Search Penny Hill Press

Monday, September 10, 2012

Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities


Mark Holt
Specialist in Energy Policy

Anthony Andrews
Specialist in Energy and Defense Policy


The physical security of nuclear power plants and their vulnerability to deliberate acts of terrorism was elevated to a national security issue following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Congress subsequently enacted new nuclear plant security requirements and has repeatedly focused attention on regulation and enforcement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). More than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, security at nuclear plants remains an important concern.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) imposed specific criteria for NRC to consider in revising the “Design Basis Threat” (DBT), which specifies the maximum severity of potential attacks that a nuclear plant’s security force must be capable of repelling. In response to the legislative mandate, NRC revised the DBT (10 C.F.R. Part 73.1) on April 18, 2007. Among other changes, the revisions expanded the assumed capabilities of adversaries to operate as one or more teams and attack from multiple entry points.

To strengthen nuclear plant security inspections, EPACT05 required NRC to conduct “force-onforce” security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years. In these exercises, a mock adversary force from outside a nuclear plant attempts to penetrate the plant’s vital area and simulate damage to a “target set” of key safety components. From the start of the program through 2010, 136 force-on-force inspections were conducted, with each inspection typically including three mock attacks by the adversary force. During the 136 inspections, 10 mock attacks resulted in the simulated destruction of complete target sets, indicating inadequate protection against the DBT, and additional security measures were promptly implemented, according to NRC.

Nuclear power plant vulnerability to deliberate aircraft crashes has been a continuing issue. After much consideration, NRC published final rules on June 12, 2009, to require all new nuclear power plants to incorporate design features that would ensure that, in the event of a crash by a large commercial aircraft, the reactor core would remain cooled or the reactor containment would remain intact, and radioactive releases would not occur from spent fuel storage pools.

NRC rejected proposals that existing reactors also be required to protect against aircraft crashes, such as by adding large external steel barriers, deciding that other mitigation measures already required by NRC for all reactors were sufficient. In 2002, NRC ordered all nuclear power plants to develop strategies to mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions that could result from aircraft crashes or other causes. NRC published a broad final rule on nuclear reactor security March 27, 2009, including fire mitigation strategies and requirements that reactors establish procedures for responding to specific aircraft threats.

Other ongoing nuclear plant security issues include the vulnerability of spent fuel pools, which hold highly radioactive nuclear fuel after its removal from the reactor, standards for nuclear plant security personnel, and nuclear plant emergency planning. NRC’s March 2009 security regulations addressed some of those concerns and included a number of other security enhancements.



Date of Report: August 28, 2012
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RL34331
Price: $29.95


To Order:


RL34331.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports


List of Submissions to Congress Under Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)


From: Curry Hagerty, Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources

This memorandum responds to requests for a list of submissions to Congress mandated under Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).1 The most recent Section 18 submission was on June 28, 2012, when the Obama Administration submitted a five-year plan to Congress and announced the availability of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).2 Legislative interest in the Obama submission includes the House Committee on Natural Resources scheduling a mark-up session for H.R. 6082 on July 18, 2012. H.R. 6082 was introduced on July 9, 2012, to (among other purposes) adopt a statutory lease sale schedule as a “replacement” to the Obama Administration Section 18 lease sale schedule.3

Provided below are the following: (1) an overview of OCSLA Section 18 requirements and a list of the eight Section 18 submissions to Congress starting with the most recent submission on June 28, 2012; (2) a basic discussion of legislative interest in these submissions; and (3) a list of the documents that accompany these submissions (Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, maps and technical reports).4



Date of Report: July 16, 2012
Number of Pages: 7
Order Number: M-071612
Price: $19.95


To Order:


M-071612.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports


Friday, August 24, 2012

Pipeline Cybersecurity: Federal Policy


Paul W. Parfomak
Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy

The vast U.S. network of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines is integral to U.S. energy supply and has vital links to other critical infrastructure. While an efficient and fundamentally safe means of transport, this network is vulnerable to cyber attacks. In particular, cyber infiltration of supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems could allow successful “hackers” to disrupt pipeline service and cause spills, explosions, or fires—all from remote locations. In March 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported ongoing cyber intrusions among U.S. natural gas pipeline operators. These intrusions have heightened congressional concern about cybersecurity in the U.S. pipelines sector.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is authorized by federal statute to promulgate pipeline physical security and cybersecurity regulations, if necessary, but the agency has not issued such regulations. TSA officials assert that security regulations could be counterproductive because they could establish a general standard below the level of security already in place for many pipelines. An April 2011 White House proposal and the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S. 2105) both would mandate cybersecurity regulations for privately owned critical infrastructures sectors like pipelines. A revised version of S. 2105, S. 3414, would permit the issuance of regulations but would focus on voluntary cybersecurity measures.

While the pipelines sector has many cybersecurity issues in common with other critical infrastructure sectors, it is somewhat distinct in several ways:

  • Pipelines in the United States have been the target of several confirmed terrorist plots and attempted physical attacks since September 11, 2001. 
  • Changes to pipeline computer networks over the past 20 years, more sophisticated hackers, and the emergence of specialized malicious software have made pipeline SCADA operations increasingly vulnerable to cyber attacks. 
  • There recently has been a coordinated series of cyber intrusions specifically targeting U.S. pipeline computer systems. 
  • TSA already has statutory authority to issue cybersecurity regulations for pipelines if the agency chooses to do so, but it may not have the resources to develop, implement, and enforce such regulations if they are mandated. 
TSA maintains that voluntary standards have been effective in protecting U.S. pipelines from cyber attacks. Based on the agency’s corporate security reviews, TSA believes cybersecurity among major U.S. pipeline systems is effective. However, without formal cybersecurity plans and reporting requirements, it is difficult for Congress to know for certain. Whether the self-interest of pipeline operators is sufficient to generate the level of cybersecurity appropriate for a critical infrastructure sector is open to debate. If Congress concludes that current voluntary measures are insufficient to ensure pipeline cybersecurity, it may decide to provide specific direction to the TSA to develop regulations and provide additional resources to support them, as such an effort may be beyond the TSA Pipeline Security Division’s existing capabilities.


Date of Report: August 16, 2012
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R42660
Price: $29.95

To Order:


R42660.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Monday, July 16, 2012

Department of the Interior (DOI) Reorganization of Ocean Energy Programs


Curry L. Hagerty
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy

On June 28, 2012, the Department of the Interior (DOI) submitted to Congress the Proposed Final Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Program for 2012-2017, a forward-looking schedule for ocean energy development mandated by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1331). This DOI submission to Congress marks the first substantive demonstration of the department’s new institutional structure since the Obama Administration overhauled the regulatory framework for managing ocean energy resources in 2010.

DOI institutional reforms, among other responses to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill of 2010, were aimed at correcting perceived shortcomings within DOI by strengthening federal regulatory policies toward drilling safety and environmental protection. The reforms within DOI took effect on October 1, 2012, creating three DOI agencies:

(1) Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR, pronounced “Honor”), tasked with managing revenue owed to the government for the use of the public domain for energy and mineral development.

(2) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM, rhymes with “Rome”), tasked with offshore leasing administration and environmental and economic analysis.

(3) Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE, pronounced “Bessy”), tasked with oversight and enforcement for field operations, inspections, workforce safety, and decommissioning.

Because ONRR, BOEM, and BSEE were not created by statute, statutory changes were not needed as part of the DOI reorganization. Legislative action during the first session of the 112th Congress included House and Senate hearings, first to oversee DOI permitting for offshore drilling operations and then to examine proposed legislation aimed at codifying agency reorganization (H.R. 3404, S. 917). H.R. 3404 was ordered to be reported by the House Committee Natural Resources on November 17, 2011. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held hearings on S. 917 (S.Hrg. 112–51). No further legislative action on these bills has been scheduled.

Stakeholders (energy companies, developers, and state officials engaged in coastal and marine development) expressed uncertainty prior to the 2010 reorganization about whether, during the transition to the new system, DOI permitting for offshore operations would stay on track or be disrupted. Major disruptions stemming from the reorganization have not materialized, but some uncertainty about the workings of the new agencies remains a concern for some stakeholders in the aftermath of the reorganization. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has undertaken a study to measure DOI performance since the 2010 reorganization and is expected to provide a report to Congress in 2013.


Date of Report: July 11, 2012
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R42599
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:


R42599.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment


Kelsi Bracmort
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Adam Vann
Legislative Attorney

Congress is examining numerous energy sources to determine their contribution to the nation’s energy portfolio and the federal role in supporting these sources. Hydropower, the use of flowing water to produce electricity, is one such source. Conventional hydropower accounted for approximately 6% of total U.S. net electricity generation in 2010.

Hydropower has advantages and disadvantages as an energy source. Its advantages include its status as a continuous, or baseload, power source that releases minimal air pollutants during power generation relative to fossil fuels. Some of its disadvantages, depending on the type of hydropower plant, include high initial capital costs, ecosystem disruption, and reduced generation during low water years and seasons.

Hydropower project ownership can be categorized as federal or nonfederal. The bulk of federal projects are owned and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Nonfederal projects are licensed and overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Considered by many to be an established energy source, hydropower is not always discussed alongside clean or renewable energy sources in the ongoing energy debate. However, hydropower proponents argue that hydropower is cleaner than some conventional energy sources, and point to recent findings that additional hydropower capacity could help the United States reach proposed energy, economic, and environmental goals. Others argue that the expansion of hydropower in the form of numerous small hydropower projects could have environmental impacts and regulatory concerns similar to those of existing large projects.

Congress faces several issues as it determines how hydropower fits into a changing energy and economic landscape. For example, existing large hydropower infrastructure is aging; many of the nation’s hydropower generators and dams are over 30 years old. Proposed options to address this concern include increasing federal funding, utilizing alternative funding, privatizing federally owned dams, and encouraging additional small-capacity generators, among other options. Additionally, whether to significantly expand or encourage expansion of hydropower is likely to require congressional input due to the uncertainty surrounding the clean and renewable energy portfolio within power markets. Potential expansion of hydropower projects could take place by improving efficiency at existing projects or by building new projects, or both. Congressional support for this approach is evident in the House passage of the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012 (H.R. 2842). Senate activity on this matter includes the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 629), which proposes to establish a grants program for increased hydropower production, and to amend the Federal Power Act (FPA) to authorize FERC to exempt electric power generation facilities on federal lands from the act’s requirements, among other things. Another issue is the rate at which FERC issues licenses for nonfederal projects, which is slower than some find ideal. The licensing process can be delayed significantly as stakeholders and the approximately dozen federal and state agencies involved give their input. FERC responded by developing a more streamlined licensing process in 2003. Still, some object to “mandatory conditions” that federal agencies can place on new or renewed hydropower facilities. The 112th Congress has introduced roughly 25 bills regarding hydropower, a quarter of which are state- or site-specific legislation.


Date of Report: June 26, 2012
Number of Pages: 24
Order Number: R42579
Price: $29.00

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:

 

R42579.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports