[Senate Report 111-314]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 600
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-314
======================================================================
NUCLEAR POWER 2021 ACT
_______
September 27, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bingaman, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2812]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2812) to amend the Energy Policy Act of
2005 to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out programs
to develop and demonstrate 2 small modular nuclear reactor
designs, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that
the bill, as amended, do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
1. On page 2, between lines 14 and 15, insert the
following:
``(C) Early site permit.--The term ``early
site permit'' has the meaning given the term in
section 52.1 of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation).
2. On page 2, line 15, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.
3. On page 3, line 8, strike ``and''.
4. On page 3, line 17, strike ``2021.'' and insert ``2021;
and''.
5. On page 3, between lines 17 and 18, insert the
following:
``(C) a program to obtain an early site
permit for 2 sites for 1 or more small modular
reactors.
6. On page 4, line 10, strike ``(2) (A)'' and insert
``(2)(A), and each early site permit under paragraph (2)(C),''.
Purpose
The purpose of S. 2812 is to require the Secretary of
Energy to carry out programs to develop and demonstrate 2 small
modular nuclear reactor designs.
Background and Need
The first nuclear power plants built in this country were
small. The first, Shippingport, which was built by the Atomic
Energy Commission and began generating power in 1957, could
generate 60 megawatts of electric power. The second, though
first privately financed nuclear power plant, Dresden, which
began operating in 1960, could generate 180 megawatts of
electricity. The third, Yankee Rowe, which began commercial
operation in 1961, could generate 140 megawatts of electricity.
From these modest beginnings, the nuclear industry scaled
up the size of nuclear power plants rapidly. The four reactors
that began operating in 1969 ranged in size from 581 to 867
megawatts of electric capacity. Five years later, four reactors
with a rated capacity of more than 1,000 megawatts electricity
were in commercial service.
Larger reactors offered utilities economies of scale,
reducing the cost-per-kilowatt-hour of the electricity they
generated. But increasing plant size also increased problems.
Greater size increased capital costs, lengthened construction
times, compounded financing expenses, added to design
complexity and safety concern, and contributed to regulatory
delay and uncertainty. These problems pose a substantial
barrier to the deployment of new nuclear power plants, and they
have led to a reexamination of the use of small modular
reactors.
The term ``small modular reactor'' is generally understood
to refer to a reactor with a rated capacity of less than 300
megawatts electric, which can be linked together with other
small modular reactors, which can then be operated in
combination. Small modular reactors offer several advantages
over large nuclear power plants. They would have a lower
capital cost, and thus would pose less financial risk, carry
lower financing charges, and be more affordable to smaller
utilities. They could also be used in smaller markets, which
might not otherwise be able to support a large base-load
nuclear power plant, or for industrial applications other than
electric power production. Small modular reactor designs may
also offer significant environmental and safety advantages and
nonproliferation benefits. Importantly, they may also be
fabricated in a factory, then transported and assembled onsite,
improving quality control and significantly reducing the cost
and schedule uncertainty of onsite construction.
Legislation is needed to increase research, development,
and demonstration of small modular reactors in order to make
nuclear power safer, more affordable, and more secure, and to
remove barriers to its deployment.
Legislative History
S. 2812 was introduced by Senator Bingaman on November 20,
2009. Senators Murkowski, Udall, Pryor, Landrieu, Risch, and
Crapo are cosponsors. Similar legislation, H.R. 5164, was
introduced in the House of Representatives on April 28, 2010.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a
legislative hearing on S. 2812 on December 15, 2009. S. Hrg.
111-375. The Committee ordered S. 2812 favorably reported, with
amendments, at its business meeting on July 21, 2010.
Committee Recommendation
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in
open business session on July 21, 2010, by voice vote of a
quorum present recommends that the Senate pass S. 2812, if
amended as described herein.
Senator Sanders asked to be recorded as voting no.
Committee Amendments
During its consideration of S. 2812, the Committee adopted
an amendment to require the Secretary to conduct a program to
obtain an early site permit for two sites for one or more small
modular reactors, an amendment to add a definition of the term
``early site permit,'' and to make four technical or conforming
changes.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1 provides a short title.
Section 2 amends section 952 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16272) by adding at the end a new subsection
(f), which establishes a new Nuclear Power 2021 Initiative.
Paragraph (1) of the new subsection (f) defines terms used
in the subsection.
Paragraph (2) directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out
three programs, through cooperative agreements with private
sector partners to develop and demonstrate small modular
reactors.
Paragraph 2(A) requires the Secretary to carry out a
program to develop a standard design for each of two small
modular reactors, at least one of which has a rated capacity of
not less than 50 electrical megawatts, and to obtain a design
certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each
of the two standard designs by January 2018.
Paragraph 2(B) requires the Secretary to carry out a
program to demonstrate the licensing of small modular reactors
by developing applications for a combined license for each of
the designs and obtaining a combined license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for each design by January 1, 2021.
Paragraph 2(C) requires the Secretary to carry out a
program to obtain an early site permit for two sites, each for
one or more small modular reactors.
Paragraph (3) requires the Secretary to select proposals
for cooperative agreement on the basis of an impartial review
of their scientific and technical merit, and through the use of
competitive procedures.
Paragraph (4) requires the Secretary to take into account
the efficiency, cost, safety, and proliferation resistance of
competing reactor designs in evaluating proposals.
Paragraph (5) requires that at least 50 percent of the cost
of developing small modular reactor designs and early site
permits under subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (2), and
at least 75 percent of the cost of the licensing demonstration
of each small modular reactor design under paragraph (2)(B) be
provided by a non-Federal source.
Cost and Budgetary Considerations
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office.
S. 2812--Nuclear Power 2021 Act
Summary: S. 2812 would authorize appropriations for the
Department of Energy (DOE) to enter into cooperative agreements
with private-sector entities to develop and license standard
designs for small modular nuclear reactors with capacities of
up to 50 megawatts. CBO estimates that implementing S. 2812
would cost $407 million over the 2011-2015 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary funds. Enacting S. 2812 would
not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures do not apply.
S. 2812 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 S. 2812 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
Estimated Authorization Level...................... 35 125 100 100 100 460
Estimated Outlays.................................. 21 85 99 102 100 407
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: S. 2812 would direct the Secretary of
Energy to enter into cooperative agreements with private-sector
entities to develop standard designs for small modular nuclear
reactors as well as processes for licensing such reactors with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The bill would
authorize appropriation of the necessary sums for DOE to cover
up to 50 percent of the cost of developing designs for such
reactors and up to 25 percent of the cost to demonstrate
licensing processes and would specify a final deadline for all
work to be completed by January 1, 2021.
CBO estimates that fully funding S. 2812 would require
appropriations totalling $460 million over the 2011-2015 period
and an additional $100 million in 2016. That estimate is based
on information from DOE about the agency's costs to develop
facilities and demonstrate licensing processes for new, large-
scale nuclear reactors and takes into account the cost-share
requirements specified in the bill. Assuming appropriation of
those amounts, CBO estimates that resulting outlays would total
$407 million over the 2011-2015 period.
The NRC also would incur costs to certify designs and
develop licensing procedures for small reactors under S. 2812.
However, according to the NRC, the agency already plans to
develop its capacity to support regulatory processes for small
modular nuclear reactors. As a result, CBO estimates that
implementing S. 2812 would not significantly affect net
spending by that agency; any such spending would be subject to
appropriation and would be largely offset by fees that the NRC
is authorized to collect from regulated entities.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2812
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 A. Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Evaluation
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 2812.
The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of
imposing Government established standards or significant
economic responsibilities on private individuals and
businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 2052.
Congressionally Directed Spending
S. 2812, as ordered reported, does not contain any
congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate.
Executive Communications
The testimony on S. 2812 given by the Assistant Secretary
for Nuclear Energy at the Committee's December 15, 2009
hearing, and the written comments of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission submitted following the hearing follow:
Statement of Warren F. Miller, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
Energy, Department of Energy
introduction
Thank you, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and
Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you and comment on legislation under
consideration by the committee, as well as to provide
information on where small modular reactors fit in the
Department of Energy's portfolio.
Let me start by saying clearly that the administration
views nuclear power as an important element in its strategy to
increase energy security and combat climate change. As the
President said in Prague, ``[w]e must harness the power of
nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate
change, and to advance peace and opportunity for all people.''
Secretary Chu and I are working hard to advance nuclear
power in the United States, and we expect the Department of
Energy to award the first conditional loan guarantee for new
nuclear plant construction soon.
In the Office of Nuclear Energy, we have developed five
imperatives to guide our activities.
First, we are working with industry and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to extend the lifetime of the existing
reactor fleet. The 104 NRC-licensed commercial nuclear reactors
produce roughly 20 percent of our nation's electricity but 70
percent of our carbon-free electricity. Whether those plants
retire at 60 or, for example, 80 years of age could greatly
affect our carbon emissions profile in the future. Research is
needed to answer outstanding questions about how long these
reactors can safely be operated.
Second, we are engaged with industry to enable new plant
builds and improve the affordability of nuclear energy. I
mentioned our efforts with respect to loan guarantees, but also
some of our research, such as the soon-to-be-implemented
Modeling and Simulation Hub, we expect will also help reduce
costs.
Third, we are working to reduce the carbon footprint of the
transportation and industrial sectors. Nuclear power can supply
more low-carbon electricity for increased electrification of
the transportation sector, and provide low-carbon process heat
for a range of industrial applications.
Fourth, we are researching ways to create a sustainable
nuclear fuel cycle. In particular, we are looking at ways of
extending nuclear fuel supplies and reducing the amount and
toxicity of waste requiring a permanent repository.
And fifth, we are working to understand and minimize
proliferation risks. All nuclear fuel cycles entail some amount
of risk, but that risk can be reduced with appropriate
technology applications and international guidelines and
agreements.
small modular reactors
With that, let me turn to the focus of today's hearing:
small modular reactors (SMRs) and their potential benefits.
Let me first define what we mean by ``small'' and
``modular''.
To begin with, there is no exact definition for what
constitutes a ``small'' reactor. The International Atomic
Energy Agency defines them to be less than 300 MWe as does
S.2812. This boundary is based mainly on two factors: (1)
Liability insurance, and (2) factory fabrication and
portability to a site by rail or truck. For liability reasons,
reactors above 300 MWe must carry separate indemnification
insurance for each unit. Reactors modules that are sized 300
MWe and below can be linked together to form one reactor unit
for liability insurance. Reactor modules of this size are
conducive to off-site fabrication prior to transportation by
rail or truck, rather than by barge, to an approved site for
assembly.
The term ``modular'' implies several things that could
create a potential advantage over larger plants. First, modular
reactors can be linked together to create a larger power plant.
This is potentially advantageous because it allows an owner the
flexibility to incrementally increase the size of a plant. As
demand increases, the owner can add more modules. Secondly, a
smaller plant requires less initial capital outlay or
investment. The existing operating modules can then be used to
finance future additions. Multiple units are also important
during refueling or maintenance because taking a single module
offline does not require the shutdown of the entire plant.
The term ``modular'' can also refer to potentially faster
and more efficient construction techniques using factory
fabrication. The U.S. defense nuclear shipbuilding industry is
an excellent example where modular construction techniques have
been proven to be highly successful. These same techniques can
be applied to the commercial nuclear industry. This fabrication
technique has the potential to make nuclear energy more
economical and appealing to investors because it reduces the
perceived ``risks'' associated with new nuclear builds such as
construction delays and schedule uncertainty.
There are several reasons why small modular reactors may
prove advantageous compared to the Generation III+ nuclear
plants in terms of economics, performance, and security.
First, the high capital cost for new nuclear reactors has
been a challenge for private entities to finance. Smaller
projects would carry lower investment risk and could be more
affordable to smaller utilities. This reduction in investment
risk also provides an advantage in rate recovery, regardless of
whether the licensee is regulated through state public utility
commissions or whether it must sell the electricity in
unregulated commercial markets.
Second, there are areas in this country--and elsewhere in
the world--where large plants are not needed or the existing
infrastructure cannot support the larger capacity. Small
modular reactors could be used to provide power to these
smaller electrical markets, isolated areas or smaller grids.
There is both a domestic and international market for small
modular reactors and U.S. industry is well-positioned to lead
and compete for these markets.
Third, some of the SMR designs may offer significant
environmental or safety advantages for siting in industrial
settings or where, for example, water for cooling is a problem.
Some reactor designs would produce a higher temperature outlet
heat that can be used for either electricity or process heat
for nearby industries while others use little or no water for
cooling.
Fourth, there are also some potential nonproliferation
benefits to use of small reactors that could be designed to
operate for decades without refueling. These reactors could be
fabricated and fueled in a factory, sealed and shipped to the
site for power generation, and then shipped back to the factory
to be defueled. This approach could minimize the spread of
nuclear material.
Fifth, small reactors could also enter into traditionally
non-nuclear energy markets for applications beyond electricity
production. The possibilities include low carbon process heat
for: fossil fuel recovery and refinement, synthetic or biofuel
production, water desalination, hydrogen production, and a
range of other petrochemical applications.
Finally, while traditional economy-of-scale concepts favor
larger nuclear plants, there are a number of reasons why SMRs
may have some economic advantages.
As mentioned previously, a sizeable portion of the cost and
schedule uncertainty for building large nuclear plants is the
amount of work that must be performed on site. Factory
production and fabrication, and transport to and assembly
onsite can significantly reduce that uncertainty.
Research into small modular reactors could address several
of the Office of Nuclear Energy's imperatives: improving the
affordability of nuclear power; supplying low-carbon
electricity and process heat to the transportation and
industrial sectors; and minimizing proliferation risks. More
importantly, the advancement of SMRs will respond to U.S.
economic and environmental market conditions for low-carbon
energy sources.
comments on s. 2052 and s. 2812
It should be clear from the preceding comments that the
Department believes that small modular reactors are an
important area of research and development.
The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of
2009, S. 2052, gives broad authority to conduct research into
small modular reactors, as well as other related issues. The
Department is still evaluating the details of the bill.
S. 2812, the Nuclear Power 2021 Act, would require the
Department of Energy to carry out a program to develop and
demonstrate two small modular reactor designs. The Department
is still evaluating the details of the bill.
conclusion
In considering a small modular reactor program, a variety
of factors need to be assessed, including issues such as
reactor size, industry readiness and responsibilities, and
research and development needs.
That concludes my formal remarks. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify and I look forward to answering your
questions and working with the Committee to achieve the
administration's goals of energy security and reducing the
nation's carbon emissions.
United States,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, December 10, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested in your letter dated
December 1, 2009, I am submitting, on behalf of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the following comments
regarding S. 2052, the ``Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
Improvement Act of 2009,'' and S. 2812, the ``Nuclear Power
2021 Act.''
Because of our role as a regulator, the NRC offers no
comments on whether, as a policy matter, small modular reactors
or other new nuclear reactor technologies should or should not
be pursued. The NRC's role would be limited to ensuring that
any reactors utilizing new technologies will be constructed and
operated in a manner that will provide adequate protection of
public health and safety and the common defense and security.
Accordingly, the NRC's comments relate to the NRC's regulatory
role.
S. 2052
S. 2052 would require the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
to ``conduct research to lower the cost of nuclear reactor
systems.'' This language would not, though, expressly direct
the DOE to conduct research on safety in conjunction with its
research related to cost reduction for nuclear reactor systems.
Such safety research could be valuable in supporting the NRC's
role in determining whether particular cost-saving measures are
consistent with public health and safety--a determination the
NRC would need to make before making any licensing decisions.
Accordingly, the NRC suggests adding the words ``consistent
with protection of public health and safety'' after the words
``lower the cost of nuclear reactor systems'' in the provision
of Section 2 of S. 2052 that would add a new paragraph (2) to
section 952(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
To the extent that the research into nuclear reactor
systems leads to submission to the NRC of applications based
upon new technologies or designs, the NRC may need to conduct
infrastructure development and confirmatory research before
receiving applications in order to ensure an efficient and
effective review process once applications do arrive. To
facilitate efficient licensing reviews, Congress would
therefore need to provide the NRC with adequate appropriations
to cover this pre-application work.
S. 2812
S. 2812 requires the DOE to obtain two small modular
reactor design certifications from the NRC by January 1, 2018,
and to obtain two NRC combined licenses--one for each certified
design--by January 1, 2021. As the NRC staff has indicated in
prepared written testimony for the Committee's December 15,
2009 hearing, the NRC has already begun conducting preparatory
work on various matters related to small modular reactors.
However, the amount of additional work that the NRC must do to
prepare itself for efficient reviews of the small modular
reactor design certification and combined license applications
described in S. 2812 will vary based upon the technologies
ultimately chosen. For example, the NRC expects that it is much
closer to being able to efficiently evaluate applications for
small modular reactors that would utilize light water reactor
technology--the same technology employed in the existing fleet
of large commercial nuclear plants--than applications reliant
on technologies with which the NRC has much less experience.
Thus, while the NRC is not contending that the deadlines in
S. 2812 are unattainable, and while the NRC would make a
concerted effort to make licensing decisions within any
statutory timeframe, the NRC emphasizes that the time and
resources it will need to develop the appropriate
infrastructure and conduct any necessary confirmatory research
could vary substantially depending upon which small modular
reactor technologies are ultimately pursued. S. 2812 does set
target dates for ultimate receipt of NRC licenses, but it sets
no deadline for determining which technologies will be chosen
as the basis for the designs that the DOE and its private-
sector partners would seek to have licensed. Therefore, it is
not clear how much advance warning the NRC would have about
which technologies the license applications will reference.
In addition, pursuant to its Atomic Energy Act
responsibilities, the NRC will not grant a license if the
applicant does not demonstrate to the NRC that public health
and safety and common defense and security will be adequately
protected. Therefore, for the deadlines in S. 2812 to be met,
the NRC would need to receive appropriations adequate to
support any necessary infrastructure development and
confirmatory research as well as the application reviews
themselves, and applicants would need to submit high quality
applications in a timely manner.
In light of the considerations described above, the NRC
suggests adding language to the deadline provisions of S. 2812
to ensure there is no undue pressure on the DOE or the NRC to
compromise on safety or security because of impending statutory
deadlines. Section 645 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
provides an example of possible alternative language. That act
established the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project, and
Section 645(c) sets forth a specific date by which the DOE is
to complete construction and begin operations of a prototype
nuclear plant and associated facilities. But Section 645(c)
also gives the DOE the option--in the event it cannot comply
with the statutory deadline--of ``submit[ting] to Congress a
report establishing an alternative date for completion.'' The
NRC believes that similar safety-valve language would be
appropriate for S. 2812 to account for any complications
related to safety or security that might arise as new small
modular reactor technologies are developed and assessed.
If you have questions about these views, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Gregory B. Jaczko,
Chairman.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill S. 2812, as ordered 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
Public Law 109-58
AN ACT To ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and
reliable energy.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Nuclear Energy
* * * * * * *
SEC. 952. NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAMS.
(a) Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.--The Secretary
shall carry out a Nuclear Energy Research Initiative for
research and development related to nuclear energy.
* * * * * * *
(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.
(f) Nuclear Power 2021 Initiative.--
(1) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
(A) Combined license.--The term `combined
license' has the meaning given the term in
section 52.1 of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(B) Design certification.--The term `design
certification' has the meaning given the term
in section 52.1 of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(C) Early site permit.--The term `early site
permit' has the meaning given the term in
section 52.1 of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(D) Small modular reactor.--The term `small
modular reactor' means a nuclear reactor--
(i) with a rated capacity of less
than 300 electrical megawatts; and
(ii) that can be constructed and
operated in combination with similar
reactors at a single site.
(2) Duty of secretary.--The Secretary shall carry
out, through cooperative agreements with private sector
partners--
(A) a program--
(i) to develop a standard design for
each of 2 small modular reactors, at
least 1 of which has a rated capacity
of not more than 50 electrical
megawatts; and
(ii) to obtain a design certification
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
for each of the 2 standard designs by
January 1, 2018;
(B) a program to demonstrate the licensing of
small modular reactors by--
(i) developing applications for a
combined license for each of the
designs certified pursuant to
subparagraph (A); and
(ii) obtaining a combined license
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
for each of the designs by January 1,
2021; and
(C) a program to obtain an early site permit
for 2 sites for 1 or more small modular
reactors.
(3) Merit review of proposals.--The Secretary shall
select proposals for cooperative agreements under this
subsection--
(A) on the basis of an impartial review of
the scientific and technical merit of the
proposals; and
(B) through the use of competitive
procedures.
(4) Technical considerations.--In evaluating
proposals, the Secretary shall take into account the
efficiency, cost, safety, and proliferation resistance
of competing reactor designs.
(5) Cost-share requirements.--
(A) Design development.--Notwithstanding
section 988, the Secretary shall require that
not less than 50 percent of the cost of the
development of each small modular reactor
design under paragraph (2)(A), and each early
site permit under paragraph (3)(C), be provided
by a non-Federal source.
(B) Licensing demonstration.--Notwithstanding
section 988, the Secretary shall require that
not less than 75 percent of the cost of the
licensing demonstration of each small modular
reactor design under paragraph (2)(B) be
provided by a non-Federal source.
(C) Calculation of amount.--Non-Federal
contributions shall be calculated in accordance
with section 988(d).
* * * * * * *