Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Holt, Mark" 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).
-
Rising Costs and Delays Doom New Nuclear Reactors in South Carolina [August 10, 2017]
"A utility consortium that had been building two new nuclear power reactors in South Carolina announced July 31, 2017, it is abandoning the project because of growing cost overruns and schedule delays. Completion of the two additional reactors at the existing V.C.(Virgil C. Summer) Nuclear Station near Jenkinsville, SC, had been in doubt since Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the lead contractor for the project, filed for bankruptcy reorganization on March 29, 2017. Westinghouse also had been building two new reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia. The lead owner of that project, Southern Company, has taken over construction management from Westinghouse while the owners decide --reportedly by the end of August--whether to complete the new reactors."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark
2017-08-10
-
21st Century U.S. Energy Sources: A Primer [November 5, 2018]
"Since the start of the 21st century, the U.S. energy system has seen tremendous changes. Technological advances in energy production have driven changes in energy consumption, and the United States has moved from being a growing net importer of most forms of energy to a declining importer--and possibly a net exporter in the near future. The United States remains the second largest producer and consumer of energy in the world, behind China. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry has gone through a 'renaissance' of production. Technological improvements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have unlocked enormous oil and natural gas resources from unconventional formations, such as shale. Oil has surpassed levels of production not seen since the 1970s. Natural gas has set new production records almost every year since 2000. In conjunction with the rise in oil and natural gas production, U.S. production of natural gas liquids has also increased. The rise in production of these fuel sources has also corresponded with increased consumption and exports of each."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Ratner, Michael; Bracmort, Kelsi; Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy) . . .
2018-11-05
-
Energy and Water Development: FY2020 Appropriations [Updated January 29, 2020]
From the Document: "The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Central Utah Project (CUP); the Department of Energy (DOE); the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC); and several other independent agencies. DOE typically accounts for about 80% of the bill's funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Clark, Corrie E.; Holt, Mark
2020-01-29
-
U.S.-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Issues for Congress [March 24, 2014]
"U.S.-Vietnamese cooperation on nuclear energy and nonproliferation has grown in recent years along with closer bilateral economic, military, and diplomatic ties. In 2010, the two countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding that Obama Administration officials said would be a 'stepping stone' to a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement. This agreement was signed by the two countries in December 2013. Under section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended), this agreement is subject to congressional review. The nuclear cooperation agreement is expected to comply with all the terms of the Atomic Energy Act as amended and therefore will be a 'non-exempt' agreement. This means that it will enter into force upon the 90th day of continuous session after its submittal to Congress (a period of 30 plus 60 days of review) unless Congress enacts a Joint Resolution disapproving the agreement. Vietnam would be the first country in Southeast Asia to operate a nuclear power plant. Vietnam has announced a nuclear energy plan that envisions installing several nuclear plants, capable of producing up to 14,800 megawatts of electric power (MWe), by 2030. Nuclear power is projected to provide 20%-30% of the country's electricity by 2050. Significant work remains, however, to develop Vietnam's nuclear energy infrastructure and regulatory framework."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham; Holt, Mark; Manyin, Mark E.
2014-03-24
-
U.S.-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Issues for Congress [May 13, 2014]
"U.S.-Vietnamese cooperation on nuclear energy and nonproliferation has grown in recent years along with closer bilateral economic, military, and diplomatic ties. In 2010, the two countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding that Obama Administration officials said would be a 'stepping stone' to a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement. This agreement was signed by the two countries on May 6, 2014, and transmitted to Congress for review on May 8. […] At least four issues are expected to be prominent when Congress takes up the agreement: (1) whether the agreement should have included stronger nonproliferation commitments such as a legally-binding commitment by Vietnam not to build uranium enrichment and reprocessing facilities; (2) the extent to which Vietnam's human rights record should affect the decision to enter into a nuclear energy agreement; (3) the weight that should be given to the growing strategic relationship between the United States and Vietnam; and (4) the extent to which U.S. companies would benefit from an agreement."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham; Holt, Mark; Manyin, Mark E.
2014-05-13
-
U.S.-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Issues for Congress [August 8, 2014]
"U.S.-Vietnamese cooperation on nuclear energy and nonproliferation has grown in recent years along with closer bilateral economic, military, and diplomatic ties. In 2010, the two countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding that Obama Administration officials said would be a 'stepping stone' to a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement. This agreement was signed by the two countries on May 6, 2014, and transmitted to Congress for review on May 8. Since Congress adjourned for August recess under a joint resolution, the review period was paused. If Congress returns from adjournment as planned on September 8, the estimated congressional review period for this agreement will be completed on September 10, 2014. Under the agreement, the United States could license the export of nuclear reactor and research information, material, and equipment to Vietnam. The agreement does not allow for the transfer of restricted data or sensitive nuclear technology, and contains required nonproliferation provisions. Under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended), this agreement is subject to congressional review. The nuclear cooperation agreement is expected to comply with all the terms of the Atomic Energy Act as amended and therefore will be a 'non-exempt' agreement. This means that it may enter into force upon the 90th day of continuous session after its submittal to Congress (a period of 30 plus 60 days of review) unless Congress enacts a Joint Resolution disapproving agreement, or approving the agreement at an earlier date. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez introduced a resolution that would approve the agreement (S.J.Res. 36) on May 22. This bill was passed by the Senate on July 31, 2014."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham; Holt, Mark; Manyin, Mark E.
2014-08-08
-
U.S.-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement [December 13, 2005]
"This CRS Report, updated as warranted, discusses the agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation with the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) by focusing on congressional roles in crafting and carrying out the agreement. Some Members have been concerned about U.S. nuclear cooperation with China in the context of China's practices related to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Members also have been interested in how Congress reviewed the agreement with China as well as how this experience might apply to other similar agreements, such as that with India. Congress also exercises oversight of exchanges with China in the nuclear area conducted by the Department of Energy and its National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Some Members have considered whether financing by the U.S. Export-Import Bank should support nuclear exports to China."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Kan, Shirley
2005-12-13
-
U.S.-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement [Updated January 31, 2007]
"This CRS Report, updated as warranted, discusses the agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation with the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) by focusing on congressional roles in crafting and carrying out the agreement. Some Members have been concerned about U.S. nuclear cooperation with China in the context of China's practices related to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Members also have been interested in how Congress reviewed the agreement with China as well as how this experience might apply to other similar agreements, such as that with India. Congress also exercises oversight of exchanges with China in the nuclear area conducted by the Department of Energy and its National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Some Members have considered whether financing by the U.S. Export-Import Bank should support nuclear exports to China."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Kan, Shirley
2007-01-31
-
U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear Energy Market: Major Policy Considerations [January 28, 2013]
"A South Korean consortium recently signed a contract to provide four commercial nuclear reactors to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), signaling a new role for South Korea in the world nuclear energy market. The $20 billion deal indicates that South Korea has completed the transition from passive purchaser of turn-key nuclear plants in the 1970s to major nuclear technology supplier, capable of competing with the largest and most experienced nuclear technology companies in the world. The South Korean government reportedly has established a goal for South Korea to capture 20% of the world nuclear power plant market during the next 20 years, and the importance placed by Seoul on the UAE contract was underscored by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's presence at the signing ceremony in the UAE. […] U.S.-Korean nuclear energy cooperation is conducted under a '123 agreement' required by Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. […] As with most U.S. 123 agreements, the existing U.S.-Korean agreement requires U.S. consent for any reprocessing or enrichment activities related to U.S.-supplied materials and technology. Korea is requesting that the new 123 agreement include U.S. advance consent for future Korean civilian reprocessing and enrichment activities. The United States has opposed the idea, on grounds of general nonproliferation policy and the complications that such activities might pose for other security issues on the Korean peninsula. To comply with the 90-day congressional review requirement, a new agreement probably needs to be submitted to Congress by spring 2013. Any lapse in the agreement could affect exports of U.S. nuclear materials and reactor components to Korea, potentially affecting ongoing construction of the UAE project."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark
2013-01-28
-
U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear Energy Market: Major Policy Considerations [January 21, 2010]
"A South Korean consortium recently signed a contract to provide four commercial nuclear reactors to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), signaling a new role for South Korea in the world nuclear energy market. [...] In the 1970s, South Korea launched its nuclear power program through the government-owned Korea Electric Company (now Korea Electric Power Corporation, KEPCO), which purchased the country's first nuclear power units from Westinghouse. [...] Combustion Engineering won the competition for the Korean standard design contract by agreeing to full technology transfer, according to KEPCO. The technology transfer program resulted in the development of the APR-1400 power plant, which is the design purchased by the UAE. [...] Because the AP-1400 is based on a U.S. design, U.S. export controls will continue to apply. Westinghouse plans to seek the necessary authorization from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to transfer the technology to the UAE. The UAE recently reached a nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States in which the country agreed not to develop fuel cycle facilities to support its planned nuclear power program, which could ease weapons proliferation concerns. The UAE program may establish a precedent for U.S. policy on future Korean exports to nonnuclear power nations, which is likely to be of continuing congressional interest. The Korea-UAE nuclear plant sale also has been cited by the Korean news media as an important consideration in upcoming negotiations on the renewal of the U.S.-Korea nuclear cooperation agreement, a prerequisite under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act for nuclear trade."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark
2010-01-21
-
U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear Energy Market: Major Policy Considerations [June 25, 2013]
"A South Korean consortium signed a contract in December 2009 to provide four commercial nuclear reactors to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), signaling a new role for South Korea in the world nuclear energy market. The $20 billion deal indicates that South Korea has completed the transition from passive purchaser of turn-key nuclear plants in the 1970s to major nuclear technology supplier, capable of competing with the largest and most experienced nuclear technology companies in the world. In the 1970s, South Korea launched its nuclear power program through the government-owned Korea Electric Company (now Korea Electric Power Corporation, KEPCO), which purchased the country's first nuclear power units from Westinghouse. In the early years of the Korean nuclear program, Westinghouse and other foreign suppliers delivered completed plants with minimal Korean industry input. After the first three units, Korean firms took over the construction work on subsequent plants, although the reactor systems, turbine-generators, and architect/engineering services continued to be provided primarily by non-Korean companies. In 1987, KEPCO embarked on an effort to establish a standard Korean design, selecting the System 80 design from the U.S. firm Combustion Engineering as the basis. Combustion Engineering won the competition for the Korean standard design contract by agreeing to full technology transfer, according to KEPCO. The technology transfer program resulted in the development of the APR- 1400 power plant, which is the design purchased by the UAE."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark
2013-06-25
-
U.S.-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Issues for Congress [June 13, 2014]
From the Overview: "Since the United States and Vietnam established diplomatic relations in 1995, the two countries have expanded relations and cooperation across a wide range of sectors. As U.S.-Vietnam bilateral economic, military, and diplomatic ties have grown, so has interest in strengthening cooperation in the nuclear energy sphere. A civilian nuclear cooperation agreement was initialed by the two countries in December 2013 and signed in May 2014 under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended). Such '123 agreements' are necessary for the export of nuclear reactors and components and can help facilitate the transfer of nuclear energy technology. The U.S.-Vietnam 123 agreement is subject to congressional review. Congress received the agreement with the required supporting documents on May 8, 2014, for review. It will enter into force upon the 90th day of continuous session after its submittal to Congress (a period of 30 plus 60 days of review) unless a Joint Resolution disapproving the agreement is enacted. […] Vietnam also has nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia, France, China, South Korea, Japan, and Canada. The U.S. nuclear industry contends that billions of dollars of exports could result from the Vietnam 123 agreement. While it is unclear what, if any, contracts the U.S. nuclear industry would conclude with Vietnam's nuclear energy sector, it is likely that U.S. companies would provide services as part of a reactor supply agreement that Vietnam signed with Japan in 2010. Such services would not necessarily require a U.S. 123 agreement, but transfers might be facilitated if one were in place."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Manyin, Mark E.; Holt, Mark; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham
2014-06-13
-
U.S.-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Issues for Congress [September 15, 2014]
"U.S.-Vietnamese cooperation on nuclear energy and nonproliferation has grown in recent years along with closer bilateral economic, military, and diplomatic ties. In 2010, the two countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding that Obama Administration officials said would be a 'stepping stone' to a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement. This agreement was signed by the two countries on May 6, 2014, and transmitted to Congress for review on May 8. The required congressional review period for this agreement was completed in early September, and the agreement will enter into force after an exchange of diplomatic notes between the two countries. Under the agreement, the United States can license the export of nuclear reactor and research information, material, and equipment to Vietnam. The agreement does not allow for the transfer of restricted data or sensitive nuclear technology, and contains required nonproliferation provisions. The nuclear cooperation agreement complies with all the terms of the Atomic Energy Act as amended and therefore is a 'non-exempt' agreement. This means that it may enter into force after a review period of 90 days of continuous session after its submittal to Congress (a period of 30 plus 60 days of review) unless Congress enacts a joint resolution disapproving agreement, or approving the agreement at an earlier date. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez introduced a resolution that would approve the agreement (S.J.Res. 36) on May 22. This bill was passed by the Senate on July 31, 2014. No equivalent bill was passed by the House."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham; Holt, Mark; Manyin, Mark E.
2014-09-15
-
U.S.-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Issues for Congress [May 30, 2014]
From the Overview: "Since the United States and Vietnam established diplomatic relations in 1995, the two countries have expanded relations and cooperation across a wide range of sectors. As U.S.-Vietnam bilateral economic, military, and diplomatic ties have grown, so has interest in strengthening cooperation in the nuclear energy sphere. A civilian nuclear cooperation agreement was initialed by the two countries in December 2013 and signed in May 2014 under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended). Such '123 agreements' are necessary for the export of nuclear reactors and components and can help facilitate the transfer of nuclear energy technology. The U.S.-Vietnam 123 agreement is subject to congressional review. Congress received the agreement with the required supporting documents on May 8, 2014, for review. It will enter into force upon the 90th day of continuous session after its submittal to Congress (a period of 30 plus 60 days of review) unless a Joint Resolution disapproving the agreement is enacted. […] Vietnam also has nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia, France, China, South Korea, Japan, and Canada. The U.S. nuclear industry contends that billions of dollars of exports could result from the Vietnam 123 agreement. While it is unclear what, if any, contracts the U.S. nuclear industry would conclude with Vietnam's nuclear energy sector, it is likely that U.S. companies would provide services as part of a reactor supply agreement that Vietnam signed with Japan in 2010. Such services would not necessarily require a U.S. 123 agreement, but transfers might be facilitated if one were in place."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham; Holt, Mark; Manyin, Mark E.
2014-05-30
-
U.S.-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement [May 6, 2015]
"Negotiated by the Reagan Administration nearly 30 years ago, the current U.S. peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with the People's Republic of China (PRC) is set to expire on December 30, 2015. President Obama submitted a new 30-year U.S.-China nuclear cooperation agreement for congressional review on April 21, 2015. Among other provisions, the agreement would allow for uranium enrichment up to a level less than 20% U-235 and Chinese reprocessing of U.S.- obligated material at safeguarded facilities. Such agreements are often called '123 agreements' because they are required by Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (P.L. [Public Law] 95-242). They are a prerequisite for any significant nuclear cooperation with another country, such as exports of nuclear power plants and components and the transfer of nuclear material. Since the original agreement was concluded before China was a member of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), some changes to the text were required. The renewal agreement was submitted for congressional review on April 21, 2015. It complies with the relevant provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and therefore is subject to a review period totalling 90 days of continuous session. If no resolution of disapproval is passed into law before that deadline, then the agreement may enter into force."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham
2015-05-06
-
U.S.-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement [August 18, 2015]
"Negotiated by the Reagan Administration nearly 30 years ago, the current U.S. peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with the People's Republic of China (PRC) is set to expire on December 30, 2015. President Obama submitted a new 30-year U.S.-China nuclear cooperation agreement for congressional review on April 21, 2015. Among other provisions, the agreement would allow for uranium enrichment up to a level less than 20% U-235 and Chinese reprocessing of U.S.-obligated material at safeguarded facilities. The required congressional review period ended on July 31. Such agreements are often called '123 agreements' because they are required by Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (P.L. 95-242). They are a prerequisite for any significant nuclear cooperation with another country, such as exports of nuclear power plants and components and the transfer of nuclear material. Since the original agreement was concluded before China was a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), some changes to the text were required. The recently submitted renewal agreement complies with the relevant provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and therefore was subject to a review period totaling 90 days of continuous session. If no resolution of disapproval is passed into law before that deadline, then the agreement may enter into force. No resolution of disapproval was passed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham; Kerr, Paul K.
2015-08-18
-
Financial Challenges of Operating Nuclear Power Plants in the United States [Updated December 14, 2016]
From the Document: "This report provides background on the evolution of nuclear power in the United States, discusses recent and announced plant closures, explains the economic conditions creating financial challenges for merchant nuclear power plants, and presents policy considerations associated with the future of existing nuclear power plants."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy); Holt, Mark
2016-12-14
-
Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal [August 30, 2011]
"Management of civilian radioactive waste has posed difficult issues for Congress since the beginning of the nuclear power industry in the 1950s. Federal policy is based on the premise that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely, but proposed storage and disposal facilities have frequently been challenged on safety, health, and environmental grounds. Although civilian radioactive waste encompasses a wide range of materials, most of the current debate focuses on highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) calls for disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. NWPA established the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) in the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop such a repository, which would be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The program's civilian costs were required to be covered by a fee on nuclear-generated electricity, paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Amendments to NWPA in 1987 restricted DOE's repository site studies to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. […] For FY2012, the Administration again requested no funding for the Yucca Mountain project, but the House Appropriations Committee provided $25 million to DOE and $10 million to NRC to continue the Yucca Mountain licensing process. The Committee bill specifies that the funds may not be used for closing out licensing activities unless the NRC commissioners accept DOE's license withdrawal motion, 'or for actions that irrevocably remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain may be a repository option in the future.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark
2011-08-30
-
Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal [October 23, 2017]
"Management of civilian radioactive waste has posed difficult issues for Congress since the beginning of the nuclear power industry in the 1950s. Federal policy is based on the premise that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely, but proposed storage and disposal facilities have frequently been challenged on safety, health, and environmental grounds. Although civilian radioactive waste encompasses a wide range of materials, most of the current debate focuses on highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants. The United States currently has no disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) calls for disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. NWPA established the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) in the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop such a repository, which would be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Amendments to NWPA in 1987 restricted DOE's repository site studies to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. DOE submitted a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to NRC on June 3, 2008. The state of Nevada strongly opposes the Yucca Mountain project, citing excessive water infiltration, earthquakes, volcanoes, human intrusion, and other technical issues. Licensing and design work for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository was halted under the Obama Administration, which cited continued opposition from Nevada. However, the Trump Administration included funds to restart Yucca Mountain licensing in its FY2018 budget submission to Congress on March 16, 2017."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark
2017-10-23
-
Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant and Plutonium Disposition: Management and Policy Issues [March 28, 2014]
"The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) in South Carolina has been a key component of the current U.S. strategy for disposing of surplus weapons plutonium from the Cold War. That strategy called for the surplus plutonium, in oxide form, to be blended with uranium oxide to make mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for U.S. commercial nuclear reactors. The plutonium in MOX fuel would be mostly destroyed in the reactors by fission (splitting into other isotopes). At the same time, isotopes of plutonium undesirable for weapons would be created, along with highly radioactive fission products. As a result, after several years in a reactor, spent MOX fuel would have less total plutonium than when it was freshly loaded, and the remaining plutonium would be degraded for weapons purposes. Moreover, the fission products would make the material difficult to handle, in case of future attempts to use the plutonium. Because of sharply rising cost estimates for the MOX project, the Obama Administration is proposing to place MFFF in 'cold standby' and study other plutonium disposition options. The federal plutonium disposition program is run by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency of the Department of Energy (DOE). NNSA estimated in 2002 that MFFF would cost about $1 billion to design and build. DOE said in its budget justification for FY2014 that the MFFF contractor had estimated the project's total construction cost would rise to $7.78 billion, and that construction would not be completed until November 2019. DOE's FY2015 budget justification said the life-cycle cost estimate for the MOX program had risen to $30 billion."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham
2014-03-28
-
Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant and Plutonium Disposition: Management and Policy Issues [June 25, 2013]
"The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) in South Carolina is a key component of the current U.S. strategy for disposing of surplus weapons plutonium from the Cold War. Under that strategy, the surplus plutonium, in oxide form, is to be blended with uranium oxide to make mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for U.S. commercial nuclear reactors. The plutonium in MOX fuel would be mostly destroyed in the reactors by fission (splitting). At the same time, isotopes of plutonium undesirable for weapons would be created, along with highly radioactive fission products. As a result, after several years in a reactor, spent MOX fuel would have less total plutonium than when it was freshly loaded, and the remaining plutonium would be degraded for weapons purposes. Moreover, the fission products would make the material difficult to handle, in case of future attempts to use the plutonium."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham
2013-06-25
-
Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations [July 1, 2014]
"The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Department of Energy (DOE), and several independent agencies. President Obama's FY2015 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in March 2014. The request totaled $33.68 billion, compared to a total of $33.6 billion appropriated for FY2014. The House Appropriations Committee approved the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for FY2015 on June 20, 2014 (H.R. 4923, H.Rept. 113-486), with a total spending level of $34.01 billion, $326.9 million above the request. The Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development approved its version of the bill on June 17, 2014, with a total of $34.2 billion."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark
2014-07-01
-
Nuclear Energy Cooperation with Foreign Countries: Issues for Congress [July 11, 2011]
"U.S. civil nuclear cooperation agreements ('123' agreements), which are bilateral agreements with other governments or multilateral organizations, have several important goals, including promoting the U.S. nuclear industry, which is increasingly dependent on foreign customers and suppliers, and preventing nuclear proliferation. Increased international interest in nuclear power has generated concern that additional countries may obtain fuel-making technology that could also be used to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. Ensuring the peaceful use of transferred nuclear technology has long been a major U.S. objective, and Congress has played a key role. For example, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, which amended the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, added new requirements for nuclear cooperation with the United States. Moreover, the United States has been a longtime proponent of restrictive international nuclear export policies. In recent years, some observers and Members of Congress have advocated that the United States adopt new conditions for civil nuclear cooperation. These would include requiring potential recipients of U.S. civil nuclear technology to forgo fuel-making enrichment and reprocessing technologies and to bring into force an Additional Protocol to their International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreements. Such protocols augment the IAEA's legal authority to inspect nuclear facilities. Civil nuclear commerce, particularly reactor transfers, may not be a near-term proliferation threat: all but three states (India, Israel, and Pakistan, all of which have nuclear weapons) are parties to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT); all legitimate transfers of nuclear technology to NPT non-nuclear-weapon states are subject to IAEA safeguards; and no country with comprehensive safeguards in place and a record in good standing with the IAEA has used declared nuclear facilities to produce fissile material for weapons."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kerr, Paul K.; Holt, Mark; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham
2011-07-11
-
Nuclear Energy Cooperation with Foreign Countries: Issues for Congress [August 10, 2011]
"U.S. civil nuclear cooperation agreements ('123' agreements), which are bilateral agreements with other governments or multilateral organizations, have several important goals, including promoting the U.S. nuclear industry, which is increasingly dependent on foreign customers and suppliers, and preventing nuclear proliferation. Increased international interest in nuclear power has generated concern that additional countries may obtain fuel-making technology that could also be used to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. Ensuring the peaceful use of transferred nuclear technology has long been a major U.S. objective, and Congress has played a key role. For example, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, which amended the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, added new requirements for nuclear cooperation with the United States. Moreover, the United States has been a longtime proponent of restrictive international nuclear export policies. In recent years, some observers and Members of Congress have advocated that the United States adopt new conditions for civil nuclear cooperation. [...] This report discusses broad themes related to U.S. nuclear cooperation with other countries."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kerr, Paul K.; Holt, Mark; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham
2011-08-10
-
Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors [May 31, 2006]
"Nearly three decades after the most recent order was placed for a new nuclear power plant in the United States, several utilities are now expressing interest in building a total of up to 20 new reactors. The renewed interest in nuclear power has resulted primarily from sharply rising prices for natural gas, improved operation of existing reactors, and uncertainty about future restrictions on coal emissions. A substantial tax credit for nuclear generation provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) is also likely to improve the economic viability of qualifying new reactors. New nuclear plant applications can also take advantage of amendments to the Atomic Energy Act made in the early 1990s to reduce licensing delays. Currently, there are 103 licensed power reactors at 65 plant sites in 31 states, generating about one-fifth of U.S. electricity. Although no new U.S. reactors have started up since 1996, U.S. nuclear electricity generation has since grown by more than 20%. Much of this additional output resulted from reduced downtime, notably through shorter refueling outages. Licensed commercial reactors generated electricity at an average of 89.4% of their total capacity in 2005, after averaging about 75% in the mid-1990s and about 65% in the mid-1980s. […] Any substantial mandatory greenhouse gas control program would probably affect the cost of new coal-fired and natural gas-fired generation relative to nuclear power, particularly if nuclear power is assumed to have no greenhouse gas emissions. Continued delays in nuclear waste disposal facilities -- forcing spent fuel to be stored at plant sites -- could also affect the decision to construct new reactors. This report will not be updated."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parker, Larry, 1954-; Holt, Mark
2006-05-31
-
Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors [Updated March 9, 2007]
"Nearly three decades after the most recent order was placed for a new nuclear power plant in the United States, several utilities are now expressing interest in building a total of up to 30 new reactors. The renewed interest in nuclear power has resulted primarily from higher prices for natural gas, improved operation of existing reactors, and uncertainty about future restrictions on coal emissions. A substantial tax credit and other incentives for nuclear generation provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) are also likely to improve the economic viability of qualifying new reactors. New nuclear plant applications can also take advantage of amendments to the Atomic Energy Act made in the early 1990s to reduce licensing delays. Currently, there are 103 licensed and operable power reactors at 65 plant sites in 31 states, generating about one-fifth of U.S. electricity. […] The nuclear production tax credit in the Energy Policy Act could have a significant impact on the economic viability of new nuclear power plants. […] Other factors will also be important in the commercial decision to invest in new nuclear plants, such as fossil fuel prices and the regulatory environment for both nuclear power and future fossil fuel-fired generation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Parker, Larry, 1954-
2007-03-09
-
Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors [Updated November 6, 2006]
"Nearly three decades after the most recent order was placed for a new nuclear power plant in the United States, several utilities are now expressing interest in building a total of up to 30 new reactors. The renewed interest in nuclear power has resulted primarily from higher prices for natural gas, improved operation of existing reactors, and uncertainty about future restrictions on coal emissions. A substantial tax credit and other incentives for nuclear generation provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) are also likely to improve the economic viability of qualifying new reactors. New nuclear plant applications can also take advantage of amendments to the Atomic Energy Act made in the early 1990s to reduce licensing delays. Currently, there are 103 licensed and operable power reactors at 65 plant sites in 31 states, generating about one-fifth of U.S. electricity. Although no new U.S. reactors have started up since 1996, U.S. nuclear electricity generation has since grown by more than 20%. Much of this additional output resulted from reduced downtime, notably through shorter refueling outages. Licensed commercial reactors generated electricity at an average of 89.4% of their total capacity in 2005, after averaging about 75% in the mid-1990s and about 65% in the mid-1980s."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark; Parker, Larry, 1954-
2006-11-06
-
Nuclear Energy Policy [May 10, 2011]
"Nuclear energy issues facing Congress include federal incentives for new commercial reactors, power plant safety and regulation, radioactive waste management policy, research and development priorities, nuclear weapons proliferation, and security against terrorist attacks. Significant incentives for new commercial reactors were included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58). These include production tax credits, loan guarantees, insurance against regulatory delays, and extension of the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liability system. Together with volatile fossil fuel prices and the possibility of greenhouse gas controls, the federal incentives for nuclear power have helped spur renewed interest by utilities and other potential reactor developers. Plans for as many as 31 reactor license applications have been announced, although only a handful of those projects currently appear to be moving toward construction. The earthquake and resulting tsunami that severely damaged Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011, raised questions in Congress about the accident's possible implications for nuclear safety regulation, U.S. nuclear energy expansion, and radioactive waste policy. The tsunami blacked out all electric power at the six-reactor plant, resulting in the overheating of several reactor cores and spent fuel storage pools, major hydrogen explosions, and releases of radioactive material to the environment. Several House and Senate hearings have been held on the accident, and several bills on nuclear safety have been introduced."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark
2011-05-10
-
Nuclear Energy Policy [October 21, 2010]
"Nuclear energy issues facing Congress include federal incentives for new commercial reactors, radioactive waste management policy, research and development priorities, power plant safety and regulation, nuclear weapons proliferation, and security against terrorist attacks. Significant incentives for new commercial reactors were included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58). These include production tax credits, loan guarantees, insurance against regulatory delays, and extension of the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liability system. Together with higher fossil fuel prices and the possibility of greenhouse gas controls, the federal incentives for nuclear power have helped spur renewed interest by utilities and other potential reactor developers. Plans for as many as 31 reactor license applications have been announced, although it is unclear how many of those projects will move forward under current economic conditions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Holt, Mark
2010-10-21
-
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
