DOCSLIB.ORG

A New Foundation for the Nuclear Enterprise

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A New Foundation for the Nuclear Enterprise A New Foundation for the Nuclear Enterprise Report of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise The Honorable Norman R. Augustine, Co-Chairman Admiral Richard W. Mies, U.S. Navy (Retired), Co-Chairman Dr. Michael R. Anastasio Admiral Kirkland H. Donald, U.S. Navy (Retired) The Honorable T. J. Glauthier The Honorable David L. Hobson The Honorable Gregory B. Jaczko The Honorable Franklin C. Miller Dr. William Schneider, Jr. The Honorable John M. Spratt, Jr. The Honorable Ellen O. Tauscher The Honorable Heather A. Wilson November 2014 Preface Section 3166 of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act establishes the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise and tasks the advisory panel to offer recommendations “…with respect to the most appropriate governance structure, mission, and management of the nuclear security enterprise.” This report summarizes the panel’s findings on the current health of the enterprise, examines the root causes of its governance challenges, and offers the panel’s recommendations to address the identified problems. Appendix A contains the Section 3166 language on the panel’s charter; the panel members’ biographies are provided in Appendix B. The panel is grateful for the support provided for this research by individuals throughout the nuclear enterprise, and for the testimony and advice provided by invited witnesses. General Larry D. Welch (USAF, ret.) and Dr. Richard A. Meserve provided very helpful comments on a draft of this report. Research, logistics, and editorial support were provided by the Institute for Defense Analyses. iii Contents Preface................................................................................................................................ iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... ix Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 1. Strengthen National Leadership Focus, Direction, and Follow-Through ..................9 CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................9 Lack of a Unifying Narrative Clarifying Resource Priorities ...........................11 Lack of an Executable Plan ...............................................................................12 Absence of Follow-Through for Governance Reform ......................................14 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................15 2. Solidify Cabinet Secretary Ownership of the Mission ..............................................21 CHALLENGES ..............................................................................................................21 Overlapping DOE and NNSA Headquarters Staffs ..........................................22 Confused Roles, Responsibilities, Authorities, and Accountability .................23 Flawed DOE Processes for Risk Management..................................................24 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................26 3. Adopt Proven Management Practices to Build a Culture of Performance, Accountability, and Credibility .................................................................................37 CHALLENGES ..............................................................................................................37 Lack of a Mission-Driven Culture.....................................................................39 Weak Career and Leadership Development ......................................................40 Absence of Trusted Cost and Resource Analysis ..............................................41 The Lack of Focus on Mission Deliverables .....................................................43 New Limitations on Internally Directed Research and Development ...............45 Shortfalls in Facilities and Infrastructure Modernization..................................46 An Inflexible Budget Structure that Undermines Mission Execution ...............48 Ineffective Communications .............................................................................49 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................50 4. Maximize the Contributions of the Management and Operating (M&O) Organizations to the Safe, Secure Execution of the Mission ....................................65 CHALLENGES ..............................................................................................................65 v Breakdown of the Federally Funded Research and Development Center Model...........................................................................................................68 Unclear Responsibilities for Managing Operations at the Operating Sites .......69 Insufficient Influence of the M&O Parent Organizations’ Cultures .................70 Costly and Ineffective Transactional Oversight ................................................71 Contract Requirements and Performance Metrics that Divert Attention and Resources from Mission Execution .............................................................76 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................77 5. Strengthen Customer Collaboration to Build Trust and a Shared View of Mission Success .........................................................................................................83 CHALLENGES ..............................................................................................................83 Lack of Effective Joint DOD-DOE Planning and Budget Coordination ..........84 Lack of DOD-DOE Information Sharing and Trust ..........................................85 Weak Processes for Interagency Coordination and Tasking .............................86 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................90 6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................95 REFORM IS NEEDED ACROSS THE NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE ...........................................95 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PANEL’S RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................95 APPENDICES Appendix A Charter of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise .....................................................................................101 Appendix B Panel Members ............................................................................................105 Appendix C Proposed Statutory Changes ........................................................................113 Appendix D Testimony, Site Visits, and Interviews........................................................141 Appendix E Alternative Structural Models ......................................................................147 Appendix F Benchmarking ..............................................................................................149 Appendix G References ...................................................................................................155 Appendix H Acronyms ....................................................................................................159 vi FIGURES Figure 1. NNSA’s Interrelated Missions .............................................................................2 Figure 2. The NNSA Weapons Complex ............................................................................5 Figure 3. Current Timeline for NNSA Life Extension Activities ......................................13 Figure 4. Congressional Appropriations Delays, FY01–FY14 ..........................................14 Figure 5. Current Department of Energy Organization .....................................................33 Figure 6. Current and Proposed Resource Control for the B61 LEP (Sandia Example) ...60 Figure 7. Kansas City Plant, NNSA, and National Safety Trends .....................................74 Figure 8. The Interagency Work (IW) Approval Process ..................................................88 TABLES Table of Recommendations……………………………………………………...…….. xix Table 1. Major Components of the U.S. Nuclear Enterprise ...............................................4 Table 2. Proposed Departmental Roles and Authorities ....................................................29 Table 3. Criteria for Success in High-Reliability, High-Technology Organizations .........38 Table 4. Field Office Personnel Comparisons ...................................................................76 Table 5. Interagency Work (IW) by Site (FY13) ...............................................................87 vii Executive Summary The course to improve the nation’s nuclear security enterprise seems clear…and the National Nuclear Security Administration has not been on it. –Testimony to the panel (unattributed) The Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise was tasked by the U.S. Congress to examine the mission, organization, and management of this enterprise and consider alternative governance models. The panel notes from the outset that there is no question as to the efficacy of the nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LICENSEE NEWSLETTER NUREG/BR-0117, No
    Oce of Federal & State Materials & Environmental Management Programs LICENSEE NEWSLETTER NUREG/BR-0117, No. 09-02 Summer 2009 NEW CHAIRMAN FOR THE NRC INSIDE THIS ISSUE Chairman Jaczko stated that he New Chairman for the NRC .....................1 had first-hand Generally Licenced Device knowledge of the Restrictions Proposed Rule staff’s dedication Published for Public Comment .............2 and expertise. Why Do States Become He said that he An “Agreement State?” .............................2 looks forward to working with staff From the Desk of the FSME Director ..............................................3 to successfully address the NSTS Expansion Disapproved ................4 challenges and In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling ...............5 opportunities Reporting Requirements .........................5 ahead. In an effort to meet Third Review Meeting ...............................6 staff, Chairman The Last Phase of Jaczko hosted Waiver Terminations ..................................7 an open house Employee Recognition .............................7 on June 18, 2009 Paper Reduction .........................................8 for all NRC Headquarters Significant Enforcement Actions ..........8 Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko staff members to visit his new Generic Communications Issued ....... 11 suite of offices. Chairman Significant Event ...................................... 11 On May 13, 2009, President Jaczko took the opportunity Barack Obama designated to personally express his Selected Federal Register Notices ....... 12 Dr. Gregory
    [Show full text]
  • Stanton Nuclear Security Fellows Seminar
    1 Stanton Nuclear Security Fellows Seminar PANEL 1: Nuclear Decision-Making 1. James Cameron, CISAC The Johnson Administration, Strategic Arms Control and U.S.-Soviet Détente, 1966-1969 Objectives: In addition to revising my PhD for publication, I want to move beyond it by writing an article on Lyndon Johnson’s attempts to come to terms with the Soviets on the limitation of strategic arms between 1966 and 1969. The article will present a post-revisionist analysis of Johnson’s approach to détente that reconciles it with his broader foreign policy, in particular Vietnam. The eventual objective of this line of research is to produce a book that re-examines American approaches to détente through nuclear arms control with the Soviet Union between 1958 and 1991. Overview: For decades after he left office, assessments of Lyndon Johnson’s foreign policy were dominated by his mishandling of the Vietnam War.1 However, starting in the early 1990s and accelerating in the 2000s, revisionist literature on Johnson has sought to highlight the progress he made in other areas, most notably détente with the Soviet Union and strategic arms control.2 Thus, at the present time the literature presents a bipolar Johnson: at once attempting to uphold American credibility in a relatively peripheral area of the world, while at the same time negotiating to mitigate the costs of an arms race that most saw as fundamental to the American commitment to the security of Western Europe. This article will move the literature forward by showing how the Johnson administration’s vision for strategic arms control was predicated on the same optimism regarding American capacity to prevail that drove American involvement in Vietnam.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability Without Politics: How the Nero Act Can Energize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lee Terry
    Journal of Legislation Volume 39 | Issue 1 Article 1 1-1-2013 Sustainability without Politics: How the Nero Act Can Energize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lee Terry Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg Recommended Citation Terry, Lee (2013) "Sustainability without Politics: How the Nero Act Can Energize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Journal of Legislation: Vol. 39: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol39/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journal of Legislation at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Legislation by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SUSTAINABILITY WITHOUT POLITICS: HOW THE NERO ACT CAN ENERGIZE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Congressman Lee Terry* Introduction Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing Concerning the Leadership of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2157 Rayburn House Office Building December 14t, 2011 [S]o, basically, one of the Commissioners just lied under oath is what you're saying," Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) queried staring down at Chairman Jaczko from his position at the head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Panel.1 The tension in the room is palpable as Jaczko pauses to collect his thoughts before giving a vague diplomatic response. The exchange between Issa and Jaczko goes back andforth like thisfor several minutes, Issa aggressively directing questions at Jaczko, Jaczko attempting to divert the questions with bland, non- controversial responses. The purpose of the hearing this day is to explore allegations of managerialmisconduct levied at Chairman Jaczko from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and Commissioners.
    [Show full text]
  • NRC Commissioner to Visit Harris Nuclear Power Plant June 9Th
    NRC NEWS UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 Web Site: www.nrc.gov MEDIA ADVISORY June 5, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: [email protected] Roger Hannah (404)562-4417 MEDIA ADVISORY: NRC COMMISSIONER TO VISIT HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT JUNE 9TH U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Gregory Jaczko is scheduled to visit the Harris nuclear power plant, operated by Progress Energy southwest of Raleigh, on Friday, June 9th to tour the site and to discuss regulatory oversight at the facility with company officials. He will also meet with members of local citizen groups. During his visit to the area, but prior to his tour of the plant, Commissioner Jaczko is available to meet with interested news media representatives at 9:00 a.m. on the 9th to discuss NRC regulatory oversight of the Harris plant and answer any questions. Dr. Gregory B. Jaczko was sworn in as a Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Jan. 21, 2005. His professional career has been devoted to science and its use and impact in the public policy arena. Immediately prior to assuming the post of Commissioner, Dr. Jaczko served as appropriations director for United States Senator Harry Reid and had also served as the Senator's science policy advisor. Previously, he advised members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on nuclear policy and other scientific matters, and worked as a congressional science fellow in the office of United States Representative Edward Markey.
    [Show full text]
  • Closing Yucca Mountain: Litigation Associated with Attempts to Abandon the Planned Nuclear Waste Repository
    Closing Yucca Mountain: Litigation Associated with Attempts to Abandon the Planned Nuclear Waste Repository Todd Garvey Legislative Attorney June 4, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41675 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Closing Yucca Mountain Summary Passed in 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) was an effort to establish an explicit statutory basis for the Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of the nation’s most highly radioactive nuclear waste. The NWPA requires DOE to remove spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants, in exchange for a fee, and transport it to a permanent geologic repository or an interim storage facility before permanent disposal. Defense-related high-level waste is to go into the same repository. In order to achieve this goal, and in an effort to mitigate the political difficulties of imposing a federal nuclear waste facility on a single community, Congress attempted to establish an objective, scientifically based multi-stage statutory process for selecting the eventual site of the nation’s new permanent geologic repository. Congress amended the NWPA’s site selection process in 1987, however, and designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the sole candidate site for the repository by terminating site specific activities at all other sites. The Obama Administration, in conjunction with DOE, has taken three important steps directed toward terminating the Yucca Mountain project. First, the Administration’s FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013 budget proposals eliminated all funding for the Yucca Mountain project. Second, the President and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu established a Blue Ribbon Commission to consider alternative solutions to the nation’s nuclear waste challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Ex-NRC Chairman Nixes Nukes to Fight Climate Change
    Ex-NRC regulator argues against nuclear energy as a tactic to fight climate change Background: January 11, 2019 Commercial nuclear power plants are water-cooled. They are fuelled by ceramic uranium fuel pellets stacked inside long narrow rods made of zirconium metal. A number of these rods are bound together into a fuel assembly — in Canada such an assembly is called a fuel bundle. Heat is produced by splitting uranium atoms. That heat is transported by the liquid water coolant which flows past the zirconium tubes containing the fuel. The heat is used to produce steam that will turn the blades of a steam turbine to generate electricity. As the uranium fuel undergoes nuclear fission (splitting uranium atoms), hundreds of varieties of intensely radioactive byproducts build up inside the fuel. These are (1) broken fragments of uranium atoms, called “fission products”; (2) heavier-than-uranium elements, including plutonium, called “transuranic actinides”. These byproducts are millions of times more radioactive than the original fuel. Loss of Cooling During a severe nuclear accident, the cooling is lost. Even if the reactor has been safely shut down just beforehand, and the fission process has been totally arrested, the temperature of the fuel will still soar to destructive levels without adequate cooling. The problem is that radioactivity cannot be shut off. The radioactive byproducts created during nuclear fission remain in the fuel, and they continue to generate heat. In the case of a 1000 megawatt reactor, immediately following shutdown, over 200 megawatts of heat continue to be generated by the ongoing atomic disintegrations of the radioactive waste byproducts.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing on the Nomination of Allison Macfarlane and Re-Nomination of Kris- Tine L. Svinicki to Be Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    S. HRG. 112–971 HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF ALLISON MACFARLANE AND RE-NOMINATION OF KRIS- TINE L. SVINICKI TO BE MEMBERS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 13, 2012 Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 25–055 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:47 Jul 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25055.TXT SONYA COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director (II) VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:47 Jul 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25055.TXT SONYA CONTENTS Page JUNE 13, 2012 OPENING STATEMENTS Blumenthal, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2011 Monthly Report to the Legislature on the Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility in Wiscasset, Maine
    Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner's Office 221 State Street 11 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0011 Tel. (207) 287-3707 Paul R. LePage, Governor Mary C. Mayhew, Commissioner Fax (207) 287-3005; TTY (800) 606-0215 August 17, 2011 MEMORANDUM TO: Senator Kevin Raye, President of the Senate, and Representative Robert Nutting, Speaker of the House FROM: Mary C. Mayhew, Commissioner yay^ . Department of Health and Human Services SUBJECT: State Nuclear Safety Inspector's June 2011 Monthly Report to the Legislature on the Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility in Wiscasset, Maine Legislation enacted in the spring of 2008 requires the State Nuclear Safety Inspector to provide monthly reports to the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Maine Yankee. The report focuses on activities at the site and includes highlights of the national debate on storing and disposing the used nuclear fuel. The enclosed report provides the information required under Title 22 of the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated §666, as enacted under Public Law, Chapter 539, inthe second regular session ofthe 123rd Legislature. Should you have questions about its content, please feel free to contact Mr. Patrick J. Dostie, State Nuclear Safety Inspector, at 287-6721. pjd Enclosure cc: Vonna Ordaz, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nancy McNamara, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I James Connell, Site Vice President, Maine Yankee Katrin Teel, Senior Policy Advisor, Governor's Office Sheila Pinette, DO, Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Patricia W. Aho, Acting Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection Richard Davies, Maine Public Advocate Lt.
    [Show full text]
  • United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Docket No. 63-001-HLW (High-Level Waste Repository) July 9, 2010 STATE OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AIKEN COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL/DISQUALIFICATION On June 30, 2010, the Commission invited participants to this proceeding to file briefs with the Commission “as to whether the Commission should review, and reverse or uphold, the [Atomic Safety and Licensing] Board’s decision” denying a motion by the Department of Energy (DOE) to withdraw with prejudice its application for an authorization to construct a geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Through this motion, the State of Washington, the State of South Carolina, Aiken County, South Carolina, and White Pine County, Nevada (collectively “Movants”) respectfully request that Commissioners Magwood, Apostolakis, and Ostendorff recuse themselves and be disqualified from any consideration of the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB or Board) denying DOE’s withdrawal motion, and further that they make a determination regarding this motion before considering any other matters, including whether the Commission should review the ASLB decision or the merits of that decision. This motion is based upon the responses of Commissioners Magwood, Apostolakis, and Ostendorff to questioning during a February 9, 2010, confirmation hearing before the United States Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works. During 1 that hearing, each Commissioner responded that he would not “second guess” DOE’s decision to withdraw the license application for Yucca Mountain from the Commission’s review.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Energy and Utilities Committee Opponent Testimony June 2019 Connie Kline, Past Chair Sierra Club Nuclear-Free Committee
    Senate Energy and Utilities Committee Opponent Testimony June 2019 Connie Kline, Past Chair Sierra Club Nuclear-Free Committee Please note - Some paragraphs were re-arranged in this submission; therefore a few end note citations are not in numerically chronological order but the reference numbers remain the same. "Today's problems come from yesterday's `solutions.'" From MIT systems scientist Peter Senge's 1990 book The Fifth Discipline - a prescient warning for trying to solve climate change with nuclear power. The nuclear industry claimed electricity too cheap to meter (1), radioactive waste removed in five years (2), and a serious accident chance of one in 1000,000 to one in a 1,000,000,000. (3) Nuclear power is not a pristine panacea for climate change and doesn’t deserve bailouts like HB 6. It is a catastrophically dangerous, dirty, expensive, deteriorating technology that is not “clean”, “indispensable”, “carbon-free”, or “renewable”; uranium is, in fact, a finite, non-renewable resource. Gregory Jazcko, former Nuclear Regulatory (NRC) Commissioner and Chairman from 2005 to 2012, is the latest nuclear regulator, engineer, physicist, physician etc. to sound the alarm, writing, "I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry. Now I think it should be banned. The danger from climate change no longer outweighs the risks of nuclear accidents.” (4) EXPENSIVE - Perry and Davis Besse cost a whopping $8.7 billion and billions more in maintenance, repairs, and subsidies like those granted in 2016. (5) (6) Many analysts consider nuclear power the most heavily subsidized U.S. industry (7) with new reactor costs approaching $20 billion which is why the Summer plants in Sough Carolina were canceled in 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Connie Kline, Past Chair, Ohio Sierra Club Nuclear Committee the Nuclear Industry Is Notoriously Ruthless and Deceptive, So Firs
    Connie Kline, Past Chair, Ohio Sierra Club Nuclear Committee The nuclear industry is notoriously ruthless and deceptive, so FirstEnergy’s bribes to pass HB 6 and prevent its repeal were no surprise. Past falsehoods include: ● Electricity too cheap to meter (1) - Perry and Davis Besse cost $8.7 billion and billions more in maintenance, repairs, and subsidies. (2) (3) (4) ● Radioactive waste removed in five years (5) - Unheeded warnings to resolve lethal waste before licensing reactors (6) means 88,000 tons sit in problematic pools and casks at 75 environmentally unsuitable reactor sites in 33 states. (7) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) admits this waste will leak because no structure can last the eons required to protect humans and the environment. (8) ● One in 1,000,000,000 serious accident chance. (9) - Disasters occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima from 1979-2011, and elsewhere since the 1950s. (10) There are 23 Fukushima-type reactors at 16 U.S. sites. (11) The NRC and others predict a 50% chance of another catastrophic accident in approximately 20 years. (12) The 1957 Price Anderson Act limits liability to $12.6 billion. (13) A 1982 NRC study calculated a severe accident could cause 50,000 fatalities and $314 billion in property damage which is $720 billion today. (14) No private insurers cover reactor accidents. The NRC claims states will cover "injury, sickness, death, property damage, loss, and living expenses for evacuees." (15) Dr. Gregory Jaczko, Ph.D, former NRC Chairman, is the latest expert to warn, "I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry.
    [Show full text]
  • April 2008 Nuclear News
    Industry news M s e n i l d a Sweden Chooses Site for construction application would most likely be submitted by mid-decade, with construction taking place a few years e Spent Fuel Repository later. Sweden has selected the Forsmark site, in the munici - H pality of Östhammar, as the location for the country’s un - derground spent fuel repository. The decision was an - nounced in early June. The site was chosen over the NRC Expresses Concern About competitor, Laxemar in the Oskarshamn municipality Decommissioning Fund Shortfalls (which hosts the CLAB interim storage facility, as well as an encapsulation plant), because the rock bodies were said The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has written to be drier and with fewer cracks. In addition, a reposito - to the operators of 26 nuclear power reactors requesting ry at Forsmark would take up less space, meaning an eas - details of how they plan to address apparent shortfalls in ier construction job. Forsmark already hosts a nuclear their decommissioning funds. In the United States, utili - power plant and the final repository for short-lived ra - ties must put aside between 1 and 2 mills per kilowatt- dioactive waste. hour generated to fund the decommissioning of their nu - SKB, the company in charge of spent fuel disposal in clear power plants. They report to the NRC on the status Sweden, plans to apply in the next year to the country’s nu - of their decommissioning fund at least once every two clear safety regulators for permission to build the reposi - years, annually within five years of planned shutdown, tory.
    [Show full text]