Goals of U.S. Safety Assistance Have Remained the Same, but Scope of DOE’s Program Has Expanded

The goals of the U.S. safety assistance program have remained the same since its inception—encouraging the shutdown of the highest-risk Soviet-designed nuclear power reactors and reducing the risk of accidents. However, none of these reactors have been closed, and one has been restarted. Many factors complicate U.S. and western nations’ efforts to obtain early closure of the highest-risk reactors, including (1) a lack of consensus, particularly among Russian nuclear safety experts, about the safety of their reactors; (2) concerns about the social and economic well-being of workers who would be displaced if reactors were closed; (3) a commitment to expanding nuclear power, particularly in Russia, to meet future energy needs; and (4) the need to obtain financing to support the development of replacement energy. DOE has developed a short- to mid-term plan that provides an overview of the program’s objectives, performance measurements and ongoing projects. U.S. Nuclear Safety Assistance Program Has Received $208 Million

DOE and NRC have received $208 million for their programs in the Newly Independent States and countries of central and eastern Europe. Other program-related expenditures were for labor, travel, overhead, and other costs. Status of 13 DOE and NRC Safety Projects in Russia and Ukraine

Of the 13 safety projects we reviewed, 11 have been delayed in their implementation and one has been completed. It Is Too Early to Assess the Impact of Selected Projects on Improved Safety

It is too soon to assess the extent to which the projects we reviewed are improving safety in Russia and Ukraine because most of these projects have not been completed. DOE’s and NRC’s Nuclear Safety Assistance Costs

This appendix provides detailed information on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) planned and actual costs for the U.S. nuclear safety assistance to improve the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear reactors. Also included in this amount is $38.8 million in safety-related equipment and products. Rosenergoatom requested that the United States pay for the testing. As of March 31, 1996, DOE had obligated $6.5 million and had spent about $5 million on the project. 1. 2.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on: (1) changes in the U.S. nuclear safety assistance program's goals since its inception; (2) the costs associated with the program; (3) the status of 13 safety projects implemented by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); and (4) the way in which the agencies assess the effect of the projects on improving safety.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) the U.S. nuclear safety assistance program's goals to reduce the risk of accidents and encourage the shutdown of the highest-risk Soviet-designed nuclear power reactors have not changed; (2) despite U.S. efforts to close these reactors, none of the highest-risk reactors have been closed and one in Armenia has been restarted; (3) DOE plans to increase its assistance to RBMK reactors to improve their safety while they continue operations; (4) reasons for not shutting down these reactors include the slow pace of the operating countries' economic reforms, concerns about displaced workers' social and economic well-being, and the need for financing for developing replacement energy sources; (5) DOE believes the nuclear safety assistance program should continue another 10 years and is developing a long-term plan that addresses how additional funds should be spent; (6) as of March 1996, DOE and NRC had received $208 million for their programs and had spent $89 million on nuclear safety equipment and products and other expenditures including program-related labor, travel, and overhead; (7) 11 of the 13 DOE and NRC safety projects reviewed have experienced delays, including untimely equipment deliveries due to customs problems and required equipment testing in Russia; (8) some projects have resulted in the installation of fire safety equipment and other safety-related hardware at nuclear powerplants and the development of safety-related training programs in Ukraine; and (9) it is too early to assess the extent to which these projects have improved nuclear reactor safety, and it is difficult to quantify the impact of the assistance provided.