42 U.S.C. § 2012

Congressional findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Congress of the United States makes the following findings concerning the development, use, and control of atomic energy:(a) The development, utilization, and control of atomic energy for military and for all other purposes are vital to the common defense and security.(b) Repealed. Pub. L. 88–489, § 1, Aug. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 602.(c) The processing and utilization of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material affect interstate and foreign commerce and must be regulated in the national interest.(d) The processing and utilization of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material must be regulated in the national interest and in order to provide for the common defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public.(e) Source and special nuclear material, production facilities, and utilization facilities are affected with the public interest, and regulation by the United States of the production and utilization of atomic energy and of the facilities used in connection therewith is necessary in the national interest to assure the common defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public.(f) The necessity for protection against possible interstate damage occurring from the operation of facilities for the production or utilization of source or special nuclear material places the operation of those facilities in interstate commerce for the purposes of this chapter.(g) Funds of the United States may be provided for the development and use of atomic energy under conditions which will provide for the common defense and security and promote the general welfare.(h) Repealed. Pub. L. 88–489, § 2, Aug. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 602.(i) In order to protect the public and to encourage the development of the atomic energy industry, in the interest of the general welfare and of the common defense and security, the United States may make funds available for a portion of the damages suffered by the public from nuclear incidents, and may limit the liability of those persons liable for such losses.(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, § 2, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, § 1, 68 Stat. 921; amended Pub. L. 85–256, § 1, Sept. 2, 1957, 71 Stat. 576; Pub. L. 88–489, §§ 1, 2, Aug. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 602; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, § 902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (f), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, § 1, 68 Stat. 919, known as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 2 of act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, 60 Stat. 756, which related to establishment of Atomic Energy Commission, its membership, tenure, compensation, and appointment of certain officers and committees, was classified to section 1802 of this title, prior to the general amendment of act Aug. 1, 1946, by act Aug. 30, 1954.

Amendments

1964—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 88–489, § 1, struck out subsec. (b) which found that use of United States property by others must be regulated in national interest and in order to provide for common defense and security and to protect health and safety of public.

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 88–489, § 2, struck out subsec. (h) which found it essential to common defense and security that title to all special nuclear material be in United States while such special nuclear material is within United States.

1957—Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 85–256 added subsec. (i).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesControl and Regulation Powers of United States and of Atomic Energy Commission Unaffected by Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials

Pub. L. 88–489, § 20, Aug. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 607, provided that: “Nothing in this Act [amending this section and sections 2013, 2073 to 2078, 2135, 2153, 2201, 2233 and 2234 of this title, repealing section 2072 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 2072 of this title] shall be deemed to diminish existing authority of the United States, or of the Atomic Energy Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended [this chapter], to regulate source, byproduct, and special nuclear material and production and utilization facilities, or to control such materials and facilities exported from the United States by imposition of governmental guarantees and security safeguards with respect thereto, in order to assure the common defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public, or to reduce the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Commission to achieve such objectives.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 60 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env't Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env't Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (1978). · cites it 2× “" 42 U. S. C. § 2012 (i). In its original form, the Act limited the aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident [2] to $500 million plus the amount of liability insurance *65 available on the private marketsome $60 million in 1957.”

Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983). · cites it 2× “" 42 U. S. C. § 2012 (i). Duke Power Co. v.”

James R. O'COnner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. & London Nuclear Servs., Inc., & United States of Am., Intervenor-Appellee, 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “The Price-Anderson Act had three main features: 1) It “established a limit on the aggregate liability of those who wished to undertake activities involving the handling or use of radioactive materials”; 2) It chan-nelled public liability resulting from nuclear incidents to the…”

United States v. Constr. Prods. Rsch., Inc. Five Star Prods., Inc. & H. Nash Babcock, 73 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “CPR holds the patents for products developed and sold by Five Star. During the period at issue, it also provided testing services to Five Star, thereby ensuring that the grout complied with NRC safety standards.”

Irene H. Allen v. United States, 816 F.2d 1417 (10th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “; see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2012 (d)-(e), 2013(d), 2051(d) (similar provisions in present statutes).”

Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 273 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Colo. 2003). · cites it 2× “To achieve these objectives, Congress created a comprehensive, compensation-oriented system of liability insurance and indemnification for federal nuclear contractors and licensees that both limited their potential financial exposure in the event of a “nuclear incident” (defined…”

Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. John Warren, 848 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 2012 ; see also Pacific Gas, 461 U.”

Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co. v. Knoedler Mfrs., Inc., 781 F.3d 656 (3rd Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C. § 2012 . It would make little sense to pass a law “in order to protect the public,” while depriving the public of a way to enforce that protection.”

Halbrook v. Mallinckrodt, LLC, 888 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2018). “encourag[ing] the development of the atomic energy industry" (alterations and omissions in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2012 (i) ) ). Many years later, Congress added a public-liability provision, creating a federal cause of action for injuries caused by nuclear exposure.”

Leliefeld v. Johnson, 659 P.2d 111 (Idaho 1983). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2012 (i) (1970). Those indemnified are required to waive defenses otherwise available *393 against nuclear accident victims.”

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC v. Shumlin, 733 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2013). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2012 (c)-(e). Radiological safety therefore represents an arena of field preemption that “Congress, acting within its proper authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance,” thus precluding any regulation by the states.”

Joselyn Santiago v. Raytheon Tech. Corp., 973 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2020). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2012 (i); see also Duke Power Co.”

Show all 60 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.