HR-9613-119
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Sponsored by Diana Harshbarger (R-TN)
What it does
This bill would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to update the structure and role of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), the expert body that reviews nuclear reactor license applications. It would cap committee membership at 15 members with staggered 4-year terms (maximum two terms, with exceptions), and would change the committee's review of reactor license applications from mandatory to optional — triggered only when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifically requests it. The bill would also direct the committee to focus its reviews on novel, safety-significant issues related to reactor design that have not been previously addressed.
Who benefits
Nuclear reactor license applicants — including utilities, advanced nuclear startups, and research institutions — who may experience faster licensing timelines if mandatory ACRS review steps are removed. The NRC, which would gain flexibility to streamline its licensing process. Advanced and small modular reactor developers, who have cited lengthy review processes as a barrier to deployment. Electricity consumers and grid operators who could benefit if nuclear capacity comes online more quickly. Taxpayers and ratepayers if reduced regulatory steps lower administrative costs.
Who is hurt
Communities near nuclear facilities who currently benefit from a mandatory independent safety review layer before any reactor license is issued or amended. Environmental and public interest organizations that rely on the ACRS review as a formal checkpoint in the licensing process. ACRS members whose institutional role and independence would be reduced, as the committee could no longer act without a specific NRC request. Workers and local governments near proposed reactor sites who may have less assurance of an independent technical review. Competing energy industries that currently operate on a more level regulatory playing field.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current mandatory ACRS review requirement — unchanged since the 1950s — was designed for a generation of reactor technology that no longer reflects today's advanced, modular, and passively safe reactor designs. They contend that requiring full committee review for every license application and amendment, regardless of novelty or safety significance, creates redundant delays that have contributed to the U.S. falling behind in nuclear deployment. By focusing ACRS reviews on genuinely novel and safety-significant issues, the bill would preserve expert oversight where it matters most while eliminating process bottlenecks that add years and cost to projects without commensurate safety benefit.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that converting mandatory ACRS review into an NRC-discretionary step removes a critical independent check on the agency's own licensing decisions — the very scenario the committee was created to guard against. They contend that the NRC, facing political and industry pressure to accelerate licensing, may systematically decline to request reviews even for applications that warrant independent scrutiny. Critics further argue that the bill's "novel and safety-significant" focus standard is vague and could be interpreted narrowly, effectively sidelining the committee for most applications and weakening the multi-layered safety review structure that has underpinned U.S. nuclear safety since the Atomic Energy Act.
Constitutional context
No clear constitutional issue is presented by this bill. Congress has broad authority under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the Necessary and Proper Clause to structure federal agencies and advisory bodies. Reorganizing an advisory committee's mandate is a routine exercise of legislative authority over executive branch structure, and no active constitutional tension area is directly implicated.
Checks and balances
The NRC (executive branch) would gain discretionary authority over when the ACRS conducts reviews, reducing the committee's role as an automatic independent check; existing checks include congressional oversight of the NRC, public availability of ACRS reports, and the NRC's own rulemaking and licensing procedures.
Historical precedent
The original mandatory ACRS review requirement was established in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and has remained largely intact; prior efforts to streamline NRC licensing, such as the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (2019), adjusted procedures but did not alter the ACRS's mandatory review role.