59–010 

Calendar 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 NuVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:03 Jun 25, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR285.XXX SR285

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

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. 2Pub. Law 106–377 (2000) and Pub. Law 109–58 (2005). 

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. 

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. 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. 

clear 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. 

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

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

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. 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

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. 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. 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. 

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

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. 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

12 Congressional Research Service Memorandum: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Net Appropriations Under S. 2795 and Current Law; June 10, 2016. 

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. 

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

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, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

13 EY report ‘‘Overhead Assessment: Nuclear Regulatory Commission’’; April 30, 2015. 14Todd Garvey, Congressional Research Service: ‘‘Interpretation of Section 6(a)(3) of S. 2795, 

the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act’’; May 10, 2016. 

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. Twentyeight 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

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, performancebased approaches will also allow the NRC to develop processes that 

are more flexible and applicable to the unique aspects of diverse 

technologies. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

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 16Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing, Nuclear Innovation Alliance, Ashley Finan, 

April 2016: http://media.wix.com/ugd/5b05b3l71d4011545234838aa27005ab7d757f1.pdf 17Public 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.’’ 19Letters 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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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.’’ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

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. 

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. 

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 procVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:03 Jun 25, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR285.XXX SR285

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

ess 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; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

• 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 LI- CENSING 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 TECH- NOLOGY-INCLUSIVE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR OPTION USE BY

COMMERCIAL ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES IN NEW

REACTOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS AND TO ENHANCE COMMISSION EX- PERTISE RELATING TO ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTOR TECH- NOLOGIES. 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

(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 ReVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:03 Jun 25, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR285.XXX SR285

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

quest 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

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 onbudget 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(16) 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

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 øblack 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.— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

(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; øand¿ 

(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 inspectionsø.¿ ; 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. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS