Nuclear Energy:
October 20, 2021
Overview of Congressional Issues
Mark Holt
The policy debate over the role of nuclear power in the nation’s energy mix is rooted in the
Specialist in Energy Policy
technology’s fundamental characteristics. Nuclear reactors can produce potentially vast amounts

of useful energy with relatively low consumption of natural resources and emissions of
greenhouse gases and other pollutants. However, facilities that produce nuclear fuel for civilian

power reactors can also produce materials for nuclear weapons. In addition, the process of
nuclear fission (splitting of atomic nuclei) to generate power produces radioactive material that can remain hazardous for
thousands of years and must be contained. How to manage the weapons proliferation and safety risks of nuclear power, or
whether the benefits of nuclear power are worth those risks, are issues that have long been debated in Congress.
The 93 licensed nuclear power reactors at 55 sites in the United States generate about 20% of the nation’s electricity. Two
new reactors are currently under construction. About a dozen more are planned, but with no specific construction dates.
Whether they will eventually move forward will depend largely on their economic competitiveness with natural gas and
renewable energy sources. Similar economic forces are affecting existing reactors. Twelve U.S. reactors were permanently
closed from 2013 through April 2021, and three more are planned for closure through the mid-2020s. However, several states
have taken action to prevent planned reactor shutdowns, and several proposals to support existing reactors are pending in the
117th Congress as well.
The Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies for decades have conducted research on “advanced” reactor
technologies, such as fast neutron reactors, that would differ significantly from existing commercial nuclear plants and
potentially be far smaller. Proponents of advanced reactors contend that they would be safer, more efficient, and less
expensive to build and operate than today’s conventional light water reactors. DOE is providing support for several proposed
advanced reactor demonstrations, which could indicate whether the anticipated benefits can be realized .
Highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel that is regularly removed from nuclear reactors is currently stored primarily at power
plant sites. Development of a permanent underground repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, was suspended by the Obama
Administration. The Trump Administration requested funding for FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 to revive the program, but
it was not approved by Congress. No Yucca Mountain program funding was requested or provided for FY2021, and the
Biden Administration did not request any for FY2022.
The Obama Administration had appointed the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to recommend an
alternative approach to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act’s focus on Yucca Mountain for permanent high-level waste disposal. In
response to the commission’s recommendations, DOE issued a waste strategy in January 2013 that called for the selection of
new candidate sites for nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities through a “consent-based” process. However, Congress
has not enacted legislation for such a strategy, so Yucca Mountain remains the sole authorized candidate site, despite its la ck
of funding.
The March 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan increased attention to nuclear safety
throughout the world. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which issues and enforces nuclear safety requirements,
established a task force to identify lessons from Fukushima applicable to U.S. reactors. The task force’s report led to NRC’s
first Fukushima-related regulatory requirements on March 12, 2012. Several other countries, such as Germany and Japan,
eliminated or reduced their planned future reliance on nuclear power after the accident.
The level of security that must be provided at nuclear power plants has been a high -profile issue since the 9/11 terrorist
attacks on the United States in 2001. Since those attacks, NRC issued a series of orders and regulations that substantially
increased nuclear plant security requirements, although industry critics contend that those measures are still insufficient.
Encouraging exports of U.S. civilian nuclear products, services, and technology while making sure they a re not used for
foreign nuclear weapons programs has long been a fundamental goal of U.S. nuclear energy policy. Recent proposals to build
nuclear power plants in several countries in the less developed world, including the Middle East, have prompted concerns
that international controls may prove inadequate.
Congressional Research Service

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Congressional Research Service

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Synthesis of Key Issues
The long-running policy debate over the future of nuclear energy is rooted in the technology’s
inherent characteristics. Initial y developed for its unprecedented destructive power during World
War II, nuclear energy seemed to hold equal promise after the war as a way of providing limitless
energy to al humanity. International diplomacy has focused ever since on finding institutional
mechanisms for spreading the perceived benefits of nuclear energy throughout the world while
preventing the technology from being used for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Much of this
international effort is focused on key nuclear fuel cycle facilities—plants for enriching uranium in
the fissile isotope U-235 and for separating plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. Such plants
can be used to produce civilian nuclear reactor fuel as wel as fissile material for nuclear
warheads.
Yet even the use of nuclear power solely for peaceful energy production has proven intrinsical y
controversial. The harnessing of nuclear fission in a reactor creates highly radioactive materials
that must be kept from overheating and escaping from the reactor building, as occurred during the
accidents at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and, to a lesser extent, Three Mile Island. Spent nuclear fuel
that is regularly removed from reactors during refueling must be isolated from the environment
for up to 1 mil ion years. Proposed commercial technologies to reduce long-lived nuclear waste
through recycling usual y involve separating plutonium that possibly could be used for nuclear
weapons, although technologies designed to reduce proliferation risks are also the subject of
worldwide research and development efforts. Al nuclear energy technologies, even with
recycling, would stil leave substantial amounts of radioactive waste to be stored and disposed of.
Central storage and disposal sites for nuclear waste have proven difficult to develop throughout
the world, as il ustrated by the long-running controversy over the proposed U.S. waste repository
at Yucca Mountain, NV.
The March 2011 disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, which forced the
evacuation of areas as far as 30 miles away, has slowed nuclear power expansion plans around the
world, particularly in Japan and Western Europe. However, dozens of new reactors are stil being
planned and built in China, India, Russia, and elsewhere.1 In these areas, nuclear power’s initial
promise of generating large amounts of electricity without the need for often-imported fossil
fuels, along with the more recent desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, remains a
compel ing motivation.
With 93 licensed reactors, the United States has the largest nuclear power industry in the world.
But U.S. nuclear power growth has been largely stagnant for the past two decades, as natural gas
and renewable energy have captured most of the market for new electric generating capacity and
improvements in energy efficiency have slowed electricity demand growth.2 Congress enacted
incentives for new nuclear plants in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), including
production tax credits, loan guarantees, and insurance against regulatory delays. Those incentives,
combined with rising natural gas prices and concerns about federal restrictions on carbon dioxide
emissions, prompted announcements by late 2009 of up to 30 new nuclear power reactors in the
United States.3 However, subsequent declines in natural gas prices and uncertainty about carbon

1 World Nuclear Association, “World Nuclear Power Reactors and Uranium Requirements,” September 2021,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-
requireme.aspx.
2 Energy Information Administration, “EIA Projects Renewables Share of U.S. Electricity Generation Mix Will Double
by 2050,” February 8, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46676.
3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications,” updated March 28, 2008,
https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/nukerelapse/industry/expectednewrxapplications32808.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 13 Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

dioxide controls have put most of those projects on hold. Currently, two new reactors in Georgia
are under construction. Two identical reactors under construction in South Carolina were canceled
July 31, 2017. The Georgia and South Carolina projects both experienced large cost overruns and
schedule delays. An older reactor, Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee, received an NRC operating license
on October 22, 2015, after construction had been suspended for two decades and then completed.
A variety of incentives to renew the growth of nuclear power have been proposed.
Existing U.S. nuclear power plants are continuing to face difficult competition from natural gas
and renewable energy. Twelve U.S. reactors were permanently closed from 2013 through April
2021. Three of those units closed because of the need for expensive repairs, three were retired
under agreements with state utility regulators, and six could not compete in their regional
wholesale electricity markets. The most recent shutdowns were New Jersey’s Oyster Creek plant
in September 2018,4 Pilgrim (MA) in May 2019, Three Mile Island (PA) in October 2019, Indian
Point 2 (NY) in April 2020, Duane Arnold (IA) in August 2020, and Indian Point 3 in April 2021.
Al 12 units had substantial time remaining on their initial 40-year operating licenses or had
received or planned to apply for 20-year license extensions from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). Three additional reactors are currently scheduled for permanent closure by
the mid-2020s (Table 1). The actual and planned shutdowns have prompted widespread
discussion about the future of other aging U.S. reactors and proposals for federal assistance.
Action taken by states has forestal ed the announced shutdowns of 20 other U.S. reactors during
the past five years, and additional subsidies are currently under consideration in the 117th
Congress.
The extent to which the growth of nuclear power should be encouraged in the United States and
around the world wil continue to be a major component of the U.S. energy policy debate.
Questions for Congress wil include the implementation of policies to encourage or discourage
nuclear power, post-Fukushima safety standards, development of new nuclear power and fuel
cycle technologies, and nuclear waste management strategies.
Basic Facts and Statistics
The 93 licensed nuclear power reactors at 55 sites in the United States generate about 20% of the
nation’s electricity. The oldest of today’s operating reactors were licensed in 1969, and the most
recently licensed was Watts Bar 2 in 2015. The most recent to start up before Watts Bar 2 was its
twin unit, Watts Bar 1, in 1996.5 All U.S. reactors were initial y licensed to operate for 40 years,
but nearly al of them have received or applied for 20-year license renewals by NRC.6 NRC
issued its first “subsequent license renewals,” which al ow operation for up to 80 years, to the
Turkey Point 1 and 2 reactors in Florida in December 2019. Four more renewals to 80 years, for
Peach Bottom 2 and 3 in Pennsylvania and Surry 1 and 2 in Virginia, were issued in March 2020
and May 2021. Subsequent license renewal applications for another seven reactors are currently

4 T he New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection issued an administrative consent order on December 9,
2010, allowing Oyster Creek to continue running without a cooling tower in return for an agreement by the plant’s
owner, Exelon, to retire the plant by the end of 2019, 10 years before the ex piration of its NRC operating license. See
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1109357/000119312510277630/dex991.htm.
5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Information Digest, 2020-2021, NUREG-1350, vol. 32, Appendix A,
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/index.html.
6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Status of Initial License Renewal Applications and Industry Initiatives,” October
9, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html.
Congressional Research Service

2

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

under review, and two more applications are being reviewed for acceptance.7 Under the current
mixture of 40- and 60- and 80-year licenses, al of today’s operating reactors would shut down by
2055. If newer reactors such as Watts Bar 1 and 2 eventual y were to receive license renewals to
80 years, the shutdown date for the existing fleet could be pushed back by two decades or more.
However, as noted above, many U.S. reactors have been retired before their license expirations,
with three more currently scheduled to do so.
Whether new reactors wil be constructed to replace the existing fleet or even to expand nuclear
power’s market share wil depend largely on costs. The cost of building and operating a new
nuclear power plant in the United States is general y estimated to be significantly higher than
natural gas combined-cycle plants (which use both combustion and steam turbines to generate
electricity) and above wind and solar as wel . For example, the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) estimates that, for plants coming on line in 2026, the average cost of
electricity generation from a nuclear power plant would be 6.3 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh),
including tax credits, while advanced combined-cycle gas-fired generation would cost 3.7
cents/kwh and an ultracritical coal plant would cost 7.3 cents/kwh. EIA estimates that electricity
from onshore wind would cost 3.7 cents/kwh, solar photovoltaics 3.0 cents/kwh, and geothermal
3.4 cents/kwh.8 Such estimates depend on a wide range of variables, such as future fuel costs,
regional solar and wind availability, current and future tax incentives, and environmental
regulations and mandates. The specific attributes of each generating technology, such as the
intermittent nature of solar and wind, are also important considerations in power plant
construction decisions.
The two new U.S. reactors under construction at the Vogtle nuclear plant site in Georgia, after
considerable construction delays and cost overruns, are now scheduled to begin operating in the
second quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023.9 As noted above, construction of two new
units in South Carolina has been terminated. Licenses to build and operate 10 additional reactors
have been issued by NRC. However, applications for 14 other new reactors have been withdrawn
or suspended. An application for a license to build a 1.5 megawatt microreactor at Idaho National
Laboratory was submitted to NRC on March 11, 2020.10 Aside from the 2 new Vogtle units, the
10 other planned reactors with issued licenses do not have specific schedules for moving toward
construction.
Throughout the world, 444 reactors are currently in service or operable, and 56 more are under
construction. France is the most heavily nuclear-reliant country in the world, with 56 reactors
generating 71% of the country’s electricity in 2020. Thirty-three countries in 2020 (including
Taiwan) generated at least some of their electricity from nuclear power.11

7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Status of Subsequent License Renewal Applications,” August 13, 2021,
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/subsequent -license-renewal.html; and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, “ NRC Issues Subsequent Renewed Licenses for Surry Reactors,” May 4, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2021/21-019.pdf.
8 Energy Information Administration, “Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in
the Annual Energy Outlook 2021,” T able 1b, February 2021, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/
electricity_generation.pdf. Levelized costs include capital costs averaged over the life of the plant, plus fuel and
maintenance costs and tax credits, in 2020 dollars.
9 Georgia Power Company, “Georgia Power Announces Revised Schedule, Cost Forecast for Vogtle Units 3 & 4,” July
29, 2021, https://www.georgiapower.com/company/news-center/2021-articles/cost-forecast -for-vogtle.html.
10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “ Combined License Applications for New Reactors,” May 6, 2020,
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html.
11 World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Share Figures, 2010-2020,” June 2021, http://www.world-nuclear.org/
information-library/facts-and-figures/nuclear-generation-by-country.aspx; World Nuclear Association, “ World Nuclear
Congressional Research Service

3

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

After the Fukushima accident, Germany, which had previously generated about 30% of its
electricity with nuclear power, closed 8 of the country’s 17 power reactors and decided to shut the
remainder by 2022. Japan, which had also generated about 30% of its electricity with nuclear
power and had planned to raise that level to 50%, now is planning for about 20% by 2030. Al
Japanese reactors were closed within a year after the tsunami, and only 10 of Japan’s 33 operable
reactors are currently in commercial service. In addition to the 10 currently approved to operate,
15 Japanese reactors have applied for restart, which involves safety upgrades to meet new
regulatory requirements. It is not clear how many of Japan’s operable reactors wil ultimately
resume operation.12 France had planned to reduce nuclear power to 50% of the country’s total
generation by 2025, although that goal has been delayed to 2035.13
Major Nuclear Energy Issues
Radioactive Waste
After several years in a nuclear reactor, nuclear fuel (primarily uranium) can no longer
economical y sustain a nuclear chain reaction and becomes highly radioactive and thermal y hot.
Such spent nuclear fuel must be periodical y removed from operating reactors and stored in
adjacent pools of water, which prevents overheating and provides radiation shielding. After
several years of cooling, the spent fuel can be placed in dry casks for storage elsewhere on the
plant site. When existing U.S. reactors were built, spent fuel had been expected to be taken away
for reprocessing (separation of plutonium and uranium to make new fuel) or permanent disposal.
However, reprocessing has not become commercialized in the United States, for economic and
nonproliferation reasons, and central waste storage and disposal facilities have proven difficult to
site. As a result, the vast majority of U.S. commercial spent fuel remains at the nuclear plants
where it was generated—estimated at 86,000 metric tons at the end of 2020 and increasing at the
rate of about 2,200 metric tons per year.14
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-425, NWPA), as amended in 1987, named Yucca
Mountain, NV, as the nation’s sole candidate site for a permanent high-level nuclear waste
repository. NWPA required the Department of Energy (DOE) to study the site and seek a license
from NRC to build a repository there.
Recent Events
Citing opposition from the State of Nevada, the Obama Administration decided to halt the Yucca
Mountain project, and no new funding has been appropriated for it since FY2010. The Trump
Administration included funding to restart Yucca Mountain licensing in its FY2018, FY2019, and
FY2020 budget submissions to Congress, but the requests were not approved. The Trump
Administration did not seek Yucca Mountain repository funding for FY2021, but only funds for
interim storage planning. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260) included the

Power Reactors and Uranium Requirements,” op. cit.
12 World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Power in Japan,” August 2021, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-
library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx.
13 World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Power in France,” January 2021, https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-
library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx.
14 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Centralized Used Fuel Resource for Information Exchange (CURIE) Interactive
Map, viewed September 27, 2021, https://curie.ornl.gov/map.
Congressional Research Service

4

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

proposed interim storage planning funds with no Yucca Mountain project funding. The Biden
Administration submitted a similar request for FY2022.
The Obama Administration appointed the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future
to develop an alternative nuclear waste policy, and its final report was issued in January 2012.
DOE largely adopted the Commission’s recommendations in a January 2013 waste strategy that
cal ed for a “consent-based” process to select nuclear waste storage and disposal sites and for a
surface storage pilot facility to open by 2021.15 DOE issued a Draft Consent-Based Siting Process
shortly before the end of the Obama Administration.16
A federal appeals court on August 13, 2013, ordered NRC to continue the Yucca Mountain
licensing process with previously appropriated funds.17 In response, NRC issued the final
volumes of the Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report (SER), which provided the NRC staff’s
determination that the repository would meet al applicable standards. However, the staff said
upon completing the SER that NRC should not authorize construction of the repository until al
land and water rights requirements were met and a supplement to DOE’s environmental impact
statement (EIS) was completed.18 NRC completed the supplemental EIS in May 2016 and made
its database of Yucca Mountain licensing documents publicly available, using nearly al the
remaining previously appropriated licensing funds.19
With no spent fuel disposal or storage facilities currently under development by DOE, two
private-sector storage facilities in New Mexico and Texas have been proposed. The Texas facility
received an NRC license on September 13, 2021, and NRC plans to issue a decision on the New
Mexico facility in January 2022. These near-surface Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities are
intended to hold spent fuel from nuclear power plants around the country until a permanent
underground repository is available. 20 However, they are facing strong opposition from the two
proposed host states. New Mexico filed a lawsuit against NRC on March 29, 2021, and the Texas
governor signed a law banning new spent fuel storage facilities in the state on August 9, 2021.21

15 DOE, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High -Level Radioactive Waste, January
2013, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013%201-15%20Nuclear_Waste_Report.pdf.
16 DOE, Draft Consent-Based Siting Process for Consolidated Storage and Disposal Facilities for Spent Nuclear Fuel
and High-Level Radioactive Waste, January 12, 2017, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/
Draft%20Consent -Based%20Siting%20Process%20and%20Siting%20Considerations.pdf .
17 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In re: Aiken County et al., No. 11-1271, writ of
mandamus, August 13, 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
BAE0CF34F762EBD985257BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf.
18 NRC, “ NRC Publishes Final T wo Volumes of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation,” news release 15-005, January 29.
2015, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2015/.
19 NRC, Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository
for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada ,
NUREG-2184, Final Report, May 2016, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2184/; “ NRC
Staff Issues Volume 3 of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report, ” news release 14-069, October 16, 2014,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1949/v3/.
20 NRC, “Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF),” December 8, 2020, https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-
storage/cis.html; NRC, “ NRC Issues License to Interim Storage Partners for Consolidated Spent Nuclear Fuel Interim
Storage Facility in T exas,” News Release No. 21-036, September 13, 2021, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2125/
ML21257A091.pdf.
21 T exas Governor Greg Abbott, “Interim Storage Partners (ISP) Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project, Docket
ID NRC-2016-0231,” November 3, 2020, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2030/ML20309B061.pdf; T exas Legislature
Online, Actions, HB7, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Actions.aspx?LegSess=872&Bill=HB7; and New Mexico
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, “Comments from Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on Docket ID NRC-2018-
0052,” September 22, 2020, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2026/ML20269A025.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

5

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Recent Congressional Action—117th Congress
Nuclear Waste Task Force Act of 2021 (S. 2871, Markey/H.R. 5401, Levin)
Requires the EPA Administrator to establish a task force to examine whether removing
exemptions from environmental laws for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste would help gain
state, local, and tribal consent for nuclear waste disposal facilities. Introduced September 28,
2021; Senate bil referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works and House bil
referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sensible, Timely Relief for America’s Nuclear Districts’ Economic Development
(STRANDED) Act (S. 1290, Duckworth/H.R. 3731, Schneider)
For communities with closed nuclear power plants that are storing “stranded” spent nuclear fuel,
authorizes annual grants of $15 for each kilogram of nuclear waste “to offset the economic and
social impacts of stranded nuclear waste.” Authorizes DOE to establish a prize competition for
alternative activities at closed reactor sites and to develop a pilot project for each proposal
awarded a prize. Requires DOE to establish a task force to conduct a study on resources and
options for communities hosting stranded spent fuel. Senate bil introduced April 21, 2021;
referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. House bil introduced June 4, 2021;
referred to Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial Services, and Ways and
Means. (Reintroduced from the 116th Congress, S. 1985 and H.R. 5608.)
Storage and Transportation Of Residual and Excess (STORE) Nuclear Fuel Act
(H.R. 2097, Matsui)
Authorizes DOE to develop nuclear waste storage facilities and enter into a contract to store
waste at a nonfederal facility. DOE must obtain state, local, and tribal consent for storage
facilities. Financial and technical assistance authorized to states, local governments, and tribes.
DOE required to give storage priority to waste from closed reactors and to waste shipments
necessary to address emergencies. Introduced March 19, 2021; referred to Committee on Energy
and Commerce. (Reintroduced from the 116th Congress, H.R. 3136.)
Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act (H.R. 1524, Titus/S. 541, Cortez Masto)
Requires the Secretary of Energy to obtain the consent of affected state and loc al governments
before making expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund for a nuclear waste repository. Both
bil s introduced March 2, 2021. House bil referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce;
Senate bil referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. (Reintroduced from the
116th Congress, H.R. 1544 and S. 649.)
116th Congress
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019 (H.R. 2699, McNerney/S. 2917,
Barrasso)
Would have addressed a major condition for licensing the Yucca Mountain repository by
withdrawing the repository site from use under public lands laws and placing it solely under
DOE’s control. Would also have authorized DOE to store spent fuel at an NRC-licensed interim
storage facility owned by a nonfederal entity and increased the capacity limit on the Yucca
Congressional Research Service

6

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Mountain repository from 70,000 to 110,000 metric tons. House bil introduced May 14, 2019;
referred to Committees on Energy and Commerce; Natural Resources; Armed Services; Budget;
and Rules. Approved by Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment and Climate Change
Subcommittee September 26, 2019, by voice vote. Passed the House Energy and Commerce
Committee by voice vote November 20, 2019. Legislative hearing on discussion draft of S. 2917
held May 1, 2019, by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; introduced and referred
to the committee on November 20, 2019.
Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2019 (S. 1234, Murkowski)
Would have established an independent Nuclear Waste Administration (NWA), which would have
been authorized to develop nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities with the consent of the
affected state, local, and tribal governments. In addition to receiving consent-based siting
authority, NWA would have taken over DOE’s authority under NWPA to construct and operate a
repository at Yucca Mountain and DOE’s waste disposal contractual obligations. The bil
specifical y provided that it would not have affected the ongoing Yucca Mountain licensing
process. Introduced April 30, 2019; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Hearing held June 27, 2019.
Jobs, Not Waste Act (H.R. 1619, Susie Lee/S. 721, Rosen)
Would have prohibited the Secretary of Energy from taking any action relating to the licensing,
planning, development, or construction of a nuclear waste repository until the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget submitted to Congress a study on alternative economic uses of
the Yucca Mountain site and congressional hearings were held on the subject. Both bil s
introduced March 7, 2019; House bil referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce and
Senate bil referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Spent Fuel Prioritization Act of 2019 (H.R. 2995, Mike Levin)
Would have required DOE to give the highest priority for storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel
to reactors that have permanently shut down, have the highest surrounding population, and have
the highest earthquake hazard. Introduced May 23, 2019; referred to Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Dry Cask Storage Act of 2019 (S. 2854, Markey)
Would have required spent fuel at nuclear power plants to be moved from spent fuel pools to dry
casks after it had sufficiently cooled, pursuant to NRC-approved transfer plans. Emergency
planning zones would have had to be expanded from 10 to 50 miles in radius around any reactor
determined by NRC to be out of compliance with its spent fuel transfer plan. NRC would have
been authorized to use interest earned by the Nuclear Waste Fund to provide grants to nuclear
power plants to transfer spent fuel to dry storage. Introduced November 13, 2019; referred to
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt
CRS In Focus IF11201, Nuclear Waste Storage Sites in the United States, by Lance N. Larson
CRS Report R42513, U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, by James D. Werner
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 13 Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Additional References
Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste, Government Accountability Office, Key Issues website,
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary
Six Overarching Recommendations for How to Move the Nation’s Nuclear Waste Management
Program Forward, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, April 2021, https://www.nwtrb.gov/
our-work/reports/six-overarching-recommendations-for-how-to-move-the-nation-s-nuclear-waste-
management-program-forward-(april-2020)
Forging a Path Forward on US Nuclear Waste Management: Options for Policy Makers, Matt
Bowen, Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, January 2021,
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/forging-path-forward-us-nuclear-waste-
management-options-policy-makers
Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, September
2019, https://www.nwtrb.gov/our-work/reports/preparing-for-nuclear-waste-transportation-
(september-2019)
Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste Management: Strategy and Policy, Stanford University Center
for International Security and Cooperation and George Washington University El iott School of
International Affairs, October 15, 2018, https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/
reset_report_2018_final.pdf
Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, November 2017,
http://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/facts-sheets/commercial_snf.pdf?sfvrsn=12
Commercial Nuclear Waste: Resuming Licensing of the Yucca Mountain Repository Would
Require Rebuilding Capacity at DOE and NRC, Among Other Key Steps, GAO-17-340, April 26,
2017, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-340
Report to the Secretary of Energy, Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future,
January 2012, http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120620211605/http:/brc.gov
Nuclear Plant Economic Viability
U.S. nuclear power plants are facing severe financial pressure caused primarily by competition
from low-cost natural gas, growing supplies of renewable energy, and stagnant electricity
demand. Twelve U.S. reactors were permanently closed from 2013 through April 2021, and three
more are planned for closure through the mid-2020s (Table 1). Plans for up to 30 new U.S.
reactors announced during the past 10 years have largely been put on hold, with 2 currently under
construction and 2 canceled in 2017 after construction had begun.
In light of that situation, Congress is considering whether federal action is needed to keep the
existing nuclear fleet operating and to encourage the construction of new reactors. A key element
of that debate is the appropriate role of nuclear power, if any, in meeting national energy and
environmental goals. Nuclear power supporters general y point to the technology as crucial for
providing a secure, domestic source of energy with low greenhouse gas and other emissions.
Supporters also see a viable and growing domestic nuclear power industry as crucial in providing
a technology base for naval nuclear reactors and other defense nuclear programs, and in providing
a base for nuclear power plant exports to counter reactor exports being pursued by Russia and
China for geopolitical purposes. Opponents general y counter that safety and proliferation risks,
nuclear waste hazards, and high costs outweigh those benefits.
Congressional Research Service

8

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Potential mechanisms for increased federal support of nuclear power include loan guarantees, tax
credits, clean energy mandates, emissions credits, and electricity market regulations.
Some states have taken action to prevent nuclear plant closures. An Il inois law signed September
15, 2021, provides “carbon mitigation credits” to nuclear plants at risk of closure for economic
reasons, averting the planned shutdown of two plants with four operating reactors.22 New York
and Il inois provided “zero emission credits” to seven reactors that had been at risk of retirement
by 2018.23 Connecticut enacted legislation in 2017 to make nuclear reactors eligible for a state
procurement process for zero-emission electricity sources, upon certification of financial need.
New Jersey enacted zero-emission credits for nuclear power in 2018.24 Ohio enacted subsidies in
July 2019 that prompted the owner of the state’s two commercial reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry,
to rescind the units’ previously planned retirements, although the assistance was repealed in
March 2021.25 The planned retirement of the two-unit Beaver Val ey nuclear plant in western
Pennsylvania was rescinded in March 2020, after Pennsylvania joined the Regional Greenhouse
Gas Initiative (RGGI). The plant’s owner, Energy Harbor, said RGGI would provide emissions
credits “which wil begin to help level the playing field for our carbon-free nuclear generators.”26
Table 1. Recent and Announced U.S. Commercial Reactor Shutdowns
Net
Summer
Generating
Major Factors
Capacity
Start-Up
Contributing to
Reactor
State
Shutdown Date
(Megawatts)
Year
Shutdown
Permanent Shutdowns Since 2012
Crystal River 3
Florida
February 2013
860
1977
Cost of major repairs
to reactor
containment
Kewaunee
Wisconsin
May 2013
566
1974
Operating losses
San Onofre 2
California
June 2013
1,070
1983
Cost of replacing new
steam generators
San Onofre 3
California
June 2013
1,080
1984
Cost of replacing new
steam generators
Vermont Yankee
Vermont
December 2014
620
1972
Operating losses

22 Illinois General Assembly, Energy T ransition Act (Nuclear Plant Assistance), Public Act 102 -0662, https://ilga.gov/
legislation/publicacts/102/102-0662.htm.
23 Zero-Emission Credits, Nuclear Energy Institute, April 2018, https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/
resources/reports-and-briefs/zero-emission-credits-201804.pdf.
24 Solutions for Maintaining the Existing Nuclear Fleet, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, May 2018,
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/solutions-for-maintaining-existing-nuclear-fleet.pdf.
25 “FirstEnergy Solutions Rescinds Deactivation Notices for Competitive Generating Plants in Ohio,” PR Newswire,
July 26, 2019, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/firstenergy-solutions-rescinds-deactivation-notices-for-
competitive-generating-plants-in-ohio-300891786.html. A bill repealing the Ohio nuclear plant assistance was signed
by the governor on March 31, 2021. See Mike DeWine, Governor of Ohio, “ Governor DeWine Signs Ohio
T ransportation Budget,” news release, March 31, 2021, https://governor.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/governor/media/
news-and-media/transportation-budget-signed-03312021.
26 Energy Harbor, “Energy Harbor Corp Rescinds Deactivation Notice for Nuclear Generating Plant in Pennsylvania,”
news release, March 13, 2020, https://energyharbor.com/en/about/news-and-information/energy-harbor-corp-rescinds-
deactivation-notice-for-nuclear-gene.
Congressional Research Service

9

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Net
Summer
Generating
Major Factors
Capacity
Start-Up
Contributing to
Reactor
State
Shutdown Date
(Megawatts)
Year
Shutdown
Fort Calhoun
Nebraska
October 2016
479
1973
Operating losses
Oyster Creek
New Jersey
September 2018
614
1969
Agreement with state
to avoid building
cooling towers
Pilgrim
Massachusetts
May 2019
685
1972
Operating losses,
rising capital
expenditures
Three Mile Island 1
Pennsylvania
October 2019
803
1974
Operating losses
Indian Point 2
New York
April 30, 2020
1,020
1974
Low electricity prices;
settlement with state
Duane Arnold
Iowa
August 2020
601
1975
Lower-cost
alternative power
Indian Point 3
New York
April 30, 2021
1,035
1976
Low electricity prices;
settlement with state
Announced Shutdowns

Palisades
Michigan
April 2022
784
1971
Operating losses, end
of power purchase
agreement
Diablo Canyon 1
California
November 2024
1,122
1985
Settlement with labor
and environmental
groups
Diablo Canyon 2
California
August 2025
1,118
1986
Settlement with labor
and environmental
groups
Source: Company news releases.
Recent Events
A new federal program to provide financial support to nuclear power plants at risk of closure is
included in the Infrastructure Assistance and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684) as passed by the Senate on
August 10, 2021. Reactors certified by the Secretary of Energy as being at risk of closure could
submit bids to receive credits for four years, specifying an amount per megawatt-hour of
electricity generated that would be paid for each credit. A tax credit for existing nuclear power
plants of up to 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour is included in budget reconciliation legislation, the
Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376), introduced September 27, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

10

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Federal tax credits for electricity production from new nuclear plants were extended by the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123), signed into law February 9, 2018. Before the
extension, new nuclear plants had been required to begin operation before January 1, 2021, to
qualify for the production tax credit, which is limited to 6,000 megawatts of total generating
capacity. The extension al ows new reactors to use the credit after that date if the capacity limit
has not been reached. Along with the extension, the tax credit was modified to al ow non-
taxpaying partners in a nuclear project, such as public power agencies, to transfer their credits to a
project’s taxpaying partners. Two U.S. reactors are currently under construction, at the Vogtle
nuclear power plant in Georgia, totaling about 2,300 megawatts of capacity, wel within the limit.
Construction delays have pushed the planned completion dates of the new Vogtle reactors beyond
the 2021 deadline, and the production tax credits are widely considered crucial for their financial
viability.
Recent filings by Georgia Power, the lead partner in the Vogtle consortium, with the Georgia
Public Service Commission indicate that the company’s share of the project’s construction and
financing costs wil total about $10.4 bil ion. That estimate does not include costs covered by
Georgia Power’s $1.5 bil ion share of a Westinghouse contract settlement and $700 mil ion in
unrecovered costs. Adding those amounts would bring the Georgia Power construction and
financing cost share to about $12.6 bil ion.27 With Georgia Power holding a 45.7% share of the
project, the total construction and financing cost of the new reactors is estimated to be about
$27.6 bil ion, or $13.8 bil ion per reactor.
The two new reactors at the Vogtle plant have received loan guarantees from DOE totaling $12
bil ion, as authorized by Title 17 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz announced the issuance of $6.5 bil ion in loan guarantees on February 19,
2014, to two of the three utility partners in the project, Georgia Power and Oglethorpe Power.
Another $1.8 bil ion loan guarantee for another partner, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
was issued June 24, 2015. Energy Secretary Rick Perry announced the finalization of an
additional $3.7 bil ion in loan guarantees to the three partners in the Vogtle project on March 22,
2019.28 No other proposed nuclear plants have received any commitments for DOE loan
guarantees.
DOE’s Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program manages cost-shared research projects “to
solve significant highest priority cost and technical problems threatening existing plants.”29 The
program includes research on materials used in nuclear plants, modeling of plant aging, and plant
upgrades. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260) included $47 mil ion for the
sustainability program for FY2021, the same as in FY2020. For FY2022, the Biden
Administration requested $60 mil ion for the program, while the House approved $50 mil ion
(H.R. 4502) and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $45 mil ion (S. 2605).

27 Georgia Power, “Georgia Power Announces Revised Schedule, Cost Forecast for Vogtle Units 3 & 4,” July 29, 2021,
https://www.georgiapower.com/company/news-center/2021-articles/cost-forecast -for-vogtle.html; Georgia Power,
Twentieth/Twenty-first Sem i-Annual Vogtle Construction Monitoring Report, Docket No. 29849, August 2019, p. 11,
https://psc.ga.gov/search/facts-document/?documentId=178224.
28 Department of Energy, “ Secretary Perry Announces Financial Close on Additional Loan Guarantees During T rip to
Vogtle Advanced Nuclear Energy Project ,” news release, March 22, 2019, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-
perry-announces-financial-close-additional-loan-guarantees-during-trip-vogtle.
29 Department of Energy, “Reactor T echnology Program Overview,” presentation by R. Shane Johnson, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear T echnology Demonstration and Deployment, to the Nuclear Energy Advisory
Committee, July 9, 2018, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/07/f53/RSJ%20Brief%20to%20NEAC%20-
%20July%209%202018_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

11

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Federal policy on carbon dioxide emissions could also have a significant impact on the expansion
of nuclear power and the economic viability of existing reactors. The Biden Administration’s
American Jobs Plan, announced March 31, 2021, includes an Energy Efficiency and Clean
Electricity Standard (CES) that would require increasing percentages of power generation to
come from non-carbon-emitting sources, including existing nuclear plants.30 The House budget
reconciliation bil for FY2022, the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376), includes a Clean
Electricity Performance Program that is similar in some ways to a CES.31
Selected Congressional Action—117th Congress
Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376, Yarmuth)
Budget reconciliation bil for FY2022 that includes provisions to support existing nuclear power
plants and communities with closed plants. These include a tax credit of up to 1.5 cents per kwh
for generation from existing nuclear plants (section 136109) and an FY2022 appropriation of
$500 mil ion to communities with retiring energy facilities, including nuclear (section 110018). It
also includes the Clean Electricity Performance Program, authorizing grants and fees to
encourage utilities to increase their supply of low-carbon electricity, including from nuclear
power (section 30411). Introduced September 27, 2021, and placed on the Union Calendar
pursuant to budget reconciliation procedures.
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684, DeFazio)
As passed by the Senate, includes a federal program to provide financial support to nuclear power
plants at risk of closure, with appropriations of $6 bil ion through FY2026, and appropriates
$2.477 bil ion over four years for DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. Introduced
June 4, 2021; referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Reported by
Committee June 22, 2021 (H.Rept. 117-70); passed by House July 1, 2021; passed by Senate with
an amendment August 10, 2021.
Preserving Existing Nuclear Energy Generation Act (H.R. 4960, Kinzinger)
Establishes DOE program to provide credits to nuclear power plants certified by the Secretary of
Energy as being at risk of shutdown for financial reasons (similar to the program in H.R. 3684 as
passed by the Senate). Each credit equals one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electric generation, and
certified reactors could submit bids specifying the price per MWh of the credits desired. Also
authorizes grants for units of local government affected by nuclear plant retirements. Introduced
August 6, 2021; referred to Committees on Energy and Commerce, Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Financial Services.
Energy Infrastructure Act (S. 2377, Manchin)
Section 3203 establishes credits for at-risk nuclear power plants similar to the program in H.R.
3684 as passed by the Senate. Introduced July 19, 2021; referred to Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

30 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, “Full Committee Markup of Legislative Recommendations for Budget
Reconciliation,” staff memorandum, September 9, 2021, https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/
democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Memo_FC%20MU_2021.9.9_0.pdf.
31 For more information on the Clean Electricity Performance Plan, see CRS Report R46934, The Clean Electricity
Perform ance Program (CEPP): In Brief, by Ashley J. Lawson.
Congressional Research Service

12

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2021 (S. 2373, Capito)
Section 301 establishes credits for at-risk nuclear power plants similar to the program in H.R.
3684 as passed by the Senate, except that the program is run by EPA. Section 503 authorizes
grants to units of local government affected by nuclear power plant shutdowns. Introduced July
15, 2021; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Zero-Emission Nuclear Power Production Credit Act of 2021 (H.R. 4024,
Pascrell/S. 2291, Cardin)
Establishes tax credit of up to 1.5 cents per kwh of nuclear energy generation through the end of
2030. The credit amount is reduced as the price of electricity sold by a nuclear plant rises, and is
to be adjusted for inflation. The credit amount also would be reduced based on similar state and
local credits received. Nuclear plants would have to pay prevailing wages to receive the federal
credit. House bil introduced June 21, 2021; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. Senate
bil introduced June 24, 2021; referred to Committee on Finance.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing on Nuclear Energy
The March 25, 2021, hearing focused on “ways to maintain and expand the use of nuclear energy
in the United States and abroad.”32 Committee Chairman Joe Manchin followed up the hearing
with a letter to President Biden on April 20, 2021, urging him “to take action to preserve our
existing nuclear fleet and prevent further closures. I believe the federal government must use al
the tools it has to protect this vital resource, to the maximum extent consistent with the health and
safety of the public.”33 Hearing statements, testimony, and video available on the committee
website at https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/3/full-committee-hearing-on-nuclear-
energy.
Nuclear Industrial Base Act of 2021 (H.R. 1698, Latta)
Establishes DOE Nuclear Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Program to monitor and
assess the needs of the domestic nuclear industry and supports nuclear power development and
deployment partnerships between the federal government and private entities. Introduced March
9, 2021; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
CLEAN Energy Future Act (H.R. 1512, Pallone)
Establishes a national clean energy standard (CES), which would require electric utilities to
provide specific amounts of power to their customers from low - or zero-carbon generating
sources. A CES that includes nuclear energy could increase the demand for electricity from
existing reactors and possibly provide an economic incentive for building new ones. Bil includes
a CES that would gradual y rise to 100% zero-emission electricity generation, including nuclear
power, by 2035 and afterward. Introduced March 2, 2021, by House Energy and Commerce
Committee Chairman Frank Pal one Jr.; referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee,
which held hearings on the bil starting March 18, 2021. Hearing statements, testimony, and video

32 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, “Full Committee Hearing on Nuclear Energy,” March 25,
2021, https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/3/full-committee-hearing-on-nuclear-energy.
33 Letter from Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin III to President
Joseph R. Biden, April 20, 2021, https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/FC01A8FF-FC8F-4FFA-A44E-
C3D81CF00A2E.
Congressional Research Service

13

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

available on the committee website at https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/
hearings/hearing-on-the-clean-future-act-industrial-climate-policies-to-create.
116th Congress
Energy Act of 2020, P.L. 116-260, Division Z
Includes authorization of $55 mil ion per year for FY2021 through FY2025 for the Sustainability
Program for Light Water Reactors to conduct research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application of technologies to improve the economics, safety, and lifetime of existing
nuclear power plants (Section 2003). Signed into law December 27, 2020. Authorization of the
sustainability program was also included in the Nuclear Energy Renewal Act of 2019 (S. 2368,
Coons), approved by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on November 11, 2019
(S.Rept. 116-203).
Nuclear Powers America Act of 2019 (S. 1134, Cramer/H.R. 2314, LaHood)
Would have provided a 30% tax credit for fuel and capital expenses incurred by nuclear power
plants. The credit would have phased out from December 31, 2023, through January 1, 2026. To
receive the credit, nuclear power plants were to submit a license renewal to NRC or certify to
DOE that a license renewal would be submitted. Senate bil introduced April 10, 2019; referred to
Committee on Finance. House bil introduced April 12, 2019; referred to Committee on Ways and
Means.
American Nuclear Infrastructure Act (S. 4897, Barrasso)
Would have established an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program to provide
assistance, subject to appropriation, to nuclear power plants at risk of permanent shutdown.
Certified at-risk plants were to submit bids describing the amount of assistance they would
require to generate a specific amount of electricity for the subsequent four years. EPA would have
al ocated the available assistance to “as many certified nuclear reactors as possible” based on the
bids. Hearings held by Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on discussion draft
August 5, 2020 (H.Hrg. 116-270). Bil introduced November 16, 2020; ordered reported with
amendment December 2, 2020.
CRS Reports
CRS Report R46820, U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns,
by Mark Holt and Phil ip Brown
CRS Report R44715, Financial Challenges of Operating Nuclear Power Plants in the United
States, by Phil ip Brown and Mark Holt
CRS Report R44852, The Value of Energy Tax Incentives for Different Types of Energy
Resources, by Molly F. Sherlock
Additional References
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2021, Mycle Schneider and Antony Froggat, September
2021, https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/
Congressional Research Service

14

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear: A Practical Guide for Stakeholders,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency, July 2020,
http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2020/7530-reducing-cost-nuclear-construction.pdf
Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership, Department of Energy Nuclear Fuel
Working Group, April 23, 2020, https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-brouil ette-announces-
nuclear-fuel-working-groups-strategy-restore-american
The Changing Geopolitics of Nuclear Energy: A Look at the United States, Russia, and China,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 12, 2020, https://www.csis.org/analysis/
changing-geopolitics-nuclear-energy-look-united-states-russia-and-china
U.S. Nuclear Energy Leadership: Innovation and the Strategic Global Challenge, Atlantic
Council, May 20, 2019, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/us-
nuclear-energy-leadership-innovation-and-the-strategic-global-chal enge-2
The Nuclear Power Dilemma: Declining Profits, Plant Closures, and the Threat of Rising Carbon
Emissions, Union of Concerned Scientists, November 2018, https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/
files/attach/2018/11/Nuclear-Power-Dilemma-full-report.pdf
Promising Market and Federal Solutions for Existing Nuclear Power, Center for Climate and
Energy Solutions, October 2018, https://www.c2es.org/document/promising-market-and-federal-
solutions-for-existing-nuclear-power/
Nuclear Costs in Context, Nuclear Energy Institute, September 2018, https://www.nei.org/
CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/reports-and-briefs/nuclear-costs-in-context-201909.pdf
Economic and Market Challenges Facing the U.S. Nuclear Commercial Fleet—Cost and Revenue
Study, Idaho National Laboratory, September 2017, https://gain.inl.gov/SiteAssets/Teresa/
Market%20Chal enges%20for%20Nuclear%20Fleet-ESSAI%20Study%20Sept2017.pdf
Keeping the Lights on at America’s Nuclear Power Plants, Jeremy Carl and David Fedor, Shultz-
Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy, Hoover Institution Press, 2017
Advanced Nuclear Technology
Existing commercial nuclear power plants in the United States are based on light water reactor
(LWR) technology, in which ordinary (light) water is used to cool the reactor and to moderate, or
slow, the neutrons in a nuclear chain reaction. In the chain reaction, neutrons cause the nuclei of
uranium and other heavy atoms to fission (split), releasing large amounts of energy and additional
neutrons to maintain the reaction. The federal government developed LWRs for naval propulsion
in the 1950s and funded the commercialization of the technology for electricity generation. DOE
and its predecessor agencies for decades have also conducted research on “advanced” reactor
technologies that use different coolants and moderators, as wel as fast neutron reactors that have
no moderator.
The term “advanced nuclear reactor” is defined by the Energy Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-260,
Division Z) as a fission reactor that has “significant improvements” over existing commercial
reactors, and any fusion reactor. Areas of improvement can include safety, waste generation,
performance, resistance to weapons proliferation, “modular sizes,” and integration of electric and
non-electric applications (such as heat and hydrogen production). That definition encompasses
smal modular reactors (SMRs) of any type.
To produce less long-lived radioactive waste than existing reactors, some advanced reactor
concepts would involve the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to separate uranium, plutonium,
Congressional Research Service

15

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

and other long-lived radioisotopes to make new fuel for fast reactors.34 Such reprocessing, or
recycling, would also reduce the need for newly mined uranium to fuel a potential y growing
worldwide reactor fleet, according to proponents.
SMRs, which DOE defines as having generating capacity of 300 megawatts (MW) or below,
would be far smal er than today’s commercial LWRs, which average about 1,000 MW of electric
generating capacity. Most proposed advanced reactors, including smal LWRs, would meet
DOE’s definition of SMRs. Supporters of SMRs contend that they would be smal enough to be
assembled in factories and shipped to reactor sites to reduce construction costs. In addition, SMRs
could reduce the financial risks of building a new nuclear power plant, because each module
would cost less than today’s large reactors and revenues could begin when the first module was
complete, rather than after completion of a much larger unit. However, some analysts contend
that SMRs would be too smal to achieve the economies of scale needed for economic viability.35
Very smal SMRs are often cal ed “microreactors,” defined by DOE as having thermal energy
capacity below 20 MW. They could provide heat or electric power at remote locations. Self-
contained microreactor power units would be assembled in a factory, transported to a site in a
shipping container, and set up to generate power within a week, according to DOE. Microreactors
would be “self regulating,” in that their designs are intended to prevent overheating even without
operator intervention.36
Recent Events
The Energy Act of 2020, signed by President Trump on December 27, 2020, authorized DOE
programs on advanced nuclear energy R&D, fuel supply, and demonstration through FY2025.
The Energy Act requires DOE to implement a program to help make high-assay low-enriched
uranium (HALEU) available for advanced reactor R&D and deployment. HALEU is uranium
enriched above 5% of the fissile isotope uranium 235 but below 20%, which is the threshold for
high-enriched uranium that poses weapons proliferation concerns. Many proposed advanced
reactors are being designed to use HALEU. DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program,
initial y funded in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94), was
authorized by the Energy Act at $405 mil ion in FY2021, rising to $455 mil ion in FY2025.
Legislation to stimulate the development of advanced nuclear technology, the Nuclear Energy
Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 (NEICA), was signed by the President on September 28,
2018 (P.L. 115-248). Key provisions authorize the construction of demonstration reactors funded
by the private sector at DOE sites, authorize DOE to construct a Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) for
advanced nuclear fuels and materials, and authorize grants to help pay for advanced reactor
licensing. The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (P.L. 115-439), signed into law
January 14, 2019, requires NRC to develop a new licensing framework for advanced nuclear

34 Radioisotopes are radioactive isotopes; isotopes are forms of an element that have different numbers of neutrons.
Different radioisotopes of the same element will behave the same chemically but have different half -lives and other
radioactive characteristics. Long-lived radioisotopes separated from spent fuel could in principle be fissioned or
transmuted in a fast reactor into shorter-lived radioisotopes for disposal.
35 Deign, Jason, “ Interest in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Is Growing. So Are Fears T hey Aren’t Viable,”
Greentech Media, March 14, 2018, https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/interest -in-small-modular-nuclear-
grows#gs.ph5LRao.
36 DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, “What Is a Nuclear Microreactor?,” October 23, 2018, https://www.energy.gov/ne/
articles/what -nuclear-microreactor.
Congressional Research Service

16

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

technology. Proponents of the law contend that NRC’s existing licensing system is too focused on
LWR technology and would potential y cause delays in non-LWR applications.
NRC is currently reviewing a design certification application for the NuScale SMR plant, which
would consist of a dozen 60 MW(electric) reactors in a large pool of water.37 DOE announced a
cost-shared award of up to $1.4 bil ion for a NuScale demonstration plant on October 16, 2020.38
Oklo Power submitted a combined construction permit and operating license application to NRC
on March 11, 2020, for its 1.5 MW(electric) Aurora microreactor.39 Both plants are proposed for
construction at Idaho National Laboratory. DOE announced initial awards totaling $160 mil ion
for two demonstration plants under the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program on October 13,
2020.40 One of the award recipients, TerraPower, is proposing to build its demonstration plant on
the site of one of four closed coal-fired power plants in Wyoming.41
Table 2. Planned Advanced Reactor Demonstration Plants
Reactor
DOE
NRC
Reactor
Tech-
Power
Plant
DOE
Cost
Plant
Licensing
Designer
nology
(electric)
Owner
Funding
Share
Location
Status
NuScale
Light water
77 MW
Utah
Up to $1.4
50%
Idaho
Standard
SMR
Associated
bil ion
National
Design
Municipal
Laboratory
Certification
Power
application
Systems
submitted
January 2017
Terra
Sodium-
345 MW
PacificCorp
Up to $1.6
50%
Wyoming, at
Pre-
Power
cooled fast
bil ion
1 of 4 closed
application
reactor
coal plants
activities
X-Energy
High-
80 MW
Energy
Up to $1.6
50%
Richland,
Pre-
temperature
Northwest
bil ion
WA
application
gas-cooled
activities
reactor
Oklo
Sodium-
1.5 MW
Oklo
$2.6 mil ion
50%
Idaho
COL
cooled fast
National
application
reactor
Laboratory
submitted
3/11/20

37 NRC, “ Application Review Schedule for the NuScale Design,” May 14, 2020, https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-
reactors/smr/nuscale/review-schedule.html. NuScale currently plans to increase each module’s electric generating
capacity to 77 MW. See NuScale Power, “T echnology Overview,” https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/
technology-overview.
38 DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, “DOE Approves Award for Carbon Free Power Project,” October 16, 2020,
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-approves-award-carbon-free-power-project.
39 NRC, “Aurora—Oklo Application,” June 17, 2020, https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/aurora-oklo.html.
40 DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, “U.S. Department of Energy Announces $160 Million in First Awards under
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program,” October 13, 2020, https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/us-department-
energy-announces-160-million-first-awards-under-advanced-reactor.
41 DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, “Next -Gen Nuclear Plant and Jobs Are Coming to Wyoming,” June 7, 2021,
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/next -gen-nuclear-plant -and-jobs-are-coming-wyoming.
Congressional Research Service

17

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Reactor
DOE
NRC
Reactor
Tech-
Power
Plant
DOE
Cost
Plant
Licensing
Designer
nology
(electric)
Owner
Funding
Share
Location
Status
Kairos
Fluoride-
140 MW
Kairos
Up to $303
48%
Oak Ridge,
Pre-
salt-cooled
mil ion
TN
application
high-
activities
temperature
reactor
Sources: DOE, NRC.
Notes: COL=combined construction permit and operating license.
The Department of Defense (DOD) awarded three contracts on March 9, 2020, for design
development of mobile microreactors. “A safe, smal , mobile nuclear reactor would enable units
to carry a nearly endless clean power supply, enabling expansion and sustainment of operations
for extended periods of time anywhere on the planet,” according to DOD’s announcement of the
awards.42
DOE’s nuclear energy research and development program includes reactor modeling and
simulation, experimental processing of spent nuclear fuel, development of advanced reactor
concepts, and testing of “accident tolerant fuels” for existing LWRs. The Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260, Division D) includes
$1.508 bil ion for DOE nuclear energy programs. The enacted funding measure provides $250
mil ion for the Advanced Reactors Demonstration Program, including $160 mil ion for two
advanced nuclear reactor demonstration projects, with a cost-share of at least 50% from
nonfederal sources, and $40 mil ion to reduce the technical risk of five additional reactor
demonstration proposals, with a nonfederal cost-share of at least 20%. The measure also provides
$106 mil ion for accident-tolerant fuels, $45 mil ion to continue development of the VTR, and
$20 mil ion for processing HALEU from various sources at Idaho National Laboratory.
For FY2022, the Biden Administration is requesting $1.851 bil ion for nuclear energy programs,
while the House approved $1.675 bil ion (H.R. 4502) and the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $1.591 bil ion (S. 2605). The Administration’s American Jobs Plan would provide
$15 bil ion for energy demonstration projects, including advanced nuclear reactors, and $46
bil ion in federal purchases to stimulate clean energy manufacturing, including advanced nuclear
reactors and fuel.43 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684) as passed by the
Senate would appropriate $2.477 bil ion over four years for the Advanced Reactor Demonstration
Program, and the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) includes $95 mil ion for the VTR. Selected
Congressional Action—117th Congress
Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376, Yarmuth)
Budget reconciliation bil that includes FY2022 appropriations for advanced nuclear energy
technology, including $95 mil ion for the VTR (section 90002) and $53 mil ion for research
reactor infrastructure (section 90003). Introduced September 27, 2021, and placed on the Union
Calendar pursuant to budget reconciliation procedures.

42 DOD, “DOD Awards Contracts for Development of a Mobile Microreactor,” March 9, 2020,
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2105863/dod-awards-contracts-for-development -of-a-
mobile-microreactor.
43 White House, “Fact Sheet: T he American Jobs Plan,” March 31, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan.
Congressional Research Service

18

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Nuclear Power Purchase Agreements Act (H.R. 4834, Luria)
Authorizes DOE to enter into power purchase agreements of up to 40 years from nuclear reactors
licensed after January 1, 2020. Power purchase agreements that can provide reliable electricity to
off-grid locations and national defense facilities, or for other purposes found to be in the national
interest, can include above-market rates. Introduced July 29, 2021; referred to committees on
Energy and Commerce and Oversight and Reform.
National Nuclear University Research Infrastructure Reinvestment Act of 2021
(H.R. 4819, Anthony Gonzalez)
Authorizes a DOE program to strengthen university research and training reactors, including a
subprogram to demonstrate advanced nuclear reactor and microreactor concepts. Introduced July
29, 2021; referred to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Energy Infrastructure Act (S. 2377, Manchin)
Requires DOE to prepare a report on the potential use of SMRs and microreactors and authorizes
DOE to support feasibility studies on deploying microreactors, SMRs, and advanced reactors in
isolated communities. Introduced July 19, 2021; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2021 (S. 2373, Capito)
Authorizes prizes for advanced nuclear reactors and fuel, and removes the costs of advanced
reactor early site permits and pre-licensing activities from NRC fee recovery requirements.
Introduced July 15, 2021; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act (H.R. 1748, Bill Johnson)
Expedites DOE review of certain nuclear technology exports, enables increased investment in
U.S. nuclear technology by American al ies, and modifies licensing requirements for new
nonelectric uses of nuclear energy and for improved manufacturing techniques. Introduced March
10, 2021; referred to Committees on Energy and Commerce and Foreign Affairs.
Advanced Nuclear Deployment Act (H.R. 1746, Hudson)
Facilitates licensing and deployment of advanced civilian nuclear technologies and authorizes
federal agencies to enter into certain long-term power purchase agreements. Introduced March 10,
2021; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce and in addition to the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology.
Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act (H.R. 1578, Kinzinger)
Establishes timelines and modifies procedures for nuclear power plant permitting and licensing.
Introduced March 3, 2021; referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Modernize Nuclear Reactor Environmental Reviews Act (H.R. 1559, Duncan)
Modifies requirements and procedures for NRC environmental reviews of nuclear power plant
licensing and permitting decisions. Introduced March 3, 2021; referred to Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service

19

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

116th Congress
Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Act (H.R. 1760, Flores)
Required DOE to establish a program to support the availability of HALEU as fuel for advanced
nuclear reactors. Introduced March 14, 2019; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Passed House by voice vote September 9, 2019. HALEU authorization included in Energy Act of
2020.
Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (S. 903, Murkowski/H.R. 3306, Luria)
Would have authorized federal agencies to sign power purchase agreements (PPAs) with electric
utilities for up to 40 years and required DOE to establish a pilot PPA program for new nuclear
reactors. Included provisions directing DOE to demonstrate advanced reactor technologies,
prepare a nuclear energy strategic plan, and make HALEU available for advanced nuclear
reactors. DOE and NRC were to establish a program to support university research on advanced
nuclear technologies. Senate bil introduced March 27, 2019; referred to Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources. Legislative hearings held April 30, 2019. Approved by Committee July
16, 2019 (S.Rept. 116-114). House bil introduced June 19, 2019; referred to Committees on
Science, Space, and Technology; Energy and Commerce; Oversight and Reform; and Armed
Services. Authorizations for HALEU program and university advanced reactor research support
included in Energy Act of 2020.
Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies Act (H.R. 3358, Higgins)
Directed DOE to carry out two advanced nuclear reactor demonstrations by the end of 2025, to
the extent practicable, and up to four additional demonstrations by the end of 2035. The
demonstrations were to be cost-shared with nonfederal entities. Would have required DOE to
submit a nuclear energy strategic plan to specified congressional committees. Introduced June 19,
2019; referred to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Authorization for DOE
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program included in Energy Act of 2020.
Nuclear Energy Renewal Act of 2019 (S. 2368, Coons)
Included authorizations of appropriations for DOE advanced nuclear R&D programs through
FY2029. Appropriations for the Advanced Reactor Technologies Development Program were to
be authorized at $120 mil ion per year; Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program at $200
mil ion per year; Material Recovery and Waste Form Development at $50 mil ion per year;
Advanced Fuels at $120 mil ion per year; Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies at $150 mil ion
per year; Radiological Facilities Management at $30 mil ion per year; and International Nuclear
Energy Cooperation at $10 mil ion per year. Included authorization for DOE and NRC to develop
certification and licensing criteria for advanced reactors and to provide assistance to advanced
reactor license applicants. Appropriations were to be authorized at $15 mil ion per year through
FY2029. The Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program, aimed at existing reactors, would also
have been authorized through FY2029. It would have al owed an exemption to the existing
minimum of 20% private-sector cost sharing for programs authorized by the bil . Introduced July
31, 2019; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Approved by Committee
November 19, 2019 (S.Rept. 116-203). Authorizations of DOE nuclear energy programs included
in Energy Act of 2020.
Congressional Research Service

20

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Integrated Energy Systems Act of 2019 (S. 2702, Risch)
Included provisions to establish an integrated energy systems program to integrate nuclear energy
with renewable energy, fossil energy, and energy storage; and expand the use of emissions-
reducing energy technologies into nonelectric sectors. Introduced November 19, 2019; referred to
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and reported the same day with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute (S.Rept. 116-199). Integrated energy systems program authorization
included in Energy Act of 2020.
American Energy Innovation Act (S.Amdt. 1407, Murkowski)
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to S. 2657, including provisions from several nuclear
energy bil s reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: S. 2368, S. 903, and S.
2702. Amendment submitted March 3, 2020; cloture not invoked March 9, 2020, by vote of 47-
44. Many provisions included in Energy Act of 2020.
Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act (H.R. 6097, Lamb)
Included authorizations for DOE nuclear energy research and demonstration programs for
existing commercial reactors; advanced reactor technologies; hybrid nuclear energy systems that
would operate in tandem with storage, renewable, or other technologies; HALEU for advanced
reactors; used (spent) nuclear fuel, including recycling and waste disposal; and advanced
technology fuels. It would have authorized $3.016 bil ion through FY2025 to construct a versatile
neutron source, or versatile test reactor. Authorizations were included for DOE to enter into cost-
shared agreements for least two advanced reactor demonstration projects by 2027 and from two to
five additional projects by 2035, for which $3.2 bil ion was to be authorized through FY2025.
Authorizations are also included for international nuclear energy cooperation and university
scholarships and fel owships in nuclear R&D. Introduced March 5, 2020; referred to House
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Authorizations for HALEU, hybrid nuclear
energy systems, spent fuel research, versatile neutron source, advanced reactor demonstrations,
international energy cooperation, and university scholarships and fel owships included in Energy
Act of 2020.
Nuclear Energy for the Future Act (H.R. 6796, Weber)
Included provisions requiring DOE to carry out an advanced reactor technologies research and
development program through public-private partnerships, along with an authorization of $3.016
bil ion through FY2025 to construct a versatile neutron source. Introduced May 8, 2020; referred
to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Versatile neutron source
authorization included in Energy Act of 2020.
Hearing: Advanced Nuclear Technology: Protecting U.S. Leadership and
Expanding Opportunities for Licensing New Nuclear Energy Technologies
Hearing by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air
and Nuclear Safety on the international and domestic outlook for advanced nuclear technologies,
June 4, 2019. Witnesses included Wil iam D. Magwood, Director General of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency, and representatives of
advanced nuclear technology companies and public policy organizations. Video, written
statements, and other material can be found at https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
Congressional Research Service

21

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

2019/6/advanced-nuclear-technology-protecting-u-s-leadership-and-expanding-opportunities-for-
licensing-new-nuclear-energy-technologies.
CRS Reports
CRS Report R45706, Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Technology Overview and Current Issues, by
Daniel e A. Arostegui and Mark Holt
CRS Report R46372, Summary and Analysis of S. 2657, the American Energy Innovation Act,
coordinated by Brent D. Yacobucci
Additional References
Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN), U.S. Department of Energy website,
https://gain.inl.gov/SitePages/Home.aspx
Proposed U.S. Army Mobile Nuclear Reactors: Costs and Risks Outweigh Benefits, Alan J.
Kuperman, University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, Nuclear Proliferation
Prevention Project, April 22, 2021, http://mail01.tinyletterapp.com/NPPP/2-reports-army-
reactors-space-reactors/19288238-sites.utexas.edu/nppp/files/2021/04/army-reactor-report-nppp-
2021-april.pdf
Small Modular Reactors: Challenges and Opportunities, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency, April 7, 2021, https://www.oecd.org/
publications/smal -modular-reactors-18fbb76c-en.htm
A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies, Andrew C. Kadak, Columbia University
Center on Global Energy Policy, March 2021, https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/
files/A%20Comparison%20of%20Nuclear%20Technologies%20033017.pdf
“Advanced” Isn’t Always Better: Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of
Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors, Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists, March 2021,
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better
Raising the Next Generation of Nuclear: A Road Map for Deployment, Third Way, October 17,
2019, https://www.thirdway.org/memo/raising-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-a-road-map-for-
deployment
Metric and Method for Comparing Investments to Decarbonize the Electricity System, Rocky
Mountain Institute, September 24, 2019, https://rmi.org/insight/decarbonizing-the-electricity-
system
Nuclear Innovation and NEPA, Nuclear Innovation Al iance, September 2019,
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5b05b3_e661eba94a224b28aac2a7e11d60e0c6.pdf
Examination of Federal Financial Assistance in the Renewable Energy Market: Implications and
Opportunities for Commercial Deployment of Small Modular Reactors, Scully Capital and Kutak
Rock for the U.S. Department of Energy, October 2018, https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/
report-examination-federal-financial-assistance-renewable-energy-market
Leading on SMRs, Nuclear Innovation Al iance, October 2017, https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/
5b05b3_d163208371134cc590a234100429a6fd.pdf
Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing, Nuclear Innovation Al iance, April 2016,
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5b05b3_71d4011545234838aa27005ab7d757f1.pdf
Congressional Research Service

22

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Advanced Nuclear 101, Third Way, December 1, 2015, http://www.thirdway.org/report/advanced-
nuclear-101
Safety
The 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster in Japan, triggered by a 9.0-magnitude
earthquake and 45-foot tsunami, greatly increased concerns about safety in the nuclear policy
debate. The accident clearly demonstrated the potential consequences of a total loss of power (or
“station blackout”) at today’s commercial nuclear plants. Even when the nuclear reaction shuts
down as designed, as at the Fukushima plant after the initial earthquake, residual radioactivity in
the reactor core continues to generate “decay heat” that must be removed, typical y by electrical y
driven or controlled cooling systems.
When the tsunami knocked out power at the three Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors that had been
operating when the earthquake struck, the buildup of heat and pressure from residual radioactivity
became so great that it melted the reactors’ nuclear fuel and exceeded the limits of their
containment structures. The decay heat also caused steam to chemical y react with the nuclear
fuel cladding in the reactor cores, generating additional heat along with hydrogen that escaped
into the upper part of the reactor buildings and exploded. Cooling was also lost in Fukushima’s
spent fuel storage pools, causing concern that they could overheat, although later examination
indicated that they did not.
Safety requirements for nuclear power plants are established and enforced in the United States by
NRC, an independent regulatory agency. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires NRC to ensure
that licensed nuclear facilities “provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public”
(42 U.S.C. 2232). NRC may issue safety requirements that exceed the statutory “adequate
protection” standard if their benefits are found to exceed their costs.
NRC safety regulations address the effects of external events such as earthquakes and floods,
equipment failure such as breaks in coolant pipes, and other problems that could lead to
radioactive releases into the environment. Critics of nuclear power contend that NRC is often
reluctant to impose necessary safety requirements that would be costly or disruptive to the nuclear
industry. However, the industry has frequently contended that costly safety proposals are
unnecessary and would not significantly increase large existing safety margins.
Following the Fukushima disaster, NRC established a task force to identify lessons applicable to
U.S. reactors and recommend safety improvements. The task force’s report led to NRC’s first
Fukushima-related regulatory requirements, on March 12, 2012. NRC ordered al reactors to
develop strategies to maintain cooling and containment integrity during external events, such as
floods and earthquakes, that were more severe than anticipated by the plants’ designs (“beyond
design basis”). In addition, NRC required that U.S. reactors of similar design to the Fukushima
reactors have “reliable hardened vents” to remove excess pressure from their primary
containments, and that better instrumentation be instal ed to monitor the condition of spent fuel
pools during accidents.44
The NRC commissioners on March 19, 2013, required NRC staff to study whether to require the
newly mandated containment vents to include filters or other means to reduce the release of
radioactive material if the vents have to be used. The idea of requiring filters had drawn praise

44 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Actions in Response to the Japan Nuclear Accident: March 12, 2012,” updated
May 30, 2012, http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan/timeline/03122012.html.
Congressional Research Service

23

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

from nuclear critics but opposition from the industry on cost grounds.45 NRC voted on August 19,
2015, not to proceed with rulemaking on filtered vents.46
Recent Events
Congressional controversy was generated by NRC’s final rule for Mitigation of Beyond-Design-
Basis Events (MBDBE), announced January 24, 2019.47 The MBDBE regulation requires nuclear
power plants to implement strategies to maintain reactor core cooling when electric power is lost,
as occurred during the Fukushima accident. The MBDBE proposed rule, published November 13,
2015,48 and the draft final rule, released by NRC on January 5, 2017,49 would have required the
equipment used in those strategies to be able to withstand newly evaluated flooding and seismic
risks, and that regular dril s and exercises be conducted. The final rule excluded those
requirements, among other changes.50 In supporting those exclusions, the Commission majority
asserted that the deleted requirements did not meet NRC’s cost-benefit standards.51 NRC is
continuing to monitor the implementation of al post-Fukushima regulations and orders.52
The 10th anniversary of the Fukushima disaster in March 2021 was noted around the world with
retrospectives, status reports, and commentary. “An important lesson of Fukushima is that
regulators must be strong, independent and adequately resourced,” the International Atomic
Energy Agency said in marking the occasion.53 The Japan Atomic Industrial Forum issued a
statement declaring, “We in the nuclear industry must reflect on the Fukushima Dai chi accident
and learn its lessons thoroughly as we firmly pledge never to al ow it to recur, through our
unwavering efforts to improve safety.”54

45 NRC, “Consideration of Additional Requirements for Containment Venting Systems f or Boiling Water Reactors with
Mark I and Mark II Containments,” staff requirement s memorandum, SECY-12-0157, March 19, 2013,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/srm/2012/2012-0157srm.pdf; Freebairn, William, “ NRC
Staff Recommends Ordering Filtered Vents for 31 Power Reactors,” Inside NRC, November 5, 2012, p. 1.
46 NRC, “Hardened Vents and Filtration (for Boiling Water Reactors with Mark I and Mark II containment designs),”
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard/hardened-vents.html.
47 NRC, “ NRC T o Issue Final Rule for Mitigating Severe Events at U.S. Reactors,” news release, January 24, 2019,
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2019/19-005.pdf.
48 NRC, “Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events,” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, November 13, 2015, Vol. 80,
No. 219, p. 70610, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-11-13/pdf/2015-28589.pdf.
49 NRC, Final Rule: Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events, SECY-16-0142, Enclosure 1, January 5, 2017,
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1630/ML16301A005.html.
50 NRC, “Staff Requirements—Affirmation Session,” SRM-M190124A, Enclosure 1, January 24, 2019,
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1902/ML19023A038.html.
51 Ibid., “Views of the Commission.”
52 NRC, “ Plant-Specific Japan Lessons-Learned Activities,” August 13, 2018, https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/
ops-experience/japan-dashboard/japan-plants.html.
53 International Atomic Energy Agency, “Ten-Year Anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
Accident: A Decade of Improving Nuclear Safety ,” March 10, 2021, https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/ten-
year-anniversary-of-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-plant-accident -a-decade-of-improving-nuclear-safety.
54 Japan Atomic Industrial Forum President Shiro Arai, “ Marking the T enth Anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi
Accident ,” February 26, 2021, https://www.jaif.or.jp/en/marking-the-tenth-anniversary-of-the-fukushima-daiichi-
accident .

Congressional Research Service

24

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Selected Congressional Action—117th Congress
Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Whistleblower
Protection Act (S. 2896, Duckworth)
Specifies that DOE and NRC employees are included in protections against management
retaliation under the Energy Reorganization Act (42 U.S.C. 5851) for raising nuclear safety
concerns. Introduced September 29, 2021; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Nuclear Licensing Efficiency Act (H.R. 1578, Kinzinger)
Establishes timelines and modifies procedures for nuclear power plant permitting and licensing.
NRC would have to issue safety evaluation reports and final environmental impact statements for
nuclear reactor license applications “to the maximum extent practicable within 42 months after
the application is accepted for docketing.” NRC could use informal procedures for licensing
hearings if it found formal adjudicatory procedures to be unnecessary. Introduced March 3, 2021;
referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Modernize Nuclear Reactor Environmental Reviews Act (H.R. 1559, Duncan)
Modifies requirements and procedures for NRC environmental reviews of nuclear power plant
licensing and permitting decisions. Requires NRC within three years of enactment to promulgate
a final rule “establishing an optional generic environmental impact statement that may be used in
the licensing process for nuclear reactors” and al owing for environmental assessments and
categorical exclusions for environmental reviews where appropriate. Introduced March 3, 2021;
referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
116th Congress
Low-Dose Radiation Research Act of 2019 (H.R. 4733, Posey)
Would have authorized a DOE research program on the effects of exposure to low -dose radiation.
Introduced October 18, 2019; referred to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Whistleblower
Protection Act of 2019 (H.R. 5787, Horsford/S. 1330, Duckworth)
Would have specifical y protected al DOE and NRC employees from retaliation for raising
nuclear safety concerns (whistleblowing). House bil introduced February 6, 2020; referred to
Committee on Energy and Commerce; Senate bil introduced May 6, 2019; referred to Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Hearing: Preserving and Expanding Clean, Reliable Nuclear Power: U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Reactor Performance Trends and Safety Initiatives
Hearing by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on the safety of existing and
potential future nuclear power plants and other issues relating to commercial nuclear power.
Witnesses came from industry, government, and advocacy organizations. Video, written
statements, and other material can be found at https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
Congressional Research Service

25

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

2019/11/preserving-and-expanding-clean-reliable-nuclear-power-u-s-commercial-nuclear-reactor-
performance-trends-and-safety-initiatives.
CRS Reports
CRS Report R41694, Fukushima Nuclear Disaster, by Mark Holt, Richard J. Campbel , and
Mary Beth D. Nikitin
Additional References
Post-Fukushima Safety Enhancements, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, web page,
reviewed/updated March 11, 2020, https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/post-
fukushima-safety-enhancements.html
Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors, World Nuclear Association, March 2021, https://www.world-
nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-
reactors.aspx
Nuclear Power 101, Natural Resources Defense Council, May 14, 2020, https://www.nrdc.org/
stories/nuclear-power-101
Nuclear Safety: Countries’ Regulatory Bodies Have Made Changes in Response to the Fukushima
Daiichi Accident, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Government Accountability Office,
GAO-14-109, March 2014, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-109
State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Report, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, NUREG-1935, November 2012, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/
nuregs/staff/sr1935
Security and Emergency Response
The level of security that must be provided at nuclear power plants became a high-profile issue
after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001. Since those attacks, NRC issued a
series of orders and regulations that substantial y increased nuclear plant security requirements,
although industry critics contend that those measures are stil insufficient. Key measures include
an increase in the level of attacks that nuclear plant security forces must be able to repel,
requirements for mitigating the effects of large fires and explosions, and a requirement that new
reactors be capable of withstanding aircraft crashes without releasing radioactive material. NRC
also modified its planning requirements for evacuations and other emergency responses after the
9/11 attacks, and the Fukushima disaster il ustrated the importance of emergency response to
radioactive releases from any cause.
NRC issued wide-ranging revisions to its emergency preparedness regulations on November 1,
2011, dealing with duties of emergency personnel and the inclusion of hostile actions in
emergency planning dril s.55 In response to Fukushima, NRC staff recommended that nuclear
emergency plans be required to address events affecting multiple reactors and prolonged station

55 NRC, “Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations,” final rule, Federal Register, November 23, 2011, p.
72560.
Congressional Research Service

26

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

blackout. NRC told nuclear power plants on March 12, 2012, to provide specific information and
analysis on those issues.56
The NRC Cyber Security Directorate was established in June 2013 to coordinate rulemaking,
guidance, and oversight of cybersecurity at nuclear power plants and other regulated nuclear
facilities. As part of the Directorate, NRC’s Cyber Assessment Team responds to cybersecurity
events at NRC-licensed facilities and coordinates threat assessments with other federal agencies.57
Recent Events
NRC issued a draft final rule June 7, 2018, on “Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background
Checks, and Security Event Notifications.”58 The draft final rule, which is awaiting Commission
approval following a staff revision submitted February 4, 2020,59 would establish procedures for
nuclear power plants and other licensed nuclear facilities to apply for NRC authorization to arm
their security personnel with “enhanced” weapons, such as semiautomatic assault weapons and
machine guns, despite any state laws prohibiting such weapons. NRC is authorized to preempt
state laws for this purpose under Atomic Energy Act Section 161A, enacted by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The draft final rule would also modify NRC requirements for nuclear
power plants and other licensed facilities to report events related to physical security and would
add requirements for reporting suspicious activities.
CRS Reports
CRS In Focus IF10821, Price-Anderson Act: Nuclear Power Industry Liability Limits and
Compensation to the Public After Radioactive Releases, by Mark Holt
CRS Report RL34331, Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities, by Mark Holt
Additional References
Update on Radiological Emergency Preparedness Enhancement Activities Resulting from Lessons
Learned Following September 11, 2001, and Other Recent Natural Disasters, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, July 19, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1911/ML19116A159.pdf
Backgrounder on Nuclear Security, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, web page, last
reviewed/updated May 31, 2019, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/
security-enhancements.html
Nuclear Plant Security, Union of Concerned Scientists, web page, updated February 25, 2016,
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-plant-security#.W2RtxtJKiUk
Protecting Our Nation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0314, Rev. 4, August
2015, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1523/ML15232A263.pdf

56 NRC, “Request for Information Pursuant to T itle 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding
Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-T erm T ask Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Accident,” March 12, 2012, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12053A340.pdf.
57 NRC, “Backgrounder on Cyber Security,” March 2019, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/
cyber-security-bg.html.
58 NRC, “Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event Notifications,” draft final rule, SECY-
18-0058, June 7, 2018, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1626/ML16264A000.html.
59 NRC, “Supplement to SECY-18-0058, ‘Draft Final Rule—Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and
Security Event Notifications,’” February 4, 2020, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1901/ML19017A025.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

27

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation
Encouraging exports of U.S. civilian nuclear products, services, and technology while making
sure they are not used for foreign nuclear weapons programs has long been a fundamental goal of
U.S. nuclear energy policy. Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act requires that any country
receiving U.S. nuclear technology, equipment, or materials implement a peaceful nuclear
cooperation agreement with the United States. These so-cal ed 123 agreements are intended to
ensure that U.S. nuclear cooperation with other countries does not result in the production of
weapons materials or otherwise encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Section 123
al ows nuclear cooperation agreements to take effect after 90 days of continuous congressional
session if they adhere to specified criteria.
International controls and inspections are intended to ensure the peaceful use of civilian nuclear
facilities and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, recent plans or proposals to
build nuclear power plants in countries60 that have not previously used nuclear energy, including
several in the Middle East and elsewhere in the less developed world, have prompted concerns
that international controls may prove inadequate. Numerous recommendations have been made in
the United States and elsewhere to create new incentives for nations to forgo the development of
uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities that could produce weapons
materials as wel as civilian nuclear fuel.
Recent Events
Iran’s nuclear energy program is a major example of the tension between peaceful and weapons
uses of nuclear technology. Long-standing world concern had focused on the Iranian uranium
enrichment program, which Iran contended was solely for peaceful purposes but which the United
States and other countries suspected was for producing weapons material. The U.N. Security
Council had imposed sanctions and passed several resolutions cal ing on Iran to suspend its
enrichment program and other sensitive nuclear activities. Iran finalized the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) on July 14, 2015, with the United States and the other four permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany to lift the U.N. sanctions in return for
specified Iranian actions to preclude nuclear weapons development. President Trump announced
on May 8, 2018, that the Administration would cease implementing the agreement and reimpose
sanctions. Other parties to the JCPOA have not followed the U.S. lead, however.61 The Biden
Administration in April 2021 participated in indirect talks with Iran through other JCPOA
participants about potential y returning to compliance if Iran does as wel .62
An extension of the U.S. peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with South Korea generated
controversy but no congressional action to block it. During negotiations on the U.S.-South Korea
nuclear cooperation extension, which entered into force November 25, 2015, South Korea had
sought advance U.S. consent for spent fuel reprocessing and uranium enrichment. The United
States did not provide such consent, on general nonproliferation grounds and because such

60 World Nuclear Association, “World Nuclear Power Reactors and Uranium Requirements,” October 2021,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html.
61 European Union, “Joint Statement on the Re-imposition of U.S. Sanctions Due to Its Withdrawal from the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” June 8, 2018, https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/
49141/joint -statement-re-imposition-us-sanctions-due-its-withdrawal-joint -comprehensive-plan-action_en.
62 U.S. Department of State, “ Briefing With Senior State Department Official On Recent U.S. Engagement in Vienna
Regarding the JCPOA,” April 9, 2021, https://www.state.gov/briefing-with-senior-state-department-official-on-recent-
u-s-engagement -in-vienna-regarding-the-jcpoa.
Congressional Research Service

28

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

consent could affect other ongoing issues on the Korean peninsula. The new agreement did,
however, establish a bilateral “high level commission” to further consider those issues. The high-
level commission’s deliberations are to be informed by the results of a 10-year Joint Fuel Cycle
Study by scientists from the two countries that was scheduled to be completed in April 2021.
However, according to DOE, some aspects of the study have not been completed and discussions
on how to move forward are continuing.63
Japan’s long-standing nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States automatical y
renewed on July 17, 2018, and wil remain in force indefinitely unless terminated by either side.64
The agreement al ows Japan to reprocess spent nuclear fuel from its U.S.-designed reactors,
separating plutonium and uranium for use in new fuel. A commercial reprocessing plant at
Rokkasho is scheduled to be completed in 2022.65 Some nuclear nonproliferation groups had
urged the United States to use the renewal of the U.S.-Japan nuclear cooperation agreement as an
opportunity to urge Japan not to begin its reprocessing program. They noted that Japan already
has substantial stockpiles of previously separated plutonium that could potential y be used for
weapons as wel as reactor fuel.66 Japan approved a new Strategic Energy Plan July 3, 2018, that
includes a pledge to reduce Japanese plutonium inventories, reportedly following pressure from
the United States and other countries.67
Recent discussions between the United States and Saudi Arabia toward drafting a peaceful
nuclear cooperation agreement have prompted substantial controversy. The U.S. nuclear industry
strongly supports an agreement so that it could supply reactors and other nuclear technology to
Saudi Arabia.68 However, nuclear nonproliferation groups want any nuclear cooperation
agreement to include a binding commitment from Saudi Arabia to forswear uranium enrichment
and spent fuel reprocessing on its territory.69 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo testified to the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee May 24, 2018, that the United States was insisting that
Saudi Arabia accept such a commitment as part of any 123 agreement, despite Saudi arguments
that the country has a right to enrich and reprocess under international inspections.70 Energy
Secretary Rick Perry told reporters at a meeting in September 2019 that the United States also
would condition any U.S.-Saudi 123 Agreement on Saudi acceptance of the Additional Protocol,

63 Emails from John Krohn, DOE Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, March 31, 2021, and June
28, 2021. T he March email says that “ the US and ROK are continuing to talk to determine how to ‘finalize’ the study,
as well as potential continued work in this area.”
64 U.S. Department of State, “ U.S. Bilateral Agreements For Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Pursuant to Section 123 of
the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended,” January 20, 2017, https://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/fs/2017/
266975.htm.
65 Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited, “Reprocessing,” viewed April 27, 2021, https://www.jnfl.co.jp/en/business/
reprocessing.
66 Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, “ Tokyo and Washington Have Another Nuclear Problem,” August 17,
2017, http://npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1341&rid=2.
67 Japanese Ministry of Economy, T rade, and Industry, “Cabinet Decision on the New Strategic Energy Plan,” July 3,
2018, http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2018/0703_002.html; Reuters, “ Japan Pledges to Cut Plutonium St ockpile
Amid Growing Concern by Neighbours,” July 31, 2018, https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/
idAFL4N1UQ3WD.
68 Nuclear Energy Institute, “ As Saudi Arabia Considers New Reactors, NEI Conducts T rade Mission,” April 26, 2018,
https://www.nei.org/news/2018/saudi-arabia-considers-new-reactors.
69 Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, “Letter to Congress on Nuclear Cooperation with Saudi Arabia,” May 24,
2018, http://npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1395&rtid=4.
70 Mufson, Steven, “Pompeo: Saudis Must Not Enrich Uranium If It Seeks Civilian Nuclear Cooperation,” May 24,
2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pompeo-saudis-must-not-enrich-uranium-if-it-seeks-
civilian-nuclear-cooperation/2018/05/24/714c5e30-5f92-11e8-a4a4-c070ef53f315_story.html.
Congressional Research Service

29

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

which al ows strengthened international safeguards on nuclear facilities.71 Congress prohibited
the use of FY2021 funds for Export-Import Bank support for nuclear exports to Saudi Arabia
until the kingdom has a 123 agreement in effect that commits to renouncing uranium enrichment
and reprocessing and has signed an Additional Protocol with the IAEA (Section 7041(h) of
Division K, P.L. 116-260). The same prohibition was included in appropriations for FY2020 (P.L.
116-94).
Selected Congressional Action—117th Congress
Iran Nuclear Treaty Act (S. 2031, Johnson)
Declares that any agreement reached by the President regarding Iran’s nuclear program shal be a
treaty subject to Senate advice and consent. Introduced June 10, 2021; referred to Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Stopping Activities Underpinning Development In Weapons of Mass Destruction
(SAUDI WMD) Act (S. 1146, Markey)
Prohibits U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia if Saudi Arabia imports nuclear technology without
adopting the Additional Protocol for international nuclear facility inspections and reached a
nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States. Introduced April 15, 2021; referred to
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Strengthening American Nuclear Competitiveness Act (H.R. 1748, Bill Johnson)
Expedites DOE review of certain nuclear technology exports, enables increased investment in
U.S. nuclear technology by American al ies, and modifies licensing requirements for new
nonelectric uses of nuclear energy and for improved manufacturing techniques. Introduced March
10, 2021; referred to Committees on Energy and Commerce and Foreign Affairs.
Iran Nuclear Deal Advice and Consent Act of 2021 (H.R. 1479, Barr)
Prohibits federal funds to be used for rejoining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action unless the
Biden Administration commits to submitting any JCPOA successor to the Senate as a treaty rather
than as an international agreement. Introduced March 2, 2021; referred to Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding United States
arms transfers to Saudi Arabia (H.Res. 175, Trone)
Cal s on the U.S. Government to rescind nuclear technology transfer authorizations and “cease
significant nuclear cooperation” with Saudi Arabia until Saudi Arabia signs a nuclear cooperation
agreement with the United States that guarantees that the Saudi nuclear program is solely for
civilian purposes and prohibits uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, among other
provisions. Introduced February 26, 2021; referred to Committee on Foreign Affairs and
sequential y to the Permanent Select Committee on Intel igence.

71 Natter, Ari, “U.S. Says Saudis Must Forgo Enrichment for Nuclear Sharing Deal,” Bloomberg, September 18, 2019,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19/u-s-says-saudis-must-forgo-enrichment -for-nuclear-sharing-
deal.
Congressional Research Service

30

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Iran Diplomacy Act of 2021 (S. 434, Markey)
Declares it to be U.S. policy that the United States and Iran “should promptly return to full
compliance with al of their commitments under the JCPOA,” among other provisions. Introduced
February 24, 2021; referred to Committee on Foreign Relations.
Iran Nuclear Verification Act (H.R. 1203, McClain)
Prohibits the United States from becoming a party to the JCPOA or any other nuclear agreement
with Iran until United Nations inspectors are al owed full access to al Iranian nuclear facilities
and have completed a comprehensive report on those facilities. Introduced February 22, 2021;
referred to Committee on Foreign Affairs.
116th Congress
Expressing the sense of Congress that any United States-Saudi Arabia civilian
nuclear cooperation agreement must prohibit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from
enriching uranium or separating plutonium on its own territory, in keeping with
the strongest possible nonproliferation “gold standard” (S.Con.Res. 2,
Merkley/H.Con.Res. 23, Andy Levin)
Would have expressed the sense of Congress that a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia should
prohibit uranium enrichment and plutonium separation in Saudi territory and require Saudi
acceptance of the Additional Protocol for nuclear facility inspections. Senate resolution
introduced February 12, 2019; referred to Committee on Foreign Relations. House resolution
introduced February 28, 2019; referred to Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Saudi Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2019 (H.R. 1471, Sherman/S. 612, Markey)
Would have established additional criteria for any 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia and
prohibited such an agreement from taking effect without enactment of a joint resolution of
Congress. Both bil s introduced February 28, 2018. House bil referred to Committee on Foreign
Affairs; Senate bil referred to Committee on Foreign Relations.
Preventing Nuclear Proliferation in Saudi Arabia Act of 2019 (S. 2338, Van
Hollen)
Would have prohibited the U.S. Export-Import Bank from financing nuclear exports to Saudi
Arabia unless Saudi Arabia signs the Additional Protocol and commits not to enrich uranium or
separate plutonium in its territory. Introduced July 30, 2019; referred to Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Hearing: Oversight of the Trump Administration’s Iran Policy
Hearing by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
Africa, and International Terrorism, June 19, 2019, with the U.S. Special Representative for Iran.
Video can be found at https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/2019/6/oversight-of-the-trump-
administration-s-iran-policy.
Congressional Research Service

31

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Hearing: An Examination of U.S.-Iran Policy
Hearing by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, October 16, 2019, with the U.S. Special
Representative for Iran. Video and testimony can be found at https://www.foreign.senate.gov/
hearings/an-examination-of-us-iran-policy.
CRS Reports
CRS Report R41910, Nuclear Energy Cooperation with Foreign Countries: Issues for Congress,
by Paul K. Kerr, Mary Beth D. Nikitin, and Mark Holt
CRS Report RS22937, Nuclear Cooperation with Other Countries: A Primer, by Paul K. Kerr
and Mary Beth D. Nikitin
CRS Report RL33192, U.S.-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, by Mark Holt, Mary Beth D.
Nikitin, and Paul K. Kerr
CRS Report R44942, U.S. Decision to Cease Implementing the Iran Nuclear Agreement, by
Kenneth Katzman, Paul K. Kerr, and Valerie Heitshusen
CRS In Focus IF10799, Prospects for Enhanced U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Energy Cooperation, by
Christopher M. Blanchard and Paul K. Kerr
Other References
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Government Accountability Office, Key Issues website,
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/nuclear_nonproliferation/issue_summary
Nuclear Cooperation Agreements, Nuclear Energy Institute website, https://www.nei.org/
advocacy/compete-global y/nuclear-cooperation-agreements.
The Nonproliferation Gold Standard: The New Normal?, Arms Control Association, October
2019, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-10/features/nonproliferation-gold-standard-new-
normal
Abstinence or Tolerance: Managing Nuclear Ambitions in Saudi Arabia, El iott School of
International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington Quarterly, Summer 2018,
https://twq.el iott.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2121/f/downloads/
TWQ_Summer2018_Mil erVolpe.pdf
Avoiding a Nuclear Wild, Wild West in the Middle East, Nonproliferation Policy Education
Center, Working Paper 1801, April 2018, http://npolicy.org/Articles/1801/1801.pdf
The Case for a Pause in Reprocessing in East Asia: Economic Aspects, Nuclear Threat Initiative,
August 9, 2016, http://www.nti.org/analysis/reports/case-pause-reprocessing-east-asiaeconomic-
aspects/

Congressional Research Service

32

Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues

Author Information

Mark Holt

Specialist in Energy Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R42853 · VERSION 25 · UPDATED
33