S. Rept. 114-285 - NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION ACT114th Congress (2015-2016)
Committee Report
| Report Type: | Senate Report |
|---|---|
| Accompanies: | S.2795 |
| Committees: |
S. Rept. 114-285 - 114th Congress (2015-2016)
Report text available as:
- TXT
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
Senate Report 114-285 - NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION ACT
[Senate Report 114-285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calandar No. 528
114th Congress } ( Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 114-285
======================================================================
NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION AND MODERNIZATION ACT
_______
June 23, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Inhofe, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 2795]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2795) to modernize the regulation of
nuclear energy, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment 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 their licensees including 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 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 they 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\
and is likely to repeat itself in FY 2016 since the Office of
New Reactors has once again overestimated by one-third the
number of applications it will have under review\7\. This may
simply reflect poor estimates of its workload. The end result
is that operating power reactors are 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.
\7\Nuclear Regulatory Commission Congressional Budget
Justification, FY 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 2795 addresses this problem by directing the NRC
to expressly identify the funds necessary to conduct reviews
requested by applicants and licensees and to preserve any
budget authority granted accordingly 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\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\9\ and 2014\10\ 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 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. 2795 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\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.
\10\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 most recent revision of the fee
recovery rule: FY 2015.\11\ This is a small decrease from the
agency's all time highest fee of $5.0 million in 2014. The cap
was set at this abnormally high rate of spending to reflect 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 their ability to accomplish their 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\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. In addition, if appropriators
provided funds directly to the NRC by increasing the amount of
the 10 percent paid by the taxpayers, it would trigger an
increase in the fee recovery under the 90 percent fee recovery
mandate. For every $1 million appropriators might fund for
advanced reactors, licensees would need to be billed an
additional $9 million to pay the amount necessary to reach 90
percent of the NRC's budget authority. S. 2795 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. 2795, 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Congressional Research Service Memorandum: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Net Appropriations Under S. 2795 and Current Law; June 10,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another concern addressed within S. 2795 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.\13\ Oversight of this spending has been
complicated by numerous changes in how the agency defines and
accounts for corporate support costs. S. 2795 directs the NRC
to limit its requests for corporate support spending, to the
maximum extent practicable, to 30 percent for FY 2019 and 2020,
and declining to 28 percent for FY 2023 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.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\EY report ``Overhead Assessment: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission''; April 30, 2015.
\14\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. 2795 provides
necessary reforms to modernize the NRC's budget structure and
fee collection.
S. 2795 also includes provisions directing the NRC 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 2023 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 is not 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. 2795 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 several recent reports
including GAO\15\ and the Nuclear Innovation Alliance\16\. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Nuclear Reactors: Status And Challenges In Development And
Deployment Of New Commercial Concepts, GAO, July 2015: http://
www.gao.gov/assets/680/671686.pdf
\16\Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing, Nuclear Innovation
Alliance, Ashley Finan, April 2016: http://media.wix.com/ugd/
5b05b3_71d4011545234838aa27005ab7d757f1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to these recommendations, S. 2795 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 and a similar program for small
modular reactors which received appropriations beginning in FY
2012.\17\\18\ This program 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Public Law 109-58; August 8, 2005.
\18\Report 112-331 to accompany H.R. 2055 ``Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, S. 2795 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.
S. 2795 enjoys broad support as evidenced by numerous
letters from companies, individuals, organizations, and
universities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Letters of support on file with the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works: American Nuclear Society; Boise State
University; Center for Climate and Energy Solutions; Clean Air Task
Force; Clear Path Action; Elysium Industries; Entergy Wholesale
Commodities; Exelon; GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy; Gen4 Energy; Harvard
Business School; Hybrid Power Technologies LLC; MIT Program in
Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate; MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering;
Next Generation Nuclear Plant Industry Alliance; Nuclear Energy
Institute; NuScale Power; Rachel Pritzker; Ray A. Rothrock; Southern
Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Terrestrial Energy USA; Third Way;
Transatomic Power Corporation; Tri Alpha Power; United States Nuclear
Infrastructure Council; UC Berkeley's Nuclear Engineering Department;
University of Idaho; University of Michigan Nuclear Engineering and
Radiological Sciences; URENCO USA; and X Energy, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectives of the Legislation
The objective of S. 2795 is 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, and to
establish a DOE program to provide cost-shared grants to fund a
portion of advanced reactor applicants' pre-application and
application review activities during licensing to reduce the
cost burden of NRC licensing.
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 and
developing the regulatory framework necessary to enable the
licensing of advanced nuclear reactors.
Sec. 4. Definitions
This section provides definitions for terms used in the
legislation.
Sec. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission user fees and annual charges
through fiscal year 2018
(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, 2018, to enable
its replacement with the reformed budget and fee structure
provided in Section 6.
Sec. 6. Nuclear Regulatory Commission User fees and annual charges for
fiscal year 2019 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 2019 and decreasing one
percent every two years, until reaching 20 percent in Fiscal
Year 2023 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 the Commission's most recent final fee recovery
rule in place at the time S. 2795 was introduced and a slight
decrease from the all-time highest fee of $5.0 million.\20\ 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.\21\\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\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.
\21\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.
\22\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 Section 6 including any
impacts and recommendations for improvement.
(f) Effective Date.
Subsection (f) establishes an effective date for Section 6
of October 1, 2018. This date was selected to allow the
Commission time to implement these provisions through the
normal budget and appropriations process.
Sec. 7. 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 licensing feasibility
statement. 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 2023 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 2023;
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. 8. Advanced Nuclear Energy Licensing Cost-Share Grant Program.
(a) Establishment.
Subsection (a) 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.
(b) Requirement.
Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to seek out technology
diversity in awarding grants.
(c) Cost-share Amount.
Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to determine the cost-
share amount for each grant.
(d) Use of Funds.
Subsection (d) stipulates that recipients may use grant
funds to cover Commission fees associated with:
Developing a licensing project plan;
Obtaining a statement of licensing
feasibility;
Review of topical reports; and
Other pre-application and application review
activities and interactions with the Commission.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.
Subsection (e) authorizes appropriations in such sums as
may be necessary to carry out Section 8.
Sec. 9. Uranium recovery report
Section 9 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.
Legislative History
On April 13, 2016, Senators Inhofe, Booker,
Whitehouse, and Crapo introduced S. 2795: the Nuclear
Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.
On April 21, 2016, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air
and Nuclear Safety held a legislative hearing entitled,
``Enabling Advanced Reactors and a Legislative Hearing
on S. 2795, ``the Nuclear Energy Innovation and
Modernization Act.''
On May 18, 2016, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works met to consider S. 2795
and ordered the bill favorably reported with a roll
call vote of 17 ayes and 3 nays.
Hearings
April 15, 2015
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held
an oversight hearing entitled, ``The President's FY 2016 Budget
Request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.'' Testimony was
received from the Commission:
Stephen Burns, Chairman
Kristine Svinicki, Commissioner
William Ostendorff, Commissioner
Jeff Baran, Commissioner
October 7, 2015
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held
an oversight hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.'' Testimony was received from the
Commission:
Stephen Burns, Chairman
Kristine Svinicki, Commissioner
William Ostendorff, Commissioner
Jeff Baran, Commissioner
April 6, 2016
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held
an oversight hearing entitled, ``The President's FY 2017 Budget
Request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.'' Testimony was
received from the Commission:
Stephen Burns, Chairman
Kristine Svinicki, Commissioner
William Ostendorff, Commissioner
Jeff Baran, Commissioner APRIL 21, 2016
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety held a legislative
hearing entitled, ``Enabling Advanced Reactors and a
Legislative Hearing on S. 2795, ``the Nuclear Energy Innovation
and Modernization Act.'' Testimony was received from the
following witnesses:
Victor McCree, Executive Director of
Operations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield,
Chairman, USNIC Advanced Reactor Task Force
Maria Korsnick, Chief Operating Officer,
Nuclear Energy Institute
Dr. Ashley Finan, Ph.D., Project Director
for Advanced Energy Systems, Clean Air Task Force
Christina A. Back, Division Director,
Inertial Fusion and Advanced Fission, General Atomics
Edwin Lyman, PhD, Senior Scientist, Global
Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists
Rollcall Votes
The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to
consider S. 2795 on May 18, 2016. The Committee did not agree
to an amendment offered by Sen. Gillibrand by a roll call vote
of 9 ayes and 11 nays. Voting in favor were Senators Boxer,
Carper, Cardin, Sanders, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand,
Booker, and Markey. Voting against the amendment were Senators
Inhofe, Vitter, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, Boozman, Sessions,
Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, and Sullivan. Subsequently, the bill
was ordered reported favorably by a roll call vote of 17 ayes
and 3 nays. Voting in favor were Senators Inhofe, Vitter,
Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, Boozman, Sessions, Wicker, Fischer,
Rounds, Sullivan, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Booker,
and Markey. Voting against were Senators Boxer, Sanders, and
Gillibrand.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee finds that S. 2795
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 notes that the Congressional
Budget Office has determined that S. 2795 contains no
intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose
no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be
included in the report. That statement follows:
June 22, 2016.
Hon. Jim Inhofe,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2795, the Nuclear
Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
S. 2795--Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act
Summary: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses
and regulates the use of radioactive materials at civilian
facilities, including nuclear reactors. S. 2795 would direct
the NRC to undertake certain activities related to establishing
a regulatory framework for licensing advanced reactors with
significant design improvements over existing commercial
reactors. The bill also would modify the NRC's authority to
charge regulatory fees to entities that hold or apply for NRC
licenses.
Based on information from the NRC, CBO estimates that
implementing S. 2795 would cost $47 million over the 2017-2021
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Pay-
as-you-go procedures do not apply to this legislation because
enacting it would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO
estimates that enacting S. 2795 would not increase net direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2027.
S. 2795 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of S. 2795 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 270
(energy).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2017-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 10 10 10 10 10 50
Estimated Outlays....................................... 7 9 10 10 10 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
2795 will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2017 and
that amounts estimated to be necessary will be provided at the
start of each year. Estimated outlays are based on historical
spending patterns for NRC activities.
Funding for the NRC--which totals approximately $1 billion
in 2016--is provided in annual appropriation acts. Under
current law, the agency is required to recover most of its
funding through fees charged to licensees and applicants; CBO
estimates that such fees, which are classified as discretionary
offsetting collections, will total nearly $900 million this
year.
S. 2795 would require the NRC to complete a rulemaking, by
December 31, 2023, to establish a regulatory framework for
licensing advanced nuclear reactors, defined in the bill as
reactors that involve significant technological improvements
relative to those currently being constructed. The bill
specifies that any funding provided to the NRC prior to January
1, 2030, for activities related to developing that framework
would be excluded from the portion of the agency's budget that
is offset by fees the NRC collects. In addition, starting in
2019, the bill would modify the existing formula used to
determine the amount of such fees.
Based on information from the NRC about the anticipated
costs involved with establishing the proposed licensing regime
through a new rule, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2795
would cost $47 million over the 2017-2021 period, mostly for
salaries and expenses for technical experts required to develop
the necessary analyses and regulations. Under the bill, such
amounts would not be offset by regulatory fees.
In addition, CBO expects that the proposed change to the
formula used to set regulatory fees charged by the NRC could
change the amount of such fees collected in future years.
Under both current law and S. 2795, the amount of such fees
would depend on the level of funding provided for a range of
specific NRC activities. Because CBO has no basis for
predicting how much funding will be provided for such
activities in future years, CBO cannot determine whether the
resulting fees would be higher or lower under S. 2795 than
under current law.
Finally, S. 2795 would authorize the Department of Energy
to provide grants to pay for a portion of the fees that the NRC
would charge to entities that apply for licenses for advanced
reactors. The potential cost of such grants is uncertain and
would depend on the magnitude of fees charged by the NRC, which
could vary widely based on the scope of work associated with
individual projects. Based on information from the nuclear
industry about the likely timeframe for processing applications
for such licenses, CBO expects that any spending for such
grants (which would be subject to appropriation) would occur
after the 2017-2021 period covered by this estimate.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that enacting S. 2795 would not increase net direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2027.
Intergovermental and private-sector impact: S. 2795
contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
Previous CBO estimate: On June 10, 2016, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for H.R. 4979, the Advanced Nuclear Technology
Development Act of 2016, as ordered reported by the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 18, 2016. H.R. 4979
would require the NRC to develop, but not implement, a plan for
establishing a regulatory framework for advanced reactors.
Because S. 2795 also would require the agency to implement such
a framework, our estimate of discretionary costs under the
Senate bill is greater.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Megan Carroll; Impact
on state, local, and tribal governments: Jon Sperl; Impact on
the private sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR WHITEHOUSE
As an original cosponsor, I support the goals of S. 2795. I
want to ensure the record reflects the position of the Union of
Concerned Scientists communicated to me by Mr. Robert Cowin,
Director of Government Affairs, Climate, and Energy as follows:
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.
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)
[Public Law 101-508]
[As Amended Through P.L. 109-103, Enacted November 19, 2005]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1990''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
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 a regulatory framework for advanced
nuclear reactor technologies, including
activities required under section 7 of
the Nuclear Energy Innovation and
Modernization Act.
* * * * * * *
[all]