Nuclear Energy Insight
Spring 2012—Unlike state-owned enterprises that export nuclear energy technology,
U.S. exporters must comply with a complex set of U.S. Federal regulations. In addition, the American nuclear manufacturing industry is fragmented and does not benefit from the state support that competitors in other countries receive.
Nuclear Energy Insight discussed the plusses and minuses of being a American-based manufacturer with William Woodward.
Q: What are some of the biggest challenges you face as an exporter of nuclear technologies?
Woodward: One of the most significant challenges facing the U.S. nuclear energy industry is that other countries who are our competitors have national interests in their commercial nuclear industry. In the case of the strongest competition, the nuclear business is government owned-and-operated: such as in China, Russia and France. In France and Russia, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Putin travel abroad and lobby at the highest level and offer a one-stop shop where French and Russian companies can supply everything. In comparison, in the U.S., diverse companies act individually to conduct business and not in a coordinated way.
However, that said, in a recent show of unity, over a dozen U.S. companies worked together with our U.S. Department of Commerce to participate in the “Nuclear in China 2012” conference in Beijing to exhibit in a common U.S. pavilion. This was a very successful start to show the world the best that the U.S. has to offer.
Another challenge for U.S. companies is in the area of regulations; foreign companies don’t face the same regulatory requirements that we have in the U.S.
Q: Can you expand on the issue of regulations?
Woodward: In order for U.S. companies to compete in a foreign market, the U.S. must first negotiate a Section 123 agreement [a negotiated treaty that opens trade in peaceful nuclear technologies between the U.S. and a designated foreign country], and then U.S. exporters must comply with export control regulations such as 10CFR810 and 10CFR110 [U.S. government regulations that govern the export of commercial nuclear technologies and products], which takes added time and resources for compliance. While these regulations address needed national interests in security and nonproliferation, they need to be balanced with the need for maintaining a vital U.S. nuclear export economy.
Q: What about DOE’s proposed 810 regulations on commercial nuclear trade? Do they help or hurt?
Woodward: We recognize the importance of the 810 regulations for controlling our national interests in security and nonproliferation. The 810 regulations are undergoing revisions and the Depart-ment of Energy (DOE) has posted them for public comment. Among the proposed changes is the addition of spent fuel storage and transport exports to be regulated. Among the concerns is to have an approval process that can be applied where necessary and also be short enough to enable companies to respond to fast-paced tender processes that are often completed in three to four months.
In certain countries, where securing government-to-government assurances is a complicated and lengthy process, obtaining an authorization for the export of technology under 10CFR810 may take a year or more. Numerous companies, including Holtec, have provided constructive feedback to help DOE create the required balance in our national interests, including a vital export economy. We are confident that industry’s comments will be given serious consideration and a good balance will be achieved.
—
Read more articles in Nuclear Energy Insight and Insight Web Extra.