Nuclear Commerce: Governmentwide Strategy Could Help Increase Commercial Benefits from U.S. Nuclear Cooperation Agreements with Other Countries

Commerce officials reported to us in July 2015 that they and other agencies had considered and discussed various approaches to collect additional nuclear export data to better quantify the benefits associated with U.S. exports under civilian nuclear cooperation agreements. Commerce officials reported the agencies were unable to identify a feasible method to collect better data from existing systems and that additional data were considered proprietary by exporting companies. However, our review of recent U.S. nuclear cooperation agreements concluded with South Korea and Taiwan contain provisions for annual inventory exchanges which will help the agencies better identify and track such exports.

In November 2010, GAO found that the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) nuclear export promotion strategy document had some limitations, including that it had not identified key market opportunities and goals, or prioritized countries as targets for U.S. nuclear trade promotion efforts. GAO recommended that the Secretary of Commerce review, with an eye toward strengthening, the existing strategy document to, among other things, identify key market opportunities for U.S. nuclear industry. In February 2015, Commerce reported to us that it had addressed our recommendation by releasing a December 2014 civil nuclear energy top markets study. The study states that it is intended as a tool for prioritizing federal export promotion efforts to help target limited resources toward the civil nuclear markets and activities most likely to result in U.S. exports. This study ranked 50 countries in terms of their readiness for nuclear energy and openness to U.S. civil nuclear exports. Individual market ratings for exports related to new builds, existing reactors, and decommissioning were assessed on the basis of 19 variables encompassing qualitative and quantitative measures.

We recommended that, to help federal agencies gain a better understanding of how and the extent to which nuclear cooperation agreements impact exports to other countries, the Secretary of Commerce consider ways for the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) Civil Nuclear Trade Working Group to obtain a more comprehensive range of U.S. industry views. In 2008, Commerce formed the TPCC Civil Nuclear Trade Working Group to coordinate interagency efforts related to commercial nuclear trade. Our November 2010 report (GAO-11-36) found that as of June 2010, the TPCC Civil Nuclear Trade Working Group had received briefings from three companies that construct civilian nuclear power reactors and reactor components, and that five other smaller companies who supply nuclear materials and services had expressed an interest in briefing the TPCC Civil Nuclear Trade Working Group, but had not yet had the opportunity to do so. Commerce reported to GAO in December 2010 that it was taking steps to implement GAO's recommendation. In August 2014, Commerce reported to us that in order to obtain a more comprehensive range of U.S. industry views, in September 2012 it updated the charter of its Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC), by expanding it to 36 members from across the U.S. nuclear supply chain, and noted that this effort had been absorbed into a new interagency effort to coordinate U.S. government civil nuclear engagement abroad known as "Atoms for Prosperity." In addition, since June 2011, the TPCC Civil Nuclear Trade Working Group has heard additional presentations from companies, and Commerce, in collaboration with the Department of Energy, has hosted several briefings to seek industry input in to activities.

In our November 2010 report, "Governmentwide Strategy Could Help Increase Commercial Benefits from U.S. Nuclear Cooperation Agreements with Other Countries" (GAO-11-36), we recommend that, while considering the broader revisions to the Part 810 regulations as planned, the Secretary of Energy review the current Part 810 authorization process; develop guidelines to help clarify the types of technology, information, and technical assistance that require a Part 810 authorization; and consider whether some countries should be removed from the Part 810.8 list to facilitate U.S. exports to countries with which the United States has a nuclear cooperation agreement in force. Section 57(b) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) empowers the Secretary of Energy to authorize persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to directly or indirectly engage in the production of special nuclear material outside of the United States, upon a determination that the activity will not be inimical to the national interest. The Department of Energy implements Section 57(b) through 10 C.F.R. Part 810. Part 810 applies broadly to commercial nuclear technology, assistance, and services abroad because nuclear reactors fueled with uranium also produce plutonium. Exports with little or no nonproliferation or national security significance may be generally authorized under Part 810, with no application required, unless intended for any of 77 restricted countries, to which any export of civilian nuclear technology must be specifically authorized. DOE has acknowledged that the specific authorization process is unduly protracted and carries business risks for exporters. Our November 2010 report (GAO-11-36) found that Part 810 lacks clarity and that the regulations are vaguely defined. We also found, as DOE officials acknowledged, that the list of restricted countries (those requiring specific authorization) was out of date. Specifically, countries with which the United States currently has nuclear cooperation agreements such as Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and the UAE were still restricted. DOE reviewed the Part 810 process and, in September 2011, issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In August 2013, DOE issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR), with the purpose of striking a balance to promote trade without increasing proliferation risk, by clarifying the scope of the regulation. The SNOPR also proposes to remove Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and the UAE from the list of restricted countries. DOE noted that in developing the SNOPR, DOE/NNSA reflected on the recommendations put forth in the 2010 GAO report. DOE officials also planned to develop guidelines to help clarify the scope of the regulations once the SNOPR is finalized (which was estimated to be in September 2014). On February 7, 2015 DOE issued its final rule revising Part 810, modernizing the regulation to articulate clearly the activities and technologies that are within the scope of Part 810, among other things. DOE officials also developed guidelines to help clarify the scope of the regulations.