Advanced search    Help

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).

• U.S.-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Issues for Congress [May 30, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  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.-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Issues for Congress [August 8, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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
• Nuclear Energy Policy [Updated April 15, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Nuclear energy policy issues facing Congress include whether to provide federal incentives for a new generation of commercial reactors, radioactive waste management, research and development priorities, power plant safety and regulation, terrorism, and the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liability system. The Bush Administration has stressed the importance of nuclear power in the nation's energy policy. For nuclear energy research and development, the Administration is requesting $389.9 million for FY2006, about $14.7 million above the FY2005 appropriation. In addition to that funding, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology would receive $120.9 million for defense-related management and security at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The Nuclear Energy office's total FY2006 funding request of $510.8 million is 5.2% above the comparable FY2005 level, according to DOE."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2005-04-15
• Nuclear Energy Policy [September 19, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Nuclear energy issues facing Congress include reactor safety and regulation, radioactive waste management, research and development priorities, federal incentives for new commercial reactors, 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), such as tax credits and loan guarantees. Together with volatile fossil fuel prices and the possibility of greenhouse gas controls, the federal incentives for nuclear power helped spur renewed interest by utilities and other potential reactor developers. License applications for as many as 31 new reactors have been announced, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued licenses for four reactors at two plant sites in early 2012. However, falling natural gas prices, safety concerns raised by the Fukushima accident, and other changing circumstances have made it unlikely that many more of the proposed nuclear projects will move toward construction in the near term. Four U.S. reactors have been permanently closed in 2013, and another shutdown has been announced for 2014. Three reactors were closed because of the need for major repairs, and the other two because electricity prices fell below their generating costs. All five had substantial time remaining in their NRC licenses, leading to speculation that further early shutdowns may occur."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2013-09-19
• Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities [January 3, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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
• Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant and Plutonium Disposition: Management and Policy Issues [March 28, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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
• Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues [March 14, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The policy debate over the role of nuclear power in the nation's energy mix is rooted in the technology's fundamental characteristics. Nuclear reactors can produce potentially vast amounts of energy with relatively low consumption of natural resources and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. However, facilities that produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors can also produce materials for nuclear weapons. The process of nuclear fission (splitting of atomic nuclei) to generate power also results in the production of radioactive material that must be contained in the reactor and can remain hazardous for thousands of years. How to manage the weapons proliferation and safety risks of nuclear power, or whether the benefits of nuclear power are worth those risks, are issues that have long been debated in Congress. The 100 licensed nuclear power reactors at 62 sites in the United States generate about 20% of the nation's electricity. Five new reactors are currently under construction. About a dozen more are planned, but whether they move forward will depend largely on their economic competitiveness with natural gas and coal plants. Throughout the world, 435 reactors are currently in service, and 71 more are under construction."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2014-03-14
• Energy and Water Development: FY2015 Appropriations [July 1, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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
• U.S.-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Issues for Congress [June 13, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  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 [March 24, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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
• Nuclear Energy Policy [October 15, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Nuclear energy issues facing Congress include reactor safety and regulation, radioactive waste management, research and development priorities, federal incentives for new commercial reactors, nuclear weapons proliferation, and security against terrorist attacks. 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 disaster's possible implications for nuclear safety regulation, U.S. nuclear energy expansion, and radioactive waste policy. The tsunami knocked out electric power at the six-reactor plant, resulting in the overheating of several reactor cores, loss of cooling in spent fuel storage pools, major hydrogen explosions, and releases of radioactive material into the environment. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued orders to U.S. nuclear plants March 12, 2012, to begin implementing safety improvements in response to Fukushima. Significant incentives for new commercial reactors were included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58), such as tax credits and loan guarantees. Together with volatile fossil fuel prices and the possibility of greenhouse gas controls, the federal incentives for nuclear power helped spur renewed interest by utilities and other potential reactor developers. License applications for as many as 31 new reactors were announced, and NRC issued licenses for four reactors at two plant sites in early 2012."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2014-10-15
• U.S.-Vietnam Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Issues for Congress [September 15, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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
• Nuclear Energy Policy [November 25, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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 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. […] Disposal of highly radioactive waste has been one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear power. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-425), as amended in 1987, required DOE [Department of Energy] to conduct a detailed physical characterization of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a permanent underground repository for high-level waste. The Obama Administration decided to 'terminate the Yucca Mountain program while developing nuclear waste disposal alternatives,' according to the DOE FY2010 budget justification. Alternatives to Yucca Mountain are being evaluated by a 'blue ribbon' panel of experts convened by the Administration. No funding was provided for the Yucca Mountain project in FY2011, and DOE filed a motion with NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application on March 3, 2010. However, the motion to withdraw has prompted substantial opposition, including lawsuits in federal court."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2011-11-25
• Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to Nuclear Power [October 19, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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 548 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. […] Congress will have a considerable role in at least four areas of oversight related to fuel cycle proposals. The first is providing funding and oversight of U.S. domestic programs related to expanding nuclear energy in the United States. The second area is policy direction and/or funding for international measures to assure supply. A third set of policy issues may arise in the context of U.S. participation in IFNEC (International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation) or related initiatives. A fourth area in which Congress plays a key role is in the approval of nuclear cooperation agreements. Significant interest in these issues is expected to continue in the 112th Congress."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark; Andrews, Anthony; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham

  2012-10-19
• Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to Nuclear Power [September 12, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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. […] Congress will have a considerable role in at least four areas of oversight related to fuel cycle proposals. The first is providing funding and oversight of U.S. domestic programs related to expanding nuclear energy in the United States. The second area is policy direction and/or funding for international measures to assure supply. A third set of policy issues may arise in the context of U.S. participation in IFNEC [International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation] or related initiatives. A fourth area in which Congress plays a key role is in the approval of nuclear cooperation agreements. Significant interest in these issues is expected to continue in the 112th Congress."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham; Andrews, Anthony; Holt, Mark

  2011-09-12
• U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear Energy Market: Major Policy Considerations [January 28, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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
• Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues [December 11, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The policy debate over the role of nuclear power in the nation's energy mix is rooted in the technology's fundamental characteristics. Nuclear reactors can produce potentially vast amounts of energy with relatively low consumption of natural resources and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. However, facilities that produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors can also produce materials for nuclear weapons. The process of nuclear fission (splitting of atomic nuclei) to generate power also results in the production of radioactive material that must be contained in the reactor and can remain hazardous for thousands of years. How to manage the weapons proliferation and safety risks of nuclear power, or whether nuclear power is worth those risks, are issues that have long been debated in Congress. The 104 licensed nuclear power reactors at 65 sites in the United States generate about 20% of the nation's electricity. Five new reactors are currently licensed for construction. About a dozen more are planned, but whether they move forward will depend largely on their economic competitiveness with natural gas and coal plants. Throughout the world, 436 reactors are currently in service, and 62 more are under construction."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2012-12-11
• Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to Nuclear Power [March 2, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "After several decades of widespread stagnation, nuclear power is attracting renewed interest. 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."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham; Andrews, Anthony

  2011-03-02
• Fukushima Nuclear Crisis [April 4, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This report is an update to earlier Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports entitled "Fukushima Nuclear Crisis" and bearing the report number "R41694". The first was released on March 15, 2011 and the second is dated March 24, 2011. This release provides status updates on the six units at the Fukushima Daiichi plant with the greatest emphasis on the four co-located reactors which were in operation at the moment of the earthquake and resulting tsunami.

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark; Campbell, Richard J.

  2011-04-04
• Fukushima Nuclear Crisis [March 24, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The earthquake on March 11, 2011, off the east coast of Honshu, Japan's largest island, reportedly caused an automatic shutdown of eleven of Japan's fifty-five operating nuclear power plants. Most of the shutdowns proceeded without incident. However, the plants closest to the epicenter, Fukushima and Onagawa (see Figure 1), were damaged by the earthquake and resulting tsunami. The Fukushima Daiichi plant subsequently suffered hydrogen explosions and probable nuclear fuel damage, releasing significant amounts of radioactive material into the environment. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) operates the Fukushima nuclear power complex in the Futaba district of Fukushima prefecture in Northern Japan, consisting of six nuclear units at the Daiichi station and four nuclear units at the Daini station. All the units at the Fukushima complex are boiling water reactors, with reactors 1 to 5 at the Daiichi site being the General Electric Mark I design (see Figure 2). The Fukushima Daiichi reactors entered commercial operation in the years from 1971 (reactor 1) to 1979 (reactor 6). At the time of the earthquake, reactors 1, 2, and 3 at Daiichi were operating and shut down after the quake, while reactors 4, 5, and 6 were already shut down for routine inspections. All four of the Daini reactors were operating at the time of the earthquake and taken down after the quake. Nuclear reactors produce power by fissioning (splitting) the nuclei of heavy isotopes, such as uranium-235 and plutonium-239, through the absorption of neutrons. Each fission event generates additional neutrons that induce more fission events, creating a continuous nuclear chain reaction. The heavy nuclei split into lighter isotopes called fission products, many of which are highly radioactive, such as iodine-129, iodine-131, strontium-90, and cesium-137. To shut down the nuclear chain reaction, neutron-absorbing control rods are inserted into the reactor core. However, even though the fission process has stopped, the fission products and other radioactive isotopes in the reactor core continue to generate significant heat through radioactive decay. Until the decay heat sufficiently diminishes, a source of electricity is needed to operate pumps and circulate water in the reactor. Under normal conditions, it would take a few days for a reactor core to cool down to a 'cold shutdown' state."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark; Campbell, Richard J.

  2011-03-24
• Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues [December 23, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The policy debate over the role of nuclear power in the nation's energy mix is rooted in the technology's fundamental characteristics. Nuclear reactors can produce potentially vast amounts of useful energy with relatively low consumption of natural resources and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. However, facilities that produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors can also produce materials for nuclear weapons. In addition, the process of nuclear fission (splitting of atomic nuclei) to generate power results in the production of radioactive material that must be contained and can remain hazardous for thousands of years. How to manage the weapons proliferation and safety risks of nuclear power, or whether the benefits of nuclear power are worth those risks, are issues that have long been debated in Congress. The 100 licensed nuclear power reactors at 61 sites in the United States generate about 20% of the nation's electricity. Four new reactors are currently under construction. About a dozen more are planned, but whether they move forward will depend largely on their economic competitiveness with natural gas and coal plants. Throughout the world, 438 reactors are currently in service or operable, and 65 more are under construction."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2015-12-23
• Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal [April 24, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2015-04-24
• U.S.-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement [May 6, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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
• Energy and Water Development: FY2016 Appropriations [March 31, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Major issues and initiatives in the FY2016 Energy and Water Development request include [1] 'Waters of the United States.' The Corps would receive a $5 million increase to assist in developing and implementing a controversial rulemaking to define 'waters of the United States'; [2] 'Energy Efficiency in Manufacturing and Vehicles'. DOE's [Department of Energy's] energy efficient manufacturing research would more than double and research on energy efficient vehicles would rise 59% under the FY2016 budget request; [3] 'Nuclear Waste Management.' Radioactive waste management funding would rise 52% in the Administration's request, which proposes to develop 'consent based' alternatives to the statutorily authorized candidate disposal site at Yucca Mountain, NV; [4] 'ITER Fusion Reactor.' Cost, schedule, and management concerns have been raised about the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). [5] 'Nuclear Weapons Activities.' The Administration is seeking a 10.5% increase for weapons activities and to combine and transfer two counterterrorism programs within DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration. [6] 'Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Recovery.' Efforts to resume operations at the WIPP defense transuranic waste repository in New Mexico would continue in FY2016. Although overall WIPP funding would decline, the budget request includes an increase for the recovery effort to resume waste shipments. [7] 'Surplus Plutonium Disposition.' DOE requested level funding for a multibillion-dollar plant to convert surplus nuclear weapons plutonium into civilian nuclear reactor fuel, but an upcoming cost report could affect the congressional debate. [8] 'Energy-Water Nexus.' DOE proposed a new Energy-Water Nexus crosscutting activity for FY2016 that would analyze the relationships between energy and water use and conduct research on water and energy systems."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2015-03-31
• Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack [February 4, 2005]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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

  Behrens, Carl E.; Holt, Mark

  2005-02-04
• Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to Nuclear Power [July 1, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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
• Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues [November 27, 2017]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The policy debate over the role of nuclear power in the nation's energy mix is rooted in the technology's fundamental characteristics. Nuclear reactors can produce potentially vast amounts of useful energy with relatively low consumption of natural resources and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. However, facilities that produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors can also produce materials for nuclear weapons. In addition, the process of nuclear fission (splitting of atomic nuclei) to generate power produces radioactive material that can remain hazardous for thousands of years and must be contained. How to manage the weapons proliferation and safety risks of nuclear power, or whether the benefits of nuclear power are worth those risks, are issues that have long been debated in Congress."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2017-11-27
• Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues [November 16, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The policy debate over the role of nuclear power in the nation's energy mix is rooted in the technology's fundamental characteristics. Nuclear reactors can produce potentially vast amounts of useful energy with relatively low consumption of natural resources and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. However, facilities that produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors can also produce materials for nuclear weapons. In addition, the process of nuclear fission (splitting of atomic nuclei) to generate power produces radioactive material that can remain hazardous for thousands of years and must be contained. How to manage the weapons proliferation and safety risks of nuclear power, or whether the benefits of nuclear power are worth those risks, are issues that have long been debated in Congress."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2018-11-16
• Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal [May 9, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "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."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2018-05-09
• Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues [August 13, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The policy debate over the role of nuclear power in the nation's energy mix is rooted in the technology's fundamental characteristics. Nuclear reactors can produce potentially vast amounts of useful energy with relatively low consumption of natural resources and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. However, facilities that produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors can also produce materials for nuclear weapons. In addition, the process of nuclear fission (splitting of atomic nuclei) to generate power produces radioactive material that can remain hazardous for thousands of years and must be contained. How to manage the weapons proliferation and safety risks of nuclear power, or whether the benefits of nuclear power are worth those risks, are issues that have long been debated in Congress."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Holt, Mark

  2018-08-13