Notice of Inquiry on Preparation of Report to Congress on the Price-Anderson Act, 40032-40036 [2021-15840]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40032
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Notices
educational disruptions wrought by the
coronavirus pandemic.
This is the first of two clearance
requests. This first package requests
clearance to inform school districts of
the study and collect teacher lists for the
purpose of preparing to conduct a
nationally representative survey in
spring 2022. The second package, to be
submitted at a later date, will request
clearance for state, district, principal,
and teacher survey instruments and the
collection of these data.
Dated: July 21, 2021.
Juliana Pearson,
PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and
Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division,
Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development.
[FR Doc. 2021–15879 Filed 7–23–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Inquiry on Preparation of
Report to Congress on the PriceAnderson Act
AGENCY:
Office of General Counsel,
DOE.
Notice of inquiry on preparation
of report to Congress on the PriceAnderson Act.
ACTION:
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: paareportnoi@hq.doe.gov. 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
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Jul 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
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:
stewart.forbes@hq.doe.gov; 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
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 § 11 and created AEA § 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), https://
www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1217/ML12170A857.pdf
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
focused on the PAA as applicable to and
administered by DOE.
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, inflationadjusted, 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.
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
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).
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 § 4
(amending Atomic Energy Act § 170j., codified as
amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(j)).
5 Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005,
Public Law 109–58, tit. VI, 119 Stat. 779 (amending
Atomic Energy Act § 170, codified as amended at
42 U.S.C. 2210).
6 Id. at tit. VI, § 602(b) (amending Atomic Energy
Act § 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, § 606 (amending Atomic Energy Act
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Notices
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
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 nonexhaustive 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.
$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
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 forprofit 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
II. Significant Updates
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
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
1. 1998 Report to Congress
In 1988, Congress passed the PriceAnderson 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
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.
8 Preparation of Report to Congress on PriceAnderson Act, 62 FR 68272 (December 31, 1997),
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-1231/pdf/97-34036.pdf (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), https://www.energy.gov/
sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/paa-rep.pdf (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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Jul 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
Amendments Act of 1988,
Public Law 100–408, 102 Stat. 1066 (amending
Atomic Energy Act §§ 11, 170, codified as amended
at 42 U.S.C. 2014, 2210).
12 Id. at § 3 (amending Atomic Energy Act § 170c.,
codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(d)).
13 Id. at § 12(2) (amending Atomic Energy Act
§ 170p., codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(p)).
14 1998 Report, supra note 9, at 1.
15 Id. at 2.
16 Id. at 1.
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.
PO 00000
11 Price-Anderson
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40033
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
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
18 Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005,
supra note 2, at tit. IV, §§ 604–05, 610 (amending
Atomic Energy Act § 170, 234A.b, codified at 42
U.S.C. 2210(d)–(e), 2282a).
19 Id. at tit. IV, § 606 (amending Atomic Energy
Act § 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.
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).
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
40034
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Notices
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
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
21 Supra
text accompanying note 3.
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.
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,
https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-liabilityconventions/convention-supplementarycompensation-nuclear-damage.
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).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
22 U.S.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Jul 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
2015,26 and at present has eleven
member countries, and nineteen
signatory countries.27
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)
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), https://wwwlegacy.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/
Conventions/supcomp_status.pdf (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.
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 § 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 § 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 § 170d., codified as
amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(d) (corresponding to
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
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
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 § 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 § 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).
34 Energy Independence and Security Act, supra
note 25, at § 934(a)(1)(H)(i) (codified at 42 U.S.C.
17373(a)(1)(H)(i)).
35 Id. at §§ 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 § 934(d) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 17373(d)).
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Notices
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.
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
37 Atomic Energy Act § 170p., codified as
amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(p).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Jul 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 PriceAnderson 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
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40035
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 PriceAnderson 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
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
40036
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:10 Jul 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
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
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Request for Information (RFI)
on Supporting Energy Savings
Performance Contracting in the Public
Sector
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy (DOE).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Request for Information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) invites public comment
on its Request for Information (RFI)
number 21EE000682 regarding
supporting Energy Savings Performance
Contracting (ESPC) in the public sector.
DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE),
Weatherization and Intergovernmental
Programs Office (WIP), seeks
information from the public and
nonprofit organizations that have the
expertise to support energy savings
performance contracting (ESPC) in the
municipalities, universities, schools,
and hospitals (MUSH) market. The
desired outcome of this request is to
enhance how MUSH market
stakeholders can use ESPC to maximize
energy and cost savings, local
economies, and workforce development.
SUMMARY:
Responses to the RFI must be
received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on
August 25, 2021.
DATES:
Interested parties are to
submit comments electronically to
ESPC_Support_RFI_DOEWIP@
ee.doe.gov. Include ‘‘Supporting Energy
Savings Performance Contracting in the
Public Sector’’ in the subject of the title.
Only electronic responses will be
accepted. The complete RFI document
is located at https://eereexchange.energy.gov/.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions may be addressed to Alice
Dasek at alice.dasek@ee.doe.gov or 202–
308–0894. Further instruction can be
found in the RFI document posted on
EERE Exchange.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The
purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback
from the public and nonprofits that have
deep expertise in ESPC in the MUSH
market, with solutions for the technical,
contractual, and financial barriers to
achieving verified savings from ESPC.
EERE is specifically interested in such
organizations’ capacity, ability,
experience, and best practices for
working with state energy offices and
other state and local government ESPC
practitioners to design and implement
ESPC in their respective states;
documenting MUSH-market ESPC state
program needs and current projects;
facilitating MUSH market peer exchange
opportunities; and providing technical
assistance to build state ESPC
frameworks. Respondents may describe
documented expertise in the field across
the country, experience leading or
executing ESPC projects in the MUSH
market (including all relevant technical,
financial, and contractual expertise),
and established network connections
with ESPC practitioners in the MUSH
market. This is solely a request for
information and not a Funding
Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
EERE is not accepting applications.
Confidential Business Information:
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit via email two wellmarked copies: One copy of the
document marked ‘‘confidential’’
including all the information believed to
be confidential, and one copy of the
document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’
with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. DOE will make its
own determination about the
confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
Signing Authority: This document of
the Department of Energy was signed on
June 21, 2021, by Kelly SpeakesBackman, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 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
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40032-40036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: [email protected].
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: [email protected]; 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), https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1217/ML12170A857.pdf (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), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-12-31/pdf/97-34036.pdf (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), https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/paa-rep.pdf (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, https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-liability-conventions/convention-supplementary-compensation-nuclear-damage.
\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), https://www-legacy.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/supcomp_status.pdf (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
