Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                      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]