40032 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Notices 

1Price-Anderson Act, Public Law 85–256, 71 Stat. 

576 (amending Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Public 

Law 83–703, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2011 

et seq.). (For brevity, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

will be cited throughout simply as ‘‘Atomic Energy 

Act’’ or AEA.) The pertinent sections of the PAA 

amended AEA § 11 and created AEA § 170, which 

are codified respectively at 42 U.S.C. 2014 and 

2210. 

2See U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm’n, The Price 

Anderson Act—Crossing the Bridge to the Next 

Century: A Report to Congress 1–8 (1998), https:// 

www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1217/ML12170A857.pdf 

(describing the NRC PAA financial protection 

scheme); 10 CFR part 140, Financial Protection 

Requirements and Indemnity Agreements (NRC 

regulations implementing the PAA financial 

protection requirements for licensees and the 

indemnification and liability limitations); and 

Inflation Adjustments to the Price-Anderson Act 

Financial Protection Regulations, 83 FR 48202 

(Sept. 24, 2018) (adjusting the total and maximum 

deferred premiums under the PAA for certain 

reactors). 

3Adjustment of Indemnification Amount for 

Inflation, 83 FR 49374 (Oct. 1, 2018) (adjusting the 

statutory public liability limit to the present $13.7 

billion). 

4Price-Anderson Act, supra note 1, at § 4 

(amending Atomic Energy Act § 170j., codified as 

amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(j)). 

5Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005, 

Public Law 109–58, tit. VI, 119 Stat. 779 (amending 

Atomic Energy Act § 170, codified as amended at 

42 U.S.C. 2210). 

6 Id. at tit. VI, § 602(b) (amending Atomic Energy 

Act § 170d.(1)(A), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 

2210(d)(1)(A)). The NRC’s authority for the PAA 

system of financial protection was similarly 

extended. 

7 Id. at tit. VI, § 606 (amending Atomic Energy Act 

§ 170p., codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(p)). 

As amended, section 170p. of the AEA requires the 

Secretary of Energy and the NRC to ‘‘submit to the 

Congress by December 31, 2021, detailed reports 

concerning the need for continuation or 

modification of the provisions of [the PAA], taking 

into account the condition of the nuclear industry, 

availability of private insurance, and the state of 

knowledge concerning nuclear safety at that time, 

among other relevant factors and shall include 

educational disruptions wrought by the 

coronavirus pandemic. 

This is the first of two clearance 

requests. This first package requests 

clearance to inform school districts of 

the study and collect teacher lists for the 

purpose of preparing to conduct a 

nationally representative survey in 

spring 2022. The second package, to be 

submitted at a later date, will request 

clearance for state, district, principal, 

and teacher survey instruments and the 

collection of these data. 

Dated: July 21, 2021. 

Juliana Pearson, 

PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and 

Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division, 

Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of 

Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15879 Filed 7–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Inquiry on Preparation of 

Report to Congress on the PriceAnderson Act 

AGENCY: Office of General Counsel, 

DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry on preparation 

of report to Congress on the PriceAnderson Act. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(the ‘‘Department’’ or ‘‘DOE’’) is 

requesting public comment concerning 

the need for continuation or 

modification of the provisions of the 

Price-Anderson Act (PAA) as 

administered by DOE. The PAA 

establishes a system of financial 

protection that encourages the safe and 

secure operation of nuclear power and 

other nuclear activities and assures 

equitable compensation of victims in 

the event of a nuclear incident. 

Comments from the public will assist 

the Department in the preparation of its 

report on the PAA to be submitted to 

Congress by December 31, 2021, as 

required by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954 (AEA), as amended. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by August 25, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to: paareportnoi@hq.doe.gov. Although 

DOE has routinely accepted public 

comment submissions through a variety 

of mechanisms, including postal mail 

and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing Covid–19 pandemic. DOE is 

currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses undue hardship, 

please contact the Office of the General 

Counsel staff at (202) 586–2177 to 

discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the Covid–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stewart Forbes, Office of the Assistant 

General Counsel for Civilian Nuclear 

Programs, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Room 6A–167, 1000 Independence Ave. 

SW, Washington, DC 20585; Email: 

stewart.forbes@hq.doe.gov; and Phone: 

(202) 586–2177. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The PAA was enacted in 1957 as an 

amendment to the AEA to encourage the 

development of nuclear power and 

nuclear activities by establishing a 

system of financial protection for 

persons who may be liable for and 

persons who may be injured by a 

nuclear incident.1 DOE and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) are 

authorized to administer the PAA 

system of financial protection with 

respect to DOE contractual activities 

and NRC licensees, respectively. While 

both the DOE and NRC systems of 

financial protection are underpinned by 

many of the same PAA principles and 

provisions, they are administered and 

applicable in different ways. In the DOE 

system, the PAA financial protection is 

in the form of a DOE indemnification 

and applies to all DOE contractors 

undertaking activities that involve the 

risk of a nuclear incident. In the NRC 

system, the PAA financial protection 

requirements for NRC licensees is in the 

form of insurance and/or 

indemnification, or neither depending 

on the type of nuclear installation and 

nuclear operator.2 This Notice is 

focused on the PAA as applicable to and 

administered by DOE. 

As explained previously, the DOE 

PAA system of financial protection is in 

the form of an indemnification by DOE 

(‘‘DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification’’) for legal liability for a 

nuclear incident or a precautionary 

evacuation arising from activity under a 

DOE contract. The DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification: (1) Provides omnibus 

coverage of all persons who might be 

legally liable; (2) indemnifies fully all 

legal liability up to the statutory limit 

on such liability (as of 2018 

approximately $13.7 billion, inflationadjusted, for a nuclear incident in the 

United States 3); (3) covers all DOE 

contractual activity that might result in 

a nuclear incident in the United States; 

(4) is not subject to the availability of 

funds; 4 and (5) is mandatory and 

exclusive. 

The PAA has been amended several 

times since enactment. The most recent 

amendment was the Price-Anderson 

Amendments Act of 2005 (‘‘2005 

Amendments’’), passed as part of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Title VI, 

Subtitle A).5 The 2005 Amendments 

extended the authority of DOE to grant 

the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification until December 31, 

2025.6 Along with the extension, 

Congress amended section 170p. of the 

AEA to mandate, as it had done with a 

prior extension, that DOE submit a 

report to Congress by December 31, 

2021 (‘‘2021 Report’’) on whether 

provisions of the PAA should be 

continued, modified, or eliminated.7


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Notices 40033 

recommendations as to the repeal or modification 

of any of the provisions of [the PAA].’’ 42 U.S.C. 

2210(p). The DOE and NRC will each submit their 

own report to Congress. 

8Preparation of Report to Congress on PriceAnderson Act, 62 FR 68272 (December 31, 1997), 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-12- 

31/pdf/97-34036.pdf (the published 1997 NOI, to be 

referenced as ‘‘1997 NOI’’). 

9U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Report to Congress on the 

Price-Anderson Act (1998), https://www.energy.gov/ 

sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/paa-rep.pdf (to 

be referenced as ‘‘1998 Report’’). Prior to its 

amendment in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 

U.S.C. 2210(p) mandated this report’s submission 

by August 1, 1998. Supra note 7. 

10 1997 NOI, supra note 8. 

11Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988, 

Public Law 100–408, 102 Stat. 1066 (amending 

Atomic Energy Act §§ 11, 170, codified as amended 

at 42 U.S.C. 2014, 2210). 

12 Id. at § 3 (amending Atomic Energy Act § 170c., 

codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(d)). 

13 Id. at § 12(2) (amending Atomic Energy Act 

§ 170p., codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(p)). 

14 1998 Report, supra note 9, at 1. 

15 Id. at 2. 

16 Id. at 1. 

17The 2005 Amendments modified certain 

authorities applicable to either or both the NRC and 

DOE. This Notice focuses on those modifications 

applicable to DOE and does not address the 

modifications specific to the NRC. 

18Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005, 

supra note 2, at tit. IV, §§ 604–05, 610 (amending 

Atomic Energy Act § 170, 234A.b, codified at 42 

U.S.C. 2210(d)–(e), 2282a). 

19 Id. at tit. IV, § 606 (amending Atomic Energy 

Act § 170p., codified at 42 U.S.C. 2210(p)). As 

previously noted, the reporting requirements of 

section 170p. also apply to the NRC, which is 

responsible to submit its own report to Congress. 

Supra note 7. 

20Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities, 

10 CFR 820.20. For historical background, see 

Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities, 73 FR 

19761 (Apr. 11, 2008) (original notice of proposed 

rulemaking) and Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear 

Activities, 74 FR 11830 (Mar. 20, 2009) (notice of 

issuance of the Final Rule). 

DOE values input from the public on 

the efficacy and operation of the PAA. 

DOE is issuing this Notice of Inquiry 

(‘‘Notice’’ or NOI) to solicit comments 

from the public and interested 

stakeholders to assist DOE in the 

development of its recommendations as 

to whether provisions of the PAA 

should be continued, modified, or 

eliminated. 

This NOI is similar to a Notice of 

Inquiry published in 1997 (‘‘1997 

NOI’’).8 In 1998, DOE submitted a report 

to Congress pursuant to then-applicable 

section 170p. (‘‘1998 Report’’).9 In 

preparing the 1998 Report, DOE 

published the 1997 NOI in the Federal 

Register requesting public comment to 

assist DOE in preparing the 1998 Report. 

The 1997 NOI included a 

comprehensive history and explanation 

of the PAA to assist members of the 

public in formulating comments.10

This NOI provides an update on 

significant changes in law or 

circumstances since the 1998 Report, 

including: (1) A summary of 

recommendations from the 1998 Report; 

(2) a summary of the 2005 Amendments; 

and (3) an update on the Convention on 

Supplementary Compensation for 

Nuclear Damage (the ‘‘Convention’’ or 

CSC) as it relates to the PAA. To 

facilitate the preparation of public 

comments, the NOI also includes a nonexhaustive list of questions and topics 

to be considered and that may be 

addressed by DOE in the 2021 Report. 

Last, to further assist the public in 

preparing comments, DOE recommends 

review and reference to the 1997 NOI 

and the 1998 Report, both of which 

provide a comprehensive history and 

explanation of the PAA. 

II. Significant Updates 

1. 1998 Report to Congress 

In 1988, Congress passed the PriceAnderson Amendments Act of 1988 

(‘‘1988 Amendments’’), ushering in 

several new and updated provisions in 

the PAA: It increased the amount of the 

indemnification from $500 million to 

$9.43 billion; made the DOE 

indemnification mandatory in all DOE 

contracts involving the risk of a nuclear 

incident; and established a system of 

civil penalties for DOE contractors, 

subcontractors, and suppliers covered 

by the indemnification.11 In the 1988 

Amendments, Congress also extended 

authority for the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification to August 1, 2002 12

and mandated that DOE submit a report 

to Congress in 1998, four years prior to 

the expiration of authorization of the 

PAA, on the need for its continuation, 

modification, or elimination.13

DOE issued the required report, 

recommending renewal of the PAA as 

being in the ‘‘best interests of DOE, its 

contractors, its subcontractors and 

suppliers, and the public.’’ 14 The 1998 

Report included five key 

recommendations: (1) DOE 

indemnification should continue as-is; 

(2) DOE indemnification amounts 

‘‘should not be decreased’’; (3) ‘‘Broad 

and mandatory coverage’’ for contracted 

activities should continue to be 

provided by DOE indemnification; (4) 

DOE should have ‘‘continued authority 

to impose civil penalties for violations 

of nuclear safety requirements by forprofit contractors, subcontractors and 

suppliers’’; and (5) the CSC ‘‘should be 

ratified and conforming amendments to 

the [PAA]’’ be adopted.15 In sum, DOE 

concluded that continuation of the PAA 

indemnification without any substantial 

change was essential to the 

Department’s ability to fulfill its 

statutory missions; provided protection 

to members of the public that may be 

affected by DOE’s nuclear activities; and 

was a cost-effective option without any 

satisfactory alternative.16

2. 2005 Amendments 

After the 1988 Amendments, the 2005 

Amendments were the next substantial 

set of changes to the PAA. Passed as 

part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 

2005 amended DOE authorities 17 to: (1) 

Increase the liability limit and the 

Department’s indemnification amount 

for DOE contractors in the case of 

nuclear incidents within the United 

States to $10 billion, to be adjusted 

every five years for inflation; (2) 

increase the liability limit and the 

Department’s indemnification amount 

for DOE contractors in the case of 

certain nuclear incidents outside the 

United States from $100 million to $500 

million; and (3) modify section 234A of 

the AEA—which imposes civil penalties 

on DOE contractors covered by PAA 

indemnification for violations of DOE 

nuclear safety regulations—in regard to 

nonprofit entities that are DOE 

contractors. Specifically, the 

modifications to section 234A rescinded 

the automatic remission of civil 

penalties for DOE contractors in 

violation of nuclear safety regulations 

that are nonprofit educational 

institutions and repealed the exemption 

from such penalties for seven named 

entities. In its place, the 2005 

Amendments imposed a limitation on 

civil penalties for not-for-profit 

contractors, subcontractors, or suppliers 

to not exceed the total amount of fees 

paid within any 1-year period under the 

contract under which the violation 

occurs.18 In addition, the 2005 

Amendments re-instituted the DOE 

mandate under section 170p. to report 

to Congress on the need for 

continuation, modification or 

elimination of PAA provisions, with a 

due date of December 31, 2021, four 

years prior to the 2025 expiration of the 

extended PAA authority.19

In response to the 2005 Amendments, 

DOE amended its regulations in 10 CFR 

part 820, Procedural Rules for DOE 

Nuclear Activities, to implement the 

new requirements concerning civil 

penalty assessments against certain DOE 

contractors, subcontractors, and 

suppliers.20 Further in compliance with 

the 2005 Amendments, DOE has reset 

and published in the Federal Register 

every 5 years an inflation-adjustment to 

the liability limit and DOE 

indemnification amount, currently set at 

approximately $13.7 billion based on a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
40034 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Notices 

21Supra text accompanying note 3. 

22U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Acquisition Letter on 

Implementation of the Price-Anderson 

Amendments Act of 2005, AL–2005–15 (Oct. 5, 

2005), at 2, 3. AL–2005–15 also included 

contracting policy updates to implement aspects of 

the change in civil penalty assessments for certain 

not-for-profit contractors resulting from the 2005 

Amendments. 

23Convention on Supplementary Compensation 

for Nuclear Damage, Sept. 29, 1997, T.I.A.S. No. 15– 

415 (entered into force Apr. 15, 2015) (to be 

referenced as ‘‘Convention’’). For the full text of the 

Convention and related information, see 

Convention on Supplementary Compensation for 

Nuclear Damage, Int’l Atomic Energy Agency, 

https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-liabilityconventions/convention-supplementarycompensation-nuclear-damage. 

24Convention, supra note 23, at art. 2. ‘‘Territory’’ 

is not limited to a Party’s geographic boundaries 

(e.g., ships operating under a contracting Party’s 

flag are included). Id. at art. 5. 

25Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

Public Law 110–140, 934, 121 Stat. 1492, 1741 

(codified at 42 U.S.C. 17373). 

26The CSC went into effect on April 15, 2015, in 

accordance with Article XX.1 of the Convention 

and acceptance by Japan. Convention, supra note 

23, at art. 10; see Int’l Atomic Energy Agency, 

Convention on Supplementary Compensation for 

Nuclear Damage 1 (2019), https://wwwlegacy.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/ 

Conventions/supcomp_status.pdf (showing dates of 

ratification, acceptance, and approval for 

signatories, to be referenced as ‘‘Convention 

Status’’). Article XX.1 provides for entry into force 

of the Convention when at least 5 States with a 

minimum of 400,000 units of installed nuclear 

capacity have deposited an instrument of 

ratification, acceptance, or approval with the 

Director General of the IAEA. Convention, supra 

note 23, at art. 10. 

27Convention Status, supra note 26. 28The other major nuclear liability treaties are the 

Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the 

Field of Nuclear Energy, July 29, 1960, 1519 

U.N.T.S. 329, and the Vienna Convention on Civil 

Liability for Nuclear Damage, May 21, 1963, 1063 

U.N.T.S. 265. 

29Convention, supra note 23, at Annex art. 2. 

30The PAA provisions of specific relevance to the 

NRC align with: (1) NRC’s financial protection 

requirements for reactors with capacity of 100 

megawatts or greater (Atomic Energy Act § 170b., 

codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(b), 

corresponding to part of Convention provision 

Annex art. 2.1.c, requiring the national law of a 

Contracting Party to provide at least 1000 million 

SDRs of compensation for nuclear damage resulting 

from a nuclear incident at a power reactor); and (2) 

NRC’s indemnification for reactors with capacity of 

100 megawatts or less, and certain other nuclear 

installations (Atomic Energy Act § 170c., codified as 

amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(c)), corresponding to 

part of Convention provision Annex art. 2.1.c, 

requiring the national law of a Contracting Party to 

provide at least 300 million SDRs of compensation 

for nuclear damage resulting from a nuclear 

incident at a non-power reactor and certain other 

nuclear installations. 

31Atomic Energy Act § 170d., codified as 

amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(d) (corresponding to 

Convention provision Annex art. 2.1.c in its 

entirety, requiring the national law of a Contracting 

Party to provide at least 1000 million SDRs of 

compensation for nuclear damage resulting from a 

nuclear incident at a power reactor and to provide 

at least 300 million SDRs of compensation for 

nuclear damage resulting from a nuclear incident at 

a non-power reactor and certain other nuclear 

installations). 

32Atomic Energy Act § 11t., codified as amended 

at 42 U.S.C. 2014(t) (corresponding to Convention 

provision Annex art. 2.1.b, requiring the national 

law of a Contracting Party to indemnify any person 

who has legal liability for nuclear damage resulting 

from a nuclear incident). 

33Atomic Energy Act § 170n., codified as 

amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(n) (corresponding to 

Convention provision Annex art. 2.1.a, requiring 

the national law of a Contracting Party to impose 

strict liability with respect to a nuclear incident 

resulting in substantial offsite damage). 

34Energy Independence and Security Act, supra 

note 25, at § 934(a)(1)(H)(i) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 

17373(a)(1)(H)(i)). 

35 Id. at §§ 934(a)(1)(I)–(J), 934(a)(2)(B) (codified at 

42 U.S.C. 17373(a)(1)(I)–(J), 42 U.S.C. 

17373(a)(2)(B)). The Department initiated a 

rulemaking to develop and implement the 

retrospective risk pooling program applicable to 

U.S. nuclear suppliers, to be codified at 10 CFR part 

951. See Convention on Supplementary 

Compensation for Nuclear Damage Contingent Cost 

Allocation, 79 FR 75076 (Dec. 17, 2014). The 

proposed rulemaking is currently pending. 

36Energy Independence and Security Act, supra 

note 25, at § 934(d) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 17373(d)). 

2018 adjustment.21 The increases in 

indemnification amounts (other than the 

inflation adjustments) required only that 

DOE update its contracting policies to 

reflect the new indemnification limits 

for nuclear incidents occurring after the 

effective date of the 2005 Amendments 

(i.e., August 8, 2005).22

The preparation of the report to 

Congress on the need for continuation, 

modification or elimination of PAA 

provisions (which is the subject of this 

Notice) is one of the remaining actions 

to be taken by DOE in accordance with 

the 2005 Amendments. 

3. Convention on Supplementary 

Compensation for Nuclear Damage 

The CSC is an international treaty 

adopted under the auspices of the 

International Atomic Energy Agency 

(IAEA) that establishes a global nuclear 

liability regime to address legal liability 

and compensation of victims in the 

event of a nuclear incident.23 The CSC 

provides consistent rules for addressing 

legal liability for Parties to the CSC and, 

in the event of a nuclear incident in any 

Party’s territory, requires all Parties to 

contribute to an international 

supplementary fund to provide an 

additional tier of compensation beyond 

that available under that Party’s national 

law.24 At the time of the 1998 Report 

and the 2005 Amendments, the United 

States had signed the Convention but 

not ratified it. In 2006, the Senate 

ratified the CSC, and in the following 

year, Congress passed the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA), which includes section 934, 

Convention on Supplementary 

Compensation for Nuclear Damage 

Contingent Cost Allocation, to 

implement the CSC in the United 

States.25 The CSC went into effect in 

2015,26 and at present has eleven 

member countries, and nineteen 

signatory countries.27

The fundamental purposes of the CSC 

and the PAA are the same: To support 

the safe and secure development of the 

nuclear industry while at the same time 

ensuring a system of prompt, equitable 

and meaningful compensation in the 

event of a nuclear incident. The CSC, 

like other nuclear liability treaties,28

achieves these purposes by requiring a 

country’s domestic (national) nuclear 

liability law to comply with certain 

international nuclear liability law 

principles. For the United States, this 

would have required significant changes 

to the PAA were it not for a provision 

that permits the United States to satisfy 

the Convention if it maintains certain 

provisions of the PAA that were in 

effect on January 1, 1995 and continue 

in effect.29 Those provisions relate 

primarily to the amount and availability 

of financial protection to compensate for 

nuclear damage in the event of a nuclear 

incident. The provisions of relevance to 

DOE’s PAA authority 30 are: (1) DOE 

indemnification for reactors and certain 

other nuclear installations; 31 (2) 

definition of ‘‘person indemnified’’; 32

and (3) waiver of certain defenses with 

respect to ‘‘extraordinary nuclear 

occurrences.’’ 33 As a result, any 

changes to these provisions that 

Congress may contemplate must be 

considered in light of the treaty 

obligations of the United States under 

the CSC. 

Equally important, in ratifying and 

implementing the CSC, Congress 

ensured the legal and operational 

framework of the PAA is not affected by 

the compensation system established by 

the CSC. Section 934(a) of EISA 

specifies that the United States’ 

contributions to the CSC international 

supplementary fund cannot upset 

settled expectations based on the 

liability regime established under the 

PAA.34 For a nuclear incident covered 

by the PAA, funds already available 

under the PAA would be used to fulfill 

the United States’ contributions without 

any increase in the amount of funds that 

NRC licensees must make available 

under the PAA. For a nuclear incident 

outside the United States not covered by 

the PAA, funds made available by a new 

retrospective risk pooling program for 

nuclear suppliers would be used to 

fulfill the United States’ contributions.35

In all cases covered by the PAA, the 

United States would receive more funds 

from the CSC international fund than its 

contribution to that fund and the PAA 

public liability amount would be 

increased by that incremental amount.36


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Notices 40035 

37Atomic Energy Act § 170p., codified as 

amended at 42 U.S.C. 2210(p). 

III. List of Questions 

The following is a non-exhaustive list 

of questions that may be relevant to the 

Congressional mandate of section 170p. 

that DOE report on ‘‘the need for 

continuation or modification of the 

provisions of [the PAA] taking into 

account the condition of the nuclear 

industry, availability of private 

insurance, and the state of knowledge 

concerning nuclear safety at that time, 

among other relevant factors.’’ 37 While 

the list is current, many of the questions 

are reproduced in whole or in part from 

the 1997 NOI; they reflect questions and 

topics that remain pertinent today. In 

addition, while the list of questions may 

overlap with topics relevant to the 

NRC’s administration of the PAA, DOE 

requests that comments be directed to 

DOE and its activities as the NRC is 

responsible for its own report to 

Congress on the PAA. The list is 

included in this Notice to spur 

consideration of the PAA in its 

operation and effect and facilitate public 

comment. This list is not intended to 

limit or restrict the topics or areas of 

public comment, nor is it meant to 

indicate or commit that DOE will 

address all the questions in its report to 

Congress. 

DOE requests the public to submit 

comments that identify the specific 

provision(s) of the PAA to which a 

position is expressed, be specific in 

regard to the DOE activity(s) in 

question, and explain in as much detail 

as possible the rationale for the position. 

1. Should the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification be continued without 

modification? 

2. Should the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification be eliminated or made 

discretionary with respect to all or 

specific DOE activities? If discretionary, 

what procedures and criteria should be 

used to determine which activities or 

categories of activities should receive 

indemnification? 

3. Should the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification continue to provide 

omnibus coverage of all persons legally 

liable for nuclear damage, or should it 

be restricted to DOE contractors or to 

DOE contractors, subcontractors, and 

suppliers? 

4. If the DOE indemnification were 

not available for all or specified DOE 

activities, are there acceptable 

alternatives? Possible alternatives might 

include Public Law 85–804, section 162 

of the AEA, general contract indemnity, 

no indemnity, or private insurance. To 

the extent possible in discussing 

alternatives, compare each alternative to 

the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification, including operation, 

cost, coverage, risk, and protection of 

potential claimants. 

5. To what extent, if any, would the 

elimination of the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification affect the ability of DOE 

to perform its various missions? Explain 

your reasons for believing that 

performance of all or specific activities 

would or would not be affected. 

6. To what extent, if any, would the 

elimination of the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification affect the willingness of 

existing or potential contractors to 

perform activities for DOE? Explain 

your reasons for believing that 

willingness to undertake all or specific 

activities would or would not be 

affected. 

7. To what extent, if any, would the 

elimination of the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification affect the ability of DOE 

contractors to obtain goods and services 

from subcontractors and suppliers? 

Explain your reasons for believing that 

the availability of goods and services for 

all or specific DOE activities would or 

would not be affected. 

8. To what extent, if any, would the 

elimination of the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification affect the ability of 

claimants to receive compensation for 

nuclear damage resulting from a DOE 

activity? Explain your reasons for 

believing the ability of claimants to be 

compensated for nuclear damage 

resulting from all or specific DOE 

activities would or would not be 

affected. 

9. What is the existing and the 

potential availability of private 

insurance to cover liability for nuclear 

damage resulting from DOE activities? 

What would be the cost and the 

coverage of such insurance? To what 

extent, if any, would the availability, 

cost, and coverage be dependent on the 

type of activity involved? To what 

extent, if any, would the availability, 

cost, and coverage be dependent on 

whether the activity was a new activity 

or an existing activity? If the DOE PriceAnderson indemnification were not 

available, how would that affect the 

availability of insurance? Should DOE 

require contractors to obtain private 

insurance if the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification were not available? 

10. Should the amount of the DOE 

Price-Anderson indemnification for all 

or specified DOE activities inside the 

United States (currently approximately 

$13.7 billion, adjusted for inflation), and 

outside the United States ($500 million) 

remain the same or be increased or 

decreased? 

11. Should the limit on aggregate 

public liability be eliminated? If so, how 

should the resulting unlimited liability 

be funded? Does the rationale for the 

limit on aggregate public liability differ 

depending on whether the nuclear 

incident results from a DOE activity or 

from an activity of an NRC licensee? 

12. Should the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification continue to cover DOE 

contractors and other persons when a 

nuclear incident results from their gross 

negligence or willful misconduct? If not, 

what would be the effects, if any, on: (1) 

The operation of the Price-Anderson 

system with respect to the nuclear 

incident, (2) other persons indemnified, 

(3) potential claimants, and (4) the cost 

of the nuclear incident to DOE? To what 

extent is it possible to minimize any 

detrimental effects on persons other 

than the person whose gross negligence 

or willful misconduct resulted in a 

nuclear incident? For example, what 

would be the effect if the United States 

government were given the right to seek 

reimbursement for the amount of the 

indemnification paid from a DOE 

contractor or other person whose gross 

negligence or willful misconduct causes 

a nuclear incident? 

13. Should the definition of nuclear 

incident be expanded to include 

occurrences that result from DOE 

activity outside the United States where 

such activity does not involve nuclear 

material owned by, and used by or 

under contract with, the United States? 

For example, should the DOE PriceAnderson indemnification be available 

for activities of DOE contractors that are 

undertaken outside the United States for 

purposes such as non-proliferation, 

nuclear risk reduction or improvement 

of nuclear safety? If so, should the DOE 

Price-Anderson indemnification for 

these additional activities be mandatory 

or discretionary? 

14. Should the PAA be modified to 

extend its authorization beyond 2025, or 

to make permanent the authorization? If 

so, what would be the effect, if any, on 

the DOE Price-Anderson 

indemnification? What would be the 

effect, if any, on the United States’ 

adherence to the CSC? 

15. Should the PAA be modified as 

necessary to enable the United States to 

become a party to other international 

nuclear liability law treaties in addition 

to the CSC (that is, replace state tort law 

with the international nuclear liability 

principles, including channeling all 

legal liability exclusively to the operator 

on the basis of strict liability)? If so, 

what would be the effect, if any, on the 

system of financial protection, 

indemnification and compensation 

established by the PAA? 

16. Should the PAA be modified to 

harmonize the operation of the PAA and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
40036 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 140 / Monday, July 26, 2021 / Notices 

the CSC? If so, describe the modification 

and explain the rationale. 

17. Should section 934 of EISA be 

modified, especially with respect to the 

mechanisms for funding the United 

States’ contribution to the CSC 

international fund? If so, describe the 

modification and explain the rationale. 

18. Should the procedures in the PAA 

for administrative and judicial 

proceedings be modified? If so, describe 

the modification and explain the 

rationale. 

19. Should there be any modification 

in the types of claims covered by the 

PAA system? 

20. What modifications in the PAA or 

its implementation, if any, could 

facilitate the prompt payment and 

settlement of claims? 

21. Should the PAA be modified to 

address any unique circumstances or 

issues raised by the development and 

deployment of advanced nuclear 

reactors, including small modular 

reactors and microreactors? If so, 

describe the modification and explain 

the rationale. 

22. Should the PAA be modified to 

address any unique circumstances or 

issues raised by research and 

development activities related to 

advanced nuclear reactors, including 

small modular reactors and 

microreactors at DOE sites or by DOE 

contractors? If so, describe the 

modification and explain the rationale. 

23. Should the PAA be modified to 

address any issues raised by current or 

anticipated changes in the nuclear 

industry such as increased use of 

reactors with capacity of less than 100 

megawatts, decreased use of reactors 

with capacity of greater than 100 

megawatts, and deployment of fusion 

reactors? If so, describe the modification 

and explain the rationale. 

24. Should the PAA be modified to 

address any environmental justice or 

equity and inclusion issues that may be 

associated with the implementation of 

the PAA, or the administration of claims 

covered by the PAA? If so, describe the 

modification and explain the rationale. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on July 20, 2021, by 

John T. Lucas, Acting General Counsel, 

Office of the General Counsel, pursuant 

to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on July 21, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15840 Filed 7–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Request for Information (RFI) 

on Supporting Energy Savings 

Performance Contracting in the Public 

Sector 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) invites public comment 

on its Request for Information (RFI) 

number 21EE000682 regarding 

supporting Energy Savings Performance 

Contracting (ESPC) in the public sector. 

DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE), 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental 

Programs Office (WIP), seeks 

information from the public and 

nonprofit organizations that have the 

expertise to support energy savings 

performance contracting (ESPC) in the 

municipalities, universities, schools, 

and hospitals (MUSH) market. The 

desired outcome of this request is to 

enhance how MUSH market 

stakeholders can use ESPC to maximize 

energy and cost savings, local 

economies, and workforce development. 

DATES: Responses to the RFI must be 

received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on 

August 25, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are to 

submit comments electronically to 

ESPC_Support_RFI_DOEWIP@

ee.doe.gov. Include ‘‘Supporting Energy 

Savings Performance Contracting in the 

Public Sector’’ in the subject of the title. 

Only electronic responses will be 

accepted. The complete RFI document 

is located at https://eereexchange.energy.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions may be addressed to Alice 

Dasek at alice.dasek@ee.doe.gov or 202– 

308–0894. Further instruction can be 

found in the RFI document posted on 

EERE Exchange. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback 

from the public and nonprofits that have 

deep expertise in ESPC in the MUSH 

market, with solutions for the technical, 

contractual, and financial barriers to 

achieving verified savings from ESPC. 

EERE is specifically interested in such 

organizations’ capacity, ability, 

experience, and best practices for 

working with state energy offices and 

other state and local government ESPC 

practitioners to design and implement 

ESPC in their respective states; 

documenting MUSH-market ESPC state 

program needs and current projects; 

facilitating MUSH market peer exchange 

opportunities; and providing technical 

assistance to build state ESPC 

frameworks. Respondents may describe 

documented expertise in the field across 

the country, experience leading or 

executing ESPC projects in the MUSH 

market (including all relevant technical, 

financial, and contractual expertise), 

and established network connections 

with ESPC practitioners in the MUSH 

market. This is solely a request for 

information and not a Funding 

Opportunity Announcement (FOA). 

EERE is not accepting applications. 

Confidential Business Information: 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email two wellmarked copies: One copy of the 

document marked ‘‘confidential’’ 

including all the information believed to 

be confidential, and one copy of the 

document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ 

with the information believed to be 

confidential deleted. DOE will make its 

own determination about the 

confidential status of the information 

and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

Signing Authority: This document of 

the Department of Energy was signed on 

June 21, 2021, by Kelly SpeakesBackman, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary 

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 

from the Secretary of Energy. That 

document with the original signature 

and date is maintained by DOE. For 

administrative purposes only, and in 

compliance with requirements of the 

Office of the Federal Register, the 

undersigned DOE Federal Register 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES