ECA Update: June 17, 2013
Published: Mon, 06/17/13
|
House Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill
House Appropriations Committee
June 17, 2013
House Appropriations Committee
June 17, 2013
The House Appropriations Committee today released the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, which will be considered in subcommittee tomorrow. The legislation provides annual funding for national defense nuclear weapons activities, the Army Corps of Engineers, various programs under the Department of Energy, and other related agencies.
The bill totals $30.4 billion - a cut of $2.9 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and a reduction of $4.1 billion compared to the President's request. This level is approximately $700 million below the level caused by sequestration for these programs.
"In these tight budget times, sacrifices must be made to safeguard programs critical to the nation's security and well-being. This bill reflects these hard choices, prioritizing funding to maintain our nuclear weapons and ensure the safety and readiness of the nation's nuclear stockpile, and to invest in essential infrastructure projects to enhance safety and encourage commerce. This is a good bill that guarantees these programs are maintained, while recognizing current budget constraints," Chairman Rogers said.
Energy and Water Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen also commented on the importance of the bill:
"This is a fiscally conservative bill that funds critical national security, jobs, and infrastructure programs," Chairman Frelinghuysen said. "In a challenging fiscal environment, we have to prioritize funding, and the Subcommittee chose to address the readiness and safety of the nation's nuclear stockpile and to invest in critical infrastructure projects to protect lives and property and support economic growth."
A summary of the subcommittee draft of the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations bill follows:
The legislation includes a total of $30.4 billion - a cut of $2.9 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and a reduction of $4.1 billion compared to the President's request.
The bill prioritizes funding for our national security, providing increases for nuclear weapons programs above fiscal year 2013. The bill also protects funding for critical national and regional infrastructure projects through the Army Corps of Engineers, which handle commerce valued at more than $1.7 trillion annually; nuclear environmental site clean-up; and programs to encourage economic competitiveness. To meet these needs, the legislation contains strategic and targeted reductions from lower-priority or unnecessary programs, including many within the Department of Energy (DOE).
Nuclear Security - The bill provides a total of $11.3 billion for DOE's nuclear weapons security programs, including Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors. This is a $235 million (-2%) reduction from the fiscal year 2013 level, and an increase of approximately $661 million (+6%) compared to the sequestration level for these programs. This critical national defense funding will allow the U.S. to uphold its nuclear deterrence posture, and ensure that the nation is prepared for current and future nuclear threats by maintaining the safety and readiness of our nuclear stockpile.
This bill includes $7.7 billion for Weapons Activities and $1.1 billion for Nuclear Reactors - both increases above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level - and $2.1 billion for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation - a decrease of $334 million below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
Army Corps of Engineers - The Army Corps of Engineers is funded at $4.9 billion, a decrease of $104 million (-2%) below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $50 million above the President's budget request.
The bill focuses funding on navigation and flood control activities that will have an immediate impact on job creation and the economy, and ensure our waterways stay open for business. Within the total, the bill provides $285 million for essential flood control and navigation projects, which the Corps will prioritize. This funding will help address navigation and flood control needs across the country, while improving transparency and maintaining Congressional authority over budget decisions.
The legislation also advances American competitiveness and export ability by providing $2 billion for navigation projects and studies, including $1 billion in funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The bill supports public health and safety by funding flood and storm damage reduction activities at $1.4 billion - including $274 million for the most critical dam safety improvements.
Environmental Cleanup - Included in the legislation is $5.5 billion for environmental management activities, $243 million (-4%) below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level, and an increase of approximately $185 million (+3.5%) compared to the sequestration level. This amount includes $4.75 billion for Defense Environmental Cleanup to safely clean sites contaminated by previous nuclear weapons production.
Energy Programs - Funding for energy programs within the Department of Energy (DOE) is cut by $1.4 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The bill prioritizes this funding for energy programs that encourage U.S. economic competitiveness and growth, and that help advance the nation's goal of an all of the above solution to energy independence.
The bill includes $450 million for research and development to advanced coal, natural gas, oil, and other fossil energy technologies, which will help the country make greater use of our rich natural energy resources and help keep down energy costs. The bill also includes $656 million for nuclear energy research, development, and demonstration activities to further the next generation of economically beneficial nuclear power options while ensuring the safety and longevity of our current plants. In addition, the legislation provides $390 million in funding for programs that can help address rising gas prices.
To focus funding on those energy resources upon which the country currently relies, renewable energy programs are funded at $1 billion - a cut by $911 million (-50%) below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level), and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program is reduced by $215 million (-81%).
Science Research - The bill includes $4.7 billion for science research - a cut of $223 million below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. This funding will help strengthen the nation's science and technology innovation by supporting basic energy research, development of high-performance computing systems, and research into the next generation of clean energy sources. Within this amount, the bill restores many of the cuts to the fusion energy program that the President had proposed. This basic research will lay the groundwork for more efficient and practical domestic energy solutions to help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, and help promote future growth in American businesses and industries.
Bureau of Reclamation - The legislation contains $965 million - $104 million below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $85 million below the President's request- for the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation. This funding is intended to help manage, develop, and protect the water resources of western states.
Yucca Mountain - The bill continues Congressional efforts to roll back the Obama Administration's politically motivated Yucca Mountain policy that runs contrary to the will of the Congress and the American people. In this vein, the bill provides $25 million to support Yucca Mountain activities to continue the viability of the program for the future.
For the complete text of the subcommittee draft of the FY 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, please visit: http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/BILLS-113HR-SC-AP-FY2014-EnergyWater-SubcommitteeDraft.pdf
House Appropriations Subcommittee Mark Up - FY 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill - Tuesday, June 18 at 10:30 AM
House Appropriations Committee
June 18, 10:30 AM
Purpose
Mark Up Appropriations Bill, FY 2014
Mark Up Appropriations Bill, FY 2014
Support Documents
Notice of Subcommittee Mark Up
FY 2014 Energy and Water Bill - Subcommittee Draft
Notice of Subcommittee Mark Up
FY 2014 Energy and Water Bill - Subcommittee Draft
House Passes National Defense Authorization Act for 2014
House Armed Services Committee
June 14, 2013
WASHINGTON- Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA) Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, made the following statement after the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 passed by a vote of 315-108:
"For the fifty second year in a row, the House has come together - Republicans and Democrats- to do our most important work; support the troops, and provide for our common defense. This bill makes vital investments to repair our crumbling readiness, ensures our troops have the support and benefits they deserve and have earned, and institutes reforms designed to stamp out the incidents of sexual assault within the ranks. Every member can be proud of the work they have done here today.
"I would note that the Senate Armed Services Committee also got their work done this week. Both bodies have taken the right steps to preserve our national security. This year we are both taking urgent action to curtail the incidents of sexual assault in the military. For several years, the Senate Majority Leader has allowed the defense bill to languish for months without bringing it to the Senate floor, creating uncertainty in the ranks and forcing a rushed and imperfect conference process. The sexual assault reforms we propose will make a real difference for victims and will make needed cultural change. There is no reason to make these victims wait for vital reform and I urge Senator Reid to bring the NDAA to the Senate Floor immediately."
House Approves Measure Establishing Manhattan Project National Historic Park
House Natural Resources Committee
June 14, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 14, 2013 - The House of Representatives today approved the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, which included an amendment to establish a Manhattan Project National Historic Park. The bipartisan amendment, offered by Congressman Doc Hastings (WA-04), Congressman Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03), and Congressman Ben Luján (NM-03), is nearly identical to H.R. 1208 and would protect and provide public access to Manhattan Project facilities at Hanford, Washington; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Los Alamos, New Mexico.
The Manhattan Project was an unprecedented top-secret program to construct a nuclear weapon during World War II, which played an integral part in ending World War II.
"Establishing these sites as national parks is the best way to preserve their history and ensure there is public access for decades to come. I'm pleased we were able to get this amendment approved and will continue to look for every opportunity to advocate for the Manhattan Project national historical park until it becomes law," said Chairman Hastings.
Under the amendment, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park would be established as a unit of the National Park System within one year. It specifies the facilities and areas at each of the three locations that are eligible for inclusion in the Park. Nearly all of these facilities and areas are already owned by the federal government and under the purview of the Department of Energy. The amendment requires coordination, planning and cooperation between the Park Service and the Department of Energy to ensure safe and secure access to these locations.
The establishment of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park is supported by the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, and the National Park Service.
House passes defense bill with Hanford amendments
Geoff Folsom, Tri-City Herald
June 14, 2013
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, which includes an amendment for establishing a Manhattan Project National Historic Park at Hanford's B reactor, as well as sites in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Los Alamos, N.M.
The 315-108 vote, supported by all Washington Congress members, calls for the Department of Energy to enter an agreement with the Department of the Interior for administering the facilities and enhancing public access, management, interpretation and historic preservation, according to a news release from Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, who authored the amendment.
Another amendment will transfer 1,641 Hanford acres DOE no longer needs for cleanup activities to the Tri-City Development Council. The land is designated for industrial use.The bill still needs Senate approval.
Senate Committee on Armed Services Completes Markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
Senate Armed Services Committee
June 14, 2013
WASHINGTON -- Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, and Ranking Member Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., announced today that the committee has completed its markup of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. The committee voted 23-3 to report the bill, which authorizes funding for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the national security programs of the Department of Energy (DOE).
"This bipartisan bill provides for our nation's defense and upholds our obligations to our men and women in uniform and their families," Levin said. "An important part of keeping faith with service members is addressing the plague of sexual assaults in our military, and the bill includes the strongest, most effective approach to combatting sexual assault.
"The committee adopted important measures to address readiness problems caused by sequestration and to require the Department of Defense to cut costs and operate more efficiently. I want to thank Senator Inhofe and all of the members of the committee for their hard work and support throughout the mark-up process."
"I am proud to complete my first markup of the National Defense Authorization Act as Ranking Member," said Inhofe. "I thank Chairman Levin for his leadership and commend all of the members of the committee for their hard work. The bill contains many important provisions to support the men and women of our military and their families and ensure that they're prepared to meet the Nation's security objectives around the world."
See the link for further highlights.
Senate NDAA Markup includes an authorization of $583 million for the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Program
The markup "Authorizes 583.0 million Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Program, an increase of 80.0 million to the budget request. This would continue the program while allowing DOE/ National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to perform a strategic analysis of the overall disposition effort, including the ways to lower cost and achieve efficiencies in the current program."
See above story for further information.
First "Small Modular" Nuclear Reactors Planned for Tennessee
Will Ferguson, National Geographic
June 5, 2013
Near the banks of the Clinch River in eastern Tennessee, a team of engineers will begin a dig this month that they hope will lead to a new energy future.
They'll be drilling core samples, documenting geologic, hydrologic, and seismic conditions--the initial step in plans to site the world's first commercial small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) here. (See related quiz: "What Do You Know About Nuclear Power?")
Once before, there was an effort to hatch a nuclear power breakthrough along the Clinch River, which happens to meander through the U.S. government's largest science and technology campus, Oak Ridge, on its path from the Appalachian Mountains to the Tennessee River.
In the 1970s, the U.S. government and private industry partners sought to build the nation's first commercial-scale "fast breeder" reactor here, an effort abandoned amid concerns about costs and safety. Today, nuclear energy's future still hinges on the same two issues, and advocates argue that SMRs provide the best hope of delivering new nuclear plants that are both affordable and protective of people and the environment. And even amid Washington, D.C.'s budget angst, there was bipartisan support for a new five-year $452 million U.S. government program to spur the technology.
The first project to gain backing in the program is here on the Clinch River at the abandoned fast breeder reactor site, where the Tennessee Valley Authority, the largest public utility in the United States, has partnered with engineering firm Babcock & Wilcox to build two prototype SMRs by 2022.
SMRs are "a very promising direction that we need to pursue," said U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz at his confirmation hearing in April. "I would say it's where the most innovation is going on in nuclear energy." (See related story: "Small Town Nukes.")
The Power of Small
Nuclear power typically is big power, so the drive to downsize marks a significant departure from business as usual. Four of the ten largest electricity stations in the world are nuclear-powered, and the average size of U.S. nuclear reactors is more than 1,000 megawatts (large enough to power about 800,000 U.S. homes). The smallest U.S. reactor in operation, the Fort Calhoun station in Nebraska, is more than 500 MW.
In the first U.S. government-backed SMR effort, Babcock & Wilcox's nuclear energy subsidiary, B&W mPower, is developing a 180-MW small modular reactor prototype.
Proponents believe a fleet of bite-size reactors might have a better chance of getting built than the typical behemoth. Although existing nuclear reactors (thanks to their cheap fuel) currently provide electricity at lower cost than coal or natural gas plants, building a brand new big nuclear plant is costly.
Tom Flaherty, a senior energy consultant for the global management firm Booz & Company, pointed out that nuclear energy investments often fail to reach fruition. Proposals for 30 new reactors have been advanced by U.S. energy utilities in recent years; more than half of these have been withdrawn to date. A big plant carries another big financial risk; what if there's not enough demand for all that power?
"In today's market, the financial risk of unused capacity means nuclear energy is simply not an option unless you are a very large company," said Flaherty.
Bob Rosner, a nuclear energy expert at the University of Chicago, agreed that the price of a new nuclear plant--which can be around $20 billion--is one that only a handful of energy companies can currently afford. (See related story: "New Nuclear Energy Grapples With Costs.")
"Is a company going to bet a third of its market capitalization on a risky project?" Rosner asked. "The answer is no, they aren't going to do it." SMRs, however, could be made in factories at the relatively inexpensive cost of $1-2 billion, Rosner said. They could then be shipped via rail to sites around the United States and the world, where they would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival.
Experts say such reactors also could be removed as a unit, standardizing waste management and recycling of components. SMRs also can be designed with "air cooling," so that they do not require the large withdrawals of water that today's current nuclear (and coal) plants need to condense steam.
Christofer Mowry, president and chief executive officer of B&W mPower, said his company's prototype, currently being tested at a facility in Lynchburg, Virginia, contains all of the components and safety features of a top-of-the-line, full-scale nuclear facility in a module about the size of a Boeing 737 passenger jet.
Mowry views it as an important step in making an essential form of carbon-free energy generation more easily deployable. "There is a convergence or nexus of forces that are really driving the DOE and the world nuclear industry as a whole to focus on this technology," he said. "There is no silver bullet, but any realistic scenario for power generation over the next 50 years will include nuclear in a big way."
The other players in the race to develop SMRs span the globe: the U.S. engineering firm Westinghouse (owned by Japan's Toshiba), South Korea's Kepco, France's Areva, and UK-based AMEC. Flaherty said there are five different reactor prototypes under development in Russia. "What makes this so attractive from an international development perspective is that developing countries are hostage to the fuel sources they have," he said. "This is a technology that you could take in and put anywhere."
But mPower's effort, with U.S. government backing, is in the lead. Under the terms of an agreement announced in April, the U.S. Department of Energy will provide mPower with $79 million for the project in the first year, and $226 million or more in federal funding could be available, subject to incremental appropriations from Congress.
Sizing for Safety
Proponents of SMRs say their compact size will help to shore up safety protection. For example, U.S. regulations now require that nuclear power plants are able to maintain core cooling after a power blackout for four to eight hours. The most advanced big reactors, like those being installed at Southern Company's Vogtle plant now under construction in Georgia, would have the capability to cope with a three-day outage. (See related story: "Would a New Nuclear Plant Fare Better than Fukushima?") But SMRs have added safety features that would keep water circulating through a reactor core in the event of power loss, preventing a nuclear meltdown for weeks.
And there are other protections. The two reactors planned at the Clinch River site will be buried underground with a protective slab of concrete on top. This would make them safe from something like an airplane impact, Mowry says.
Others in the industry say SMRs will also be easier to maintain than existing nuclear plants. Full-scale nuclear facilities have many separately housed components--the reactor core, steam generator, pumping systems, and switchyard, to name a few--each of which requires maintenance personnel. In a SMR, all of these components are downsized and housed together.
To prevent the spread of nuclear radiation in the event of a catastrophe, the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) currently requires a 10-mile emergency evacuation zone around a nuclear plant. Mowry says the passive safety features of the SMR design will make it safe enough to reduce this zone to a half mile and to site future reactors closer to urban areas.
Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Security Program, said there is no reason why regulations should be put in place to accommodate SMRs. He said the point of a 10-mile emergency zone is to provide additional security in the event of an unforeseeable catastrophe, like the 2011 earthquake and tsunami-triggered disaster at Japan's Fukushima plant. "The safety zone is a buffer so that in a worst case scenario, say you have a large radiological release like the one at Fukushima, you can protect the public from a disaster," he said. (See related story: "One Year After Fukushima, Japan Faces Shortages of Energy, Trust.")
He points out that at Fukushima and after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, contamination of food and liquids occurred farther than 100 miles from the accident sites.
"I simply don't believe that you can justify shrinking those boundaries based on nuclear reactor designs that are just on paper," he said.
Contrary to the view of the proponents, Lyman argues that housing vital reactor components close together could make a plant more vulnerable, because a single attack could be more destructive. "If a terrorist gained access to a SMR facility, a single explosive could potentially take out both the primary and backup safety systems," he said.
Even if a SMR ends up being cheaper to build than a full-scale nuclear facility, some have doubts that the electricity it produces will be cheaper.
Lyman says the low price goes against economy of scale and banks on efficiencies in mass production and lenient safety regulations that have not been demonstrated or approved. "I think the best-case scenario is that electricity from SMRs will cost about the same as electricity from contemporary facilities," he said. "This won't be good enough to convince utilities to ramp up nuclear energy spending when there are cheaper alternatives like natural gas."
He said the unproven economics could make it difficult for B&W and the TVA to raise funds for the actual construction of the Clinch River reactors that have an estimated price tag of nearly $2 billion. "The DOE grant only covers design development and licensing costs," he said. "As far as I know, neither TVA nor any other entity has actually committed to build the Clinch River reactors."
New Energy Secretary Moniz admitted that there are many unknowns, but said that the research was important to pursue. "I think the issue, which remains to be seen and can be determined only when we, in fact, do it, is to what extent will the economics of manufacturing lower the costs relative to larger reactors," Moniz said at his confirmation hearing. "There is a great potential payout there, which goes on top of what are typically very attractive safety characteristics, for example, in the design of these reactors." B&W is planning to submit its Clinch River reactor designs to the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval sometime next year.
Dan Stout, senior manager for SMR Technology at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), said TVA's long-term hope is to deploy SMRs at the sites of retiring coal plants. But he said if the licensing requirements prove too exhaustive, and the technology isn't cost-competitive for ratepayers, the project will be scratched.
Nevertheless, he said the team's engineers, as well as TVA's energy consumers, are optimistic about the project's future.
"From the surveys we have done with our consumers, the people are very supportive of the project," he says. "Our team believes that a SMR will be safe enough to warrant a smaller evacuation zone and will prove cost-effective." (See related story: "Can Nuclear Waste Spark an Energy Solution?")
This story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge.
Ernest Moniz engages at House panel hearing
Darius Dixon, Politico
June 14, 2013
President Barack Obama's new energy secretary has a deep science background and easy political charm that helped him sail through his confirmation. So it wasn't a surprise that during his first House committee hearing Thursday, his demeanor implied a confident air that said, "I got this."
The former Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics professor, Ernest Moniz, appeared to be enjoying himself as he fielded questions about the administration's proposed 2014 DOE budget at a hearing of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, only occasionally sidestepping questions by citing his short time on the job but not backing down from a few pointed policy queries from conservatives.
And unlike his predecessor, Steven Chu, whose academic bearing often made him appear less than comfortable in the political arena, Moniz's previous stint at the Energy Department -- and frequent trips to Capitol Hill -- seems to be serving him well so far.
"The difference between Chu and Moniz is like night and day," Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) told POLITICO after the hearing. Moniz was confirmed by the Senate, 97-0, like Chu, but Whitfield said, "They didn't know him, but they know Moniz."
"I think he's much better than Secretary Chu, myself," he added later with reporters. "I think he's more knowledgeable. I think he has a more practical approach to the political arena."
Moniz also pushed humor wherever he could slip it in -- a tendency that Chu seemed to avoid, especially after the Solyndra debacle consumed his appearances on Capitol Hill.
Former Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) referred to Moniz's time at DOE during Bill Clinton's presidency and said he would be a "decent representative for the administration."
Taking the bait, Moniz replied by asking whether "decent" was a good word, drawing laughs from the audience and lawmakers alike.
"'Decent' is good," Barton said. "There are other D-words that I could use that are not good. But 'decent' is good."
It's standard practice for officials testifying before a congressional committee to do a bit of meet-and-greet to get things kicked off on a nice foot. Moniz made sure to follow protocol, delaying the start time for the hearing by a few minutes.
Moniz dodged a few detailed questions related to the myriad DOE programs by reminding lawmakers that he has been on the job for less than a month. But overall, he was well-received even amid a few tense exchanges.
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) probed Moniz on his stance that a major driver of climate change is man-made emissions, but Moniz stood firm on the science.
"First of all, the rise of CO2 in the last half-century is clearly tracked to our global increased energy use. Secondly, I know how to count. I can count how many CO2 molecules have gone out from fossil fuel combustion, and I know how many additional CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere," he said.
And he said he wasn't relying on a consensus among scientists -- though he estimated that 98 percent of scientists agreed -- but rather that his judgment "is based on numbers, on data."
Moniz suggested a follow-up meeting where the two could delve into the topic and later told reporters he found the exchange with McKinley "encouraging" because "there was actually a dialogue."
That equanimity may be tested in the coming months and years with the White House expected to begin to roll out its plans to address climate change.
And Moniz not only has to push the president's energy agenda but also must set his own priorities to reshape the massive bureaucracy at DOE. And with his experience, there's a sense that he knows the agency's weaknesses as well as its strengths.
On Thursday, he announced plans to reconfigure day-to-day oversight procedures at DOE and consolidate its policy operations. He also said he'd formed an internal advisory council to better connect the agency's cybersecurity concerns.
DOE also has plans to split its office of policy and international affairs into two programs.
On top of that, agency leadership is more than half-empty.
At least eight senior leadership positions that require Senate confirmation are vacant, some of which have been empty for years. All three undersecretary positions are vacant, as well as the heads of DOE's offices of science, fossil energy, environmental management, policy and international affairs and the popular Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
It's also been rumored that Deputy Secretary Dan Poneman plans to depart but has stayed to help with the transition of energy secretaries.
Moniz said he's hoping that announcements about nominees for DOE leadership will start by late summer.
NRC's Macfarlane says entire fuel cycle must take holistic view
K. Steiner-Dicks, Nuclear Energy Insider
June 12, 2013
Allison Macfarlane, NRC chairman, recently expressed her views on how the US nuclear fuel cycle segment should collaborate more on matters of cyber security and fuel design for waste disposal alongside other remarks including how certain source material facilities should have new ISA requirements.
At this year's recent 2013 Fuel Cycle Information Exchange, NRC Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane said in her speech that it important to take a holistic view of the entire nuclear fuel cycle as an essential element of nuclear safety and security.
"Licensees and regulators should look at interfaces within the fuel cycle in order to understand how a decision in one area can affect another. In my view, making decisions in isolation, without this type of broad information-sharing, results in less-than-optimal solutions across the fuel cycle as a whole, and could result in unintended negative consequences down the road. For example, how does fuel design impact waste disposal?" remarked Macfarlane.
The chairman also said that it was her "personal view" that ISA requirements for certain source material facilities, as part of a revised Part 40, are a step in the right direction toward strengthening the safety of these facilities.
"The Commission has recently directed the staff to revise the proposed Rule to address multiple issues and resubmit it for Commission consideration. While our individual votes reflected a variety of views, I believe my Commission colleagues and I worked collaboratively to reach an agreeable outcome. If approved by the Commission, I view the use of new ISA requirements as a potential opportunity for certain source material licensees to collaborate with enrichment and fuel fabrication licensees to discuss mutual experiences in applying ISA methodologies," she said.
"Where problems have been identified and corrective actions taken, it is extremely useful for licensees to share their experiences for the benefit of others that may otherwise experience similar challenges. Likewise, efforts to establish and maintain a robust safety culture, both at the NRC and in the industry, should be widely acknowledged.
Macfarlane also highlighted that cyber security has been receiving considerable media attention lately, and that the NRC continues to work closely with other federal agencies to address evolving cyber threats.
She noted that the Department of Homeland Security's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team will soon provide a classified cyber threat briefing to appropriately cleared NRC staff and licensees.
"Our operating reactor licensees recently began undergoing inspections in accordance with their approved cyber security plans. As you're aware, we've developed a road map to evaluate the need for cyber security requirements for fuel cycle facilities. A recent step in that process took place at the end of May, when the NRC staff held a Fuel Cycle Cyber Security Threat Conference at the Center for Advanced Engineering Research. We are making it a priority to help licensees understand the seriousness of the potential threat that fuel cycle facilities face so that they may work as partners with the NRC to address potential problems as they arise," said Macfarlane.
She suggested that facilities that have implemented voluntary measures to improve cyber security may benefit from collaboration with nuclear plant operators who are already putting requirements into practice.
"Sharing best practices across a broad demographic can result in beneficial insights in this dynamic area," said Macfarlane.
 |
|
More Information |
|
To help ensure that you receive all email with images correctly displayed, please add ecabulletin@aweber.com to your address book or contact list |
|
to the ECA Email Server |
|
If you have trouble viewing this email, view the online version |