Nuclear Energy:
Overview of Congressional Issues
Mark Holt
Specialist in Energy Policy
April 29, 2013March 14, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42853
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
Summary
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 104100 licensed nuclear power reactors at 6562 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 6771 more are under construction.
The March 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan increased
attention to nuclear safety throughout the world. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), which issues and enforces nuclear safety requirements, established a task force to identify
lessons from Fukushima applicable to U.S. reactors. The task force’s report led to NRC’s first
Fukushima-related regulatory requirements on March 12, 2012. Several other countries, such as
Germany and Japan, eliminated or reduced their planned future reliance on nuclear power after
the accident.
Highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel that is regularly removed from nuclear power plants is
currently stored at plant sites in the United States. Plans for a permanent underground repository
at Yucca Mountain, NV, were abandoned by the Obama Administration, although that decision is
being challenged in court. The Obama Administration appointed the Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future to recommend an alternative nuclear waste policy. In response to the
Commission’s recommendations, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a new waste strategy
in January 2013 that calls for the selection of new candidate sites for nuclear waste storage and
disposal facilities through a “consent-based” process and for a surface storage pilot facility to
open by 2021.
The level of security that must be provided at nuclear power plants has been a high-profile issue
since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001. Since those attacks, NRC issued a
series of orders and regulations that substantially increased nuclear plant security requirements,
although industry critics contend that those measures are still insufficient.
Encouraging exports of U.S. civilian nuclear products, services, and technology while making
sure they are not used for foreign nuclear weapons programs has long been a fundamental goal of
U.S. nuclear energy policy. Recent proposals to build nuclear power plants in several countries in
the less developed world, including the Middle East, have prompted concerns that international
controls may prove inadequate.
Congressional Research Service
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
Contents
Synthesis of Key Issues ................................................................................................................... 1
Basic Facts and Statistics ................................................................................................................. 2
Major Nuclear Energy Issues ........................................................................................................... 3
Safety ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Recent Events ...................................................................................................................... 34
Selected Congressional Action ............................................................................................ 4
112th Congress ..................................................................................................................... 4
CRS Reports ........................................................................................................................ 45
Additional References ......................................................................................................... 45
Radioactive Waste ..................................................................................................................... 5
Recent Events ...................................................................................................................... 5
Selected Congressional Action ............................................................................................ 5
113th Congress ..................................................................................................................... 5
112th Congress ..................................................................................................................... 6
CRS Reports ........................................................................................................................ 67
Additional References ......................................................................................................... 7
Energy and Environmental Policy Federal Support and Incentives ................................................................................................. 7
Recent Events ...................................................................................................................... 7
Selected Congressional Action ............................................................................................ 7
112th Congress ..................................................................................................................... 78
CRS Reports ........................................................................................................................ 8
Additional References ......................................................................................................... 8
Security and Emergency Response............................................................................................ 8
Recent Events ...................................................................................................................... 8
Selected Congressional Action ............................................................................................ 9
113th Congress ..................................................................................................................... 9
112th Congress ..................................................................................................................... 9
CRS Reports ........................................................................................................................ 9
Additional References ......................................................................................................... 9
Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation ........................................................................................... 9
Recent Events .................................................................................................................... 10
Selected Congressional Action .......................................................................................... 10
113th Congress ................................................................................................................... 10
112th Congress ................................................................................................................... 11
CRS Reports ...................................................................................................................... 11
Other References ............................................................................................................... 11
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 11
Congressional Research Service
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
Synthesis of Key Issues
The long-running policy debate over the future of nuclear energy is rooted in the technology’s
inherent characteristics. Initially developed for its unprecedented destructive power during World
War II, nuclear energy seemed to hold equal promise after the war as a way of providing limitless
energy to all mankind. International diplomacy has focused ever since on finding institutional
mechanisms for spreading the perceived benefits of nuclear energy throughout the world while
preventing the technology from being used for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Much of this
international effort is focused on key nuclear fuel cycle facilities—plants for enriching uranium in
the fissile isotope U-235 and for separating plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. Such plants
can be used to produce civilian nuclear reactor fuel as well as fissile material for nuclear
warheads.
Yet even the use of nuclear power solely for peaceful energy production has proven intrinsically
controversial. The harnessing of nuclear fission in a reactor creates highly radioactive materials
that must be kept from overheating and escaping from the reactor building, as occurred during the
disasters at Fukushima and Chernobyl. Spent nuclear fuel that is regularly removed from reactors
during refueling must be isolated from the environment for up to a million years. Potential
technologies to reduce nuclear waste through recycling usually involve separating plutonium that
could be used for nuclear weapons and would still leave substantial amounts of radioactive waste
to be stored and disposed of. Long-term storage and disposal sites for nuclear waste have proven
difficult to develop throughout the world, as illustrated by the Obama Administration’s
cancellation of the proposed U.S. waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV.
The March 2011 disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, which forced the
evacuation of areas as far as 30 miles away, has slowed nuclear power expansion plans around the
world, particularly in Japan and Western Europe. However, dozens of new reactors are still being
planned and built in China, India, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.1 In these areas, nuclear power’s
initial promise of generating large amounts of electricity without the need for often-imported
fossil fuels, along with the more recent desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, remains a
compelling motivation.
With 104100 licensed reactors, the United States has the largest nuclear power industry in the world.
But U.S. nuclear power growth has been largely stagnant for the past two decades, as natural gas
has captured most of the market for new electric generating capacity.2 Congress enacted
incentives for new nuclear plants in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), including
production tax credits, loan guarantees, and insurance against regulatory delays. Those incentives,
combined with rising natural gas prices and concerns about federal restrictions on carbon dioxide
emissions, prompted industry plans by late 2009 for up to 30 new nuclear power reactors in the
United States.3 However, falling natural gas prices and the defeat of greenhouse gas legislation in
the 111th Congress have put many of those projects on hold. Currently, four new reactors, in
Georgia and South Carolina, are under construction, and an older reactor on which construction
1
World Nuclear Association, “World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements,” November 2012February 1, 2014,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htmlFacts-and-Figures/World-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements.
2
Energy Information Administration, “Most Electric Generating Capacity Additions in the Last Decade Were Natural
Gas-Fired,” July 5, 2011, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2070.
3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications,” updated September 28, 2009.
Available from the author.
Congressional Research Service
1
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
had been suspended for two decades is now being completed in Tennessee. A variety of incentives
to renew the growth of nuclear power have been proposed, including a plan by President Obama
to include nuclear power, along with natural gas and advanced coal technologies, in a federal
mandate for the production of “clean energy.”
Existing U.S. nuclear power plants are facing difficult competition from natural gas and
renewable energy. Four U.S. reactors were permanently closed in 2013, and the shutdown of a
fifth unit was announced for late 2014. Three of those units closed because of the need for
expensive repairs, while the other two were operating well but could not compete in their local
wholesale electricity markets. All five units had substantial time remaining on their initial 40-year
operating licenses or had received or applied for 20-year license extensions from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). The shutdowns prompted widespread discussion about the future
of other aging U.S. reactors. The extent to which the growth of nuclear power should be
The extent to which the growth of nuclear power should be encouraged in the United States and
around the world will continue to be a major component of
the U.S. energy policy debate.
Questions for Congress will include the implementation of policies
to encourage or discourage
nuclear power, post-Fukushima safety standards, development of new
nuclear power and fuel
cycle technologies, and nuclear waste management strategies.
Basic Facts and Statistics
The 104100 licensed nuclear power reactors at 6562 sites in the United States generate about 20% of
the nation’s electricity. The oldest of today’s operating reactors were licensed in 1969, and the
most recent was in 1996. The reactors were initially licensed to operate for 40 years, but 80%
have received or applied for 20-year license renewals by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC).NRC. Under the current mixture of 40- and40and 60-year licenses, 3633 reactors would have to shut
down by 2030 and the rest by 2049.4
Whether new reactors will be constructed to replace the existing fleet or even to expand nuclear
power’s market share will depend largely on costs. The cost of building and operating a new
nuclear power plant in the United States is generally estimated to be significantly higher than
natural gas combined-cycle plants (which use both combustion and steam turbines) and somewhat
above conventional coal-fired plants. For example, the Energy Information Administration (EIA)
estimates that electricity generation from a nuclear power plant coming on line in 2016 would be
11.42018 would
cost 10.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh), while advanced combined-cycle gas would becost 6.6
cents/kwh,
and conventional coal 9.5 cents/kwh, onshore wind 9would cost 10.0 cents/kwh. EIA estimates that onshore wind
would cost 8.7 cents/kwh, offshore wind 24.3 cent22.2 cents/kwh, and
solar photovoltaic 21.114.4 cents/kwh.5
Such estimates depend on a wide range of variables, however,
such as future fuel costs, environmental regulations, and tax credits and other incentives.
As noted above, the United States currently has five reactors under construction. They are
scheduled to begin operating in 2015 through 2018.6 Licenses to build and operate 14 additional
reactors are currently pending at NRC, although their review schedules are uncertain.7 If those
additional U.S. reactors are licensed, they could begin coming on line in the early 2020s.
Throughout the world, 435 reactors are currently in service, and 67 more are under construction.
France is the most heavily nuclear-reliant country in the world, with 58 reactors generating 78%
4
and
environmental regulations. Targeted tax credits and other incentives for specific technologies,
which are not included in the EIA estimates, would also affect nuclear power’s economic
competitiveness.
4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Information Digest, 2012-20132032-2014, NUREG-1350, Vol. 24, August 201225, October 2013, Section 3:
Nuclear Reactors, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350.
5
Energy Information Administration, “Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook
2011,” November 20102013,” January 2013, http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html.
6
Tennessee Valley Authority, “Watts Bar Unit 2 Project Construction Update,” October 26, 2012, http://www.tva.com/
power/nuclear/wattsbar_unit2.htm; South Carolina Electric and Gas, “Project Schedule,” http://www.sceg.com/en/
about-sceg/power-plants/new-nuclear-development/schedule/default.htm; Southern Company, “Milestones,”
http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/milestones.aspx.
7
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “New Reactor Licensing Applications,” September 10, 2012, http://www.nrc.gov/
reactors/new-reactors.html.
Congressional Research Service
2
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
of the country’s electricity in 2011. Thirty countries in 2011 generated at least some of their
electricity from nuclear power. After the Fukushima accident, Germany, which had previously
generated about 30% of its electricity with nuclear power, closed eight of the country’s 17 power
reactors and decided to shut the remainder by 2022.8 Japan, which had also generated about 30%
of its electricity with nuclear power and had planned to raise that level to 50%, is reconsidering
its energy policy. Only two Japanese reactors are currently operating, with the remaining 48
operable reactors undergoing safety improvements and regulatory reviewsforecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf. Levelized costs include capital
costs averaged over the life of the plant, plus fuel and maintenance costs.
Congressional Research Service
2
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
As noted above, the United States currently has five reactors under construction. They are
scheduled to begin operating in 2015 through 2018.6 Licenses to build and operate 12 additional
reactors are currently pending at NRC, although some of their review schedules are uncertain.7 If
those additional U.S. reactors are licensed and built, they could begin coming on line in the early
2020s.
Throughout the world, 435 reactors are currently in service or operable, and 71 more are under
construction. France is the most heavily nuclear-reliant country in the world, with 58 reactors
generating 75% of the country’s electricity in 2012. Thirty countries in 2012 generated at least
some of their electricity from nuclear power. After the Fukushima accident, Germany, which had
previously generated about 30% of its electricity with nuclear power, closed eight of the country’s
17 power reactors and decided to shut the remainder by 2022.8 Japan, which had also generated
about 30% of its electricity with nuclear power and had planned to raise that level to 50%, is
reconsidering its energy policy. None of Japan’s 48 operable reactors is currently running. Safety
improvements in response to the tsunami are currently being implemented, and 17 reactors are
undergoing regulatory reviews for possible restart. It is not clear how many of the operable
reactors will ultimately seek restart approval.
Major Nuclear Energy Issues
Safety
The Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster, triggered by a huge earthquake and tsunami, greatly increased
concerns about safety in the nuclear policy debate. The accident clearly demonstrated the
potential consequences of a total loss of power (or “station blackout”) at today’s commercial
nuclear plants. Even when a reactor shuts down, as the Fukushima plant did after the initial
earthquake, residual radioactivity in the reactor core continues to generate heat that must be
removed, typically by electrically driven or controlled cooling systems. When the tsunami
knocked out power at three of the Fukushima reactors, the buildup of heat and pressure became
so great that it melted the reactors’ nuclear fuel and exceeded the limits of their containment
structures. Cooling was also lost in Fukushima’s spent fuel storage pools, causing concern that
they could overheat, although later examination indicated that they did not.
Safety requirements for nuclear power plants are established and enforced in the United States by
NRC, an independent regulatory commission. NRC safety regulations address the effects of
external events such as earthquakes and floods, equipment failure such as breaks in coolant pipes,
and other problems that could lead to radioactive releases into the environment. Critics of nuclear
power contend that NRC is often reluctant to impose necessary safety requirements that would be
costly or disruptive to the nuclear industry. However, the industry has frequently contended that
6
Tennessee Valley Authority, “Watts Bar Unit 2 Project Construction Update,” October 26, 2012, http://www.tva.com/
power/nuclear/wattsbar_unit2.htm; South Carolina Electric and Gas, “Project Schedule,” http://www.sceg.com/en/
about-sceg/power-plants/new-nuclear-development/schedule/default.htm; Southern Company, “Milestones,”
http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/milestones.aspx.
7
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “New Reactor Licensing Applications,” September 10, 2012, http://www.nrc.gov/
reactors/new-reactors.html.
8
World Nuclear Association, “Public Information Service,” http://www.world-nuclear.org.
Congressional Research Service
3
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
costly safety proposals are unnecessary and would not significantly increase large existing safety
margins.
Recent Events
Following the Fukushima disaster, NRC established a task force to identify lessons applicable to
U.S. reactors and recommend safety improvements. The task force’s report led to NRC’s first
Fukushima-related regulatory requirements, on March 12, 2012. NRC ordered all reactors to
develop strategies to maintain cooling and containment integrity during external events, such as
floods and earthquakes, that were more severe than anticipated by the plants’ designs (“beyond
design basis”). In addition, NRC required that U.S. reactors of similar design to the Fukushima
reactors have “reliable hardened vents” to remove excess pressure from their primary
containments, and that better instrumentation be installed to monitor the condition of spent fuel
pools during accidents.9 The NRC commissioners on March 19, 2013, required NRC staff to
8
World Nuclear Association, “Public Information Service,” http://www.world-nuclear.org.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident: March 12, 2012,” updated
May 30, 2012, http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan/timeline/03122012.html.
9
Congressional Research Service
3
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
study whether to require the newly mandated containment vents to include filters or other means
to reduce the release of radioactive material if the vents have to be used. The idea of requiring
filters had drawn praise from nuclear critics but opposition from the industry on cost grounds.10
Selected Congressional Action
112th Congress
Nuclear Power Plant Safety Act of 2011 (H.R. 1242, Markey)
Requires NRC to revise its regulations within 18 months to ensure that nuclear plants could
handle major disruptive events, a loss of off-site power for 14 days, and the loss of diesel
generators for 72 hours. Spent fuel would routinely have to be moved from pool to dry-cask
storage within a year after it had cooled sufficiently, and emergency planning would have to
include multiple concurrent disasters. NRC could not issue new licenses or permits until the
revised regulations were in place. Introduced March 29, 2011; referred to Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
Oversight Hearing: NRC’s Implementation of Recommendations for Enhancing
Nuclear Reactor Safety in the 21st CenturyNuclear Regulatory Commission Reorganization Plan Codification and
Complements Act (H.R. 3132, Terry, S. 1519, Vitter)
Specifies functions and authorities of the Chairman and Commissioners of NRC. Specifies that
any commissioner may request a vote on whether a particular issue should be reserved for the
Chairman or handled by the full Commission. House bill introduced September 18, 2013; referred
to Committee on Energy and Commerce. Senate bill introduced September 18, 2013; referred to
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearing held by House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittees on Energy and Power and Environment and the Economy, December
12, 2013.
Oversight Hearing: NRC’s Implementation of the Fukushima Near-Term Task
Force Recommendations and Other Actions to Enhance and Maintain Nuclear
Safety
Joint hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and Subcommittee
on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. September 12, 2012January 30, 2014. Witnesses: NRC Chairman Allison M.
Macfarlane and NRC commissioners.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL33558, Nuclear Energy Policy, by Mark Holt
CRS Report R41805, Nuclear Power Plant Design and Seismic Safety Considerations, by
Anthony Andrews and Peter Folger
CRS Report R41694, Fukushima Nuclear Disaster, by Mark Holt, Richard J. Campbell, and
Mary Beth Nikitin
Additional References
Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,
July 12, 2011, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1118/ML111861807.pdf.
10
9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident: March 12, 2012,” updated
May 30, 2012, http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan/timeline/03122012.html.
10
NRC, “Consideration of Additional Requirements for Containment Venting Systems for Boiling Water Reactors with
Mark I and Mark II Containments,” staff requirements memorandum, SECY-12-0157, March 19, 2013,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/srm/2012/2012-0157srm.pdf; Freebairn, William, “NRC
Staff Recommends Ordering Filtered Vents for 31 Power Reactors,” Inside NRC, November 5, 2012, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
4
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL33558, Nuclear Energy Policy, by Mark Holt
CRS Report R41805, Nuclear Power Plant Design and Seismic Safety Considerations, by
Anthony Andrews and Peter Folger
CRS Report R41694, Fukushima Nuclear Disaster, by Mark Holt, Richard J. Campbell, and
Mary Beth D. Nikitin
Additional References
Nuclear Safety: Countries’ Regulatory Bodies Have Made Changes in Response to the Fukushima
Daiichi Accident, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Government Accountability Office,
GAO-14-109, March 2014, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-109.
Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,
July 12, 2011, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1118/ML111861807.pdf.
State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Report: Draft Report for Comment,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1935, January 2012, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1935.
Radioactive Waste
Highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel must regularly be removed from operating reactors and
stored in adjacent pools of water. After several years of cooling, the spent fuel can be placed in
dry casks for storage elsewhere on the plant site. When existing U.S. reactors were built, spent
fuel had been expected to be taken away for reprocessing (separation of plutonium and uranium
to make new fuel) or permanent disposal. However, reprocessing has not become commercialized
in the United States, for economic and nonproliferation reasons, and central waste storage and
disposal facilities have proven difficult to site. As a result, the vast majority of U.S. commercial
spent fuel remains at the nuclear plants where it was generated—currently totaling 67,450 metric
tonstotaling 71,775 metric tons in
2013 and rising at the rate of about 2,000 metric tons per year.11
Recent Events
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (P.L. 97-425, NWPA), as amended in 1987, named Yucca
Mountain, NV, as the nation’s sole candidate site for a permanent high-level nuclear waste
repository. However, the Obama Administration decided to halt the Yucca Mountain project and
appointed the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to recommend an
alternative policy. The Commission issued its final report in January 2012, and the Department of
Energy (DOE) responded in January 2013 with a new waste strategy that calls for a “consentbased” process to select nuclear waste storage and disposal sites and for a surface storage pilot
facility to open by 2021.12 Meanwhile, lawsuits are pending in federal court to require the
development of the Yucca Mountain repository to continue, as specified by NWPA.
Selected Congressional Action
113th Congress
Oversight Hearing: Nuclear Waste Programs and Strategies
Oversight hearing by the House Appropriations Committee Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Subcommittee, Thursday, April 11, 2013. Lead witnesses: Peter B. Lyons,
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy, and Michael Weber, Deputy
Executive Director, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
11
Gutherman Technical Services, “2011 Used Fuel Data,” Report to Nuclear Energy Institute, January 14, 2012.
DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, January
2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013%201-15%20Nuclear_Waste_Report.pdf.
12
Congressional Research Service
5
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
Discussion Draft: Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013
Similar to S. 3469 in the 112th Congress, would establish the Nuclear Waste Administration to
develop central storage and disposal facilities for high-level nuclear waste. Sites would require
the consent of the host state and local governments and Indian tribes. Discussion draft released by
Senators Alexander, Feinstein, Murkowski, and Wyden on April 25, 2013.
112th Congress
Restore America Act of 2011 (H.R. 3302, Rooney)
Among other provisions, encourages tripling of U.S. nuclear power capacity, requires licensing
proceedings to continue for the proposed Yucca Mountain waste repository, removes statutory
capacity limits on the repository, prohibits the President from blocking or hindering nuclear spent
fuel recycling, establishes a nuclear fuel reserve, and establishes expedited reactor licensing
procedures. Introduced November 1, 2011; referred to multiple committees.
Yucca Utilization to Control Contamination Act (H.R. 4625, Joe Wilson)/Nuclear
Waste Fund Relief and Rebate Act (S. 2176, Graham)
Requires that payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund be returned to utilities unless the President
certifies that Yucca Mountain is the selected site for a nuclear waste repository; that defense
nuclear waste be transported to Yucca Mountain beginning in 2017; and that statutory
requirements for disposal of nuclear waste be sufficient grounds for NRC to determine that waste
from new or relicensed reactors will be disposed of in a timely manner. House bill introduced
April 25, 2012; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce. Senate bill introduced March 8,
2012; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Nuclear Fuel Storage Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 1320, Murkowski)
Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to provide payments to units of local government that, with
the approval of the state governor, volunteer to host a “privately owned and operated temporary
used fuel storage facility.” Introduced June 30, 2011; referred to Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2012 (S. 3469, Bingaman)
Establishes the Nuclear Waste Administration to develop central storage and disposal facilities for
high-level nuclear waste. Sites would require the consent of the host state and local governments
and Indian tribes. Introduced August 1, 2012; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. Committee hearing held September 12, 2012.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt
CRS Report R42513, U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, by James D. Werner
Congressional Research Service
6
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
11
Gutherman Technical Services, “2013 Used Fuel Data,” Report to Nuclear Energy Institute, January 20, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
5
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
facility to open by 2021.12 A federal appeals court on August 13, 2013, ordered NRC to continue
the Yucca Mountain licensing process with previously appropriated funds.13 NRC responded
November 18, 2013, by directing the agency’s staff to complete the Yucca Mountain safety
evaluation report, a key document that would provide the staff’s conclusions about whether the
proposed repository could be licensed.
Selected Congressional Action
No More Excuses Energy Act of 2013 (H.R. 2081, Thornberry)
Includes provisions to prohibit NRC from considering nuclear waste storage when licensing new
nuclear facilities, and to establish a tax credit for obtaining nuclear component manufacturing
certification. Introduced May 21, 2013; referred to multiple committees.
Dry Cask Storage Act (H.R. 3354, Engel)
Requires spent fuel at nuclear power plants to be moved from spent fuel pools to dry casks after it
has sufficiently cooled. Costs of the fuel transfers would be offset by a reduction in nuclear waste
fees owed to the federal government. Introduced October 28, 2013; referred to Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013 (S. 1240, Wyden)
Establishes an independent Nuclear Waste Administration to develop nuclear waste storage and
disposal facilities. Siting of such facilities would require the consent of the affected state, local,
and tribal governments. The Nuclear Waste Administration could spend nuclear waste fees
collected after the bill’s enactment without the need for further appropriation. Fee collection
would halt after 2025 if a waste facility had not been opened. Introduced June 27, 2013; referred
to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Committee hearing held July 30, 2013.
Oversight Hearing: Nuclear Waste Programs and Strategies
Oversight hearing by the House Appropriations Committee Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Subcommittee, Thursday, April 11, 2013. Lead witnesses: Peter B. Lyons,
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy, and Michael Weber, Deputy
Executive Director, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
12
DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, January
2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013%201-15%20Nuclear_Waste_Report.pdf.
13
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In re: Aiken County et al., No. 11-1271, writ of
mandamus, August 13, 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt
CRS Report R42513, U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, by James D. Werner
CRS Report R40996, Contract Liability Arising from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of
1982, by Todd Garvey
Additional References
Report to the Secretary of Energy, Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future,
January 2012, http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120620211605/http:/brc.gov.
Managing Spent Nuclear Fuel: Strategy Alternatives and Policy Implications, RAND
Corporation, 2010, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG970.html.
Energy and Environmental PolicyFederal Support and Incentives
Congress has long debated the role that nuclear power should play in meeting national energy and
environmental goals. Nuclear power supporters generally point to the technology as crucial for
providing a secure, domestic source of energy with low emissions of greenhouse gasesgas and other
emissions.
Opponents generally counter that safety and proliferation risks, nuclear waste hazards,
and high
costs outweigh those benefits. The debate over nuclear power’s role often focuses on the
level of
federal support that should be provided to encourage the construction of new nuclear
plants,
through such mechanisms as loan guarantees, tax credits, clean energy mandates, and
liability limits liability
limits under the Price-Anderson Act. Because of the relatively high cost of new nuclear reactors,
especially compared
with natural gas plants, the level of federal support is expected to be a key
determinant of the
future growth or decline of nuclear power in the United States. Federal support funding
for nuclear energy
research and development could also be an important factor in the long term, along with related infrastructure and security, is
debated annually in Congress as part of the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.
DOE nuclear energy funding totals $888.4 million for FY2014, while for FY2015 the President is
requesting a reduction to $863.4 million.
Recent Events
One nuclear power project, consisting of two new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, received
a conditional commitment from DOE for an $8.33 billion loan guarantee in February 2010, as
authorized by Section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). However,
negotiations over the detailed terms of the loan guarantee have continued since then, particularly
over the level of fees that the borrower would have to pay, so it has not been finalized. No other
planned nuclear plants have received conditional commitments for DOE loan guarantees.
Selected Congressional Action
112th Congress
Clean Energy Financing Act of 2011 (S. 1510, Bingaman)
Establishes a Clean Energy Deployment Administration to provide financial assistance to
commercial projects using clean energy technology, including nuclear power. Introduced and
reported as an original measure by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources August 30,
2011 (S.Rept. 112-47).
Congressional Research Service
7
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 (S. 2146)
Establishes minimum U.S. annual percentages of clean energy use, including nuclear power,
starting at 24% in 2015 and rising to 84% in 2035. Introduced March 1, 2012; referred to
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Committee hearing held May 17, 2012Energy Secretary
Ernest Moniz announced the issuance of $6.5 billion in loan guarantees on February 19, 2014, to
two of the three utility partners in the project, Georgia Power and Oglethorpe Power. An
additional $1.8 billion loan guarantee for another partner, Municipal Electric Authority of
Georgia, is still pending. No other planned nuclear plants have received conditional commitments
for DOE loan guarantees.
Congressional Research Service
7
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
Selected Congressional Action
Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act (H.R. 259, Pompeo)
Terminates nuclear energy production tax credit, among other provisions. Introduced January 15,
2013; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL33558, Nuclear Energy Policy, by Mark Holt
Additional References
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Global Nuclear Energy Markets, Bipartisan Policy Center,
September 2012, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Nuclear%20Report.PDF.
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 20122013, Mycle Scheider Consulting, July 201230, 2013,
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/2012MSC-WorldNuclearReport-EN-V2.pdf-2013-.html.
Security and Emergency Response
The level of security that must be provided at nuclear power plants has been a high-profile issue
since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001. Since those attacks, NRC issued a
series of orders and regulations that substantially increased nuclear plant security requirements,
although industry critics contend that those measures are still insufficient. Key measures include
an increase in the level of attacks that nuclear plant security forces must be able to repel,
requirements for mitigating the effects of large fires and explosions, and a requirement that new
reactors be capable of withstanding aircraft crashes without releasing radioactive material. NRC
also modified its planning requirements for evacuations and other emergency responses after the
9/11 attacks, and the Fukushima disaster illustrated the importance of emergency response to
radioactive releases from any cause.
Recent Events
NRC issued wide-ranging revisions to its emergency preparedness regulations on November 1,
2011, dealing with duties of emergency personnel and the inclusion of hostile actions in
emergency planning drills.1314 In response to Fukushima, NRC staff recommended that nuclear
emergency plans be required to address events affecting multiple reactors and prolonged station
blackout. NRC told nuclear power plants on March 12, 2012, to provide specific information and
analysis on those issues.14
1315
14
NRC, “Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations,” final rule, Federal Register, November 23, 2011, p.
72560.
1415
NRC, “Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding
Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Accident,” March 12, 2012, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12053A340.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
Selected Congressional Action
113th Congress
Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (P.L. 1135, H.R. 307)
Reauthorizes public health security programs, including those related to nuclear and radiological
hazards. Introduced January 18, 2013, by Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan; passed
House January 22, 2013, by vote of 395-29. Passed Senate by unanimous consent with an
amendment February 27, 2013. House suspended rules and agreed to Senate amendment 370-28
on March 4, 2013. President signed March 13, 2013.
Nuclear Disaster Preparedness Act (H.R. 1700, Engel)
Similar to H.R. 1694 in the 112th Congress, requiresRequires the President to issue guidance for federal
response to nuclear disasters, covering
specific topics listed in the bill. Introduced April 24, 2013;
referred to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
112th Congress
Nuclear Power Licensing Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 1268, Lowey)
Requires evacuation planning within 50 miles of U.S. nuclear power plants and that reactor
license renewals be subject to the same standards that would apply to new reactors. Introduced
April 7, 2011; referred Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Transportation and Infrastructure.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL34331, Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities, by Mark Holt and
Anthony Andrews
Additional References
Backgrounder—Nuclear SecurityProtecting Our Nation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 2008 (last reviewed
or updated October 3, 2012), http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/securityenhancements.htmlNUREG/BR-0314, Rev. 3, October
2013, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1327/ML13270A213.pdf.
Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation
Encouraging exports of U.S. civilian nuclear products, services, and technology while making
sure they are not used for foreign nuclear weapons programs has long been a fundamental goal of
U.S. nuclear energy policy. International controls and inspections are intended to ensure the
peaceful use of civilian nuclear facilities and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Congressional Research Service
9
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
However, recent proposals to build nuclear power plants in as many as 18 countries15countries16 that have
not previously used nuclear energy, including several in the Middle East and elsewhere in the less
developed world, have prompted concerns that international controls may prove inadequate.
Numerous recommendations have been made in the United States and elsewhere to create new
incentives for nations to forgo the development of uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel
reprocessing facilities that could produce weapons materials as well as civilian nuclear fuel.
16
World Nuclear Association, “World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements,” February 1, 2014,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html.
Congressional Research Service
9
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
Recent Events
Iran is currently the prime example of the tension between peaceful and weapons uses of nuclear
technology. Of particular concern is a growing Iranian uranium enrichment program, which Iran
contends is solely for peaceful purposes but which the United States and other countries suspect
is for producing weapons material. The U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions and passed
several resolutions calling on Iran to suspend its enrichment program and other sensitive nuclear
activities. Nevertheless, Iran continues to advance its nuclear program.
Extension of the U.S.-South Korea nuclear cooperation agreement, which expires in 2014, is also
beingrunning through March 19,
2014, has also been affected by nonproliferation issues. South Korea would like to include
advance U.S.
consent for spent fuel reprocessing and uranium enrichment, but the United States
is concerned
about the precedent that such an agreement might set and how it would affect other ongoing
ongoing issues on the Korean peninsula. On April 24, 2013, U.S. and Korean officials announced a
proposalLegislation authorizing the President to extend the
existing nuclear cooperation agreement by two years to allow more time
for negotiating a new, long-term agreement. The two-year extension will require approval by
Congresswas signed into law on February 12, 2014
(P.L. 113-81), allowing more time to negotiate a new, long-term agreement.
Selected Congressional Action
113th Congress
Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 (H.R.
893, Ros-Lehtinen)
Imposes penalties for nuclear technology trade with Iran, North Korea, and Syria, restricts U.S.
cooperation with countries aiding nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran, North Korea, and Syria,
and establishes related sanctions. Introduced February 28, 2013; referred to multiple committees.
15
World Nuclear Association, “World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements,” November 2012,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html.
Congressional Research Service
10
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
112th Congress
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to require congressional approval of
agreements for peaceful nuclear cooperation with foreign countries, and for other
purposes (H.R. 12803766, Ros-Lehtinen/S. 109, Ensign)
Requires congressional approval of U.S. peaceful nuclear cooperation agreements with countries
that do not agree to forgo enrichment and reprocessing. House bill introduced March 31, 2011;
reported by Committee on Foreign Affairs May 30, 2012 (H.Rept. 112-507). Senate bill
introduced January 25, 2011; referred to Committee on Foreign Relations.Introduced December 12, 2013; referred
to Committees on Foreign Affairs and Rules.
Hearing: Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreements
Hearing by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, January 30, 2014. Examined whether
U.S. nuclear cooperation agreements should require cooperating countries to forgo uranium
enrichment and reprocessing and the potential impact of a declining U.S. role in global nuclear
trade. Lead witnesses: Thomas M. Countryman, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of
International Security and Nonproliferation, and Daniel B. Poneman, Deputy Secretary of Energy.
Congressional Research Service
10
Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL34234, Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding
Global Access to Nuclear Power, coordinated by Mary Beth D. Nikitin
CRS Report R41910, Nuclear Energy Cooperation with Foreign Countries: Issues for Congress,
by Paul K. Kerr, Mark Holt, and Mary Beth D. Nikitin
CRS Report RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status, coordinated by
Mary Beth D. Nikitin
CRS Report R41032, U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear Energy Market:
Major Policy Considerations, by Mark Holt
Other References
Nuclear Nonproliferation: IAEA Has Made Progress in Implementing Critical Programs but
Continues to Face Challenges, Government Accountability Office, GAO-13-139, May 16, 2013,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-139.
U.S. Nuclear Cooperation as Nonproliferation: Reforms, or the Devil You Know? Nuclear Threat
Initiative, November 27, 2012, http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/us-nuclear-cooperationnonproliferation-reforms-or-devil-you-know.
Author Contact Information
Mark Holt
Specialist in Energy Policy
mholt@crs.loc.gov, 7-1704
Congressional Research Service
11