Susan Senner Presentation to National Contract Management Association November 16, 2000

1. Susan Senner Presentation to National Contract Management Association November 16, 2000

2. Overview • Program objectives/history • Key program areas • INSP contracting • Chornobyl closure • Core conversion project • Future trends

3. Program Objectives • Reducing risks and improving safety at 65 Soviet-designed reactors in nine countries • Building host country infrastructure • Supporting Chornobyl safety and closure • Qualifying an independent nuclear fuel supplier for Ukraine • Converting Russian production reactors to produce heat but not plutonium

4. Program History • 1988 - The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. sign a Memorandum of Cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear reactor safety • 1990 - DOE initiates a modest program to improve operational safety at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant in Russia • May 1992 - U.S. announces the “Lisbon” safety initiative to • Enhance the operational safety of Soviet-designed reactors • Reduce risks at the least-safe designs (RBMKs and VVER 440/230s) • Enhance the capability of regulatory organizations • July 1992 - U.S. goals are endorsed at the G-7 summit in Munich • September 1992 - Initial funding of $21.9M for DOE is provided under a U.S. AID/DOE interagency agreement • 1993 - At the Vancouver Summit, President Clinton pledges $100M to Russia for nuclear safety improvements • Since 1992, the program has expanded to encompass a broad range of nuclear safety areas including training, safety equipment, safety evaluation, and fire protection in nine countries

5. United States Department of Energy (DOE) U.S. DOE – (NN-30) Office of Nuclear Safety and Cooperation Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Operated by Battelle for the U.S. DOE International Nuclear Safety Program (INSP) National Security Division (1 of 4 Divisions) Chornobyl Shelter Program Battelle, Bechtel, EDF-France

6. Soviet-Designed Reactor Safety (SDRS) • The U.S. Department of Energy manages a comprehensive program, in cooperation with partners in other countries, to reduce risks at all Soviet-designed nuclear power plants. • Countries participating in the program are Armenia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine (the host countries).

7. Program Participants U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Department of State U.S. Agency for International Development U.S. Department of Energy Office of International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation Policy & Guidance • Armenia • Bulgaria • Czech Republic • Hungary • Kazakhstan • Lithuania • Russia • Slovakia • Ukraine Participating Countries Program Implementation Lead Technical and Administrative Support Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Host-Country Organizations and Nuclear Power Plants U.S. Industrial Organizations DOE National Laboratories

8. Percent of Electricity from Nuclear Power (1999) 73 80 60 47 47 44 38 36 40 21 20 14 0.15 0 Armenia Russia Czech Republic Hungary Bulgaria Slovakia Ukraine Lithuania Kazakhstan SDRS Program Rationale Problems: • Inadequate operating procedures and training • Design deficiencies • Lack of infrastructure to sustain safe operation • Nuclear regulatory authority not centralized • Host-country need for electricity from the plants is great

9. Making Operations Safer • Training Centers • Established: Balakovo and Khmelnytskyy • Training methodology being transferred to plants in Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Armenia • Analytical Simulators • Chornobyl, Balakovo, Novovoronezh, Bilibino • Full-Scope Simulators • Khmelnytskyy, Rivne, South Ukraine, Zaporizhzhya, Kola, Kalinin • Emergency Operating Instructions • Rivne, Zaporizhzhya, Chornobyl, Novovoronezh, Kola, Balakovo, Leningrad,Ignalina, Kozloduy • Safety Maintenance Technologies • Chornobyl, Kursk, Leningrad, Smolensk, Ignalina, Bilibino, Armenia • Ultrasonic Inspection Equipment • Chornobyl, Khmelnytskyy, Zaporizhzhya, South Ukraine, Rivne, Balakovo, Beloyarsk, Bilibino, Kalinin, Kola, Kursk, Novovoronezh, Smolensk, Leningrad

10. Making Plants Safer • Safety Parameter Display Systems • Chornobyl, Khmelnytskyy, Zaporizhzhya, South Ukraine, Rivne, Kursk, Novovoronezh • Fire Protection Equipment • Chornobyl, Zaporizhzhya, Smolensk, Leningrad, Kozloduy, Armenia • Emergency Power Supply Systems • Kola, Kursk, Kozloduy • Emergency Water Supply Systems • Kursk, Novovoronezh, Armenia

11. Building Infrastructure to Sustain Safety Improvements • Safety Analyses • Probabilistic Risk Assessments • Plant specific assessments • Validating analysis codes • Fire Hazards Analyses • Regulatory Support

13. INSP Contracting • INSP has annually awarded an average of $59 million in contracts ($357.4 million cumulative) • Awards to former Soviet Union, primarily Russia and Ukraine, total $84.5 million, or 25 percent of total • More than 1000 separate contracting actions were awarded during FY00 • Much support provided by PNNL Contracts Dept. in handling unique and challenging situations

14. Barriers to doing business in FSU • Time (11 hrs.) and cultural differences • Different languages • Not used to western business practices • Banking and tax challenges • Customs bureaucracies • Concept of project management, milestones, deliverables, etc. • Technical data rights

15. SDRS Program Status • Roughly halfway through overall safety improvement effort • Significant work lies ahead • Some work beginning to flow from safety assessments • Example, Ignalina Control and Protection System • Host country economic problems make it difficult for the plants to purchase safety equipment and technology • Example, fire doors in Ukraine • Local company set up to manufacture doors, but plants lack funds to purchase doors • Result: U.S. must provide both financial and technical assistance

16. SDRS Significant Benefit Continues • Reducing the likelihood of a nuclear accident that could destabilize new democratic governments, require a massive influx of international aid, and threaten the viability of nuclear power worldwide • Promoting a stable business climate for international investments in countries with Soviet-designed reactors • Providing protection for the public, the economy, and the environmental health of host countries, European neighbors, and the world. • A safety culture which will endure after the assistance has ended is being embedded

17. Chornobyl Disaster

18. Chornobyl Closure • On June 5, 2000, Ukrainian President Leonid D. Kuchma announced the closure of the Chornobyl nuclear power plant by December 15, 2000. • Closure of the last operating unit, Unit 3, at Chornobyl represents a major milestone for Ukraine, the United States, and the other G-7 nations. • President Clinton authorized an additional $2 million in assistance to Ukraine as further compensation for shutdown of Unit 3. A portion of this aid was allocated to shutdown and deactivation activities, which includes completion of a replacement heat plant.

19. Replacement Heat Plant for Chornobyl • U.S. commitment to G-7 to complete construction of partially built heat plant • One of the nine facilities needed for site heating and decommissioning • 290 MWt, 30-year design life, natural gas fueled with mazute (heavy fuel oil) backup • Chornobyl nuclear power plant has overall project management responsibility • U.S. Team (PNNL, Babcock & Wilcox, Morrison-Knudsen) provides financial/ contract management and technical support • Scheduled completion: Mid-year 2001

20. Other Chornobyl safety initiatives • Supporting an international effort to prevent collapse of the shelter around Chornobyl’s ruined reactor Unit 4, suppress the radioactive dust inside the shelter, and protect shelter workers from radioactive and industrial hazards • Developing technical strategies for shutting down and deactivating the Chornobyl plant • Establishing an international research laboratory center in the city of Slavutych, near the Chornobyl site, and a related center in Kyiv.

21. Ukrainian Nuclear Fuel Technology Transfer • Objective: • Assist Ukraine in Achieving Enhanced Fuel Design and Licensing Capability • Background: • Quid pro quo for Ukraine’s agreement to halt the sale of reactor technology to Iran • Major Tasks: • Transfer fuel performance and design codes and data • Design and irradiate six lead test assemblies • Transfer independent review capability to regulator • Design and fabricate one reload batch of fuel (42 assemblies)

22. Ukrainian Nuclear Fuel Technology Transfer • Technology transfer and training • Fuel design, analysis, safety codes; fuel fabrication and testing; quality assurance; licensing; nuclear fuel cycle optimization • Assistance to State Nuclear Regulatory Administration • Lead test assemblies (6) in 2003 • Initial reload batch (42) in 2005 • Flow test • A setback occurred when the test was postponed and equipment returned to the U.S. Efforts under way to resolve this issue.

23. Core Conversion Project • DOE Role • Technical Coordination • PNNL Support • DoD Role • Executive Agent • Funding Provider Nizhny Novgorod

24. Russian Plutonium Production Reactor Sites The reactor near Zheleznogorsk, ADE-2, started up in 1964 and is located inside a granite mountain The Seversk reactors, ADE-4 and ADE-5, started up in 1964 and 1965, respectively, and share a common reactor building

25. Core Conversion Benefits • International security will be enhanced by stopping production of weapons-grade plutonium at the reactors • The amount of spent fuel produced at the reactors will be reduced ten-fold • Spent fuel reprocessing will no longer be needed • The converted reactors will be less expensive to operate • Critically needed heat and electricity will continue to be provided

26. Future Trends • Host country safety cultures and economies become stronger allowing for more domestic resources for nuclear safety • U.S. activities move from assistance toward fully cooperative efforts to address long-term safety issues • Safety issues should come from detailed safety analyses