H. R. 2810—622 
(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The term 
‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’ means the following: 
(A) The congressional defense committees. 
(B) The Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
House of Representatives. 
(C) The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
of the Senate. 
(2) COVERED DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE.—The term ‘‘covered 
defense nuclear waste’’ means radioactive waste that resulted 
from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel that was generated 
from atomic energy defense activities and that— 
(A) contains more than 100 nCi/g of alpha-emitting 
transuranic isotopes with half-lives greater than 20 years; 
or 
(B) may be classified, managed, treated, and disposed 
of, regardless of origin or previous classification, as other 
than high-level radioactive waste. 
SEC. 3140. IMPROVED REPORTING FOR ANTI-SMUGGLING RADIATION 
DETECTION SYSTEMS. 
(a) ANNUAL REPORT.—Together with the submission to Con-
gress of the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 
31, United States Code, for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2021, 
the Administrator for Nuclear Security shall submit to the congres-
sional defense committees a report regarding any anti-smuggling 
radiation detection systems that the Administrator proposes to 
deploy during the fiscal year covered by the budget. 
(b) MATTERS INCLUDED.—Each report under subsection (a) shall 
include the following: 
(1) The probability of detection for the anti-smuggling radi-
ation detection systems covered by the report against realistic 
potential smuggling threats, including shielded and unshielded 
uranium, plutonium, and other special nuclear material. 
(2) The costs associated with the deployments of such sys-
tems, including costs to the United States and costs to any 
host country. 
(3) Options for technological advances that would make 
radiation detection less expensive or more effective. 
(4) The benefits to the national security of the United 
States resulting from the deployments of such systems. 
SEC. 3141. PLUTONIUM CAPABILITIES. 
(a) REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator for Nuclear Security shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees and the Secretary 
of Defense a report on the recommended alternative endorsed by 
the Administrator for recapitalization of plutonium science and 
production capabilities of the nuclear security enterprise. The report 
shall identify the recommended alternative endorsed by the 
Administrator and contain the analysis of alternatives, including 
costs, upon which the Administrator relied in making such endorse-
ment. 
(b) CERTIFICATION.—Not later than 60 days after the date on 
which the Secretary of Defense receives the report required by 
subsection (a), the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees the written certifi-
cation of the Chairman regarding whether—
H. R. 2810—623 
(1) the recommended alternative described in subsection 
(a)— 
(A) is acceptable to the Secretary of Defense and the 
Nuclear Weapons Council and meets the requirements of 
the Secretary for plutonium pit production capacity and 
capability; 
(B) is likely to meet the pit production timelines and 
milestones required by section 4219 of the Atomic Energy 
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2538a); 
(C) is likely to meet pit production timelines and 
requirements responsive to military requirements; 
(D) is cost effective and has reasonable near-term and 
lifecycle costs that are minimized, to the extent practicable, 
as compared to other alternatives; 
(E) contains minimized and manageable risks as com-
pared to other alternatives; and 
(F) can be acceptably reconciled with any differences 
in the conclusions made by the Office of Cost Assessment 
and Program Evaluation of the Department of Defense 
in the business case analysis of plutonium pit production 
capability issued in 2013; and 
(2) the Administrator has— 
(A) documented the assumptions and constraints used 
in the analysis of alternatives described in subsection (a); 
and 
(B) tested and documented the sensitivity of the cost 
estimates for each alternative to risks and changes in key 
assumptions. 
(c) ASSESSMENT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Director for Cost Estimating 
and Program Evaluation of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration shall provide to the congressional defense 
committees a briefing containing the assessment of the Director 
of the analysis of alternatives described in subsection (a). 
(2) ELEMENTS.—The briefing required by paragraph (1) 
shall include— 
(A) descriptions of the scope, risks, and costs for alter-
natives not considered in the analysis of alternatives that 
the Director deems viable; and 
(B) any views of the Administrator regarding such 
alternatives. 
(d) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO IDENTIFY RECOMMENDED ALTER-
NATIVE.—The Administrator shall carry out the modular building 
strategy (as defined in section 3114(c)(3) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (50 U.S.C. 2535 note)) at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, if, by 
the date that is 150 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act— 
(1) the Administrator has not identified, in the report 
required by subsection (a), the recommended alternative pro-
posed by the Administrator for recapitalization of plutonium 
science and production capabilities of the nuclear security enter-
prise; or 
(2) the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council has 
not certified under subsection (b) that the recommended alter-
native proposed by the Administrator meets the criteria
H. R. 2810—624 
described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) 
of that subsection. 
(e) NUCLEAR SECURITY ENTERPRISE DEFINED.—In this section, 
the term ‘‘nuclear security enterprise’’ has the meaning given that 
term in section 4002 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 
2501). 
SEC. 3142. REPORT ON CRITICAL DECISION 1 ON MATERIAL STAGING 
FACILITY PROJECT. 
Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator for Nuclear Security shall submit to 
the congressional defense committees a report containing the fol-
lowing: 
(1) The decision memorandum of the Administrator with 
respect to critical decision 1 in the acquisition process for 
the Material Staging Facility project at the Pantex Plant, Ama-
rillo, Texas. 
(2) The preferred alternative approved by the Adminis-
trator for such critical decision 1. 
(3) The cost-range estimates for such critical decision 1, 
including a description of the costs saved or avoided from 
not carrying out recapitalization and sustainment of Area 4 
at the Pantex Plant. 
(4) The schedule-range estimates for such critical decision 
1 that include completion of the Material Staging Facility by 
2024. 
(5) The risk factors and risk mitigation and management 
options relating to the Material Staging Facility. 
(6) The expected improvements to operations and security 
provided by the Material Staging Facility, once operational, 
including the potential annual cost savings. 
(7) Such other matters as the Administrator considers 
appropriate. 
SEC. 3143. PLAN TO FURTHER MINIMIZE THE USE OF HIGHLY 
ENRICHED URANIUM FOR MEDICAL ISOTOPES. 
(a) PLAN.—The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State, shall develop and assess a plan, including with 
respect to the benefits, risks, costs, and opportunities of the plan, 
to— 
(1) take additional actions to promote the wider utilization 
of molybdenum-99 and technetium-99m produced without the 
use of highly enriched uranium targets, such as, at a minimum, 
by— 
(A) eliminating the availability of highly enriched ura-
nium for molybdenum-99 by buying back United States- 
origin highly enriched uranium in raw or target form from 
global molybdenum-99 suppliers; and 
(B) restricting or placing financial penalties on the 
import of molybdenum-99 produced with highly enriched 
uranium targets; 
(2) work with global molybdenum suppliers and regulators 
to reduce the proliferation hazard from reprocessing waste from 
medical isotope production containing United States-origin 
highly enriched uranium; and 
(3) ensure an adequate supply of molybdenum-99 and tech-
netium-99 at all times, and both assess and mitigate any risks
H. R. 2810—625 
to such supply during a transition to production without the 
use of highly enriched uranium. 
(b) SUBMISSION.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than April 1, 2018, the Sec-
retary of Energy shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
committees a report containing the plan and assessment under 
subsection (a). 
(2) FORM.—The report under paragraph (1) shall be sub-
mitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. 
(3) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.— 
In this subsection, the term ‘‘appropriate congressional commit-
tees’’ means— 
(A) the congressional defense committees; 
(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Com-
mittee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Represent-
atives; and 
(C) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Com-
mittee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate. 
Subtitle D—Other Matters 
SEC. 3151. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COMPENSATION OF 
INDIVIDUALS 
RELATING 
TO 
URANIUM 
MINING 
AND 
NUCLEAR TESTING. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings: 
(1) The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 
2210 note) was enacted in 1990 to provide monetary compensa-
tion to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other 
serious diseases following their exposure to radiation released 
during atmospheric nuclear weapons testing during the Cold 
War or following exposure to radiation as a result of employ-
ment in the uranium industry during the Cold War. 
(2) The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensa-
tion Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq.) formally 
acknowledged the dangers to which some employees of sites 
of the Department of Energy and its vendors during the Cold 
War were exposed. That Act also acknowledged that, although 
establishing the link between occupational hazards and specific 
diseases can be difficult, scientific evidence exists to support 
the conclusion that some activities related to Cold War nuclear 
weapons production have resulted in increased risk of illness 
and death to workers. That Act established a formal process 
for the submission of claims for medical expenses and lump 
sum compensation for former employees and contractors and 
survivors of those former employees and contractors. 
(3) As of the date of the enactment of this Act, more 
than 145,775 claims have been paid out under the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act and the Energy Employees Occupa-
tional Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, for a total 
of at least $16,400,000,000 in lump sum compensation and 
medical expenses. 
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that 
the United States Government should appropriately compensate 
and recognize the employees, contractors, and other individuals 
described in subsection (a).