This Washington Post article says it perfectly:

The recent deal reached between the P5+1 (United States, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany) and Iran on its nuclear program is monumental. It may not be enough to ensure that Iran is not producing nuclear weapons, but it is a good first step. Iran will restrict its nuclear activities in exchange for relief in sanctions and about $6 billion in unfrozen assets. 

The story with Iran's nuclear program is complicated but the bottom line is that Iran has obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) that it has not upheld. As part of the NPT, Iran has a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in which Iran has to allow inspections of all of its nuclear-related activities. Iran kept its uranium enrichment program a secret from the the world, which obviously raised suspicion. Iran has also not allowed the IAEA full access to its nuclear facilities, thus causing the IAEA to release reports that it cannot conclude that Iran is not using peaceful nuclear facilities for military purposes.

Iran absolutely has the right to peaceful nuclear energy, as stated in the NPT. But they must ensure that it is peaceful by allowing the IAEA full access. Uranium enrichment technology, for example, can be used to make fuel for commercial nuclear reactors, or can be used to make highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. With this agreement, Iran agrees to halt production of uranium enriched above 5% U-235. 3-5% enriched uranium is all that's needed for commercial fuel. Enriching above 20% starts to be suspect because it could be used for a nuclear weapon.

This agreement is only for 6 months and could lead to subsequent agreements that would ensure that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful. All signatories to the Nonproliferation Treaty are subject to safeguards by the IAEA and Iran is no exception.

What are your thought's on Iran's nuclear program and this new agreement?

By Lenka Kollar (a female nuclear engineer)

Diversity in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields is lacking (read post), but why? Where does the gap start? The founder of GoldieBlox says it's in early childhood for women. Girls are encouraged to play with dolls and anything pink and not construction toys that make you think. Construction toys get kids interested in math and science and help them develop spacial skills. But these toys are marketed towards boys and not girls. But girls do want to be more than just princesses and they want to like science and math, watch the video below.

Only 11% of engineers in the United States are women and GoldieBlox is out to change that. More women than ever are attending college and we need to tap into that talent to enhance scientific innovation. Support GoldieBlox by voting for them in the Intuit Small Business Big Game competition. You can vote once a day! The winning business will get a professionally-produced commercial aired during the Super Bowl. Wouldn't it be great to promote women in STEM during the manliest event of the year?

What were your favorite toys growing up?

Don't forget to vote!!

By Lenka Kollar

On September 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose the first comprehensive updating of regulations concerning Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (10 CFR Part 810) since 1986. After a comment and review period, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on August 2, 2013. The first public meeting on the supplemental notice was held on August 5 and then a second public meeting on November 15. Since I was in Washington, DC, last week, I had the chance to attend the second public meeting.

The issues discussed in the Nuclear Undone blog post earlier this week on nonproliferation versus nuclear trade were the same issues discussed at the public meeting. How can the government promote nuclear trade while meeting nonproliferation goals and obligations? Government officials from DOE, State Dept., Dept. of Commerce, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave presentations and answered questions. Present at the meeting were representatives from different U.S. nuclear companies and non-government organizations, such as the American Nuclear Society. 

"Part 810" is a set of regulations that implements Section 57 b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act 1954. In order for a U.S. entity to export nuclear or related technology, they must apply for a license through DOE. This process has been called "slow, opaque, and unpredictable." Industry officials claim that this it is one of the slowest and most involved export control processes in the world, and thus inhibits trade. Aside from the regulatory changes, DOE is planning to "fix the process and improve overall implementation," which includes developing an e-licensing system and creating a users guide. The goal is for the licensing process to take a maximum of 90 days.

These procedural improvements come in addition to the regulatory changes, including changes to the list of countries classified under Specific Authorization (SA) and General Authorization (GA). Licenses for exports going to specifically authorized countries require a more rigorous review than those going to generally authorized countries because of elevated proliferation risk. Usually countries that have a 123 Agreement with the United States are generally authorized. 

The proposed rulemaking includes a reclassification of 80 countries to specific authorization because they have no 123 Agreement and little or no nuclear trade with the United States. Three countries, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kazakhstan, will be reclassified for general authorization. An economic impact study (pictured above) of this proposed reclassification shows that the general to specific authorization (GA to SA) category of countries will have a very small fraction of future U.S. nuclear trade (0.67%), and thus no economic impact. However, the study also shows that 55% of U.S. nuclear trade will still be with countries that are speficially authorized and need a more rigorous license review. In particular, China, India, and Russia have 123 Agreements with the United States but require specific authorization under Part 810. The nuclear industry is concerned about this and wants to propose an "intermediate" category between specific and general authorization, allowing for robust trade with major nuclear partners. 

The general feel of the public meeting was that both the government and industry want to make the Part 810 export control license more transparent and robust. However, the industry's major concern is with how lengthy the process is , especially when a country is specifically authorized. You can read more about the Part 810 rulemaking and see slides and transcripts from the public meeting on the DOE/NNSA website. You can also learn more about the industry's concerns on the Nuclear Energy Institute website. 

The public comment period to the proposed Part 810 rulemaking is open until November 29, 2013. Click here for more information.

By Lenka Kollar

The commercial nuclear industry is unique in that it was essentially born out of weapons and military programs. The technology used to develop nuclear weapons was also found to be beneficial for energy production, and thus nuclear reactors to power submarines and then to produce commercial electricity were developed. Nuclear technology inherently has the risk of weapons proliferation and must be controlled. Most countries with nuclear industries, including the United States, have stringent export control laws that control the trade of nuclear (and related) technology. These laws control the international exports of things like nuclear reactor designs, nuclear fuel, and even accelerometers that could be used in a weapon missile. The nuclear industry often complains that the U.S. export control laws are too stringent, inhibiting trade. At the same time, those in the nonproliferation community often say that they are not strict enough, because of the historical cases in which countries have obtained nuclear technology and developed nuclear weapons.

It seems that nonproliferation and nuclear trade are often at odds with each other. Could both the nonproliferation regime and nuclear trade be strengthened if the "versus" was removed the the two sides worked together? A recent American Nuclear Society position statement makes the point that U.S. global nuclear leadership is strengthened through export-driven engagement. In other words, we have a better seat at the "nonproliferation table" if we are a leader in the nuclear energy industry. Right now, the United States is losing dominance of the global nuclear industry because of several reasons, one of which may be strict export control laws. In order for a country to do significant nuclear business with the United States, they must negotiate a so-called "123 Agreement." 

By Rita Patel and Suzy Baker

A panel discussion at the American Nuclear Society conference in Washington, DC, this week featuring:

David Roelant from Florida International University
Lisa Marshall from North Carolina State University
Craig Williamson from South Carolina Universities Research and Education Foundation

Craig Williamson said it best, beginning his presentation by saying:

Fortunately the three panelists (pictured below) offered innovative ideas for increasing diversity at Nuclear Engineering & Technology programs on college campuses. Roelant spoke on behalf of Florida International University (FIU), a school with a “majority minority” student population. Additionally, FIU is the top producer of Hispanic graduates in the country. Many students at FIU are the first in their family to go to college. This can partially be attributed to the community programs, which FIU is involved in, including a dual-enrollment program for local high school students and outreach events for elementary school students. 

Likewise, Lisa Marshall from North Carolina State University (NCSU) expressed a need to reach underrepresented populations early, when they are forming their professional aspirations as preteens and teens. Marshall mentions capitalizing on the “cool factor” where she emphasizes unique opportunities such as the on-campus nuclear reactor available for student education and research. She has found success partnering with existing programs designed to support girls and minorities. Their summer programs for high school students result in an astounding 30% enrollment in Nuclear Engineering. Marshall wants to focus more on the relationship with the students who are enrolling in the program, rather than just let them be another statistic. Through a nurtured relationship, the students naturally transform into ambassadors, reaching back to their own communities encouraging other students to follow a similar path.

Craig Williamson rounded out the panel, beginning with his rather frank assertion that the nuclear industry has a great deal of work left to do in cultivating a diverse workforce. At the South Carolina Universities Research and Education Foundation, Williamson crunches the numbers on enrollment at nuclear programs and works to support programs throughout the state to actively increase diversity. As evidenced at South Carolina State, targeted programs work- this spring they will reach a new milestone. A student who completed her bachelor’s degree in a Nuclear Engineering Program in South Carolina will be receiving a Ph.D. from the University of Maryland. 

All of the panelists seem to agree that we must do more to be inclusive and active in promoting diversity at our Universities and beyond. 

How has your institution taken steps to increase diversity in your field?

By Lenka Kollar


There is an embedded topical meeting on nuclear nonproliferation at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) conference in Washington, DC this week. A common theme among speakers and attendees is about how effective the nuclear nonproliferation regime has been. The regime includes many measures instituted by countries and international organizations to mitigate the spread of technology and material that can be used for nuclear weapons and to disarm the current fleet of nuclear weapons. 

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone of this regime and signed by 190 countries. President John F. Kennedy said that this treaty was important because he warned that there would be dozens of nuclear weapons states by now. There are currently five countries recognized as "weapons states" by the NPT, including the United States, Russia, China, France, and United Kingdom. There are three countries commonly known to have nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan, and Israel, and they are not signatories to the NPT. Finally, there are a couple of countries that are accused of violating the treaty by attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, it can be said that the NPT has been successful because there are a total of 8-10 countries that have nuclear weapons, and not dozens, as was predicted in the 1960s.

Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn (also founder of the Nuclear Threat Institute) was a speaker at the ANS conference opening plenary on Monday and shared his concerns about the nonproliferation regime. He stated that the biggest issue today is the security of nuclear materials and technologies from rogue and terrorist organizations. Currently there is no global regime for nuclear security but there are many measures being taken by the United States and other countries, as explained by Laura Holgate (Senior Director, National Security Council) during the nonproliferation opening plenary on Tuesday. 

In the same session, Rose Gottemoeller (Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security) stated that the Non-Proliferation Treaty has been successful. She also highlighted that disarmament of nuclear weapons between Russia and the United States is moving along. Did you know that about 10% of the total electricity in the United States comes from old Soviet weapons? Russia actually dismantles nuclear weapons and downblends the uranium to a concentration that cannot be used for weapons. This uranium is then sent to the United States and fabricating into fuel for our commercial reactors. The fuel is the same as the regular fuel that is used in reactors, where the uranium is mined from the ground instead of downblended from nuclear weapons.

It seems that the government officials implementing policies and programs (Gottemoeller and Holgate) are more optimistic about the nonproliferation regime than those outside of the government that are advocating for more action (Nunn).

Do you think the nuclear nonproliferation regime is effective?

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, is underway with the opening plenary this morning featuring prominent speakers from  industry, government, and congress (former). A common topic between some of the speakers has been climate change, which is surprising because the ANS has traditionally not addressed the issue of climate change because we are a technical organization for nuclear technology, and do not research climate science. However, many ANS members strongly believe that nuclear energy needs to be a large part of the energy mix in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.

The opening plenary featured current U.S. Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz (pictured above), who outlined the President's action plan for addressing climate change. The three pillars of his plan are mitigation, adaptation, and international cooperation. Most notably, the plan is based entirely on existing authorities and not new legislation. This means that organizations within the government can use their current authority to institute rules or procedures to achieve the goals in the climate action plan. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making rules for power plants that include carbon capture. Also speaking in the opening plenary, James Rogers, the board chairman of Duke Energy (one of the largest nuclear power plant operators), has a different opinion. He states that addressing climate change should be the role of Congress and not the EPA and that new climate change and energy legislation is needed.

The American Nuclear Society recently issued a policy statement on Nuclear Energy's Role in Climate Change Policy which states:

Secretary Moniz cautions against usithe statement that the science of climate change is still maturing. We do not want to devalue the science that does exist and we need to make the point that actions on mitigating climate change need to happen now. Moniz also states that there is not one magic solution to meeting our energy needs and that we must take an "all of the above" approach. Low-carbon solutions will be different across the world and different in regions across the United States. What works for one area, like solar in the Southwest, will not necessarily work in other regions. The ANS also agrees that nuclear energy is not the solution, but rather that nuclear energy needs to be included in the energy mix in order to effectively mitigate climate change.

Do you think new legislation is needed to address climate change in the United States or are existing authorities (e.g. EPA rules) enough?

Written by Lenka Kollar

The annual American Nuclear Society (ANS) Winter Meeting is in Washington, DC, this week and it kicks off with the Young Professional Congress (YPC). Young professionals from across the nuclear industry come together to discuss topics ranging from nuclear energy to work life balance and management skills. The workforce of the nuclear industry is aging and it is refreshing to see young faces in an industry that is resurfacing in the United States and around the world.

I was asked to participate on the "Work Life Balance" panel because of my personal blog, Healthy Fit Goddess. I spoke about how to incorporate a healthy lifestyle into your work life and why it's important to do so. You can see my presentation on Prezi. The other panelists (pictured below) included Shaheen Dewji of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Allison Miller of Sandia National Laboratory, and Rian Bahran of Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Other highlights from YPC included sessions on communicating effectively and energy policy. We discussed how to communicate with our management to get what we want and enhance our career goals. We also participated in a remote presentation and discussion with Ben Heard of ThinkClimate on clean energy and the status of nuclear power in Australia. Did you know that Australia is one of the only developed countries without nuclear energy because it is outlawed? Ironically, Australia is also one of the biggest miners and exporters of uranium. It was definitely interesting to hear the parallel nuclear issues between Australia and the United States, even though one country has an existing nuclear energy industry and the other doesn't. In this session we also discussed writing a policy statement for the "Path Forward for Independent Energy Policy." 

The final session of the day was the "Voice of the Young Generation," where we voiced our concerns about ANS and the nuclear industry and our ideas for the future. We are passionate about communicating with policymakers and the public about nuclear energy issues and nuclear technology. We are also concerned about digitally archiving the knowledge of the past as the workforce retires. The enthusiasm and ambition of the young professionals in ANS is encouraging for a bright future for the nuclear field.

Are you attending the ANS meeting this week? I hope to see you there!

The environmentalist movement that started in the 1970s was really what changed the public's perception of nuclear energy. Before then, the "atomic age" was exciting and people were in favor of a new source of seemingly unlimited energy. The oil industry was threatened by the advances in nuclear energy and thus funded protests and negative propaganda for nuclear power plants. Environmentalists that were protesting against nuclear energy were actually supporting the oil industry.

Fast forward to the 21st century, many environmentalists have realized that we actually need nuclear energy to meet carbon-free electricity goals. Pandora’s Promise illustrates the journey of several of these prominent environmentalists who have changed their views on nuclear energy. These environmentalists protested nuclear power plants in the 1970s and ’80s, but now speak in favor of nuclear energy as a “green” source of electricity. Their amazing stories can help you understand why some people are opposed to nuclear energy—and why they shouldn't be.

Pandora's Promise airs on CNN tonight at 9 PM ET/PT.