Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Andrews, Anthony" in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: U.S. Policy Development [November 29, 2006]
"As part of the World War II effort to develop the atomic bomb, reprocessing technology was developed to chemically separate and recover fissionable plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. In the early stage of commercial nuclear power, reprocessing was thought essential to supplying nuclear fuel. Federally sponsored breeder reactor development included research into advanced reprocessing technology. Several commercial interests in reprocessing foundered due to economic, technical, and regulatory issues. President Carter terminated federal support for reprocessing in an attempt to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons material. Reprocessing for nuclear weapons production ceased shortly after the Cold War ended. The Department of Energy now proposes a new generation of 'proliferation-resistant' reactor and reprocessing technology."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Andrews, Anthony
2006-11-29
-
Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations [Updated July 13, 2007]
"The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill includes funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies. Key budgetary issues involving these programs include [1] the distribution of Army Corps of Engineers appropriations across the agency's authorized construction and maintenance activities (Title I); [2] support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida Everglades (Title I) and California 'Bay-Delta' (CALFED) (Title II); [3] funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and proposals to store nuclear spent fuel temporarily (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); and [4] the Administration's proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to supply plutonium-based fuel to other nations (Title III: Nuclear Energy). The House Appropriations Committee reported out its FY2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, H.R. 2641 (H.Rept. 110-185), on June 6, 2007. The bill as reported did not contain indications of funding for specific projects. On June 20 the bill was debated on the House floor, but was not voted on pending submission by the Appropriations Committee of a supplement specifying funding for individual projects. That supplement was voted by the committee July 12, and the floor vote on the bill was expected the week of July 16. The Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations approved its version of the bill on June 26, and the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved it June 28 (S. 1751, S.Rept. 110-127)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Behrens, Carl E.; Andrews, Anthony; Bearden, David M. . . .
2007-07-13
-
Department of Defense Implementation of the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative: Implications for Federal Information Technology Reform Management [April 23, 2013]
"The Department of Defense (DOD) is the single largest energy consumer in the nation. As the largest owner of federal data centers, with 772, the DOD has more than twice as many centers as any other agency. By consolidating some of its data centers, DOD could have a significant positive impact on energy savings for the federal government. DOD has instituted a number of policy directives, as have all federal agencies, that influence energy use in its data centers. Data centers are facilities--buildings or parts of buildings--used to store, manage, and disseminate electronic information for a computer network. They house servers, which are computers used to perform network-management functions such as data storage and processing, and communications equipment and devices to connect the servers with the network. Data centers usually draw their power from the electric grid, but they may also contain specialized power conversion and backup equipment to maintain reliable power. Power consumption varies greatly among data centers but is typically many times higher than for other kinds of buildings. Within the context of the FDCCI [Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative], DOD's efforts are intended to address concerns about rising energy demands and costs of data centers, associated increases in carbon emissions, expanding real-estate footprints of data centers, and rising real-estate costs. According to DOD, the Department plans to reduce the number of its data centers by about 30% by 2013, and the number of servers by 25%. DOD intends to use savings generated from consolidation to pay the consolidation costs. DOD also plans to use cloud computing as part of its savings effort."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Figliola, Patricia Moloney; Andrews, Anthony; Fischer, Eric A.
2013-04-23
-
Energy Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) [March 12, 2009]
"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) emphasizes jobs, economic recovery, and assistance to those most impacted by the recession. It also stresses investments in technology, transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure and proposes strategies to stabilize state and local government budgets. Energy provisions are a featured part of ARRA. More than $45 billion is provided in appropriations for energy programs, mainly for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Most funding must be obligated by the end of FY2010. ARRA also provides more than $21 billion in energy tax incentives, primarily for energy efficiency and renewable energy. More than $11 billion is provided in grants for state and local governments through three Department of Energy programs. They are the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides energy efficiency services to low-income households; the State Energy Program, which provides states with discretionary funding that can be used for various energy efficiency and renewable energy purposes; and the new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, which aims to help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The law conditions eligibility for most of the State Energy Program funding on enactment of new building codes and adoption of electric utility rate 'decoupling' to encourage energy efficiency. For the Department of Education, about $8.8 billion is provided for 'Other Government Services,' which may include renovations of schools and college facilities that meet green building criteria. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ($2 billion), and the Environmental Protection Agency ($1 billion) receive multi-purpose funds that can be used for energy efficiency measures in public housing and state and tribal facilities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sissine, Fred J.; Andrews, Anthony; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin) . . .
2009-03-12
-
Energy Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) [March 3, 2009]
"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) emphasizes jobs, economic recovery, and assistance to those most impacted by the recession. It also stresses investments in technology, transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure and proposes strategies to stabilize state and local government budgets. Energy provisions are a featured part of ARRA. More than $42 billion is provided in appropriations for energy programs, mainly for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Most funding must be obligated by the end of FY2010. ARRA also provides more than $21 billion in energy tax incentives, primarily for energy efficiency and renewable energy. More than $11 billion is provided in grants for state and local governments through three Department of Energy programs. They are the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides energy efficiency services to low-income households; the State Energy Program, which provides states with discretionary funding that can be used for various energy efficiency and renewable energy purposes; and the new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, which aims to help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The law conditions eligibility for most of the State Energy Program funding on enactment of new building codes and adoption of electric utility rate 'decoupling' to encourage energy efficiency. For the Department of Education, about $8.8 billion is provided for 'Other Government Services,' which may include renovations of schools and college facilities that meet green building criteria. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ($2 billion),and the Environmental Protection Agency ($1 billion) receive multi-purpose funds that can be used for energy efficiency measures in public housing and state and tribal facilities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sissine, Fred J.; Andrews, Anthony; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin) . . .
2009-03-03
-
U.S. Rail Transportation of Crude Oil: Background and Issues for Congress [May 5, 2014]
"North America is experiencing a boom in crude oil supply, primarily due to growing production in the Canadian oil sands and the recent expansion of shale oil production from the Bakken fields in North Dakota and Montana as well as the Eagle Ford and Permian Basins in Texas. Taken together, these new supplies are fundamentally changing the U.S. oil supply-demand balance. The United States now meets 66% of its crude oil demand from production in North America, displacing imports from overseas and positioning the United States to have excess oil and refined products supplies in some regions. The rapid expansion of North American oil production has led to significant challenges in transporting crudes efficiently and safely to domestic markets--principally refineries--using the nation's legacy pipeline infrastructure. In the face of continued uncertainty about the prospects for additional pipeline capacity, and as a quicker, more flexible alternative to new pipeline projects, North American crude oil producers are increasingly turning to rail as a means of transporting crude supplies to U.S. markets. According to rail industry officials, U.S. freight railroads are estimated to have carried 434,000 carloads of crude oil in 2013 (roughly equivalent to 300 million barrels), compared to 9,500 carloads in 2008. In 2014, 650,000 carloads of crude oil are expected to be carried. Crude imports by rail from Canada have increased more than 20-fold since 2011. The amount of oil transported by rail may also be influenced by a tight market for U.S.-built tankers."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Frittelli, John; Parfomak, Paul W.; Ramseur, Jonathan L. . . .
2014-05-05
-
Northeast Heating Oil Supply, Demand, and Factors Affecting Its Use [April 28, 2014]
"The United States' exports and imports of refined petroleum products include distillate fuel oil-- the general category for heating oil. In 2013, distillate fuel oil imports exceeded 56.4 million barrels, up from the previous year's 46.2 million barrels. However, distillate fuel imports have been declining. Overall, some 6.9 million households rely on heating oil nationally. The number of overall household users, however, has declined from 8.7 million in 2006-2007, and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects a 3% decline for 2013-2014. By and large, the greatest demand for home heating oil is in the Northeast United States, where some 5.5 million households relied on it for primary space heating during the winter of 2012-2013, consuming 645.5 gallons per household on average (compared to 766.4 gallons by Midwest households). […] A number of factors may contribute to the nation's declining demand for heating oil. The most significant factor may be that the increasing price of heating oil has discouraged use. Heating oil prices continue to remain high, as do other petroleum products and crude oil. These factors raise several questions: what factors have contributed to the decline of heating oil consumption; does the Northeast still depend on heating oil to the extent it did over a decade ago; and should Congress continue to monitor the Northeast heating oil supply?"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Andrews, Anthony; Perl, Libby
2014-04-28
-
U.S. Rail Transportation of Crude Oil: Background and Issues for Congress [December 4, 2014]
"The United States now meets 66% of its crude oil demand from production in North America, displacing imports from overseas and positioning the United States to have excess oil and refined products supplies in some regions. The rapid expansion of North American oil production has led to significant challenges in transporting crudes efficiently and safely to domestic markets--principally refineries--using the nation's legacy pipeline infrastructure. In the face of continued uncertainty about the prospects for additional pipeline capacity, and as a quicker, more flexible alternative to new pipeline projects, North American crude oil producers are increasingly turning to rail as a means of transporting crude supplies to U.S. markets. Railroads are more willing to enter into shorter-term contracts with shippers than pipelines, offering more flexibility in a volatile oil market. […] While oil by rail has demonstrated benefits with respect to the efficient movement of oil from producing regions to market hubs, it has also raised significant concerns about transportation safety and potential impacts to the environment. The most recent data available indicate that railroads consistently spill less crude oil per ton-mile transported than other modes of land transportation. Nonetheless, safety and environmental concerns have been underscored by a series of major accidents across North America involving crude oil transportation by rail […] Legislation introduced in Congress following the Lac Mégantic disaster would require railroads to have at least two crew members aboard all trains. In addition, policy makers are proposing regulatory changes involving tank car design, prevention of derailments, and selection of preferred routes for transporting oil by rail. Congress may evaluate these changes in the reauthorization of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Frittelli, John; Andrews, Anthony; Parfomak, Paul W. . . .
2014-12-04
-
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve and the National Oilheat Research Alliance [September 19, 2013]
"'During the winter of 1999-2000, the price of home heating oil virtually doubled in some Northeastern states while storage levels of middle distillate stocks--the range of home heating oil and diesel fuels--sharply declined. The situation attracted lawmakers' attention and concern. Of the U.S. households that use heating oil to heat their homes, 69% reside in the Northeast. The Northeastern states continue to rely on heating oil as a source of home heating, but at a reduced level of dependency compared to 2000. The Northeast demand for home heating oil has declined by 47% since 2000, from nearly 7 billion gallons to 3.6 billion gallons in 2011. However, the price of heating oil has increased more than 2½ times from roughly $1.50 per gallon beginning in 2000 to just over $4.00 gallon in early 2013. The price increase reflects the trend in the price of crude oil. Both population and housing occupancy rates ostensibly drive heating oil demand. Both increased in the Northeast over the past decade. At the same time, improved insulation and more energy-efficient heating systems in newly constructed homes may have offset demand. As a percent of overall domestic demand for natural gas, the Northeast region has remained nearly steady, varying between 20% and 22%, and recently returned to a level barely above 2001-2002 demand. Natural gas, electricity, bottled propane, and wood can substitute for heating oil. Natural gas demand in 2011 barely exceeded the 2000 demand.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Andrews, Anthony
2013-09-19
-
Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Authorization, Operation, and Drawdown Policy [August 27, 2013]
"Congress authorized the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 to help prevent a repetition of the economic disruption caused by the 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo. EPCA specifically authorizes the President to draw down the SPR upon a finding that there is a 'severe energy supply interruption.' The meaning of a 'severe energy supply interruption' has been controversial. The authors of EPCA intended the SPR only to ameliorate discernible physical shortages of crude oil. Historically, increasing crude oil prices typically signal market concerns for supply availability. However, Congress deliberately kept price trigger considerations out of the President's SPR drawdown authority because of the question about what price level should trigger a drawdown, and the concern that a price threshold could influence market behavior and industry inventory practices. As a member of the International Energy Agency--a coalition of 28 countries--the United States agrees to support energy supply security through energy policy cooperation, commit to maintaining emergency reserves equal to 90 days of net petroleum oil imports, develop programs for demand restraint in the event of emergencies, and participate in allocation of oil deliveries among the signatory nations to balance a shortage."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Andrews, Anthony; Pirog, Robert L.
2013-08-27
-
Crude Oil Properties Relevant to Rail Transport Safety: In Brief [February 18, 2014]
"The dramatic increase in U.S. crude oil production, coupled with the increase in crude oil transport by rail, has raised questions about whether properties (e.g., flammability) of these crude types--particularly Bakken crude oil from North Dakota--differ sufficiently from other crude oils to warrant any additional handling considerations. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a Safety Alert to notify emergency responders, shippers, carriers, and the public that recent derailments and resulting fires indicate that the type of crude oil transported from the Bakken region of North Dakota may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil. The alert reminds emergency responders that light sweet crude oil, such as that coming from the Bakken region, pose significant fire risk if released from the package (tank car) in an accident. PHMSA has expanded the scope of lab testing to include other factors that affect proper characterization and classification of crude oil such as volatility, corrosivity, hydrogen sulfide content and composition/concentration of the entrained gases in the material. All crude oils are flammable, to a varying degree. Further, crude oils exhibit other potentially hazardous characteristics as well. The growing perception is that light volatile crude oil, like Bakken crude, is a root cause for catastrophic incidents and thus may be too hazardous to ship by rail. However, equally hazardous and flammable liquids from other sources are routinely transported by rail, tanker truck, barge, and pipeline, though not without accident. A key question for Congress is whether the characteristics of Bakken crude oil make it particularly hazardous to ship by rail, or are there other causes of transport incidents, such as poor maintenance practices, inadequate safety standards, or human error." This document includes tables and graphs.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Andrews, Anthony
2014-02-18
-
U.S. Rail Transportation of Crude Oil: Background and Issues for Congress [February 6, 2014]
"The rapid expansion of North American oil production has led to significant challenges in transporting crudes efficiently and safely to domestic markets--principally refineries--using the nation's legacy pipeline infrastructure. In the face of continued uncertainty about the prospects for additional pipeline capacity, and as a quicker, more flexible alternative to new pipeline projects, North American crude oil producers are increasingly turning to rail as a means of transporting crude supplies to U.S. markets. According to rail industry officials, U.S. freight railroads are estimated to have carried more than 400,000 carloads of crude oil in 2013 (roughly equivalent to 280 million barrels), compared to 9,500 carloads in 2008. Crude imports by rail from Canada have increased more than 20-fold since 2011. While oil by rail has demonstrated benefits with respect to the efficient movement of oil from producing regions to market hubs, it has also raised significant concerns about transportation safety and potential impacts to the environment. […] Legislation introduced in Congress following the Lac Mégantic disaster would require railroads to have at least two crew members aboard all trains. In addition, policymakers are discussing regulatory changes involving tank car design, prevention of derailments, and selection of preferred routes for transporting oil by rail."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Frittelli, John; Parfomak, Paul W.; Ramseur, Jonathan L. . . .
2014-02-06
-
Petroleum Coke: Industry and Environmental Issues [October 29, 2013]
"In early 2013, media outlets around Detroit, Michigan began publishing stories about large piles of petroleum coke stored along the Detroit Riverfront. Petroleum coke (petcoke) is a black colored solid composed primarily of carbon, and may contain limited amounts of elemental forms of sulfur, metals and non-volatile inorganic compounds. Petcoke is essentially chemically inert. Petcoke exposure is considered to pose few human health or environmental risks, but may present significant nuisance concerns. The material in Detroit was the byproduct of the nearby Marathon Refinery's processing of heavy crude oils derived, in part, from Canadian oil sands deposits. The situation gained national attention with the publication of an article in the New York Times ('A Black Mound of Canadian Oil Waste Is Rising over Detroit,' New York Times, May 17, 2013). The piles of petcoke sparked local concerns over the potential impacts of the material on human health and the environment, and whether these concerns were adequately addressed by local, state, and federal regulations. As petroleum refining is a nationwide commercial industry, these concerns may arise in other regions. […] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has surveyed the potential human health and environmental impacts of petcoke through its High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program and found the material to be highly stable and non-reactive at ambient environmental conditions. Most toxicity analyses of petcoke find it has a low potential to cause adverse effects on aquatic or terrestrial environments as well as a low health hazard potential in humans, with no observed carcinogenic, reproductive, or developmental effects. Cases of repeated-dose and chronic inhalation of fugitive dust (as generated during petcoke handling and storage) in animal studies do appear associated with respiratory inflammation. Emissions from the combustion of petcoke, however, can have impacts on human health and the environment, including the release of common pollutants, hazardous substances, and high levels of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Andrews, Anthony; Lattanzio, Richard K.
2013-10-29
-
Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities [August 23, 2010]
"The physical security of nuclear power plants and their vulnerability to deliberate acts of terrorism was elevated to a national security concern following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Since the attacks, Congress has repeatedly focused oversight and legislative attention on nuclear power plant security requirements established and enforced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) imposed specific criteria for NRC to consider in revising the 'Design Basis Threat' (DBT), which specifies the maximum severity of potential attacks that a nuclear plant's security force must be capable of repelling. In response to the legislative mandate, NRC revised the DBT (10 C.F.R. Part 73.1) on April 18, 2007. Among other changes, the revisions expanded the assumed capabilities of adversaries to operate as one or more teams and attack from multiple entry points. To strengthen nuclear plant security inspections, EPACT05 required NRC to conduct 'force-onforce' security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years. In these exercises, a mock adversary force from outside a nuclear plant attempts to penetrate the plant's vital area and simulate damage to a 'target set' of key safety components. From the start of the program through 2009, 112 force-on-force inspections were conducted, with each inspection typically including three mock attacks by the adversary force. During the 112 inspections, eight mock attacks resulted in the simulated destruction of complete target sets, indicating inadequate protection against the DBT, and additional security measures were promptly implemented, according to NRC."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Andrews, Anthony; Holt, Mark
2010-08-23
-
Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities [March 18, 2009]
"The physical security of nuclear power plants and their vulnerability to deliberate acts of terrorism was elevated to a national security concern following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Since then, Congress has repeatedly focused oversight and legislative attention on nuclear power plant security requirements established and enforced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) imposed specific criteria for NRC to consider in revising the 'Design Basis Threat' (DBT), which specifies the maximum severity of potential attacks that a nuclear plant's security force must be capable of repelling. In response to the legislative mandate, NRC revised the DBT (10 C.F.R. Part 73.1) on April 18, 2007. Among other changes, the revisions expanded the assumed capabilities of adversaries to operate as one or more teams and attack from multiple entry points. To strengthen nuclear plant security inspections, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 act required NRC to conduct 'force-on-force' security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years. In these exercises, a mock adversary force from outside a nuclear plant attempts to penetrate the plant's vital area and simulate damage to key safety components. [...]. Other ongoing nuclear plant security issues include the vulnerability of spent fuel pools, which hold highly radioactive nuclear fuel after its removal from the reactor, standards for nuclear plant security personnel, and nuclear plant emergency planning. NRC's December 2008 security regulations addressed some of those concerns and included a number of other security enhancements."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Andrews, Anthony
2009-03-18
-
Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities [August 28, 2012]
"The physical security of nuclear power plants and their vulnerability to deliberate acts of terrorism was elevated to a national security issue following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Congress subsequently enacted new nuclear plant security requirements and has repeatedly focused attention on regulation and enforcement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). More than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, security at nuclear plants remains an important concern. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. [Public Law] 109-58) imposed specific criteria for NRC to consider in revising the 'Design Basis Threat' (DBT), which specifies the maximum severity of potential attacks that a nuclear plant's security force must be capable of repelling. In response to the legislative mandate, NRC revised the DBT (10 C.F.R. Part 73.1) on April 18, 2007. Among other changes, the revisions expanded the assumed capabilities of adversaries to operate as one or more teams and attack from multiple entry points."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Andrews, Anthony
2012-08-28
-
Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities [January 18, 2008]
"The physical security of nuclear power plants and their vulnerability to deliberate acts of terrorism was elevated to a national security concern following the events of September 11, 2001. Title VI of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 regarding nuclear security amended the Atomic Energy Act with the addition of new provisions for security evaluations and rulemaking to revise the 'Design Basis Threat.' The act included provisions for fingerprinting and criminal background checks of security personnel, their use of firearms, and the unauthorized introduction of dangerous weapons. The designation of facilities subject to enforcement of penalties for sabotage expanded to include treatment and disposal facilities. As part of security response evaluations, the act requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct 'force-on-force' security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years, and revise the 'design-basis threat' to consider a wider variety of potential attacks. The NRC has strengthened its regulations on nuclear power plant security, but critics contend that implementation by the industry has been too slow and that further measures are needed. Vulnerability to a deliberate aircraft crash remains an outstanding issue, as the latest NRC rulemaking addresses only newly designed plants. Shortcomings in the performance of security contractors has drawn the attention of Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Andrews, Anthony
2008-01-18
-
Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack [October 4, 2006]
"Protection of nuclear power plants from land-based assaults, deliberate aircraft crashes, and other terrorist acts has been a heightened national priority since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has strengthened its regulations on nuclear reactor security, but critics contend that implementation by the industry has been too slow and that further measures are needed. Several provisions to increase nuclear reactor security are included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed August 8, 2005. The law requires NRC to conduct 'force-on-force' security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years and to revise the 'design-basis threat' that nuclear plant security forces must be able to meet, among other measures. This report will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Andrews, Anthony
2006-10-04
-
Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack [January 22, 2007]
"Protection of nuclear power plants from land-based assaults, deliberate aircraft crashes, and other terrorist acts has been a heightened national priority since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has strengthened its regulations on nuclear reactor security, but critics contend that implementation by the industry has been too slow and that further measures are needed. Several provisions to increase nuclear reactor security are included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed August 8, 2005. The law requires NRC to conduct 'force-on-force' security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years and to revise the 'design-basis threat' that nuclear plant security forces must be able to meet, among other measures. This report will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Andrews, Anthony
2007-01-22
-
Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack [Updated August 8, 2007]
"Protection of nuclear power plants from land-based assaults, deliberate aircraft crashes, and other terrorist acts has been a heightened national priority since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has strengthened its regulations on nuclear reactor security, but critics contend that implementation by the industry has been too slow and that further measures are needed. Several provisions to increase nuclear reactor security are included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed August 8, 2005. The law requires NRC to conduct 'force-on-force' security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years and to revise the 'design-basis threat' that nuclear plant security forces must be able to meet, among other measures. This report will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Andrews, Anthony
2007-08-08
-
Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities [January 3, 2014]
"To strengthen nuclear plant security inspections, EPACT05 [Energy Policy Act of 2005] required NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] to conduct 'force-onforce' security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years. In these exercises, a mock adversary force from outside a nuclear plant attempts to penetrate the plant's vital area and simulate damage to a 'target set' of key safety components. During calendar year 2012, NRC conducted 23 force-on-force (FOF) inspections at 22 commercial nuclear plants and one fuel cycle facility. Eleven of those inspections found performance deficiencies: 19 with low significance (green findings), one 'greater than green' finding, and three severity level IV (least serious) violations. One exercise resulted in the simulated destruction of or damage to a complete 'target set' of vital plant components that were under mock attack. When force-on-force exercises indicate inadequate protection against the DBT [Design Basis Threat], additional security measures must be promptly implemented, according to NRC. Nuclear power plant vulnerability to deliberate aircraft crashes has been a continuing issue. After much consideration, NRC published final rules on June 12, 2009, to require all new nuclear power plants to incorporate design features that would ensure that, in the event of a crash by a large commercial aircraft, the reactor core would remain cooled or the reactor containment would remain intact, and radioactive releases would not occur from spent fuel storage pools."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Andrews, Anthony
2014-01-03
-
Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to Nuclear Power [September 12, 2009]
"After several decades of widespread stagnation, nuclear power has attracted renewed interest in recent years. New license applications for 30 reactors have been announced in the United States, and another 541 are under construction, planned, or proposed around the world. In the United States, interest appears driven, in part, by tax credits, loan guarantees, and other incentives in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, as well as by concerns about carbon emissions from competing fossil fuel technologies. A major concern about the global expansion of nuclear power is the potential spread of nuclear fuel cycle technology-particularly uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing-that could be used for nuclear weapons. Despite 30 years of effort to limit access to uranium enrichment, several undeterred states pursued clandestine nuclear programs, the A.Q. Khan black market network's sales to Iran and North Korea representing the most egregious examples. However, concern over the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies may be offset by support for nuclear power as a cleaner and more secure alternative to fossil fuels. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have expressed optimism that advanced nuclear technologies being developed by the Department of Energy may offer proliferation resistance. Both Administrations have also pursued international incentives and agreements intended to minimize the spread of fuel cycle facilities. Proposals offering countries access to nuclear power and thus the fuel cycle have ranged from requesting formal commitments by these countries to forswear sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technology, to a de facto approach in which states would not operate fuel cycle facilities but make no explicit commitments, to no restrictions at all. Countries joining the U.S.- led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), now the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC), signed a statement of principles that represented a shift in U.S. policy by not requiring participants to forgo domestic fuel cycle programs. Whether developing states will find existing proposals attractive enough to forgo what they see as their 'inalienable' right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes remains to be seen."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham; Andrews, Anthony; Holt, Mark
2011-09-12
-
Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to Nuclear Power [July 1, 2009]
"After several decades of widespread stagnation, nuclear power has attracted renewed interest in recent years. New license applications for 30 reactors have been announced in the United States, and another 541 are under construction, planned, or proposed around the world. In the United States, interest appears driven, in part, by tax credits, loan guarantees, and other incentives in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, as well as by concerns about carbon emissions from competing fossil fuel technologies. A major concern about the global expansion of nuclear power is the potential spread of nuclear fuel cycle technology-particularly uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing-that could be used for nuclear weapons. Despite 30 years of effort to limit access to uranium enrichment, several undeterred states pursued clandestine nuclear programs, the A.Q. Khan black market network's sales to Iran and North Korea representing the most egregious examples. However, concern over the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies may be offset by support for nuclear power as a cleaner and more secure alternative to fossil fuels. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have expressed optimism that advanced nuclear technologies being developed by the Department of Energy may offer proliferation resistance. Both Administrations have also pursued international incentives and agreements intended to minimize the spread of fuel cycle facilities. Proposals offering countries access to nuclear power and thus the fuel cycle have ranged from requesting formal commitments by these countries to forswear sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technology, to a de facto approach in which states would not operate fuel cycle facilities but make no explicit commitments, to no restrictions at all. Countries joining the U.S.- led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), now the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC), signed a statement of principles that represented a shift in U.S. policy by not requiring participants to forgo domestic fuel cycle programs. Whether developing states will find existing proposals attractive enough to forgo what they see as their 'inalienable' right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes remains to be seen."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Andrews, Anthony; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham
2009-07-01
