- Email: [email protected]
Job creation due to nuclear power resurgence in the United States
ARTICLE IN PRESS Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Job creation due to nuclear power resurgence in the United States C.R. Kenley a, R.D. Klingler a, C.M. Plowman a,, R. Soto a, R.J. Turk a, R.L. Baker b, S.A. Close b, V.L. McDonnell b, S.W. Paul b, L.R. Rabideau b, S.S. Rao b, B.P. Reilly b a b
R&D Support Services, Idaho National Laboratory, 2525 N. Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3419, United States Bechtel Power Corporation, Frederick, MD 21703, United States
a r t i c l e in f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 25 July 2008 Accepted 16 June 2009 Available online 3 September 2009
The recent revival of global interest in the next generation of nuclear power reactors is causing a reexamination of the role of nuclear power in the United States. This renewed interest has led to questions regarding the capability and capacity of current US industries to support a renewal of nuclear power plant deployment. Key among the many questions currently being asked is what potential exists for the creation of new jobs as a result of developing and operating these new plants? Idaho National Laboratory and Bechtel Power Corporation collaborated to perform a Department of Energy-sponsored study that evaluated the potential for job creation in the United States should these new next generation nuclear power plants be built. The study focused primarily on providing an initial estimate of the numbers of new manufacturing jobs that could be created, including those that could be repatriated from overseas, resulting from the construction of these new reactors. In addition to the growth in the manufacturing sector, the study attempted to estimate the potential increase in construction trades necessary to accomplish the new construction. & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: US job creation Commercial nuclear industry Future energy demand
1. Introduction Since the late 1990s, there has been renewed interest in nuclear energy as part of a portfolio of responses to address climate change, increased energy demand, and domestic energy security. Demonstrated safety performance and advances in reliability and efficiency have been important factors in increasing public confidence in the nuclear sector. This renewed interest has led to questions regarding the capability and capacity of current US industries to support the reinvigoration of nuclear power plant deployment. New US initiatives to promote job creation, infrastructure investment, and energy efficiency and science (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (US Public Law 111-5, 2009)) also prompt inquiry about non-energy-production values, such as job creation, that a resurgence of nuclear power production might have. A study performed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) and sponsored by the US Department of Energy analyzes what jobs will be needed to support increased nuclear energy production. The primary focus of the study was to provide a reasonable estimate of the potential for new manufacturing jobs that could be created in the United States through the repatriation of the nuclear manufacturing Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 208 526 4828; fax: +1 208 526 0560.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Plowman). 0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.045
industry, but other direct and indirect jobs that would be created are projected as well.
2. Background Over 200 nuclear power plants were ordered in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s (EIA, 2001a), causing a significant expansion of employment and manufacturing capability in the nation. The number of architect/engineering firms, construction companies, nuclear steam-system suppliers, component suppliers, and nuclear fuel producers all rapidly increased to meet the needs of the expansion (EIA, 1996). However, beginning in the mid-1970s, the nuclear industry began to shrink as a result of a combination of circumstances including incidents such as the Brown’s Ferry fire in 1975 (Davis, 1975), the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 (NRC, 2004), and the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 (Schmemann, 1986). All of these incidents caused public alarm, leading to much more stringent and extremely costly nuclear safety requirements. In addition, the OPEC oil embargo was initiated during this same period, at a time when the demand for electricity had been growing at a rate of 7–8% per year (EIA, 1996), which caused the nation to re-evaluate its energy usage and turn to conservation policies. Unfortunately, based on previous projections of rapidly increasing demand, electrical utilities had built excess power-generating capacity. Reduced electrical demands and projections, erosion of public
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
confidence, uncertainty about regulatory demands, increased and costly safety requirements, delayed plant start-ups, and ballooning plant costs all contributed to a sharp decline in orders for new nuclear plants (EIA, 1996). The lack of domestic orders and relatively small numbers of foreign orders caused the US nuclear supply industry to undergo a drastic contraction in the late 1980s and early 1990s (EIA, 2001a; EIA, 1996). New orders for nuclear plants in the United States halted. Completion of existing orders was delayed, which caused some orders to be cancelled. Some existing plants were abandoned completely or scheduled for decommissioning (e.g., Zimmer, Marble Hill, Bellefonte, Yankee Rowe, Rancho Seco, etc.) (Koen, 1994; Anon, 1984; Kotval and Mullin, 1997; Trippett, 1989). The few plants that were actually built at this time were constructed and began operations only because the cost to dismantle them or not finish their construction would have been much greater in the long run (EIA, 1996). In response to the sharp decline in demand, companies supplying goods and services to the US nuclear industry worked off the backlog of US orders for nuclear power units and either transitioned to support new foreign orders or dropped out of the industry. Due to the decreasing confidence in the safety of nuclear power, public interest in energy-generating alternatives, such as solar, increased greatly. By the early 1980s, the federal government subsidized 40% of the purchase cost of any solar equipment, and the states added additional subsidies up to 30%, leaving only the remaining 30% of the cost to be absorbed by the homeowner. However, despite such incentives, solar-generated power technologies have been limited by variable availability (dependent on weather, time of day, etc.) and conversion inefficiency. Wind power technologies have encountered similar barriers and have not yet demonstrated the substantial energy supply impacts that were hoped for. For base-load power generation, the alternatives remain hydropower, fossil fuel, and nuclear (Cohen, 1990). Consequently, global interest in nuclear power has revived since the late 1990s (NEI, 2002a, b, 2001; EIA, 2001b). Safe, reliable nuclear power plant operation has become the standard for the industry. In fact, policymakers nationally and internationally are recognizing the excellent safety and efficiency records of US Generation I and II nuclear power reactors. As such, the federal government has authorized several deregulations in the nuclear power industry in the last 10 years (NEI, 2002a). It has therefore become more affordable and cost effective to generate much of the nation’s electricity through nuclear power (NEI, 2002a). Increasing the number of nuclear power plants to meet future energy demands has rippling effects on communities and economies, and has led to questions regarding the capability and capacity of current US industries to support the renewal of nuclear power plant deployment, including the construction of the next generation of nuclear power reactors. The rate at which these nuclear power plants may be built in the United States is uncertain, but the steadily increasing electricity supply and demand projections in the US underscore the seriousness of the challenge ahead. This study estimates the jobs that will be created from a resurgence in nuclear energy production and was conducted based on the Energy Information Administration’s 2004 projection for an electricity demand growth rate of 1.8% per year (EIA, 2004), which translates to 355,000 megawatts of new and replacement electrical generation within the next 2 decades (NEI, 2002a). To support this growth, the long-term vision set forth by the nuclear industry, referred to as ‘‘Vision 2020,’’ was to add 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear electric generating capacity to the national grid by 2020 (NEI, 2002a). Although the Energy Information Administration’s demandgrowth projection at the time of the study was below that of the previous 5 decades (and projections have since continued to
4895
decrease slightly) as shown in Fig. 1, it nonetheless constitutes an enormous amount of electricity because of the nation’s size and increasing population. To put the magnitude of this potential electricity supply gap into perspective, ‘‘it is approximately equivalent to the combined installed electrical capacity of France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy in 1999’’ (EIA, 1999). Several major reactor vendors are actively pursuing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission design certification approvals for their advanced reactors (Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004; DEI, 2004). The unprecedented designs for the new Generation III/III+ nuclear power plants in the United States are now deemed by industry to be the safest ever conceived (NEI, 2002a). The electrical output of these new plants ranges from about 1200–1500 megawatts of electricity (MWe), which means that between 33 and 41 plants would need to be constructed by 2020 to reach the 50,000 MW goal of Vision 2020. Based on these assumptions and assuming the first plant is ordered in about 2009, new nuclear power generation plants would need to be constructed at the rate shown in Fig. 2. As such, the earliest plant could be operating by about 2014. Beyond 2020, it is estimated that four to five new plants will have to be added to the inventory every year to keep pace with continued growth in the demand for electricity. This estimate of new plants was not based on any particular design but, instead, represents a potential range based on power generation capabilities.
Fig. 1. Electricity demand growth by decade.
Fig. 2. Estimate of new operational plants by year.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4896
C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
3. Methods Three key sources of input data were used to develop this model of job repatriation and new job creation in a revitalized nuclear industry: (1) a survey of potential US nuclear power suppliers, (2) data from the Nuclear Energy Institute, and (3) a Dominion Energy study focusing on the requirements of constructing advanced nuclear reactors. The survey, developed by Bechtel Power Corporation of Frederick, Maryland, was conducted expressly for this study. Bechtel Power surveyed previous and potential US suppliers of nuclear power plant components to identify the number of jobs they would add to meet a potential series of new plant orders, as shown in Fig. 2. Bechtel also supplied the estimate of construction jobs needed to build the new plants (Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004). Fifty-seven suppliers from various nuclear-related industries were targeted to participate in the survey. Of this targeted population, 40 companies responded. The surveys were usually conducted by telephone with two representatives to record the responses. In the case of four equipment or commodity categories (cable, compressors/vacuum pumps, dampers/louvers, and water treatment plants), there were no survey responses. Table 1 summarizes the results for the companies surveyed. The request to the companies surveyed was to accurately project (over time) the US jobs that would be created to support the manufacture of equipment and/or production of commodities in their respective product sectors, in the case that the estimated number of nuclear plants are actually built. The number of survey participants was limited to major suppliers either actively supporting the nuclear industry at the time of the survey or who reasonably could be expected to have a long-term interest in supporting future nuclear power plants. Some equipment and commodity producers forecasted no job growth because the volume of new revenue available for that commodity was not large enough to equate to manufacturing expansion, new facilities, or additional shifts. In other instances, no job growth was predicted because companies expected that they would rely on their existing relationship with their offshore suppliers. For some equipment and commodities, such as control valves, the range of
Table 1 Summary of findings for surveyed companies. Equipment or commodity
Number of respondents
Forecast job growth (none/ modest/moderate/robust)
Concrete Condensers (main) Cranes Fans Heat exchangers Structural steel Tanks (shop fabricated) Fabricated parts and components Prefabricated equipment modules Pipe Pumps, large and small Valves Control valves Diesel generators Reactor vessels and large components Turbine/generator sets Load centers, motor control centers, switchgear Tanks (field erected)
2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1
Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust
1
Moderate
2 4 4 2 2 3
Modest to robust Modest to robust Modest to robust None to robust None to robust None to modest
3 2
None to modest None
1
None
predicted job growth reported was large, ranging from none to robust. The second source of input data was from the Nuclear Energy Institute. Based on projections that the United States will need an additional 355,000 MWe of electricity within the next 2 decades to meet growing demand, the Nuclear Energy Institute developed a vision for the nuclear power industry, Nuclear Energy and the Nation’s Future Prosperity, which assumes that 60,000 MWe of this new demand will be provided by nuclear sources: 10,000 MWe through extension and efficiencies in current plants and 50,000 MWe through new generation capacity. This report is the foundation of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Vision 2020 initiative, and represents the views of over 260 nuclear energy and technology firms (NEI, 2002a). The third source was the Dominion Energy ‘‘Constructability Study’’ formally titled, Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules, O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs and Funding Requirements for Advanced Reactors (DEI, 2004). The specific advanced reactor staffing figures were used to augment the Nuclear Energy Institute data to project an ‘‘Operations Jobs’’ estimation for the study. In addition to the Vision 2020 framework, this study also used a compendium of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s economic impact studies of existing nuclear power plants and their effects on the respective regional economies in terms of permanent plant operations jobs, subcontracted ‘‘Indirect Jobs,’’ and non-nuclear jobs induced into the US economy (Johnston, 1972; NEI, 2004a–c, 2003). These data provided the critical link between jobs repatriated in the nuclear manufacturing sector and new job expansion in existing industries due to the deployment of new nuclear power plants. Repatriated jobs would only be a fraction of all the new jobs that would occur from building new nextgeneration nuclear power plants in the United States. The time frame for this study is from 2009 (the expected first order for a new plant) to 2024, when a steady state of plant orders has been reached and the 50,000 MWe production of electricity assumed in Vision 2020 has been achieved. A 5-year construction period for each plant is assumed, and a new plant ordered in 2009 becomes operational in 2014. To establish a conservative job creation scenario, two alternatives were used to carry out this study and meet the 50,000 MWe production goal: (1) 33 single unit, 1500-megawatt plants and (2) 41 single unit, 1200-megawatt plants, as shown in Table 2. This is consistent with the Vision 2020 strategy shown previously in Fig. 2. Other combinations of unit capacity and number of units could also be deployed to meet the 50,000 MWe demand (e.g., 50 units of 1000 MW each, or 125 units of 400 MW each). For simplicity, two generic units were used for this study, 1200 and 1500 MWe, respectively, deployed as single unit plants. In keeping with the conservative projections of the study, the higher capacity units Table 2 Estimated nuclear plant deployment by year. Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Number of 1200 MW units deployed Number of 1500 MW units deployed 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
Total 41
33
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
meant fewer plants being built and lower numbers of jobs being created. The economic impact data from recent studies of operational plants were combined with Dominion Energy’s Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules, O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs, and Funding Requirements for Advanced Reactors projections to develop the ‘‘Operations Jobs’’ function for a generic plant (Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004). Once completed, a good correlation was observed between the composite function and the Dominion Energy data. For instance, the Dominion Energy Study projected that a new single unit AP1000 plant would require 647 total plant staff. This model estimated that 677 permanent plant operations workers would be needed for a similar generic, single unit, 1100 MWe plant (DEI, 2004). This study assumes that new power plant orders have been placed and considers those jobs that are part of the construction, equipment manufacturing, operations, and servicing of the new plants, as well as supporting non-nuclear power jobs that would be induced into the economy. To establish baselines, it also assumes that all of the equipment under consideration would be produced by US companies and that each US supplier expands to 100% of the US market. These are oversimplifications of what would likely occur and further comparative systems dynamics modeling could be performed to predict what impacts outsourcing and varied levels of expansion would have on job creation. This study does not project jobs that would be created and/or repatriated for the design, siting, licensing, oversight, waste management, decontamination and decommissioning, and other related endeavors, but instead focuses on the growth impacts on the most immediate categories of jobs due to repatriation or creation. Five job categories are reported: (1) repatriated manufacturing, (2) power plant construction, (3) plant operations, (4) indirect plant, and (5) non-nuclear jobs induced into the economy. To allow for ease of comparison between this study’s findings and other job prediction reports, these five job categories are combined into three families: ‘‘Direct Jobs,’’ ‘‘Indirect Jobs,’’ and ‘‘Induced Jobs.’’ The Direct Job family is the sum of nuclear plant construction, manufacturing, and operations jobs. The Indirect Job family is the sum of jobs that would be created to provide indirect goods and services due to the plants being built, such as nuclear fuel suppliers, maintenance and repair services, and engineering services. The Induced Job family is the sum of the non-nuclear jobs that would be created because of industry growth, such as additional grocery store employees, school teachers, and residential construction laborers. In addition to showing findings grouped in these three categories, the manufacturing jobs are also reported separately to highlight the difference between repatriating the
4897
lost manufacturing jobs versus expanding the existing construction and operations sectors. Data from the Nuclear Energy Institute studies (Johnston, 1972; NEI, 2004a–c, 2003) were used for the Operations, Indirect, and Induced Jobs calculations. The Nuclear Energy Institute data were developed using the IMPLANs modeling tool running on US Census data to determine the economic impact of operating nuclear plants at both regional and national levels (MIG, 2008). The IMPLANs data and account structure closely follow the accounting conventions used in studies of the US economy by the Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. Data of this caliber were needed to complement the supplier data collected by the Bechtel survey and the construction data supplied by Bechtel for this study.
4. Results 4.1. Data collection and analysis The first phase of the study was the collection and analysis of existing industry and expert survey data from a total system perspective. Many industry-specific and labor-related studies and experiences were available as data sources; however, the complexity of the problem required integration across the various energy, manufacturing, and employment sectors to identify solutions and their respective impacts. This initial step provided a basic understanding of the relationship between the number of new plants built and the number of new jobs created. The data collected by INL and Bechtel were used to define the relationships between jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors and the number of new plants deployed. The Nuclear Energy Institute data were used to develop relationships between plants deployed and jobs created in the Operations, Indirect, and Induced Jobs sectors. Fig. 3 shows the maximum number of new jobs created during the 2009–2024 time frame for the five job categories in this study. The jobs shown here include operations jobs for the estimated 44 plants operating in 2024 plus an anticipated 25 additional plants under construction, which would hire and train workers 3 years prior to beginning operations. An estimated 38,000 repatriated manufacturing jobs would be generated. However, a cascading effect was noted whereby 79,000 new construction and operations jobs plus the 38,000 manufacturing jobs would create an additional 250,000 Indirect Jobs. The impact from these Indirect Jobs would ripple through the US economy and create an additional 242,000 jobs for a total of nearly 610,000 new jobs added over the 15-year time frame. The result is that for each
Fig. 3. Maximum job creation totals by job category.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4898
C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
Direct Job (construction, manufacturing, or operations positions) in a new nuclear power plant, four new jobs will be created to provide indirect goods and services to that plant or as non-nuclear jobs induced in the economy. 4.1.1. Repatriated manufacturing jobs This job category refers to those jobs previously lost to either offshore companies or industry attrition due to the lack of nuclear power plant orders in the United States. It was assumed that job repatriation would first occur in the manufacturing sector under the Vision 2020 scenario. Bechtel Power Corporation conducted a study of potential suppliers for nuclear plant equipment to determine how many jobs those first-tier suppliers might add if new nuclear plant orders were received (Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004). These suppliers were given the chart shown in Fig. 2 and were asked to provide a table of new jobs per year from 2009–2024. No suppliers of cabling, compressors, vacuum pumps, dampers/louvers, and cooling towers responded to the Bechtel Power survey. Additionally, manufacturers of large components, such as reactor vessels and steam generators, postulated that they could fill the orders for what they perceived as relatively few large components with their existing offshore capabilities and/or subcontracting relationships. To estimate a repatriation of jobs, suppliers were asked to report their market share in the commodity or equipment. The market share data were used to estimate an entirely 100% US production of the equipment under consideration. As a result of missing data from lack of response from some suppliers, the number of Repatriated Jobs reported in this study is considered to be an extremely low estimate. 4.1.2. Construction jobs The Bechtel Power Corporation Study also included an estimate of the labor needed to construct a new nuclear power plant (Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004). Their data were used to analyze the Direct construction jobs added due to new plant deployment. These jobs were considered to be an expansion of the construction industry. 4.1.3. Operations jobs The jobs in this category include the higher-paying permanent plant operators, technicians, plant engineers, and managers involved in the day-to-day operations of a nuclear power plant. The Nuclear Energy Institute has conducted several economic impact studies of existing nuclear power plants (Johnston, 1972; NEI, 2004a–c, 2003), and data from these studies were used to formulate the number of Plant Operations Jobs to be added per new plant per year. These jobs were considered to be new jobs in the existing Plant Operations sector. In addition, no consideration was given to the Operations Jobs running currently operational reactors. This assumption is based on the current plants’ licenses being extended beyond the time frame considered in the study. 4.1.4. Indirect jobs These jobs were calculated using formulas derived from the Nuclear Energy Institute economic impact studies, where the indirect employment effects for each plant were based on actual operations expenditures for all outside goods, services, and taxes (Johnston, 1972; NEI, 2004a–c, 2003). Examples of indirect expenditures include (1) nuclear fuel; (2) maintenance and repair services; (3) personnel supply services; (4) management and consulting services; (5) industrial machinery; (6) pipes, valves, and pipe fittings; (7) research and testing services; (8) engineering/architectural services; (9) steam supply and sewage services; (10) computer and data processing services; (11) insurance premiums; and (12) state and local taxes. The
potential new jobs created by these expenditures are an expansion of higher paying, family-wage employment in the United States. 4.1.5. Induced jobs This job category contains the initial estimate of the new jobs created in the non-nuclear industry due to the new jobs added in the categories above and using formulas derived from the Nuclear Energy Institute studies (Johnston, 1972; NEI, 2004a–c, 2003). These jobs represent a significant impact on the employment and economy of those locales in which the new plants may be built and on the US economy as a whole. For instance, the Indian Point study reported a potential of 918 locally Induced Jobs, 1132 Induced Jobs throughout New York State, and 5125 Induced Jobs across the United States (NEI, 2004b). This job family includes the additional grocery store checkers, elementary school teachers, home construction craft workers, postal carriers, etc., that would be added to the community as a result of new nuclear power plant deployment. 4.2. Modeling The second phase of the study was the development of a model that incorporated the industry data uncovered in the first phase. The industry data were further enhanced by information from economic impact studies performed by the Nuclear Energy Institute for individual plant sites. Statistical methods for fitting a curve through the data points translated the raw data into a set of equations, which could then be used to generate graphical representations of the relationships in the construction, manufacturing, operations, and indirect sectors with respect to the jobs created in each of those areas. The input used for all of these functions within the model is the number of new nuclear power plants built and brought on line at the rate shown in Fig. 2. Another way to view the impact of new nuclear power plants on jobs is shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Fig. 4 shows the growth in Direct Jobs (construction, manufacturing, operations positions) over time while Fig. 5 compares the growth in the Direct, Indirect, and Induced Job families over the same period.
5. Discussion This study evaluates the potential for the creation of jobs in the United States based on a scenario that adds nuclear plants sufficient to supply 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear electric generating capacity to the national grid by 2020. In addition to job creation and increased energy production, nuclear energy production reinvigoration provides other benefits, including the option to
Fig. 4. Direct jobs due to 33 1500 MWe units over 15 years.
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
Fig. 5. Direct vs. Indirect vs. Induced Jobs by year for 1500 MWe units.
locate plants based on population centers, other related industry impacts, and greater diversity of energy supply. Analyzes evaluating the value of these non-job-creation benefits are also necessary to develop strategies to facilitate deployment of expanded nuclear electricity production. This study assumes that 50,000 MWe of new electrical power would be produced by new Generation III/III+ plants. However, many factors will influence the decision to deploy new plants. While many suppliers replied that they were capable of responding to a new rollout, they also cited the need for a solid commitment and deployment schedule. Financial incentives, government/industry partnerships, new permitting and licensing processes, liability issues, etc., will all play a part in determining if, when, where, how, and which type of new plants are built. Further analysis of these dynamic and interrelated issues may provide additional insight that facilitates job growth and repatriation. Bechtel Power Corporation noted in their survey results that the first-tier US suppliers were concerned that their suppliers might not have sufficient capability to support a revitalization of the nuclear industry. In particular, these first-tier suppliers expressed concern regarding raw material supply and foundry and pipe mill capabilities. By continuing the Bechtel survey to include second- and third-tier suppliers, additional avenues of job repatriation and growth can be identified and additional barriers or opportunities can be uncovered. This concern shared by the few first-tier, large component suppliers in the United States prompts questions about how a US nuclear energy resurgence will impact the global nuclear power industry, which has its own growth objectives. What are the projected power needs across the globe, and how much demand must be filled by nuclear sources? Is the timing of Vision 2020 such that the global industry will be swamped with new orders? Is the industry as a whole capable of supplying the goods and materials needed on a global scale? The answers to these and similar capacity and capability questions may impact US decisions regarding path forward decisions in nuclear energy expansion.
6. Summary and conclusions Reliable and affordable electricity is the backbone of the nation’s economic and national security, and though the extent to which the nuclear power industry will be reinvigorated in the United States is not clear, what is certain is that a substantial number of new jobs would be created and specific skill sets would be needed to support nuclear industry growth, especially as targeted in Vision 2020.
4899
The 40 suppliers from various nuclear-related industries that participated in this survey provided data revealing that an estimated 677 total plant staff would be needed for a generic, single unit, 1100 MWe plant. To estimate the repatriation of jobs, these suppliers were asked about their market share in their respective commodity or equipment. The market share data were then used to estimate an entirely 100% US production of the equipment under consideration. Based on that approximated figure, an estimated 38,000 repatriated manufacturing jobs could be generated from the construction of Generation III/III+ reactors. Additionally, 79,000 new construction and operations jobs could also be created in a cascading effect. This would create 250,000 more indirect jobs that would ripple through the US economy and create an additional 242,000 non-nuclear induced jobs for a total of nearly 610,000 new jobs added over the study’s 15-year time frame. The result is that for each direct construction, manufacturing, or operations job for a new nuclear power plant, four additional jobs would also be created to provide indirect goods and services to that plant or as induced non-nuclear jobs in the economy. Additional analysis could be performed to estimate the jobs that could also be created and/or repatriated for the design, siting, licensing, oversight, waste management, decontamination and decommissioning, and other related endeavors associated with the construction of new reactors. Increasing the number of suppliers surveyed may also help project a more accurate picture of domestic job creation. Assessing the full life cycle of nuclear power plants and estimating the potential for new upstream (i.e., design and licensing) and downstream (i.e., decontamination and waste management) jobs would further enhance the analyzes and provide an even greater refinement of the reported potential for new jobs.
Acknowledgments This work was supported through funding provided by the US Department of Energy (DOE) to Idaho National Laboratory, operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517. The submitted manuscript was authored by a contractor of the US Government. Accordingly, the US Government retains a nonexclusive, royaltyfree license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the US Government. Neither the US Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the US Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the US Government or any agency thereof. References Anon, 1984. Nuclear Fissures. Time, Monday, January 30, 1984. Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004. Study of the impact on domestic manufacturing and supply infrastructure resulting from new nuclear plant deployment, Revision A Draft. Frederick, MD. Cohen, B., 1990. The Nuclear Energy Option. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4900
C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
Davis, J., 1975. Cable fire at Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Station. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bulletin 75-04A: Washington, D.C. Dominion Energy Inc., Bechtel Power Corporation, TLG, Inc., and MPR Associates, 2004. Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules, O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs and Funding Requirements for Advanced Reactor Designs, Volume 1, United States Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement DE-FC07-03ID14492, Contract DE-AT01-020NE23476. Energy Information Administration, 1996. The changing structure of the electric power industry: an update. Appendix A, Washington, D.C., pp. 108–110. Energy Information Administration, 1999. International Energy Annual 1999. Washington, D.C., pp. 98–99. Energy Information Administration, 2001a. Annual Energy Review 2000. Washington, D.C., pp. 252–253. Energy Information Administration, 2001b. International Energy Outlook 2001. Washington, D.C., p. 189. Energy Information Administration, 2004. Annual Energy Outlook 2004: With Projections to 2025. DOE/EIA-0383(2004) Washington, D.C., p. 4, 50. Johnston, J., 1972. Econometric Methods, second McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY. Koen, A.D., 1994. Surging electricity demand growth bolsters outlook for natural gas. Oil & Gas Journal (October 24, 1994). Kotval, Z., Mullin, J.R., 1997. The closing of the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant: the impact on a New England Community. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63.
Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 2008. /http://www.implan.com/S [accessed 15 June 2009]. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2001. 2001 Annual Energy Outlook. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2002a. Nuclear Energy and the Nation’s Future Prosperity. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2002b. 2002 Annual Energy Outlook. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2003. The Economic Benefits of Millstone Power Station. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2004a. The Economic Benefits of Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2004b. The Economic Benefits of Indian Point Energy Center. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2004c. The Economic Benefits of Oyster Creek Generating Station. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2004. Three Mile Island Accident. Office of Public Affairs Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C. Schmemann, S., 1986. Soviet Announces Nuclear Accident at Electric Plant. Special to the New York Times; Foreign Desk; Late City Final Edition; Sec. A, Pg. 1, Col. 5, Tuesday, April 29, 1986. Trippett, F., 1989. Shutting Down Rancho Seco. Time, Monday, June 19, 1989. US Public Law 111-5, 2009, ‘‘H.R.1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,’’ February 17, 2009.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Job creation due to nuclear power resurgence in the United States C.R. Kenley a, R.D. Klingler a, C.M. Plowman a,, R. Soto a, R.J. Turk a, R.L. Baker b, S.A. Close b, V.L. McDonnell b, S.W. Paul b, L.R. Rabideau b, S.S. Rao b, B.P. Reilly b a b
R&D Support Services, Idaho National Laboratory, 2525 N. Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3419, United States Bechtel Power Corporation, Frederick, MD 21703, United States
a r t i c l e in f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 25 July 2008 Accepted 16 June 2009 Available online 3 September 2009
The recent revival of global interest in the next generation of nuclear power reactors is causing a reexamination of the role of nuclear power in the United States. This renewed interest has led to questions regarding the capability and capacity of current US industries to support a renewal of nuclear power plant deployment. Key among the many questions currently being asked is what potential exists for the creation of new jobs as a result of developing and operating these new plants? Idaho National Laboratory and Bechtel Power Corporation collaborated to perform a Department of Energy-sponsored study that evaluated the potential for job creation in the United States should these new next generation nuclear power plants be built. The study focused primarily on providing an initial estimate of the numbers of new manufacturing jobs that could be created, including those that could be repatriated from overseas, resulting from the construction of these new reactors. In addition to the growth in the manufacturing sector, the study attempted to estimate the potential increase in construction trades necessary to accomplish the new construction. & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: US job creation Commercial nuclear industry Future energy demand
1. Introduction Since the late 1990s, there has been renewed interest in nuclear energy as part of a portfolio of responses to address climate change, increased energy demand, and domestic energy security. Demonstrated safety performance and advances in reliability and efficiency have been important factors in increasing public confidence in the nuclear sector. This renewed interest has led to questions regarding the capability and capacity of current US industries to support the reinvigoration of nuclear power plant deployment. New US initiatives to promote job creation, infrastructure investment, and energy efficiency and science (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (US Public Law 111-5, 2009)) also prompt inquiry about non-energy-production values, such as job creation, that a resurgence of nuclear power production might have. A study performed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) and sponsored by the US Department of Energy analyzes what jobs will be needed to support increased nuclear energy production. The primary focus of the study was to provide a reasonable estimate of the potential for new manufacturing jobs that could be created in the United States through the repatriation of the nuclear manufacturing Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 208 526 4828; fax: +1 208 526 0560.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Plowman). 0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.045
industry, but other direct and indirect jobs that would be created are projected as well.
2. Background Over 200 nuclear power plants were ordered in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s (EIA, 2001a), causing a significant expansion of employment and manufacturing capability in the nation. The number of architect/engineering firms, construction companies, nuclear steam-system suppliers, component suppliers, and nuclear fuel producers all rapidly increased to meet the needs of the expansion (EIA, 1996). However, beginning in the mid-1970s, the nuclear industry began to shrink as a result of a combination of circumstances including incidents such as the Brown’s Ferry fire in 1975 (Davis, 1975), the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 (NRC, 2004), and the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 (Schmemann, 1986). All of these incidents caused public alarm, leading to much more stringent and extremely costly nuclear safety requirements. In addition, the OPEC oil embargo was initiated during this same period, at a time when the demand for electricity had been growing at a rate of 7–8% per year (EIA, 1996), which caused the nation to re-evaluate its energy usage and turn to conservation policies. Unfortunately, based on previous projections of rapidly increasing demand, electrical utilities had built excess power-generating capacity. Reduced electrical demands and projections, erosion of public
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
confidence, uncertainty about regulatory demands, increased and costly safety requirements, delayed plant start-ups, and ballooning plant costs all contributed to a sharp decline in orders for new nuclear plants (EIA, 1996). The lack of domestic orders and relatively small numbers of foreign orders caused the US nuclear supply industry to undergo a drastic contraction in the late 1980s and early 1990s (EIA, 2001a; EIA, 1996). New orders for nuclear plants in the United States halted. Completion of existing orders was delayed, which caused some orders to be cancelled. Some existing plants were abandoned completely or scheduled for decommissioning (e.g., Zimmer, Marble Hill, Bellefonte, Yankee Rowe, Rancho Seco, etc.) (Koen, 1994; Anon, 1984; Kotval and Mullin, 1997; Trippett, 1989). The few plants that were actually built at this time were constructed and began operations only because the cost to dismantle them or not finish their construction would have been much greater in the long run (EIA, 1996). In response to the sharp decline in demand, companies supplying goods and services to the US nuclear industry worked off the backlog of US orders for nuclear power units and either transitioned to support new foreign orders or dropped out of the industry. Due to the decreasing confidence in the safety of nuclear power, public interest in energy-generating alternatives, such as solar, increased greatly. By the early 1980s, the federal government subsidized 40% of the purchase cost of any solar equipment, and the states added additional subsidies up to 30%, leaving only the remaining 30% of the cost to be absorbed by the homeowner. However, despite such incentives, solar-generated power technologies have been limited by variable availability (dependent on weather, time of day, etc.) and conversion inefficiency. Wind power technologies have encountered similar barriers and have not yet demonstrated the substantial energy supply impacts that were hoped for. For base-load power generation, the alternatives remain hydropower, fossil fuel, and nuclear (Cohen, 1990). Consequently, global interest in nuclear power has revived since the late 1990s (NEI, 2002a, b, 2001; EIA, 2001b). Safe, reliable nuclear power plant operation has become the standard for the industry. In fact, policymakers nationally and internationally are recognizing the excellent safety and efficiency records of US Generation I and II nuclear power reactors. As such, the federal government has authorized several deregulations in the nuclear power industry in the last 10 years (NEI, 2002a). It has therefore become more affordable and cost effective to generate much of the nation’s electricity through nuclear power (NEI, 2002a). Increasing the number of nuclear power plants to meet future energy demands has rippling effects on communities and economies, and has led to questions regarding the capability and capacity of current US industries to support the renewal of nuclear power plant deployment, including the construction of the next generation of nuclear power reactors. The rate at which these nuclear power plants may be built in the United States is uncertain, but the steadily increasing electricity supply and demand projections in the US underscore the seriousness of the challenge ahead. This study estimates the jobs that will be created from a resurgence in nuclear energy production and was conducted based on the Energy Information Administration’s 2004 projection for an electricity demand growth rate of 1.8% per year (EIA, 2004), which translates to 355,000 megawatts of new and replacement electrical generation within the next 2 decades (NEI, 2002a). To support this growth, the long-term vision set forth by the nuclear industry, referred to as ‘‘Vision 2020,’’ was to add 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear electric generating capacity to the national grid by 2020 (NEI, 2002a). Although the Energy Information Administration’s demandgrowth projection at the time of the study was below that of the previous 5 decades (and projections have since continued to
4895
decrease slightly) as shown in Fig. 1, it nonetheless constitutes an enormous amount of electricity because of the nation’s size and increasing population. To put the magnitude of this potential electricity supply gap into perspective, ‘‘it is approximately equivalent to the combined installed electrical capacity of France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy in 1999’’ (EIA, 1999). Several major reactor vendors are actively pursuing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission design certification approvals for their advanced reactors (Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004; DEI, 2004). The unprecedented designs for the new Generation III/III+ nuclear power plants in the United States are now deemed by industry to be the safest ever conceived (NEI, 2002a). The electrical output of these new plants ranges from about 1200–1500 megawatts of electricity (MWe), which means that between 33 and 41 plants would need to be constructed by 2020 to reach the 50,000 MW goal of Vision 2020. Based on these assumptions and assuming the first plant is ordered in about 2009, new nuclear power generation plants would need to be constructed at the rate shown in Fig. 2. As such, the earliest plant could be operating by about 2014. Beyond 2020, it is estimated that four to five new plants will have to be added to the inventory every year to keep pace with continued growth in the demand for electricity. This estimate of new plants was not based on any particular design but, instead, represents a potential range based on power generation capabilities.
Fig. 1. Electricity demand growth by decade.
Fig. 2. Estimate of new operational plants by year.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4896
C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
3. Methods Three key sources of input data were used to develop this model of job repatriation and new job creation in a revitalized nuclear industry: (1) a survey of potential US nuclear power suppliers, (2) data from the Nuclear Energy Institute, and (3) a Dominion Energy study focusing on the requirements of constructing advanced nuclear reactors. The survey, developed by Bechtel Power Corporation of Frederick, Maryland, was conducted expressly for this study. Bechtel Power surveyed previous and potential US suppliers of nuclear power plant components to identify the number of jobs they would add to meet a potential series of new plant orders, as shown in Fig. 2. Bechtel also supplied the estimate of construction jobs needed to build the new plants (Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004). Fifty-seven suppliers from various nuclear-related industries were targeted to participate in the survey. Of this targeted population, 40 companies responded. The surveys were usually conducted by telephone with two representatives to record the responses. In the case of four equipment or commodity categories (cable, compressors/vacuum pumps, dampers/louvers, and water treatment plants), there were no survey responses. Table 1 summarizes the results for the companies surveyed. The request to the companies surveyed was to accurately project (over time) the US jobs that would be created to support the manufacture of equipment and/or production of commodities in their respective product sectors, in the case that the estimated number of nuclear plants are actually built. The number of survey participants was limited to major suppliers either actively supporting the nuclear industry at the time of the survey or who reasonably could be expected to have a long-term interest in supporting future nuclear power plants. Some equipment and commodity producers forecasted no job growth because the volume of new revenue available for that commodity was not large enough to equate to manufacturing expansion, new facilities, or additional shifts. In other instances, no job growth was predicted because companies expected that they would rely on their existing relationship with their offshore suppliers. For some equipment and commodities, such as control valves, the range of
Table 1 Summary of findings for surveyed companies. Equipment or commodity
Number of respondents
Forecast job growth (none/ modest/moderate/robust)
Concrete Condensers (main) Cranes Fans Heat exchangers Structural steel Tanks (shop fabricated) Fabricated parts and components Prefabricated equipment modules Pipe Pumps, large and small Valves Control valves Diesel generators Reactor vessels and large components Turbine/generator sets Load centers, motor control centers, switchgear Tanks (field erected)
2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1
Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust Robust
1
Moderate
2 4 4 2 2 3
Modest to robust Modest to robust Modest to robust None to robust None to robust None to modest
3 2
None to modest None
1
None
predicted job growth reported was large, ranging from none to robust. The second source of input data was from the Nuclear Energy Institute. Based on projections that the United States will need an additional 355,000 MWe of electricity within the next 2 decades to meet growing demand, the Nuclear Energy Institute developed a vision for the nuclear power industry, Nuclear Energy and the Nation’s Future Prosperity, which assumes that 60,000 MWe of this new demand will be provided by nuclear sources: 10,000 MWe through extension and efficiencies in current plants and 50,000 MWe through new generation capacity. This report is the foundation of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Vision 2020 initiative, and represents the views of over 260 nuclear energy and technology firms (NEI, 2002a). The third source was the Dominion Energy ‘‘Constructability Study’’ formally titled, Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules, O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs and Funding Requirements for Advanced Reactors (DEI, 2004). The specific advanced reactor staffing figures were used to augment the Nuclear Energy Institute data to project an ‘‘Operations Jobs’’ estimation for the study. In addition to the Vision 2020 framework, this study also used a compendium of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s economic impact studies of existing nuclear power plants and their effects on the respective regional economies in terms of permanent plant operations jobs, subcontracted ‘‘Indirect Jobs,’’ and non-nuclear jobs induced into the US economy (Johnston, 1972; NEI, 2004a–c, 2003). These data provided the critical link between jobs repatriated in the nuclear manufacturing sector and new job expansion in existing industries due to the deployment of new nuclear power plants. Repatriated jobs would only be a fraction of all the new jobs that would occur from building new nextgeneration nuclear power plants in the United States. The time frame for this study is from 2009 (the expected first order for a new plant) to 2024, when a steady state of plant orders has been reached and the 50,000 MWe production of electricity assumed in Vision 2020 has been achieved. A 5-year construction period for each plant is assumed, and a new plant ordered in 2009 becomes operational in 2014. To establish a conservative job creation scenario, two alternatives were used to carry out this study and meet the 50,000 MWe production goal: (1) 33 single unit, 1500-megawatt plants and (2) 41 single unit, 1200-megawatt plants, as shown in Table 2. This is consistent with the Vision 2020 strategy shown previously in Fig. 2. Other combinations of unit capacity and number of units could also be deployed to meet the 50,000 MWe demand (e.g., 50 units of 1000 MW each, or 125 units of 400 MW each). For simplicity, two generic units were used for this study, 1200 and 1500 MWe, respectively, deployed as single unit plants. In keeping with the conservative projections of the study, the higher capacity units Table 2 Estimated nuclear plant deployment by year. Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Number of 1200 MW units deployed Number of 1500 MW units deployed 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
Total 41
33
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
meant fewer plants being built and lower numbers of jobs being created. The economic impact data from recent studies of operational plants were combined with Dominion Energy’s Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules, O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs, and Funding Requirements for Advanced Reactors projections to develop the ‘‘Operations Jobs’’ function for a generic plant (Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004). Once completed, a good correlation was observed between the composite function and the Dominion Energy data. For instance, the Dominion Energy Study projected that a new single unit AP1000 plant would require 647 total plant staff. This model estimated that 677 permanent plant operations workers would be needed for a similar generic, single unit, 1100 MWe plant (DEI, 2004). This study assumes that new power plant orders have been placed and considers those jobs that are part of the construction, equipment manufacturing, operations, and servicing of the new plants, as well as supporting non-nuclear power jobs that would be induced into the economy. To establish baselines, it also assumes that all of the equipment under consideration would be produced by US companies and that each US supplier expands to 100% of the US market. These are oversimplifications of what would likely occur and further comparative systems dynamics modeling could be performed to predict what impacts outsourcing and varied levels of expansion would have on job creation. This study does not project jobs that would be created and/or repatriated for the design, siting, licensing, oversight, waste management, decontamination and decommissioning, and other related endeavors, but instead focuses on the growth impacts on the most immediate categories of jobs due to repatriation or creation. Five job categories are reported: (1) repatriated manufacturing, (2) power plant construction, (3) plant operations, (4) indirect plant, and (5) non-nuclear jobs induced into the economy. To allow for ease of comparison between this study’s findings and other job prediction reports, these five job categories are combined into three families: ‘‘Direct Jobs,’’ ‘‘Indirect Jobs,’’ and ‘‘Induced Jobs.’’ The Direct Job family is the sum of nuclear plant construction, manufacturing, and operations jobs. The Indirect Job family is the sum of jobs that would be created to provide indirect goods and services due to the plants being built, such as nuclear fuel suppliers, maintenance and repair services, and engineering services. The Induced Job family is the sum of the non-nuclear jobs that would be created because of industry growth, such as additional grocery store employees, school teachers, and residential construction laborers. In addition to showing findings grouped in these three categories, the manufacturing jobs are also reported separately to highlight the difference between repatriating the
4897
lost manufacturing jobs versus expanding the existing construction and operations sectors. Data from the Nuclear Energy Institute studies (Johnston, 1972; NEI, 2004a–c, 2003) were used for the Operations, Indirect, and Induced Jobs calculations. The Nuclear Energy Institute data were developed using the IMPLANs modeling tool running on US Census data to determine the economic impact of operating nuclear plants at both regional and national levels (MIG, 2008). The IMPLANs data and account structure closely follow the accounting conventions used in studies of the US economy by the Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. Data of this caliber were needed to complement the supplier data collected by the Bechtel survey and the construction data supplied by Bechtel for this study.
4. Results 4.1. Data collection and analysis The first phase of the study was the collection and analysis of existing industry and expert survey data from a total system perspective. Many industry-specific and labor-related studies and experiences were available as data sources; however, the complexity of the problem required integration across the various energy, manufacturing, and employment sectors to identify solutions and their respective impacts. This initial step provided a basic understanding of the relationship between the number of new plants built and the number of new jobs created. The data collected by INL and Bechtel were used to define the relationships between jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors and the number of new plants deployed. The Nuclear Energy Institute data were used to develop relationships between plants deployed and jobs created in the Operations, Indirect, and Induced Jobs sectors. Fig. 3 shows the maximum number of new jobs created during the 2009–2024 time frame for the five job categories in this study. The jobs shown here include operations jobs for the estimated 44 plants operating in 2024 plus an anticipated 25 additional plants under construction, which would hire and train workers 3 years prior to beginning operations. An estimated 38,000 repatriated manufacturing jobs would be generated. However, a cascading effect was noted whereby 79,000 new construction and operations jobs plus the 38,000 manufacturing jobs would create an additional 250,000 Indirect Jobs. The impact from these Indirect Jobs would ripple through the US economy and create an additional 242,000 jobs for a total of nearly 610,000 new jobs added over the 15-year time frame. The result is that for each
Fig. 3. Maximum job creation totals by job category.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4898
C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
Direct Job (construction, manufacturing, or operations positions) in a new nuclear power plant, four new jobs will be created to provide indirect goods and services to that plant or as non-nuclear jobs induced in the economy. 4.1.1. Repatriated manufacturing jobs This job category refers to those jobs previously lost to either offshore companies or industry attrition due to the lack of nuclear power plant orders in the United States. It was assumed that job repatriation would first occur in the manufacturing sector under the Vision 2020 scenario. Bechtel Power Corporation conducted a study of potential suppliers for nuclear plant equipment to determine how many jobs those first-tier suppliers might add if new nuclear plant orders were received (Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004). These suppliers were given the chart shown in Fig. 2 and were asked to provide a table of new jobs per year from 2009–2024. No suppliers of cabling, compressors, vacuum pumps, dampers/louvers, and cooling towers responded to the Bechtel Power survey. Additionally, manufacturers of large components, such as reactor vessels and steam generators, postulated that they could fill the orders for what they perceived as relatively few large components with their existing offshore capabilities and/or subcontracting relationships. To estimate a repatriation of jobs, suppliers were asked to report their market share in the commodity or equipment. The market share data were used to estimate an entirely 100% US production of the equipment under consideration. As a result of missing data from lack of response from some suppliers, the number of Repatriated Jobs reported in this study is considered to be an extremely low estimate. 4.1.2. Construction jobs The Bechtel Power Corporation Study also included an estimate of the labor needed to construct a new nuclear power plant (Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004). Their data were used to analyze the Direct construction jobs added due to new plant deployment. These jobs were considered to be an expansion of the construction industry. 4.1.3. Operations jobs The jobs in this category include the higher-paying permanent plant operators, technicians, plant engineers, and managers involved in the day-to-day operations of a nuclear power plant. The Nuclear Energy Institute has conducted several economic impact studies of existing nuclear power plants (Johnston, 1972; NEI, 2004a–c, 2003), and data from these studies were used to formulate the number of Plant Operations Jobs to be added per new plant per year. These jobs were considered to be new jobs in the existing Plant Operations sector. In addition, no consideration was given to the Operations Jobs running currently operational reactors. This assumption is based on the current plants’ licenses being extended beyond the time frame considered in the study. 4.1.4. Indirect jobs These jobs were calculated using formulas derived from the Nuclear Energy Institute economic impact studies, where the indirect employment effects for each plant were based on actual operations expenditures for all outside goods, services, and taxes (Johnston, 1972; NEI, 2004a–c, 2003). Examples of indirect expenditures include (1) nuclear fuel; (2) maintenance and repair services; (3) personnel supply services; (4) management and consulting services; (5) industrial machinery; (6) pipes, valves, and pipe fittings; (7) research and testing services; (8) engineering/architectural services; (9) steam supply and sewage services; (10) computer and data processing services; (11) insurance premiums; and (12) state and local taxes. The
potential new jobs created by these expenditures are an expansion of higher paying, family-wage employment in the United States. 4.1.5. Induced jobs This job category contains the initial estimate of the new jobs created in the non-nuclear industry due to the new jobs added in the categories above and using formulas derived from the Nuclear Energy Institute studies (Johnston, 1972; NEI, 2004a–c, 2003). These jobs represent a significant impact on the employment and economy of those locales in which the new plants may be built and on the US economy as a whole. For instance, the Indian Point study reported a potential of 918 locally Induced Jobs, 1132 Induced Jobs throughout New York State, and 5125 Induced Jobs across the United States (NEI, 2004b). This job family includes the additional grocery store checkers, elementary school teachers, home construction craft workers, postal carriers, etc., that would be added to the community as a result of new nuclear power plant deployment. 4.2. Modeling The second phase of the study was the development of a model that incorporated the industry data uncovered in the first phase. The industry data were further enhanced by information from economic impact studies performed by the Nuclear Energy Institute for individual plant sites. Statistical methods for fitting a curve through the data points translated the raw data into a set of equations, which could then be used to generate graphical representations of the relationships in the construction, manufacturing, operations, and indirect sectors with respect to the jobs created in each of those areas. The input used for all of these functions within the model is the number of new nuclear power plants built and brought on line at the rate shown in Fig. 2. Another way to view the impact of new nuclear power plants on jobs is shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Fig. 4 shows the growth in Direct Jobs (construction, manufacturing, operations positions) over time while Fig. 5 compares the growth in the Direct, Indirect, and Induced Job families over the same period.
5. Discussion This study evaluates the potential for the creation of jobs in the United States based on a scenario that adds nuclear plants sufficient to supply 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear electric generating capacity to the national grid by 2020. In addition to job creation and increased energy production, nuclear energy production reinvigoration provides other benefits, including the option to
Fig. 4. Direct jobs due to 33 1500 MWe units over 15 years.
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
Fig. 5. Direct vs. Indirect vs. Induced Jobs by year for 1500 MWe units.
locate plants based on population centers, other related industry impacts, and greater diversity of energy supply. Analyzes evaluating the value of these non-job-creation benefits are also necessary to develop strategies to facilitate deployment of expanded nuclear electricity production. This study assumes that 50,000 MWe of new electrical power would be produced by new Generation III/III+ plants. However, many factors will influence the decision to deploy new plants. While many suppliers replied that they were capable of responding to a new rollout, they also cited the need for a solid commitment and deployment schedule. Financial incentives, government/industry partnerships, new permitting and licensing processes, liability issues, etc., will all play a part in determining if, when, where, how, and which type of new plants are built. Further analysis of these dynamic and interrelated issues may provide additional insight that facilitates job growth and repatriation. Bechtel Power Corporation noted in their survey results that the first-tier US suppliers were concerned that their suppliers might not have sufficient capability to support a revitalization of the nuclear industry. In particular, these first-tier suppliers expressed concern regarding raw material supply and foundry and pipe mill capabilities. By continuing the Bechtel survey to include second- and third-tier suppliers, additional avenues of job repatriation and growth can be identified and additional barriers or opportunities can be uncovered. This concern shared by the few first-tier, large component suppliers in the United States prompts questions about how a US nuclear energy resurgence will impact the global nuclear power industry, which has its own growth objectives. What are the projected power needs across the globe, and how much demand must be filled by nuclear sources? Is the timing of Vision 2020 such that the global industry will be swamped with new orders? Is the industry as a whole capable of supplying the goods and materials needed on a global scale? The answers to these and similar capacity and capability questions may impact US decisions regarding path forward decisions in nuclear energy expansion.
6. Summary and conclusions Reliable and affordable electricity is the backbone of the nation’s economic and national security, and though the extent to which the nuclear power industry will be reinvigorated in the United States is not clear, what is certain is that a substantial number of new jobs would be created and specific skill sets would be needed to support nuclear industry growth, especially as targeted in Vision 2020.
4899
The 40 suppliers from various nuclear-related industries that participated in this survey provided data revealing that an estimated 677 total plant staff would be needed for a generic, single unit, 1100 MWe plant. To estimate the repatriation of jobs, these suppliers were asked about their market share in their respective commodity or equipment. The market share data were then used to estimate an entirely 100% US production of the equipment under consideration. Based on that approximated figure, an estimated 38,000 repatriated manufacturing jobs could be generated from the construction of Generation III/III+ reactors. Additionally, 79,000 new construction and operations jobs could also be created in a cascading effect. This would create 250,000 more indirect jobs that would ripple through the US economy and create an additional 242,000 non-nuclear induced jobs for a total of nearly 610,000 new jobs added over the study’s 15-year time frame. The result is that for each direct construction, manufacturing, or operations job for a new nuclear power plant, four additional jobs would also be created to provide indirect goods and services to that plant or as induced non-nuclear jobs in the economy. Additional analysis could be performed to estimate the jobs that could also be created and/or repatriated for the design, siting, licensing, oversight, waste management, decontamination and decommissioning, and other related endeavors associated with the construction of new reactors. Increasing the number of suppliers surveyed may also help project a more accurate picture of domestic job creation. Assessing the full life cycle of nuclear power plants and estimating the potential for new upstream (i.e., design and licensing) and downstream (i.e., decontamination and waste management) jobs would further enhance the analyzes and provide an even greater refinement of the reported potential for new jobs.
Acknowledgments This work was supported through funding provided by the US Department of Energy (DOE) to Idaho National Laboratory, operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517. The submitted manuscript was authored by a contractor of the US Government. Accordingly, the US Government retains a nonexclusive, royaltyfree license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the US Government. Neither the US Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the US Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the US Government or any agency thereof. References Anon, 1984. Nuclear Fissures. Time, Monday, January 30, 1984. Bechtel Power Corporation, 2004. Study of the impact on domestic manufacturing and supply infrastructure resulting from new nuclear plant deployment, Revision A Draft. Frederick, MD. Cohen, B., 1990. The Nuclear Energy Option. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4900
C.R. Kenley et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 4894–4900
Davis, J., 1975. Cable fire at Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Station. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bulletin 75-04A: Washington, D.C. Dominion Energy Inc., Bechtel Power Corporation, TLG, Inc., and MPR Associates, 2004. Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules, O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs and Funding Requirements for Advanced Reactor Designs, Volume 1, United States Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement DE-FC07-03ID14492, Contract DE-AT01-020NE23476. Energy Information Administration, 1996. The changing structure of the electric power industry: an update. Appendix A, Washington, D.C., pp. 108–110. Energy Information Administration, 1999. International Energy Annual 1999. Washington, D.C., pp. 98–99. Energy Information Administration, 2001a. Annual Energy Review 2000. Washington, D.C., pp. 252–253. Energy Information Administration, 2001b. International Energy Outlook 2001. Washington, D.C., p. 189. Energy Information Administration, 2004. Annual Energy Outlook 2004: With Projections to 2025. DOE/EIA-0383(2004) Washington, D.C., p. 4, 50. Johnston, J., 1972. Econometric Methods, second McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY. Koen, A.D., 1994. Surging electricity demand growth bolsters outlook for natural gas. Oil & Gas Journal (October 24, 1994). Kotval, Z., Mullin, J.R., 1997. The closing of the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant: the impact on a New England Community. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63.
Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 2008. /http://www.implan.com/S [accessed 15 June 2009]. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2001. 2001 Annual Energy Outlook. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2002a. Nuclear Energy and the Nation’s Future Prosperity. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2002b. 2002 Annual Energy Outlook. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2003. The Economic Benefits of Millstone Power Station. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2004a. The Economic Benefits of Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2004b. The Economic Benefits of Indian Point Energy Center. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Energy Institute, 2004c. The Economic Benefits of Oyster Creek Generating Station. Washington, D.C. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2004. Three Mile Island Accident. Office of Public Affairs Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C. Schmemann, S., 1986. Soviet Announces Nuclear Accident at Electric Plant. Special to the New York Times; Foreign Desk; Late City Final Edition; Sec. A, Pg. 1, Col. 5, Tuesday, April 29, 1986. Trippett, F., 1989. Shutting Down Rancho Seco. Time, Monday, June 19, 1989. US Public Law 111-5, 2009, ‘‘H.R.1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,’’ February 17, 2009.