[Senate Report 115-86]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 108
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-86
======================================================================
NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION ACT
_______
May 25, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Barrasso, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 512]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (S. 512) to modernize the regulation of
nuclear energy having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and
recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
General Statement and Background
The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1990 as
amended (OBRA-90) requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) to recover 90 percent of its budget through fees levied
on its licensees including those of nuclear power reactors,
research reactors, nuclear fuel producers, and radioactive
materials users, e.g. for medical and industrial applications.
The remaining 10 percent of the budget is funded by taxpayers
to cover any work the NRC may do that is not attributable to
its licensees. In addition to this 10 percent, funds are also
appropriated to cover work for federal agencies such as Waste
Incidental to Reprocessing, generic homeland security
activities, and Inspector General services that are provided to
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.\1\ Although the
fee recovery percentage was altered in subsequent
legislation,\2\ OBRA-90 was the last significant legislative
modification to the NRC's fee recovery structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Revision
of Fee Schedules and Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015; Final Rule,
June 30, 2015.
\2\Pub. Law 106-377 (2000) and Pub. Law 109-58 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To meet the mandate of 90 percent fee recovery, the NRC
recovers fees in two ways. The first is governed by 10 CFR Part
170 under which the NRC bills for ``. . . the costs of
providing specific regulatory benefits to identifiable
applicants and licensees.''\3\ For example, Part 170 fees
include review of new plant applications, license extensions,
power uprates, uranium production permits, and license
amendment reviews. The second way the NRC recovers fees is
under 10 CFR Part 171 to ``. . . recover generic regulatory
costs that are not otherwise recovered through 10 CFR Part 170
fees.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Revision
of Fee Schedules and Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015; Final Rule,
June 30, 2015.
\4\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several problems arise from this structure. If the NRC
overestimates the amount of revenue it expect to collect under
Part 170, it must recover the resulting revenue shortfall
through Part 171 fees in order to meet the OBRA-90 mandate for
90 percent fee recovery. One example of this dynamic was
reported in the NRC's Fee Recovery Rule for FY 2014:
``The annual fees for power reactors increase
primarily as a result of: (1) Decreased Part 170
billings due to . . . delays in major design
certification applications and combined license
applications (This decline in 10 CFR Part 170 billings
means that 10 CFR 171 fees need to increase to make up
the difference and ensure that the NRC collects
approximately 90% of its budget authority) . . .''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Revision
of Fee Schedules and Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2014; Final Rule,
June 30, 2014.
Operating power reactors paid additional fees because the
NRC overestimated the amount of work in the Office of New
Reactors in that year. This same dynamic occurred in FY
2015.\6\ This may simply reflect poor estimates of its
workload. The end result is that operating power reactors were
billed for non-existent Part 170 work in order to meet the 90
percent fee recovery mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Revision
of Fee Schedules and Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015; Final Rule,
June 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this time, the NRC also developed a backlog in its
review of licensing actions. Before modifying equipment or
procedures, licensees must request the NRC's approval. As such,
the timeliness of these reviews is crucial for licensees to
operate efficiently. The backlog in these needed reviews, when
considered in the context of the problems described in the
preceding paragraph, highlight the need for the NRC to budget
more accurately and recover fees for work that is actually
conducted. S. 512 addresses this problem by directing the NRC
to expressly identify the funds necessary to conduct reviews
requested by applicants and licensees and to preserve
accordingly any budget authority granted solely for the
requested reviews. This approach should improve the accuracy of
the NRC's budgeting and ensure that funds are available to
efficiently complete reviews needed by applicants and
licensees.
Another problem results from how the NRC recovers ``generic
regulatory costs'' under Part 171. After the NRC has determined
the level of Part 170 fees, the NRC sets the amount of Part 171
fees at a rate that is necessary to meet the 90 percent fee
recovery mandate. Once it has established the total amount to
be reimbursed under Part 171 fees, the NRC apportions that
amount among the various classes of licensees and divides by
the number of licensees in that class to determine how much
each licensee must pay. Because the NRC fees are required to
reimburse a statutorily mandated percent of the budget, the NRC
has had difficulty adjusting to changing market conditions. An
example of this perverse result can be seen within the
operating reactors as reactors close:
``The permanent shutdown of the Vermont Yankee
reactor decreases the fleet of operating reactors,
which subsequently increases the annual fees for the
rest of the fleet.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Revision
of Fee Schedules and Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015; Final Rule,
June 30, 2015.
This same dynamic affected the annual fees for operating
reactors in both 2013\8\ and 2014\9\ resulting from the closure
of two reactors in each year. Thus, as the nuclear power
industry shrinks, the NRC simply divides by a smaller number so
that the remaining operating reactors pay larger fees to make
up the shortfall in order to meet the 90 percent fee recovery
mandate. The NRC has not decreased the overall budget to
correspond to the decrease in operating reactors. S. 512
addresses this problem through the combination of removing the
90 percent mandate and capping the annual fee for operating
reactors. In this manner, the annual fee will reflect the
agency's workload. As reactors close and transition to
decommissioning, the total revenue from annual fees will
decrease accordingly. Conversely, as new reactors become
operational, the total revenue will increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Revision
of Fee Schedules and Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2013; Final Rule,
July 1, 2013.
\9\Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Revision
of Fee Schedules and Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2014; Final Rule,
June 30, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual fee cap for operating reactors is set at $4.8
million in accordance with the fee recovery rule for FY
2015.\10\ This is a small decrease from the agency's all time
highest fee of $5.0 million in 2014. The 2014 cap was set at
such an unusually high rate of spending to reflect specifically
the agency's costs to implement safety changes following the
Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. As the NRC's post-
Fukushima implementation nears completion, the related workload
continues to decline thus trending toward the more stable
funding levels seen prior to the Fukushima accident. In this
manner, the cap would allow for the NRC to increase fees in
response to a potential future accident comparable to
Fukushima. As an additional precaution, the NRC is given the
authority to grant itself a one-time, one-year waiver of the
cap if the Commission concludes that adhering to the cap might
compromise the NRC's ability to accomplish its safety and
security mission. The NRC may also adjust the cap to account
for inflation to prevent any artificial constraint in that
respect. Lastly, this provision is to be executed to the
``maximum extent practicable'', reflecting appropriators'
authority for implementation and any need they may have to make
adjustments to address future unforeseen circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171
Revision of Fee Schedules and Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015; Final
Rule, June 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem that results from the current budget and
fee structure is the NRC's limited ability to develop expertise
in advance reactor technologies. To date, any work in this area
is has been general and exploratory. The NRC dedicates few
resources to the subject since it would be unfair to collect
fees from current licensees, and consequently their ratepayers,
to fund exploratory work. S. 512 provides authority for
appropriators to fund the advanced reactor program in Sec. 7 in
the same manner as other regulatory activities that are not
attributable to a specific licensee or class of licensees. This
will fund formation of the regulatory framework necessary to
provide regulatory certainty and foster development of advanced
reactor technologies.
S. 512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization
Act, includes provisions to reform these structural
deficiencies in the NRC's budget and fee recovery authorities
to instill greater transparency and accountability. Alleviating
the problems described above requires eliminating the OBRA-90
mandate of 90 percent fee recovery and replacing it with a
framework that maintains taxpayer funding for programs in the
same manner as established in OBRA-90, but without use of an
arbitrary percentage. Under this new structure, the NRC
collects from licensees the fees necessary to fund its
regulatory program as determined by its actual workload, rather
than a percentage constraint. For example, the NRC's collection
of fees from operating reactors would increase as new reactors
become operational or decrease as reactors shutdown and the
workload decreases. Elimination of the 90 percent fee recovery
mandate also allows appropriators to fund work on advanced
reactors without penalizing existing licensees. Consistent with
current practice, the taxpayer continues to pay only for the
items explicitly outlined in the law as appropriated items and
the rest of the NRC's budget is to be recovered through fees.
As such, the cost to the taxpayer is generally unaffected but
the fee recovery will be determined by the agency's workload
rather than a mandated percentage.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Congressional Research Service Memorandum: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Net Appropriations Under S. 2795 and Current Law; June 10,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another concern addressed within S. 512 is the NRC's
spending on corporate support costs. As noted by the EY
consulting firm, the NRC's corporate support spending as a
percentage of its budget is significantly higher than peer
agencies: 37 percent at the NRC; 20, 25, and 32 percent at 3
peer agencies.\12\ Oversight of this spending has been
complicated by numerous changes in how the agency defines and
accounts for corporate support costs. S. 512 directs the NRC to
limit its requests for corporate support spending, to the
maximum extent practicable, to 30 percent for FY 2020 and 2021,
and declining to 28 percent for FY 2024 and thereafter. Twenty-
eight percent is commensurate with the level of corporate
support spending by the agency in FY 2006. As noted by the
Congressional Research Service in its review of this provision:
``The ultimate decision of the amount to be appropriated to the
NRC, and the percentage of the total budget authority that may
be made up by corporate support costs would be retained by
Congress.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\EY report ``Overhead Assessment: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission''; April 30, 2015.
\13\Todd Garvey, Congressional Research Service: ``Interpretation
of Section 6(a)(3) of S. 2795, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and
Modernization Act''; May 10, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC's Principles of Good Regulation state: ``The
American taxpayer, the rate-paying consumer, and licensees are
all entitled to the best possible management and administration
of regulatory activities.'' Considering that regulatory costs
are ultimately passed on to consumers, the NRC must improve its
financial transparency and accountability. S. 512 provides
necessary reforms to modernize the NRC's budget structure and
fee collection.
S. 512 also includes provisions directing the NRC to create
new licensing processes suitable for advanced reactor
technologies. In the near-term, the NRC will develop a
licensing process from within its existing regulatory
framework. This is intended to address the needs of
technologies that may pursue design certification and licensing
within the next several years. In the longer term, the NRC is
directed to develop a more holistic, technology-inclusive
process by 2024 as an optional approach for technologies that
will be developed further into the future.
The NRC's current regulatory framework has evolved to
oversee light water reactor technologies and may not be
suitable for advanced technologies with unique characteristics
that may warrant different safety requirements with regard to
emergency planning zone sizes, emergency core cooling
infrastructure, and fueling needs. The NRC's current design
certification and license approval processes require
significant upfront investment without adequate predictability
or transparency with regard to a schedule. The legislation
addresses these two issues by directing the NRC to develop a
new regulatory process with a staged structure to provide
applicants with clear, early feedback consistent with a
mutually agreed-upon schedule. This process will allow advanced
reactor companies to seek investment as a design successfully
completes each stage rather than attempting to raise $1 to $2
billion dollars at the start of the process without a
predictable schedule.
S. 512 also directs the NRC to use more risk-informed,
performance-based licensing strategies, where appropriate, as a
more comprehensive and holistic approach to regulation. This
approach incorporates both modern methods of evaluating risks
and consequences with traditional deterministic methods for a
more exhaustive analysis of safety. Use of risk-informed,
performance-based approaches will also allow the NRC to develop
processes that are more flexible and applicable to the unique
aspects of diverse technologies.
The need for a new licensing process for advanced reactor
designs has been highlighted in reports by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO)\14\ and the Nuclear Innovation
Alliance.\15\ In addition to highlighting the need for a new
licensing framework, these reports also discuss the need for
cost-sharing programs to help early movers pay for some of the
burden of licensing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Nuclear Reactors: Status And Challenges In Development And
Deployment Of New Commercial Concepts, GAO, July 2015: http://
www.gao.gov/assets/680/671686.pdf.
\15\Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing, Nuclear Innovation
Alliance, Ashley Finan, April 2016: http://media.&fxsp0;wix.com/
&fxsp0;ugd/5b05b3_&fxsp0;71d4011545234838aa&fxsp0;27005ab7d757f1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to these recommendations, S. 512 directs the
Department of Energy to develop a cost-share program similar to
the previous ``Nuclear Power 2010'' program authorized in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. There is also a similar program for
small modular reactors that received appropriations beginning
in FY 2012.\16\\17\ This program mirrors what is available for
the small modular reactors and will assist applicants by
funding portions of the NRC's fees for pre-application and
application review activities. Reducing these up-front costs is
important since they can be a barrier to new market entrants,
discouraging innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Public Law 109-58; August 8, 2005.
\17\Report 112-331 to accompany H.R. 2055 ``Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 512 further facilitates investments in research and
development in advanced reactors by allowing a greater cost
recovery for research reactors. Under current law, the NRC
issues to facilities built to undertake research and
development (R&D) permits specific to that purpose. Nuclear R&D
facilities can recover 50% of owning and operating costs
through the sale of energy or other services (such as selling
medical isotopes). The NRC considers a nuclear R&D facility
that recovers more than 50% of its costs to be a commercial
facility and that it be licensed as such. S. 512 increases the
level of own and operating cost recovery to 75% before a
nuclear R&D facility is required to obtain a commercial license
while specifying that R&D facilities can recover up to only 50%
of costs through the sale of energy related services and that
an additional 25% can be recovered through the sale of other
non-energy services. This provision is intended to encourage
more private investment in R&D facilities, which are critical
for the development of new advanced nuclear technology, while
ensuring commercial facilities continue to undergo the
commercial licensing process.
Lastly, S. 512 includes provisions regarding uranium
recovery. Section 201 directs the NRC to provide Congress with
a report evaluating the feasibility and potential benefit of
extending the duration of uranium recovery licenses from 10 to
20 years. License reviews and renewals can take up to five
years to complete which appears disproportionately long in
comparison to the license duration. Section 202 directs the NRC
to conduct a pilot program to determine the feasibility of
establishing flat fees for routine licensing matters.
Section 203 would bring transparency and accountability to
the Department of Energy's excess uranium transactions. Some
members of Congress, the GAO, and uranium producers have long
been concerned with the Department of Energy's sales and
transfers of excess uranium. Since 2006, the GAO has issued a
legal opinion, five reports, and has testified before Congress
on four occasions on the Department's excess uranium
transactions. GAO has found that the Department's transactions
have violated the miscellaneous receipts statute (31 U.S.C.
Sec. 3302(b)), the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2297h-10), and the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 2093(a)(3), (c), 2201(m)). GAO has also found that
the Department's actions related to these transactions have
been inconsistent with its own contracts, its 2008 Excess
Uranium Inventory Management Plan, and its Information Quality
Guidelines.
Section 203 requires the Department to issue a long-term
excess uranium inventory management plan pursuant to a
rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The
plan must include steps to minimize the impact of the
Department's excess uranium transactions on the market. It
would also subject the process by which the Secretary of Energy
authorizes annual sales or transfers of excess uranium to a
rulemaking under the APA. Section 203 would subject any
supporting market impact analysis to peer review consistent
with Office of Management and Budget guidelines. Section 203
would also establish caps on the total amount of excess uranium
that the Department could sell or transfer in a given year.
S. 512 enjoys broad support as evidenced by numerous
letters from companies, individuals, organizations, and
universities.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Letters of support on file with the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works: American Nuclear Society; AUC LLC; Boise
State University; Cameco Resources; Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions (C2ES); ClearPath Action; Core Solutions Consulting; Energy
Fuels; GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy; General Atomics; GNBC Associates;
Hybrid Power Technologies LLC; Idaho State University; Laramide
Resources, Inc.; Magneto-Inertial Fusion Technologies, Inc.; National
Mining Association; New Mexico Mining Association; Nuclear Energy
Institute; Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization; Powertech
(USA) Inc.; Strata Energy, Inc.; Texas Mining & Reclamation
Association; Third Way; Transatomic Power Corporation; Tri Alpha
Energy; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry; University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Engineering Physics Department; Uranium Energy Corp.; Uranium One
Americas, Inc.; Uranium Producers of America; Ur-Energy; US Nuclear
Infrastructure Council; Wyoming Mining Association; and X-Energy, LLC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectives of the Legislation
The objectives of S. 512 are to reform the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's budget and fee recovery structure to
increase transparency and accountability, to direct the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to develop regulations to enable the
efficient licensing of advanced nuclear reactors, to establish
a DOE program to provide cost-shared grants to reduce the cost
burden of NRC licensing, and to improve the economic viability
of domestic uranium recovery by reducing regulatory burden and
government competition in uranium sales.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title
The title of this legislation is the ``Nuclear Energy
Innovation and Modernization Act.''
Sec. 2. Findings
This section identifies congressional findings that support
enactment of this legislation.
Sec. 3. Purposes
The purpose of this Act is to modernize the Commission's
functions by establishing new transparency and accountability
measures on the Commission's budget and fee structure,
developing the regulatory framework necessary to enable the
licensing of advanced nuclear reactors, and more efficient
regulation of uranium recovery.
Sec. 4. Definitions
This section provides definitions for terms used in the
legislation.
TITLE I--ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS AND USER FEES
Sec. 101. Nuclear Regulatory Commission user fees and annual charges
through fiscal year 2019
(a) In General.
Subsection (a) amends Section 6101 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 to remove the amounts appropriated
for the Advanced Reactor Program from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's fee recovery requirement.
(b) Repeal.
Subsection (b) repeals Section 6101 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 effective October 1, 2019, to enable
its replacement with the reformed budget and fee structure
provided in Section 6.
Sec. 102. Nuclear Regulatory Commission user fees and annual charges
for fiscal year 2020 and each fiscal year thereafter
(a) Annual Budget Justification.
Subsection (a) directs the Commission to expressly identify
the funds necessary to complete work on activities requested by
applicants and licensees. Once budget authority is granted for
those requested activities, it must be used solely for those
activities. This is to ensure the Commission estimates this
work accurately and ensures that adequate funds are preserved
to complete this work efficiently. The Commission is also
directed to limit its requests for budget authority to fund
corporate support costs as a percentage of its total budget
request: 30 percent in Fiscal Year 2020 and decreasing one
percent every two years, until reaching 28 percent in Fiscal
Year 2024 and subsequent years. The limits on the NRC's
corporate support costs will ensure the Commission prioritizes
spending on work that directly supports its safety and security
mission.
(b) Fees and Charges.
Subsection (b) directs the Commission to ensure the
collection of fees is equal to the Commission's budget
authority less programs excluded from fee recovery. The
activities excluded from fee recovery are listed, capturing all
activities that are currently excluded from fee recovery. The
only new activity excluded from fee recovery is the Advanced
Reactor Program authorized in Section 7, which expires in 2030.
Similar to Section 6101 of OBRA-90, the NRC is authorized
to collect fees in two ways. The first is through fees for
services that specifically benefit a particular person or
entity. The second is through annual fees to fund more generic
regulatory costs including corporate support.
Subparagraph (b) places a cap on the amount of annual fee
that may be charged to an operating reactor. The cap is set at
the amount charged in FY 2015, $4.8 million, not including the
separate spent fuel and decommissioning fee, and may be
adjusted to reflect changes in the consumer price index. This
amount reflects a slight decrease from the all-time highest fee
of $5.0 million.\19\ As such, the cap accounts for high levels
of agency spending to address regulatory changes following the
Fukushima, Japan, nuclear accident. The agency's annual fee is
declining since the agency's generic post-Fukushima work is
nearing conclusion.\20\\21\ If the Commission determines the
annual fee cap may compromise its safety and security mission,
the Commission may waive the cap for one year providing time to
seek a remedy through the Congressional appropriations process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR 170 and 171: Revision of
Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015; Final Rule; June 30,
2015; Table V.
\20\Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR 170 and 171: Revision of
Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015; Proposed Rule; March
23, 2016; Table V.
\21\Nuclear Regulatory Commission Congressional Budget
Justification; Fiscal Year 2017; p. 42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subparagraph (b) includes a research reactor fee exemption
originally contained in OBRA-90. This provision was narrowly
drafted to exempt a particular research reactor operated by the
United States Geological Survey and does not alter the
Commission's authority to recover fees from research reactors
generally.
(c) Performance and Reporting.
Subsection (c) directs the Commission to develop
performance metrics and milestone schedules for activities
requested by applicants and licensees. The increased use of
metrics and schedules will improve transparency and
accountability to ensure the agency is efficiently and
predictably managing its workload.
(d) Accurate Invoicing.
Subsection (d) directs the Commission to establish
processes for management review and auditing of invoices to
ensure accuracy, transparency, and fairness. The Commission is
also directed to develop a process for licensees and applicants
to dispute and seek correction of any errors.
(e) Report.
Subsection (e) requires the Commission to report to
Congress on the implementation of this section including any
impacts and recommendations for improvement.
(f) Effective Date.
Subsection (f) establishes an effective date for Section
102 of October 1, 2019. This date was selected to allow the
Commission time to implement these provisions through the
normal budget and appropriations process.
Sec. 103. Advanced nuclear reactor program
(a) Licensing of Commercial Advanced Nuclear Reactors
Subsection (a) directs the Commission within two years to
establish stages within the licensing process for new reactors
including the optional use of a conceptual design assessment.
This change is intended to allow applicants to proceed through
the licensing process in smaller steps to allow greater
transparency, which will foster investor confidence based on
regulatory progress. The Commission should also institute the
use of licensing project plans. Licensing project plans are
agreements between the agency and applicants early in the
application process that reflect mutual commitments on
schedules and deliverables to support resource planning for
both the agency and the applicant. The Commission is also
directed to implement, where appropriate, increased use of
risk-informed, performance-based license licensing, and to
implement strategies for licensing advanced research and test
reactors within the existing regulatory framework. Together,
these provisions establish a regulatory framework for advanced
reactor technologies that will seek licensing within the next
several years.
Subsection (a) further directs the Commission to complete a
rulemaking by the end of 2024 to establish a technology-
inclusive regulatory framework for licensing advanced nuclear
reactors. This rulemaking is a more holistic approach to a more
flexible and efficient regulatory framework that will be
available to advanced nuclear reactor applicants who will seek
licensing further into the future.
The Commission is also directed to train staff and develop
the expertise required to implement Subsection (a) activities
including pre-application interactions and application reviews.
Appropriations are authorized for Subsection (a) in such sums
as are necessary.
(b) Report To Establish Stages in the Commercial Advanced
Reactor Licensing Process
Subsection (b) directs the NRC to report to Congress within
180 days of enactment regarding implementation of stages in the
licensing process within two years of enactment. The report is
to include the following:
Input from the Secretary of Energy, nuclear
energy industry, technology developers, and public
stakeholders;
Cost and schedule estimates;
Evaluation of the unique aspects of advanced
nuclear reactors;
Policy issues the Commission should address
with regard to licensing;
Options for licensing advanced nuclear
reactors under the current regulatory framework
including the optional use of licensing project plans;
Options for improving the efficiency and
predictability of the licensing process; and
Any Commission action or modification of
policy necessary to implement any part of the report.
(c) Report To Increase the Use of Risk-Informed and
Performance-Based Evaluation Techniques and Regulatory Guidance
Subsection (c) directs the NRC to report to Congress within
180 days of enactment regarding increasing, where appropriate,
the use of risk-informed and performance-based techniques
within the existing regulatory framework. The report is to
include the following:
Input from the Secretary of Energy, nuclear
energy industry, technology developers, and public
stakeholders;
Cost and schedule estimates;
The ability of the Commission to develop and
implement, where appropriate, risk-informed and
performance-based techniques within two years of the
date of enactment; and
Any Commission action needed to implement
any part of the report.
(d) Report To Prepare the Research and Test Reactor
Licensing Process
Subsection (d) directs the NRC to report to Congress within
one year of enactment regarding preparing the licensing process
for research and test reactors within the existing licensing
framework. The report is to include the following:
Input from the Secretary of Energy, nuclear
energy industry, technology developers, and public
stakeholders;
Cost and schedule estimates;
Evaluation of the unique aspects of research
and test reactor licensing;
The feasibility of developing guidelines to
support the license review process;
Any Commission action needed to implement
any part of the report.
(e) Report To Complete a Rulemaking To Establish a
Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Option Use by
Commercial Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies in New Reactor
License Applications and To Enhance Commission Expertise
Relating to Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies
Subsection (e) directs the NRC to report to Congress within
30 months of enactment regarding the completion of a rulemaking
to establish a technology-inclusive licensing framework for
advanced nuclear reactor technologies and developing the
necessary expertise to review license applications. The report
is to include the following:
Input from the Secretary of Energy, nuclear
energy industry, technology developers, and public
stakeholders;
Cost and schedule estimates;
The ability of the Commission to complete
the rulemaking by the end of 2024;
The extent to which additional legislation
or Commission action is necessary to implement any part
of the framework; and
The need for additional Commission expertise
and the budget and timeframes necessary to acquire it.
Sec. 104. Advanced nuclear energy licensing cost-share grant program
(a) Definitions.
Defines terms used in this section.
(b) Establishment.
Subsection (b) directs the Secretary of Energy to establish
a program to make cost-shared grants available to applicants to
fund a portion of pre-application and application review
activities.
(c) Requirement.
Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to seek out technology
diversity in awarding grants.
(d) Cost-share Amount.
Subsection (d) directs the Secretary to determine the cost-
share amount for each grant.
(e) Use of Funds.
Subsection (e) stipulates that recipients may use grant
funds to cover Commission fees and other costs associated with:
Developing a licensing project plan;
Preparing an application for and obtaining a
conceptual design assessment;
Preparing and reviewing topical reports; and
Other pre-application and application review
activities and interactions with the Commission.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.
Subsection (f) authorizes appropriations in such sums as
may be necessary to carry out Section 104.
Sec. 105. Baffle-former bolt guidance
Sec. 105 directs the Commission to publish any necessary
revisions to guidance for the examination of baffle-former
bolts and submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees.
Sec. 106. Evacuation report
Sec. 106 directs the Commission to submit a report to the
appropriate congressional committees describing any actions
taken or planned to consider lessons learned from evacuations
resulting from natural disasters.
Sec. 107. Encouraging private investment in research and test reactors
Sec. 107 increases the amount of operating costs research
reactors are allowed to recover from 50% to 75%, whereas up to
50% can be energy related and the additional 25% can only be
recovered through other non-energy services.
Sec. 108. Commission report on accident tolerant fuel
Section 108 directs the Commission to report to Congress on
the status of the licensing process for accident tolerant fuel.
This technology could serve as a bridge to more advanced
nuclear technology and has the potential to make our current
commercial fleet safer and more cost competitive.
TITLE II--URANIUM
Sec. 201. Uranium recovery report
Section 201 directs the Commission to report to Congress
within one year of the date of enactment regarding the safety
and feasibility of extending the duration of uranium recovery
licenses from 10 to 20 years.
Sec. 202. Pilot program for uranium recovery fees
Sec. 202 directs the Commission to complete a pilot program
by July 31, 2018, to determine the feasibility of establishing
a flat fee structure for routine uranium recovery licensing
matters and report accordingly to the appropriate congressional
committees.
Sec. 203. Uranium transfers and sales
Section 203 amends the USEC Privatization Act to require
the Secretary of Energy to issue a 10-year excess uranium
management plan beginning on January 1, 2018 and every 10 years
thereafter in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
This section establishes an annual cap on the amount of excess
uranium that the Secretary may sell or transfer at the
following levels:
2,100 metric tons (5.487 million pounds)
of natural uranium equivalent for 2017 to 2025; and
2,700 metric tons (7.06 million pounds)
of natural uranium equivalent for 2026 and thereafter.
Any future Secretarial Determination made under the USEC
Privatization Act must comply with the Administrative Procedure
Act rulemaking process.
Legislative History
On March 2, 2017, Senators Barrasso, Whitehouse, Inhofe,
Booker, Crapo, Fischer, Capito, and Manchin introduced S. 512:
the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. Additional
co-sponsors include Committee members Senators Carper,
Duckworth, and Rounds.
On March 8, 2017, the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety held
a legislative hearing entitled, ``Legislative Hearing on S.
512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.''
On March 22, 2017, the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works met to consider S. 512, adopted an amendment in
the nature of a substitute, and ordered the bill as amended
favorably reported with a roll call vote of 18 ayes and 3 nays.
Hearings
March 2, 2017
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held
an oversight hearing entitled, ``Legislative Hearing on S. 512,
the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.''
Testimony was received from:
Maria Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear
Energy Institute
Dr. Ashley E. Finan, Policy Director,
Nuclear Innovation Alliance
Dr. Tina Back, Vice President of Nuclear
Technologies and Materials, General Atomics
Dr. Edwin Lyman, Senior Scientist, Union of
Concerned Scientists Global Security System
Allison Bawden, Acting Director for Natural
Resources and Environment with the Government
Accountability Office
Written testimony was submitted by:
Victor McCree, Executive Director of
Operations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and
Paul Goranson, Executive Vice President,
Energy Fuels Inc. on behalf of the Uranium Producers of
America.
Rollcall Votes
The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to
consider S. 512 on March 22, 2017. The Committee adopted the
Barrasso-Carper-Whitehouse-Inhofe-Booker-Fischer-Capito-
Duckworth substitute amendment, and reported the bill as
amended favorably by a roll call vote of 18 ayes and 3 nays.
Voting in favor were Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito,
Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan,
Shelby, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Booker, Markey and
Duckworth. Voting against were Senators Sanders, Gillibrand,
and Harris.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that S. 512
does not create any additional regulatory burdens, nor will it
cause any adverse impact on the personal privacy of
individuals.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee has determined that S. 512
contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
Cost of Legislation
The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the cost of S.
512 has been requested but was not received at the time the
report was filed. When available, the Chairman will request
that it be printed in the Congressional Record for the advice
of the Senate.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR WHITEHOUSE
Dear Senator: While we would not have taken the same
approach towards the stated intent of modernizing the
deployment of advanced nuclear reactors that is in S. 2795, the
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, we do not
believe the revised bill will have any major detrimental impact
on public safety and transparency. The bill authors have done
well to balance their desire to reform the licensing process
without subjugating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
congressionally imposed mandates, allowing the NRC to retain
the flexibility it needs to independently regulate in the
public interest. The Union of Concerned Scientists therefore
takes a neutral position on S. 2795.
Robert Cowin,
Union of Concerned Scientists,
Director of Government Affairs, Climate and Energy.
I also want to ensure the record reflects that some of
these new reactor technologies could actually help to reduce
the amount of nuclear waste we've accumulated through the years
by using that waste as fuel. That could alleviate a major
challenge facing the industry.
Sheldon Whitehouse.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman:
* * * * * * *
OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1990 (Titles VI and XIII)
* * * * * * *
SEC. 6101. NRC USER FEES AND ANNUAL CHARGES.
(a) Annual Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(in this section referred to as the ``Commission'')
shall annually assess and collect such fees and charges
as are described in subsections (b) and (c).
(2) First assessment.--The first assessment of fees
under subsection (b) and annual charges under
subsection (c) shall be made not later than September
30, 1991.
(b) Fees for Service or Thing of Value.--Pursuant to section
9701 of title 31, United States Code, any person who receives a
service or thing of value from the Commission shall pay fees to
cover the Commission's costs in providing any such service or
thing of value.
(c) Policy Review.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall
review its policy for assessment of annual charges under
section 6101(c) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990, solicit public comment on the need for changes to such
policy, and recommend to the Congress such changes in existing
law as the Commission finds are needed to prevent the placement
of an unfair burden on certain licensees of the Commission, in
particular those that hold licenses to operate federally owned
research reactors used primarily for educational training and
academic research purposes.''.
(1) Persons subject to charge.--Except as provided in
paragraph (4), any licensee or certificate holder of
the Commission may be required to pay, in addition to
the fees set forth in subsection (b), an annual charge.
(2) Aggregate amount of charges.--
(A) In general.--The aggregate amount of the
annual charges collected from all licensees and
certificate holders in a fiscal year shall
equal an amount that approximates the
percentages of the budget authority of the
Commission for the fiscal year stated in
subparagraph (B), less--
(i) amounts collected under
subsection (b) during the fiscal year;
(ii) amounts appropriated to the
Commission from the Nuclear Waste Fund
for the fiscal year;
(iii) amounts appropriated to the
Commission for the fiscal year for
implementation of section 3116 of the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005;
[and]
(iv) amounts appropriated to the
Commission for homeland security
activities of the Commission for the
fiscal year, except for the costs of
fingerprinting and background checks
required by section 149 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2169) and
the costs of conducting security
inspections[.] ; and
(v) amounts appropriated to the
Commission for the fiscal year for
activities related to the development
of regulatory infrastructure for
advanced nuclear reactor technologies,
including activities required under
section 103 of the Nuclear Energy
Innovation and Modernization Act.
* * * * * * *
ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--ATOMIC ENERGY
CHAPTER 1. DECLARATION, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE
Section 1. Declaration.--Atomic energy is capable of
application for peaceful as well as military purposes. It is
therefore declared to be the policy of the United States that--
a. the development, use, and control of atomic energy
shall be directed so as to make the maximum
contribution to the general welfare, subject at all
times to the paramount objective of making the maximum
contribution to the common defense and security; and
b. the development, use, and control of atomic energy
shall be directed so as to promote world peace, improve
the general welfare, increase the standard of living,
and strengthen free competition in private enterprise.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 10. ATOMIC ENERGY LICENSES
Sec. 101. License Required.--It shall be unlawful, except as
provided in section 91, for any person within the United States
to transfer or receive in interstate commerce, manufacture,
produce, transfer, acquire, possess, use, import, or export any
utilization or production facility except under and in
accordance with a license issued by the Commission pursuant to
section 103 or 104.
Sec. 104. Medical Therapy and Research and Development.--
a. The Commission is authorized to issue licenses to persons
applying therefor for utilization facilities for use in medical
therapy. In issuing such licenses the Commission is directed to
permit the widest amount of effective medical therapy possible
with the amount of special nuclear material available for such
purposes and to impose the minimum amount of regulation
consistent with its obligations under this Act to promote the
common defense and security and to protect the health and
safety of the public.
b. As provided for in subsection 102 b. or 102 c., or where
specifically authorized by law, the Commission is authorized to
issue licenses under this subsection to persons applying
therefor for utilization and production facilities for
industrial and commercial purposes. In issuing licenses under
this subsection, the Commission shall impose the minimum amount
of such regulations and terms of license as will permit the
Commission to fulfill its obligations under this Act.
c. The Commission is authorized to issue licenses to persons
applying therefor for utilization and production facilities
useful in the conduct of research and development activities of
the types specified in section 31 [and which are not facilities
of the type specified in subsection 104 b.] . The Commission is
directed to impose only such minimum amount of regulation of
the licensee as the Commission finds will permit the Commission
to fulfill its obligations under this Act to promote the common
defense and security and to protect the health and safety of
the public and will permit the conduct of widespread and
diverse research and development.
The Commission is authorized to issue licenses under this
section for utilization facilities useful in the conduct of
research and development activities of the types specified in
section 31 in which the licensee sells research and testing
services and energy to others, subject to the condition that
the licensee shall recover not more than 75 percent of the
annual costs to the licensee of owning and operating the
facility through sales of nonenergy services, energy, or both,
other than research and development or education and training,
of which not more than 50 percent may be through sales of
energy.
* * * * * * *
U.S. ENRICHMENT CORP. PRIVITAZATION ACT
* * * * * * *
SECTION 204 AND TITLES III AND IV OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
Sec. 204. [42 U.S.C. 1437f note] (a) Purpose.--The purpose of
this demonstration is to give public housing agencies and the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development the flexibility to
design and test various approaches for providing and
administering housing assistance that: reduce cost and achieve
greater cost effectiveness in Federal expenditures; give
incentives to families with children where the head of
household is working, seeking work, or is preparing for work by
participating in job training, educational programs, or
programs that assist people to obtain employment and become
economically self-sufficient; and increase housing choices for
low-income families.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III
RESCISSIONS AND OFFSETS
CHAPTER 1--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
Subchapter A--United States Enrichment Corporation Privatization
SEC. 3101. [42 U.S.C. 2011 NOTE] SHORT TITLE.
This subchapter may be cited as the ``USEC Privatization
Act''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3112. [42 U.S.C. 2297H-10] URANIUM TRANSFERS AND SALES.
[(a) Transfers and Sales by the Secretary.--The Secretary
shall not provide enrichment services or transfer or sell any
uranium (including natural uranium concentrates, natural
uranium hexafluoride, or enriched uranium in any form) to any
person except as consistent with this section.]
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Depleted uranium.--The term `depleted uranium'
means uranium having an assay less than the assay for--
(A) natural uranium; or
(B) 0.711 percent of the uranium-235 isotope.
(2) Highly enriched uranium.--The term `highly
enriched uranium' means uranium having an assay of 20
percent or greater of the uranium-235 isotope.
(3) Low-enriched uranium.--The term `low-enriched
uranium' means uranium having an assay greater than
0.711 percent but less than 20 percent of the uranium-
235 isotope.
(4) Metric ton of uranium.--The term `metric ton of
uranium' means 1,000 kilograms of uranium.
(5) Natural uranium.--The term `natural uranium'
means uranium having an assay of 0.711 percent of the
uranium-235 isotope.
(6) Off-spec uranium.--The term `off-spec uranium'
means uranium in any form, including depleted uranium,
highly enriched uranium, low-enriched uranium, natural
uranium, UF6, and any byproduct of uranium processing,
that does not meet the specification for commercial
material (as defined by the standards of the American
Society for Testing and Materials).
(7) Uranium.--Other than in subsection (c), the term
`uranium' includes natural uranium, uranium
hexafluoride, highly enriched uranium, low-enriched
uranium, depleted uranium, and any byproduct of uranium
processing.
(8) Uranium hexafluoride; uf6.--The terms `uranium
hexafluoride' and `UF6' mean uranium that has been
combined with fluorine, to form a compound that,
dependent on temperature and pressure, can be a solid,
liquid, or gas.
(b) Transfers and Sales by the Secretary.--The Secretary is
not authorized to provide enrichment services, or transfer or
sell any uranium except in accordance with this section.
(c) Development of Federal Excess Uranium Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Beginning on January 1, 2018, and
not less frequently than once every 10 years
thereafter, the Secretary shall issue a long-term
Federal excess uranium inventory management plan
(referred to in this section as the `plan') that
details the management of the excess uranium
inventories of the Department of Energy and covers a
period of not fewer than 10 years.
(2) Content.--
(A) In general.--The plan shall cover all
forms of uranium within the excess uranium
inventory of the Department of Energy,
including depleted uranium, highly enriched
uranium, low-enriched uranium, natural uranium,
off-spec uranium, and UF6.
(B) Reducing impact on domestic industry.--
The plan shall outline steps the Secretary will
take to minimize the impact of transferring or
selling uranium on the domestic uranium mining,
conversion, and enrichment industries,
including any actions for which the Secretary
would require new authority.
(C) Maximizing benefits to the federal
government.--The plan shall outline steps the
Secretary shall take to ensure that the Federal
Government maximizes the potential value of
uranium for the Federal Government.
(3) Proposed plan.--Before issuing the final plan,
the Secretary shall publish a proposed plan in the
Federal Register pursuant to a rulemaking under section
553 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) Deadlines for submission.--The Secretary shall
issue--
(A) a proposed plan for public comment under
paragraph (3) not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this paragraph; and
(B) a final plan not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this paragraph.
[(b)] (d) Russian HEU.--(1) On or before December 31, 1996,
the United States Executive Agent under the Russian HEU
Agreement shall transfer to the Secretary without charge title
to an amount of uranium hexafluoride equivalent to the natural
uranium component of low-enriched uranium derived from at least
18 metric tons of highly enriched uranium purchased from the
Russian Executive Agent under the Russian HEU Agreement. The
quantity of such uranium hexafluoride delivered to the
Secretary shall be based on a tails assay of 0.30
U235. Uranium hexafluoride transferred to the
Secretary pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed under
United States law for all purposes to be of Russian origin.
(2) Within 7 years of the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall sell, and receive payment for, the uranium
hexafluoride transferred to the Secretary pursuant to paragraph
(1). Such uranium hexafluoride shall be sold--
(A) at any time for use in the United States for the
purpose of overfeeding;
(B) at any time for end use outside the United
States;
(C) in 1995 and 1996 to the Russian Executive Agent
at the purchase price for use in matched sales pursuant
to the Suspension Agreement; or,
(D) in calendar year 2001 for consumption by end
users in the United States not prior to January 1,
2002, in volumes not to exceed 3,000,000 pounds
U3O8 equivalent per year.
(3) With respect to all enriched uranium delivered to the
United States Executive Agent under the Russian HEU Agreement
on or after January 1, 1997, the United States Executive Agent
shall, upon request of the Russian Executive Agent, enter into
an agreement to deliver concurrently to the Russian Executive
Agent an amount of uranium hexafluoride equivalent to the
natural uranium component of such uranium. An agreement
executed pursuant to a request of the Russian Executive Agent,
as contemplated in this paragraph, may pertain to any
deliveries due during any period remaining under the Russian
HEU Agreement. The quantity of such uranium hexafluoride
delivered to the Russian Executive Agent shall be based on a
tails assay of 0.30 U235. Title to uranium
hexafluoride delivered to the Russian Executive Agent pursuant
to this paragraph shall transfer to the Russian Executive Agent
upon delivery of such material to the Russian Executive Agent,
with such delivery to take place at a North American facility
designated by the Russian Executive Agent. Uranium hexafluoride
delivered to the Russian Executive Agent pursuant to this
paragraph shall be deemed under U.S. law for all purposes to be
of Russian origin. Such uranium hexafluoride may be sold to any
person or entity for delivery and use in the United States only
as permitted in [subsections (b)(5), (b)(6) and (b)(7) of this
section] paragraphs (5), (6), and (7).
(4) In the event that the Russian Executive Agent does not
exercise its right to enter into an agreement to take delivery
of the natural uranium component of any low-enriched uranium,
as contemplated in paragraph (3), within 90 days of the date
such low-enriched uranium is delivered to the United States
Executive Agent, or upon request of the Russian Executive
Agent, then the United States Executive Agent shall engage an
independent entity through a competitive selection process to
auction an amount of uranium hexafluoride or
U3O8 (in the event that the conversion
component of such hexafluoride has previously been sold)
equivalent to the natural uranium component of such low-
enriched uranium. An agreement executed pursuant to a request
of the Russian Executive Agent, as contemplated in this
paragraph, may pertain to any deliveries due during any period
remaining under the Russian HEU Agreement. Such independent
entity shall sell such uranium hexafluoride in one or more lots
to any person or entity to maximize the proceeds from such
sales, for disposition consistent with the limitations set
forth in this subsection. The independent entity shall pay to
the Russian Executive Agent the proceeds of any such auction
less all reasonable transaction and other administrative costs.
The quantity of such uranium hexafluoride auctioned shall be
based on a tails assay of 0.30 U235. Title to
uranium hexafluoride auctioned pursuant to this paragraph shall
transfer to the buyer of such material upon delivery of such
material to the buyer. Uranium hexafluoride auctioned pursuant
to this paragraph shall be deemed under United States law for
all purposes to be of Russian origin.
(5) Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7), uranium
hexafluoride delivered to the Russian Executive Agent under
paragraph (3) or auctioned pursuant to paragraph (4), may not
be delivered for consumption by end users in the United States
either directly or indirectly prior to January 1, 1998, and
thereafter only in accordance with the following schedule:
* * * * * * *
(6) Uranium hexafluoride delivered to the Russian Executive
Agent under paragraph (3) or auctioned pursuant to paragraph
(4) may be sold at any time as Russian-origin natural uranium
in a matched sale pursuant to the Suspension Agreement, and in
such case shall not be counted against the annual maximum
deliveries set forth in paragraph (5).
(7) Uranium hexafluoride delivered to the Russian Executive
Agent under paragraph (3) or auctioned pursuant to paragraph
(4) may be sold at any time for use in the United States for
the purpose of overfeeding in the operations of enrichment
facilities.
(8) Nothing in this subsection [(b)] shall restrict the sale
of the conversion component of such uranium hexafluoride.
(9) The Secretary of Commerce shall have responsibility for
the administration and enforcement of the limitations set forth
in this subsection. The Secretary of Commerce may require any
person to provide any certifications, information, or take any
action that may be necessary to enforce these limitations. The
United States Customs Service shall maintain and provide any
information required by the Secretary of Commerce and shall
take any action requested by the Secretary of Commerce which is
necessary for the administration and enforcement of the uranium
delivery limitations set forth in this section.
(10) The President shall monitor the actions of the United
States Executive Agent under the Russian HEU Agreement and
shall report to the Congress not later than December 31 of each
year on the effect the low-enriched uranium delivered under the
Russian HEU Agreement is having on the domestic uranium mining,
conversion, and enrichment industries, and the operation of the
gaseous diffusion plants. Such report shall include a
description of actions taken or proposed to be taken by the
President to prevent or mitigate any material adverse impact on
such industries or any loss of employment at the gaseous
diffusion plants as a result of the Russian HEU Agreement.
[(c)] (e) Transfers to the Corporation.--(1) The Secretary
shall transfer to the Corporation without charge up to 50
metric tons of enriched uranium and up to 7,000 metric tons of
natural uranium from the Department of Energy's stockpile,
subject to the restrictions in [subsection (c)(2)] paragraph
(2).
(2) The Corporation shall not deliver for commercial end use
in the United States--
(A) any of the uranium transferred under this
subsection before January 1, 1998;
(B) more than 10 percent of the uranium (by uranium
hexafluoride equivalent content) transferred under this
subsection or more than 4,000,000 pounds, whichever is
less, in any calendar year after 1997; or
(C) more than 800,000 separative work units contained
in low-enriched uranium transferred under this
subsection in any calendar year.
[(d)] (f) Inventory Sales.--(1) In addition to the transfers
authorized under subsections [(c) and (e), the Secretary may,
from time to time, sell natural and low-enriched uranium
(including low-enriched uranium derived from highly enriched
uranium)] (e) and (g), the Secretary, may from time to time,
sell uranium from the Department of Energy's stockpile.
(2) Limitations.--The transfers authorized under
subsections (e) and (g), and the sales authorized under
paragraph (1), shall be subject to the following
limitations:
(A) Effective for the period of calendar
years 2017 through 2025, the Secretary shall
not transfer or sell more than 2,100 metric
tons of natural uranium equivalent annually in
any form, including depleted uranium, highly
enriched uranium, low-enriched uranium, natural
uranium, off-spec uranium, and UF6.
(B) Effective beginning on January 1, 2026,
the Secretary shall not transfer or sell more
than 2,700 metric tons of natural uranium
equivalent annually in any form, including
depleted uranium, highly enriched uranium, low-
enriched uranium, natural uranium, off-spec
uranium, and UF6.
[(2)] (3) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and
(e), no sale or transfer of natural or low-enriched uranium
shall be made unless--]
(3) Determinations.--Except as provided in
subsections (d), (e), and (g), and subject to paragraph
(4), no sale or transfer of uranium shall be made
unless--
(A) the President determines that the material is not
necessary for national security needs,
(B) the Secretary determines that [the sale] the sale
or transfer of the material will not have an adverse
material impact on the domestic uranium mining,
conversion, or enrichment industry, taking into account
the sales of uranium under the Russian HEU Agreement
and the Suspension Agreement, and
(C) the price paid to the Secretary will not be less
than the fair market value of the material.
(4) Requirements for determinations.--
(A) Proposed determination.--Before making a
determination under paragraph (3)(B), the
Secretary shall publish a proposed
determination in the Federal Register pursuant
to a rulemaking under section 553 of title 5,
United States Code.
(B) Quality of market analysis.--Any market
analysis that is prepared by the Department of
Energy, or that the Department of Energy
commissions for the Secretary as part of the
determination process under paragraph (3)(B),
shall be subject to a peer review process
consistent with the guidelines of the Office of
Management and Budget published at 67 Fed. Reg.
8452-8460 (February 22, 2002) (or successor
guidelines), to ensure and maximize the
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of
information disseminated by Federal agencies.
(C) Waiver of secretarial determination.--
Beginning on January 1, 2023, the requirement
for a determination by the Secretary under
paragraph (3)(B) shall be waived for
transferring or selling uranium by the
Secretary if the uranium has been identified in
the updated long-term Federal excess uranium
inventory management plan under subsection
(c)(1).
[(e)] (g) Government Transfers.--Notwithstanding subsection
[(d)(2)] (f)(3), but subject to subsection (f)(2), the
Secretary may transfer or sell enriched uranium--
(1) to a Federal agency if the material is
transferred for the use of the receiving agency without
any resale or transfer to another entity and the
material does not meet commercial specifications;
(2) to any person for national security purposes, as
determined by the Secretary; or
(3) to any State or local agency or nonprofit,
charitable, or educational institution for use other
than the generation of electricity for commercial use.
[(f)] (h) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this subchapter
shall be read to modify the terms of the Russian HEU Agreement.
* * * * * * *
[all]