```

[House Report 107-299]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                            Rept. 107-299
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================

 
               PRICE-ANDERSON REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001

                                _______
                                

               November 19, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Tauzin, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2983]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 2983) to extend indemnification authority under 
section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Amendment........................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     6
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     6
Hearings.........................................................     7
Committee Consideration..........................................     8
Committee Votes..................................................     8
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    10
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    10
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures    10
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    10
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................    10
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    15
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    16
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    16
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    16
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    16
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    20
Minority, Additional, or Dissenting Views........................    29
Exchange of Committee Correspondence.............................    37

                               Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INDEMNIFICATION AUTHORITY.

  (a) Indemnification of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensees.--
Section 170 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is 
amended--
          (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Licenses'' and 
        inserting ``Licensees''; and
          (2) by striking ``August 1, 2002'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``August 1, 2017''.
  (b) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--Section 170 
d.(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)(1)(A)) is 
amended by striking ``August 1, 2002'' and inserting ``August 1, 
2017''.
  (c) Indemnification of Nonprofit Educational Institutions.--Section 
170 k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(k)) is amended 
by striking ``August 1, 2002'' each place it appears and inserting 
``August 1, 2017''.

SEC. 3. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT.

  Section 170 b.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
2210(b)(1)) is amended--
          (1) in the second proviso of the third sentence--
                  (A) by striking ``$63,000,000'' and inserting 
                ``$94,000,000''; and
                  (B) by striking ``$10,000,000 in any 1 year'' and 
                inserting ``$15,000,000 in any 1 year (subject to 
                adjustment for inflation under subsection t.)''; and
          (2) in subsection t.--
                  (A) by inserting ``total and annual'' after ``amount 
                of the maximum'';
                  (B) by striking ``the date of the enactment of the 
                Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988'' and inserting 
                ``July 1, 2001''; and
                  (C) by striking ``such date of enactment'' and 
                inserting ``July 1, 2001''.

SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LIABILITY LIMIT.

  (a) Indemnification of Department of Energy Contractors.--Section 170 
d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) is amended by 
striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
  ``(2) Indemnification agreements.--In an agreement of indemnification 
entered into under paragraph (1), the Secretary--
          ``(A) may require the contractor to provide and maintain the 
        financial protection of such a type and in such amounts as the 
        Secretary shall determine to be appropriate to cover public 
        liability arising out of or in connection with the contractual 
        activity; and
          ``(B) shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such 
        liability above the amount of the financial protection 
        required, in the amount of $10,000,000,000 (subject to 
        adjustment for inflation under subsection t.), in the 
        aggregate, for all persons indemnified in connection with the 
        contract and for each nuclear incident, including such legal 
        costs of the contractor as are approved by the Secretary.''.
  (b) Contract Amendments.--Section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and 
inserting the following:
  ``(3) Contract amendments.--All agreements of indemnification under 
which the Department of Energy (or its predecessor agencies) may be 
required to indemnify any person under this section shall be deemed to 
be amended, on the date of enactment of the Price-Anderson 
Reauthorization Act of 2001, to reflect the amount of indemnity for 
public liability and any applicable financial protection required of 
the contractor under this subsection.''.
  (c) Liability Limit.--Section 170 e.(1)(B) of the Atomic Energy Act 
of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(1)(B)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``the maximum amount of financial protection 
        required under subsection b. or''; and
          (2) by striking ``paragraph (3) of subsection d., whichever 
        amount is more'' and inserting ``paragraph (2) of subsection 
        d.''.

SEC. 5. INCIDENTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

  (a) Amount of Indemnification.--Section 170 d.(5) of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)(5)) is amended by striking 
``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''.
  (b) Liability Limit.--Section 170 e.(4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(4)) is amended by striking ``$100,000,000'' and 
inserting ``$500,000,000''.

SEC. 6. REPORTS.

  Section 170 p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(p)) 
is amended by striking ``August 1, 1998'' and inserting ``August 1, 
2013''.

SEC. 7. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.

  Section 170 t. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(t)) 
is amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
          (2) by adding after paragraph (1) the following:
  ``(2) Adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust the amount of 
indemnification provided under an agreement of indemnification under 
subsection d. not less than once during each 5-year period following 
July 1, 2001, in accordance with the aggregate percentage change in the 
Consumer Price Index since--
          ``(A) that date, in the case of the first adjustment under 
        this paragraph; or
          ``(B) the previous adjustment under this paragraph.''.

SEC. 8. PRICE-ANDERSON TREATMENT OF MODULAR REACTORS.

  Section 170 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(b)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
  ``(5)(A) For purposes of this section only, the Commission shall 
consider a combination of facilities described in subparagraph (B) to 
be a single facility having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical 
kilowatts or more.
  ``(B) A combination of facilities referred to in subparagraph (A) is 
2 or more facilities located at a single site, each of which has a 
rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more but not more 
than 300,000 electrical kilowatts, with a combined rated capacity of 
not more than 1,300,000 electrical kilowatts.''.

SEC. 9. APPLICABILITY.

  The amendments made by sections 3, 4, and 5 do not apply to a nuclear 
incident that occurs before the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 10. PROHIBITION ON ASSUMPTION BY UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF 
                    LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN FOREIGN ACCIDENTS.

  Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``u. Prohibition on Assumption of Liability for Certain Foreign 
Accidents.--Notwithstanding this section or any other provision of law, 
no officer of the United States or of any department, agency, or 
instrumentality of the United States Government may enter into any 
contract or other arrangement, or into any amendment or modification of 
a contract or other arrangement, the purpose or effect of which would 
be to directly or indirectly impose liability on the United States 
Government, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United 
States Government, or to otherwise directly or indirectly require an 
indemnity by the United States Government, for nuclear accidents 
occurring in any country whose government has been identified by the 
Secretary of State as engaged in state sponsorship of terrorist 
activities (specifically including any country the government of which, 
as of September 11, 2001, had been determined by the Secretary of State 
under section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, section 
6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, or section 40(d) of 
the Arms Export Control Act to have repeatedly provided support for 
acts of international terrorism).''.

SEC. 11. TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS.

  (a) Amendment.--Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
U.S.C. 2201-2210b) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section:
  ``Sec. 170C. Transportation of Nuclear Materials.--
  ``a. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall establish a system to 
ensure that--
          ``(1) with respect to activities by any party pursuant to a 
        license issued under this Act, each vehicle transporting 
        materials described in subsection b. in the United States--
                  ``(A) from a facility licensed by the Nuclear 
                Regulatory Commission;
                  ``(B) from a facility licensed by an agreement State; 
                or
                  ``(C) from a country with whom the United States has 
                an agreement for cooperation under section 123,
        carries a manifest describing the type and amount of materials 
        being transported;
          ``(2) each individual driving or traveling with such a 
        vehicle has been subject to a security background check by 
        appropriate Federal entities; and
          ``(3) no such vehicle transports such materials to a 
        destination other than a facility licensed by the Nuclear 
        Regulatory Commission or an agreement State under this Act or 
        other appropriate Federal facility, or to a destination outside 
        the United States in a country with whom the United States has 
        an agreement for cooperation under section 123.
  ``b. Except as otherwise provided by the Commission by regulation, 
the materials referred to in subsection a.(1) are byproduct materials, 
source materials, special nuclear materials, high-level radioactive 
waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, and low-level radioactive 
waste (as defined in section 2(16) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(16))).''.
  (b) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and from time to time thereafter as it considers 
necessary, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall issue regulations 
identifying radioactive materials that, consistent with the protection 
of public health and safety and the common defenseand security, are 
appropriate exceptions to the transportation requirements of section 
170C of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as added by subsection (a) of 
this section.
  (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take 
effect upon the issuance of regulations under subsection (b).
  (d) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by adding at the end the 
following new item:
``Sec. 170C. Transportation of nuclear materials.''.

SEC. 12. NUCLEAR FACILITY THREATS.

  (a) Study.--The President, in consultation with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and other appropriate Federal, State, and local 
agencies and private entities, shall conduct a study to identify the 
types of threats that pose an appreciable risk to the security of the 
various classes of facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Such study shall take 
into account, but not be limited to--
          (1) the events of September 11, 2001;
          (2) an assessment of physical, cyber, biochemical, and other 
        terrorist threats;
          (3) the potential for attack on facilities by multiple 
        coordinated teams of a large number of individuals;
          (4) the potential for assistance in an attack from several 
        persons employed at the facility;
          (5) the potential for suicide attacks;
          (6) the potential for water-based and air-based threats;
          (7) the potential use of explosive devices of considerable 
        size and other modern weaponry;
          (8) the potential for attacks by persons with a sophisticated 
        knowledge of facility operations;
          (9) the potential for fires, especially fires of long 
        duration; and
          (10) the potential for attacks on spent fuel shipments by 
        multiple coordinated teams of a large number of individuals.
  (b) Summary and Classification Report.--Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, shall transmit to 
the Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a report--
          (1) summarizing the types of threats identified under 
        subsection (a); and
          (2) classifying each type of threat identified under 
        subsection (a), in accordance with existing laws and 
        regulations, as either--
                  (A) involving attacks and destructive acts, including 
                sabotage, directed against the facility by an enemy of 
                the United States, whether a foreign government or 
                other person, or otherwise falling under the 
                responsibilities of the Federal Government; or
                  (B) involving the type of risks that Nuclear 
                Regulatory Commission licensees should be responsible 
                for guarding against.
  (c) Federal Action Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date on 
which a report is transmitted under subsection (b), the President, 
shall transmit to the Congress a report on actions taken, or to be 
taken, to address the types of threats identified under subsection 
(b)(2)(A). Such report may include a classified annex as appropriate.
  (d) Regulations.--Not later than 270 days after the date on which a 
report is transmitted under subsection (b), the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission shall issue regulations, including changes to the design 
basis threat, to ensure that licensees address the threats identified 
under subsection (b)(2)(B).
  (e) Physical Security Program.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
shall establish an operational safeguards response evaluation program 
that ensures that the physical protection capability and operational 
safeguards response for sensitive nuclear facilities, as determined by 
the Commission consistent with the protection of public health and the 
common defense and security, shall be tested periodically through 
Commission approved or designed, observed, and evaluated force-on-force 
exercises to determine whether the ability to defeat the design basis 
threat is being maintained. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
``sensitive nuclear facilities'' includes at a minimum commercial 
nuclear power plants, including associated spent fuel storage 
facilities, spent fuel storage pools and dry cask storage at closed 
reactors, independent spent fuel storage facilities and geologic 
repository operations areas, category I fuel cycle facilities, and 
gaseous diffusion plants.
  (f) Control of Information.--In carrying out this section, the 
President and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall control the 
dissemination of restricteddata, safeguards information, and other 
classified national security information in a manner so as to ensure 
the common defense and security, consistent with chapter 12 of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

SEC. 13. INDUSTRIAL SAFETY RULES FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR 
                    FACILITIES.

  Section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
  ``(8)(A) It shall be a condition of any agreement of indemnification 
entered into under this subsection that the indemnified party comply 
with regulations issued under this paragraph.
  ``(B) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
paragraph, the Secretary shall issue industrial health and safety 
regulations that shall apply to all Department of Energy contractors 
and subcontractors who are covered under agreements entered into under 
this subsection for operations at Department of Energy nuclear 
facilities. Such regulations shall provide a level of protection of 
worker health and safety that is substantially equivalent to or 
identical to that provided by the industrial and construction safety 
regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (29 
CFR 1910 and 1926), and shall establish civil penalties for violation 
thereof that are substantially equivalent to or identical to the civil 
penalties applicable to violations of the industrial and construction 
safety regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration. The Secretary shall amend regulations under this 
subparagraph as necessary.
  ``(C) Not later than 240 days after the date of the enactment of this 
paragraph, all agreements described in subparagraph (B), and all 
contracts and subcontracts for the indemnified contractors and 
subcontractors, shall be modified to incorporate the requirements of 
the regulations issued under subparagraph (B). Such modifications shall 
require compliance with the requirements of the regulations not later 
than 1 year after the issuance of the regulations.
  ``(D) Enforcement of regulations issued under subparagraph (B), and 
inspections required in the course thereof, shall be conducted by the 
Office of Enforcement of the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health 
of the Department of Energy. The Secretary shall transmit to the 
Congress an annual report on the implementation of this 
subparagraph.''.

SEC. 14. UNREASONABLE RISK CONSULTATION.

  Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``v. Unreasonable Risk Consultation.--Before entering into an 
agreement of indemnification under this section with respect to a 
utilization facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall consult 
with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (or any 
successor official) concerning whether the location of the proposed 
facility and the design of that type of facility ensure that the 
facility provides for adequate protection of public health and safety 
if subject to a terrorist attack.''.

SEC. 15. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

  (a) Amendment.--Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
U.S.C. 2210) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
  ``w. Financial Accountability.--(1) Notwithstanding subsection d., 
the Attorney General may bring an action in the appropriate United 
States district court to recover from a contractor of the Secretary (or 
subcontractor or supplier of such contractor) amounts paid by the 
Federal Government under an agreement of indemnification under 
subsection d. for public liability resulting from conduct which 
constitutes intentional misconduct of any corporate officer, manager, 
or superintendent of such contractor (or subcontractor or supplier of 
such contractor).
  ``(2) The Attorney General may recover under paragraph (1) an amount 
not to exceed the amount of the profit derived by the defendant from 
the contract.
  ``(3) No amount recovered from any contractor (or subcontractor or 
supplier of such contractor) under paragraph (1) may be reimbursed 
directly or indirectly by the Department of Energy.
  ``(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any nonprofit entity 
conducting activities under contract for the Secretary.
  ``(5) No waiver of a defense required under this section shall 
prevent a defendant from asserting such defense in an action brought 
under this subsection.
  ``(6) The Secretary shall, by rule, define the terms `profit' and 
`nonprofit entity' for purposes of this subsection. Such rulemaking 
shall be completed not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this subsection.''.
  (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall not 
apply to any agreement of indemnification entered into under section 
170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) before the 
date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 16. CIVIL PENALTIES.

  (a) Repeal of Automatic Remission.--Section 234A b. (2) of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a(b)(2)) is amended by striking the 
last sentence.
  (b) Limitation for Nonprofit Institutions.--Subsection d. of section 
234A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a(d)) is amended 
to read as follows:
  ``d. Notwithstanding subsection a., a contractor, subcontractor, or 
supplier described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code shall not be 
subject to a civil penalty for a violation under subsection a. in 
excess of the amount of any discretionary fee paid to such contractor, 
subcontractor, or supplier under the contract under which such 
violation occurs.''.
  (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall not apply 
to any violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 occurring under a 
contract entered into before the date of the enactment of this Act.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 2983, the Price-Anderson 
Reauthorization Act of 2001, is to reauthorize the authorities 
under the Act for a term of fifteen years. The legislation also 
contains provisions dealing with nuclear security and other 
miscellaneous matters.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    Enacted in 1957 to encourage the development of the nuclear 
industry, the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) provides for 
compensation of injured parties in the event of a nuclear 
accident and sets a maximum liability amount per accident. The 
Act requires Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees to 
maintain financial protection to cover public liability claims 
resulting from a nuclear incident. PAA alsorequires 
indemnification of companies engaged in Department of Energy (DOE) 
contractual activity that involves the risk of a nuclear incident.
    With respect to the nuclear power industry, the PAA 
requires that reactor operators obtain primary financial 
protection equal to the maximum amount of available liability 
insurance from private insurance markets. Currently, American 
Nuclear Insurers (ANI) offers $200 million in insurance 
coverage per reactor, per incident. For losses that exceed the 
$200 million primary insurance limit, the Act requires that all 
nuclear operators participate in a retrospective rating program 
(using each operator's own funds) set at $88 million per 
reactor, per incident. Thus, the total amount of financial 
protection available for a nuclear incident is approximately 
$9.5 billion--$200 million in primary insurance, plus $88 
million for each of the 106 reactors participating in the 
program. The reactor operators are indemnified for any 
financial liability that exceeds $9.5 billion. Should liability 
exceed this amount, the Act anticipates Congress would provide 
additional funds.
    With respect to DOE contractors that engage in nuclear 
activities, the Act requires that the Department fully 
indemnify claims for public liability up to the maximum 
liability amount of $9.5 billion, except that the Secretary may 
also require that a contractor provide an appropriate level of 
financial protection.
    All existing NRC-licensed nuclear reactors 
``grandfathered'' under Price-Anderson, and protections under 
the Act continue regardless of whether reauthorization occurs 
before August of 2002. However, new nuclear plants seeking NRC 
licenses after August 2002 will not receive PAA protections 
until reauthorization occurs. Similarly, without 
reauthorization, PAA protections will not be available for new 
DOE contracts after August 2002, and coverage will expire for 
current DOE contractors when existing contracts expire after 
August 2002. Pursuant to the 1988 amendments, DOE and NRC were 
required to provide reports to Congress concerning the need for 
continuation or modifications of the PAA.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing 
on Tuesday, March 27, 2001, on National Energy Policy: Nuclear 
Energy. The Subcommittee received testimony from: Anna Aurilio, 
Legislative Director, U.S. PIRG; Senator Pete V. Domenici of 
New Mexico; C. Randy Hutchinson, Senior Vice President, 
Business Development, Entergy Nuclear, on behalf of: the 
Nuclear Energy Institute; Mary J. Hutzler, Director, Office of 
Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Energy Information 
Administration; John R. Longenecker, Longenecker & Associates, 
Inc., Management Consultants; William D. Magwood, Director, 
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. 
Department of Energy; Edward F. Sproat, III, Vice President of 
International Programs, Exelon Corporation; Alfred C. Tollison, 
Jr., Executive Vice President, Institute of Nuclear Power 
Operations; Dr. William D. Travers, Executive Director for 
Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing 
on Wednesday, June 27, 2001, on Hydroelectric Relicensing and 
Nuclear Energy. The Subcommittee received testimony from: Anna 
Aurilio, Legislative Director, U.S. PIRG; The Honorable Richard 
Meserve, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Mr. 
William Magwood, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science 
and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy; Mr. Marvin Fertel, 
Senior Vice President of Business Operations, Nuclear Energy 
Institute; Mr. Jack Skolds, Chief Operating Officer, Exelon 
Nuclear; Mr. George Davis, Director of Government Programs, 
Nuclear Systems, Westinghouse Electric Company; Mr. Laurence 
Parme, General Atomics; Dr. E. Womack, President, BMX 
Technology, Inc, on behalf of: Energy Contractors Price 
Anderson Group; Mr. John Quattrocchi, Senior Vice President of 
Underwriting, American Nuclear Insurers; Mr. Ronald Shems, 
Attorney, Shems, Dunkiel PLLC, on behalf of: Vermont Agency of 
Natural Resources; The Honorable Curtis Hebert, Chairman, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Accompanied by: Mr. J. 
Mark Robinson, Director, Office of Energy Projects, Ms. 
Kristina Nygaard, Associate Counsel for Energy Projects, Office 
of General Counsel; Mr. Barry Hill, Director, Government 
Accounting Office, accompanied by: Mr. Charles S. Cotton, 
Assistant Director, Ms. Erin Barlow, Senior Analyst, Natural 
Resources and Environment; Mr. John Prescott, Vice President of 
Generation, Idaho Power Company; Ms. S. Birnbaum, Director of 
Government Affairs, American Rivers.
    The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing 
on Thursday, September 6, 2001, on the Reauthorization of the 
Price-Anderson Act. The Subcommittee received testimony from: 
The Honorable Francis Blake, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department 
on Energy.

                        Committee Consideration

    On Thursday, October 4, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Air Quality met in open markup session and approved H.R. 
2983, The Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001, for full 
committee consideration, as amended, by a voice vote. On 
Wednesday, October 31, 2001, the full committee met in open 
markup session and favorably ordered reported H.R. 2983, as 
amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The 
following record votes were taken in connection with ordering 
H.R. 2983 reported. A motion by Mr. Tauzin to order H.R. 2983 
reported to the House, as amended, was agreed to by a voice 
vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee held oversight hearings 
and made findings that are reflected in this report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    The goal of H.R. 2983 is to reauthorize the Price-Anderson 
Act indemnification authority until August 1, 2017.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 
2983, the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001, would 
result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, November 15, 2001.
Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2983, the Price-
Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lisa Cash 
Driskill.
            Sincerely,
                                         Barry B. Anderson,
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director.)
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2983--Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001--As ordered 
        reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on 
        October 31, 2001

    Summary: H.R. 2983 would make several changes to laws 
governing nuclear facilities. Specifically, the bill would 
reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act through August 1, 2017. That 
act provides a framework for liability coverage in the event of 
a nuclear accident. H.R. 2983 also would require the Department 
of Energy (DOE) to apply health and safety standards that are 
substantially similar to those imposed by the Occupational 
Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) at the nuclear 
facilities it operates. In addition, H.R. 2983 would require 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue rules relating 
to enhanced security at nuclear facilities and the 
transportation of nuclear materials. Last, the bill would 
establish new civil penalties for noncompliance with health and 
safety standards and repeal the exemption from paying civil 
penalties for noncompliance with the Price-Anderson Act by 
nonprofit DOE contractors.
    CBO estimates that the reauthorization of the Price-
Anderson Act would have no effect on the federal budget, 
primarily because any payments by the federal government in 
connection with a nuclear accident would require additional 
legislation (i.e., Price-Anderson does not automatically 
trigger any such potential payments).
    Assuming the availability of appropriated funds, we 
estimate that implementing H.R. 2983 would cost $3 million over 
the 2002-2006 period, for new health and safety regulations and 
inspectors at DOE. Because the NRC is authorized to offset its 
costs through fees, the net budgetary effects for studies 
relating to the strengthening security requirements at nuclear 
facilities and for transportation of nuclear materials would be 
negligible.
    Finally, the bill could result in an increase in 
governmental receipts if additional civil penalties are 
collected, so pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to H.R. 
2983. CBO estimates, however, that any increase in receipts 
would be less than $500,000 a year.
    H.R. 2983 would impose both intergovernmental and private-
sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA). The bill would increase the cost of existing mandates 
on NRC licensees by increasing the total and annual 
retrospective premium that can be assessed under the Price 
Anderson Act in the event of a nuclear accident. In addition, 
the bill would authorize the NRC to issue new security 
regulations for transporting nuclear materials and for 
operating nuclear facilities.
    CBO estimates that the cost of complying with the 
intergovernmental mandates in the bill would be unlikely to 
exceed the threshold as defined in UMRA ($56 million in 2001, 
adjusted annually for inflation). The bill would impose no 
other costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The cost to comply with the private-sector mandates imposed 
by the bill would depend in large part on future actions of the 
NRC regarding the operation of nuclear facilities. As a result, 
CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate direct costs to 
privately owned nuclear facilities of complying with all of the 
mandates in the bill would exceed the annual threshold 
specified by UMRA ($113 million in 2001, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2983 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 270 
(energy) and 050 (defense).
    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
2983 will be enacted in 2001, and that amounts estimated to be 
authorized by the bill will be appropriated each year.

Price-Anderson Act reauthorization

    H.R. 2983 would reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act through 
August 1, 2017. That act provides a framework for the structure 
of liability coverage in the event of a nuclear accident. CBO 
estimates that its reauthorization would have no effect on the 
budget. If damages resulting from a nuclear accident exceed the 
liability coverage established by the Price-Anderson Act 
(roughly $10 billion under H.R. 2983), the Act requires that 
the Congress determine how remaining damages would be paid. 
Options could include additional assessments on the nuclear 
industry or federal appropriations. These Price Anderson Act 
provisions apply to both NRC licensees and DOE contractors 
working at nuclear facilities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              By fiscal year, in million of dollars
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2002         2003         2004         2005         2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \2\

Gross NRC Spending:
    Estimate Authorization Level...............           10            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................            7            3            0            0            0
NRC Offsetting Collections:
    Estimated Authorization Level..............          -10            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................          -10            0            0            0            0
DOE Spending for Health and Safety:
    Estimated Authorization Level..............            1        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
    Estimated Outlays..........................            1        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
Net Changes Under H.R. 2983:
    Estimated Authorization Level..............            1        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
    Estimated Outlays..........................           -2            3        (\1\)        (\1\)       (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Spending of less than $500,000.
\2\ Enacting H.R. 2983 could also affect revenues, but by less than $550,000 a year.

    The bill would change the level of indemnification for DOE 
contractors to $10 billion from slightly more than $9 billion 
in current law. Because DOE reimburses its contractors for 
property damage and third-party liability claims, this increase 
to DOE contractor indemnification would not be likely to change 
any obligations of the federal government to pay claims related 
to accidents at it facilities. Over the past 13 years, DOE has 
paid $108 million in claims related to nuclear accidents at its 
facilities. Those claims arose from DOE activities that 
occurred starting in the 1950s.

Spending subject to appropriation

    H.R. 2983 would require the NRC to study and issue rules 
relating to nuclear security, and require DOE to apply health 
and safety standards similar to those imposed by OSHA to the 
nuclear facilities it operates. CBO estimates that such changes 
would cost $3 million over the 2002-2006 period, assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts. Additionalsignificant 
costs could result from applying new health and safety standards at DOE 
facilities, but the cost to implement projects to correct health and 
safety problems at DOE facilities could also be incurred under current 
law.
            Nuclear security
    H.R. 2983 would require the NRC to conduct a study of the 
vulnerability of its licensed nuclear facilities to certain 
threats, and report to the Congress. According to the NRC, the 
study would require testing the reaction of materials used at 
nuclear facilities to several types of destructive forces. 
Based on information from the NRC, CBO estimates that such 
studies would cost $7 million over the 2002-2003 period.
    The bill also would require a rulemaking to update the 
design basis threat (DBT)--the attack scenario that nuclear 
facilities must be capable of defeating. Based on information 
from the NRC, CBO estimates that updating the DBT rule to met 
the new scenarios outlined in the bill would cost $3 million 
over the 2002-2003 period. The bill also would require an 
additional rulemaking to enhance the security of nuclear 
materials being transported, but based on information from the 
NRC, CBO expects this effort would not have a significant cost.
    Because the NRC has the authority to collect annual charges 
from its licensees to offset 96 percent of its general fund 
appropriations in 2002, the net cost of these provisions would 
be less than $500,000.
            Health and safety rules at DOE nuclear facilities
    H.R. 2983 would require DOE to issue industrial health and 
safety regulations that are substantially similar to those 
required by OSHA and apply those standards to DOE nuclear 
facilities. Enforcement and inspections of these new standards 
would be conducted by the Office of Enforcement and 
Investigation within DOE. Based on information from DOE, we 
estimate that such a change would cost $3 million over the 
2002-2006 period, for issuing new rules and hiring new 
inspectors.
    Contractors at DOE facilities are requested to meet DOE's 
own health and safety standards, many of which are similar to 
OSHA standards. According to DOE, however, changing standards 
may require changes in training protocol, a difference in 
emphasis on types of safety concerns, and physical 
modifications to facilities. Because DOE contractors would be 
able to charge DOE for changes in procedures, any additional 
costs because of the new regulations would be paid by the 
federal government, subject to the availability of 
appropriations.
    According to DOE, about 30 of its facilities would be 
affected by a change in standards. Many DOE facilities do not 
fully comply with the department's current health and safety 
standards. In most cases corrective actions have not been taken 
because sufficient funds have not been allocated to these 
projects. Changing standards is not likely to significantly 
change the overall need for health and safety upgrades in many 
DOE facilities.
            Revenues
    Enacting H.R. 2983 could result in additional civil 
penalties for nuclear safety violations at certain DOE 
facilities and for violations of health and safety regulations 
that would be required under the bill. CBO estimates that 
additional penalties would be less than $500,000 a year.
            Penalties for nuclear safety violations by nonprofit 
                    institutions
    H.R. 2983 would repeal the exemption from civil penalties 
for nuclear safety violations that currently applies to 
nonprofit institutions operating laboratories for DOE. Under 
the bill, nonprofit institutions that are operating DOE 
laboratories would be subject to penalties. According to DOE's 
Office of Enforcement and Investigation, over the last four 
years, nonprofit contractors have been assessed $1,843,625 in 
penalties. All of those penalties have been waived, in 
accordance with current law. Under H.R. 2983, any future 
penalties would be paid to the Treasury. Based on penalties 
that have been assessed in the past, CBO expects that any 
additional revenues that would be collected under the bill 
would be less than $500,000 a year.
            Penalties for health and safety violations under the Price-
                    Anderson Act
    H.R. 2983 would impose civil penalties for noncompliance 
with the new health and safety standards that would be required 
under the bill. Such penalties would be required to be 
substantially similar to OSHA penalties. Based on information 
from DOE, CBO does not expect the agency would impose 
significant fines on its contractors, so any additional 
receipts would be negligible.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 2983 would result in changes in 
governmental receipts of less than $500,000 a year.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact:H.R. 2983 would 
impose both intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined by 
UMRA. The bill would increase the cost of existing mandates on NRC 
licensees by increasing the total and annual retrospective premium that 
can be assessed in the event of a nuclear accident. In addition, the 
bill would authorize the NRC to issue new security regulations for 
transporting nuclear materials and for operating nuclear facilities.
    CBO estimates that the cost of complying with the 
intergovernmental mandates in the bill would be unlikely to 
exceed the threshold as defined in UMRA ($56 million in 2001, 
adjusted annually for inflation). The bill would impose no 
other costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The cost to comply with the private-sector mandates imposed 
by the bill would depend in large part on future actions of the 
NRC regarding the operation of nuclear facilities. CBO 
therefore cannot determine whether the aggregate direct cost to 
privately owned nuclear facilities of complying with all of the 
mandates in the bill would exceed the annual threshold 
specified by UMRA ($113 million in 2001, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
            Increase in retrospective premium
    Under current law, NRC licensees are required to obtain the 
maximum amount of private insurance available to cover losses 
in the event of a nuclear incident. If losses exceed the amount 
of private insurance, each licensee is assessed a charge, known 
as the retrospective premium, up to a maximum of $84 million, 
to cover any shortfall in damage coverage. Charges are assessed 
in annual amounts until the entire premium is collected.
    Section 3 of H.R. 2983 would increase the maximum 
retrospective premium from $84 million to $94 million, as well 
as increasing the maximum annual premium from $10 million to 
$15 million. CBO has determined that raising both the maximum 
total premium and the annual premium would increase the costs 
of an existing mandate and would thereby impose 
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates under UMRA.
    Currently, two nuclear power facilities are wholly owned 
and operated by the state of Nebraska, and a few municipalities 
own a small percentage of other nuclear facilities. Because so 
few facilities are publicly owned (less than 5 percent) and 
because the probability of a nuclear accident resulting in 
losses exceeding the amount of private insurance coverage is so 
low, CBO estimates that the costs of complying with that 
mandate would not be significant over the next five years.
    Based upon the low probability of a nuclear accident 
resulting in losses exceeding the amount of private insurance 
coverage, CBO estimates that the annual cost to the private 
sector also would not be substantial over the next five years.

Shipment of nuclear materials

    Section 11 of the bill would direct the NRC to issue rules 
aimed at improving the security of nuclear material shipments. 
The rules would require federal background checks for 
individuals transporting nuclear materials, impose restrictions 
on where such shipments could travel, and require the shipper 
to carry a manifest detailing the contents. According to the 
NRC, only a small number of nuclear material shipments are made 
to and from each nuclear facility per year. Thus, CBO estimates 
that the costs of this mandate would not be significant.

Upgrading security at nuclear facilities

    Section 12 would require the NRC to issue new regulations 
addressing security threats at facilities licensed by the NRC. 
NRC's rulemaking would be based upon the results of a nine-
month study of facility security and consultation with other 
federal, state, and local agencies. At this time, the agency 
could not give any indication as to the scope of the new 
regulations. Consequently, CBO cannot determine the costs of 
complying with the new regulations.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Lisa Cash Driskill, 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elyse Goldman, 
and Impact on the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the 
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in 
Article I, section 8, clause 3, which grants Congress the power 
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several 
States, and with the Indian tribes.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 provides the short title of the legislation, the 
Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001.

Section 2. Extension of indemnification authority

    Section 2 authorizes a fifteen year extension of Price-
Anderson indemnification authority, to August 1, 2017, for 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees, DOE contractors, 
and DOE nonprofit educational institutions.

Section 3. Maximum assessment

    The 1988 Price Anderson Amendments Act established an 
inflation adjustment for the $63 million standard deferred 
premium. However, there was no inflation adjustment requirement 
for the annual maximum premium assessment, which was set at $10 
million. Over time, the effect of not adjusting the $10 million 
maximum premium assessment for inflation results in a 
substantially longer payout period in the event of a nuclear 
accident. The last inflation adjustment on the standard 
deferred premium was in 1998, which adjusted it to $88 million. 
The standard deferred premium is currently scheduled to be 
adjusted again next year. This section adjusts for inflation to 
July 1, 2001, both the standard deferred premium to $94 
million, and the maximum premium assessment to $15 million, 
based on the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-
U). Both will be adjusted for inflation from the July 1, 2001 
baseline not less than once every five years.

Section 4. Department of Energy liability limit

    This section sets the limitation on aggregate public 
liability for DOE contractors for a single nuclear incident. 
Under current law, DOE contractor indemnity and liability 
provisions are linked to the amount of protection required of 
nuclear power reactor licensees by setting the amount of DOE 
contractor indemnity to the amount of protection which is 
available to nuclear power reactor licensees. This section de-
links the DOE contractor provisions for liability and 
indemnification from the NRC licensee provisions, and 
establishes the amount of indemnification of DOE contractors at 
$10 billion, subject to adjustment for inflation, for all 
persons indemnified in connection with the contract, and for 
each nuclear incident.

Section 5. Incidents outside the United States

    This section increases the amount of indemnification and 
liability limit for incidents outside of the United States from 
$100,000,000 to $500,000,000 for DOE contractors.

Section 6. Reports

    The section requires the NRC and DOE, by August 1, 2013, to 
submit detailed reports to Congress concerning the Price-
Anderson Act and related matters, such as the availability of 
private insurance.

Section 7. Inflation adjustment

    This section takes the new July 1, 2001 baseline 
established in section 3 for the $94 million standard deferred 
premium and the $15 million maximum annual assessment, and 
requires an inflation adjustment for both not less than every 
five years following July 1, 2001.

Section 8. Price-Anderson treatment of modular reactors

    Section 8 is intended to encourage the development of a new 
generation of smaller or ``modular'' reactors. The Committee 
received testimony from several companies that are developing 
modular reactors that may be deployed in groups of as many as 
ten, and operated from one central control room. The size of 
known modular reactors designs currently under development 
generally is expected to be less than 300 megawatts. Exelon 
Corporation, for instance, expects that its pebble bedmodular 
reactor will operate in the range of 100 to 150 megawatts, and General 
Atomics provided testimony that its gas turbine modular helium reactor 
will operate in the range of 250 to 300 megawatts.
    This section would allow a combination of two or more 
modular reactors each with a rated capacity between 100 and 300 
megawatts, and built at the same site, to be considered one 
facility for purposes of indemnification under Section 170. 
Thus, a combination of such reactors would be assessed only one 
standard deferred premium, with a cap on the combined rated 
capacity of 1,300 megawatts. For example, a site with ten 110 
megawatt modular reactors, having a combined rated capacity of 
1,100 megawatts, would be considered one facility under Section 
170. A site with five 300 megawatt reactors, with a combined 
rated capacity of 1,500 megawatts, would be considered two 
facilities. This new definition of ``facility'' in this section 
applies only for purposes of Section 170 financial protection 
requirements.

Section 9. Applicability

    This section ensures that the amendments made by sections 
3, 4, and 5 do not apply to a nuclear incident that occurs 
before the date of enactment of the Act.

Section 10. Prohibition on assumption by United States Government 
        liability for certain foreign accidents

    Section 10 prevents any instrumentality of the United 
States Government from entering into any arrangement that would 
impose liability on any instrumentality of the United States 
Government for nuclear accidents that occur in any country 
identified by the Secretary of State as a sponsor of terrorist 
activities, including countries known to have repeatedly 
provided support for acts of international terrorism.

Section 11. Transportation of nuclear materials

    This section directs the Commission to establish a system 
to ensure that: (1) vehicles transporting certain radioactive 
materials carry a manifest describing the type and amount of 
materials being transported; (2) individuals driving or 
traveling with such vehicles are subject to background checks; 
and, (3) vehicles transporting such materials must travel to a 
NRC licensed facility, an appropriate Federal facility, or a 
country with whom the United States has an agreement for 
cooperation under section 123. The effective date of the system 
is delayed until the NRC, not later than one year of enactment, 
issues regulations identifying, consistent with the protection 
of public health and safety and the common defense and 
security, radioactive materials that are appropriate exceptions 
to the system.
    The Committee intends that the rulemaking in this section 
apply only to the potential for a particular material to be 
used in a terrorist attack or other destructive act. 
Accordingly, the Commission need not include within the scope 
of its rulemaking materials with small quantities of 
radioactivity that would have little or no impact on public 
health or safety. The NRC should focus particular attention on 
identifying radiopharmaceuticals and other medical materials 
for appropriate exemption from the new requirements, to assure 
the uninterrupted availability of these materials to patients 
that need them. Of course, the regulations promulgated pursuant 
to section 11 are not intended to alter any other applicable 
rules relating to the proper use, handling, or disposal of any 
nuclear materials.

Section 12. Nuclear facility threats

    Section 12 requires the President to conduct a study to 
identify the types of threats that pose an appreciable risk to 
the security of the various classes of NRC-licensed facilities. 
In preparing the study, the President is to consult with the 
NRC and other governmental and nongovernmental entities. The 
study must consider: the events of September 11, 2001; 
physical, cyber, biochemical, and other terrorist threats; the 
potential for attack on facilities and spent fuel shipments by 
multiple coordinated teams of a large number of individuals; 
the potential for assistance in an attack from several 
employees at the facility; the potential for suicide attacks; 
the potential for water-based and air-based threats; the 
potential use of explosive devices of considerable size and 
other modern weaponry, the potential for attacks by persons 
with a sophisticated knowledge of facility operations; and, the 
potential for fires, especially fires of long duration.
    After the study is completed and within 180 days after 
enactment, the President is to submit a report to Congress and 
the NRC. The Report must summarize the types of threats 
identified and must classify each type of threat as either 
involving attacks and destructive acts, including sabotage, 
directed against the facility by an enemy of the United States 
or otherwise falling under the responsibilities of the Federal 
Government, or involving the type of risks that the NRC 
licensees should be responsible for guarding against.
    Following submission of the report, the President is 
required to transmit a report to Congress within 90 days on 
actions taken, or to be taken, to address the types of threats 
identified in the President's report as involving attacks and 
destructive acts, including sabotage, directed against the 
facility by an enemy of the United States or otherwise falling 
under the responsibilities of the Federal Government.
    The NRC is required to promulgate regulations, including 
changes to the design basis threat, to ensure that licensees 
address the threats identified in the President's report as 
involving the type of risks that the NRC licensees should be 
responsible for guarding against. The NRC must promulgate such 
regulations not later than 270 days after the President 
transmits his initial report to the Commission and Congress.
    Section 12(e) is intended to provide statutory direction to 
the Commission in implementing an operational safeguards 
response evaluation program. In doing so, the Committee is very 
concerned that the Commission conduct a rigorous program that 
will ensure accurate measurements of a facility's ability to 
defeat design basis threats. The Committee is deeply troubled 
about reports that terrorists may target domestic nuclear 
facilities, and envisions a fully developed program as being 
the first line of defense against any such attacks.
    To address these concerns, the language of section 12(e) 
directs the Commission to take a dominant role in the 
implementation of force-on-force exercises. The Commission 
controls the three critical aspects for carrying out tests of 
operational safeguards: it must either design or approve the 
design for each force-on-force exercise; it must physically 
observe the exercises; and, it is the final arbiter on the 
results of the exercises. The Commission should not serve as a 
rubber stamp at any step of the way. For instance, to the 
extent a licensee has devised all or any part of an exercise 
design, the NRC should scrutinize the design rigorously to 
ensure that it will provide the information necessary to 
determine whether a licensee can defeat design basis threats. 
The Committee contemplates, in particular, that any design 
approval process would be an iterative, collaborative one, 
reflecting the work of both a licensee and Commission staff in 
composing a plan appropriate to the facility involved.

Section 13. Industrial safety rules for Department of Energy nuclear 
        facilities

    Section 13 requires DOE to develop regulations including 
civil penalties, that provide a level of protection of worker 
health and safety that is substantially equivalent to or 
identical to that provided by the industrial and construction 
safety regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety 
Administration. These regulations would apply only to 
contractors and subcontractors who are covered under Price 
Anderson 170 d. or e. indemnity agreements, and would be 
effective within 240 days after the date of enactment. This 
section is not intended to require expensive retrofitting of 
DOE's decommissioned facilities that are closed and/or 
scheduled to be torn down. For closed facilities that have 
alternate uses now or in the future, this section would apply 
consistent with the intended uses of the facility.

Section 14. Unreasonable risk determination

    Section 14 requires the NRC to consult with the Assistant 
to the President for Homeland Security (or any successor 
official) concerning whether the location and design of a 
proposed utilization facility provides for adequate protection 
of public health and safety if subject to a terrorist attack. 
The consultation is required before NRC enters into an 
agreement of indemnification with a utilization facility under 
Section 170.

Section 15. Financial accountability

    Section 15 authorizes the Attorney General to bring an 
action to recover from a DOE contractor, subcontractor, or 
supplies amounts paid by the Federal government under a Section 
170 indemnity agreement for public liability resulting from 
conduct which constitutes intentional misconduct of any 
corporate officer, manager, or superintendent of the DOE 
contractor, subcontractor, or supplier. The Attorney General, 
however, may not recover an amount exceeding the amount of 
profit derived by the defendant under the contract. DOE cannot 
reimburse the contractor of the amount recovered. This 
provision does not apply to any nonprofit entity conducting 
activities under the DOE contract. DOE is required to define 
the terms ``profit'' and ``nonprofit entity'' in a rulemaking 
to be completed within 180 days after enactment.

Section 16. Civil penalties

    Section 16 ends the automatic remission of civil penalties 
for nonprofit institutions listed in Section 234A(d). This 
section also ends the Secretary's authority to determine 
whether nonprofit educational institutions should receive 
automatic remission of any civil penalty issued under section 
234A. It is the intent of this Section to make all of DOE's 
nonprofit contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers subject to 
civil penalties for nuclear safety violations under 234A. The 
replacement language for section 234A(d) provides an upper 
limit on the amount of civil penalties that may be collected 
from a nonprofit contractor. This limit is the amount of the 
discretionary fee paid to the contractor under the contract 
under which the nuclear safety violation occurs. The term 
`discretionary fee' refers to that portion of the contract fee 
which is paid, or not, at the discretion of the DOE contracting 
officer based on the contractor's performance.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                        ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         TITLE I--ATOMIC ENERGY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      Chapter 14. General Authority

Sec. 161. General provisions.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sec. 170C. Transportation of nuclear materials.
           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                        TITLE I--ATOMIC ENERGY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   CHAPTER 14. GENERAL AUTHORITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 170. Indemnification and Limitation of Liability.--
  a.  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  b. Amount and Type of Financial Protection for Licensees.--
(1) The amount of primary financial protection required shall 
be the amount of liability insurance available from private 
sources, except that the Commission may establish a lesser 
amount on the basis of criteria set forth in writing, which it 
may revise from time to time, taking into consideration such 
factors as the following: (A) the cost and terms of private 
insurance, (B) the type, size, and location of the licensed 
activity and other factors pertaining to the hazard, and (C) 
the nature and purpose of the licensed activity: Provided, That 
for facilities designed for producing substantial amounts of 
electricity and having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical 
kilowatts or more, the amount of primary financial protection 
required shall be the maximum amount available at reasonable 
cost and on reasonable terms from private sources (excluding 
the amount of private liability insurance available under the 
industry retrospective rating plan required in this 
subsection). Such primary financial protection may include 
private insurance, private contractual indemnities, self-
insurance, other proof of financial responsibility, or a 
combination of such measures and shall be subject to such terms 
and conditions as the Commission may, by rule, regulation, or 
order, prescribe. The Commission shall require licensees that 
are required to have and maintain primary financial protection 
equal to the maximum amount of liability insurance available 
from private sources to maintain, in addition to such primary 
financial protection, private liability insurance available 
under an industry retrospective rating plan providing for 
premium charges deferred in whole or major part until public 
liability from a nuclear incident exceeds or appears likely to 
exceed the level of the primary financial protection required 
of the licensee involved in the nuclear incident: Provided, 
That such insurance is available to, and required of, all of 
the licensees of such facilities without regard to the manner 
in which they obtain other types or amounts of such primary 
financial protection: And provided further: That the maximum 
amount of the standard deferred premium that may be charged a 
licensee following any nuclear incident under such a plan shall 
not be more than [$63,000,000] $94,000,000 (subject to 
adjustment for inflation under subsection t.), but not more 
than [$10,000,000 in any 1 year] $15,000,000 in any 1 year 
(subject to adjustment for inflation under subsection t.), for 
each facility for which such licensee is required to maintain 
the maximum amount of primary financial protection: And 
provided further, That the amount which may be charged a 
licensee following any nuclear incident shall not exceed the 
licensee's pro rata share of the aggregate public liability 
claims and costs (excluding legal costs subject to subsection 
o. (1)(D), payment of which has not been authorized under such 
subsection) arising out of the nuclear incident. Payment of any 
State premium taxes which may be applicable to any deferred 
premium provided for in this Act shall be the responsibility of 
the licensee and shall not be included in the retrospective 
premium established by the Commission.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (5)(A) For purposes of this section only, the Commission 
shall consider a combination of facilities described in 
subparagraph (B) to be a single facility having a rated 
capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more.
  (B) A combination of facilities referred to in subparagraph 
(A) is 2 or more facilities located at a single site, each of 
which has a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or 
more but not more than 300,000 electrical kilowatts, with a 
combined rated capacity of not more than 1,300,000 electrical 
kilowatts.
  c. Indemnification of [Licenses] Licensees by Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.--The Commission shall, with respect to 
licenses issued between August 30, 1954, and August 1, [2002] 
2017, for which it requires financial protection of less than 
$560,000,000, agree to indemnify and hold harmless the licensee 
and other persons indemnified, as their interest may appear, 
from public liability arising from nuclear incidents which is 
in excess of the level of financial protection required of the 
licensee. The aggregate indemnity for all persons indemnified 
in connection with each nuclear incident shall not exceed 
$500,000,000, excluding costs of investigating and settling 
claims and defending suits for damage: Provided, however, That 
this amount of indemnity shall be reduced by the amount that 
the financial protection required shall exceed$60,000,000. Such 
a contract of indemnification shall cover public liability arising out 
of or in connection with the licensed activity. With respect to any 
production or utilization facility for which a construction permit is 
issued between August 30, 1954, and August 1, [2002] 2017, the 
requirements of this subsection shall apply to any license issued for 
such facility subsequent to August 1, [2002] 2017.
  d. Indemnification of Contractors by Department of Energy.--
(1)(A) In addition to any other authority the Secretary of 
Energy (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') may 
have, the Secretary shall, until August 1, [2002] 2017, enter 
into agreements of indemnification under this subsection with 
any person who may conduct activities under a contract with the 
Department of Energy that involve the risk of public liability 
and that are not subject to financial protection requirements 
under subsection b. or agreements of indemnification under 
subsection c. or k.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(2) In agreements of indemnification entered into under 
paragraph (1), the Secretary may require the contractor to 
provide and maintain financial protection of such a type and in 
such amounts as the Secretary shall determine to be appropriate 
to cover public liability arising out of or in connection with 
the contractual activity, and shall indemnify the persons 
indemnified against such claims above the amount of the 
financial protection required, to the full extent of the 
aggregate public liability of the persons indemnified for each 
nuclear incident, including such legal costs of the contractor 
as are approved by the Secretary.
  [(3)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), if the maximum amount 
of financial protection required of the contractor, shall at 
all times remain equal to or greater than the maximum amount of 
financial protection required of licensees under subsection b.
  [(B) The amount of indemnity provided contractors under this 
subsection shall not, at any time, be reduced in the event that 
the maximum amount of financial protection required of 
licensees is reduced.
  [(C) All agreements of indemnification under which the 
Department of Energy (or its predecessor agencies) may be 
required to indemnify any person, shall be deemed to be 
amended, on the date of the enactment of the Price-Anderson 
Amendments Act of 1988, to reflect the amount of indemnity for 
public liability and any applicable financial protection 
required of the contractor under this subsection on such date.]
  (2) Indemnification agreements.--In an agreement of 
indemnification entered into under paragraph (1), the 
Secretary--
          (A) may require the contractor to provide and 
        maintain the financial protection of such a type and in 
        such amounts as the Secretary shall determine to be 
        appropriate to cover public liability arising out of or 
        in connection with the contractual activity; and
          (B) shall indemnify the persons indemnified against 
        such liability above the amount of the financial 
        protection required, in the amount of $10,000,000,000 
        (subject to adjustment for inflation under subsection 
        t.), in the aggregate, for all persons indemnified in 
        connection with the contract and for each nuclear 
        incident, including such legal costs of the contractor 
        as are approved by the Secretary.
  (3) Contract amendments.--All agreements of indemnification 
under which the Department of Energy (or its predecessor 
agencies) may be required to indemnify any person under this 
section shall be deemed to be amended, on the date of enactment 
of the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001, to reflect 
the amount of indemnity for public liability and any applicable 
financial protection required of the contractor under this 
subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (5) In the case of nuclear incidents occurring outside the 
United States, the amount of the indemnity provided by the 
Secretary under this subsection shall not exceed [$100,000,000] 
$500,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (8)(A) It shall be a condition of any agreement of 
indemnification entered into under this subsection that the 
indemnified party comply with regulations issued under this 
paragraph.
  (B) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
of this paragraph, the Secretary shall issue industrial health 
and safety regulations that shall apply to all Department of 
Energy contractors and subcontractors who are covered under 
agreements entered into under this subsection for operations at 
Department of Energy nuclear facilities. Such regulations shall 
provide a level of protection of worker health and safety that 
is substantially equivalent to or identical to that provided by 
the industrial and construction safety regulations of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR 1910 and 
1926), and shall establish civil penalties for violation 
thereof that are substantially equivalent to or identical to 
the civil penalties applicable to violations of the industrial 
and construction safety regulations of the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration. The Secretary shall amend 
regulations under this subparagraph as necessary.
  (C) Not later than 240 days after the date of the enactment 
of this paragraph, all agreements described in subparagraph 
(B), and all contracts and subcontracts for the indemnified 
contractors and subcontractors, shall be modified to 
incorporate the requirements of the regulations issued under 
subparagraph (B). Such modifications shall require compliance 
with the requirements of the regulations not later than 1 year 
after the issuance of the regulations.
  (D) Enforcement of regulations issued under subparagraph (B), 
and inspections required in the course thereof, shall be 
conducted by the Office of Enforcement of the Office of 
Environment, Safety, and Health of the Department of Energy. 
The Secretary shall transmit to the Congress an annual report 
on the implementation of this subparagraph.
  e. Limitation on Aggregate Public Liability.--(1) The 
aggregate public liability for a single nuclear incident of 
persons indemnified, including such legal costs as are 
authorized to be paid under subsection o. (1)(D), shall not 
exceed--
          (A)  * * *
          (B) in the case of contractors with whom the 
        Secretary has entered into an agreement of 
        indemnification under subsection d., [the maximum 
        amount of financial protection required under 
        subsection b. or] the amount of indemnity and financial 
        protection that may be required under [paragraph (3) of 
        subsection d., whichever amount is more] paragraph (2) 
        of subsection d.; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) With respect to any nuclear incident occurring outside of 
the United States to which an agreement of indemnification 
entered into under the provisions of subsection d. is 
applicable, such aggregate public liability shall not exceed 
the amount of [$100,000,000] $500,000,000, together with the 
amount of financial protection required of the contractor.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  k. Exemption From Financial Protection Requirement for 
Nonprofit Educational Institutions.--With respect to any 
license issued pursuant to section 53, 63, 81, 104 a., or 104 
c. for the conduct of educational activities to a person found 
by the Commission to be a nonprofit educational institution, 
the Commission shall exempt such licensee from the financial 
protection requirement of subsection a. With respect to 
licenses issued between August 30, 1954, and August 1, [2002] 
2017, for which the Commission grants such exemption:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Any licensee may waive an exemption to which it is entitled 
under this subsection. With respect to any production or 
utilization facility for which a construction permit is issued 
between August 30, 1954, and August 1, [2002] 2017, the 
requirements of this subsection shall apply to any license 
issued for such facility subsequent to August 1, [2002] 2017.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  p. Reports to Congress.--The Commission and the Secretary 
shall submit to the Congress by August 1, [1998] 2013, detailed 
reports concerning the need for continuation or modification of 
the provisions of this section, 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 this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  t. Inflation Adjustment.--(1) The Commission shall adjust the 
amount of the maximum total and annual standard deferred 
premium under subsection b. (1) not less than once during each 
5-year period following [the date of the enactment of the 
Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988] July 1, 2001, in 
accordance with the aggregate percentage change in the Consumer 
Price Index since--
          (A) [such date of enactment] July 1, 2001, in the 
        case of the first adjustment under this subsection; or
          (B) the previous adjustment under this subsection.
  (2) Adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust the amount of 
indemnification provided under an agreement of indemnification 
under subsection d. not less than once during each 5-year 
period following July 1, 2001, in accordance with the aggregate 
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index since--
          (A) that date, in the case of the first adjustment 
        under this paragraph; or
          (B) the previous adjustment under this paragraph.
  [(2)] (3) For purposes of this subsection, the term 
``Consumer Price Index'' means the Consumer Price Index for all 
urban consumers published by the Secretary of Labor.
  u. Prohibition on Assumption of Liability for Certain Foreign 
Accidents.--Notwithstanding this section or any other provision 
of law, no officer of the United States or of any department, 
agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government may 
enter into any contract or other arrangement, or into any 
amendment or modification of a contract or other arrangement, 
the purpose or effect of which would be to directly or 
indirectly impose liability on the United States Government, or 
any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
Government, or to otherwise directly or indirectly require an 
indemnity by the United States Government, for nuclear 
accidents occurring in any country whose government has been 
identified by the Secretary of State as engaged in state 
sponsorship of terrorist activities (specifically including any 
country the government of which, as of September 11, 2001, had 
been determined by the Secretary of State under section 620A(a) 
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, section 6(j)(1) of the 
Export Administration Act of 1979, or section 40(d) of the Arms 
Export Control Act to have repeatedly provided support for acts 
of international terrorism).
  v. Unreasonable Risk Consultation.--Before entering into an 
agreement of indemnification under this section with respect to 
a utilization facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall 
consult with the Assistant to the President for Homeland 
Security (or any successor official) concerning whether the 
location of the proposed facility and the design of that type 
of facility ensure that the facility provides for adequate 
protection of public health and safety if subject to a 
terrorist attack.
  w. Financial Accountability.--(1) Notwithstanding subsection 
d., the Attorney General may bring an action in the appropriate 
United States district court to recover from a contractor of 
the Secretary (or subcontractor or supplier of such contractor) 
amounts paid by the Federal Government under an agreement of 
indemnification under subsection d. for public liability 
resulting from conduct which constitutes intentional misconduct 
of any corporate officer, manager, or superintendent of such 
contractor (or subcontractor or supplier of such contractor).
  (2) The Attorney General may recover under paragraph (1) an 
amount not to exceed the amount of the profit derived by the 
defendant from the contract.
  (3) No amount recovered from any contractor (or subcontractor 
or supplier of such contractor) under paragraph (1) may be 
reimbursed directly or indirectly by the Department of Energy.
  (4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any nonprofit entity 
conducting activities under contract for the Secretary.
  (5) No waiver of a defense required under this section shall 
prevent a defendant from asserting such defense in an action 
brought under this subsection.
  (6) The Secretary shall, by rule, define the terms ``profit'' 
and ``nonprofit entity'' for purposes of this subsection. Such 
rulemaking shall be completed not later than 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 170C. Transportation of Nuclear Materials.--
  a. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall establish a system 
to ensure that--
          (1) with respect to activities by any party pursuant 
        to a license issued under this Act, each vehicle 
        transporting materials described in subsection b. in 
        the United States--
                  (A) from a facility licensed by the Nuclear 
                Regulatory Commission;
                  (B) from a facility licensed by an agreement 
                State; or
                  (C) from a country with whom the United 
                States has an agreement for cooperation under 
                section 123,
        carries a manifest describing the type and amount of 
        materials being transported;
          (2) each individual driving or traveling with such a 
        vehicle has been subject to a security background check 
        by appropriate Federal entities; and
          (3) no such vehicle transports such materials to a 
        destination other than a facility licensed by the 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission or an agreement State 
        under this Act or other appropriate Federal facility, 
        or to a destination outside the United States in a 
        country with whom the United States has an agreement 
        for cooperation under section 123.
  b. Except as otherwise provided by the Commission by 
regulation, the materials referred to in subsection a.(1) are 
byproduct materials, source materials, special nuclear 
materials, high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, 
transuranic waste, and low-level radioactive waste (as defined 
in section 2(16) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 
U.S.C. 10101(16))).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                       CHAPTER 18. ENFORCEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 234A. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of 
Department of Energy Safety Regulations.--a.  * * *
  b. (1)  * * *
  (2) In determining the amount of any civil penalty under this 
subsection, the Secretary shall take into account the nature, 
circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or 
violations and, with respect to the violator, ability to pay, 
effect on ability to continue to do business, any history of 
prior such violations, the degree of culpability, and such 
other matters as justice may require. [In implementing this 
section, the Secretary shall determine by rule whether 
nonprofit educational institutions should receive automatic 
remission of any penalty under this section.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [d. The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
          [(1) The University of Chicago (and any 
        subcontractors or suppliers thereto) for activities 
        associated with Argonne National Laboratory;
          [(2) The University of California (and any 
        subcontractors or suppliers thereto) for activities 
        associated with Los Alamos National Laboratory, 
        Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Lawrence 
        Berkeley National Laboratory;
          [(3) American Telephone an Telegraph Company and its 
        subsidiaries (and any subcontractors or suppliers 
        thereto) for activities associated with Sandia National 
        Laboratories;
          [(4) Universities Research Association, Inc. (and any 
        subcontractors or suppliers thereto) for activities 
        associated with FERMI National Laboratory;
          [(5) Princeton University (and any subcontractors or 
        suppliers thereto) for activities associated with 
        Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory;
          [(6) The Associated Universities, Inc. (and any 
        subcontractors or suppliers thereto) for activities 
        associated with the Brookhaven National Laboratory; and
          [(7) Battelle Memorial Institute (and any 
        subcontractors or suppliers thereto) for activities 
        associated with Pacific Northwest Laboratory.]
  d. Notwithstanding subsection a., a contractor, 
subcontractor, or supplier described in section 501(c)(3) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
section 501(a) of such Code shall not be subject to a civil 
penalty for a violation under subsection a. in excess of the 
amount of any discretionary fee paid to such contractor, 
subcontractor, or supplier under the contract under which such 
violation occurs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                Minority Additional or Dissenting Views

   additional views of mr. markey of massachusetts regarding nuclear 
                    security provisions of h.r. 2983

    During its markup of H.R. 2983, the Committee approved by 
voice vote an amendment which I, along with Chairman Tauzin and 
Ranking Member Dingell, offered to improve the security of 
nuclear power plants against the threat of terrorist attacks. 
While the Committee Report briefly describes this amendment, I 
would like to provide some additional background on why it is 
necessary.
    Under the Atomic Energy Act, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission has the obligation to assure that our nation's 
nuclear power plants are operated in a manner which protects 
public health, public safety, and the environment. Pursuant to 
the authorities conferred by the Congress to the Commission 
under the Act, the NRC has issued regulations requiring 
licensees to protect its plants against the ``design basis 
threat'' (see 10 CFR 73). These rules require licensees to be 
able to protect nuclear facilities against acts of radiological 
sabotage or theft of special nuclear material.
    For more than 10 years, I have been concerned that the 
NRC's efforts to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks or 
major accidents at nuclear reactors have been sorely lacking.
    In 1991, in the wake of U.S. bombing of Iraqi nuclear 
reactors and Saddam Hussein's call for acts of terrorism 
against the U.S., I wrote two letters to the NRC concerning the 
threat of truck bombs at nuclear reactors, and called for an 
upgrade of the plans to defend nuclear reactors against larger 
and better-armed groups of attackers. The NRC responded that 
``we have determined that there continues to be no credible 
threats of terrorist actions against any NRC-licensed facility 
that warrants implementation of contingency plans against truck 
bombs at this time.'' It was not until years later that the NRC 
finally revised its truck bomb rule. And even then, it remains 
inadequate--as it assumes that the largest truck bomb threat is 
a truck bomb in a 4 wheel drive SUV.
    Over the years, the NRC has continued to have a checkered 
record on nuclear security. In 1998, for example, the NRC 
senior staff tried to eliminate the program that tested the 
adequacy of the licensees' guard forces through force-on-force 
exercises, citing budget problems. Funding for this program was 
only restored after I wrote the NRC to complain and several NRC 
staffers were forced to take the extraordinary step of filing 
formal ``Differing Professional Opinions'' protesting this ill-
advised action. This prompted the Commission to reverse the 
decision made by its senior staff to cancel funding for the 
OSRE program.
    Today, the current NRC ``Design Basis Threat''--published 
in the Federal Register--that is supposed to be used to design 
safeguards systems, fails to adequately reflect the true nature 
of the terrorist threat to our nuclear plants. For example, the 
NRC says that the plants are supposed to be able to defend 
against attacks by ``several persons''. How many is that? Well, 
the exact number is confidential, but suffice it to say that it 
is far, far less than the number of people that carried out the 
September 11th attacks. The Design Basis Threat rules talk 
about ``Inside assistance'' which may include ``a knowledgeable 
individual''. In other words, one insider. In reality, we need 
to be concerned about multiple insiders. The rules talk about 
``Suitable weapons, up to and including hand-held automatic 
weapons'' and ``hand-carried equipment'' including 
explosives.'' In reality, terrorists can probably obtain access 
to larger, vehicle-mounted weapons. The rules talk about a 
``four wheel drive land vehicle bomb.'' What about a large 
truck or tractor-trailer filled with explosives? What about 
water-borne threats to reactors located along rivers or the 
ocean? And what about air-borne threats--like a commercial 
airliner filled with jet fuel? The Commission's current 
regulations regarding the design basis threat says nothing 
about such threats, and in an October 16, 2001 letter 
responding to concerns I had earlier raised about security in 
the aftermath of the events of September 11th, Chairman Meserve 
stated that none of the current commercial reactors are capable 
of withstanding a hit from a large commercial airliner. In 
addition, spent fuel pools, dry cask storage, switching yards, 
and other areas of these plants may be even more vulnerable to 
destructive acts.
    The reality is that the Commission's Design Basis Threat 
rules simply ignore many of the risks that the NRC decided 
prior to September 11th were just unthinkable, or which they 
had arbitrarily assumed had such a remote probability of 
occurring that they did not have to be addressed. Now we know 
that threats that had been considered to be unthinkable can 
happen here. The provision adopted by the Committee will compel 
the Commission to evaluate these threats and respond to them 
with new rules and procedures aimed at beefing up security and 
safeguards at these facilities in the aftermath of the 
September 11th attacks. It is intended to force a complete, 
top-to-bottom review of the nature and adequacy of the defenses 
currently in place to protect nuclear facilities from the 
terrorist threat.
    Under the amendment, the President is required to undertake 
an immediate study of the terrorist threat to nuclear 
facilities and materials, focusing on (but not limited to) an 
examination of 10 specific threats. Based on that examination, 
the President would determine what types of threats properly 
are considered attacks by enemies of the United States, such as 
attacks using surface to air missiles launched by a foreign 
government, and what types of threats involve the type of 
risks, such as radiological sabotage or theft of nuclear 
materials, that NRC licensees should be responsible for 
guarding against. Following the submission of this report, the 
NRC will be required to undertake an immediate rulemaking to 
revise the Design Basis Threat and issue other appropriate 
rules to upgrade the security around nuclear licensees.
    Another problem addressed by the amendment relates to the 
NRC's force-on-force exercises designed to prevent terrorist 
attacks at nuclear reactors. Because of the inadequacies in the 
Design Basis Threat, we know that the mock terrorist forces in 
these drills must labor under numerous artificial restrictions 
and limitations, and far too few exercises are conducted. 
Currently, we are informed that licensees have been required to 
undergo an operational safeguards response evaluation (OSRE) 
test only once every eight years. But even within these 
limitations, the NRC has reported that about half of theplants 
tested had inadequacies in their test programs--some of them quite 
serious in nature. According to press reports, at a test a few years 
ago a simulated attack by an NRC team would have been able to cause a 
core melt at one nuclear power plant. And at Vermont Yankee, a few 
years ago, a team reportedly was able to scale plant fences undetected 
at several locations and to slip a fake handgun past a plant security 
check. Numerous other problems have been found at other plants.
    What has been the Commission's and the nuclear industry's 
response to this situation? They decided to try to get rid of 
the program--first trying to defund it and then trying to 
replace it with a toothless industry-designed and managed 
alternative, which would have allowed the nuclear industry to 
design, implement and assess its own security performance. In 
the first weeks following September 11, I learned that 
lobbyists for the nuclear industry were pressuring the 
Commission to scale back the enhanced security measures that 
had been taken, despite numerous warnings by Federal officials 
that additional security threats to the U.S. existed. The 
nuclear industry has also lobbied Members of Congress in recent 
weeks, urging them to reject my efforts to improve security at 
nuclear facilities.
    My amendment attempts to assure that the OSRE program is 
placed on a sound statutory basis. It represents a compromise 
that has been worked out between myself, the Chairman, and 
Ranking Member Dingell. It will require the NRC to establish an 
Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation Program to ensure 
the physical protection capability and operational safeguards 
response for sensitive nuclear facilities. This program will 
test the licensee's security guards through frequent 
Commission-approved or designed, observed, and evaluated force-
on-force exercises to determine whether the ability to defeat 
the design basis threat is being maintained.
    As noted in the Committee report, this amendment directs 
the Commission to take a dominant role in the implementation of 
force-on-force exercises. The Commission controls the three 
critical aspects for carrying out tests of operational 
safeguards: it must design, or approve the design for each 
force-on-force exercise; it must physically observe the 
exercises; and, it is the final arbiter on the results of the 
exercises. The Commission should not serve as a rubber stamp at 
any step of the way. For instance, to the extent a licensee has 
devised all or any part of an exercise design, the NRC should 
scrutinize the design rigorously to ensure that it will provide 
the information necessary to determine whether a licensee can 
defeat design basis threats. The amendment contemplates, in 
particular, that the design approval process will be an 
iterative, collaborative one, reflecting the work of both a 
licensee and Commission staff in composing a plan appropriate 
to the facility involved.
    It is my personal view that if the Commission wants to 
restore public confidence in the safety of nuclear facilities, 
it should use the authorities conferred under this section to 
immediately cancel the nuclear-industry's so-called Safeguards 
Performance Assessment (or SPA) program. Under SPA, the nuclear 
industry would design, conduct and evaluate tests of its own 
guard forces. Such tests cannot, in my view, replace the role 
of NRC-designed, supervised and evaluated force-on-force 
exercises. In the aftermath of the September 11th attack, the 
public does not have confidence in industry self-regulation 
when it comes to safety. The public would have even less 
confidence in this particular industry if it was aware of the 
extent of the nuclear industry's lobbying of both the 
Commission and the U.S. Congress to prevent improvements to 
security at nuclear facilities from being made. It wants the 
federal government to assume a direct role.
    Finally, in light of reports indicating that terrorists may 
have obtained licenses to transport hazardous waste, including 
radioactive waste, the amendment directs the NRC to undertake 
an immediate rulemaking to improve transportation safety.
    The purpose of this amendment is to address the risk that 
terrorists might target shipments of radioactive materials. We 
know that there are persistent problems with the current system 
of controls for the transportation and accounting of 
radioactive and other hazardous wastes. Recently, Northeast 
Utilities reported that after conducting a $9 million internal 
investigation, it has been unable to account for two missing 
spent fuel rods that disappeared some time during the last 20 
years. According to the utility, the fuel might still be in 
spent fuel storage pools, or it might have been transported to 
other facilities or it may have been stolen. Records do not 
allow them to account for its whereabouts.
    According to NRCs Annual Safeguard Summary Event List for 
1999, the threat of theft or diversion of nuclear materials is 
very real. The NRC report indicates that 3 men in Chechnya were 
caught stealing radioactive Cobalt-60 from a facility there. It 
is not known what they planned to do with the materials, but we 
do know that Osama Bin Laden works with some of the Chechnyan 
factions. And the Committee is aware of the press reports 
indicating that suspected terrorists have successfully obtained 
licenses to drive radioactive and hazardous waste around from 
an unscrupulous state examiner in Pennsylvania. Some of these 
reports quoted sources in the trucking industry as saying that 
anyone with a criminal record could get a license to drive 
hazardous materials as long as they were over 21 years old. We 
can only imagine what terrorists might have done with 
radioactive materials if they got them.
    We also know from the Attorney General that we must be on 
guard for future terrorist attacks against other targets. Under 
the amendment, the NRC would be required to issue rules to 
strengthen the safeguards associated with transportation of 
radioactive materials. First of all, the amendment requires 
that anyone authorized to drive or accompany these materials 
must pass a background check to determine whether they pose a 
security threat. Second, the amendment requires NRC to develop 
a manifest system that accurately describes the radioactive 
contents of each shipment so that any recipient would know what 
they were receiving. Finally, the amendment prohibits any 
shipments of radioactive material from being sent to anywhere 
other than a licensed NRC facility, an agreement state licensed 
facility, or an appropriate Federal facility, so that we ensure 
that the materials are only going places where the expertise to 
handle them exists. The amendment allows the NRC to exempt out 
from coverage certain materials, such as certain radio-
pharmaceuticals used in nuclear medicine, that might not need 
to be subjected to these requirements. Such exemptions must 
follow only after a determination that doing so is fully 
consistent with the protection of public health and safety and 
the common defense and security has been made. The rulemaking 
would only be for the purposes of determining whether the 
transportation of a particular radioactive material would pose 
a terrorist threat, and should not serve as a precedent for any 
non-terrorist-related matter.
                                                  Edward J. Markey.
                                ------                                

  DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD J. MARKEY (D-MA) ON H.R. 
            2983, REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PRICE-ANDERSON ACT

    Back in the 1950s, when I was a boy, we were told that 
nuclear power was going to be safe, efficient, and too cheap to 
meter. In order to promote this new technology, the nuclear 
utility industry sent us kids nifty little Reddy Kilowatt pins 
to tout their new technology. And they came with a catchy 
little jingle, which I'd like to share with you:

``I'm a Busy Little Atom
I split myself in two
And multiply as many times
As I have jobs to do!
I'll work for you for pennies,
I'm fast, efficient, steady,
So any time . . . to ease your work
Just `plug in,' folks--I'm Reddy.
The Mighty Atom--Reddy Kilowatt.''

    And so, we learned at a very early age that Reddy Kilowatt 
was our friend, standing ready to ease the nation's work. 
Unfortunately, it turned out at the time that our little friend 
was having some problems getting insurance coverage, because 
the insurance industry wasn't convinced that he was as ``fast, 
efficient and steady'' as the nuclear utilities were claiming. 
So, the Congress decided to step in and give our little buddy 
Reddy Kilowatt a boost by capping the nuclear industry's 
liability in the event that those ``busy little atoms'' got out 
of control and began multiplying TOO MUCH--resulting in a 
catastrophic core meltdown at a civilian nuclear power plant.
    Americans were told at the time that this would just be 
temporary assistance that we were going to be providing for a 
developing new industry and technology help get on its feet--so 
the private insurance markets could take over the job of 
insuring its risks. The Senate Report said that Price-Anderson 
would only be needed for ten years because, ``. . . the problem 
of reactor safety will be to a great extent solved and the 
insurance people will have had an experience on which to base a 
sound program of their own.'' That was 44 years ago. But as 
this program became entrenched, the sun never set on the Price-
Anderson subsidy!
    Despite the persistence of this and other federal 
subsidies, the nuclear industry has remained unable to compete 
economically in the energy marketplace. No new nuclear power 
plants have been successfully ordered since 1973 because 
nuclear power is more expensive than natural gas; it costs 
about $1700 per kilowatt hour of power generated to build a 
nuclear plant, while a gas plant costs as little as $420 per 
kilowatt hour. And if capital costs are included, nuclear power 
costs 6 cents a kilowatt-hour, compared to 4 cents a kilowatt-
hour for gas or coal.
    There is nothing stopping any utility or power generating 
company from ordering a nuclear power plant today. They haven't 
done so. Why? Not because of the opposition of a bunch of 
granola-chomping, tree-hugging anti-nuclear activists, as the 
nuclear industry would have us believe. No. No new nuclear 
power plants have been ordered because Republican Wall Street 
investment bankers know that the bottom line is that despite 
all the subsidies, nuclear power is still too expensive when 
compared to natural gas or coal.
    Geoffery Rothwell of the CATO Institute has said that ``A 
more efficient solution would have been to assign full 
liability to those parties and let the insurance market 
determine the probability of an accident, its consequences and 
the proper premiums for coverage. . . . If nuclear power cannot 
compete, however, it should not be subsidized. Let the best 
energy win.'' My view is that it is now time for nuclear power 
to grow up and compete in the free market without further 
market distorting government subsidies. This is no longer a 
fledgling industry, and it needs to be weaned from its reliance 
on government support and compete freely against other energy 
generation technologies and against technologies which would 
reduce the need for new power plants by making us more energy 
efficient. If nuclear power is so safe, we should not be 
capping liability and we should not be subsidizing the 
industry's insurance needs.
    During the Committee markup of the legislation, I offered 
an amendment that would have required the nuclear industry to 
attempt to obtain private sector insurance prior to obtaining 
taxpayer-funded coverage through the Price-Anderson Act. All a 
nuclear reactor owner would have had to do in order to get 
Price-Anderson coverage is prove that they tried to obtain 
private sector insurance and that they were rejected.
    All of us have to have insurance for our cars into order to 
be able to get a drivers license. If you are a good driver, and 
never have any accidents, you end up paying a lower rate. And 
if you are not such a good driver, and have some accidents, you 
end up paying higher rates. But, if you've just had your 12th 
accident in the past 12 months, you will soon receive a notice 
that your auto insurance company is canceling your policy, and 
you may be unable to find any private source of insurance, and 
you will need to get insurance from your state's ``insurer of 
last resort,'' also known as the assigned-risk pool. Being in 
the high-risk pool will hurt your wallet, but if you drive 
safely while you're in it, you can get back on the road to more 
affordable insurance.
    That's the way the insurance markets work. Except, of 
course, for nuclear power. Nuclear power was placed in the 
Price-Anderson ``assigned risk pool'' 44 years ago, and that is 
apparently where it wants to stay, despite industry's claims of 
a whole new generation of new reactor designs that are 
inherently safe. Well--if these designs are safe, why are we 
going to throw them into the Price-Anderson ``assigned risk 
pool''? If the new advanced reactor designs and the new pebble 
bed reactors are so safe, why shouldn't the companies that buy 
these technologies be asked to go into the private insurance 
markets first, before we automatically throw them into Price-
Anderson? Maybe they can get a lower rate from the insurance 
markets.
    All my amendment said is that before we automatically put 
nuclear power into the Price-Anderson ``assigned-risk pool'', 
why not see if it can prove it has improved itssafety record 
and get private insurance coverage first? My amendment was rejected. 
Before we continue to promise bailouts to an industry that claims to be 
completely safe for the next 15 years, shouldn't it at least attempt to 
get insurance from companies who insure other completely safe 
industries?
    Why should we establish a cap on the nuclear industry's 
liability in the event of a catastrophic nuclear accident and 
commit the American taxpayers to picking up the tab for any 
accident which results in more than $9 billion in damage 
without first establishing that the nuclear industry is unable 
to obtain full insurance coverage from the private markets? If 
the industry is correct that no company can get coverage from 
the private markets, then it should not oppose this amendment, 
as every new licensee will be able to demonstrate to the NRC 
that they have tried and failed to get full coverage for their 
full nuclear liability.
    The nuclear industry likes to claim that ``there is no 
taxpayer Money involved'' in Price-Anderson. This is just 
nonsense. While the Act does require reactor operators to get 
$200 million of insurance per reactor per incident, and it also 
provides for a retroactive assessment of all reactor operators 
that goes to just over $9 billion, the very core of the entire 
Act is a commitment from the Congress to pick up the tab for 
accidents that cost more than $9.4 billion.
    Indeed, Section 170(e)(2) states ``In the event of a 
nuclear incident involving damages in excess of the amount of 
aggregate public liability under paragraph (1), the Congress 
will thoroughly review the particular incident in accordance 
with the procedures set forth in section 170i. And will in 
accordance with such procedures, take whatever action is 
determined to be necessary (including approval of appropriate 
compensation plans and appropriation of funds) to provide full 
and prompt compensation to the public for all public liability 
claims resulting from a disaster of such magnitude.'' Section 
170i, in turn sets up detailed expedited procedures to the 
submission by the Executive Branch of nuclear accident 
liability bailout bill. So, very clearly, billions, hundreds of 
billions, perhaps even trillions of taxpayer dollars are 
involved.
    All my amendment says is let's subject the proposition that 
none of these reactor operators can get private insurance to a 
market test. If it is really true that the private insurance 
market can't provide full coverage for nuclear liabilities, and 
that this industry can't judge the likely extent of their 
liability, then the operators will easily be able to show that 
they can't get insurance and can join the Price-Anderson 
system. Now, I'm not so pessimistic about the inherent genius 
and entrepreneurial abilities of the private sector. The 
insurance industry is in the business of making sophisticated 
judgements about complex risks, some of which involve unlikely, 
but high-cost pay-outs. That's what their entire business is 
about--making lots of money by collecting more in premiums than 
they have to pay out in claims. So, if a nuclear accident is as 
improbable and remote as the nuclear industry claims it is, 
this should be a very profitable business!
            I respectfully dissent.
                                                  Edward J. Markey.

                  Exchange of Committee Correspondence

                              ----------                              

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                  Washington, DC, November 8, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter 
regarding to H.R. 2983, the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act 
of 2001.
    I appreciate your willingness not to exercise your right to 
a referral of H.R. 2983. I agree that your decision to forego 
action on the bill will not prejudice the Committee on the 
Judiciary with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on 
this or similar legislation. Further, I recognize your right to 
request conferees on those provisions within the Committee on 
the Judiciary's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a 
House-Senate conference.
    I will include your letter dated October 31, 2001 
concerning the Cox amendment, your November 7, 2001 letter, and 
this response in the Committee's report on H.R. 2983, and I 
look forward to working with you as we bring this legislation 
to the Floor.
            Sincerely,
                                   W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                  November 7, 2001.
Hon. W.J. (Billy) Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
    Dear Billy: I write regarding H.R. 2983, the ``Price-
Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001,'' which was ordered 
reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on October 31, 
2001. As you know, the Committee on the Judiciary has subject 
matter jurisdiction over at least one amendment adopted by your 
Committee. I have previously written to you about the Cox 
Amendment (see enclosed). Because I understand the desire to 
have this legislation considered expeditiously by the House and 
because the Committee does not have a substantive concern with 
those provisions that fall within its jurisdiction, I do not 
intend to hold a hearing or markup on this legislation.
    In agreeing to waive consideration by our Committee, the 
Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 2983. The 
Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the 
understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction is in no way 
diminished or altered, and that the Committee's right to the 
appointment of conferees during any conference on the bill is 
preserved. I would also expect your support for my request to 
the Speaker for the appointment of conferees from my Committee 
with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of my Committee 
should a conference with the Senate be convened on this or 
similar legislation.
    I request that you include our exchange of letters (and my 
October 31, 2001, letter relating to the Cox Amendment) in your 
Committee's report to accompany H.R. 2983. Thank you for your 
cooperation on this important matter.
            Sincerely,
                             F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                  October 31, 2001.
Hon. W.J. Billy Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Tauzin: I understand that Rep. Chris Cox 
intends to offer an amendment that may fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary during your 
Committee's mark-up of H.R. 2983, the ``Price-Anderson 
Reauthorization Act of 2001.'' The Cox Amendment would prohibit 
assumption by the United States Government of liability for 
nuclear accidents in certain foreign countries.
    I have reviewed this amendment and support it. Furthermore, 
should the Cox Amendment be adopted during the mark-up of H.R. 
2983, the Judiciary Committee will not seek a sequential 
referral of H.R. 2983 on the basis of the adoption of the Cox 
Amendment.
    If you have further questions about this matter, your staff 
should contact Mr. William Moschella, Chief Legislative Counsel 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
            Sincerely,
                             F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.
                                ------                                  

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                 Washington, DC, November 19, 2001.
Hon. Billy Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Tauzin: The Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
on October 31, 2001, ordered reported H.R. 2983, the Price-
Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001. As introduced, the bill 
was referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce. During 
consideration of the bill, it was modified to include an 
amendment by voice vote. Part of that amendment (what is now 
Section 11 of the bill) involves matters within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure under Rule X(q) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, which grants this Committee jurisdiction over 
``[r]oads and the safety thereof '' (Clause 19) and all 
``[t]ransportation . . . transportation safety (except 
automobile safety), [and] transportation infrastructure'' 
(Clause 20).
    Our respective committees have addressed the jurisdictional 
issue of transportation of nuclear material three times in the 
past three Congresses, (See, Report 104-254, Part 1, Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act of 1995, Committee on Commerce, 104th 
Congress, 1st Session, page 40-41; Report 105-290, Part 1, 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, Committee on Commerce, 105th 
Congress, 1st Session, page 53-54; Report 106-155, Part 1, 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999, Committee on Commerce, 106th 
Congress, 1st Session, page 46-48). I propose a similar 
accommodation in this instance.
    Because you have expressed a desire to expeditiously act on 
this measure, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure will agree to be discharged from consideration 
of this measure if the bill is modified on the House floor so 
as not to govern the overall ``transportation'' of nuclear 
materials, which would infringe on my Committee's jurisdiction. 
I believe that our staffs have reached a mutually satisfactory 
compromise on this issue. In addition, the following proviso 
must be included to ensure that the bill does not waive or 
otherwise affect any requirements governing motor carrier and 
rail safety provisions under Title 49, or the Hazardous 
Materials Transportation Act:

          (d) Nothing in this Act shall waive, modify, or 
        affect the application of chapter 51 of title 49, 
        United States Code; part A of subtitle V of title 49, 
        United States Code; part B of subtitle VI of title 49, 
        United States Code, and title 23, United States Code.

            Sincerely,
                                               Don Young, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                 Washington, DC, November 19, 2001.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Chairman Young: Thank you for your letter regarding to 
H.R. 2983, the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001.
    I appreciate your willingness not to seek a referral of 
H.R. 2983 so that we can move this legislation to the House 
floor expeditiously. Your letter is correct in that we will 
revise section 11 of the bill (1) so as not to infringe on the 
jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
and (2) to include the savings clause you have proposed.
    Again, thank you for your consideration. I will include 
your letter and this response in the Committee's report on H.R. 
2983.
            Sincerely,
                                   W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman.
                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Washington, DC, November 19, 2001.
Chairman W. J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: On October 31, 2001, the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce ordered reported H.R. 2983, the Price-
Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001. As ordered reported by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, this legislation contains 
a number of provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Armed Services and, therefore, would be subject to 
sequential referral to our committee.
    I understand that our staffs have been discussing these 
items and have reached an understanding that would involve your 
agreement to modify two provisions before this legislation is 
brought before the House for floor consideration. Specifically: 
(1) section 10 relating to the assumption of liability for 
certain foreign accidents and (2) section 13 relating to 
industrial safety rules for the Department of Energy. 
Accordingly, and based on this understanding, I do not intend 
to request a sequential referral on this bill.
    By agreeing not to seek sequential referral, the Committee 
on Armed Services does not waive its jurisdiction over these 
provisions or any other provisions of the bill that may fall 
within its jurisdiction. In addition, the Committee on Armed 
Services reserves the right to seek conferee status on any 
provisions within its jurisdiction, which are considered in the 
House-Senate conference, and asks for your support in being 
accorded such conferees.
    Thank you for your cooperation on this matter and I request 
that you include this letter as part of the report on H.R. 
2983.
            Sincerely,
                                               Bob Stump, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                 Washington, DC, November 19, 2000.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Stump: Thank you for your letter regarding 
H.R. 2983, the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001.
    I appreciate your willingness not to exercise your right to 
seek a referral of H.R. 2983. I agree that your decision to 
forego action on the bill will not prejudice the Committee on 
Armed Services with respect to its jurisdictional perogatives 
on this or similar legislation. Further, I recognize your right 
to request conferees on those provisions within the Committee 
on Armed Services' jurisdiction should they be the subject of a 
House-Senate conference.
    I will include your letter and this response in the 
Committee's report on H.R. 2983.
            Sincerely,
                                   W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman.


```