Notice2021-15840
Notice of Inquiry on Preparation of Report to Congress on the Price-Anderson Act
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 26, 2021
Issuing agencies
Energy Department
Abstract
The Department of Energy (the "Department" or "DOE") is requesting public comment concerning the need for continuation or modification of the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) as administered by DOE. The PAA establishes a system of financial protection that encourages the safe and secure operation of nuclear power and other nuclear activities and assures equitable compensation of victims in the event of a nuclear incident. Comments from the public will assist the Department in the preparation of its report on the PAA to be submitted to Congress by December 31, 2021, as required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40032-40036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15840]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Inquiry on Preparation of Report to Congress on the
Price-Anderson Act
AGENCY: Office of General Counsel, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry on preparation of report to Congress on the
Price-Anderson Act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the ``Department'' or ``DOE'') is
requesting public comment concerning the need for continuation or
modification of the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) as
administered by DOE. The PAA establishes a system of financial
protection that encourages the safe and secure operation of nuclear
power and other nuclear activities and assures equitable compensation
of victims in the event of a nuclear incident. Comments from the public
will assist the Department in the preparation of its report on the PAA
to be submitted to Congress by December 31, 2021, as required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended.
DATES: Written comments must be received by August 25, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#582839392a3d28372a2c363731183029763c373d763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a2a3b3b283f2a35282e3435331a322b743e353f743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through
a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand delivery/
courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary
modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing
Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public
comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter
finds that this change poses undue hardship, please contact the Office
of the General Counsel staff at (202) 586-2177 to discuss the need for
alternative arrangements. Once the Covid-19 pandemic health emergency
is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for
public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/
courier.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart Forbes, Office of the
Assistant General Counsel for Civilian Nuclear Programs, U.S.
Department of Energy, Room 6A-167, 1000 Independence Ave. SW,
Washington, DC 20585; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b6c5c2d3c1d7c4c298d0d9c4d4d3c5f6dec798d2d9d398d1d9c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="61121504160013154f070e130304122109104f050e044f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>; and Phone:
(202) 586-2177.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The PAA was enacted in 1957 as an amendment to the AEA to encourage
the development of nuclear power and nuclear activities by establishing
a system of financial protection for persons who may be liable for and
persons who may be injured by a nuclear incident.\1\ DOE and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are authorized to administer the
PAA system of financial protection with respect to DOE contractual
activities and NRC licensees, respectively. While both the DOE and NRC
systems of financial protection are underpinned by many of the same PAA
principles and provisions, they are administered and applicable in
different ways. In the DOE system, the PAA financial protection is in
the form of a DOE indemnification and applies to all DOE contractors
undertaking activities that involve the risk of a nuclear incident. In
the NRC system, the PAA financial protection requirements for NRC
licensees is in the form of insurance and/or indemnification, or
neither depending on the type of nuclear installation and nuclear
operator.\2\ This Notice is focused on the PAA as applicable to and
administered by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Price-Anderson Act, Public Law 85-256, 71 Stat. 576
(amending Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Public Law 83-703, codified as
amended at 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). (For brevity, the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 will be cited throughout simply as ``Atomic Energy Act''
or AEA.) The pertinent sections of the PAA amended AEA Sec. 11 and
created AEA Sec. 170, which are codified respectively at 42 U.S.C.
2014 and 2210.
\2\ See U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm'n, The Price Anderson Act--
Crossing the Bridge to the Next Century: A Report to Congress 1-8
(1998), <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1217/ML12170A857.pdf">https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1217/ML12170A857.pdf</a> (describing
the NRC PAA financial protection scheme); 10 CFR part 140, Financial
Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements (NRC regulations
implementing the PAA financial protection requirements for licensees
and the indemnification and liability limitations); and Inflation
Adjustments to the Price-Anderson Act Financial Protection
Regulations, 83 FR 48202 (Sept. 24, 2018) (adjusting the total and
maximum deferred premiums under the PAA for certain reactors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained previously, the DOE PAA system of financial protection
is in the form of an indemnification by DOE (``DOE Price-Anderson
indemnification'') for legal liability for a nuclear incident or a
precautionary evacuation arising from activity under a DOE contract.
The DOE Price-Anderson indemnification: (1) Provides omnibus coverage
of all persons who might be legally liable; (2) indemnifies fully all
legal liability up to the statutory limit on such liability (as of 2018
approximately $13.7 billion, inflation-adjusted, for a nuclear incident
in the United States \3\); (3) covers all DOE contractual activity that
might result in a nuclear incident in the United States; (4) is not
subject to the availability of funds; \4\ and (5) is mandatory and
exclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Adjustment of Indemnification Amount for Inflation, 83 FR
49374 (Oct. 1, 2018) (adjusting the statutory public liability limit
to the present $13.7 billion).
\4\ Price-Anderson Act, supra note 1, at Sec. 4 (amending
Atomic Energy Act Sec. 170j., codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.
2210(j)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PAA has been amended several times since enactment. The most
recent amendment was the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005 (``2005
Amendments''), passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Title
VI, Subtitle A).\5\ The 2005 Amendments extended the authority of DOE
to grant the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification until December 31,
2025.\6\ Along with the extension, Congress amended section 170p. of
the AEA to mandate, as it had done with a prior extension, that DOE
submit a report to Congress by December 31, 2021 (``2021 Report'') on
whether provisions of the PAA should be continued, modified, or
eliminated.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58,
tit. VI, 119 Stat. 779 (amending Atomic Energy Act Sec. 170,
codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210).
\6\ Id. at tit. VI, Sec. 602(b) (amending Atomic Energy Act
Sec. 170d.(1)(A), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(d)(1)(A)).
The NRC's authority for the PAA system of financial protection was
similarly extended.
\7\ Id. at tit. VI, Sec. 606 (amending Atomic Energy Act Sec.
170p., codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(p)). As amended,
section 170p. of the AEA requires the Secretary of Energy and the
NRC to ``submit to the Congress by December 31, 2021, detailed
reports concerning the need for continuation or modification of the
provisions of [the PAA], taking into account the condition of the
nuclear industry, availability of private insurance, and the state
of knowledge concerning nuclear safety at that time, among other
relevant factors and shall include recommendations as to the repeal
or modification of any of the provisions of [the PAA].'' 42 U.S.C.
2210(p). The DOE and NRC will each submit their own report to
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40033]]
DOE values input from the public on the efficacy and operation of
the PAA. DOE is issuing this Notice of Inquiry (``Notice'' or NOI) to
solicit comments from the public and interested stakeholders to assist
DOE in the development of its recommendations as to whether provisions
of the PAA should be continued, modified, or eliminated.
This NOI is similar to a Notice of Inquiry published in 1997
(``1997 NOI'').\8\ In 1998, DOE submitted a report to Congress pursuant
to then-applicable section 170p. (``1998 Report'').\9\ In preparing the
1998 Report, DOE published the 1997 NOI in the Federal Register
requesting public comment to assist DOE in preparing the 1998 Report.
The 1997 NOI included a comprehensive history and explanation of the
PAA to assist members of the public in formulating comments.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Preparation of Report to Congress on Price-Anderson Act, 62
FR 68272 (December 31, 1997), <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-12-31/pdf/97-34036.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-12-31/pdf/97-34036.pdf</a> (the published 1997 NOI, to be
referenced as ``1997 NOI'').
\9\ U.S. Dep't of Energy, Report to Congress on the Price-
Anderson Act (1998), <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/paa-rep.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/paa-rep.pdf</a> (to be referenced as ``1998 Report''). Prior
to its amendment in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2210(p)
mandated this report's submission by August 1, 1998. Supra note 7.
\10\ 1997 NOI, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This NOI provides an update on significant changes in law or
circumstances since the 1998 Report, including: (1) A summary of
recommendations from the 1998 Report; (2) a summary of the 2005
Amendments; and (3) an update on the Convention on Supplementary
Compensation for Nuclear Damage (the ``Convention'' or CSC) as it
relates to the PAA. To facilitate the preparation of public comments,
the NOI also includes a non-exhaustive list of questions and topics to
be considered and that may be addressed by DOE in the 2021 Report.
Last, to further assist the public in preparing comments, DOE
recommends review and reference to the 1997 NOI and the 1998 Report,
both of which provide a comprehensive history and explanation of the
PAA.
II. Significant Updates
1. 1998 Report to Congress
In 1988, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988
(``1988 Amendments''), ushering in several new and updated provisions
in the PAA: It increased the amount of the indemnification from $500
million to $9.43 billion; made the DOE indemnification mandatory in all
DOE contracts involving the risk of a nuclear incident; and established
a system of civil penalties for DOE contractors, subcontractors, and
suppliers covered by the indemnification.\11\ In the 1988 Amendments,
Congress also extended authority for the DOE Price-Anderson
indemnification to August 1, 2002 \12\ and mandated that DOE submit a
report to Congress in 1998, four years prior to the expiration of
authorization of the PAA, on the need for its continuation,
modification, or elimination.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988, Public Law 100-408,
102 Stat. 1066 (amending Atomic Energy Act Sec. Sec. 11, 170,
codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2014, 2210).
\12\ Id. at Sec. 3 (amending Atomic Energy Act Sec. 170c.,
codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(d)).
\13\ Id. at Sec. 12(2) (amending Atomic Energy Act Sec. 170p.,
codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(p)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE issued the required report, recommending renewal of the PAA as
being in the ``best interests of DOE, its contractors, its
subcontractors and suppliers, and the public.'' \14\ The 1998 Report
included five key recommendations: (1) DOE indemnification should
continue as-is; (2) DOE indemnification amounts ``should not be
decreased''; (3) ``Broad and mandatory coverage'' for contracted
activities should continue to be provided by DOE indemnification; (4)
DOE should have ``continued authority to impose civil penalties for
violations of nuclear safety requirements by for-profit contractors,
subcontractors and suppliers''; and (5) the CSC ``should be ratified
and conforming amendments to the [PAA]'' be adopted.\15\ In sum, DOE
concluded that continuation of the PAA indemnification without any
substantial change was essential to the Department's ability to fulfill
its statutory missions; provided protection to members of the public
that may be affected by DOE's nuclear activities; and was a cost-
effective option without any satisfactory alternative.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 1998 Report, supra note 9, at 1.
\15\ Id. at 2.
\16\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 2005 Amendments
After the 1988 Amendments, the 2005 Amendments were the next
substantial set of changes to the PAA. Passed as part of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005 amended
DOE authorities \17\ to: (1) Increase the liability limit and the
Department's indemnification amount for DOE contractors in the case of
nuclear incidents within the United States to $10 billion, to be
adjusted every five years for inflation; (2) increase the liability
limit and the Department's indemnification amount for DOE contractors
in the case of certain nuclear incidents outside the United States from
$100 million to $500 million; and (3) modify section 234A of the AEA--
which imposes civil penalties on DOE contractors covered by PAA
indemnification for violations of DOE nuclear safety regulations--in
regard to nonprofit entities that are DOE contractors. Specifically,
the modifications to section 234A rescinded the automatic remission of
civil penalties for DOE contractors in violation of nuclear safety
regulations that are nonprofit educational institutions and repealed
the exemption from such penalties for seven named entities. In its
place, the 2005 Amendments imposed a limitation on civil penalties for
not-for-profit contractors, subcontractors, or suppliers to not exceed
the total amount of fees paid within any 1-year period under the
contract under which the violation occurs.\18\ In addition, the 2005
Amendments re-instituted the DOE mandate under section 170p. to report
to Congress on the need for continuation, modification or elimination
of PAA provisions, with a due date of December 31, 2021, four years
prior to the 2025 expiration of the extended PAA authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The 2005 Amendments modified certain authorities applicable
to either or both the NRC and DOE. This Notice focuses on those
modifications applicable to DOE and does not address the
modifications specific to the NRC.
\18\ Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005, supra note 2, at
tit. IV, Sec. Sec. 604-05, 610 (amending Atomic Energy Act Sec.
170, 234A.b, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2210(d)-(e), 2282a).
\19\ Id. at tit. IV, Sec. 606 (amending Atomic Energy Act Sec.
170p., codified at 42 U.S.C. 2210(p)). As previously noted, the
reporting requirements of section 170p. also apply to the NRC, which
is responsible to submit its own report to Congress. Supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the 2005 Amendments, DOE amended its regulations in
10 CFR part 820, Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities, to
implement the new requirements concerning civil penalty assessments
against certain DOE contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers.\20\
Further in compliance with the 2005 Amendments, DOE has reset and
published in the Federal Register every 5 years an inflation-adjustment
to the liability limit and DOE indemnification amount, currently set at
approximately $13.7 billion based on a
[[Page 40034]]
2018 adjustment.\21\ The increases in indemnification amounts (other
than the inflation adjustments) required only that DOE update its
contracting policies to reflect the new indemnification limits for
nuclear incidents occurring after the effective date of the 2005
Amendments (i.e., August 8, 2005).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities, 10 CFR 820.20.
For historical background, see Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear
Activities, 73 FR 19761 (Apr. 11, 2008) (original notice of proposed
rulemaking) and Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities, 74 FR
11830 (Mar. 20, 2009) (notice of issuance of the Final Rule).
\21\ Supra text accompanying note 3.
\22\ U.S. Dep't of Energy, Acquisition Letter on Implementation
of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005, AL-2005-15 (Oct. 5,
2005), at 2, 3. AL-2005-15 also included contracting policy updates
to implement aspects of the change in civil penalty assessments for
certain not-for-profit contractors resulting from the 2005
Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preparation of the report to Congress on the need for
continuation, modification or elimination of PAA provisions (which is
the subject of this Notice) is one of the remaining actions to be taken
by DOE in accordance with the 2005 Amendments.
3. Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage
The CSC is an international treaty adopted under the auspices of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that establishes a global
nuclear liability regime to address legal liability and compensation of
victims in the event of a nuclear incident.\23\ The CSC provides
consistent rules for addressing legal liability for Parties to the CSC
and, in the event of a nuclear incident in any Party's territory,
requires all Parties to contribute to an international supplementary
fund to provide an additional tier of compensation beyond that
available under that Party's national law.\24\ At the time of the 1998
Report and the 2005 Amendments, the United States had signed the
Convention but not ratified it. In 2006, the Senate ratified the CSC,
and in the following year, Congress passed the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which includes section 934, Convention on
Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage Contingent Cost
Allocation, to implement the CSC in the United States.\25\ The CSC went
into effect in 2015,\26\ and at present has eleven member countries,
and nineteen signatory countries.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear
Damage, Sept. 29, 1997, T.I.A.S. No. 15-415 (entered into force Apr.
15, 2015) (to be referenced as ``Convention''). For the full text of
the Convention and related information, see Convention on
Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, Int'l Atomic Energy
Agency, <a href="https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-liability-conventions/convention-supplementary-compensation-nuclear-damage">https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-liability-conventions/convention-supplementary-compensation-nuclear-damage</a>.
\24\ Convention, supra note 23, at art. 2. ``Territory'' is not
limited to a Party's geographic boundaries (e.g., ships operating
under a contracting Party's flag are included). Id. at art. 5.
\25\ Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law
110-140, 934, 121 Stat. 1492, 1741 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 17373).
\26\ The CSC went into effect on April 15, 2015, in accordance
with Article XX.1 of the Convention and acceptance by Japan.
Convention, supra note 23, at art. 10; see Int'l Atomic Energy
Agency, Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage
1 (2019), <a href="https://www-legacy.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/supcomp_status.pdf">https://www-legacy.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/supcomp_status.pdf</a> (showing dates of ratification,
acceptance, and approval for signatories, to be referenced as
``Convention Status''). Article XX.1 provides for entry into force
of the Convention when at least 5 States with a minimum of 400,000
units of installed nuclear capacity have deposited an instrument of
ratification, acceptance, or approval with the Director General of
the IAEA. Convention, supra note 23, at art. 10.
\27\ Convention Status, supra note 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fundamental purposes of the CSC and the PAA are the same: To
support the safe and secure development of the nuclear industry while
at the same time ensuring a system of prompt, equitable and meaningful
compensation in the event of a nuclear incident. The CSC, like other
nuclear liability treaties,\28\ achieves these purposes by requiring a
country's domestic (national) nuclear liability law to comply with
certain international nuclear liability law principles. For the United
States, this would have required significant changes to the PAA were it
not for a provision that permits the United States to satisfy the
Convention if it maintains certain provisions of the PAA that were in
effect on January 1, 1995 and continue in effect.\29\ Those provisions
relate primarily to the amount and availability of financial protection
to compensate for nuclear damage in the event of a nuclear incident.
The provisions of relevance to DOE's PAA authority \30\ are: (1) DOE
indemnification for reactors and certain other nuclear installations;
\31\ (2) definition of ``person indemnified''; \32\ and (3) waiver of
certain defenses with respect to ``extraordinary nuclear occurrences.''
\33\ As a result, any changes to these provisions that Congress may
contemplate must be considered in light of the treaty obligations of
the United States under the CSC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The other major nuclear liability treaties are the Paris
Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy,
July 29, 1960, 1519 U.N.T.S. 329, and the Vienna Convention on Civil
Liability for Nuclear Damage, May 21, 1963, 1063 U.N.T.S. 265.
\29\ Convention, supra note 23, at Annex art. 2.
\30\ The PAA provisions of specific relevance to the NRC align
with: (1) NRC's financial protection requirements for reactors with
capacity of 100 megawatts or greater (Atomic Energy Act Sec. 170b.,
codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(b), corresponding to part of
Convention provision Annex art. 2.1.c, requiring the national law of
a Contracting Party to provide at least 1000 million SDRs of
compensation for nuclear damage resulting from a nuclear incident at
a power reactor); and (2) NRC's indemnification for reactors with
capacity of 100 megawatts or less, and certain other nuclear
installations (Atomic Energy Act Sec. 170c., codified as amended at
42 U.S.C. 2210(c)), corresponding to part of Convention provision
Annex art. 2.1.c, requiring the national law of a Contracting Party
to provide at least 300 million SDRs of compensation for nuclear
damage resulting from a nuclear incident at a non-power reactor and
certain other nuclear installations.
\31\ Atomic Energy Act Sec. 170d., codified as amended at 42
U.S.C. 2210(d) (corresponding to Convention provision Annex art.
2.1.c in its entirety, requiring the national law of a Contracting
Party to provide at least 1000 million SDRs of compensation for
nuclear damage resulting from a nuclear incident at a power reactor
and to provide at least 300 million SDRs of compensation for nuclear
damage resulting from a nuclear incident at a non-power reactor and
certain other nuclear installations).
\32\ Atomic Energy Act Sec. 11t., codified as amended at 42
U.S.C. 2014(t) (corresponding to Convention provision Annex art.
2.1.b, requiring the national law of a Contracting Party to
indemnify any person who has legal liability for nuclear damage
resulting from a nuclear incident).
\33\ Atomic Energy Act Sec. 170n., codified as amended at 42
U.S.C. 2210(n) (corresponding to Convention provision Annex art.
2.1.a, requiring the national law of a Contracting Party to impose
strict liability with respect to a nuclear incident resulting in
substantial offsite damage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally important, in ratifying and implementing the CSC, Congress
ensured the legal and operational framework of the PAA is not affected
by the compensation system established by the CSC. Section 934(a) of
EISA specifies that the United States' contributions to the CSC
international supplementary fund cannot upset settled expectations
based on the liability regime established under the PAA.\34\ For a
nuclear incident covered by the PAA, funds already available under the
PAA would be used to fulfill the United States' contributions without
any increase in the amount of funds that NRC licensees must make
available under the PAA. For a nuclear incident outside the United
States not covered by the PAA, funds made available by a new
retrospective risk pooling program for nuclear suppliers would be used
to fulfill the United States' contributions.\35\ In all cases covered
by the PAA, the United States would receive more funds from the CSC
international fund than its contribution to that fund and the PAA
public liability amount would be increased by that incremental
amount.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Energy Independence and Security Act, supra note 25, at
Sec. 934(a)(1)(H)(i) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 17373(a)(1)(H)(i)).
\35\ Id. at Sec. Sec. 934(a)(1)(I)-(J), 934(a)(2)(B) (codified
at 42 U.S.C. 17373(a)(1)(I)-(J), 42 U.S.C. 17373(a)(2)(B)). The
Department initiated a rulemaking to develop and implement the
retrospective risk pooling program applicable to U.S. nuclear
suppliers, to be codified at 10 CFR part 951. See Convention on
Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage Contingent Cost
Allocation, 79 FR 75076 (Dec. 17, 2014). The proposed rulemaking is
currently pending.
\36\ Energy Independence and Security Act, supra note 25, at
Sec. 934(d) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 17373(d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40035]]
III. List of Questions
The following is a non-exhaustive list of questions that may be
relevant to the Congressional mandate of section 170p. that DOE report
on ``the need for continuation or modification of the provisions of
[the PAA] taking into account the condition of the nuclear industry,
availability of private insurance, and the state of knowledge
concerning nuclear safety at that time, among other relevant factors.''
\37\ While the list is current, many of the questions are reproduced in
whole or in part from the 1997 NOI; they reflect questions and topics
that remain pertinent today. In addition, while the list of questions
may overlap with topics relevant to the NRC's administration of the
PAA, DOE requests that comments be directed to DOE and its activities
as the NRC is responsible for its own report to Congress on the PAA.
The list is included in this Notice to spur consideration of the PAA in
its operation and effect and facilitate public comment. This list is
not intended to limit or restrict the topics or areas of public
comment, nor is it meant to indicate or commit that DOE will address
all the questions in its report to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Atomic Energy Act Sec. 170p., codified as amended at 42
U.S.C. 2210(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests the public to submit comments that identify the
specific provision(s) of the PAA to which a position is expressed, be
specific in regard to the DOE activity(s) in question, and explain in
as much detail as possible the rationale for the position.
1. Should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification be continued
without modification?
2. Should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification be eliminated or
made discretionary with respect to all or specific DOE activities? If
discretionary, what procedures and criteria should be used to determine
which activities or categories of activities should receive
indemnification?
3. Should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification continue to
provide omnibus coverage of all persons legally liable for nuclear
damage, or should it be restricted to DOE contractors or to DOE
contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers?
4. If the DOE indemnification were not available for all or
specified DOE activities, are there acceptable alternatives? Possible
alternatives might include Public Law 85-804, section 162 of the AEA,
general contract indemnity, no indemnity, or private insurance. To the
extent possible in discussing alternatives, compare each alternative to
the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification, including operation, cost,
coverage, risk, and protection of potential claimants.
5. To what extent, if any, would the elimination of the DOE Price-
Anderson indemnification affect the ability of DOE to perform its
various missions? Explain your reasons for believing that performance
of all or specific activities would or would not be affected.
6. To what extent, if any, would the elimination of the DOE Price-
Anderson indemnification affect the willingness of existing or
potential contractors to perform activities for DOE? Explain your
reasons for believing that willingness to undertake all or specific
activities would or would not be affected.
7. To what extent, if any, would the elimination of the DOE Price-
Anderson indemnification affect the ability of DOE contractors to
obtain goods and services from subcontractors and suppliers? Explain
your reasons for believing that the availability of goods and services
for all or specific DOE activities would or would not be affected.
8. To what extent, if any, would the elimination of the DOE Price-
Anderson indemnification affect the ability of claimants to receive
compensation for nuclear damage resulting from a DOE activity? Explain
your reasons for believing the ability of claimants to be compensated
for nuclear damage resulting from all or specific DOE activities would
or would not be affected.
9. What is the existing and the potential availability of private
insurance to cover liability for nuclear damage resulting from DOE
activities? What would be the cost and the coverage of such insurance?
To what extent, if any, would the availability, cost, and coverage be
dependent on the type of activity involved? To what extent, if any,
would the availability, cost, and coverage be dependent on whether the
activity was a new activity or an existing activity? If the DOE Price-
Anderson indemnification were not available, how would that affect the
availability of insurance? Should DOE require contractors to obtain
private insurance if the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification were not
available?
10. Should the amount of the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification for
all or specified DOE activities inside the United States (currently
approximately $13.7 billion, adjusted for inflation), and outside the
United States ($500 million) remain the same or be increased or
decreased?
11. Should the limit on aggregate public liability be eliminated?
If so, how should the resulting unlimited liability be funded? Does the
rationale for the limit on aggregate public liability differ depending
on whether the nuclear incident results from a DOE activity or from an
activity of an NRC licensee?
12. Should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification continue to cover
DOE contractors and other persons when a nuclear incident results from
their gross negligence or willful misconduct? If not, what would be the
effects, if any, on: (1) The operation of the Price-Anderson system
with respect to the nuclear incident, (2) other persons indemnified,
(3) potential claimants, and (4) the cost of the nuclear incident to
DOE? To what extent is it possible to minimize any detrimental effects
on persons other than the person whose gross negligence or willful
misconduct resulted in a nuclear incident? For example, what would be
the effect if the United States government were given the right to seek
reimbursement for the amount of the indemnification paid from a DOE
contractor or other person whose gross negligence or willful misconduct
causes a nuclear incident?
13. Should the definition of nuclear incident be expanded to
include occurrences that result from DOE activity outside the United
States where such activity does not involve nuclear material owned by,
and used by or under contract with, the United States? For example,
should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification be available for
activities of DOE contractors that are undertaken outside the United
States for purposes such as non-proliferation, nuclear risk reduction
or improvement of nuclear safety? If so, should the DOE Price-Anderson
indemnification for these additional activities be mandatory or
discretionary?
14. Should the PAA be modified to extend its authorization beyond
2025, or to make permanent the authorization? If so, what would be the
effect, if any, on the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification? What would
be the effect, if any, on the United States' adherence to the CSC?
15. Should the PAA be modified as necessary to enable the United
States to become a party to other international nuclear liability law
treaties in addition to the CSC (that is, replace state tort law with
the international nuclear liability principles, including channeling
all legal liability exclusively to the operator on the basis of strict
liability)? If so, what would be the effect, if any, on the system of
financial protection, indemnification and compensation established by
the PAA?
16. Should the PAA be modified to harmonize the operation of the
PAA and
[[Page 40036]]
the CSC? If so, describe the modification and explain the rationale.
17. Should section 934 of EISA be modified, especially with respect
to the mechanisms for funding the United States' contribution to the
CSC international fund? If so, describe the modification and explain
the rationale.
18. Should the procedures in the PAA for administrative and
judicial proceedings be modified? If so, describe the modification and
explain the rationale.
19. Should there be any modification in the types of claims covered
by the PAA system?
20. What modifications in the PAA or its implementation, if any,
could facilitate the prompt payment and settlement of claims?
21. Should the PAA be modified to address any unique circumstances
or issues raised by the development and deployment of advanced nuclear
reactors, including small modular reactors and microreactors? If so,
describe the modification and explain the rationale.
22. Should the PAA be modified to address any unique circumstances
or issues raised by research and development activities related to
advanced nuclear reactors, including small modular reactors and
microreactors at DOE sites or by DOE contractors? If so, describe the
modification and explain the rationale.
23. Should the PAA be modified to address any issues raised by
current or anticipated changes in the nuclear industry such as
increased use of reactors with capacity of less than 100 megawatts,
decreased use of reactors with capacity of greater than 100 megawatts,
and deployment of fusion reactors? If so, describe the modification and
explain the rationale.
24. Should the PAA be modified to address any environmental justice
or equity and inclusion issues that may be associated with the
implementation of the PAA, or the administration of claims covered by
the PAA? If so, describe the modification and explain the rationale.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 20,
2021, by John T. Lucas, Acting General Counsel, Office of the General
Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15840 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 26, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.