This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section is about changes proposed to a bill or resolution. It mentions committees such as Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, members such as Rafael Edward Cruz.
Issued
June 24, 2026
senate side of the record
People
1
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
0
No linked legislation in this section
Committees
3
Committees connected to this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official Senate Record PDFReturn to issue contextSA 6284. Mr. CRUZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . STUDY ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO RECYCLE SPENT NUCLEAR
FUEL.
(a) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) National laboratory.—The term “National Laboratory”
has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801).
(2) Nuclear waste.—The term “nuclear waste” means spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (as defined in
section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10101)).
(3) Recycling.—The term “recycling” means the recovery
of valuable radionuclides, including fissile materials, from
nuclear waste, and any subsequent processes, such as
enrichment and fuel fabrication, necessary for reuse in
nuclear reactors or other commercial applications.
(4) Secretary.—The term “Secretary” means the Secretary
of Energy.
(5) Spent nuclear fuel.—The term “spent nuclear fuel”
has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
(b) Study.—Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, shall carry out a
study—
(1) to analyze the practicability, potential benefits,
costs, and risks, including proliferation, of using dedicated
recycling facilities to convert spent nuclear fuel, including
spent high-assay low-enriched uranium fuel, into useable
nuclear fuels, such as those for—
(A) commercial light water reactors;
(B) advanced nuclear reactors; and
(C) medical, space-based, advanced-battery, and other non-
reactor applications, as determined by the Secretary;
(2)(A) to analyze the practicability, potential benefits,
costs, and risks of recycling spent nuclear fuel, which is
taken from temporary storage sites throughout the United
States, and using it as fuel or input for advanced nuclear
reactors, existing reactors, or commercial applications;
(B) to compare such practicability, potential benefits,
costs, and risks of recycling spent nuclear fuel with the
practicability, potential benefits, costs, and risks of the
once-through fuel cycle, including temporary and permanent
storage requirements; and
(C) to analyze the practicability, potential benefits,
costs, and risks of aqueous (such as PUREX and the
derivatives of PUREX) recycling processes with the
practicability, potential benefits, costs, and risk of non-
aqueous (such as pyro-electrochemistry) recycling processes;
(3) to analyze the technical and economic feasibility of
utilizing nuclear waste processing to extract certain
isotopes needed for domestic and international use, including
medical, industrial, space-based power source, and advanced-
battery applications;
(4) to analyze the practicability, potential benefits,
costs, risks, and potential approaches for coupling or
collocating recycling facilities with other pertinent
facilities, such as advanced nuclear reactors (that can use
the recycled fuel), interim storage, and fuel-fabrication
facilities, including through—
(A) relevant analyses, such as capital and operating cost
estimates, public-private partnerships to encourage
investment, infrastructure requirements, timeline to full-
scale commercial deployment, and distinguishing
characteristics or requirements of such facilities;
(B) input from interested private technology developers and
relevant assumptions regarding cost; and
(C) comparison with the practicability, potential benefits,
costs, and risks of the once-through fuel cycle, including
temporary and permanent storage requirements;
(5) to identify parties, including individuals,
communities, businesses, and local and Tribal governments,
that are impacted economically, or through health, safety, or
environmental risks, by the current practice of indefinite
temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel, and assess potential
risks and benefits for those parties should spent nuclear
fuel be removed from their sites for the purposes of nuclear
waste recycling;
(6) to assess different approaches for siting and sizing
nuclear waste recycling facilities, including a centralized
national facility, regional facilities, on-site facilities
where spent nuclear fuel is currently stored, and on-site
facilities where newly recycled fuel can be used by an on-
site reactor, and recommend one or more approaches that
consider environmental, transportation, infrastructure,
capital, and other risks;
(7) to identify tracking and accountability methods for new
recycled fuel and radioactive waste streams for byproducts of
the recycling process;
(8)(A) to identify any regulatory gaps related to nuclear
waste management and recycling, including accuracy and
consistency of relevant definitions for radioactive waste
(including “high-level radioactive waste”, “spent nuclear
fuel”, “low-level radioactive waste”, “reprocessing”,
“recycling”, and “vitrification”) and classifications of
radioactive waste that exist in Federal law on the date of
enactment of this Act;
(B) to compare such definitions to those used by other
nations that manage radioactive waste; and
(C) to make recommendations for modernizing such
definitions; and
(9) to evaluate—
(A) potential Federal and State-level policy changes to
support development and deployment of recycling and waste-
utilizing reactor technologies; and
(B) impacts of spent nuclear fuel recycling on requirements
for domestic nuclear waste storage.
(c) Report.—Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, shall submit to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology of the House of Representatives, and the Committee
on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives, a
report that complies with each of the following:
(1) Describes the results of the study carried out under
subsection (b).
(2) Is released to the public.
(3) Totals not more than 120 pages (excluding Front Matter,
References, and Appendices) written and formatted to
facilitate review by a nonspecialist readership, including
the following sections:
(A) A Front Matter section that includes a cover page with
identifying information, tables of contents, figures, and
tables.
(B) An Executive Summary section.
(C) An Introductory section that includes a historical
overview that also explains why recycling is not performed in
the United States today, such as economic, political, or
technological obstacles.
(D) Results and Findings sections that summarize the
results and findings of the study carried out under
subsection (b).
(E) A Key Remaining Challenges and Barriers section that
identifies key technical and nontechnical (such as economic)
challenges and barriers that need to be addressed to enable
scale-up and commercial adoption of spent nuclear fuel
recycling, with preference given to secure, proliferation
resistant, environmentally safe, and economical recycling
methods.
(F) A Policy Recommendations section that—
(i) lists policy recommendations to address remaining
technical and nontechnical (such as economic) challenges and
barriers to enable scale-up and commercial adoption of spent
nuclear fuel recycling, including with government support;
(ii) contrasts the potential benefits and risks of each
policy; and
(iii) compares benefits to current or past policies.
(G) An Other section in which other relevant information
may be added.
(H) A References section.
(I) An Appendices section.