1982 1983. 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 1990 High-Temperature Gas Reactor 65 55 46 44 36 37 34 22 24 20 22 LiahbWater Reactor 42 55 66 49 65 60 54 37 33 27 23 Liquid-Metal Reactor 592 512 512 466 366 137 110 60 59 54 35 Facilities 411 308 296 204 188 166 148 138 137 140 163 Clinch River Breeder Reactor 276 257 241 280 101 20 0 0 0 0 3 Liaht-Water-Cooled Breeder 91 83 68 56 42 29 21 15 0 9 0 &al 1,477 1,270 1,229 1,099 798 450 367 273 253 250 243 Source: DOE data adjusted into constant dollars by GAO. Note: All numbers do not total due to rounding. According to a DOE official, the federal role in liquid-metal reactor devel- opment was restructured in 1986 to focus on resolving key technology %.w report entitled Electricity Supply: What Can Be Done to Revive the Nuclear Option? (GAO/ RCED-89-67, Mar. 23,lSSQ) contains a more detailed discussion of possible government actions to revive the nuclear option. Page 18 GAO/RCED-90-151 Civilinu Reactor Development Program Appendix II Statw of CWlian Reactor Development and Utility end Nuclear Industry Comments issuesand uncertainties in order to enlist private sector involvement. Appendix IV contains a chronology of the major shifts and decisionsin the Civilian Reactor Development Program since 1980. Status of Civilian Reactor DOE’S Civilian Reactor Development Program currently focuseson devel- Development Program oping designsfor water-cooled, high-temperature gas-cooled,and liquid- metal-cooled reactors. Under the advanced LWR program, contractors working with DOE are currently developing LWRSthat will incorporate passive safety features and modular designs.A DOE official said that these LWRSmay becomeavailable for construction in the mid 1990s. DOE'S advanced reactor program is centered on developing the MHTGR and LMR. (Seeapp. V for descriptions of the LWR, LMR, and MHTGR.) These advanced reactors have the potential to provide additional degreesof safety. DOE officials do not expect these reactors to be operational until shortly after 2000. The following sections discussthe technologies and their current status of development. Light-Water Reactor Currently, nearly all of the nuclear power in the United States is gener- ated from LWRS. Building on the vast experience gained from these existing LWRS, DOE and the utility industry are jointly sponsoring the development of advanced LWRS. The objectives of DOE'S advanced LWR program are to support the Electric Power ResearchInstitute (EPRI) and industry efforts to define the characteristics and performance parameters new plants will have to meet; demonstrate the improved standard plant-licensing processneededfor all advanced reactors by certification of one or more large, evolutionary LWR standard plant designs;and support industry in developing and certifying greatly simplified mid-size (about 600 MW) LWRSthat employ predominantly passive safety features and modular construction. EPRI, under the direction of a utility steering committee, and with the support and direction of DOE, is preparing the requirements pertaining to the performance and design of future advanced light-water reactor designs.Drawing upon the experience gained from design features found in over 100 operating nuclear plants in the United States, specific regulatory guidelines, plant operator training methods, and specific hardware designshave evolved. The principles established by EPRI to govern the development of new designsare (1) a primary design empha- sis placed on lowering the risk associatedwith a core-damagingincident; Page 19 GAO/RCED-O-161 Civilian Reactor Development Program Appendix II Statue of CMlia.n Reactor Development and Utility and Nuclear Industry Commenta (2) less dependenceon electrical systems and mechanical componentsto achieve safety, relying instead on improved plant designsand passive safety systems;(3) greater design margins to allow more time to assess and deal with unusual conditions without jeopardizing or causing major damageto the plant; and (4) the advantage of having recent advancesin human factors engineering in plant designs,According to an EPRI official, most volumes of the requirements document pertaining to large, evolu- tionary light-water reactor designshave been submitted to NRC for approval. EPRI plans to complete the remaining volumes of the document covering advancedmid-size light-water reactor designsand plans to sub- mit them to NRC in 1990. To demonstrate the viability of the nuclear plant standardization and licensing process,DOE is supporting, through a contractual cost-sharing arrangement, the efforts of General Electric and Combustion Engineer- ing to obtain Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) design certification of two large (1,260 MW and 1,360 MW) evolutionary LWRS. Evolutionary reactors, according to DOE, are reactors that incorporate simplified designs and state-of-the-art proven equipment. General Electric has sub- mitted required safety analysis information for its reactor to NRC for review. In fiscal year 1990, required risk assessmentsand safety evalua- tions will be prepared, and revisions to the safety analysis and evalua- tions as neededto resolve NRC'S comments will be submitted. According to DOE officials, final NRC design approval, which will initiate public hearings, is expected in about December1990 and NRC design certifica- tion in September 1991. As of February 1990 the status of Combustion Engineering’s efforts to certify its evolutionary reactor design is unclear. Under its 1987 con- tract with DOE, Combustion Engineering was required to design only the nuclear island for NRC certification. IIowever, in April 1989 NRC imposed new requirements that require the designsto encompassthe entire plant, not just the nuclear island. Although Combustion Engineering has submitted the majority of its safety analysis information to NRC, DOE has been unable to provide additional funding to complete the certification process.According to a DOE official, during March 1990 DOE and Combus- tion Engineering are expected to meet to resolve this issue. In addition to large-sizeevolutionary plants, DOE is also supporting the design, development, and certification of two mid-size (600 MW) light- water passive plant designs.These designsincorporate natural cooling mechanismslike gravity and natural convection rather than electric- powered core cooling equipment, resulting in greater simplification. It is Page 20 GAO/RCED-90-161 Civilian Reactor Development Program Appendix II St&w of Civilian Reactor Development and Utility and Nuclear Indwtry Comments expected that no operator action would be neededto keep the plant safe to the public for 3 days after a major loss-of-coolant accident, if it were to occur. On September 6,1989, DOE selectedGeneral Electric and West- inghouse to complete designsof mid-size light-water reactors. On Febru- ary 28, 1990, DOE and Westinghousesigned a contract for the development of an advancedpressurized-water reactor. DOE signed a contract with General Electric on April 2,1990, for the development of a simplified boiling-water reactor. Under these contracts, DOE will match General Electric and Westinghouseon a 50/50 cost-sharebasis up to $50 million. These advanced mid-size light-water reactor designs are expected to receive NRC'S design certification in 1995. Modular High-Temperature Gas- Modular high-temperature gas-cooledreactors have the potential to CooledReactor incorporate a greater degreeof passive safety than water-cooled reac- tors. The safety characteristics of these reactors result from using helium, an inert gas, as the reactor coolant; coated fuel particles that are capable of retaining fission products under even severeconditions; and graphite core and support structures that have a high heat capacity and maintain their strength to temperatures beyond 5,000 degreesFahren- heit. Further, passive cooling of the core can be achieved by conduction, radiation, and natural convection without the fuel reaching a tempera- ture at which the coating would fail during an accident. According to a DOE official, the adoption of these design features offers the potential for enhancing safety margins, reducing the plant’s reliance on electric-pow- ered safeguard systems or operator actions. Currently, MHTGR preliminary design work is being done under DOE con- tracts with General Atomics, Bechtel, Combustion Engineering, and Stone and Webster. In addition, materials, fuels, and fission product experimental programs that support the MHTGR are being conducted at DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennesseeand at General Atom- its. DOE is also assessingthe MHTGR as one technology that could be used for a new reactor it plans to build for the production of tritium, which is used in nuclear weapons. A plan to coordinate and integrate this defense research and development program with the civilian reactor program has been developed, according to DOE. About $29 million of the funds DOE has requested for the New Production Reactor for FY 1991 has been earmarked for activities that are also in need of development under the civilian program, These areas of commonality include the validation of fuel performance and fission product behavior models and codes,mater- ials development, and validation of the reliability of key components and system performance. Page 21 GAO/RCRD-WlBl Civilian Reactor Development Program Appendix II Statue of CivIlian Reactor Development and Utility and Nuclear Industry Comments According to DOE, in September 1986 General Atomics prepared and sub- mitted a Preliminary Safety Information Document to NRC. The objective of this effort was to obtain a Safety Evaluation Report from NRC that addressesthe licensability of the MHTGR, the acceptanceof the unique safety criteria, and agreement and concurrencewith the overall safety assessment.NRC issued a draft Safety Evaluation Report in March 1989. Resolution of the issuesidentified by NRC will be completed in FY 1991. Completion of the civilian MHTGR preliminary design and submission of a Preliminary Standard Safety Analysis Report to NRC are expected to occur in FYs 1992 and 1993, respectively. Final design is scheduledto be completed in FY 1996 with a Final Standard Safety Analysis Report sub- mitted in FY 1996. Final NRC design approval is expected in FY 1997. Liquid-Metal Reactor Like the high-temperature gas-cooledreactor, the passive safety charac- teristics of a liquid-metal reactor have the potential for reducing the plant’s reliance on engineeredsafeguards equipment or immediate oper- ator responseshould an accident occur. DOE initially consideredthe LMR'S capability to breed more nuclear material than it consumesas its most important feature. However, the emphasis is now being placed on the LMR'S capability to recycle spent fuel and convert long-lived actinide ele- ments (plutonium and neptunium, and other radioactive elements) pre- sent in spent LWR, LMR, and MHTGR fuel. According to DOE, this would reduce not only the amount of nuclear waste requiring disposal but also the hazard of high-level waste destined for repository from hundreds of thousands of years to hundreds of years. DOE planned to design and con- struct a safety demonstration module becausesuch a demonstration pro- ject should be completed before NRC can certify the design. However, becauseof funding constraints, DOE is not certain when a demonstration project, if any, will be constructed. According to one DOE official, the earliest date such a demonstration project could be built is 2005. In January 1989 DOE awarded General Electric a 3-year contract for an advanced LhIR conceptual design with an optional 2-year preliminary design phase. The engineering development work is on a 465 megawatts of electricity modular reactor. According to DOE, the conceptual design of the LMR was completed in 1985, and a Preliminary Safety Information Document was submitted to NRC in September 1986. In October 1989 NRC staff issued a draft Safety Evaluation Report and licensing letter defining the outstanding safety issues.DOE expects to continue to update the LMR design features and to Page 22 GAO/RCED-O-151 Civilian Reactor Development Program Appendix II St&w of Chilian Reactor Development and Utility and Nuclear Industry Commenta resolve key issuesidentified by NRCat least through FY 1991. DOE-sup ported research at its Argonne National Laboratory will continue to con- firm the passive safety and improved economicpotential of the LMR. According to DOE,current and anticipated funding constraints may limit its efforts to evaluate the capability of the reactor to recycle fuel and destroy long-lived actinide elements. Executives representing five utility companiesfrom the Southeast and Nuclear Industry and officials from the nuclear industry generally support DOE’S efforts to Utility Company develop advanced nuclear reactors. Most of the utility company execu- Comments tives that we interviewed supported DOE’S“two track approach” of funding the development of both the evolutionary, large LWRstandard plant designs and the advanced mid-size LWRdesigns.One utility execu- tive who was particularly impressed with the mid-size reactor concept said that mid-size reactors offer numerous advantagesover evolution- ary reactors. First, the smaller reactors will be less expensive and there- fore utilities will have less difficulty in acquiring sufficient capital. Second,the mid-size reactors will be “different enough” from the older, larger reactors in service in the United States that the public will more readily accept the new reactors. Finally, if utilities purchase the smaller reactors, they will be in a better position to adapt to changesin growth patterns becausethe smaller reactors can be added incrementally to bet- ter respond to the public’s demands for electricity. Although the five utility industry officials we contacted supported DOE’S development of light-water reactors, they said that they would not purchase advanced nuclear reactors during the next 10 years even though additional electrical generating capacity may be needed.Reasons cited by officials for their positions were the high costs of constructing nuclear reactors and public opposition to nuclear power. One official said that although there may not be a market for these advanced light- water reactors until after 2000, the designsshould be made available as soon as possible in the event circumstanceschange and make nuclear power a viable near-term option. According to the Advanced Reactor Corporation,3 It is the present judgment of the majority in the nuclear power industry that the LWRwill remain the dominant nuclear power technology for the next several “Advanced Reactor Corporation, Report of the ARC Ad Hoc Committee on U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Reactor Development Ikn, January 10,199O. This ad hoc committee was made up of offi- cials from utility companies and the nuclear industry. Page 23 GAO/RCED-90-161 Civilian Reactor Development Program Apjmdx II Statw of Civilian Reactor Development and Utility and Nuclear Industry Comments decades.. . . Thus, an improved version of the LWRis expectedto be the leading candidate for the next incrementof nuclear capacity ordered in the United States. Utility industry officials generally concurred with this assessment,cit- ing the industry’s vast experience with light-water reactors. With respect to the overall direction of DOE’Slight-water reactor pro- gram, officials from the nuclear industry who design LWRSand utility companiessaid that DOEis generally moving in the “right direction” in its support of the LWRprogram. Utility officials said that they are aware of DOE’Sinvolvement with EPRIand the utilities in establishing the Utili- ties Requirements Document. One utility company executive said that he was impressed that DOEhas listened to the concernsof the individual utility companiesabout safety and was working with EPRIto incorporate this information into the requirements document. Utility officials said that they are not as familiar with MHTGRSand LMRS as they are with LWRSbecause they have no “hands on” experience with these reactors. Although they recognizedthat these technologies have the potential to provide additional passive safety features not available on LWRSand that the LMRoffers the capability to recycle waste products, they would be hesitant to select these technologies unless they had first been demonstrated. Page 24 GAO/RCED-90-111 Civilian ReactorDevelopment Program PW ’ %;!I American Electric Reliability Council- U.S. Regions Flgure 111.1:NERC-U.S. Map Legend ECAR East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreeme ERGOT Electric Rellablllty Council of Texas MAAC Mid-Atlantic Area Council MAIN Mid-America Interconnected Network MAPP Mld-Continent Area Power Pool NPCC Northeast Power Coordlnatlng C~uncll SERC Southeastern Electric Rellabllty Council SPP Southwest Power Pool wssc Western Systems Coordlnatlng Council Source: Prepared by GAO from NEW data. Page 25 GAO/RCED-90-151 Civilian Reactor Development Program . Appendix m North American Electric Reliability conncil-U.S. Regiona The ECAR region bulk power membership currently consistsof 27 compa- East Central Area nies (18 systems) which serve either all or part of the states of Michi- Reliability gan, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Coordination Maryland, and Tennessee. Agreement recur is composedof 26 municipalities, 61 cooperatives, 6 investor- Electric Reliability owned utilities, and 2 state agencieswhich serve a total of 11 million Council of Texas customers.These systems operate 86 percent of the electric generation in Texas and serve approximately 196,000 square miles, or 73 percent of the area in the state. Mid-Atlantic Area M~ACconsists of 11 member systems and 6 associatesserving 20 million people in a 48,700 square mile area. The region includes all of Delaware Council and the District of Columbia; major portions of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland; and a small portion of Virginia. MAIN is comprised of 12 regular member systems and 1 associatemem- Mid-America ber serving a population of 18 million in a geographic area of 170,000 Interconnected square miles. The region encompassesIllinois, the eastern third of Mis- Network souri, the eastern two-thirds of Wisconsin, and most of the upper penin- sula of Michigan. Mid-Continent Area The MAPP Region covers all portions of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Power Pool and the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.Member- ship includes 43 systems of 27 participants consisting of 11 investor- owned systems, 8 generation and transmission cooperatives, 3 public power districts, 4 municipal systems, and 1 federal agency.Associate participants include 2 Canadian Crown Corporations, 13 municipals, and 1 investor-owned system. The total geographic area covers 890,000 miles with a population of 16 million. NPCC represents a total of 23 investor-owned and publicly owned utilities Northeast Power serving about 44 million people in a 1 million square mile area encom- Coordinatirig Council passing 2 areas in the northeastern United States and 3 areas in eastern Canada. In the United States, NPCC membersparticipate in either the Page 26 GAO/RCED-!W161 Civilian Reactor Development Program . Appendix III North American Electric Relhblli~ CQnncil-U.S. ReglonB New York Power Pool or the New England Power Pool. In Canada,the Ontario, Hydro, Hydro-Quebec,New Brunswick Power, and Nova Scotia Power systems make up the three Canadian areas of Npcc-Ontario, Quebec,and the Maritimes. SERCmembership includes 29 systems located in 9 southeastern states Southeastern Electric that are divided into 4 diverse subregionscovering 346,660 square Reliability Council miles. The subregions include the Florida peninsula, the Southern elec- tric system, TennesseeValley Authority area, and the Virginia-Carolina areas; they serve a population of about 26 million. The SPP includes 43 electric power suppliers serving 6.6 million custom- Southwest Power Pool ers in the states of Kansas,Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and New Mexico. Its membership is composedof 17 investor-owned utilities, 12 municipal systems, 10 generating and trans- mission cooperatives systems, 3 state authorities, and a federal agency. The geographic area served spans 600,000 miles containing a population of 26 million. wsscencompassesa total 1.8 million square miles of territory in 14 west- Western Systems ern states, 2 Canadian provinces, and a northern portion of Baja Califor- Coordinating Council nia, Mexico. The region is subdivided into four areas: the Northwest Power Pool Area, (including the states of Washington, Oregon,Idaho, Utah, portions of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, and California and the two Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia); the Rocky Mountain Power Area consisting of Colorado, eastern Wyoming, and a small portion of Nebraska and South Dakota; the Arizona-New Mexico Power Area consisting of most of New Mexico and the western-most part of Texas; and the California-Southern Nevada Power Area encom- passing most of California, southern Nevada, and a northern portion of Baja California, Mexico. The council has 62 member systems and 3 affiliates. Page 27 GAO/RCED-90-151 Civllhn Reactor Development Program Appendix IV Major Shifts and Decisionsin DOE’s Civilian ReactorDevelopmentProgram The following summarizes the major program shifts and decisionsthat have shaped DOE’s Civilian Reactor Development Program since 1980. Program Shift or Decision 1980 Congresspassedthe Nuclear Safety Research,Development, and Dem- onstration Act, resulting in the initiation of the Light Water Reactor Safety Researchand Development Program. 1981 DOE completed the conceptual design study for a developmental liquid- metal fast breeder reactor. President Reaganannouncednuclear energy policies for: l Establishing a high-level radioactive waste storage facility. 9 Licensing and regulatory reform. . Renewing breeder development program, including completion of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project. 1982 DOE and the Electric Power ResearchInstitute signed an agreementto cooperate on a large-scaleprototype breeder. 1983 The U.S. Senatediscontinued funding the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, thereby effectively terminating it. The government’s lead role shifted from developing a liquid-metal fast breeder reactor to a role of supporting and encouraging private sector initiatives and cooperating with foreign nations in research and development. DOE reduced and consolidated the liquid-metal fast breeder reactor base program. DOE increased activities on licensing and regulatory reform. 1985 DOE continued the restructuring of breeder development to focus on resolving key technology issuesand uncertainties prerequisite to private Page 28 GAO/RCED-90-151 Civilian Reactor Development Program Appendix IV MaJor Shifta and Decisiona in DOE’s ChiUan Reactor Development Program sector demonstration and development with no new federally funded energy system demonstration project. This restructuring placed major emphasis on: l Technology necessaryfor a breeder system (including power plant and supporting fuel cycle) that is inherently safe, competitive with nuclear and nonnuclear alternatives, has predictable performance, and meets market needsof utilities. . Development of advancedplant conceptscompetitive with alternative energy sources. . Increased reliance on international cooperation. DOE supported development of standardized requirements for advanced light-water reactors (LWR), i.e., the Electric Power ResearchInstitute Utilities Requirements Document. DOE shifted efforts from a steam cycle/cogeneration high-temperature reactor to an innovative modular high- temperature gas-cooledreactor (MHTGR) utilizing a prismatic fuel design with coated fuel particles; and integrated the program with efforts to encouragedevelopment of next- generation, innovative conceptsfor nuclear power. Liquid-metal reactor (LMR) activities focused on developing an advanced liquid-metal converter reactor incorporating major technology advances to improve competitive position. DOE focused Advanced Converter Reactor technology (including LWR, MHTGR, and LMR activities) on developing advanced,high technology con- verter reactors capable of competing in the 19952020 timeframe; through innovative use of technology these reactors would be simpler, less expensive, safe, and secure. DOE placed emphasis on small, modularized plant designsand greater use of passive safety features. DOE initiated the development of reference high- temperature gas-cooled reactor design concept detail neededto support assessmentsof plant safety, operability, reliability, maintainability, constructability, licen- sability, and economicsfor processheat and defense applications. DOE reshaped breeder technology development program to reflect com- mercial introduction sometime after 2000 emphasizing: Page 29 GAO/RCED-BO-lf51 Civilian Reactor Development Program AppendlxIV Major Shifta and Decisions in DOE’s CiW Reactor Development Program l Continued long-range technology and related fuel cycle development. l Increased international collaboration and maintaining U.S. presencein discussionsconcerning nonproliferation and safeguards controls. l Developing an advancedLMR breeder design capable of competing domestically and in the international market. 1987 DOE emphasizedcivilian reactor technology efforts to support industry/ government program on development of advanced light-water reactors with the objective to gain Nuclear Regulatory Commissionfinal design approval and certification of at least two advanced LWR systems in 6 years. DOE shiftedemphasis from primarily satisfying civilian needsfor advanced reactors to spaceand terrestrial national security needswhile maintaining technical, testing, analytical, and design infrastructure to ensure capability to respond to civilian needs. 1988 DOE selectedGeneral Electric’s PRISM concept as the basis for further development of a national advanced liquid-metal reactor design program to begin in 1989. DOE shifted emphasis from an oxide fuel cycle to a metal fuel cycle in the liquid-metal reactor. DOE focused on passive safety and improved economicpotential of a metal-fueled, modular liquid-metal reactor emphasizing the metal fuel/ Integral Fast Reactor concept at Argonne National Laboratory. 1989 DOE limited the scopeof its work on liquid-metal reactor technology development in advanced instrumentation and controls, concept verifi- cation testing, and robotics becauseof reduced funding from the Congress. DOE increased its emphasis on the actinide recycle capability of LMRS and the potential to impact waste managementsolutions. Page 30 GAO/RCED-!I@-151 CMlian Reactor Development Program &pehdix V Ikscriptions of Civilim Nuclem Reactors Light-Water Reactors As the world’s most dominant nuclear technology, light-water reactors use uranium as their fuel and ordinary water for cooling. In all reactors used for electricity generation, the final stage in the processis turning 1 water into steam to turn the huge turbines that actually spin the genera- tors. In designsknown as boiling-water reactors, the steam is generated inside the reactor itself. In the pressurized-water reactors, hot water from the reactor is transferred to external steam generators where water is boiled to make the steam that drives the turbines. Modular High- The modular high-temperature gas-cooledreactor is a second-generation power system. Basedon technology developed and demonstrated in the Temperature Gas- United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, the system makes Cooled Reactors use of refractory-coated nuclear fuel, helium gas as an inert coolant, and graphite as a stable core structural material. The MHTGR'S fuel is made by forming uranium into billions of tiny grains and covering each of these with a tough ceramic shell that can withstand unusually high tem- peratures. This ensuresthat the fuel and its radioactive by-products are tightly sealed from the environment. Consequently, the safety and pro- tection of the MHTGR is provided by inherent and passive features and does not depend on immediate operator actions or the activation of engi- neered systems in the event of an abnormal event. Liquid-Metal Reactors The liquid-metal reactor is a next-generation, sodium-cooled,modular nuclear power reactor. The concept of the LMR utilizes liquid-metal as a coolant and metallic fuel. The most significant property of liquid-metal cooling is that the LMR can operate near atmospheric pressureswithout requiring thick pressure vesselsto contain the cooling system. Metallic fuel provides the critically important property of high thermal conduc- tivity, which gives a high degreeof inherent safety to the LMR. Page 31 GAO/RCED-90-151 CivIlian Reactor Jhvelopment Program Appendix VI Major Contributors to This Report Judy A. England-Joseph,Associate Director Resources, Robert E. Allen, Jr., Assistant Director Community, and Duane Fitzgerald, Assistant Director/Nuclear Engineer Economic Edward E. Young, Jr., Assignment Manager William P. Leavens,Evaluator-in-Charge Development Division, J acqueline Bell, Staff Evaluator Washington, D.C. (3Olfw) Page 32 GAO/RCED-90-151 Civilian Reactor Development Program r C f c: ZI = ? 3I. = 1 % 7 P =z s ‘: f ?
Nuclear Science: U.S. Electricity Needs and DOE's Civilian Reactor Development Program
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-05-29.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)