[House Report 111-658]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-658

======================================================================



 
          NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2010

                                _______
                                

 November 18, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5866]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 5866) to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requiring 
the Secretary of Energy to carry out initiatives to advance 
innovation in nuclear energy technologies, to make nuclear 
energy systems more competitive, to increase efficiency and 
safety of civilian nuclear power, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Bill............................................................2
  II. Purpose.........................................................8
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................8
  IV. Hearing Summary.................................................8
   V. Committee Actions..............................................10
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, as Reported...........12
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis....................................14
VIII. Committee Views................................................18
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................19
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................19
  XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4...............................20
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............20
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........20
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................20
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................20
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................20
XVII. Earmark Identification.........................................21
XVIII.Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........21

 XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........21
  XX. Committee Recommendations......................................29
 XXI. Additional Views...............................................30
XXII. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup.........................33
XXIII.Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................91


                                I. Bill

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear Energy Research and 
Development Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. OBJECTIVES.

  Section 951(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16271(a)) 
is amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (8) as paragraphs 
        (5) through (11), respectively;
          (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
        paragraphs:
          ``(2) Reducing the costs of nuclear reactor systems.
          ``(3) Reducing used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste products 
        generated by civilian nuclear energy.
          ``(4) Supporting technological advances in areas that 
        industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of 
        technical and financial uncertainty.''; and
          (3) by inserting after paragraph (11), as so redesignated, 
        the following new paragraph:
          ``(12) Researching and developing technologies and processes 
        so as to improve and streamline the process by which nuclear 
        power systems meet Federal and State requirements and 
        standards.''.

SEC. 3. FUNDING.

  Section 951 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16271) is 
further amended--
          (1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) 
        and inserting the following:
          ``(1) $419,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
          ``(2) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
          ``(3) $439,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.''; and
          (2) in subsection (d)--
                  (A) by striking ``under subsection (a)'' and 
                inserting ``under subsection (b)'';
                  (B) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
          ``(1) For activities under section 953--
                  ``(A) $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  ``(B) $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  ``(C) $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.''; and
                  (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following 
                new paragraphs:
          ``(4) For activities under section 952, other than those 
        described in section 952(d)--
                  ``(A) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  ``(B) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  ``(C) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
          ``(5) For activities under section 952(d)--
                  ``(A) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  ``(B) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  ``(C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
          ``(6) For activities under section 958--
                  ``(A) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  ``(B) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  ``(C) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.''.

SEC. 4. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES STUDY.

  Section 951 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16271) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(f) Program Objectives Study.--In furtherance of the program 
objectives listed in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary 
shall, within one year after the date of enactment of this subsection, 
transmit to the Congress a report on the results of a study on the 
scientific and technical merit of major State requirements and 
standards, including moratoria, that delay or impede the further 
development and commercialization of nuclear power, and how the Federal 
Government can assist in overcoming such delays or impediments.''.

SEC. 5. NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.

  Section 952 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16272) is 
amended by striking subsections (c) through (e) and inserting the 
following:
  ``(c) Reactor Concepts.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a program of 
        research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
        application to advance nuclear power systems as well as 
        technologies to sustain currently deployed systems.
          ``(2) Designs and technologies.--In conducting the program 
        under this subsection, the Secretary shall examine advanced 
        reactor designs and nuclear technologies, including those 
        that--
                  ``(A) are economically competitive with other 
                electric power generation plants;
                  ``(B) have higher efficiency, lower cost, and 
                improved safety compared to reactors in operation as of 
                the date of enactment of the Nuclear Energy Research 
                and Development Act of 2010;
                  ``(C) utilize passive safety features;
                  ``(D) minimize proliferation risks;
                  ``(E) substantially reduce production of high-level 
                waste per unit of output;
                  ``(F) increase the life and sustainability of reactor 
                systems currently deployed;
                  ``(G) use improved instrumentation;
                  ``(H) are capable of producing large-scale quantities 
                of hydrogen or process heat; or
                  ``(I) minimize water usage or use alternatives to 
                water as a cooling mechanism.
          ``(3) International cooperation.--In carrying out the program 
        under this subsection, the Secretary shall seek opportunities 
        to enhance the progress of the program through international 
        cooperation through such organizations as the Generation IV 
        International Forum, or any other international collaboration 
        the Secretary considers appropriate.
          ``(4) Exceptions.--No funds authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out the activities described in this subsection shall be 
        used to fund the activities authorized under sections 641 
        through 645.''.

SEC. 6. SMALL MODULAR REACTOR PROGRAM.

  Section 952 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16272) is 
further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(d) Small Modular Reactor Program.--
          ``(1) In general.--
                  ``(A) The Secretary shall carry out a small modular 
                reactor program to promote research, development, 
                demonstration, and commercial application of small 
                modular reactors, including through cost-shared 
                projects for commercial application of reactor systems 
                designs.
                  ``(B) The Secretary shall consult with and utilize 
                the expertise of the Secretary of the Navy in 
                establishing and carrying out such program.
                  ``(C) Activities may also include development of 
                advanced computer modeling and simulation tools, by 
                Federal and non-Federal entities, which demonstrate and 
                validate new design capabilities of innovative small 
                modular reactor designs.
          ``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, the 
        term `small modular reactor' means a nuclear reactor--
                  ``(A) with a rated capacity of less than 300 
                electrical megawatts;
                  ``(B) with respect to which most parts can be factory 
                assembled and shipped as modules to a reactor plant 
                site for assembly; and
                  ``(C) that can be constructed and operated in 
                combination with similar reactors at a single site.
          ``(3) Limitation.--Demonstration activities carried out under 
        this section shall be limited to individual technologies and 
        systems, and shall not include demonstration of full reactor 
        systems or full plant operations.
          ``(4) Administration.--In conducting the small modular 
        reactor program, the Secretary may enter into cooperative 
        agreements to support small modular reactor designs that 
        enable--
                  ``(A) lower capital costs or increased access to 
                private financing in comparison to current large 
                reactor designs;
                  ``(B) reduced long-term radiotoxicity, mass, or decay 
                heat of the nuclear waste produced by generation;
                  ``(C) increased operating safety of nuclear 
                facilities;
                  ``(D) reduced dependence of reactor systems on water 
                resources;
                  ``(E) increased seismic resistance of nuclear 
                generation;
                  ``(F) reduced proliferation risks through integrated 
                safeguards and security proliferation controls; and
                  ``(G) increased efficiency in reactor manufacturing 
                and construction.
          ``(5) Application.--To be eligible to enter into a 
        cooperative agreement with the Secretary under this subsection, 
        an applicant shall submit to the Secretary a proposal for the 
        small modular reactor project to be undertaken. The proposal 
        shall document--
                  ``(A) all partners and suppliers that will be active 
                in the small modular reactor project, including a 
                description of each partner or supplier's anticipated 
                domestic and international activities;
                  ``(B) measures to be undertaken to enable cost-
                effective implementation of the small modular reactor 
                project;
                  ``(C) an accounting structure approved by the 
                Secretary;
                  ``(D) all known assets that shall be contributed to 
                satisfy the cost-sharing requirement under paragraph 
                (6); and
                  ``(E) the extent to which the proposal will increase 
                domestic manufacturing activity, exports, or 
                employment.
          ``(6) Cost sharing.--Notwithstanding section 988, the 
        Secretary shall require the parties to a cooperative agreement 
        under this subsection to be responsible for not less than 50 
        percent of the costs of the small modular reactor project.
          ``(7) Calculation of cost sharing amount.--A recipient of 
        financial assistance under this section may not satisfy the 
        cost sharing requirement under paragraph (6) by using funds 
        received from the Federal Government through appropriation 
        Acts.
          ``(8) Project selection criteria.--The Secretary shall 
        consider the following factors in entering into a cooperative 
        agreement under this subsection:
                  ``(A) The domestic manufacturing capabilities of the 
                parties to the cooperative agreement and their partners 
                and suppliers.
                  ``(B) The viability of the reactor design and the 
                business plan or plans of the parties to the 
                cooperative agreement.
                  ``(C) The parties to the cooperative agreement's 
                potential to continue the development of small modular 
                reactors without Federal subsidies or loan guarantees.
                  ``(D) The cost share to be provided.
                  ``(E) The degree to which the following goals will be 
                advanced:
                          ``(i) Lower capital costs or increased access 
                        to private financing in comparison to current 
                        large reactor designs.
                          ``(ii) Reduced long-term radiotoxicity, mass, 
                        or decay heat of the nuclear waste produced by 
                        generation.
                          ``(iii) Increased operating safety of nuclear 
                        facilities.
                          ``(iv) Reduced dependence of reactor systems 
                        on water resources.
                          ``(v) Increased seismic resistance of nuclear 
                        generation.
                          ``(vi) Reduced proliferation risks through 
                        integrated safeguards and security 
                        proliferation controls.
                          ``(vii) Increased efficiency in reactor 
                        manufacturing and construction.''.

SEC. 7. CONVENTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

  Section 952 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16272) is 
further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(e) Conventional Improvements to Nuclear Power Plants.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a Nuclear 
        Energy Research Initiative for research and development related 
        to steam-side improvements to nuclear power plants to promote 
        the research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
        application of--
                  ``(A) cooling systems;
                  ``(B) turbine technologies;
                  ``(C) heat exchangers and pump design;
                  ``(D) special coatings to improve lifetime of 
                components and performance of heat exchangers; and
                  ``(E) advanced power conversion systems for advanced 
                reactor technologies.
          ``(2) Administration.--The Secretary may undertake 
        initiatives under this subsection only when the goals are 
        relevant and proper to enhance the performance of technologies 
        developed under subsection (c). Not more than $10,000,000 of 
        funds authorized for this section may be used for carrying out 
        this subsection.''.

SEC. 8. FUEL CYCLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

  (a) Amendments.--Section 953 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 
U.S.C. 16273) is amended--
          (1) in the section heading by striking ``ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE 
        INITIATIVE'' and inserting ``FUEL CYCLE RESEARCH AND 
        DEVELOPMENT'';
          (2) by striking subsection (a);
          (3) by redesignating subsections (b) through (d) as 
        subsections (e) through (g), respectively; and
          (4) by inserting before subsection (e), as so redesignated by 
        paragraph (3) of this subsection, the following new 
        subsections:
  ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a fuel cycle research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application program 
(referred to in this section as the `program') on fuel cycle options 
that improve uranium resource utilization, maximize energy generation, 
minimize nuclear waste creation, improve safety, mitigate risk of 
proliferation, and improve waste management in support of a national 
strategy for spent nuclear fuel and the reactor concepts research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application program under 
section 952(c).
  ``(b) Fuel Cycle Options.--Under this section the Secretary may 
consider implementing the following initiatives:
          ``(1) Open cycle.--Developing fuels, including the use of 
        nonuranium materials, for use in reactors that increase energy 
        generation and minimize the amount of nuclear waste produced in 
        an open fuel cycle.
          ``(2) Modified open cycle.--Developing fuel forms, reactors, 
        and limited separation and transmutation methods that increase 
        fuel utilization and reduce nuclear waste in a modified open 
        fuel cycle.
          ``(3) Full recycle.--Developing advanced recycling 
        technologies, including Generation IV Reactors, to reduce the 
        risk of proliferation, radiotoxicity, mass, and decay heat to 
        the greatest extent possible.
          ``(4) Advanced storage methods.--Developing advanced storage 
        technologies for both onsite and long-term storage that 
        substantially prolong the effective life of current storage 
        devices or that substantially improve upon existing nuclear 
        waste storage technologies and methods, including repositories.
          ``(5) Alternative and deep borehole storage methods.--
        Developing alternative storage methods for long-term storage, 
        including deep boreholes into stable crystalline rock 
        formations and mined repositories in a range of geologic media.
          ``(6) Other technologies.--Developing any other technology or 
        initiative that the Secretary determines is likely to advance 
        the objectives of the program established under subsection (a).
  ``(c) Additional Advanced Recycling and Crosscutting Activities.--In 
addition to and in support of the specific initiatives described in 
paragraphs (1) through (6), the Secretary may support the following 
activities:
          ``(1) Development and testing of integrated process flow 
        sheets for advanced nuclear fuel recycling processes.
          ``(2) Research to characterize the byproducts and waste 
        streams resulting from fuel recycling processes.
          ``(3) Research and development on reactor concepts or 
        transmutation technologies that improve resource utilization or 
        reduce the radiotoxicity of waste streams.
          ``(4) Research and development on waste treatment processes 
        and separations technologies, advanced waste forms, and 
        quantification of proliferation risks.
          ``(5) Identification and evaluation of test and experimental 
        facilities necessary to successfully implement the advanced 
        fuel cycle initiative.
          ``(6) Advancement of fuel cycle-related modeling and 
        simulation capabilities.
  ``(d) Blue Ribbon Commission Report.--
          ``(1) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give 
        consideration to the final report on a long-term nuclear waste 
        solution produced by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's 
        Nuclear Future.
          ``(2) Not later than 180 days after the release of the Blue 
        Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future final report, the 
        Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report, which shall 
        include--
                  ``(A) any plans the Department may have to 
                incorporate any relevant recommendations from this 
                report into the program; and
                  ``(B) how those recommendations for long-term nuclear 
                waste solutions that will be incorporated into the plan 
                compare with plans for a long-term nuclear waste 
                solution of a repository at Yucca Mountain, that may or 
                may not be incorporated into the plan, with regard to 
                the safety, security, legal, cost, and technological 
                and site readiness factors associated with any 
                recommendations related to final disposition pathways 
                for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 
                to the same factors associated with permanent deep 
                geological disposal at the Yucca Mountain waste 
                repository.
          ``(3) The analysis described in paragraph (2)(B) shall be 
        conducted using scientific and technical materials and 
        information used to support policy actions related to the Yucca 
        Mountain project.''.
  (b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 953 in the 
table of contents of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is amended to read 
as follows:

``Sec. 953. Fuel cycle research and development.''.

SEC. 9. NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM.

  (a) Amendment.--Subtitle E of title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16271 et seq.) is amended by adding at the following 
new section:

``SEC. 958. NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES.

  ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a program to support 
the integration of activities undertaken through the reactor concepts 
research, development, demonstration, and commercial application 
program under section 952(c) and the fuel cycle research and 
development program under section 953, and support crosscutting nuclear 
energy concepts. Activities commenced under this section shall be 
concentrated on broadly applicable research and development focus 
areas.
  ``(b) Activities.--Activities conducted under this section may 
include research involving--
          ``(1) advanced reactor materials;
          ``(2) advanced radiation mitigation methods;
          ``(3) advanced proliferation and security risk assessment 
        methods;
          ``(4) advanced sensors and instrumentation;
          ``(5) advanced nuclear manufacturing methods; or
          ``(6) any crosscutting technology or transformative concept 
        aimed at establishing substantial and revolutionary 
        enhancements in the performance of future nuclear energy 
        systems that the Secretary considers relevant and appropriate 
        to the purpose of this section.
  ``(c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit, as part of the annual 
budget submission of the Department, a report on the activities of the 
program conducted under this section, which shall include a brief 
evaluation of each activity's progress.''.
  (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 is amended by adding at the end of the items for subtitle E 
of title IX the following new item:

``Sec. 958. Nuclear energy enabling technologies.''.

SEC. 10. EMERGENCY RISK ASSESSMENT AND PREPAREDNESS REPORT.

  Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report summarizing 
quantitative risks associated with the potential of a severe accident 
arising from the use of civilian nuclear energy technology, including 
reactor technology deployed or likely to be deployed as of the date of 
enactment of this Act, and outlining the technologies currently 
available to mitigate the consequences of such an accident. The report 
shall include recommendations of areas of technological development 
that should be pursued to reduce the potential public harm arising from 
such an incident.

SEC. 11. NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR PLANT.

  (a) Prototype Plant Location.--Section 642(b)(3) of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16022(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(3) Prototype plant location.--The prototype nuclear 
        reactor and associated plant shall be constructed at a location 
        determined by the consortium through an open and transparent 
        competitive selection process.''.
  (b) Report.--
          (1) Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit 
        to the Congress a report providing a status update of the Next 
        Generation Nuclear Plant program that provides analysis of--
                  (A) its progress;
                  (B) how Federal funds appropriated for the project 
                have been distributed and spent; and
                  (C) the current and expected participation by non-
                Federal entities.
          (2) Contents.--The report shall include--
                  (A) an analysis of the proposed facility's technical 
                capabilities and remaining technological development 
                challenges, and a cost estimate and construction 
                schedule;
                  (B) an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages 
                of funding a pilot-scale research reactor project in 
                lieu of a full-scale commercial power reactor;
                  (C) an assessment of alternative construction sites 
                proposed by private industry;
                  (D) an assessment of the extent to which the 
                Department of Energy is working with industry and the 
                Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure that the Next 
                Generation Nuclear Plant program meets industry 
                expectations for long-term application of technologies 
                and addresses potential licensing procedures for 
                deployment;
                  (E) an assessment of the known or anticipated 
                challenges to securing private non-Federal cost share 
                funds and any measures to overcome these challenges, 
                including any alternative funding approaches such as 
                front loading the Federal share;
                  (F) an assessment of project risks, including those 
                related to--
                          (i) project scope, schedule, and resources;
                          (ii) the formation of partnerships or 
                        agreements between the Department and the 
                        private sector necessary for the project's 
                        success; and
                          (iii) the Department's capabilities to 
                        identify and manage such risks; and
                  (G) an assessment of what is known about the 
                potential impact of natural gas and other fossil fuel 
                prices on private entity participation in the project.

SEC. 12. TECHNICAL STANDARDS COLLABORATION.

  (a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology shall establish a nuclear energy standards committee (in 
this section referred to as the ``technical standards committee'') to 
facilitate and support, consistent with the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, the development or revision of 
technical standards for new and existing nuclear power plants and 
advanced nuclear technologies.
  (b) Membership.--
          (1) In general.--The technical standards committee shall 
        include representatives from appropriate Federal agencies and 
        the private sector, and be open to materially affected 
        organizations involved in the development or application of 
        nuclear energy-related standards.
          (2) Co-chairs.--The technical standards committee shall be 
        co-chaired by a representative from the National Institute of 
        Standards and Technology and a representative from a private 
        sector standards organization.
  (c) Duties.--The technical standards committee shall, in cooperation 
with appropriate Federal agencies--
          (1) perform a needs assessment to identify and evaluate the 
        technical standards that are needed to support nuclear energy, 
        including those needed to support new and existing nuclear 
        power plants and advanced nuclear technologies;
          (2) formulate, coordinate, and recommend priorities for the 
        development of new technical standards and the revision of 
        existing technical standards to address the needs identified 
        under paragraph (1);
          (3) facilitate and support collaboration and cooperation 
        among standards developers to address the needs and priorities 
        identified under paragraphs (1) and (2);
          (4) as appropriate, coordinate with other national, regional, 
        or international efforts on nuclear energy-related technical 
        standards in order to avoid conflict and duplication and to 
        ensure global compatibility; and
          (5) promote the establishment and maintenance of a database 
        of nuclear energy-related technical standards.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2013 to 
the Director of the National Institute for Standards and Technology for 
activities under this section.

SEC. 13. EVALUATION OF LONG-TERM OPERATING NEEDS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academies to conduct an evaluation of the 
scientific and technological challenges to the long-term maintenance 
and safe operation of currently deployed nuclear power reactors up to 
and beyond the specified design-life of reactor systems.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress, and make 
publically available, the results of the evaluation undertaken by the 
Academies pursuant to subsection (a).

SEC. 14. AVAILABLE FACILITIES DATABASE.

  The Secretary of Energy shall prepare a database of non-Federal user 
facilities receiving Federal funds that may be used for unclassified 
nuclear energy research.   The Secretary shall make this database 
accessible on the Department of Energy's website.

SEC. 15. NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.

  Consistent with the requirements of current law, the Department of 
Energy shall be responsible for disposal of high-level radioactive 
waste or spent nuclear fuel generated by reactors under the programs 
authorized in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act.

                              II. Purpose

    The purpose of H.R. 5866, sponsored by Rep. Gordon, is to 
update the Department of Energy's nuclear energy research and 
development programs and provide necessary funding to advance 
nuclear technologies to adequately address the issues of high 
capital costs and waste management associated with nuclear 
power.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    Today in the United States there are 104 nuclear reactors 
producing approximately 20 percent of our nation's electricity 
supply and 70 percent of our emissions-free energy. However, 
nuclear power as it exists today relies on a ``once-through'' 
fuel cycle that produces high level radioactive waste from 
enriched uranium. In the United States, there exists a 
stockpile of approximately 63,000 metric tons of nuclear waste 
from reactors which generate roughly 2,000 more tons per year. 
Furthermore, the capital costs of nuclear plants have risen 
steeply and present a high hurdle to deployment of new 
reactors. Some have argued that without a fully developed 
strategy to deal with these challenges, nuclear power will be 
unable to compete with other fuel sources. Furthermore, in any 
carbon dioxide restrained regime, nuclear power will play a 
large role in energy production. To attain the 2030 reduction 
goals set in the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 
2454, the Energy Information Administration estimated that at 
least 96 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity would be needed.
    To address these challenges, the Nuclear Energy Research & 
Development Act of 2010 amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to 
modify and augment existing nuclear research and development 
programs at the Department of Energy. The primary goals of this 
bill are to mitigate the problems associated with nuclear waste 
and reduce the capital costs of nuclear power through a robust 
and integrated research, development, demonstration and 
commercial application program.

                          IV. Hearing Summary

    The Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on 
May 19th, 2010 to explore the Administration's strategy for 
research and development to advance clean and affordable 
nuclear technology. Amongst the issues considered were how the 
federal government will enhance the safety and economic 
viability of nuclear power and what programs it recommends for 
managing nuclear waste, advancing reactor design, sustaining 
the existing nuclear fleet, and minimizing risk of 
proliferation of nuclear materials.
    The hearing began with a presentation of the 
Administration's Nuclear Energy Research & Development Roadmap 
by Dr. Warren P. Miller, Assistant Secretary for the Office of 
Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy. Dr. Miller's 
testimony focused heavily on providing the Committee with the 
context in which the plan was developed as well as a rationale 
for the course of action advocated in the roadmap. Amongst many 
points discussed, was Dr. Miller's assessment of challenges 
facing increased use of nuclear power including capital cost, 
maintaining safety performance, mitigating any risks of 
proliferation, and high-level waste management.
    The Committee invited Christofer Mowry, President and CEO 
of Babcock and Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc. (B&W), to testify on 
Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology and the role they could 
play in addressing the challenges noted by Dr. Miller. B&W 
currently has an SMR design that is currently being considered 
for development by industry groups, and the company plans to 
submit its design for Nuclear Regulatory Commission evaluation 
by 2012. Mr. Mowry indicated that in order to address climate 
change nuclear power must continue to play a large role in the 
nation's energy portfolio. However, he noted that capital costs 
continue to undermine attempts by utilities to roll out new 
plants that incorporate new technologies. Mr. Mowry suggested 
that by scaling down the size of reactors the costs would be 
reduced through greater use of automation and fabrication 
methods as well as making a more incremental approach available 
to utilities.
    Also appearing before the Committee and commenting on 
capital cost alleviation by SMR designs was Mr. Gary 
Krellenstein, a managing Director in JP Morgan Chase & Co.'s 
Energy and Environmental Group. Mr. Krellenstein is a nuclear 
engineer by training and formerly worked at the Department of 
Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mr. Krellenstein 
was asked in his testimony to provide the viewpoint of private 
capital on the future of nuclear power and to discuss if he 
shared Mr. Mowry's optimism about SMR technologies. He 
suggested the smaller size and cost of SMRs give them several 
distinct advantages over conventional nuclear reactors. First, 
the construction of SMRs requires less capital, due to their 
size and other attributes, than conventional nuclear power 
plants. Second, the smaller capital requirements would allow a 
single company to build an SMR as opposed to the large and 
diverse consortium that can greatly complicate investors' 
required due diligence as well as their analysis of the 
management structure of what is already a complex undertaking. 
Third, the financing for large conventional nuclear plants 
require utilities to bear significant default risk such that 
the construction of each plant is essentially a ``bet the 
company'' event.
    Dr. Charles Ferguson, President of the Federation of 
American Scientists, suggested that SMRs if developed and 
deployed irresponsibly could give certain malicious agents 
greater access to nuclear materials. He highlighted that this 
is all the more concerning due to the development of SMR 
technologies by other foreign nations with less rigorous safety 
regimes than the U.S. To this end, Dr. Ferguson suggested the 
United States has an opportunity to clearly state the criteria 
for successful use of SMRs and should take a leadership role in 
setting the standards for safe, secure, and proliferation-
resistant SMRs that can compete in the market.
    Dr. Thomas L. Sanders, President of the American Nuclear 
Society, provided an overall evaluation of the Administration's 
Roadmap and indicated it was a thorough and well thought-out 
overview for the nation's nuclear energy research and 
development strategy. Dr. Sanders noted his support of the 
Roadmap's crosscutting approach to sustaining the current U.S. 
fleet of nuclear plants, developing new reactor designs and 
fuel cycles, ensuring a high level of operational safety, and 
minimizing the risks of proliferation. He noted that while the 
Roadmap is a good start and shows strong Administration 
engagement and support, he would urge the Congress to pass 
legislation giving DOE additional tools to accelerate 
deployment of next-generation reactors in order to meet 
environmental, national and economic security objectives in the 
next 10 to 20 years.
    Rounding out the witnesses was Dr. Mark Peters, Deputy 
Director for Programs at Argonne National Lab, who provided an 
examination of the Administration's strategy for development of 
waste management technologies. In addition to supporting the 
Roadmap's findings and provisions, Dr. Peters noted that any 
strategy should be executed as part of robust public-private 
partnerships involving the Department of Energy (DOE), its 
national laboratories, universities, and industry; and 
conducted with a sense of urgency and purpose consistent with 
the U.S. retaining its intellectual capital and leadership in 
the international nuclear energy community.
    The following related hearings were also held in the 110th 
and 111th Congresses:
    On June 17, 2009 a Full Committee hearing titled: Advancing 
Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What Should Our 
Research, Development and Demonstration Strategy Be? The 
purpose of this hearing was to explore the benefits and risks 
of nuclear waste recycling and address the technical challenges 
and policy objectives of a waste management strategy.
    On April 23, 2008 a Full Committee hearing titled: 
Opportunities and Challenges for Nuclear Power. The purpose of 
this hearing was to explore the potential for nuclear to 
increase its share of the U.S. energy mix, evaluate the 
capacity of DOE's programs to support and advance nuclear 
technologies, and to discuss the challenges of high capital 
costs, waste disposal, and proliferation concern.

                          V. Committee Actions

    On July 27, 2010 Chairman Bart Gordon introduced H.R. 5866, 
the Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 2010, with 
original cosponsors Brian Baird (D-WA), Ralph Hall (R-TX), and 
Bob Inglis (R-SC), and Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) cosponsoring 
after introduction. The bill was referred to the House 
Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment.
    On July 28, 2010 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
met to consider H.R. 5866. The following amendments were 
offered:
     Mr. Baird offered a Manager's amendment to make 
technical corrections and conforming changes and to clarify how 
the cost-share requirement included in the Small Modular 
Reactor program is to be calculated. The amendment was agreed 
to by voice vote.
     Ms. Biggert offered an amendment to include in the 
list of objectives of the bill researching and developing 
technologies and processes so as to improve and streamline the 
process by which nuclear power systems meet Federal and State 
requirements and standards. The amendment was agreed to by 
voice vote.
     Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment to require the 
Secretary to consult with and utilize the expertise of the 
Secretary of the Navy in carrying out the Small Modular Reactor 
program. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
     Mr. Lujan offered an amendment to include in the 
project selection criteria of the Small Modular Reactor program 
those factors the Secretary must evaluate according to the 
program's Administration section. The amendment was agreed to 
by voice vote.
     Ms. Biggert and Mr. Garamendi offered an amendment 
to require the Secretary to include additional advanced 
recycling and crosscutting activities. The amendment was agreed 
to by voice vote.
     Mr. Garamendi offered an amendment to require the 
Secretary to research recycling including integral fast 
reactors in the Full Recycle Program. The amendment was 
withdrawn.
     Mr. Inglis offered an amendment to require the 
Secretary to transmit a report to the Congress describing any 
plans to adopt recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission 
and to provide a response to each Blue Ribbon Commission 
recommendation, including a comparison to data from the Yucca 
Mountain Project. The amendment was withdrawn.
     Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to require the 
Secretary to enter into a contract with the National Academies 
to conduct an evaluation of workforce and facility upgrades 
needed for the safe and reliable long-term operation of the 
Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. The amendment was agreed 
to by voice vote.
     Mr. Matheson and Ms. Giffords offered an amendment 
to include minimization of water usage as a goal to be achieved 
by new technologies researched under the Small Modular Reactors 
program. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Inglis moved that the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment favorably report H.R. 5866, as amended, to the Full 
Committee. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.
    On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Science and 
Technology met to consider H.R. 5866. The following amendments 
were offered:
     Mr. Gordon offered a Manager's amendment to make 
technical corrections and conforming changes and to clarify the 
definition of Small Modular Reactor. The amendment was agreed 
to by voice vote.
     Mr. Bilbray offered an amendment to include a 
Program Objectives Study that will examine the scientific 
merits of major State requirements and standards and the effect 
they have on nuclear power development. The amendment was 
agreed to by voice vote.
     Mr. Tonko offered an amendment to allow the 
Secretary to carry out a program to research technologies 
related to steam-side improvements to nuclear power plants. The 
amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
     Mr. Garamendi offered an amendment to clarify the 
Full Recycle program including the objectives of reducing the 
risk of proliferation, radiotoxicity, mass and decay heat of 
waste. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
     Mr. Inglis offered an amendment to require the 
Secretary to present in the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) Report 
any plans the Department may have to incorporate 
recommendations from the BRC and an evaluation of how those 
recommendations compared to the Yucca Mountain Project. The 
amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
     Mr. Wu offered an amendment to require the 
Secretary to prepare and make publicly available a database of 
non-Federal user facilities receiving federal funds that may be 
used for unclassified nuclear energy research. The amendment 
was agreed to by voice vote.
     Mr. Sensenbrenner offered an amendment to require 
the Department of Energy to be responsible for disposal of 
high-level radioactive waste generated by reactors under the 
programs authorized in this Act. The amendment was agreed to by 
voice vote.
    Mr. Hall moved that the Committee on Science and Technology 
favorably reported H.R. 5866, as amended. The motion was agreed 
to by voice vote.

        VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, as Reported

    The proposed bill will authorize a reorganization of 
programs within the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear 
Energy to best effectuate a nuclear energy research and 
development strategy aimed at minimizing nuclear waste, 
reducing capital costs of nuclear power systems, and enhancing 
an already safe and proliferation resistant nuclear industry. 
To this end, this bill amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 
updates the relevant programs required to best achieve these 
primary objectives.
    This legislation requires the Secretary of Energy to 
develop a Reactor Concepts program in order to further advanced 
reactor research and development. Additionally, this program 
requires that initiatives be undertaken that seek to prolong 
the life of currently operating reactors. However, only those 
technologies that address certain key goals of the program may 
be researched. Those goals include development of technologies 
that are economically competitive with other electric power 
generation plants, have higher energy efficiency, lower cost 
and improved safety compared to current reactors, utilize 
passive safety systems, minimize proliferation risks, reduce 
production of high-level waste per unit of output, increase the 
life and sustainability of deployed reactor systems, use 
improved instrumentation, or are capable of producing large-
scale quantities of hydrogen or process heat.
    Also created by this bill is a Small Modular Reactor 
program to develop reactors with a size less than 300 MWe and 
can be assembled en masse in factories and used in combination 
with other similar small reactors. Work in this program is 
expected to result in small reactor technologies that, amongst 
other objectives, can lower capital costs and increase access 
to private financing for nuclear power projects. In conducting 
this program, the Secretary may enter into cooperative 
agreements to support development of SMR designs with eligible 
applicants as defined by the bill. Furthermore, this bill 
requires adherence to a cost-share requirement of 50% non-
federal funds.
    This Act will also update and streamline the advanced 
nuclear waste recycling activities at DOE under its Advanced 
Fuel Cycle Initiative program through adoption of a more 
advanced and well-rounded Fuel Cycle Research and Development 
program. This program aims to improve uranium resource 
utilization and waste management through research of three fuel 
cycle options now widely considered the most likely options for 
any national waste strategy that includes reprocessing. Those 
cycles are: open cycle; modified open cycle; and full recycle. 
In addition, this program will consider advanced and 
alternative storage methods. The Secretary is also required to 
make Congress aware of how any recommendations from the Blue 
Ribbon Commission of America's Nuclear Future will be adopted 
by the Office of Nuclear Energy. Furthermore, the Secretary 
must submit an analysis of how any plans implemented compare to 
the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
    Also included in this bill is the creation of a Nuclear 
Energy Enabling Technologies program to provide the 
programmatic infrastructure to develop cross cutting 
technologies and ensure coordination between the Reactor 
Concepts and Fuel Cycle Research and Development programs as 
well as between the Office of Nuclear Energy and the rest of 
the Department of Energy, including the Office of Science. 
Activities commenced under this program will be focused on 
broadly applicable research and development areas including but 
not limited to, advanced reactor materials, radiation 
mitigation methods, proliferation and security risk assessment 
methods, advanced sensors and instrumentation, and advanced 
manufacturing methods.
    In addition to these major programmatic provisions, this 
legislation requires the Secretary to assemble certain reports 
for Congress and the public that will provide needed oversight 
in a select number of areas. First, the Secretary is required 
to transmit to Congress a report summarizing the quantitative 
risks associated with the potential of a severe accident 
arising from civilian nuclear power use and providing an 
overview of technologies available to mitigate any such 
incident. Also, the Secretary will undertake a program 
objectives study analyzing how state requirements and standards 
might delay or impede further development of nuclear power. 
Furthermore, the Secretary is required to commission a National 
Academies study on the long-term operating needs of plants and 
their maintenance activities. Finally, the Secretary shall 
compile and make available to the public a list of all non-
Federal user facilities receiving Federal funds that may be 
used for unclassified nuclear energy research.
    With regards to the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) 
project currently under development, this legislation opens up 
the potential location of the reactor site to one determined by 
the consortium created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. To 
this end and for general oversight purposes, this bill also 
requires that the Government Accountability Office prepare a 
report on NGNP that includes its status and an analysis of 
factors that could be responsible for the delays in the 
project's development.
    The bill also requires that the Department of Energy be 
responsible for all waste created by the operation of nuclear 
reactors under the programs authorized by this Act.
    Finally, separate and apart from the requirements placed 
upon the Department of Energy, this bill authorizes the 
establishment of a nuclear energy standards committee at the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology to facilitate 
and support the development and revision of standards for 
nuclear power systems.

                    VII. Section-by-Section Analysis


     H.R. 5866--NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2010

Section 1. Short title

    Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 2010

Section 2. Objectives

    Amends Section 951(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to 
include the following objectives:
          (1) Reducing the costs of nuclear reactor systems
          (2) Reducing used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste 
        products generated by civilian nuclear energy
          (3) Supporting technological advances in areas that 
        industry is not likely to undertake because of 
        technical and financial uncertainty
          (4) Researching and developing technologies to 
        improve the process by which nuclear power systems 
        meets government requirements

Section 3. Funding

    Amends Section 951 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to 
provide the following authorizations for Subtitle E programs:
          A. Total Program's Authorization
                  (1) $419,000,000 for fiscal year 2011
                  (2) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  (3) $439,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
          B. Breakout of total Authorization for Activities 
        under Section 953 for the Fuel Cycle Research and 
        Development Program
                  (1) $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  (2) $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  (3) $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
          C. Breakout of total Authorization for Activities 
        under Section 952 for Nuclear Energy Research and 
        Development Programs other than those described in 
        952(d)
                  (1) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  (2) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  (3) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
          D. Breakout of total Authorization for Activities 
        under Section 952(d) for the Small Modular Reactor 
        Program
                  (1) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  (2) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  (3) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
          E. Breakout of total Authorization for Activities 
        under Section 958 for the Nuclear Energy Enabling 
        Technologies Program
                  (1) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  (2) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  (3) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

Section 4. Program objectives study

    This section requires the Secretary to report to Congress 
the results of a study on state requirements and standards that 
might delay or impede further development of nuclear power.

Section 5. Nuclear Energy Research and Development Programs

    This section amends Section 952 of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 by striking subsections (c) through (e) and inserting a 
Reactor Concepts Program that authorizes research into advanced 
reactor designs and technologies to prolong the life of 
currently deployed reactor systems. Technologies that may be 
researched under this section include those that are 
economically competitive with other electric power generation 
plants, have higher energy efficiency, lower cost and improved 
safety compared to current reactors, utilize passive safety 
systems, minimize proliferation risks, reduce production of 
high-level waste per unit of output, increase the life and 
sustainability of deployed reactor systems, use improved 
instrumentation, or are capable of producing large quantities 
of hydrogen or process heat. This section also requires the 
Secretary to seek opportunities for international cooperation.

Section 6. Small Modular Reactor Program

    This section amends Section 952 of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 by creating a Small Modular Reactor Program to promote the 
research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
application of small modular reactors (SMRs). Under this 
section, SMRs are defined as reactors with a rated capacity of 
300MWe or less and can be constructed and operated in 
combination with similar reactors at a single site.
    In conducting this Program, the Secretary may enter into 
cooperative agreements to support SMR designs that enable lower 
capital costs or increased access to private financing, reduced 
long-term radio-toxicity, mass, or decay heat of waste, 
increased operating safety of nuclear facilities, reduced 
dependence of reactor systems on water resources, increased 
seismic resistance of nuclear generation, reduced proliferation 
risk, and increased efficiency in reactor manufacturing.
    To be eligible to enter into the agreement an applicant 
must submit a proposal that documents all partners and 
suppliers involved in the project and a description of 
anticipated domestic and international activities, the measures 
to be undertaken to enable cost-effective implementation of the 
SMR project, an accounting structure approved by the Secretary, 
and all known assets that shall be contributed to satisfy the 
non-Federal cost share requirement.
    This program will require any applicant to be responsible 
for at least 50% of the cost of the project and that cost may 
only be satisfied through the use of non-Federal dollars.
    In selecting winners of awards or cooperative agreements, 
the Secretary shall consider the domestic manufacturing 
capabilities of the parties and of their partners and 
suppliers, the viability of the reactor design and business 
plan of the parties, the potential of the reactor design to be 
developed without future federal subsidy, and the non-Federal 
share to be provided.

Section 7. Conventional improvements to nuclear power plants

    This section allows the Secretary to carry out a program to 
research technologies related to steam-side improvements to 
nuclear power plants. Funds may only be used in furtherance of 
this section only if the goals are relevant and proper to 
enhance technologies developed under the Reactor Concepts 
program.

Section 8. Fuel Cycle Research and Development

    This section amends Section 953 of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 by renaming the program ``Fuel Cycle Research and 
Development.'' Under this program, the Secretary shall conduct 
fuel cycle research and development of technologies to improve 
uranium resource utilization, maximize energy generation, 
minimize nuclear waste creation, improve safety, and mitigate 
risk of proliferation in support of a national strategy for 
spent nuclear fuel.
    The fuel management options that may be considered under 
this program are open fuel cycle, modified open cycle, full 
recycle, advanced storage, alternative storage, or other 
appropriate technology areas. Open fuel cycle includes 
development of fuels for use in reactors that minimize waste 
creation. Modified open cycle includes development of fuel 
forms, reactors and limited separations of waste. Full recycle 
includes development of technologies to repeatedly recycle 
nuclear waste products to minimize total waste to the greatest 
extent possible. Advanced storage includes development of 
innovative storage technologies for both onsite and long-term 
storage. Alternative storage includes development of innovative 
long-term storage methods, including deep borehole storage or 
salt dome storage.
    Furthermore, under this section, the Secretary must 
consider the final Blue Ribbon Commission report. Within 180 
days after the release of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report, 
the Secretary must transmit to Congress a report describing any 
plans the Department may have to incorporate relevant 
recommendations from the Commission. This report must also 
those plans compare with a long-term waste repository at Yucca 
Mountain.

Section 9. Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies

    This section amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by adding 
a new section 958 titled ``Nuclear Enabling Technologies.'' 
This program is to support integration of activities undertaken 
in 952(c) and 953 and support crosscutting technology 
development. Research activities may include those pertaining 
to advanced reactor materials, catastrophic radiation 
mitigation methods, proliferation and security risk assessment 
methods, sensors and instrumentation, manufacturing methods, or 
any crosscutting technology or transformative concept the 
Secretary deems relevant.
    In conducting this program, the Secretary must submit a 
report on and evaluation of these activities as part of the 
annual budget.

Section 10. Emergency risk assessment and preparedness report

    This section requires the Secretary to transmit to the 
Congress a report summarizing quantitative risks associated 
with the potential of a severe accident arising from the use of 
nuclear power and outlining the technologies currently 
available to mitigate the consequences of such an accident. The 
report shall include recommendations of areas of technological 
development that should be pursued to reduce the potential 
public harm arising from such an incident.

Section 11. Next generation nuclear plant

    This section amends Section 642(b)(3) of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 to allow the location of the prototype power plant 
to be constructed in a location chosen by the Consortium 
through an open and transparent competitive selection process.
    This section also requires GAO to undertake a report to 
provide a status update on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant 
(NGNP) indicating its progress, how Federal appropriated funds 
have been distributed and spent, and the current and expected 
participation by non-federal entities. The report shall also 
include an analysis of various challenges facing the NGNP 
project.

Section 12. Technical standards collaboration

    This section requires the Director of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish a 
nuclear energy standards committee to facilitate and support 
the development or revision of technical standards for new and 
existing nuclear power plants and advanced nuclear 
technologies.
    The committee shall include representatives from the 
Federal Government and the private sector and the committee 
shall be co-chaired by a representative from NIST and a 
representative from a private sector standards organization.
    The duties of the committee shall include: (1) performing a 
technical standards needs assessment; (2) formulating, 
coordinating, and recommending priorities for new technical 
standards and the revision of existing technical standards; (3) 
facilitating and supporting collaboration and cooperation among 
standards developers; (4) coordinating with other national, 
regional, or international efforts on nuclear energy-related 
technical standards; and (5) promoting the establishment and 
maintenance of a database of nuclear energy-related technical 
standards.
    $1 million is authorized to carry out this section for each 
of FY 2011 through FY 2013.

Section 13. Evaluation of long-term operating needs

    This section requires the Secretary to contract with the 
National Academies to conduct an evaluation of the long-term 
operating needs of currently deployed nuclear reactors. This 
report must be submitted no later than one year after enactment 
of this act.

Section 14. Available facilities database

    This section requires the Secretary to prepare and make 
publicly available a database of non-Federal user facilities 
receiving federal funds that may be used for unclassified 
nuclear energy research.

Section 15. Nuclear waste disposal

    This section requires the Department of Energy to be 
responsible for disposal of high-level radioactive waste 
generated by reactors under the programs authorized in this 
Act.

                         VIII. Committee Views

    The intent of the legislation is to update the Department 
of Energy's nuclear energy research and development programs, 
authorize funding to advance nuclear energy technologies, and 
address issues such as high capital costs and waste management 
associated with nuclear power. This requires the Department of 
Energy to augment or enhance existing programs for the 
necessary and proper execution of this legislation. 
Furthermore, the Department of Energy will be required to 
support and encourage development of new initiatives and 
technologies to accomplish the stated purpose of this Act.
    It is the Committee's view that the consultation provisions 
in Section 6 are important to efficiently execute the Small 
Modular Reactor program. This section requires the Secretary of 
Energy to consult with and utilize the expertise of the 
Secretary of the Navy in establishing and administering the SMR 
program. The Committee recognizes that the Navy's nuclear 
reactor expertise resides within the Naval Nuclear Propulsion 
Program (NNPP), whose mission it is to provide militarily 
effective nuclear propulsion plants and ensure their safe, 
reliable and long-lived operation. Considering the design 
requirements associated with their military-specific 
application, the Committee also recognizes that Naval nuclear 
reactors are not suitable for commercial use. However, the 
Committee encourages the SMR program to consult with NNPP and 
solicit NNPP's advice, where appropriate.
    Furthermore, it is the intention of the Committee that the 
federal Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee 
Valley Authority not be excluded from participating in the 
Small Modular Reactor program authorized under Section 6. As 
such, while recipients of financial assistance may not use 
funds received through appropriation Acts to satisfy the 
program's cost-sharing requirement, funds generated by any 
federal Power Marketing Administration or the Tennessee Valley 
Authority through power sales and borrowings will be treated as 
private funds for the purposes of satisfying the private cost-
share requirement in this section.
    The Committee acknowledges the expertise of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) in severe accident analysis at 
nuclear power plants. NRC has extensive regulatory controls in 
place to address severe accident risks. NRC and the nuclear 
industry are world leaders in the development and use of 
probabilistic risk assessment techniques to quantify the risk 
of accidents. Severe accident risks have been analyzed for all 
operating nuclear power plants and have been demonstrated to be 
of extremely low likelihood and a minor contributor to overall 
public risk. Nevertheless, mitigation strategies have been 
developed to address the unlikely event of a reactor core 
damaging accident, and all plants have procedures and 
guidelines in place in this regard. The Secretary shall prepare 
a report under Section 10 of this Act that compiles NRC and 
Licensee recommendations regarding severe accident risk to 
improve technological development in the areas of emergency 
planning, characterization of radionuclide release dose 
pathways, and probabilistic risk assessment. Also, in 
furtherance of this report, DOE shall not undertake any 
analysis or investigation that is already the responsibility of 
the NRC.

                           IX. Cost Estimate

    A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to 
the Committee on Science and Technology prior to the filing of 
this report and is included in Section X of this report 
pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    H.R. 5866 does not contain new budget authority, credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming 
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 
5866 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as 
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the 
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

              X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate


H.R. 5866--Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 2010

    Summary: H.R. 5866 would authorize the appropriation of 
nearly $1.3 billion over the 2011-2013 period to the Department 
of Energy (DOE) for programs related to nuclear energy. 
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates 
that implementing H.R. 5866 would cost $1.3 billion over the 
2011-2015 period. Enacting the bill would not affect direct 
spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do 
not apply.
    H.R. 5866 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 impact of H.R. 5866 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 270 
(energy).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2011      2012      2013      2014      2015    2011-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level................................       420       430       440         0         0      1,290
Estimated Outlays..................................       252       376       431       175        56      1,290
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
5866 will be enacted in 2010 and that appropriations will be 
provided as specified by the bill. Estimated outlays are based 
on the historical rate of spending for DOE's nuclear energy 
research programs. H.R. 5866 would authorize appropriations 
totaling about $1.3 billion over the 2011-2013 period, 
primarily for DOE to carry out a variety of research programs 
related to nuclear power. (DOE received a total of nearly $800 
million for nuclear energy programs in 2010.) The authorization 
includes:
           $603 million for research and development 
        related to the nuclear fuel cycle;
           $297 million for research on crosscutting 
        nuclear technologies and efforts to integrate research 
        on specific elements of nuclear energy;
           $195 million to support efforts to design 
        and license small modular nuclear reactors;
           $192 million for nuclear energy research and 
        development and activities to demonstrate commercial 
        applications of nuclear technologies; and
           $3 million for the National Institute for 
        Standards and Technology to establish a committee to 
        revise and establish standards for nuclear 
        technologies.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5866 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Megan Carroll; Impact 
on state, local, and tribal governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on 
the private sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 5866 contains no unfunded mandates.

         XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    The oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee 
on Science and Technology are reflected in the body of this 
report.

      XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal of 
H.R. 5866 is to authorize research, development, and 
demonstration programs into nuclear energy, and for other 
purposes.

                XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 5866.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 5866 does not establish nor authorize the 
establishment of any advisory committee.

                 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 5866 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

                      XVII. Earmark Identification

    H.R. 5866 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of Rule XXI.

     XVIII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or 
tribal law.

       XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, 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):

                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is 
as follows:
     * * * * * * *

                   TITLE IX--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

     * * * * * * *

                       Subtitle E--Nuclear Energy

     * * * * * * *
[Sec. 953. Advanced fuel cycle initiative.]
Sec. 953. Fuel cycle research and development.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 958. Nuclear energy enabling technologies.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE VI--NUCLEAR MATTERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 642. PROJECT MANAGEMENT.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Laboratory Management.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(3) Prototype plant siting.--The prototype nuclear 
        reactor and associated plant shall be sited at the 
        Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho.]
          (3) Prototype plant location.--The prototype nuclear 
        reactor and associated plant shall be constructed at a 
        location determined by the consortium through an open 
        and transparent competitive selection process.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IX--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       Subtitle E--Nuclear Energy

SEC. 951. NUCLEAR ENERGY.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct programs of 
civilian nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, 
and commercial application, including activities described in 
this subtitle. Programs under this subtitle shall take into 
consideration the following objectives:
          (1) * * *
          (2) Reducing the costs of nuclear reactor systems.
          (3) Reducing used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste 
        products generated by civilian nuclear energy.
          (4) Supporting technological advances in areas that 
        industry by itself is not likely to undertake because 
        of technical and financial uncertainty.
          [(2)] (5) Providing the technical means to reduce the 
        likelihood of nuclear proliferation.
          [(3)] (6) Maintaining a cadre of nuclear scientists 
        and engineers.
          [(4)] (7) Maintaining National Laboratory and 
        university nuclear programs, including their 
        infrastructure.
          [(5)] (8) Supporting both individual researchers and 
        multidisciplinary teams of researchers to pioneer new 
        approaches in nuclear energy, science, and technology.
          [(6)] (9) Developing, planning, constructing, 
        acquiring, and operating special equipment and 
        facilities for the use of researchers.
          [(7)] (10) Supporting technology transfer and other 
        appropriate activities to assist the nuclear energy 
        industry, and other users of nuclear science and 
        engineering, including activities addressing 
        reliability, availability, productivity, component 
        aging, safety, and security of nuclear power plants.
          [(8)] (11) Reducing the environmental impact of 
        nuclear energy-related activities.
          (12) Researching and developing technologies and 
        processes so as to improve and streamline the process 
        by which nuclear power systems meet Federal and State 
        requirements and standards.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations for Core Programs.--There 
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out 
nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and 
commercial application activities, including activities 
authorized under this subtitle, other than those described in 
subsection (c)--
          [(1) $330,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
          [(2) $355,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
          [(3) $495,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.]
          (1) $419,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
          (2) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
          (3) $439,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Allocations.--From amounts authorized [under subsection 
(a)] under subsection (b), the following sums are authorized:
          [(1) For activities under section 953--
                  [(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
                  [(B) $155,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
                  [(C) $275,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.]
          (1) For activities under section 953--
                  (A) $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  (B) $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  (C) $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) For activities under section 952, other than 
        those described in section 952(d)--
                  (A) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  (B) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  (C) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
          (5) For activities under section 952(d)--
                  (A) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  (B) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  (C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
          (6) For activities under section 958--
                  (A) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
                  (B) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
                  (C) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Program Objectives Study.--In furtherance of the program 
objectives listed in subsection (a) of this section, the 
Secretary shall, within one year after the date of enactment of 
this subsection, transmit to the Congress a report on the 
results of a study on the scientific and technical merit of 
major State requirements and standards, including moratoria, 
that delay or impede the further development and 
commercialization of nuclear power, and how the Federal 
Government can assist in overcoming such delays or impediments.

SEC. 952. NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAMS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Nuclear Power 2010 Program.--
          [(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
        Nuclear Power 2010 Program, consistent with 
        recommendations of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory 
        Committee of the Department in the report entitled ``A 
        Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the 
        United States by 2010'' and dated October 2001.
          [(2) Administration.--The Program shall include--
                  [(A) use of the expertise and capabilities of 
                industry, institutions of higher education, and 
                National Laboratories in evaluation of advanced 
                nuclear fuel cycles and fuels testing;
                  [(B) consideration of a variety of reactor 
                designs suitable for both developed and 
                developing nations;
                  [(C) participation of international 
                collaborators in research, development, and 
                design efforts, as appropriate; and
                  [(D) encouragement for participation by 
                institutions of higher education and industry.
  [(d) Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative.--
          [(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
        Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative to 
        develop an overall technology plan for and to support 
        research and development necessary to make an informed 
        technical decision about the most promising candidates 
        for eventual commercial application.
          [(2) Administration.--In conducting the Initiative, 
        the Secretary shall examine advanced proliferation-
        resistant and passively safe reactor designs, including 
        designs that--
                  [(A) are economically competitive with other 
                electric power generation plants;
                  [(B) have higher efficiency, lower cost, and 
                improved safety compared to reactors in 
                operation on the date of enactment of this Act;
                  [(C) use fuels that are proliferation 
                resistant and have substantially reduced 
                production of high-level waste per unit of 
                output; and
                  [(D) use improved instrumentation.
  [(e) Reactor Production of Hydrogen.--The Secretary shall 
carry out research to examine designs for high-temperature 
reactors capable of producing large-scale quantities of 
hydrogen.]
  (c) Reactor Concepts.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
        program of research, development, demonstration, and 
        commercial application to advance nuclear power systems 
        as well as technologies to sustain currently deployed 
        systems.
          (2) Designs and technologies.--In conducting the 
        program under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
        examine advanced reactor designs and nuclear 
        technologies, including those that--
                  (A) are economically competitive with other 
                electric power generation plants;
                  (B) have higher efficiency, lower cost, and 
                improved safety compared to reactors in 
                operation as of the date of enactment of the 
                Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 
                2010;
                  (C) utilize passive safety features;
                  (D) minimize proliferation risks;
                  (E) substantially reduce production of high-
                level waste per unit of output;
                  (F) increase the life and sustainability of 
                reactor systems currently deployed;
                  (G) use improved instrumentation;
                  (H) are capable of producing large-scale 
                quantities of hydrogen or process heat; or
                  (I) minimize water usage or use alternatives 
                to water as a cooling mechanism.
          (3) International cooperation.--In carrying out the 
        program under this subsection, the Secretary shall seek 
        opportunities to enhance the progress of the program 
        through international cooperation through such 
        organizations as the Generation IV International Forum, 
        or any other international collaboration the Secretary 
        considers appropriate.
          (4) Exceptions.--No funds authorized to be 
        appropriated to carry out the activities described in 
        this subsection shall be used to fund the activities 
        authorized under sections 641 through 645.
  (d) Small Modular Reactor Program.--
          (1) In general.--
                  (A) The Secretary shall carry out a small 
                modular reactor program to promote research, 
                development, demonstration, and commercial 
                application of small modular reactors, 
                including through cost-shared projects for 
                commercial application of reactor systems 
                designs.
                  (B) The Secretary shall consult with and 
                utilize the expertise of the Secretary of the 
                Navy in establishing and carrying out such 
                program.
                  (C) Activities may also include development 
                of advanced computer modeling and simulation 
                tools, by Federal and non-Federal entities, 
                which demonstrate and validate new design 
                capabilities of innovative small modular 
                reactor designs.
          (2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, 
        the term ``small modular reactor'' means a nuclear 
        reactor--
                  (A) with a rated capacity of less than 300 
                electrical megawatts;
                  (B) with respect to which most parts can be 
                factory assembled and shipped as modules to a 
                reactor plant site for assembly; and
                  (C) that can be constructed and operated in 
                combination with similar reactors at a single 
                site.
          (3) Limitation.--Demonstration activities carried out 
        under this section shall be limited to individual 
        technologies and systems, and shall not include 
        demonstration of full reactor systems or full plant 
        operations.
          (4) Administration.--In conducting the small modular 
        reactor program, the Secretary may enter into 
        cooperative agreements to support small modular reactor 
        designs that enable--
                  (A) lower capital costs or increased access 
                to private financing in comparison to current 
                large reactor designs;
                  (B) reduced long-term radiotoxicity, mass, or 
                decay heat of the nuclear waste produced by 
                generation;
                  (C) increased operating safety of nuclear 
                facilities;
                  (D) reduced dependence of reactor systems on 
                water resources;
                  (E) increased seismic resistance of nuclear 
                generation;
                  (F) reduced proliferation risks through 
                integrated safeguards and security 
                proliferation controls; and
                  (G) increased efficiency in reactor 
                manufacturing and construction.
          (5) Application.--To be eligible to enter into a 
        cooperative agreement with the Secretary under this 
        subsection, an applicant shall submit to the Secretary 
        a proposal for the small modular reactor project to be 
        undertaken. The proposal shall document--
                  (A) all partners and suppliers that will be 
                active in the small modular reactor project, 
                including a description of each partner or 
                supplier's anticipated domestic and 
                international activities;
                  (B) measures to be undertaken to enable cost-
                effective implementation of the small modular 
                reactor project;
                  (C) an accounting structure approved by the 
                Secretary;
                  (D) all known assets that shall be 
                contributed to satisfy the cost-sharing 
                requirement under paragraph (6); and
                  (E) the extent to which the proposal will 
                increase domestic manufacturing activity, 
                exports, or employment.
          (6) Cost sharing.--Notwithstanding section 988, the 
        Secretary shall require the parties to a cooperative 
        agreement under this subsection to be responsible for 
        not less than 50 percent of the costs of the small 
        modular reactor project.
          (7) Calculation of cost sharing amount.--A recipient 
        of financial assistance under this section may not 
        satisfy the cost sharing requirement under paragraph 
        (6) by using funds received from the Federal Government 
        through appropriation Acts.
          (8) Project selection criteria.--The Secretary shall 
        consider the following factors in entering into a 
        cooperative agreement under this subsection:
                  (A) The domestic manufacturing capabilities 
                of the parties to the cooperative agreement and 
                their partners and suppliers.
                  (B) The viability of the reactor design and 
                the business plan or plans of the parties to 
                the cooperative agreement.
                  (C) The parties to the cooperative 
                agreement's potential to continue the 
                development of small modular reactors without 
                Federal subsidies or loan guarantees.
                  (D) The cost share to be provided.
                  (E) The degree to which the following goals 
                will be advanced:
                          (i) Lower capital costs or increased 
                        access to private financing in 
                        comparison to current large reactor 
                        designs.
                          (ii) Reduced long-term radiotoxicity, 
                        mass, or decay heat of the nuclear 
                        waste produced by generation.
                          (iii) Increased operating safety of 
                        nuclear facilities.
                          (iv) Reduced dependence of reactor 
                        systems on water resources.
                          (v) Increased seismic resistance of 
                        nuclear generation.
                          (vi) Reduced proliferation risks 
                        through integrated safeguards and 
                        security proliferation controls.
                          (vii) Increased efficiency in reactor 
                        manufacturing and construction.
  (e) Conventional Improvements to Nuclear Power Plants.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a 
        Nuclear Energy Research Initiative for research and 
        development related to steam-side improvements to 
        nuclear power plants to promote the research, 
        development, demonstration, and commercial application 
        of--
                  (A) cooling systems;
                  (B) turbine technologies;
                  (C) heat exchangers and pump design;
                  (D) special coatings to improve lifetime of 
                components and performance of heat exchangers; 
                and
                  (E) advanced power conversion systems for 
                advanced reactor technologies.
          (2) Administration.--The Secretary may undertake 
        initiatives under this subsection only when the goals 
        are relevant and proper to enhance the performance of 
        technologies developed under subsection (c). Not more 
        than $10,000,000 of funds authorized for this section 
        may be used for carrying out this subsection.

SEC. 953. [ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE] FUEL CYCLE RESEARCH AND 
                    DEVELOPMENT.

  [(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, shall 
conduct an advanced fuel recycling technology research, 
development, and demonstration program (referred to in this 
section as the ``program'') to evaluate proliferation-resistant 
fuel recycling and transmutation technologies that minimize 
environmental and public health and safety impacts as an 
alternative to aqueous reprocessing technologies deployed as of 
the date of enactment of this Act in support of evaluation of 
alternative national strategies for spent nuclear fuel and the 
Generation IV advanced reactor concepts.]
  ``(a) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a fuel cycle 
research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
application program (referred to in this section as the 
`program') on fuel cycle options that improve uranium resource 
utilization, maximize energy generation, minimize nuclear waste 
creation, improve safety, mitigate risk of proliferation, and 
improve waste management in support of a national strategy for 
spent nuclear fuel and the reactor concepts research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application program 
under section 952(c).
  ``(b) Fuel cycle options.--Under this section the Secretary 
may consider implementing the following initiatives:
          ``(1) Open cycle.--Developing fuels, including the 
        use of nonuranium materials, for use in reactors that 
        increase energy generation and minimize the amount of 
        nuclear waste produced in an open fuel cycle.
          ``(2) Modified open cycle.--Developing fuel forms, 
        reactors, and limited separation and transmutation 
        methods that increase fuel utilization and reduce 
        nuclear waste in a modified open fuel cycle.
          ``(3) Full recycle.--Developing advanced recycling 
        technologies, including Generation IV Reactors, to 
        reduce the risk of proliferation, radiotoxicity, mass, 
        and decay heat to the greatest extent possible.
          ``(4) Advanced storage methods.--Developing advanced 
        storage technologies for both onsite and long-term 
        storage that substantially prolong the effective life 
        of current storage devices or that substantially 
        improve upon existing nuclear waste storage 
        technologies and methods, including repositories.
          ``(5) Alternative and deep borehole storage 
        methods.--Developing alternative storage methods for 
        long-term storage, including deep boreholes into stable 
        crystalline rock formations and mined repositories in a 
        range of geologic media.
          ``(6) Other technologies.--Developing any other 
        technology or initiative that the Secretary determines 
        is likely to advance the objectives of the program 
        established under subsection (a).
  ``(c) Additional advanced recycling and crosscutting 
activities.--In addition to and in support of the specific 
initiatives described in paragraphs (1) through (6), the 
Secretary may support the following activities:
          ``(1) Development and testing of integrated process 
        flow sheets for advanced nuclear fuel recycling 
        processes.
          ``(2) Research to characterize the byproducts and 
        waste streams resulting from fuel recycling processes.
          ``(3) Research and development on reactor concepts or 
        transmutation technologies that improve resource 
        utilization or reduce the radiotoxicity of waste 
        streams.
          ``(4) Research and development on waste treatment 
        processes and separations technologies, advanced waste 
        forms, and quantification of proliferation risks.
          ``(5) Identification and evaluation of test and 
        experimental facilities necessary to successfully 
        implement the advanced fuel cycle initiative.
          ``(6) Advancement of fuel cycle-related modeling and 
        simulation capabilities.
  ``(d) Blue ribbon commission report.--
          ``(1) In carrying out this section, the Secretary 
        shall give consideration to the final report on a long-
        term nuclear waste solution produced by the Blue Ribbon 
        Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
          ``(2) Not later than 180 days after the release of 
        the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future 
        final report, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress 
        a report, which shall include--
                  ``(A) any plans the Department may have to 
                incorporate any relevant recommendations from 
                this report into the program; and
                  ``(B) how those recommendations for long-term 
                nuclear waste solutions that will be 
                incorporated into the plan compare with plans 
                for a long-term nuclear waste solution of a 
                repository at Yucca Mountain, that may or may 
                not be incorporated into the plan, with regard 
                to the safety, security, legal, cost, and 
                technological and site readiness factors 
                associated with any recommendations related to 
                final disposition pathways for spent nuclear 
                fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the 
                same factors associated with permanent deep 
                geological disposal at the Yucca Mountain waste 
                repository.
          ``(3) The analysis described in paragraph (2)(B) 
        shall be conducted using scientific and technical 
        materials and information used to support policy 
        actions related to the Yucca Mountain project.''.
  [(b)] (e) Annual Review.--The program shall be subject to 
annual review by the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee 
of the Department or other independent entity, as appropriate.
  [(c)] (f) International Cooperation.--In carrying out the 
program, the Secretary is encouraged to seek opportunities to 
enhance the progress of the program through international 
cooperation.
  [(d)] (g) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit, as part of 
the annual budget submission of the Department, a report on the 
activities of the program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 958. NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a program to 
support the integration of activities undertaken through the 
reactor concepts research, development, demonstration, and 
commercial application program under section 952(c) and the 
fuel cycle research and development program under section 953, 
and support crosscutting nuclear energy concepts. Activities 
commenced under this section shall be concentrated on broadly 
applicable research and development focus areas.
  (b) Activities.--Activities conducted under this section may 
include research involving--
          (1) advanced reactor materials;
          (2) advanced radiation mitigation methods;
          (3) advanced proliferation and security risk 
        assessment methods;
          (4) advanced sensors and instrumentation;
          (5) advanced nuclear manufacturing methods; or
          (6) any crosscutting technology or transformative 
        concept aimed at establishing substantial and 
        revolutionary enhancements in the performance of future 
        nuclear energy systems that the Secretary considers 
        relevant and appropriate to the purpose of this 
        section.
  (c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit, as part of the 
annual budget submission of the Department, a report on the 
activities of the program conducted under this section, which 
shall include a brief evaluation of each activity's progress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     XX. Committee Recommendations

    On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Science and 
Technology favorably reported H.R. 5866 by voice vote and 
recommended its enactment.

                         XXI. Additional Views

                              ----------                              


 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVES RALPH HALL, LAMAR SMITH, 
   DANA ROHRABACHER, ROSCOE BARTLETT, JUDY BIGGERT, TODD AKIN, RANDY 
NEUGEBAUER, BOB INGLIS, MICHAEL McCAUL, ADRIAN SMITH AND PETE OLSON ON 
   H.R. 5866, THE NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2010

    After several decades of setbacks and inaction, a growing 
consensus is emerging in support of expanding the role of 
nuclear power in our Nation's energy portfolio. We support this 
expansion, noting that nuclear energy provides a safe, 
reliable, and cost-competitive source of baseload power to meet 
the expected 30 percent increase in electricity demand over the 
next 25 years.
    While much of the current ``nuclear revival'' involves 
licensing and building more reactors using existing light water 
reactor technology, a host of longer-term research and 
development activities exist that must also be pursued. Key 
among these are finding new and innovative ways of dealing with 
the management of spent nuclear fuel, supporting research and 
development (R&D) to facilitate advances in and licensing of 
new reactor designs, and supporting research into extending the 
life of the existing reactor fleet.
    H.R. 5866 contributes to these goals through a 
comprehensive approach that authorizes existing R&D activities 
at the Department of Energy (DOE). Specifically, the bill 
amends Title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to focus DOE 
R&D activities on advancing new reactor concepts, fuel cycle 
R&D, and enabling and crosscutting activities such as materials 
R&D and computer modeling and simulation. Within these 
activities, the legislation emphasizes R&D efforts to support 
the advancement and eventual licensing of small modular 
reactors.
    We are pleased with improvements made to the bill through 
successful passage of amendments offered during the full 
committee markup, such as amendments to (1) require a DOE study 
on specific State requirements that delay or impede 
commercialization of nuclear power, including moratoria; (2) 
reinforce the Federal government's responsibility for managing 
spent nuclear fuel generated under the programs in the act; and 
(3) directing DOE to compare the recommendations of the Blue 
Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future with the 
corresponding features of the proposed Yucca Mountain waste 
repository.
    These amendments highlight a fundamental priority in the 
effort to ensure the long-term viability of nuclear power: 
addressing nuclear waste management challenges and completing 
the review and license application of the Yucca Mountain waste 
repository. We simply cannot have a revival of nuclear energy 
in the United States without addressing these challenges.
    We support pursuit of the objectives and activities 
outlined in H.R. 5866, and remain committed to working with 
Democrats and key stakeholders to make continued improvements 
to this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

                                   Adrian Smith.
                                   Bob Inglis.
                                   Michael T. McCaul.
                                   Roscoe Bartlett.
                                   Lamar Smith.
                                   Randy Neugebauer.
                                   Pete Olson.
                                   Judy Biggert.
                                   Dana Rohrabacher.
                                   Ralph M. Hall.
                                   Todd Akin.


   XXII: PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 
 ENVIRONMENT ON H.R. 5866, THE NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                              ACT OF 2010

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010

                  House of Representatives,
            Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
                       Committee on Science and Technology,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in 
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian 
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Chairman Baird. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 
order. Pursuant to notice the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment meets to consider the following measure, H.R. 5866, 
the Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 2010.
    Today the Energy and Environment Subcommittee meets to 
consider the Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 
2010, H.R. 5866, sponsored by Chairman Gordon and cosponsored 
by myself, Ranking Member Hall and Ranking Member Inglis.
    The legislation before us today amends the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005, to update and enhance our Federal nuclear energy 
R&D programs. Nuclear energy is one of the largest sources of 
low-emission power in the United States. If we are to increase 
our energy independence and mitigate the effects of climate 
change, nuclear will likely have to be a large part of that 
energy mix.
    However, management of nuclear waste and increasing capital 
costs have heavily burdened the industry and caused great 
concern over its reliability and long-term safety. This bill 
integrates the Office of Nuclear Energy's activities and 
provides a more comprehensive approach to overcome these 
fundamental challenges.
    Among the initiatives promoted by this legislation is a 
small modular reactor or SMR Program. In a recent hearing we 
heard testimony from a number of witnesses from a variety of 
disciplines who argued or who agreed that SMRs have the 
potential to reduce the capital costs and default risks of 
nuclear energy providers while increasing the safety and 
reliability of nuclear generation.
    Under this bill the SMR Program will promote both the near 
term and advanced research and development needed to make these 
small reactors a reality and position our Nation once again as 
a leader in the nuclear industry.
    Furthermore, the bill creates a fuel cycle R&D Program to 
move the Department of Energy away from program focus on the 
failed GNEP model to one that makes a comprehensive approach to 
management of nuclear waste, including research into fuel 
forms, advanced reactor designs, reprocessing technologies, and 
advanced storage methods.
    This bill is the result of a bipartisan effort over the 
past three months, and I would like to thank Mr. Hall and Mr. 
Inglis, as well as the Committee staff on both the majority and 
minority sides for their continued good work as we move this 
legislation through the Committee and to the Floor. I thank all 
of you for attendance and participation, and I look forward to 
a productive meeting.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
    Good morning. Today the Energy and Environment Subcommittee meets 
to consider the ``Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 
2010.'' H.R. 5866 is sponsored by Chairman Gordon and co-sponsored by 
myself, Ranking Member Hall and Ranking Member Inglis.
    The legislation before us today amends the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 to update and enhance our Federal nuclear energy R&D programs. 
Nuclear energy is the single largest source of low-emissions power in 
the United States. If we are to increase our energy independence and 
mitigate the effects of climate change, nuclear will likely have to be 
a large part of the energy mix.
    However, management of nuclear waste and increasing capital costs 
have heavily burdened the industry and caused great concern over its 
reliability and long-term safety. This bill integrates the Office of 
Nuclear Energy's activities and provides a more comprehensive approach 
to overcome these fundamental challenges.
    Amongst the initiatives promoted by this legislation is a Small 
Modular Reactor, or ``SMR'' program. In a recent hearing we heard 
testimony from a number of witnesses from a variety of disciplines who 
agreed that SMRs have the potential to reduce the capital costs and 
default risk of nuclear energy providers while increasing the safety 
and reliability of nuclear
    generation. Under this bill, the SMR program will promote both the 
nearterm and advanced research and development needed to make these 
small reactors a reality and position our nation once again as a leader 
in the nuclear industry.
    Furthermore, this bill creates a Fuel Cycle R&D program to move the 
Department of Energy away from programs focused on the failed GNEP 
model to one that takes a comprehensive approach to management of 
nuclear waste including research into fuel forms, advanced reactor 
designs, reprocessing technologies, and advanced storage methods.
    This bill is the result of a truly bipartisan effort over the past 
three months and I would like to thank Mr. Hall and Mr. Inglis, as well 
as the Committee Staff of both the Majority and Minority, for their 
continued good work as we move this legislation through the Committee 
and to the floor.
    I thank you all for your attendance and participation this morning, 
and I look forward to a productive markup.

    Chairman Baird. I now recognize Mr. Inglis to present his 
remarks.
    Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 
this markup. I am looking forward to working with you and the 
committee to revamp our Nuclear Energy Research and Development 
Program and to push the nuclear industry into the future.
    I am happy to cosponsor the bill before us today. Our 
country is eagerly pursuing new energy solutions that will wean 
us off of foreign oil, create American jobs, and clean up our 
air. Nuclear power fits the bill in every way. Right now the 
U.S. gets a fifth of our electricity from nuclear power. South 
Carolina I am happy to say gets more than half. The nuclear 
fleet supplying this abundant power is efficient, reliable, and 
clean. It is also getting old.
    To meet our growing energy needs we are going to need to 
keep building our nuclear power strength. With this opportunity 
to reinvest in nuclear research we have an opportunity to 
tackle two important issues; the nuclear fuel cycle and capital 
costs.
    For so long as we have been powering our light bulbs off 
the atom, we have been generating nuclear waste. The current 
disposal policy is insufficient. Nuclear power plants have been 
stockpiling this waste waiting for the Federal Government to 
open Yucca Mountain. It would be all the better if we could 
substantially reduce this volume of waste that comes from 
nuclear power.
    Capital costs of a new nuclear facility is unfortunately 
prohibitive in the current market. While this undoubtedly is 
due to the competition with artificially-cheap coal facilities, 
artificially cheap because the negative externalities aren't 
recognized, there are also strategies and techniques we can 
employ to bring down those costs. This bill will help us to do 
that.
    Thankfully the nuclear industry and DOE are eager to solve 
these problems. For example, GE Hitachi has been working on the 
prism reactor, a small modular reactor fueled from commercial 
grade and defense grade nuclear waste. The reactor vessel can 
be built quickly and scaled up at new sites or at existing 
nuclear facilities. Drawing our power from a prism reactor will 
reduce proliferation concerns and simplify the design 
requirements for a waste repository. The bill before us will 
help us reach more novel solutions like that one.
    I want to briefly mention two issues beyond the scope of 
this legislation and the jurisdiction of this committee that 
remain important to the future of the nuclear industry. First, 
we need to get nuclear facilities approved and online faster. I 
hope that a robust research program at DOE will maintain steady 
communication with the NRC, allowing them to be familiar with 
the new technologies before applications even come in.
    Second, Yucca Mountain needs to be completed as quickly as 
possible. Unfortunately, responsible long-term storage of our 
nuclear waste has become strongly politicized, and the 
Administration continues to snub the explicit will of Congress, 
the nuclear industry, and electricity rate payers. The sooner 
we resolve uncertainty around nuclear waste storage, the sooner 
we will get to more investment in the nuclear industry.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
    Chairman Baird, thank you for holding this markup. I'm looking 
forward to working with you and the Committee to revamp our nuclear 
energy research and development program and push the nuclear industry 
into the future. I'm happy to cosponsor the bill before us today.
    Our country is eagerly pursuing new energy solutions that will wean 
us off foreign oil, create American jobs, and clean up our air. Nuclear 
power fits the bill in every way. Right now, the U.S. gets a fifth of 
our electricity from nuclear power; South Carolina, I'm happy to say, 
gets more than half. The nuclear fleet supplying this abundant power is 
efficient, reliable, and clean. It's also getting old.
    To meet our growing energy needs, we're going to need to keep 
building our nuclear power strength. With this opportunity to reinvest 
in nuclear research, we have an opportunity to tackle two important 
issues: the nuclear fuel cycle and capital costs.
    For as long as we've been powering our light bulbs off the atom, 
we've been generating nuclear waste. Our current disposal policy is 
insufficient; nuclear plants have been stockpiling this waste waiting 
for the Federal Government to open Yucca Mountain. It would be all the 
better if we could substantially reduce this volume of waste that comes 
from nuclear power.
    Capital costs of a new nuclear facility are unfortunately 
prohibitive in the current market. While this undoubtedly is due to 
competition with artificially cheap coal facilities, there are also 
strategies and techniques we can employ to bring those costs down. This 
bill will help us do that.
    Thankfully, the nuclear industry and DOE are eager to solve these 
problems. For example, GE/Hitachi has been working on the ``PRISM'' 
reactor, a small modular reactor fueled from commercial-grade and 
defense-grade nuclear waste. The reactor vessel can be built quickly 
and scaled up at new sites or at existing nuclear facilities. Drawing 
our power from a PRISM reactor will reduce proliferation concerns and 
simplify the design requirements for a waste repository.
    The bill before us will help us reach more novel solutions like 
this one.
    I want to mention briefly two issues beyond the scope of this 
legislation and the jurisdiction of the Committee that remain important 
to the future of the nuclear industry.
    First, we need to get nuclear facilities approved and on-line 
faster. I hope that a robust research program at DOE will maintain 
steady communication with the NRC, allowing them to be familiar with 
new technologies before applications come in.
    Second, Yucca Mountain needs to be completed as quickly as 
possible. Unfortunately, responsible long-term storage of our nuclear 
waste has become strongly politicized, and the Administration continues 
to snub the explicit will of Congress, the nuclear, industry, and 
electricity rate payers. The sooner we resolve uncertainty around 
nuclear waste storage, the sooner we'll get more investment in the 
nuclear industry.
    Again, thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. I recognize now the 
sponsor of the bill, Chairman Gordon, to present any remarks on 
the bill.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Baird. We need to get 
moving, so let me just briefly say that whether you believe in 
climate change or energy independence or both as I do, nuclear 
energy has to play a role in achieving those two goals.
    And so I want to thank you, Mr. Inglis, the members here 
that have spent time and certainly the staff that has spent 
time on this I think excellent bill, and also I want to 
associate myself with Mr. Inglis's I guess final two addendums 
that we couldn't deal with here.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman Baird. Thank the Chairman. Does anyone else wish 
to be recognized?
    If not, I ask unanimous consent the bill is considered as 
read and open to amendment at any point, that the Members 
proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Baird. The first amendment on the roster is a 
manager's amendment offered by the Chair. The clerk will report 
the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 052, amendment to H.R. 5866, 
offered by Mr. Baird of Washington.
    Chairman Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize myself for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    In addition to making clarifying and conforming changes, my 
manager's amendment incorporates a number of our Members' 
concerns that has been worked out in advance with Mr. Hall 
through this amendment. We assure that federally-appropriated 
funds cannot be used to satisfy the non-Federal cost share 
requirement under the Small Modular Reactor Program, and we 
include civilian reactor technologies that are either deployed 
or likely to be deployed in the Emergency Risk Assessment and 
Preparedness Report.
    I appreciate the time Mr. Hall and staff have put into 
this, make it a better bill through the manager's amendment, 
and I would urge adoption.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is 
agreed to.
    The second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Biggert. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Ms. Biggert. Yes, I am. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Baird. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 116, amendment to H.R. 5866, 
offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois.
    Chairman Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this important markup today.
    My amendment expands the research objectives of the 
underlying bill to include compliance as we consider small 
modular reactor and fuel cycle research.
    On the heels of the successful Nuclear Power 2010 Program, 
we should not overlook the importance of improving the 
licensing and permitting process for new nuclear. I think this 
is particularly true for more advanced reactor designs that 
could be deployed in the very near future.
    In fact, the approval process for new nuclear designs is 
one of the industry's greatest obstacles to a domestic nuclear 
resurgence. If we are serious about moving forward with the 
underlying bill, we must move forward with the most 
comprehensive approach. By including my amendment we will not 
only improve and demonstrate new nuclear technologies but 
reduce the barriers to their deployment as well.
    I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment and 
yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Thank you--and thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important 
markup today.
    My amendment expands the research objectives of the underlying bill 
to include compliance as we consider small modular reactor and fuel 
cycle research.
    On the heels of the successful NP 2010 program, we should not 
overlook the importance of improving the licensing and permitting 
process for new nuclear. This is particularly true for more advanced 
reactor designs that could be deployed in the very near future.
    In fact, the approval process for new nuclear designs is one of the 
industry's greatest obstacles to a domestic nuclear resurgence. If we 
are serious about moving forward with the underlying bill, we must move 
forward with the most comprehensive approach. By including my 
amendment, we will not only improve and demonstrate new nuclear 
technologies, but reduce barriers to their deployment as well.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.

    Chairman Baird. Thank the gentlelady from Illinois.
    Is there any further comment?
    If no, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in 
favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The third amendment on the roster is by the gentleman from 
Utah and the gentlelady from Arizona. They are not present, so 
with colleagues' consent we will move that until later until 
they can arrive.
    The fourth amendment is an amendment by Mr. Bartlett, the 
gentleman from Maryland. Dr. Bartlett, are you ready to proceed 
with your amendment?
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Baird. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 027, amendment to H.R. 5866, 
offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
    Chairman Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman from Maryland for five minutes to 
explain the amendment.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is a 
good government approach aimed at maximizing efficiency. The 
Nuclear R&D Bill we are marking up today aims to advance 
innovation and nuclear energy technologies and establishes a 
new program to advance development of small modular reactors 
for commercial application.
    This amendment ensures that the Secretary of Energy 
consults with the Secretary of the Navy because the Navy has 
managed similar small nuclear reactors that powered ships for 
several decades. This consultation will help the DOE build on 
the Navy's expertise and avoid needless duplication.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bartlett follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is a good government 
approach aimed at maximizing efficiency. The Nuclear R&D bill we are 
marking up today aims to advance innovation in nuclear energy 
technologies, and establishes a new program to advance development of 
small modular reactors for commercial application. This amendment 
ensures that the Secretary of Energy consults with the Secretary of the 
Navy, which has managed similar small nuclear reactors to power its 
warships for several decades. This consultation will help DOE build on 
the Navy's expertise and avoid needless duplication.

    Chairman Baird. I thank the gentleman. As with Ms. 
Biggert's amendment, a very constructive and thoughtful 
amendment.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    If no, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in 
favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Okay. We are told Mr. Lipinski is not going to offer his 
amendment, so we will move now to the sixth amendment offered 
by Mr. Lujan. Mr. Lujan, are you ready to proceed with your 
amendment?
    Mr. Lujan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Baird. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 066, amendment to H.R. 5866, 
offered by Mr. Lujan of New Mexico.
    Chairman Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And I recognize the gentleman from New Mexico for five 
minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The current bill specifies a number of goals in Section 5 
under the Administration subsection, but these goals are 
currently not listed as part of the selection criteria for the 
Secretary to use in selecting which cooperative agreements to 
enter into. My amendment adds the selection criteria consisting 
of the degree to which the goals of the program will be 
advanced.
    This will ensure that in project selection criteria where 
the cooperative agreements that are selected will be aligned 
with the goals that we have set forth in Section 5.
    I urge the adoption of this amendment.
    Chairman Baird. Again, a constructive amendment.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    If no, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in 
favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The seventh amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Biggert. Are you ready to 
proceed with this amendment?
    Ms. Biggert. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk with Mr. Garamendi.
    Chairman Baird. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 115, amendment to H.R. 5866, 
offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois and Mr. Garamendi of 
California.
    Chairman Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our amendment would 
enhance the range of research in the Fuel Cycle Research and 
Development Program. Specifically, this amendment suggests the 
Secretary provide additional research to support open, 
modified, and full fuel cycle research and development.
    More progress is needed in the areas of waste streams, 
waste treatment processes, and new reactor concepts that better 
utilize waste resources and decrease toxicity. Using the 
Department's advanced computing resources will be integral to 
this.
    With our amendment I hope the Department can finally make 
recycling a priority as it should have been all these years.
    I want to thank the Chairman, minority and majority staff 
for their help throughout this process. I would also like to 
recognize my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, for his support of my 
amendment and for his support of recycling in general, and I 
would yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would enhance the range of 
research in the fuel cycle research and development program.
    Specifically, this amendment suggests the Secretary provide 
additional research to support open, modified, and full fuel cycle 
research and development. More progress is needed in the areas of waste 
streams, waste treatment processes, and new reactor concepts that 
better utilize waste resources and decrease toxicity. Using the 
Department's advanced computing resources will be integral to this.
    With my amendment, I hope the Department can finally make recycling 
a priority--as it should've been all these years.
    I want to thank the Chairman, Minority, and Majority staff for 
their help throughout this process. And, I would also like to recognize 
my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, for his support of my amendment and for 
his support of recycling in general.
    I yield back.

    Chairman Baird. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there further discussion?
    Mr. Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Ms. Biggert correctly points out a 
significant issue and that is the need to really advance the 
fuel recycling. Her amendment accomplishes that. I am delighted 
to join with her in that process.
    Chairman Baird. I thank both of our colleagues for, again, 
a very constructive, thoughtful, and beneficial amendment.
    Any further discussion?
    Mr. Lujan.
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the 
sponsors bringing this forward as well. We definitely have to 
be smarter about the way that we are taking on this issue of 
spent fuel, and this amendment will help achieve that as well.
    So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Lujan.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    If no, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in 
favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The eighth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Garamendi, 
are you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Garamendi. I am, and the amendment is at the desk.
    Chairman Baird. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 021, amendment to H.R. 5866, 
offered by Mr. Garamendi of California.
    Chairman Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman from California for five minutes 
to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Looking at the docket here I noticed that this one may not 
be wise and beneficial, at least in the view of the Committee, 
but despite that I want to push it forward.
    This goes one step beyond the previous amendment by Ms. 
Biggert and myself to advance the recycling programs and to 
move beyond endless research.
    The proposed--or the document delivered to us by the 
Department of Energy basically is an unending research project. 
We need to move beyond that. We found a lot of research 
advanced to what are known as Gen IV reactors have existed for 
some 30 years and operated successfully for 30 years here in 
the United States and in other countries.
    It is time for us to get on with Generation IV reactors and 
full fuel recycling. The problem of nuclear waste has stalled 
the development of the nuclear industry in the United States 
for some 30 years. The previous amendment that was just 
approved moves us well down the road. My amendment moves us 
further down the road by specifying that the Department shall 
engage in full fuel recycling research and development and an 
integral fast reactor.
    Apparently there are many that think that selects a winner. 
It does, and in fact, that winner has existed for 30 years, and 
it is time to get on with it. I note the opposition that staff 
has but I want us to get on with it. I don't want use to waste 
any more time. We need to for the reasons stated in the opening 
statement of the Chair that we have to address climate change, 
we have to address the energy. This would move us rapidly in 
that direction.
    And I offer the amendment for that purpose, and I note the 
opposition.
    Chairman Baird. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
    I recognize myself for five minutes in response.
    My understanding and discussion with staff, first of all, I 
agree with the gentleman's intent that we have to move forward 
with these, that we have a growing problem with waste, and if 
we are going to move to the next generation, we have to address 
that.
    In discussing this with staff, the concern that is put 
forward is that the particular language insofar as it only 
identifies one technology, even though it says including, by 
including only one that would imply that that should be the 
focus.
    And I know the gentleman is passionate about that 
particular technology and with good reason, but there is a 
sense that there ought to be an opportunity at least for other 
competitive technologies to be allowed, and I am wondering if 
the gentleman would be willing to consider withdrawing the 
amendment and that we could wordsmith the language between now 
and the markup in full committee so that we could try to 
address his concern and effort to put a marker down to push 
this technology but also not exclude others in so doing.
    Chairman Gordon. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Baird. I would be happy to yield to the Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. You know, part of the reason, one of the 
benefits for going through regular order of subcommittee and 
then Full Committee gives you a chance to vent different types 
of concerns, and so I would certainly--we are not going to be 
able to bring this up to Full Committee until we get back in 
September, and I think this is an area that we need to continue 
to--or I will tell Mr. Garamendi that we will continue to 
discuss and try to find a way. I think we all agree that we 
want to get on with deployment as soon as we can and just how 
can we best do that without, as you say, getting into being 
prescriptive.
    I yield back to----
    Ms. Biggert. Will the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Baird. Yes. I will yield to Ms. Biggert and then 
Mr. Garamendi. Ms. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. I think this is a really good amendment, but I 
can understand the wanting to broaden it a little bit so that 
it doesn't just define one area because it might then make the 
bill fail.
    So I would support the amendment and but hope that it could 
be addressed by the time we come back in September.
    Chairman Baird. I thank the gentlelady.
    Mr. Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Yeah. I will--just a couple of comments and 
then address the request of the Chair.
    We know that there are many different types of advanced 
fuel recycling. Some of those while they will create full fuel 
recycling also create very significant problems in that they 
produce pure plutonium and all of the risks associated with 
proliferation and the like.
    There are other technologies, at least one, pyroprocessing 
technologies, that do not produce pure plutonium but do allow 
for full recycling. When associated with an integral fast 
reactor, the prism reactor was mentioned by Mr. Inglis earlier, 
you can achieve both a relatively safe recycling program and 
dispose of the fuel, most all of the fuel and have a very 
short-lived residual waste product, which can be handled safely 
and I think securely.
    Therefore, I push very hard for this technology because it 
answers the conundrum that we face with Generation III rectors, 
Generation II reactors in that they consume a very small 
portion of the energy and uranium, and they also leave an 
extraordinary amount of waste that has stalled nuclear energy 
development in the United States.
    So I am all for getting on with the task, and I am pushing 
hard for it. I understand that it does direct the Department, 
and I am all for directing the Department. I was a Deputy 
Secretary, and I know that Congress can and should direct. So 
now that I am on this side, when I was on that side, I resented 
the direction. Now that I am on this side, I support direction.
    So that is what this is all about. I would be happy to work 
with the Committee and try to figure out a way to achieve a 
balance here, but I really believe the Department of Energy 
needs to get on with the Fourth Generation and full recycling. 
Otherwise we will be left behind. The rest of the world is 
moving, and some of them are moving with recycling programs 
that do create pure plutonium and all the problems associated 
with that.
    So I will withdraw the amendment at this time. I look 
forward to working with the Committee, but I want to be very 
clear to the committee about where I am coming from and why I 
am pushing hard.
    So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw the 
amendment.
    Chairman Baird. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing the 
amendment but more importantly for his eloquent discussion of 
the various merits of different approaches. One of the things 
that I find so gratifying about being on this particular 
committee is the fact that we can have this level of discussion 
and the caliber of intellect and contribution of all the 
Members on both sides is to me in my experience in this body 
unparalleled in other committees as well. I just am very 
impressed and grateful for the input.
    Thank you for withdrawing. We--the Chairman has offered his 
commitment to working on this, and we will indeed proceed in 
that manner.
    With the gentleman having withdrawn that amendment, the 
ninth amendment is before us now. It is an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Inglis. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Baird. I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment, but would then ask the clerk to report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 027, amendment to H.R. 5866, 
offered by Mr. Inglis of South Carolina.
    Chairman Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this one may well 
go the way of Mr. Garamendi's amendment, but I just want to as 
well lay down a marker here.
    As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we expressed support 
time and again for responsible, long-term geologic disposal of 
nuclear waste. In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Congress 
directed the Administration to take title to civilian nuclear 
waste and dispose of it and secure geologic storage at a 
nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain beginning in 1998. 
In good faith industry and nuclear electricity rate payers has 
been contributing to the nuclear waste fund, financing the 
project at Yucca. South Carolinians alone have contributed $1.2 
billion to this national effort.
    Unfortunately, progress at Yucca Mountain has been slow, 
and despite our investment South Carolinians are still storing 
4,000 metric tons of nuclear waste in our state, and that is 
replicated in other states.
    More unfortunate is that this Administration has decided to 
politicize this scientifically and technically-sound storage 
option for nuclear waste despite a long history of bipartisan 
support.
    While this Administration inappropriately inserts politics 
into science, it puts millions of Americans at risk and exposes 
taxpayers to expensive lawsuits from the nuclear industry. It 
also discourages investment in nuclear power, slowing down any 
resurgence in this industry.
    The Administration has proposed to find an alternative 
solution to managing nuclear waste through the Blue Ribbon 
Commission on America's Nuclear Future. While I am confident 
that the Commission will come up with several innovative ideas 
to manage nuclear waste stockpile, none of these ideas will 
satisfy the Federal obligation to long-term geological storage 
at Yucca Mountain.
    The amendment I offer for your consideration directs the 
Department of Energy to consider the recommendations of the 
Blue Ribbon Commission in the context of Yucca Mountain. In 
other words, the decision on whether to proceed with 
alternative ways to disposal recommendations made by the 
Commission can only be made after comparing those 
recommendations to disposal at Yucca Mountain.
    The Federal Government has poured 23 years and $10 billion 
into this storage solution, and we have a great deal of 
understanding of this storage solution. We shouldn't through 
this work away over politics.
    I do understand, however, that the amendment as I have, as 
we have drafted it, involves potential challenges with 
jurisdiction beyond the jurisdiction of this committee, and so 
Mr. Chairman, what I am hopeful of is that we can work perhaps 
to tailor this concept so that it stays within the jurisdiction 
of the Science Committee, between here and the Full Committee, 
and that being the case I would--having described my felt need 
here and South Carolinians felt need, and I think it is the 
felt need of many other states, not just South Carolina, we--
well, I am actually--before I withdraw it I think I have got 
some folks on our side that would like to comment on that.
    And so I suppose I will yield back for the moment and----
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
    Thank you Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we 
have expressed support time and time again for responsible long-term 
geologic disposal of nuclear waste. In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 
Congress directed the Administration to take title to civilian nuclear 
waste and dispose of it in secure geologic storage at a nuclear waste 
repository in Yucca Mountain beginning in 1998.
    In good faith, industry and nuclear electricity rate payers have 
been contributing to the nuclear waste fund financing the project at 
Yucca. South Carolinians alone have contributed $1.2 billion to this 
national effort. Unfortunately, progress at Yucca Mountain has been 
slow, and despite our investment, South Carolinians are still storing 
4,000 metric tons of nuclear waste at home.
    More unfortunate is that this Administration has decided to 
politicize this scientifically and technically sound storage option for 
nuclear waste, despite a long history of bipartisan support. While this 
Administration inappropriately inserts politics into science, it puts 
millions of Americans at risk and exposes tax payers to expensive law 
suits from-the nuclear industry. It also discourages investment in 
nuclear power, slowing down any resurgence in this industry.
    The Administration has proposed to find an alternative solution to 
managing nuclear waste through the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's 
Nuclear Future. While I'm confident that the Commission will come up 
with several innovative ideas to manage the nuclear waste stockpile, 
none of these ideas will satisfy the Federal obligation to long-term 
geologic storage at Yucca Mountain.
    The amendment I offer for your consideration directs the Department 
of Energy to consider the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission 
in the context of Yucca Mountain. In other words, the decision on 
whether to proceed with alternative waste disposal recommendations made 
by the Commission can only be made after comparing those 
recommendations to disposal at Yucca Mountain. The Federal Government 
has poured 23 years and $10 billion into this storage solution, and we 
have a great deal of understanding of this storage solution. We 
shouldn't throw this work away over politics.
    Thank you for your consideration; I urge adoption of this 
amendment.

    Chairman Baird. If the gentleman wants to yield back and 
others wish to comment, we will be happy to recognize them for 
comments, and then you can--if you choose to withdraw after the 
comments.
    Anyone further wishing to comment?
    Ms. Biggert. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Baird. I think Ms. Biggert had her hand up first, 
Dr. Bartlett, then yourself, and I think Mr. Diaz-Balart also 
and the Mr. Ehlers. So start with the gentlelady first and then 
proceed.
    Ms. Biggert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
support the gentleman's amendment and encourage my colleagues 
to do the same.
    I know there must be jurisdictional problems, but Illinois 
currently holds more spent fuel than any other state, nearly 
7,500 metric tons to be exact, and to make matters worse 
Illinois residents have paid $1.8 billion into the Nuclear 
Waste Fund with no return on their investment and waste stored 
locally could be moved or used today, but it is not because 
the--but it is not because the Administration decided to cancel 
plans for the repository, ``as a matter of policy,'' and that 
is in quotes. ``As a matter of policy.'' And I think that my 
constituents deserve a better explanation than one that lacks 
scientific or technical basis.
    And, you know, we have been working on this for years, and 
there were six, at least six recycling plants that were built 
in the '70s when President Carter shut them all down, and so 
this has been ongoing and having Yucca Mountain ready. I just 
don't understand it.
    So we have had years of engineering and construction and 
technical investment that has been made by the taxpayers at 
Yucca Mountain, and I don't think we should waste it.
    And I would yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
    Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment and encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
    Illinois currently holds more spent fuel waste than any other 
state--nearly seventy-five hundred metric tons to be exact. To make 
matters worse, Illinois residents have paid $1.8 billion into the 
Nuclear Waste Fund with no return on their investment. Waste stored 
locally could be moved or used today. But it's not because the 
Administration decided to cancel plans for a repository ``as a matter 
of policy''. My constituents deserve a better explanation than one that 
lacks scientific or technical basis.
    Mr. Chairman, years of engineering, construction, and technical 
investment have been made by the taxpayers at Yucca mountain. Let's not 
waste it.
    I yield back.

    Chairman Baird. I thank the gentlelady. I recognize Dr. 
Bartlett for comments. Dr. Bartlett, I am sorry. I am 
disregarding my own side.
    Mr. Bartlett. Okay.
    Chairman Baird. I hadn't seen that comment.
    Mr. Bartlett. Go ahead.
    Chairman Baird. Does the Chairman wish to comment on this?
    Chairman Gordon. Well, I also agree that we need to have a 
permanent repository, and we have a responsibility to that. As 
a practical matter, Yucca cannot hold all of the current waste 
and the future waste that will be produced by just the plants 
that we have now, and that is why I think this bill is 
important that we look at reprocessing in a different way. We 
look at reprocessing so that hopefully we can have, as Mr. 
Garamendi points out, a full cycle so that there is little or 
no waste, and that we can even reuse some of the waste we have 
now. And hopefully with this new technology we are going to 
move from thousands of years down to maybe a few hundred years 
of necessary storage, which then would make Yucca even, you 
know, more reasonable by virtue of less and less volume and a 
shorter period.
    So I hope that this bill will help us to achieve what we 
all want and can be done in a more, again, achievable way, and 
I yield back my time.
    Chairman Baird. I thank the Chair. Dr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. I regret that the political climate 
necessitates an amendment like this. I would think it would be 
unthinkable that the Commission would not look at this endeavor 
where we have spent a number of years and billions of dollars 
in preparing it. We shouldn't have to remind them that they 
need to look at that.
    I would like to thank our Chairman for the codell to France 
that I was privileged to go on, and if we use their nuclear 
electrical generation technologies, Yucca Mountain would hold 
the waste for 100 years, and so we really need to move to 
reprocessing, and I understand the potential for a sequential 
referral here, and I hope that we can rework this amendment 
between now and full committee markup so that we can put this 
marker down that certainly this Commission needs to look at all 
the money and all the time that has been invested in Yucca 
Mountain.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. There is an old adage in the trash or junk 
business that one person's junk is another person's treasure. 
The nuclear waste has been considered for many, many years to 
be a problem. It is actually a very valuable resource because 
there is an enormous amount of energy in that material, and 
what we need to do is to move beyond the politics of Nevada and 
other places, including California, and get on with using a 
very valuable resource, that is what is now called nuclear 
waste. It is actually a nuclear material that has extraordinary 
energy potential.
    So, you know, we will deal with the politics, and we are 
all familiar with that, and it is not just one Administration. 
It has been going on for at least four Administrations now.
    This bill, however, in its totality is extremely important 
because it moves us beyond a political dead-end street and to a 
potential, not a potential, a real resource in a what that is 
safe compared to all the other options available to us.
    So we ought to, you know, let us get beyond it. I 
understand we got to do what we got to do, but this bill is 
extremely important.
    So we will end it here and move onto full recycling and 
generation for technologies. Thank you.
    Chairman Baird. Thank Mr. Garamendi.
    Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to see 
this issue being taken up. I think this committee has for too 
long and too often neglected its role here and deferred to 
another committee, which as far as I am concerned, should not 
have anything to do with it.
    And I think it was--well, I could go into great detail on 
this if you wish. I notice a few agreeable smiles, but just 
because someone attaches the name of energy to another 
committee, it doesn't mean they have either the background or 
the expertise to deal with it. And I think this committee does 
have the background and the expertise.
    The Yucca Mountain is--it has really been a fiasco all the 
way along, and I think the original bill is flawed, and that 
has created a problem. Just by the way the bill is written, as 
I understand it, it is virtually impossible to meet the 
responsibilities because you are asking for absolute proof that 
no radioactivity will escape.
    I would offer that it is impossible to generate a system 
that would guarantee that over 10,000 years nothing would leak 
out. There is another answer, however, real exciting, makes a 
lot more sense, and that is retrievable monitored storage, 
which is the direction that we are tending towards, but we 
should--I think we should make it official and hold a funeral 
for the original concept of the Yucca Mountain and adapt it to 
a system that can be made to work. Let us monitor retrievable 
storage. You simply watch it carefully, and if there is a 
problem that develops, you remove it, re-encapsulate it in some 
fashion, and put it back in. This is imminently workable, and 
it gets away from many of the objections that have been 
generated on this.
    There are other issues that have come forward such as the 
transportation of radioactive waste, and it is very easy to 
scare the public on this and put it in terms that every little 
town in America is going to have trucks rolling through that 
are carrying dangerous amounts of radioactivity, and that, 
again, is fiction.
    So there is--I really think there has to be a very firm, 
very strong leadership on this issue. It should reside in one 
committee, not more than one, and we should involve the 
Department of Energy and the Administration, including the 
President, in a very workable plan.
    Too many people have seen one solution or another as the 
correct solution, and I think we have wasted a lot of time 
then. Clearly recycling plants have their role, but it is not 
the only way to do it, and I am not convinced it is the best 
way to do it.
    But it clearly plays a role, and so we really have to take 
a much broader look than I think the Congress has ever taken at 
this issue and really come up with a solution. And it may be 
that we need a special committee to handle this that involved 
representatives from the various committees that are currently 
involved in it. It could be for that matter bicameral and 
involve the Senate as well and actually come up with a solution 
that is workable. We know that there are workable solutions out 
there. We just keep getting sidetracked on all sorts of 
solutions that are not as workable and then the objections 
proliferate.
    So I apologize again. I told you before I am the son of a 
pastor, so I tend to sermonize quite a bit, but I just wanted 
to get this on the record and say there are ways to do it, and 
we have to do it in a systematic, careful, thoughtful, 
scientifically-accurate way and not let the inner mechanics of 
the Congress or of the Administration mess us up once again.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Baird. I thank the gentleman. Just for 
clarification, the gentleman in his remarks I think referred to 
the original bill. I don't think he is referring to the bill 
before us today but for the Yucca Mountain Bill.
    Mr. Ehlers. No. I am reliving the past and saying I really 
think we have to do more than is done in this bill.
    Chairman Baird. I appreciate that. One other point of 
clarification. When you refer to establishing a location where 
nothing can escape for 10,000 years, you were not referring to 
the other body, were you?
    Mr. Ehlers. I will let your comment speak for itself.
    Chairman Baird. Mr. Diaz-Balart is recognized.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we do 
need--look, this is an issue that has been politicized forever. 
It continues to be politicized, and that is a reality, and you 
know, and we would all like to move forward, but the reality is 
that without necessarily pointing fingers but it continues to 
be politicized even by this Administration.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do now is ask for 
unanimous consent to submit just a CBO report on the cost of 
closing Yucca Mountain and also there is an article by Energy 
and Environmental Daily, which talks about how CBO report, 
mentions how the taxpayer, the Federal Government and the 
taxpayer will have to pay electric utilities of about half a 
billion dollars a year, that its acceptance in nuclear waste is 
delayed because of the Administration's decision to shut down 
Yucca Mountain, and all I would like to do now, because, again, 
it is important that we look at all the facts and 
unfortunately, there seems to be a reluctance again. Call it 
whatever you might want to call it. Is it politicized or 
whatever? There seems to be a reluctance to want to look at all 
the facts.
    All I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is ask unanimous 
consent to, again, submit the CBO report that I just mentioned 
and the article that I just mentioned.
    Chairman Baird. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Baird. Any further discussion?
    With that I want to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina. Indeed, the concern he recognizes is precisely that 
the language as currently drafted would likely lead to multiple 
referrals and as Dr. Ehlers said, well, his comments--but I 
share Dr. Ehlers' concerns. In order to be able to move the 
bill forward, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to 
withdraw and would be happy to work with him to try to craft 
other language if he so choose.
    Does the gentleman wish to withdraw?
    Mr. Inglis. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and just add this. It is 
heartening here to see so much agreement that, A, that our 
committee should have jurisdiction, and, B, that something 
needs to be done, and you know, this is a great country with 50 
states, and if we all engage in not in my backyard, we would 
have a real problem. And, you know, South Carolina has taken a 
lot of low-level radioactive waste. We are not the perfect 
place for that, but we have taken a lot of it. We have got a 
lot of, in fact, 35 million gallons of high level liquid 
radioactive waste at the Savannah River Site.
    We have taken one or two or 35 million gallons worth of--
for the team. It seems to me that there are some other places 
that can take one for the team, the 50-state team, and figure 
out a way to deal with this problem long term.
    And but it is because of the practical problems I'm happy 
to withdraw the amendment at this point but hope that between 
here and the Full Committee we can craft it in such a way that 
it would give some direction to the Commission but avoid the 
sequential referral problem.
    So we are confident that we can get there with the proper 
drafting of it. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to 
withdraw the amendment.
    Chairman Baird. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing and 
appreciate his standing up for the concerns of his state with 
such high volumes of nuclear waste present. I had not been 
aware that there were those volumes present, but being aware of 
that helps explain certain electoral results that have occurred 
in recent months, and I will leave that to speculate on what I 
mean by that.
    The Chair will recognize Chairman Gordon to fill the chair 
for now.
    Chairman Gordon. [Presiding] Thank you, Chairman Baird. He 
has to, as many of us have to do periodically, testify 
somewhere else, so now we move on, and the tenth amendment on 
the roster is an amendment offered by the gentlelady from 
Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you ready to proceed with your 
amendment?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 128, amendment offered by Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member for considering the amendment, and before I explain the 
amendment I would like to associate myself with the remarks of 
Mr. Garamendi and Dr. Ehlers.
    My amendment calls for the Secretary of Energy to work with 
the National Academies to conduct a long-term operating study 
of our Nation's existing nuclear power plants. The United 
States currently has 104 reactors in 31 states that generate 
approximately 20 percent of our Nation's electricity.
    Data indicates that it is possible that 1/3 of the nuclear 
facilities in our country will be retired in the next 20 to 25 
years. Given that nuclear power provides approximately 20 
percent of the electricity in the United States, this topic is 
of critical national concern.
    My existing nuclear facilities, many exist in nuclear 
facilities of the U.S. are nearing the end of their initial 40-
year license. Many of these facilities are likely to seek and 
receive license renewal for an additional 20 years. As the 
demand for low carbon electricity grows, it is not too soon to 
identify options for these plants beyond the 60-year mark.
    The most recent U.S. nuclear unit to be completed was TVA's 
Watts Bar I reactor ordered in 1970, and licensed to operate in 
1996. The dearth of new nuclear units necessitates that our 
current nuclear infrastructure must continue to operate 
reliably, safely, and efficiently.
    In the U.S. there are 59 nuclear plants that have reapplied 
for license through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an 
additional 20 years, taking the age of their plants from 40 to 
60. The need to demonstrate the technical and financial 
feasibility of extending the life of nuclear facilities beyond 
60 years is evident. How long can these facilities last safely, 
what can be done to maintain these facilities better, what 
major impediments do they face to their long-term operational 
viability, to help transition to a low-carbon economy? Congress 
needs these questions answered.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate your 
considering this commonsense amendment. I have lived with 
nuclear energy for the last 30 some years. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance 
of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for that excellent 
amendment.
    Is there further discussion? Mr. Garamendi is recognized.
    Mr. Garamendi. This is a very good amendment. I--there is 
an energy hub, simulation hub that the Department has 
developed. I believe it is near or close to your district, Mr. 
Chairman, as the center of the hub with an extension into the 
Lawrence Livermore and Sandia Laboratories, and I think Los 
Alamos is also included in this, to do advanced simulation of 
the existing nuclear power plants so that their life might be 
extended. It may be that between now and when we finalize this 
bill in Full Committee we may want to tie these two things 
together with this amendment so that the amendment, that is the 
law supports the simulation hubs, a hub that has been already 
authorized by the Department of Energy.
    And I think these two things might ties together in a way 
that would be beneficial in supporting the existing direction 
that the Department of Energy is going.
    So I just leave that out there, something that we would 
want to work on in the interim period.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. I thank you. I will point out that is in 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, not in my district and further to the 
east, but I am sure that they would welcome a-- you or we might 
take codell down there, folks that are interested in seeing 
what they are doing and hearing what they are doing.
    Is there further discussion?
    If there is not further discussion?
    If there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on 
the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes 
have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    We will now as agreed earlier go back to our third 
amendment, Mr. Matheson and along with Ms. Giffords, has an--
are you prepared to offer your amendment?
    Mr. Matheson. Yeah. There is an amendment at the desk, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 0666, amendment to H.R. 5866, 
offered by Mr. Matheson of Utah and Ms. Giffords of Arizona.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain 
his amendment.
    Mr. Matheson. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
Subcommittee Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Inglis for their 
thoughtful approach to this issue.
    I have always supported a diverse domestic energy portfolio 
that includes nuclear power. One thing about nuclear power 
under our current technology is when you have a nuclear power 
plant, it consumes a lot of water. It is probably no 
coincidence that Members from Utah and Arizona, two of the 
driest states in the country, are offering this amendment that 
suggest that as part of the research effort, we ought to be 
looking for ways to be more efficient in terms of water use in 
these plants. It wasn't included in the original text. I think 
this is a good addition to include that as part of the research 
perspective, searching for ways to be either more efficient and 
how water is used or different technologies that may not 
require water.
    I think it is an important mechanism to include in terms of 
this research effort, and that is really the substance of this 
amendment.
    With that I would yield the rest of my time to Ms. 
Giffords.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Matheson, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, and I am looking at Mr. Garamendi from California, 
also from the west, and even states that have historically had 
a lot of water but are becoming increasingly concerned about 
our water supply.
    This is an excellent amendment, and I think also a really 
critical aspect to moving nuclear energy forward in this 
country. A lot of folks on this committee know that I am a 
strong proponent of solar energy. I am also a strong proponent, 
like many of us, of making America's energy in America. I think 
it is a national security issue, it is an environmental issue. 
It is an issue that promotes jobs in our country rather than 
importing jobs from abroad in the energy sector.
    And frankly, one of the greatest challenges that this 
country faces is how we are going to get our energy, and the 
interconnection between energy and water is one that you just 
cannot separate.
    So I applaud the Chairman for working on this bipartisan 
legislation and Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Hall as well 
and Congressman Inglis, this bill funds the research that will 
reduce the capital cost and make nuclear safer, both in terms 
of proliferation by protecting Americans and habitats from 
nuclear waste, but in terms of this amendment one of the--the 
biggest problems we are going to be able to solve with this 
amendment.
    As America continues to develop a new energy future, we are 
going to have to be cognizant of our previous water supplies, 
and I think about even those of us who live in Arizona, I think 
we have over 25 million users on the Colorado now and for the 
fastest growing states are the states in the west, so this is 
something that we really have to take into consideration.
    We looked at a recent CRS report that says nuclear plants 
consume 430 to 750 gallons of water for every megawatt hour of 
electricity generated plus an additional 45 to 150 gallons for 
processing the fuel source. That is as much as 900 gallons of 
water total, which is a staggering sum. In particular Arizona 
has the largest nuclear power plant in the country, the Palo 
Verde Nuclear Generating Station. It consumes 750 gallons per 
megawatt, which puts that plant at the top of the range. That 
is a total of 20 billion gallons of water a year, enough to 
meet the needs of about 300,000 individuals.
    By comparison when you look at other aspects of what this 
committee is working to promote like solar energy and wind 
generation requires virtually no water. Concentrated solar 
power does consume some, but new dry cooling technologies can 
reduce the consumption by 90 percent.
    So we need to make these similar advances that we have made 
in renewables like solar and wind with nuclear power, and this 
is why we have this amendment. It tasks the Department of 
Energy to develop new cooling technologies for nuclear power 
plants that are water efficient. It is a necessary improvement 
to make new nuclear power a reality and to assure that we move 
forward in this way when we address our energy resources. We 
cannot deplete the most important life-sustaining element which 
is water.
    So I hope that our colleagues join us in this very 
important commonsense amendment, and with that I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Giffords. Is there further 
discussion?
    If there is no further discussion then, the vote occurs on 
the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The 
ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    If not, before we conclude let me just once again thank Dr. 
Baird, Mr. Inglis, the other Members of this Committee who 
really have gotten involved in this bill and our staff.
    You know, it is very rewarding, I hope for you, it 
certainly is for me to see us proceed in an adult, thoughtful 
way to do what I think we all came here to do, and think this 
is an excellent bill.
    We will complete it, take that to the Full Committee level 
when we get back in September.
    I now recognize Mr. Inglis--oh excuse me. Excuse me. Since 
there are no other amendments, then the vote now occurs on the 
bill, H.R. 5866, as amended. All those in favor, say aye, All 
opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
    I now recognize Mr. Inglis for a motion.
    Mr. Inglis. I move, Mr. Chairman, that the Subcommittee 
favorably report H.R. 5866 as amended to Full Committee.
    Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the 
subcommittee report and make necessary technical and conforming 
changes to the bill in accordance with the recommendations of 
the subcommittee.
    Chairman Gordon. The question is on the motion to report 
the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify 
by saying, aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The bill is 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table. The members will have two subsequent calendar days 
in which to submit supplemental, Minority, or additional views 
on the measure.
    I, once again, thank all the Members for being a part of 
this good legislation, and this concludes our subcommittee 
markup.
    [Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


        H.R. 5866, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster






                     Section-by-Section Analysis of
     H.R. 5866, Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 2010

Section 1. Short Title

    Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 2010

Section 2. Objectives

    Amends Section 951(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to include 
the following objectives:

        1)  Reducing the costs of nuclear reactor systems

        2)  Reducing used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste products 
        generated by civilian nuclear energy

        3)  Supporting technological advances in areas that industry is 
        not likely to undertake because of technical and financial 
        uncertainty

Section 3. Funding

    Amends Section 951 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide the 
following authorizations for Subtitle E programs:

        A.  Total Program's Authorization

                1)  $419,000,000 in FY 2011;

                2)  $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

                3)  $439,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

        B.  Breakout of total Authorization for Activities under 
        Section 953 for the Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program

                1)  $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

                2)  $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

                3)  $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

        C.  Breakout of total Authorization for Activities under 
        Section 952 for Nuclear Energy Research and Development 
        Programs other than those described in 952(d)

                1)  $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

                2)  $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

                3)  $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

        D.  Breakout of total Authorization for Activities under 
        Section 952(d) for the Small Modular Reactor Program

                1)  $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

                2)  $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

                3)  $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

        E.  Breakout of total Authorization for Activities under 
        Section 958 for the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies 
        Program

                1)  $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

                2)  $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

                3)  $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

Section 4. Nuclear Energy Research and Development Programs

    This section amends Section 952 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by 
striking subsections (c) through (e) and inserting a Reactor Concepts 
Program that authorizes research into advanced reactor designs and 
technologies to prolong the life of currently deployed reactor systems. 
Technologies that may be researched under this section include those 
that are economically competitive with other electric power generation 
plants, have higher energy efficiency, lower cost and improved safety 
compared to current reactors, utilize passive safety systems, minimize 
proliferation risks, reduce production of high-level waste per unit of 
output, increase the life and sustainability of deployed reactor 
systems, use improved instrumentation, or are capable of producing 
large-scale quantities of hydrogen or process heat. This section also 
requires the Secretary to seek opportunities for international 
cooperation.

Section 5. Small Modular Reactor Program

    This section amends Section 952 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by 
creating a Small Modular Reactor program to promote the research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application of small modular 
reactors (SMRs). Under this section SMRs are defined as reactors with a 
rated capacity of 300MWe or less and can be constructed and operated in 
combination with similar reactors at a single site.
    In conducting this program the Secretary may enter into cooperative 
agreements to support SMR designs that enable lower capital costs or 
increased access to private financing, reduced long-term radio-
toxicity, mass, or decay heat of waste, increased operating safety of 
nuclear facilities, reduced dependence of reactor systems on water 
resources, increased seismic resistance of nuclear generation, reduced 
proliferation risk, and increased efficiency in reactor manufacturing.
    To be eligible to enter into the agreement an applicant must submit 
a proposal that documents all partners and suppliers involved in the 
project and a description of anticipated domestic and international 
activities, measures to be undertaken to enable cost-effective 
implementation of the SMR project, an accounting structure approved by 
the Secretary, and all known assets that shall be contributed to 
satisfy the non-Federal share requirement.
    This program will require any applicant to be responsible for at 
least 50% of the cost of the project and that cost may only be 
satisfied through the use of non-Federal dollars.
    In selecting winners of awards or cooperative agreements the 
Secretary shall consider the domestic manufacturing capabilities of the 
parties and of their partners and suppliers, the viability of the 
reactor design and business plan of the parties, the potential of the 
reactor design to be developed without future Federal subsidy, and the 
non-Federal share to be provided.

Section 6. Fuel Cycle Research and Development

    This section amends Section 953 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by 
renaming the program ``Fuel Cycle Research and Development.'' Under 
this program the Secretary shall conduct fuel cycle research and 
development of technologies to improve uranium resource utilization, 
maximize energy generation, minimize nuclear waste creation, improve 
safety, and mitigate risk of proliferation in support of a national 
strategy for spent nuclear fuel.
    The fuel management options that may be considered under this 
program are open fuel cycle, modified open cycle, full recycle, 
advanced storage, alternative storage, or other appropriate technology 
areas. Open fuel cycle includes development of fuels for use in 
reactors that minimize waste creation. Modified open cycle includes 
development of fuel forms, reactors and limited separations of waste. 
Full recycle includes development of technologies to repeatedly recycle 
nuclear waste products to minimize total waste to the greatest extent 
possible. Advanced storage includes development of innovative storage 
technologies for both onsite and long-term storage. Alternative storage 
includes development of innovative long-term storage methods including 
deep borehole storage or salt dome storage.
    Furthermore, under this section, the Secretary must consider the 
final Blue Ribbon Commission report. Within 180 days after release of 
the Blue Ribbon Commission Report the Secretary must transmit to 
Congress a report describing any plans the Department may have to 
incorporate relevant recommendations from the Commission.

Section 7. Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies

    This section amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by adding a new 
section 958 titled ``Nuclear Enabling Technologies.'' This program is 
to support integration of activities undertaken in 952(c) and 953 and 
support crosscutting technology development. Research activities may 
include those pertaining to advanced reactor materials, catastrophic 
radiation mitigation methods, proliferation and security risk 
assessment methods, sensors and instrumentation, manufacturing methods, 
or any crosscutting technology or transformative concept the Secretary 
deems relevant.
    In conducting this program the Secretary must submit a report on 
and evaluation of these activities as part of the annual budget.

Section 8. Emergency Risk Assessment and Preparedness Report

    This section requires the Secretary to transmit to the Congress a 
report summarizing quantitative risks associated with the potential of 
a severe accident arising from the use of nuclear power, and outlining 
the technologies currently available to mitigate the consequences of 
such an accident. The report shall include recommendations of areas of 
technological development that should be pursued to reduce the public 
harm arising from such an incident.

Section 9. Next Generation Nuclear Plant

    This section amends Section 642(b)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 to allow the location of the prototype power plant to be 
constructed in a location chosen by the Consortium through an open and 
transparent competitive selection process.
    This section also requires GAO to undertake a report to provide a 
status update on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) indicating 
its progress, how Federal appropriated funds have been distributed and 
spent, and the current and expected participation by non-Federal 
entities. The report shall also include an analysis of various 
challenges facing the NGNP project.

Section 10. Technical Standards Collaboration

    This section requires the Director of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish a nuclear energy standards 
committee to facilitate and support the development or revision of 
technical standards for new and existing nuclear power plants and 
advanced nuclear technologies.
    The committee shall include representatives from the Federal 
Government and the private sector and the committee shall be co-chaired 
by a representative from NIST and a representative from a private 
sector standards organization.
    The duties of the committee shall include: (1) performing a 
technical standards needs assessment; (2) formulating, coordinating, 
and recommending priorities for new technical standards and the 
revision of existing technical standards; (3) facilitating and 
supporting collaboration and cooperation among standards developers; 
(4) coordinating with other national, regional, or international 
efforts on nuclear energy-related technical standards; and (5) 
promoting the establishment and maintenance of a database of nuclear 
energy-related technical standards.
    $1 million is authorized to carry out this section for each of FY 
2011 through FY 2013.




   XXIII: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 5866, THE 
          NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2010

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2010

                          House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Science and Technology,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Gordon. Good morning. The Committee will come to 
order. Pursuit to notice the Committee on Science and 
Technology meets to consider the following measures. H.R. 5866, 
The Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 2010, and 
H.R. 6160, The Rare Earth and Critical Materials Revitalization 
Act of 2010.
    Also I want to welcome our interns today. I think we have a 
lot of interns here. They have come to see how sausage is made. 
I think you will be pleased that we are doing it in a good way.
    We will now proceed with the markup. Today we will consider 
two important pieces of legislation that will help America 
recapture a technological lead in a wide range of industries 
critical to our economy, our national defense, and a clean and 
secure energy future.
    First, we will consider H.R. 5866, cosponsored by myself, 
Subcommittee Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Hall, and 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Inglis. This bill amends the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, to modernize and improve our Federal 
nuclear energy R&D programs. Our Nation's 104 commercial 
reactors today produce 20 percent of our electricity and 70 
percent of our emission-free energy. If we are to increase our 
energy independence and mitigate the effects of climate change, 
nuclear must continue to be a part of our Nation's energy mix.
    However, capital costs continue to rise for construction of 
new plants and the question of how to manage the waste 
byproducts of nuclear fission remains.
    H.R. 5866 provides the programmatic architecture needed at 
DOE to answer and solve these outstanding issues. This bill is 
the result of a truly bipartisan effort over the past six 
months, and I would like to thank Mr. Hall, Mr. Inglis, Dr. 
Baird, as well as the Committee staff of both the majority and 
the minority for their continued good work as we move this 
legislation through the Committee and to the Floor.
    The second bill on the roster is H.R. 6160, introduced by 
the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Mrs. Dahlkemper, and 
cosponsored by Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Jerry Lewis, Mr. Coffman, and 
myself.
    As the I&O Subcommittee hearing in March highlighted and 
Mrs. Dahlkemper understands well, rare earths are an essential 
component of the technologies in a wide range of emerging and 
established industries, for everything for oil refining to 
hybrid cars, wind turbines to weapon systems. And the demand 
for rare earths is only expected to grow.
    However, despite the fact that the U.S. at one time was the 
global leader in this field, we are now 95 percent dependent on 
China for rare earths. Making matters more urgent, China has 
begun limiting production in the export of rare earths and 
requiring that products using rare earth be manufactured in 
China and largely for Chinese consumption. And for the ones of 
you that have not had a chance to see the paper this morning, I 
wanted you to see the front page of the New York Times business 
section. The headline is, ``In Dispute, China Blocks Rare 
Earths Exports to Japan.''
    Now, let me just suggest that I suspect in the next few 
days that Congress is going to take action on some concerns 
about the Chinese currency, and with that action we could well 
see next week that the headline could be, ``In Dispute, China 
Blocks Rare Earth Mineral Exports to the United States.'' That 
would be devastating to our economy as well as to our national 
security.
    This is clearly an untenable position for the U.S. I 
believe it would be foolish to stake our national defense and 
economic security on China's goodwill or hope that it will 
choose to compete in a fair and open global marketplace for 
rare earths. The stakes are simply too high. This is not the 
first time the Committee has been concerned with competitive 
implications of materials such as rare earths. In 1980, 30 
years ago, this committee established a National Minerals and 
Materials Policy. One core element in the legislation was the 
call for support for a vigorous and comprehensive and 
coordinated program for materials research and development.
    Unfortunately, over successive Administrations the effort 
to sustain the program fell apart. Now it is time to revise a 
coordinated effort to level the global playing field in rare 
earths.
    Mrs. Dahlkemper's bill calls for increased research and 
development to help address the Nation's rare earths shortage 
and reinvigorates the national policy for critical materials.
    With that I thank you for your attendance and participation 
this morning and look forward to a productive markup.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
    Today we will consider two important pieces of legislation that 
will help America recapture a technological lead in a wide range of 
industries critical to our economy, our national defense, and a clean 
and secure energy future.
    First, we will consider H.R. 5866 sponsored by myself and co-
sponsored by Subcommittee Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Hall and 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Inglis.
    This bill amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modernize and 
improve our Federal nuclear energy R&D programs. Our nation's 104 
commercial reactors today produce 20 percent of our electricity and 70 
percent of our emissions free energy.
    If we are to increase our energy independence and mitigate the 
effects of climate change, nuclear must continue to be a large part of 
our nation's energy mix.
    However, despite a strong record of safety and operating 
efficiency, capital costs continue to rise for construction of new 
plants, and the question of how to manage the waste byproducts of 
nuclear fission remains.
    H.R. 5866 provides the programmatic architecture needed at DOE to 
answer and solve these outstanding issues.
    This bill is the result of a truly bipartisan effort over the past 
six months and I would like to thank Mr. Hall, Mr. Inglis, and Mr. 
Baird, as well as the Committee Staff of both the Majority and 
Minority, for their continued good work as we move this legislation 
through the Committee and to the floor.
    The second bill on the roster is H.R. 6160 introduced by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Mrs. Dahlkemper, and cosponsored by Mr. 
Carnahan, Mr. Jerry Lewis, Mr. Coffman, and myself.
    As the I&O Subcommittee hearing in March highlighted, and as Mrs. 
Dahlkemper understands well, rare earths are an essential component of 
technologies in a wide array of emerging and established industries. 
For everything from oil refining to hybrid cars, wind turbines to 
weapons systems, the demand for rare earths is only expected to grow.
    However, despite the U.S. at one time being the global leader in 
this field, we are now 95% dependent on China for rare earths. Making 
matters more urgent, China has begun limiting production and export of 
rare earths and requiring that products using rare earths be 
manufactured in China, and largely for Chinese consumption.
    This is clearly an untenable position for the U.S. I believe it 
would be foolish to stake our national defense and economic security on 
China's goodwill or a hope that it will choose to compete in a fair and 
open global marketplace for rare earths.
    This is not the first time the Committee has been concerned with 
the competitive implications of materials such as rare earths. In 
1980--30 years ago--this Committee established a national minerals and 
materials policy. One core element in that legislation was the call to 
support for ``a vigorous, comprehensive and coordinated program of 
materials research and development.''
    Unfortunately, over successive administrations, the effort to 
sustain that program fell apart. Now, it is time to revive a 
coordinated effort to level the global playing field in rare earths.
    Mrs. Dahlkemper's bill calls for increased research and development 
to help address the Nation's rare earth shortage, and reinvigorates the 
national policy for critical materials.
    With that, I thank you all for your attendance and participation 
this morning, and I look forward to a productive markup.

    Chairman Gordon. And I now recognize Mr. Hall to present 
his opening statement.
    Mr. Hall. Thank you for holding the markup of H.R. 5866, 
the Nuclear Research Bill, and H.R. 6160, the Rare Earth and 
Critical Materials Revitalization Act, and as this is expected 
to be maybe our last markup of the 111th Congress, and at my 
age I don't ever like to say this is our last vote or this is 
our last day up here, this is our--my last day in Congress or 
anything, but I want to take the opportunity really to thank 
you personally for your service to the committee and your very 
fair and bipartisan approach to working with us and the Members 
of the Committee over the years. We all feel that way, and we 
certainly wish you well.
    The first bill we will consider authorizes the Nuclear 
Energy R&D Program to the Department of Energy, and we are all 
aware of the importance of nuclear energy to America's future. 
It provides a safe, reliable, and cost-competitive source of 
energy to meet future increases in electricity demand. And it 
is not battled by a lot of the goofy people that are opposed to 
a lot of the other types of energy that we have.
    It is safe, and we should have been--other than having 
about 20 percent, we ought to have somewhere closer to 50 
percent nuclear outgo. It didn't happen, and there is a lot of 
other things that we could look back for and repeat the words 
from that famous poem, Maud Muller. The last sentence of it 
said, ``Of all sad words of tongue or pen the saddest of these 
it might have been.'' And if we would have worked harder on 
nuclear and supported it more and looked more toward the proper 
energy thrust of the future, I think we would be better off.
    In the short term we need to license and build more 
reactors or use an existing light water technology, but over 
the longer term we need to advance the development and 
licensing of new reactor designs, extend the life of the 
existing reactor fleet, and address the serious issue of 
managing waste and spent nuclear fuel. That is a big order.
    Continued research and development is necessary to overcome 
all of these challenges, and this bill will help us to get 
through a comprehensive approach that authorizes existing R&D 
activities at DOE with an emphasis on accelerating the 
advancement and eventual licensing of small modular reactors.
    It is a good bill. I thank the majority for working with us 
throughout the summer to craft it, and I am pleased to join 
Chairman Gordon, Energy Subcommittee Chairman Baird, and 
Ranking Member Inglis as a cosponsor.
    We--I know that the second bill we consider creates a 
``Rare Earth Mineral,'' R&D Program at DOE and authorizes DOE 
to make loan guarantees for mining, processing, and industrial 
production of rare earth minerals. This is an important issue 
that warrants our attention.
    Rare earths are used in many different high-tech 
applications, including certain military and weapons systems, 
and China controls the bulk of world supply and recently 
announced its intention to reduce exports, triggering concerns 
that the U.S. could face a supply gap.
    The obvious question we face is how best to address this 
concern with respect to potential and national security 
ramifications. I understand that the Department of Defense will 
soon complete a study regarding its need for a domestic rare 
earth supply capability, a question that appropriately will be 
addressed by DOD and the Armed Services Committee.
    With respect to commercial supply needs, it appears that 
increased demand and actions by China have resulted in sharp 
price increases for rare earth materials. Now, this in turn has 
stimulated an immediate market response as companies around the 
world are aggressively pursuing new rare earth mining and 
progressing--processing opportunities. A suggestion that a 
taxpayer subsidy for such activity may not be necessary.
    Important questions remain unanswered because we have--
because we bypass regular order with this legislation, and 
members have had only a brief opportunity consider this issue 
and legislation. I am uncomfortable supporting passage of this 
bill. I am not positive as to how I feel about the bill, but I 
am very understanding that we have a problem that we probably 
need to settle for ourselves without selecting one single 
entity to support, that we get some competitive approach to it, 
and with that I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Hall. Pardon. If I might retract that, I want to--if I 
have any time left I want to yield it to Mr. Bilbray.
    Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman--thank you. I appreciate the 
Ranking Member yielding. Look, I just want to--regardless of 
the details of how we work this out, I want to thank the Chair 
and the Ranking Member for raising these two issues, because I 
think too often here in Washington and around this country we 
talk about lofty ideas, things like clean air, clean, 
affordable energy. We talk about electrification of automobiles 
and more efficient use of what energy we have.
    These two items you have brought up are those essential 
things that are put on backburners and are not bothered with 
because they may be politically hot, but they are the 
foundations that are essential to lay if you are ever going to 
see things like clean, affordable energy, if you are going to 
see electrification of our fleets, and especially these two. It 
is the fact that the nuclear power issue is one that has been a 
third--political third rail, but you are brave enough to 
address it, and I congratulate and thank you for the American 
people on that.
    And the issue of rare earths is one of those detailed 
things that are essential. If you think about this, it is the 
permanent magnet, high-efficiency electric motors that are 
driving Priuses and our troop carriers are essential for this. 
So if you believe in a clean, electrified fleet, then you have 
got to be brave enough to stand up on rare earth. If you 
believe in a clean air and want to address climate change, then 
you got to be brave enough to stand up for next generation 
nuclear.
    And I appreciate the fact that, Mr. Chairman, that you have 
been brave enough to be able to do that, and I hope that the 
committee over at E and C and in Interior are brave enough to 
stand up and talk frankly about this because we are not going 
to see those great opportunities for the future if the 
committees and this Congress aren't brave enough to do what you 
are doing today.
    And I want to yield back.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I, too, appreciate your interest 
and involving the committee in this very, very important issue. 
I will continue to work with you on issues as we move forward. 
I yield back. Thank you.
    Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Could I ask 
unanimous consent----
    Chairman Gordon. I think Mr. Hall yields to the lady from 
Illinois.
    Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Thank you, and I would ask unanimous 
consent to include in the record my opening statement on H.R. 
5866.
    Chairman Gordon. Everybody's statements----
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Let me first say that everyone's statement 
will be included in the record at this time, and Dr. Bartlett 
is recognized.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Biggert follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
    Thank you Mr. Chairman, for holding this important markup today.
    I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 5866 and thank Chairman 
Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for their leadership on this 
legislation.
    Due to population and estimated economic growth over the next 
twenty-five years, the United States demand for electricity is expected 
to rise by thirty percent. To meet rising demand for power for our 
homes and businesses, we need to expand our domestic electricity 
production and create affordable, reliable electricity in an 
environmentally responsible way. Nuclear power is the only way to do 
this.
    Illinois already leads the way, deriving half of its electricity 
from nuclear energy. But we need to do more to expand nuclear here and 
across the country. That's why I co-sponsored HR 5866, legislation to 
support the deployment of small modular nuclear reactors and to 
reauthorize nuclear research and development activities at the 
Department of Energy.
    A complement to existing large-scale reactors, small modular 
reactors require less time to construct and are based on current 
reactor designs, thereby reducing the burdensome licensing process. 
This is an ideal solution for growing communities and cash-strapped 
utilities that need extra generation capacity at a fraction of the 
cost.
    More importantly, HR 5866, extends and modifies R&D activities that 
promote advanced research to close the nuclear fuel cycle and recycle 
spent nuclear fuel. In my district, scientists and engineers at Argonne 
National Lab lead the Nation in research and development for nuclear 
fuel recycling. Recycling is not just important for the reduction of 
waste created, but also for the conservation of worldwide uranium 
resources. It will also encourage the deployment of expanded nuclear 
power for industry and states that want to provide affordable 
electricity without unnecessary liabilities.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with us to craft a strong, 
bipartisan bill.
    I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today we will consider H.R. 5866, the Nuclear Energy Research and 
Development Act, and H.R. 6160, the Rare Earths and Critical Materials 
Revitalization Act.
    I'd like to take a few moments to speak about H.R. 5866, the 
Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act.
    Nuclear power provides a significant portion of our nation's 
electricity supply. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
there are commercial nuclear power reactors licensed to operate in 31 
states. These reactors provide approximately 20 percent of our nation's 
electricity supply.
    Nuclear power is a critical electricity source in Arizona where we 
have the largest nuclear generation facility in the nation, the Palo 
Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
    However, as these nuclear power reactors continue to operate, spent 
nuclear fuel continues to accumulate without a clear strategy of how to 
store this waste.
    H.R. 5866 seeks to address this issue through the creation of a 
robust and integrated research, development, demonstration and 
commercial application program that will seek to mitigate the problems 
associated with nuclear waste.
    I look forward to our discussion here today. At this time, I yield 
back.

    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a 
colloquy to address concerns about Section A raised by 
Constellation Energy, which serves many constituents in my 
district. That same concern is expressed by a number of other 
utilities.
    Chairman Gordon. Dr. Bartlett, why don't we wait until we 
start the bill and then I will be happy to have a colloquy with 
you if that----
    Mr. Bartlett. Oh, thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. Just try to keep in proper order here.
    We will now consider H.R. 5866, the Nuclear Energy Research 
Development Act of 2010. I recognize myself for five minutes to 
describe the bill.
    As I noted before, the bill before you is a product of a 
bipartisan collaboration aimed at pursuing nuclear power 
technologies that address concerns of waste as well as to 
reduce the cost of building new reactors. It enjoys the support 
of many utilities, vendors, customers, and trade associations, 
including General Electric, Westinghouse, Babcock and Wilcox, 
NuScale, the American Chemical Society, the New Generation of 
Nuclear Plants Industry Alliance, and the Nuclear Energy 
Institute.
    Among the initiatives authored or authorized under the bill 
is a Small Modular Reactor Program that will provide the 
necessary funding to research, development, and demonstrate SMR 
technologies that could bridge the gap that now exists between 
the nuclear industry and the private investment community.
    This legislation will also promote the development of a 
well-rounded and pragmatic approach to our Nations' nuclear 
waste. As the country continues to debate the waste strategy, 
it has become clear that the new technological solutions can 
exist if given the proper support and resources to develop. The 
fuel cycle R&D initiative in this bill provides the necessary 
direction and resources to support cutting-edge research in 
this critical area.
    Furthermore, in addition to looking at advanced 
technologies, H.R. 5866 recognizes the important role our 
current fleet must play in addressing our emission-free energy 
needs for years to come. To that end, we authorize a program 
that would explore new ways to extend the life of reactors 
already supplying us electricity today.
    I appreciate the Ranking Member and his staff's work on 
this bill and look forward to working with him as we move 
forward.
    Chairman Gordon. I now recognize Mr. Hall to present any 
remarks on the bill.
    Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very 
brief.
    Just to reiterate from my opening remarks, this is a good 
bill that was crafted in a bipartisan fashion that included 
extensive interaction with nuclear energy stakeholders, and I 
think that is important. I know members on our side are going 
to be offering some amendments, important amendments to improve 
the bill further, particularly with respect to how we address 
nuclear waste storage and the future of Yucca Mountain.
    This is a very important topic, and I look forward to a 
good debate and discussion on it, and I thank you, sir, and I 
yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. Just to reiterate from my 
opening remarks--this is a good bill. It was crafted in a bipartisan 
fashion that included extensive interaction with nuclear energy 
stakeholders.
    I know Members on our side will be offering some important 
amendments to improve the bill further--particularly with respect to 
how we address nuclear waste storage and the future of Yucca Mountain--
this is a very important topic and I look forward to a good debate and 
discussion on it.
    I yield back.

    Chairman Gordon. Dr. Bartlett is recognized.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. Constellation Energy came to us 
with a concern, and when I read Section 8 I have the same 
concern. It says, not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act the Secretary shall transmit to the 
Congress a report summarizing quantitative risks associated 
with the potential--with severe accident arising from the use 
of civilian nuclear energy technology, including reactor 
technology deployed or likely to be deployed as of the 
enactment of this Act. This gives the impression that we don't 
now have that, and it gives the impression the industry fells 
that, gee, nuclear, the production of nuclear electricity may 
not be safe, and I would appreciate a colloquy to address this.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. I would like to, 
again, share--I appreciate you sharing your concerns with the 
Committee, and I want to thank you for bringing this concern to 
the Committee's attention. As I have said before, I am 
supportive of nuclear power, as I believe it is a part of the 
solution to the challenges of energy independence and climate 
change.
    The gentleman is correct that our 104 commercial reactors 
have run with strong records of safety and operating 
efficiency. I share your concern that Section 8 might be 
misinterpreted. In light of the fact that these concerns have 
been brought forward only recently, I concur with your 
assessment that the report language would be the most 
appropriate way to address them, and I am confident that staff 
from both sides will work together as they have throughout this 
process and address these concerns as we move forward to the 
Floor.
    Mr. Bartlett. A more than 50 year great track record of 
completely safe and economic production of nuclear energy, and 
it is unfortunate that we might give the impression that 
somehow it is not safe because we are going to require all 
these regulations.
    Thank you for committing to address this in report 
language.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett.
    Does anyone else wish to be recognized?
    Mr.--Governor Garamendi is recognized.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This report is 
going to be very important. For example, California has a law 
that prohibits new nuclear power plants unless they are safe, 
and because of the safety issue, a report about the safety of 
the existing and future plants could open the door for the 
development of nuclear power in California without such a 
report from the national level. It is less likely that that 
hurdle would be overcome.
    So I think the report is going to be useful. Exactly how it 
is going to be written in the tone and tenor, I will leave that 
to the Chairman to work out.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Governor. I don't think anybody 
on this committee, certainly you are much more aware of the 
issue than I am, and we look forward for your continued 
stewardship. This is not just one bill and out. This committee 
needs to continue to have oversight as this goes forward.
    So thank you.
    Does anyone else wish to be recognized?
    If not, I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered 
as read and open to amendment at any point and that the members 
proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The first amendment on the roster is a manager's amendment 
offered by the Chair. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 051, amendment to H.R. 5866 
offered by Mr. Gordon of Tennessee.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize myself for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    In addition to making clarifying and conforming changes, my 
manager's amendment incorporates a number of our members' 
concerns and has been worked out in advance with Mr. Hall 
through this amendment.
    Mr. Lujan ensures that a range geologic media are 
considered for storage options in the alternative and deep 
borehole storage methods subsection. Mr. Lujan also ensures 
that the factors to be considered in the project selection 
criteria are independent of the Administration's provisions and 
would ensure that small modular reactors are defined as having 
a high degree of fabrication and modularity.
    It would ensure that the power marketing administration, 
such as TVA, may use revenues generated through electricity 
sales toward the non-Federal cost share in the small modular 
reactor program, and I appreciate the time Mr. Lujan and Mr. 
Hall have put into making this a better bill through the 
manager's amendment, and I urge its adoption.
    Is there further discussion on the manager's amendment?
    Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Thank you, and of course, this bill was crafted 
in a bipartisan fashion. These changes improve the underlying 
legislation. We urge its passage.
    Yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. If there is no further discussion, all in 
favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The second amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Bilbray. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 057, amendment to H.R. 5866 
offered by Mr. Bilbray of California.
    Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and 
straightforward. It asks the DOE to conduct a report examining 
state requirements including moratoriums that delay development 
of nuclear power and ways that the United States Government can 
assist in overcoming these barriers.
    Currently there are dozens of states that have moratoriums 
from building new nuclear plants. As our Nation grapples with 
the increased energy demands and the environmental concerns 
about traditional carbon-emitting problems, the increase in 
nuclear is one that is a national concern. Many individuals and 
groups from the President of Stanford University has addressed 
this issue and raised concerns about these kinds of 
obstructions.
    I would just like to say that California has four nuclear 
reactors that furnish about 13 percent of the state's 
electricity, saving over $2.6 billion per year in natural gas 
and actually 22 metric tons of greenhouse gases are avoided. 
Just by adding four more modern reactors we would allow the 
electric sector to reduce greenhouse emissions by 40 percent.
    Now, Mr. Chairman and the Committee, you got to understand 
that traditionally our clean air strategies were based on air 
base and impacts which were local or state impacts. Now that we 
are talking about the climate change issue, it is now not just 
state by state, it is national and global, and when we start 
having one state following regulations, there is interstate and 
global impacts on that.
    And just a good example is my own state which prouds--which 
prides itself at being environmental sensitive, has obstructed 
the construction of any new zero-emission generating reactors, 
when, in fact, it has gone out of the state and purchased coal-
fired plants instead, which to me really as somebody who has 
worked on clean air, is an embarrassment for a state that has 
been a traditional leader.
    All I am asking is we take a look at this, we get the 
facts, and I think it is essential, especially under the latest 
climate change issues and the interstate commerce issue that 
the Federal Government look at the obstructions that are being 
created by states that will block the implementation of our 
clean air strategies and this energy independence concept.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. We will recommend 
that this amendment be accepted.
    I would like to say to you that we have some concerns about 
jurisdiction that might be raised, and so I would like to work 
with you as we go to the Floor if we need to tweak that for 
those purposes.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 
to.
    The third amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, who is not here 
at this time, and so with--is Mr. Tonko going to do it, or we 
want to take unanimous consent?
    Okay. So we will, without objection we will take that up at 
a later time.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Tonko. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 037, amendment to H.R. 5866 
offered by Mr. Tonko of New York.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    H.R. 5866 currently focuses solely on the reactor side of 
nuclear power generation. However, the steam side presents 
numerous opportunities to make improvements that could increase 
turbine and generator efficiencies, leading to higher power 
outputs for the same steam flow.
    I believe that it is important to address efficiency 
improvements on the steam side as well as the reactor side. 
This amendment would allow that to happen. Adoption of this 
amendment would make H.R. 5866 a comprehensive approach to 
improving nuclear power plant efficiency.
    Improvements in efficiency lead to higher electricity 
output. For every one percent improvement in efficiency, the 
available energy is increased by 2-1/2 percent. Not only will 
these improvements help improve efficiency, but the new 
technologies that this amendment will help develop will result 
in creating jobs and technology expertise.
    Some of the areas that would be addressed by my amendment 
include cooling systems, heat exchangers and pumps, special 
coatings and advanced power conversation systems. Better 
cooling systems and heat exchangers would enable heat to be 
transferred from the reactor side to the steam side more 
efficiently. Better pumps would allow for lower losses of 
energy in circulating water and steam from the reactor side to 
the steam side and vice versa.
    Special coatings would improve the lifetime of components 
by making them more resistant to erosion. Coatings could also 
aid in the rate of heat transfer, leading to better heat 
exchanger performance.
    Finally, advanced power conversion systems would help 
convert mechanical energy from the steam turbine into 
electrical energy more efficiently, providing more electricity 
for the same steam flow.
    In summary, my amendment would make H.R. 5866 a 
comprehensive approach to improving nuclear power plant 
efficiency. I ask, therefore, my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Tonko, for that good 
amendment. Is there further discussion?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Comrade Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Mr. Commissar. What can I say?
    I don't think we need to oppose this amendment, but I think 
that we need to just a little clarification what we are really 
talking about here, and I think what we are talking about with 
this amendment is tweaking old technology, and the whole idea 
of light water reactors and steam, this is stuff that has been 
around for 60 years, and it is not something that is going to 
break new ground at all.
    Now, it may well be worthwhile to find out if there are 
ways to tweak old technology. I mean, it is sometimes more cost 
effective to upgrade your old car rather than buy a new car 
that is based on an entirely new approach to providing the 
energy for your car.
    So I would suggest, however, and let me ask to make sure 
this is clear, this amendment authorizes so that the funds can 
be used for this but doesn't mandate that they have to be used.
    Mr. Tonko. Exactly right.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. And there is no reason for us not to keep 
that within the range of considerations by the Department of 
Energy to see if that is, indeed, a worthwhile investment to 
find new ways of using basically light water reactors and using 
the steam from them.
    However, which we will hear later on in the amendments that 
are being offered today, there are new ways of producing 
nuclear energy that don't require steam that are much--and if 
we are going to--if we are actually going to cement ourselves 
into doing something in the future, it should be based on new 
technology like these small modular reactors, the gas cool 
reactors, et cetera. The reactors that will eat the waste from 
other reactors rather than the old process that left over--that 
left a lot of problems after the energy was actually generated.
    So I just wanted to make sure that in the record we are--
this amendment is just permitting the Department of Energy to 
do this rather than mandating it.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Tonko is recognized.
    Mr. Tonko. I concur. The language is enabling. It is not 
mandatory, and to your point or to use your language, if they 
see that the existing efficiency opportunities can be tweaked 
to a greater degree----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
    Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Let us do so.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Any further discussion?
    Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I hadn't talked with Mr. 
Rohrabacher on this, but I think he feels if it is permissive, 
he has no real problem, and I probably am not in shape to speak 
for the entire--this side of the Committee, but it seems like 
the amendment simply authorizes DOE to pursue research on--to 
improve cooling steam generation, efficiencies of nuclear 
plants, and while the primary focus of and funding for DOE 
nuclear R&D activities ought to continue to be on reactor 
design and operations.
    It seems to me that the steam side is also an important 
area of interest that DOE should consider pursuing, and I had 
planned to support the amendment, and I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. I think everyone is to the best I can 
understand.
    If there is no further discussion, then the vote is on the 
amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have 
it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The fifth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi. Are you ready 
to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Garamendi. I am, Mr. Chairman. You can read it.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 032, amendment to H.R. 5866 
offered by Mr. Garamendi of California and Mrs. Biggert of 
Illinois.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Garamendi. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. This section 
deals with the necessity of how to handle nuclear fuels, not 
only in their initial but in their secondary and perhaps third, 
fourth, or fifth stage. It talks about recycling, what to do 
with the spent fuels.
    The general thrust of the total section is that the 
Secretary ``may consider''. I would much prefer that that would 
be the Secretary ``shall'', but when I was over at the 
Department of Interior, I always wanted to have the 
flexibility. Now that I am here I think that is not so 
necessary.
    Nevertheless, even with that this particular amendment goes 
to one part of this, which is the full recycling program, and 
provides somewhat more clear direction to the Secretary about 
what full recycling is. Specifically, making it clear that we 
are talking about Generation IV reactors. These are reactors 
that could ultimately significantly reduce the amount of 
nuclear waste by perhaps 90 percent by recycling repeatedly 
through Generation IV reactors, and in so doing dramatically 
reduce the toxicity and the decay heat.
    And that is what the amendment does. Mrs. Biggert has 
joined me on this amendment, and I yield to her.
    Mrs. Biggert. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate being 
on this amendment. I think this is a very, very important 
concept, and whenever we think about the reactors now when we 
are really taking probably six percent of the nuclear energy 
and using that and then throwing away really 94 percent of the 
nuclear energy and whether we are going to have to store it or 
whatever while we--if we have these fast reactors that we 
really conserve that, you know.
    Nuclear is not a substance that is without a limit, and so 
the more that we can protect that, because, yeah, I think the 
only way that we are really going to solve our problems with 
energy is to have long-term nuclear energy, and the fast 
reactors are the way to go, and then the recycling of that.
    So I appreciate the gentleman allowing me to cosponsor and 
would ask for support.
    Mr. Garamendi. I will wrap up on this amendment. The 
Generation IV reactors, often called integral fast reactors, 
are available. They have been around for some 30 or 40 years. 
They do work. We have never proceeded with them, I think 
because of a mistake that has been made over the years that 
these reactors could lead to proliferation of nuclear 
materials. In fact, there is a methodology called 
pyroprocessing that dramatically reduces the potential for 
proliferation. And so when joined with pyroprocessing, which 
this amendment would encourage but not only specify, together 
with the integral fast reactors could dramatically reduce the 
nuclear waste, increase the potential power of the nuclear 
fuels, and dramatically reduce proliferation concerns.
    That is the direction this amendment pushes us, and as I 
said, if I had my choice, I would make this entire section the 
Secretary shall do, but we are not there yet. I will continue 
to push for that.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. And thank you for a very good amendment.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. We are--let us just--
I want to make sure that we are defining what we are doing 
here, and this does permit, again, this focus on Generation IV 
reactors.
    There are--I am not certain whether or not that designation 
includes some of the other type of innovations that are taking 
place in the nuclear energy and the development field. So 
whereas there is not this contradiction because it just says 
they may, but it doesn't mean that they are not also going to 
be looking at the other ways of achieving the goals of this 
amendment.
    So and I would like to ask my colleague whether or not that 
is the case.
    Mr. Garamendi. This particular section goes to one kind of 
reaction, the Generation IV. The other three preceding sections 
really specifically deal with the alternative systems, partial 
recycling----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. Once through, and the other, 
including modulars. So they are included throughout the 
legislation. This one speaks to one portion or one kind. The 
other sections speak to the other types of reactors----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
    Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. And the other systems of 
recycling.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. So we are not limiting the other sections 
by this section and by your amendment.
    Mr. Garamendi. That is correct.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note--let me note that in the 
past the biggest arguments against nuclear energy have been 
that there is a, of course, there is a safety problem, people 
worrying about meltdowns, et cetera. There have been worries 
about the leftover material and the storage of that of which we 
have heard over and over again, a very passionate debate in the 
Congress on those issues.
    Well, there are now technological solutions to those 
challenges, and we have now had--with newer technologies, 
whether it is the high-temperature gas cool reactor or pebble-
based reactors, and we now have a way to prevent a project, a 
nuclear energy project from becoming something that gives us 
more problems with nuclear proliferation, and we now have a way 
of minimizing the storage of spent fuel with the old Yucca 
Mountain issue.
    So I would just suggest that--and I support the amendment, 
but I just want to make sure for the record that there are many 
other ways rather than just specifically outlining one--if 
Generation IV means one system, there is a broad, another broad 
area that we should be looking at, and, again, this is not 
exclusive as we are putting it into the law.
    Yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Your concerns are addressed by the totality 
of the bill. The Chairman has written a bill that is very 
broad, covers virtually every kind of technology, recycling 
technology----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
    Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. As well as the various kinds of 
reactors with the exception--even fusion is involved in this, I 
think, in some small way. So he has written a very 
comprehensive bill. Your concerns are fully addressed by the 
totality of the bill.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. And not changed by this amendment.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, the amendment provides more direction 
with regard to this specific type of reactor----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
    Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. But does not preclude any of 
the other research and development that is called for in other 
sections of the bill.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment?
    If not, the vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The sixth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis. Are you ready 
to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Inglis. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 029, amendment to H.R. 5866 
offered by Mr. Inglis of South Carolina.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment basically 
makes it so that the Secretary would have to submit a report to 
us, to the Congress, comparing anything that comes out of the 
Blue Ribbon Commission to the Yucca Mountain Alternative.
    So when we marked up this bill at Subcommittee, I offered 
an amendment encouraging the Administration to reconsider their 
decision on Yucca Mountain. I withdrew the amendment over 
concerns that as written it wasn't germane, but with the great 
help of Katy Crooks of the minority staff, we have gotten 
language now that is germane.
    So in 1982, Congress passed a Nuclear Waste Policy Act to 
address the long-term management of nuclear waste. The 
Department of Energy was charged with collecting, transporting, 
storing, and disposing of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel. In 
1987, Congress concluded that DOE would take title to waste and 
store it at Yucca Mountain in a permanent geological 
repository.
    Over the past 27 years the nuclear industry and nuclear 
electricity rate payers have contributed $17 billion to the 
Nuclear Waste Fund. Of that 17 billion South Carolinians have 
contributed $1.2 billion. Rate payers and nuclear power 
generators contributed to the Waste Fund in anticipation that 
the Department of Energy would begin accepting and storing 
spent fuel waste starting in 1998.
    Now it is 12 years later, and South Carolina continues to 
store 4,000 metric tons of waste in places that are not long-
term storage.
    It is no surprise that this delay is costly. The government 
has breached its contract with the Nuclear Industry, exposing 
taxpayers to expensive lawsuits. Millions of Americans continue 
to house nuclear waste in their communities, assuming undue 
risk. The delay has also discouraged investment in nuclear 
power, slowing down the resurgence of this very exciting 
industry and new way of making--or way of making power for our 
future.
    What we need is a clear and achievable plan for dealing 
with waste. Despite a long history of clear bipartisan support 
and U.S. Congress for long-term storage has spent fuel at Yucca 
Mountain, this Administration has decided to reopen the 
question.
    President Obama proposes to use the Blue Ribbon Commission 
on America's nuclear future to find an alternative solution to 
managing nuclear waste. This panel may well come up with some 
innovations in managing the nuclear waste stockpile, but the 
repeatedly expressed will of the U.S. Congress is long-term 
geologic storage at Yucca Mountain.
    While some may disagree that geologic storage at Yucca is 
the best option, we cannot disagree on these facts, that the 
Nation has invested a lot of time and resources in Yucca 
Mountain. Twenty-three years, $10 billion.
    So the amendment I offer today directs the Department of 
Energy to compare the recommendations of the Blue Ridge or the 
Blue Ribbon Commission to Yucca Mountain. If we abandon the 
solution, we should first have all, full accounting of what we 
are sacrificing in terms of safety, security, costs, 
technological expertise, and site readiness.
    So the concept, again, is simply to take the Blue Ribbon 
Commission report and order them to compare it, comparing the 
options they come up with, to the Yucca Mountain option. And 
that seems to make sense because we have invested now these 27, 
23 years or so, 23 years and $17 billion in Yucca, so any 
alternatives should be compared to the investment we have 
already made, and then we can decide whether to go forward with 
Yucca or we go forward with one of these other options.
    But let us not just overlook the fact that it is 27 years 
and $17 billion. Mr. Chairman, so I hope we will have support 
for this amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
    Thank you Mr. Chairman. When we marked this bill at subcommittee, I 
offered an amendment encouraging the Administration to reconsider their 
decision on Yucca Mountain. I withdrew the amendment over concerns 
that, as written, it was not germane. I'd like to thank Katy Crooks 
from the minority staff for clarifying the language and giving us the 
opportunity to consider this amendment again.
    In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to address 
the long-term management of nuclear waste. The Department of Energy was 
charged with collecting, transporting, storing, and disposing of the 
nation's spent nuclear fuel. In 1987, Congress concluded that DOE would 
take title to waste and store it at Yucca Mountain in a permanent 
geologic repository. Over the past 27 years, the nuclear industry and 
nuclear electricity rate payers have contributed $17 billion to the 
Nuclear Waste Fund. South Carolinians themselves have contributed $1.2 
billion.
    Rate payers and nuclear power generators contributed to the Waste 
Fund in anticipation that the Department of Energy would begin 
accepting and storing spent fuel waste starting in 1998. Now, 12 years 
later, South Carolina continues to store 4,000 metric tons of waste.
    It's no surprise that this delay is costly. The government has 
breached its contract with the nuclear industry, exposing tax payers to 
expensive lawsuits. Millions of Americans continue to house nuclear 
waste in their communities and assume undue risk. The delay is also 
discouraging investment in nuclear power, slowing down resurgence in 
this industry.
    What we need is a clear and achievable plan for dealing with waste. 
Despite a long history of clear, bipartisan support in the U.S. 
Congress for long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, 
this Administration has decided that they can come up with something 
better.
    President Obama proposes to use the Blue Ribbon Commission on 
America's Nuclear Future to find an alternative solution to managing 
nuclear waste. I'm confident that this panel will come up with some 
great and innovative ideas to manage the nuclear waste stockpile. The 
only idea that will satisfy the repeatedly expressed will of the U.S. 
Congress is long term geologic storage at the Yucca site.
    While some may disagree that geologic storage at Yucca Mountain is 
the best option, we cannot disagree that as a nation we have invested a 
lot of resources in this solution. To date, we've sunk 23 years and $10 
billion into this project, and have gained a lot of knowledge about how 
best to store waste there.
    The amendment that I offer for consideration today directs the 
Department of Energy to compare the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon 
Commission to Yucca Mountain. If we abandon this solution, we should 
first have a full accounting of what we are sacrificing in terms of 
safety, security, cost, technological expertise, and site readiness.
    I hope you'll agree that we need a long term storage option for 
spent nuclear fuel and that the Federal Government is long overdue on 
supplying the American nuclear industry with a solution. We should know 
if we are sacrificing too much by ending progress at Yucca Mountain.
    I encourage adoption of this amendment and I yield back the balance 
of my time.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Inglis, and thank you for 
working to craft the amendment in such a way that we feel more 
comfortable that we don't have a jurisdiction problem. If there 
is a claim anywhere, we may have to work a little bit more, but 
I know you have worked in good faith to do that.
    And your good work has already resulted in several boxes of 
information coming to the Committee. So more importantly, thank 
you for your work on this bill and your stewardship as Ranking 
Member of the Energy Committee. I hope you will find this as 
one more highlight in what you have been able to get 
accomplished.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Dr. Ehlers is recognized.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to 
comment in a general way on this proposed amendment and also 
the Sensenbrenner amendment and give a physicist's perception 
on this.
    I think the original legislation that was passed by the 
Congress some years ago was deficient and perhaps because it 
went to--through a committee other than the Science Committee, 
and I think that continues to be a problem.
    The constant use of the term disposal I think is a mistake. 
We are not disposing of the material. We are storing it, and 
using the word disposal implies that somehow we are getting rid 
of it, and it is not going to exist anymore. Now, we might 
possibly do that by blasting it out and sending to the sun, 
which would probably do a pretty good job of disintegrating 
much of it, but it really fools us into thinking that, well, if 
we can just put it in the ground at Yucca Mountain, then 
everything will be wonderful.
    And that is why Yucca Mountain, I believe, has had so much 
trouble. I think the only way to do it is to realize we are 
storing it, we are not disposing of it, and that we turn to 
monitored, retrievable storage, which should satisfy the 
critics who say that Yucca Mountain is not safe because 10,000 
years from now we will still have all that radioactivity there.
    If we have monitored retrievable storage funded by the same 
sorts of funds that Mr. Inglis referred to, you can have a much 
more viable system where you store it in canisters, which are 
examined regularly. If one should leak, then they are 
transported out by robots, the leak is fixed, and they are put 
back in. It would be a very low-cost maintenance effort, and I 
think it would be far safer than anything that we have heard 
discussed before.
    Now, it is a little extreme to try to bring that concept in 
here at this point, and we would probably seriously have 
jurisdictional problems, but I think the waste and the lack of 
good direction that Mr. Inglis referred to is something that 
has to be addressed by the Congress, and if the other committee 
which claims jurisdiction is not willing to work with us on 
this, I think then we have to fight hard to see that our method 
would prevail.
    And I am not going to say that the only method would be 
monitored retrievable storage, but at least let us recognize 
that we are just storing it there, and it is not going to be 
gone, and if you are worried about leakage, then you should 
have a method of restoring--pardon me, observing it, which is 
where the monitored part comes in, because simply putting it 
underground doesn't mean that it is safe. It doesn't mean that 
it is being held properly. There is no way to examine it and 
see whether or not it is leaking or what other problems are 
developing.
    So I just want to offer that at this point, and one of my 
regrets about leaving the Congress at the end of this session 
is that this is one problem that I felt should be addressed, 
and I have never been able to persuade enough people. They are 
all afraid of addressing this problem because of the political 
ramifications. I think there are ways of doing it that are 
politically more acceptable.
    So I would appreciate comments of Mr. Inglis and others on 
this suggestion. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
    Governor Garamendi.
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. I think we need to go to this side of the 
aisle right now.
    Mr. Bartlett. Okay.
    Chairman Gordon. Governor Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Inglis and Mr. 
Ehlers are on a track that is really important. I would add one 
more thing to it and a couple of comments.
    Is it waste, or is it a valuable asset? Mrs. Biggert 
earlier said that about six percent or less of the current 
energy in the nuclear fuel is actually consumed, leaving a 
significant potential energy source which has heretofore been 
considered to be a waste. When that waste is consumed in a 
Generation IV reactor, perhaps first in a Generation III 
reactor and then on into a Generation IV reactor, you then turn 
that 92, 96 percent waste into an extraordinary asset that 
could provide energy for many, many years, perhaps several 
hundred years.
    So we need to look at this in a different way, and in order 
to get to that new way of looking at it, you have to have some 
sort of reactor and reprocessing system that can actually 
consume that material, which I would now call an asset, and 
that is where this Generation IV comes into play. Coupled with 
Generation III you can then move forward.
    And the storage systems then become, as Dr. Ehlers said, a 
temporary retrievable storage system, because you want to get 
to the asset. That is what this is all about. The Chairman is 
quite correct in the direction of the bill and pushing us off 
in that direction.
    So I thank the Chairman then for the discussion.
    Mr. Ehlers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Garamendi. Of course.
    Mr. Ehlers. I want to thank you for your comment because 
that fits in my comment, in with my comment. We are not 
disposing of it. We are simply storing it, and there are ways 
we can use it. You have mentioned one way. There are other ways 
we can extract additional energy out of the so-called 
``waste.''
    And you are quite right. Instead of talking about disposal, 
we should talk about storage. Instead of talking about waste, 
let us talk about resources.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Couldn't go through a bill without hearing 
from Dr. Broun. I was wondering where you were.
    I am sorry. Dr. Bartlett was--had asked to be recognized 
first.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, for the leading technology country in the world 
it is very sad that we are not leading the technology in 
nuclear power development. Our so-called ``waste'' is, of 
course, as was adequately shown to us in the codel you lead to 
France. We went through the Vigareva facility there is a very--
is a feedstock for reactors that end up with a fraction of the 
waste that we have in volume and with a very much shorter half 
life. You have to store them securely for far lesser years.
    I hope that this storage is retrievable because we darn 
well need to be retrieving it in the future to burn it in these 
new reactors. I don't know why we are so far behind, but, 
golly, we got to catch up here. The rest of the world is 
leading the charge, and we are behind, and you know, thank you 
for this bill which encourages us to catch up.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. Dr. Broun is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman, I assure you I am not asleep over 
here, and I have a tremendous interest in this discussion and 
wanted to add my two cents.
    We have a tremendous facility at Savannah River Site in 
South Carolina that--where we have a lab that will very happily 
research of how to expand our nuclear energy potential as a 
Nation, help us to determine alternative uses of these 
resources that have in the past been called waste, and I agree 
with Dr. Ehlers and Mr. Garamendi that these are resources that 
need to be utilized, and I highly recommend that we expand the 
utilization of the lab at Savannah River Site and others around 
this country to look into how we can utilize this material 
because it is extremely important. It is extremely valuable. It 
is not just a resource to dump in the ground and just leave 
there. So it is a reusable resource, and we need to do 
everything we can in this committee as well as in Congress, as 
well as in the government overall to try to expand these types 
of research and development projects, and I highly encourage us 
to keep our eye on the ability to do that.
    And I appreciate Mr. Garamendi's amendment, and I highly 
recommend that this committee continue to focus upon those 
resources and how we can expand the use.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Broun.
    You know, a major thrust of this whole bill is really to 
get into research so that we can deal with proliferation 
issues, so we can deal with storage issues, and as Dr. Bartlett 
says, make us a world leader again.
    Is there further discussion?
    Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. It 
highlights a fundamental priority for a lot of us in ensuring 
the long-term viability of nuclear power itself, completing the 
review and license application of the Yucca Mountain Waste 
Repository.
    We simply can't have a revival of nuclear energy in this 
country if we don't find a way to safely dispose of it or 
maybe--I think the doctor didn't like the word, dispose of. 
Maybe we could use, getting rid of or divorcing or maybe 
funeralize it. And at Yucca Mountain we would have a sign that 
says, here lies nuclear waste, where the rest of us can rest in 
peace, and maybe as the governor set out, and I gleaned this 
from his suggestions that we might one day want to go back into 
that. There is some useful--it might be useful to future 
generations. The things that we don't know and the governor has 
brought his coffee back, and I will say that again for him.
    Thank you, Governor, for your statements, because I think 
you are indicating that there may be some day a future use for 
that, and for the professor down here and the more 
sophisticated grammarians here, it might tell you that we may 
want to visit the nuclear cemetery over there at Yucca 
Mountain, and the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam said, ``Man once 
buried wants dug up again.'' Maybe we could do that here.
    At any rate, I just want to say that unfortunately the 
Obama Administration turned its back on Yucca Mountain and just 
like they ran a line through Constellation and put NASA to 
flight, they completely have taken it off the table. This 
amendment simply says that DOE shouldn't consider alternatives 
to Yucca in a vacuum, and I think that is what our Chairman is 
saying. They ought to be directly compared on a scientific and 
technical basis to see which solutions are the best.
    This is a good amendment, I urge its passage, and I thank 
Mr. Inglis for offering it and for his leadership in this issue 
and the Chairman for being as open with us and giving us the 
opportunity to say some of the silly things some of us want to 
say.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Biggert follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
    Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment and encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
    As I mentioned at subcommittee, Illinois holds more spent fuel 
waste than any other state.
    And, Illinois residents have paid nearly $2 billion into the 
Nuclear Waste Fund.
    The government has invested two decades and billions of taxpayer 
dollars on engineering, construction, and technical expertise to build 
a permanent repository.
    It's only appropriate that we consider that in this legislation.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    Chairman Gordon. I think this well-discussed amendment now 
is ready for a vote.
    All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The seventh amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu. Are you ready to proceed 
with your amendment?
    Mr. Wu. I am, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 058, amendment to H.R. 5866 
offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The American people justifiably want to see the most made 
of our existing resources before spending additional taxpayer 
dollars on equipment and facilities. I am, therefore, offering 
a straightforward, good government amendment to create a 
database of federally-funded research facilities capable of 
supporting unclassified nuclear energy research.
    My amendment further directs the Secretary of Energy to 
make this database available on the Department's website so 
that researchers can easily locate available research 
facilities across the United States.
    I hope that this database would also allow universities to 
make their facilities more widely available to outside 
researchers who may benefit from state-of-the-art resources 
already maintained at institutions nationwide.
    I also believe that in creating a more-centrally-organized 
network of research facilities will benefit researchers and 
universities alike, while ensuring that taxpayers receive 
maximum return on their investment in federally-funded 
facilities.
    The inspiration for this amendment came from one of the 
major research universities in my home State of Oregon. Oregon 
State University currently maintains a small research reactor 
for use in civilian nuclear research. Innovation is crucial to 
maintaining U.S. leadership in the 21st century global economy.
    Ideas and idea-driven industries hold the key to developing 
the technology that will make our Nation's energy independence 
possible, and I believe the Department of Energy can play an 
important role in helping to make future innovations in nuclear 
energy safe, clean, and affordable.
    Toward this end we all have a responsibility to do what we 
can to facilitate a U.S. research community that is 
competitive, collaborative, and consumer oriented. At the same 
time we must ensure that we are doing everything we can to 
maximize the use of our prior investments in nuclear R&D 
facilities, and therefore, I think it is crucial that we help 
make our Nation's world-class research resources more easily 
accessible to the university research community.
    I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment 
and yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Wu, for this good 
amendment.
    Is there further discussion?
    If no further discussion then, the amendment--oh, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. I was just turning my light off.
    Chairman Gordon. Okay. Then the vote occurs on the 
amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have 
it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The eighth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. He is not 
here, so Mr. Hall is going to offer that in his behalf. Are you 
ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Hall. I have an amendment at the desk--Mr. 
Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Gordon. I hope I don't have to, but I reserve a 
point of order on the amendment. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 044, amendment to H.R. 5866 
offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, this amendment highlights further 
the need to address the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. It 
clarifies that DOE will be responsible to disposal of the high-
level radioactive waste or spent fuel generated by the reactors 
developed through R&D programs in the bill.
    The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires DOE to dispose of 
high-level radioactive waste from commercial reactors by 
January 31, 1998, and in 1987, Congress amended then PWA to 
specify a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.
    The high-level radioactive waste produced by the small 
modular reactors and Next Generation nuclear plants authorized 
by this bill would fit the definition of high-level radioactive 
waste in the NWPA.
    And the purpose of this amendment is to reinforce or maybe 
to message Congressional intent, the DOE license and construct 
Yucca Mountain. In spite of the law, President Obama and 
Secretary Chu have attempted or are attempting to permanently 
shutter Yucca Mountain, and Administrative Board Judges at the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission called Secretary Chu's rationale 
to shutter Yucca Mountain a logical, ``contrary and not 
persuasive,'' insignificant, and sight-seeing PWA's detailed 
congressional record to repudiate DOE.
    I support the amendment, and I think--and I understand your 
point of order is developed toward the Section 12 there. And we 
have an offer there to strike the word, develop, if that would 
help.
    Chairman Gordon. Without objection, the amendment will be 
altered. The amendment will strike the word, ``developed'', and 
just for clarification, Mr. Hall, what this will mean is that 
the only disposal responsibility to the Department of Energy 
will be that within those programs that it is putting forth.
    Mr. Hall. Yeah.
    Chairman Gordon. Correct?
    Mr. Hall. Yeah. When you take development out, it still 
says under the program's authorized in this act----
    Chairman Gordon. This act.
    Mr. Hall [continuing]. Or the amendments made by this act. 
It is inclusive to this act.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
    Without objection, so ordered in terms of the altering of 
the amendment.
    Mr. Hall, let me say quickly on this amendment that I have 
long put forth my opinion that Yucca should go forward. I am 
opposed to closing it. I was not opposed to this amendment 
other than the fact that we need to be sure that it was germane 
to this bill.
    Also on a higher level, I want to be--this is a very 
important bill for our country as we have said on a number of 
occasions, and so I think we want to be sure that we do it in 
the right way, and there is no reason to do something that 
would jeopardize the completion of the bill.
    Dr. Ehlers is recognized.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the comments made 
earlier, I am bothered that this talks about both disposal and 
radioactive waste, and I would--I hate to hold up the bill for 
this amendment since I don't have a real disagreement with the 
amendment, but I would hope that you would be willing to join 
me in a manager's amendment that would clarify it along the 
lines that Mr. Garamendi and Dr. Bartlett and I have indicated 
and also Dr. Broun, so that when it reaches the Floor, it will 
make more sense than it does right now.
    Chairman Gordon. I have always found the gentleman 
reasonable, and certainly Dr. Ehlers, we will continue to work 
on this. We want to get it right.
    Mr. Ehlers. Yeah. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. If there is--Governor Garamendi is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, I understand where Mr. 
Sensenbrenner wants to go here. This bill is an extremely 
important one as you just said for a variety of reasons. This 
new section is going to become a lightning rod with some and 
may very well cause opposition that we would not otherwise 
have.
    And I would be cautious here because the intent of the 
amendment as was suggested is to deal with Yucca Mountain. I 
don't think we need to do that again. It is already there, the 
discussion, the debate. I don't know all the politics, I 
haven't been around here long enough, but I can be pretty 
certain that the folks in Nevada don't want to have to have one 
more poke in the eye about Yucca Mountain and might very well 
raise significant objections to the bill itself as a result of 
this amendment which I think is unnecessary.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you.
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Garamendi. Of course.
    Mr. Hall. I respectfully agree to your Excellency suggest 
that there is no change to current law here, and you are right 
that this one is very, very important. The Chairman is right. 
This is one of the most important bills that we will view--and 
I thank you for your input.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you. I think that we have 
concurrence here, that we have been cautious, that we have an 
amendment now that is both in virtue of politics and 
germaneness is appropriate.
    Okay. I withdraw my reservation.
    If there is no further discussion, then the vote is on the 
amendment. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed, no. 
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    And now we return to an amendment by Mr. Lipinski. Mr. 
Lipinski, are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. Lipinski. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 076, amendment to H.R. 5866 
offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Gordon. I am very 
appreciative of the work that you, Chairman Baird, and Ranking 
Members Hall and Inglis have put into developing this important 
bipartisan legislation as Mr. Hall was just emphasizing, how 
truly important this bill is.
    I would especially like to thank the Chairman for his 
leadership with respect to small modular reactors. My amendment 
is short, and I will keep my remarks similarly brief.
    Like many of you, I am concerned the United States no 
longer manufactures the vessels and equipment needed to build 
conventional nuclear reactors. I am concerned that Westinghouse 
is no longer an American company. It is now part of Toshiba, 
and the Japan steel works has monopoly on manufacturing steel 
containment vessels.
    I am excited about this bill because it would position us 
to take the lead on SMRs. We have the capability to manufacture 
everything needed for these reactors, and U.S. companies are 
far ahead of their competitors.
    My amendment would require that applicants who want to 
participate in the Department of Energy's SMR Program explain 
how their proposal will increase domestic manufacturing 
activity, exports, and employment.
    I think this provision will help translate our investments 
in SMRs into jobs, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, for a good 
amendment.
    Is there further discussion?
    If there is no further discussion, the vote is on the 
amendment. All in favor, say aye. The ayes appear to have it. 
Oh, excuse me. Are there no's? Hearing no no's, the ayes once 
again have it, and the amendment is passed.
    The vote now occurs on the bill, H.R. 5688 as amended. All 
those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the 
opinion of the Chair the ayes have it.
    I now recognize Mr. Hall for a motion.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably 
report H.R. 5866 as amended to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill do pass.
    Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to prepare 
the legislative report and make necessary technical and 
conforming changes and that the Chairman take all necessary 
steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairman Gordon. The question on the motion to report the 
bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by 
saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The bill is 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table. Members have two subsequent calendar days in which 
to submit supplemental minority or additional views on the 
measure.
    Thank you. We passed a good bill there.
    Let me also point out that I think a new indoor record was 
set in that we now, over the last four years, have passed 147 
bills and resolutions from this committee in a bipartisan 
manner. So I thank you all for your cooperation.
    And I want to thank Members for their attendance, and this 
concludes this markup.
    [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


  H.R. 5866 as amended, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Markup 
         Report, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster






                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

                    REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP

                             JULY 28, 2010

                 H.R. 5866, The Nuclear Energy Research
                      and Development Act of 2010

I. Purpose

    The purpose of H.R. 5866, sponsored by Rep. Gordon, is to update 
the Department of Energy's nuclear energy research and development 
programs and provide necessary funding to advance nuclear technologies 
to adequately address the issues of high capital costs and waste 
management associated with nuclear power.

II. Background and Need for Legislation

    Today in the United States there are 104 nuclear reactors producing 
approximately 20 percent of our nation's electricity supply and 70 
percent of our emissions-free energy. However, nuclear power as it 
exists today relies on a ``once-through'' fuel cycle that produces high 
level radioactive waste from enriched uranium. In the United States, 
there exists a stockpile of approximately 63,000 metric tons of nuclear 
waste from reactors which generate roughly 2,000 more tons per year. 
Furthermore, the capital costs of nuclear plants have risen steeply and 
present a high hurdle to deployment of new reactors. Some have argued 
that without a fully developed strategy to deal with these challenges, 
nuclear power will be unable to compete with other fuel sources. 
Furthermore, in any carbon dioxide restrained regime, nuclear power 
will play a large role in energy production. To attain the 2030 
reduction goals set in the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 
2454, the Energy Information Administration estimated that at least 96 
gigawatts of new nuclear capacity would be needed.
    To address these challenges, the Nuclear Energy Research & 
Development Act of 2010 amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modify 
and augment existing nuclear research and development programs at the 
Department of Energy. The primary goals of this bill are to mitigate 
the problems associated with nuclear waste and reduce the capital costs 
of nuclear power through a robust and integrated research, development, 
demonstration and commercial application program.

III. Subcommittee Actions

    The Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on May 19th, 
2010 to explore the Administration's strategy for research and 
development to advance clean and affordable nuclear technology. Amongst 
the issues considered were how the Federal Government will enhance the 
safety and economic viability of nuclear power and what programs it 
recommends for managing nuclear waste, advancing reactor design, 
sustaining the existing nuclear fleet, and minimizing risk of 
proliferation of nuclear materials.

Witnesses

Panel I

          Dr. Warren P. Miller is the Assistant Secretary for 
        the Office of Nuclear Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy. 
        Dr. Miller testified on the Department of Energy's recently 
        released Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap and 
        provided additional guidance on the Office of Nuclear Energy's 
        technology and innovation initiatives.

Panel II

          Mr. Christofer Mowry is the President and CEO of 
        Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc. Mr. Mowry testified on 
        Small Modular Reactors and provided an overview of B&W's 
        reactor operations. He provided information on the role Small 
        Modular Reactors can play in reducing capital costs and 
        improving the safety of nuclear power. Mr. Mowry also commented 
        on DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap.

          Dr. Charles Ferguson is the President of the 
        Federation of American Scientists. The Federation of American 
        Scientists (FAS) is a public policy think-tank that was 
        originally founded by scientists from the Manhattan Project. 
        Currently, FAS is conducting a project titled The Future of 
        Nuclear Energy in the United States to explore and analyze the 
        direction of nuclear energy technology innovation. Dr. Ferguson 
        provided an overall analysis and critique of the Nuclear Energy 
        Research and Development Roadmap and Small Modular Reactor 
        technology.

          Dr. Mark Peters is the Deputy Director for Programs 
        at Argonne National Lab. Dr. Peters testified on the Nuclear 
        Energy Research and Development Roadmap with particular 
        attention to the Administration's strategy for waste management 
        technology. He also presented a summary of new waste management 
        technologies currently under development at Argonne National 
        Lab.

          Mr. Gary M. Krellenstein is a Managing Director in 
        JPMorgan's Energy and Environmental Group and is a former 
        nuclear engineer at the Department of Energy and Nuclear 
        Regulatory Commission. Mr. Krellenstein's areas of focus are 
        municipal utilities, Rural Electric Cooperatives, and 
        alternative energy technologies and project financing. He is 
        also involved in JPMorgan's ``carbon'' policies. Mr. 
        Krellenstein testified on private capital interest in nuclear 
        power including how Small Modular Reactors and other new 
        technologies may attract private capital investment.

          Dr. Thomas L. Sanders is the President of American 
        Nuclear Society. The American Nuclear Society is a nuclear 
        professional society dedicated to promoting the awareness and 
        understanding of the application of nuclear science and 
        technology. Dr. Sanders provided an overall evaluation of the 
        Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap and provided 
        recommendations of policy areas to more fully develop or 
        explore.

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider H.R. 
5866 on July 28, 2010.
    Mr. Baird offered a Manager's amendment to make technical 
corrections and conforming changes and to clarify how the cost share 
requirement included in the Small Modular Reactor program is to be 
calculated. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    Ms. Biggert offered an amendment to include in the list of 
objectives of the bill researching and developing technologies and 
processes so as to improve and streamline the process by which nuclear 
power systems meet Federal and State requirements and standards. The 
amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment to require the Secretary to 
consult with and utilize the expertise of the Secretary of the Navy in 
carrying out the Small Modular Reactor program. The amendment was 
agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Lujan offered an amendment to include in the project selection 
criteria of the Small Modular Reactor program those factors the 
Secretary must evaluate according to the program's Administration 
section. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    Ms. Biggert and Mr. Garamendi offered an amendment to require the 
Secretary to include additional advanced recycling and crosscutting 
activities. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Garamendi offered an amendment to require the Secretary to 
research recycling including integral fast reactors in the Full Recycle 
Program. The amendment was withdrawn.
    Mr. Inglis offered an amendment to require the Secretary to 
transmit a report to the Congress describing any plans to adopt 
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission and to provide a response 
to each Blue Ribbon Commission recommendation, including a comparison 
to data from the Yucca Mountain Project. The amendment was withdrawn.
    Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to require the Secretary to enter 
into a contract with the National Academies to conduct an evaluation of 
workforce and facility upgrades needed for the safe and reliable long-
term operation of the Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. The 
amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Matheson and Ms. Giffords offered an amendment to include 
minimization of water usage as a goal to be achieved by new 
technologies researched under the Small Modular Reactors program. The 
amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Inglis moved that the Subcommittee favorably report H.R. 5866, 
as amended, to the Full Committee. The motion was agreed to by voice 
vote.
    The following related hearings were also held in the 110th and 
111th Congresses:
    On June 17, 2009 a Full Committee hearing titled: Advancing 
Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What Should Our Research, 
Development and Demonstration Strategy Be? The purpose of this hearing 
was to explore the benefits and risks of nuclear waste recycling and 
address the technical challenges and policy objectives of a waste 
management strategy.
    On April 23, 2008 a Full Committee hearing titled: Opportunities 
and Challenges for Nuclear Power. The purpose of this hearing was to 
explore the potential for nuclear to increase its share of the U.S. 
energy mix, [evaluate the capacity of] DOE's programs to support and 
advance nuclear technologies, and to discuss the challenges of high 
costs, waste disposal and proliferation concern.
                     Section-by-Section Analysis of
                               H.R. 5866
          Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 2010

Section 1. Short Title

    Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 2010

Section 2. Objectives

    Amends Section 951(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to include 
the following objectives:

        (1)  Reducing the costs of nuclear reactor systems

        (2)  Reducing used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste products 
        generated by civilian nuclear energy

        (3)  Supporting technological advances in areas that industry 
        is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial 
        uncertainty

Section 3. Funding

    Amends Section 951 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide the 
following authorizations for Subtitle E programs:

        A.  Total Program's Authorization

                (1)  $419,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

                (2)  $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

                (3)  $439,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

        B.  Breakout of total Authorization for Activities under 
        Section 953 for the Fuel Cycle Research and Development 
        Program:

                (1)  $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

                (2)  $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

                (3)  $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

        C.  Breakout of total Authorization for Activities under 
        Section 952 for Nuclear Energy Research and Development 
        Programs other than those described in 952(d):

                (1)  $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

                (2)  $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

                (3)  $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

        D.  Breakout of total Authorization for Activities under 
        Section 952(d) for the Small Modular Reactor Program:

                (1)  $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

                (2)  $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

                (3)  $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

        E.  Breakout of total Authorization for Activities under 
        Section 958 for the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies 
        Program:

                (1)  $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

                (2)  $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

                (3)  $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

Section 4. Nuclear Energy Research and Development Programs

    This section amends Section 952 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by 
striking subsections (c) through (e) and inserting a Reactor Concepts 
Program that authorizes research into advanced reactor designs and 
technologies to prolong the life of currently deployed reactor systems. 
Technologies that may be researched under this section include those 
that are economically competitive with other electric power generation 
plants, have higher energy efficiency, lower cost and improved safety 
compared to current reactors, utilize passive safety systems, minimize 
proliferation risks, reduce production of high-level waste per unit of 
output, increase the life and sustainability of deployed reactor 
systems, use improved instrumentation, or are capable of producing 
large-scale quantities of hydrogen or process heat. This section also 
requires the Secretary to seek opportunities for international 
cooperation.

Section 5. Small Modular Reactor Program

    This section amends Section 952 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by 
creating a Small Modular Reactor Program to promote the research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application of small modular 
reactors (SMRs). Under this section, SMRs are defined as reactors with 
a rated capacity of 300MWe or less and can be constructed and operated 
in combination with similar reactors at a single site.
    In conducting this Program, the Secretary may enter into 
cooperative agreements to support SMR designs that enable lower capital 
costs or increased access to private financing, reduced long-term 
radio-toxicity, mass, or decay heat of waste, increased operating 
safety of nuclear facilities, reduced dependence of reactor systems on 
water resources, increased seismic resistance of nuclear generation, 
reduced proliferation risk, and increased efficiency in reactor 
manufacturing.
    To be eligible to enter into the agreement an applicant must submit 
a proposal that documents all partners and suppliers involved in the 
project and a description of anticipated domestic and international 
activities, the measures to be undertaken to enable cost-effective 
implementation of the SMR project, an accounting structure approved by 
the Secretary, and all known assets that shall be contributed to 
satisfy the non-Federal cost share requirement.
    This program will require any applicant to be responsible for at 
least 50% of the cost of the project and that cost may only be 
satisfied through the use of non-Federal dollars.
    In selecting winners of awards or cooperative agreements, the 
Secretary shall consider the domestic manufacturing capabilities of the 
parties and of their partners and suppliers, the viability of the 
reactor design and business plan of the parties, the potential of the 
reactor design to be developed without future Federal subsidy, and the 
non-Federal share to be provided.

Section 6. Fuel Cycle Research and Development

    This section amends Section 953 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by 
renaming the program ``Fuel Cycle Research and Development.'' Under 
this program, the Secretary shall conduct fuel cycle research and 
development of technologies to improve uranium resource utilization, 
maximize energy generation, minimize nuclear waste creation, improve 
safety, and mitigate risk of proliferation in support of a national 
strategy for spent nuclear fuel.
    The fuel management options that may be considered under this 
program are open fuel cycle, modified open cycle, full recycle, 
advanced storage, alternative storage, or other appropriate technology 
areas. Open fuel cycle includes development of fuels for use in 
reactors that minimize waste creation. Modified open cycle includes 
development of fuel forms, reactors and limited separations of waste. 
Full recycle includes development of technologies to repeatedly recycle 
nuclear waste products to minimize total waste to the greatest extent 
possible. Advanced storage includes development of innovative storage 
technologies for both onsite and long-term storage. Alternative storage 
includes development of innovative long-term storage methods, including 
deep borehole storage or salt dome storage.
    Furthermore, under this section, the Secretary must consider the 
final Blue Ribbon Commission report. Within 180 days after the release 
of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report, the Secretary must transmit to 
Congress a report describing any plans the Department may have to 
incorporate relevant recommendations from the Commission.

Section 7. Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies

    This section amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by adding a new 
section 958 titled ``Nuclear Enabling Technologies.'' This program is 
to support integration of activities undertaken in 952(c) and 953 and 
support crosscutting technology development. Research activities may 
include those pertaining to advanced reactor materials, catastrophic 
radiation mitigation methods, proliferation and security risk 
assessment methods, sensors and instrumentation, manufacturing methods, 
or any crosscutting technology or transformative concept the Secretary 
deems relevant.
    In conducting this program, the Secretary must submit a report on 
and evaluation of these activities as part of the annual budget.

Section 8. Emergency Risk Assessment and Preparedness Report

    This section requires the Secretary to transmit to the Congress a 
report summarizing quantitative risks associated with the potential of 
a severe accident arising from the use of nuclear power and outlining 
the technologies currently available to mitigate the consequences of 
such an accident. The report shall include recommendations of areas of 
technological development that should be pursued to reduce the public 
harm arising from such an incident.

Section 9. Next Generation Nuclear Plant

    This section amends Section 642(b)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 to allow the location of the prototype power plant to be 
constructed in a location chosen by the Consortium through an open and 
transparent competitive selection process.
    This section also requires GAO to undertake a report to provide a 
status update on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) indicating 
its progress, how Federal appropriated funds have been distributed and 
spent, and the current and expected participation by non-Federal 
entities. The report shall also include an analysis of various 
challenges facing the NGNP project.

Section 10. Technical Standards Collaboration

    This section requires the Director of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish a nuclear energy standards 
committee to facilitate and support the development or revision of 
technical standards for new and existing nuclear power plants and 
advanced nuclear technologies.
    The committee shall include representatives from the Federal 
Government and the private sector and the committee shall be co-chaired 
by a representative from NIST and a representative from a private 
sector standards organization.
    The duties of the committee shall include: (1) performing a 
technical standards needs assessment; (2) formulating, coordinating, 
and recommending priorities for new technical standards and the 
revision of existing technical standards; (3) facilitating and 
supporting collaboration and cooperation among standards developers; 
(4) coordinating with other national, regional, or international 
efforts on nuclear energy-related technical standards; and (5) 
promoting the establishment and maintenance of a database of nuclear 
energy-related technical standards.
    $1 million is authorized to carry out this section for each of FY 
2011 through FY 2013.

Section 11. Evaluation of Long-Term Operating Needs

    This section requires the Secretary to contract with the National 
Academies to conduct an evaluation of the long-term operating needs of 
currently deployed nuclear reactors. This report must be submitted no 
later than one year after enactment of this act.



