PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Sep 30, 2006
Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage Contingent Cost Allocation Act - (Sec. 4) Declares that certain funds designated under provisions (commonly known as the Price-Anderson Act) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide indemnification shall be used to cover the contingent cost resulting from any nuclear incident for which such funds would be available to compensate for public liability (Price-Anderson incident).
(Sec. 5) States that certain funds made available to the United States under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (Convention) shall be used to satisfy public liability resulting from a Price-Anderson incident.
(Sec. 6) Requires participation by each nuclear supplier in a retrospective risk pooling program to cover the contingent cost resulting from a nuclear incident outside the United States that is not a Price-Anderson incident.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary of Energy to determine the risk-informed assessment formula for the allocation among nuclear suppliers of the contingent cost resulting from a covered incident outside the United States that is not a Price-Anderson incident, taking specified risk factors into account.
Directs the Secretary to report to certain congressional committees on whether there is a need for continuation or amendment of this Act, taking into account the effects of the implementation of the Convention on the United States nuclear industry and suppliers.
(Sec. 7) Authorizes the Secretary to collect information necessary for developing and implementing the formula for calculating a nuclear supplier's deferred payment.
Requires each nuclear supplier to make available to the Secretary such information as the Secretary determines, by regulation, to be necessary or appropriate to develop and implement the risk-informed assessment formula.
Requires the Secretary to make information available to nuclear suppliers and their insurers so as to support the voluntary establishment and maintenance of private insurance against any risk for which such suppliers may be required to pay deferred payments.
(Sec. 9) Requires the Secretary to notify each nuclear supplier of the amount of the deferred payment it is required to make if funds are requested under the Convention resulting from a covered incident that is not a Price-Anderson incident.
Requires each nuclear supplier to make such a payment within 60 days after receiving notice, but allows a supplier to prorate the payment in equal amounts over five years. Requires a supplier to submit payment certification vouchers to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to take appropriate action to recover any payment a supplier fails to make, plus interest and a penalty of up to double the amount due.
(Sec. 10) Prescribes requirements for judicial review in a civil cause of action arising under the Convention.
(Sec. 11) Declares that this Act does not provide an operator of a covered installation with any right of recourse under the Convention.
(Sec. 12) Declares that nothing in the Convention or this Act requires disclosure of sensitive U.S. information.
(Sec. 13) Authorizes either the Secretary or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to prescribe regulations to implement this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR 9/29/2006 S1080-10802)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR 9/29/2006 S1080-10802)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR 9/29/2006 S10798-10802)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 636.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe with amendments. With written report No. 109-346.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe with amendments. With written report No. 109-346.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze S.3879 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.
Examine S.3879 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.
Examine S.3879 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.
Examine S.3879 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.