To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider certain criteria in relicensing nuclear facilities, and to provide for an independent assessment of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station by the National Academy of Sciences prior to any relicensing of that facility.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 17, 2005
Amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 regarding relicensing criteria for nuclear facilities to direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to evaluate a facility for health risks, vulnerability to terrorist attack, evacuation plans, population increases, ability to store nuclear waste, safety and security record, and the impact of a nuclear accident.
Prohibits relicensing of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station until after the NRC has: (1) arranged with the National Academy of Sciences to provide an independent assessment of safety performance and recommendations for relicensing; (2) transmitted those recommendations to Congress; and (3) given appropriate consideration to those recommendations.
Directs the Academy to provide an independent assessment of: (1) conformance of the Station to its design and licensing bases; (2) operational safety performance and risk factors; (3) health risks, vulnerability to terrorist attack, evacuation plans, population increases, ability to store nuclear waste, safety and security record, and the impact of a nuclear accident; (4) the effectiveness of licensee self-assessments, corrective actions, and improvement plans; and (5) the cause of safety problems and overall performance.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.966 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.966 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.966 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.966 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.