This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

59540 

Vol. 73, No. 197 

Thursday, October 9, 2008 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 51 

RIN 3150–AI27 

[NRC–2008–0269] 

Categorical Exclusions From 

Environmental Review 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend its regulations describing the 

categories of actions which do not 

require an environmental review under 

the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) because they have no significant 

effect on the human environment. The 

proposed revisions would eliminate the 

preparation of environmental 

assessments for NRC actions that are 

minor, administrative, or procedural in 

nature. The proposed rule would not 

change any requirements for licensees 

but would provide for more timely NRC 

action. 

DATES: The comment period expires 

December 23, 2008. Comments received 

after this date will be considered if it is 

practical to do so, but the NRC is able 

to assure consideration only for 

comments received on or before this 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

for public inspection. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2008–0269]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301–415–5905; e-mail 

Carol.Gallager@nrc.gov. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at (301) 415–1966. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm 

during Federal workdays. (Telephone 

(301) 415–1966). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 

415–1101. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document 

using the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area Room O F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. The PDR reproduction 

contractor will copy documents for a 

fee. 

NRC’s Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

or (301) 415–4737, or by e-mail to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cardelia H. Maupin, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415– 

2312, e-mail, Cardelia.Maupin@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. General Overview of Categorical 

Exclusion 

B. NRC Categorical Exclusion Regulations 

C. Amendments to NRC Categorical 

Exclusion Regulations 

D. Basis for Proposed Amendment of 

Categorical Exclusion Regulation 

II. Discussion 

A. What Is a Categorical Exclusion? 

B. What Is NRC’s Definition of Categorical 

Exclusion? 

C. How Should a Categorical Exclusion Be 

Applied? 

D. What Action Is the NRC Taking? 

E. Who Would This Action Affect? 

III. Discussion of Proposed Amendments by 

Section 

IV. Agreement State Compatibility 

V. Plain Language 

VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VII. Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Environmental Impact 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

IX. Public Protection Notification 

X. Regulatory Analysis 

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

XII. Backfit Analysis 

I. Background 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f, requires Federal 

agencies to undertake an assessment of 

the environmental effects of their 

proposed actions prior to making 

decisions. The NRC’s NEPA regulations 

are contained in 10 CFR Part 51, 

‘‘Environmental Protection Regulations 

for Domestic Licensing and Related 

Regulatory Functions.’’ 

A. General Overview of Categorical 

Exclusion 

There are three types of NEPA 

analysis: An environmental impact 

statement (EIS), an environmental 

assessment (EA), or a categorical 

exclusion. An EIS documents an 

agency’s evaluation of the 

environmental impacts of a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. An 

EA is a concise, publicly available 

document that provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis for determining 

whether to prepare an EIS or make a 

finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI). If an EA supports a FONSI, the 

environmental review process is 

complete. If the EA reveals that the 

proposed action may have a significant 

effect on the human environment, the 

Federal agency then normally prepares 

an EIS. A categorical exclusion, in 

contrast, is a category of actions that do 

not have a significant effect on the 

human environment, as defined by a 

Federal agency in its procedures 

implementing NEPA. If the Federal 

agency finds that actions in a given 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59541 

category have repeatedly been shown to 

have no significant effect on the human 

environment, either individually or 

cumulatively, then the agency may 

establish a categorical exclusion for that 

category of action. Once it has 

established a categorical exclusion, the 

agency is not required to prepare an EA 

or EIS for any action that falls within 

the scope of the categorical exclusion, 

unless the agency finds, for any 

particular action, that there are special 

(e.g., unique, unusual or controversial) 

circumstances that may have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Categorical exclusions 

streamline the NEPA process, saving 

time, effort, and resources. 

B. NRC Categorical Exclusion 

Regulations 

On March 12, 1984 (49 FR 9352), the 

NRC published 10 CFR Part 51, 

‘‘Environmental Protection Regulations 

for Domestic Licensing and Related 

Regulatory Functions and Related 

Conforming Amendments.’’ The 

regulation included NRC’s first list of 18 

categorical exclusions in 10 CFR 51.22, 

‘‘Criterion for categorical exclusion: 

identification of licensing and 

regulatory actions eligible for categorical 

exclusion or otherwise not requiring 

environmental review.’’ 

C. Amendments to NRC Categorical 

Exclusion Regulations 

Over the past 24 years, NRC has made 

14 amendments to the categorical 

exclusions in § 51.22. Nine of these 

amendments were minor, corrective, or 

conforming changes, and four were 

more substantive. All resulted from 

rulemaking efforts addressing other 

parts of NRC regulations. As a result of 

the 14 amendments, the list of 

categorical exclusions in § 51.22(c) 

increased from 18 to 23 categorical 

exclusions. The NRC’s categorical 

exclusions include administrative, 

organizational, or procedural 

amendments to certain types of NRC 

regulations, licenses, and certificates; 

minor changes related to application 

filing procedures; certain personnel and 

procurement activities; and activities 

when environmental review by NRC is 

excluded by statute. 

D. Basis for Proposed Amendment of 

Categorical Exclusion Regulation 

The NRC is proposing additional 

amendments to the 10 CFR 51.22 

categorical exclusions to reflect 

regulatory experience gained since the 

development of this regulation in March 

1984. Prior to this rulemaking effort, 

there has been no comprehensive 

review and update of § 51.22 since its 

development over 24 years ago. The 

proposed rulemaking is based, in part, 

on the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) September 2003 NEPA 

Task Force Report (Task Force Report) 

‘‘Modernizing NEPA Implementation,’’ 

http://www.nepa.gov/ntf/report/ 

pdftoc.html. The Task Force Report 

notes that the development and 

updating of categorical exclusions by 

Federal agencies occurs infrequently 

and recommends that Federal agencies 

examine their categorical exclusion 

regulations to identify potential 

revisions that would eliminate 

unnecessary and costly EAs. It also 

provides recommendations for 

categorical exclusion development and 

revision. 

The Task Force Report notes that in 

developing new or broadening existing 

categorical exclusions, a key issue is 

how to evaluate whether a proposed 

categorical exclusion is appropriate and 

how to support the determination that it 

describes a category of actions that do 

not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant impact on the human 

environment. It recommends the use of 

information from past actions to 

establish the basis for the no significant 

impact determination. It further advises 

Federal agencies to evaluate past actions 

that occurred during a particular period 

to determine how often the NEPA 

analyses resulted in FONSIs for the 

category of actions being considered. 

The Task Force Report indicates that an 

adequate basis for developing new or 

broadening existing categorical 

exclusions exists if all the evaluated 

past actions resulted in FONSIs. It also 

provides that criteria for identifying 

new categorical exclusions should 

include: (1) Repetitive actions that do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

significant effects on the human 

environment; (2) actions that generally 

require limited environmental review; 

and (3) actions that are 

noncontroversial. 

The proposed rule is also based upon 

a review of NRC regulatory actions. As 

noted, the Task Force Report 

recommends that agencies evaluate past 

EA/FONSIs for particular categories of 

actions to develop new or broaden 

existing categorical exclusions. To 

comply with this recommendation, an 

NRC search of files for EA/FONSIs 

completed during the 20-year period 

from 1987 to 2007 was conducted. The 

search revealed that more than 1,500 

actions resulted in EA/FONSIs. NRC 

conducted an in-depth review of the 

EA/FONSIs issued during the last 5 

years. That review identified several 

recurring categories of regulatory 

actions that are not addressed in 10 CFR 

51.22, and have no significant effect on 

the human environment, either 

individually or cumulatively. These 

categories of actions were considered in 

the proposed revisions. 

II. Discussion 

A. What Is a Categorical Exclusion? 

The CEQ regulations note that many 

actions taken by Federal agencies would 

have no significant effect on the human 

environment and introduced the term 

‘‘categorical exclusion.’’ The CEQ 

developed the categorical exclusion 

process to reduce the amount of 

unnecessary paperwork and delays 

associated with NEPA compliance. If a 

certain type of regulatory action, such as 

the issuance of regulations, would not 

normally result in any significant effect 

upon the human environment, then it is 

unnecessary to spend time and effort to 

repeatedly document that fact. The CEQ 

definition of a ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ 

also provides for ‘‘extraordinary 

circumstances’’ (essentially, the NRC 

equivalent of special circumstances) in 

which a normally excluded action may 

have a significant environmental effect, 

and thus require preparation of an EA 

or an EIS. 

B. What Is NRC’s Definition of 

Categorical Exclusion? 

A ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ is defined 

in NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR 51.14 as 

a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment and which the 

Commission has found to have no such 

effect in accordance with procedures set 

out in § 51.22, and for which, therefore, 

neither an EA nor an EIS is required. 

The NRC has determined that the 

categorical exclusions listed in 10 CFR 

51.22 do not have a significant effect on 

the human environment. 

C. How Should a Categorical Exclusion 

Be Applied? 

Before using a categorical exclusion 

for a proposed action, it should be 

considered whether there may be any 

special (e.g., unique, unusual or 

controversial) circumstances arising 

from or related to that proposed action 

that may result in the potential for a 

significant effect to the human 

environment. If such special 

circumstances are, or are likely to be 

present, the NRC would then prepare an 

EA and, if necessary, an EIS. If special 

circumstances are not present, then the 

categorical exclusion may be applied 

and the NRC will satisfy its NEPA 

obligation for that proposed action. The 

determination of whether special 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
59542 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

circumstances are present is a matter of 

NRC discretion. The determination that 

special circumstances are not present 

will not require the preparation of any 

specific or additional documentation 

beyond the documentation normally 

prepared, if any, indicating that the 

categorical exclusion is being invoked 

for the proposed action. 

D. What Action Is the NRC Taking? 

The NRC is proposing changes to its 

list of categorical exclusions to clarify 

the scope of existing categories and to 

add new categories of actions that have 

been shown to have no significant effect 

on the human environment. For 

example, the provisions in § 51.22(c)(10) 

cover administrative and procedural 

changes to a license or permit. However, 

because of the ambiguity of the language 

in this provision, the NRC has prepared 

numerous EA/FONSIs for changes to a 

licensee’s name, address, or telephone 

number. The proposed action would 

also expand the categorical exclusion 

that addresses decommissioning 

activities and add categorical exclusions 

that address the awarding of education 

grants, and the granting of exemptions 

from certain regulatory requirements. 

The proposed revisions of the 

categorical exclusion regulations would 

minimize inefficiencies and 

inconsistencies in the implementation 

of NRC’s regulatory program. The 

amendment would eliminate the need to 

prepare unnecessary and costly EAs for 

NRC regulatory actions that have no 

significant effect on the human 

environment. The proposed revisions 

would also support the NRC’s 

organizational excellence objectives of 

ensuring that its actions are effective, 

efficient, realistic, and timely. 

E. Who Would This Action Affect? 

This amendment would not impose 

any new requirements on NRC licenses, 

but would ensure that licensees’ 

amendment requests are completed in a 

more efficient, effective, and timely 

manner, and would result in cost 

savings to the NRC and licensees. The 

proposed amendments would eliminate 

the preparation of EA/FONSIs for 

actions that routinely have been shown 

to have no effect on the human 

environment, e.g., administrative, 

procedural, or organizational licensee 

requests. Current ambiguities in the 

categorical exclusion regulations have 

created delays in licensee decisions 

when organizational name changes 

occur, because these decisions must 

await the completion of an EA/FONSI 

and publication in the Federal Register 

by the NRC. 

III. Discussion of Proposed 

Amendments by Section 

A. Why Revise the Description of 

Categorical Exclusions in 10 CFR 

51.22(a)? 

A change is proposed to § 51.22(a) to 

clarify that the types of actions eligible 

for a categorical exclusion include 

‘‘administrative’’ actions in addition to 

‘‘licensing’’ and ‘‘regulatory’’ actions. 

B. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion 

in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) Which Addresses 

Amendments to 10 CFR Parts That 

Pertain Solely to Organizational, 

Administrative or Procedural Matters? 

Since the adoption of 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(1) on March 12, 1984, the 

Commission adopted additional 

organizational, administrative, or 

procedural regulations to 10 CFR, and 

conforming revisions to this section 

were inadvertently omitted. The 

proposed amendment would update 

§ 51.22(c)(1) to include such references 

to those 10 CFR Parts that were 

inadvertently omitted. The 10 CFR Parts 

referenced in this section relate to 

matters regarding Commission 

organization, administration, or 

procedure. They serve the dual purpose 

of making information readily available 

to the public and of establishing 

administrative procedures for the 

orderly conduct of Commission 

business. It was previously established 

that these types of regulations comprise 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. 

The proposed amendment would 

update 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) to include 

references to the following Commission 

organizational, administrative, or 

procedural requirements in the 

following 10 CFR Parts: 

Part 5—Nondiscrimination on the 

Basis of Sex in Education Programs or 

Activities Receiving Federal Financial 

Assistance. This part is designed to 

eliminate (with certain exceptions) sex 

discrimination in any education 

program or activity receiving Federal 

financial assistance. 

Part 12—Implementation of the Equal 

Access to Justice Act in Agency 

Proceedings. This part establishes 

regulatory requirements for awarding of 

attorney fees to eligible individuals and 

entities in certain administrative 

proceedings before the Commission. 

Part 13—Program Fraud Civil 

Remedies. This part establishes 

administrative procedures for imposing 

civil penalties and assessments against 

persons who make, submit, or present, 

false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims. It 

also specifies the hearing and appeal 

rights of persons subject to allegations of 

liability for such penalties. 

Part 15—Debt Collection Procedures. 

This part establishes administrative 

procedures for the Commission to 

collect the payment of debts owed to the 

United States Government in the form of 

money or property, unless a different 

procedure is specified in a statute, 

regulation, or contract. 

Part 16—Salary Offset Procedures for 

Collecting Debts Owed by Federal 

Employees to the Federal Government. 

This part establishes procedures for the 

collection by administrative offset of a 

Federal employee’s salary without his or 

her consent to satisfy certain debts owed 

to the Federal Government. 

Part 26—Fitness for Duty Programs. 

This part prescribes requirements and 

standards for the establishment and 

maintenance of certain aspects of 

fitness-for-duty programs and 

procedures. 

Part 160—Trespassing on 

Commission Property. This part 

provides for the protection and security 

of NRC facilities, installations, and 

properties from unauthorized entry and 

from unauthorized weapons or 

dangerous materials. 

C. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion 

in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2) Which Addresses 

Minor or Corrective Amendments to 

NRC Regulations? 

The current § 51.22(c)(2) provides a 

categorical exclusion for amendments to 

the regulations that are ‘‘corrective or of 

a minor or nonpolicy nature and do not 

substantially modify existing 

regulations.’’ The proposed rule would 

amend this section to clarify and 

expand the scope of categorical 

exclusions to include amendments to 

the NRC’s regulations that update 

requirements. The proposed amendment 

would clarify that these types of minor 

amendments to NRC regulations are 

excluded from the environmental 

review process. For example, the NRC 

routinely modifies the requirements in 

10 CFR 50.55a, ‘‘Codes and standards,’’ 

to update incorporation by reference of 

the NRC-approved American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler 

and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code) 

and the Code for Operation and 

Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants 

(OM Code). The ASME frequently 

updates its BPV Code and OM Code as 

advances in technologies are made, new 

procedures are developed, and new 

information becomes available. 

Generally, these changes to the ASME 

Codes streamline operations, enhance 

safety, or reduce public exposure to 

radiation. In the intervals between the 

issuance of the updated ASME BPV 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59543 

Code and OM Code Editions and 

Addenda, the various ASME 

Committees meet and publish Code 

Cases on a quarterly basis. These Code 

Cases are alternatives to the ASME BPV 

and OM Code requirements, and often 

reflect improvements in technology, 

new information, or improved 

procedures. 

The NRC’s practice has been to review 

ASME Code Cases and find them 

acceptable, conditionally acceptable, or 

unacceptable for use by NRC facility 

licensees. The acceptable and 

conditionally acceptable Code Cases are 

then listed in NRC regulatory guides 

that are incorporated by reference in the 

NRC’s regulations in § 50.55a, ‘‘Codes 

and standards.’’ Because 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(2), as presently worded, is not 

clear, each time the NRC updates its 

regulations to incorporate the most 

current ASME reference or update any 

other reference, an EA must be 

prepared. During the past 5 years (2003 

through 2007), the Commission 

prepared at least eight EA/FONSIs in 

response to a licensee’s request to use 

an updated NRC-approved ASME code. 

The preparation of EAs for these 

amendments is costly, and creates 

unnecessary delays in the completion of 

regulatory actions. 

D. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion 

in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3) Which Addresses 

Amendments to Administrative, 

Organizational or Procedural 

Requirements Within Other 10 CFR 

Parts? 

This section currently lists several 10 

CFR Parts. The NRC is proposing to 

revise this section to delete the specific 

listing of 10 CFR Parts and to add a 

generic reference to reflect any part of 

CFR Chapter 10. This proposed revision 

eliminates the need for changes due to 

new parts being added or deleted. As a 

result, efficiencies will be gained in the 

rulemaking process. 

The proposed rule would also add a 

new paragraph (iv) to § 51.22(c)(3) to 

expand the categorical exclusion to 

include amendments concerning 

education, training, experience, 

qualification, or other employment 

suitability requirements established in 

the regulations. 

E. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion 

in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) Which Addresses 

Amendments to a Permit or License for 

a Reactor Under Parts 50 or 52? 

The proposed rule expands the scope 

of the current categorical exclusion to 

include the granting of an exemption 

from a requirement pertaining to the 

installation or use of a facility 

component located within the restricted 

area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, or 

an inspection or surveillance 

requirement. Under the current rule, 

such an exemption would not be 

covered by this categorical exclusion, 

and would therefore require the 

preparation of an EA. The Commission 

has now determined, however, that 

there is ample data in the form of EA/ 

FONSIs to justify the categorical 

exclusion of the granting of such 

exemptions, provided that the criteria in 

the current categorical exclusion (i.e., 

the request involves no significant 

hazards consideration, there is no 

significant change in the types of, or 

increase in the amounts of effluents that 

may be released offsite, and there is no 

significant increase in individual or 

cumulative occupational radiation 

exposure) are applied to them. During 

the last five year period, at least 50 EA/ 

FONSIs resulted from licensee requests 

for such exemptions. 

F. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion 

in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) Which Addresses 

Administrative, Procedural, 

Organizational or Editorial Changes to a 

Permit or License? 

The proposed rule revises 

§ 51.22(c)(10) by deleting the specific 

listing of 10 CFR Parts and replacing it 

with a generic reference to reflect any 

part of 10 CFR. This proposed revision 

would eliminate the need for changes 

due to new parts being added or 

deleted. As a result, efficiencies are 

gained in the rulemaking process. 

In addition, § 51.22(c)(10) would be 

revised to add new paragraphs (iii), (iv), 

and (v) to clarify that changes to a 

license or permit that are 

administrative, procedural, 

organizational, or editorial in nature are 

not subject to environmental review. 

The NRC has conducted several EAs, 

each resulting in a FONSI, for minor 

administrative changes to licenses and 

permits because these actions were not 

specifically identified in § 51.22(c). 

These types of amendments to a license 

or permit facilitate the orderly conduct 

of the licensee’s business and ensure 

that information needed by the 

Commission to perform its regulatory 

functions is readily available. These 

amendments would also include the 

changing of references on licenses and 

other licensee documents (e.g., 

licensee’s operational procedures) to 

reflect amendments to NRC regulations, 

updated NRC-approved guidance (e.g., 

NUREG documents), ASME Codes or 

International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP) 

provisions. Under the current rule, the 

NRC has been required to prepare EAs 

for the following administrative actions: 

(1) Amendments to reflect changes in 

ownership; 

(2) Amendments to reflect 

organization name changes; 

(3) Amendments to reflect corporate 

restructuring, including mergers; 

(4) Amendments to licenses to reflect 

changes in references; and 

(5) Amendments correcting 

typographical and editorial errors on 

licenses, permits, and associated 

technical specification documents. 

The Commission has consistently 

determined that these types of 

amendments have no significant impact 

on the human environment. 

G. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion 

in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) Which Addresses 

Decommissioning of Sites? 

The proposed regulatory action would 

expand the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) 

categorical exclusion to cover the 

decommissioning of sites where 

licensed operations have been limited to 

the use of radioactive materials in such 

a manner that a decommissioning plan 

is not required by §§ 30.36(g)(1), 

40.42(g)(1) or 70.38(g)(1), and the NRC 

has determined that the facility meets 

the radiological criteria for unrestricted 

use in § 20.1402, without further 

remediation or analysis. These types of 

decommissioning activities are 

described in NUREG–1757, Vol.1, Rev. 

2, ‘‘Consolidated NMSS 

Decommissioning,’’ as Group 2 

decommissioning activities, which 

defines seven decommissioning groups. 

Group 2 decommissioning activities 

cover those: 

(1) Facilities where the licensee 

possessed and used only sealed sources, 

but the most recent leak tests indicate 

that the sources leaked or leak tests are 

not available; or 

(2) Facilities where the licensee used 

unsealed radioactive material, the 

licensee’s survey demonstrated that 

levels of radiological contamination on 

building surfaces or surface soils meet 

the provisions for unrestricted release in 

10 CFR 20.1402 by applying NRCapproved decommissioning screening 

criteria and the licensee is not required 

to submit a decommissioning plan. 

Group 2 decommissioning requests 

received by the NRC involve licensees 

who are authorized to possess and use 

sealed and/or unsealed radioactive 

materials with half-lives greater than 

120 days. For example, the most 

common unsealed radioactive materials 

used by Group 2 licensees are tritium 

(H–3) and Carbon-14. 

Normally, Group 2 licensees in the 

decommissioning process remediate 

their sites, as necessary, using their 

operating procedures. These licensees 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
59544 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

are required to keep records of material 

receipt, use, and disposal, enabling 

them to quantify past radiological 

material possession and use with a high 

degree of confidence. These licensees 

have radiological survey records that 

characterize the residual radiological 

contamination levels present within the 

facilities and at their sites. They are able 

to demonstrate residual radiological 

contamination levels without more 

sophisticated survey procedures or dose 

modeling. Licensees of Group 2 

facilities are not required to have a 

decommissioning plan, but such a 

licensee must demonstrate that its site 

meets the screening criteria of § 20.1402. 

A decommissioning plan is not required 

because worker cleanup activities and 

procedures are consistent with those 

approved for routine operations and no 

dose analysis is required. 

In many cases, the NRC conducts 

confirmatory surveys during the 

licensee’s decommissioning activities to 

verify the accuracy of the licensee’s 

measuring techniques to satisfy the 

requirements of § 20.1402. The NRC 

uses a risk-informed process that assigns 

higher priority for conducting 

confirmatory surveys at sites that may 

pose a greater potential threat to the 

public health and safety. The results of 

this survey are used by the NRC to 

support a decision on whether to 

approve a licensee’s request to terminate 

a license and release the site for 

unrestricted use. 

At present, § 51.22(c)(20) categorically 

excludes from further NRC 

environmental review those activities 

which are defined in NUREG–1757 as 

Group 1 decommissioning activities, 

namely, the decommissioning of sites 

where licensed operations had been 

limited to the use of small quantities of 

unsealed short-lived radioactive 

materials or radioactive materials in 

sealed sources, provided there is no 

evidence of leakage of radioactive 

material from these sealed sources. The 

current § 51.22(c)(20) decommissioning 

categorical exclusion was added with 

the promulgation of the license 

termination rule, ‘‘Radiological Criteria 

for License Termination,’’ (July 21, 

1997; 62 FR 39058). The license 

termination rule, now codified at 10 

CFR Part 20, Subpart E, established a 

dose-based radiological criterion of 25 

mrem/yr in § 20.1402 for the release of 

a decommissioned site for unrestricted 

use. 

In establishing the decommissioning 

categorical exclusion, the Commission 

relied on the ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement in Support of 

Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for 

License Termination on NRC-Licensed 

Nuclear Facilities’’ (GEIS; NUREG– 

1496, Vol. 1). The GEIS concluded that 

with the use of ‘‘decay in storage’’ for 

the short-lived nuclides (those with a 

half-life of less than or equal to 120 

days) and the time involved in 

submitting the information necessary to 

terminate a license, the activity of 

licensed material would reach 

sufficiently low levels such that 

decontamination of the building or of 

soils would not be needed. 

However, the GEIS did not enable the 

Commission to determine that there 

would be no significant effect on the 

human environment from the use of 

unsealed radioactive materials with 

half-lives of more than 120 days. 

Specifically, the Commission 

determined that the unique conditions 

of each licensee facility and the specific 

uses of unsealed radioactive materials at 

each site prevented the environmental 

impacts from being analyzed on a 

generic basis. Accordingly, the 

Commission has relied on the GEIS to 

satisfy its obligations under NEPA 

regarding decommissioning decisions 

on sites that meet the 25 mrem/y (0.25 

mSv/yr) criterion for unrestricted use, 

but has continued to require an EA for 

the decommissioning of any site on 

which unsealed radioactive materials 

with half-lives of more than 120 days 

are located. As such, based upon the 

1997 Commission decision, EAs are 

performed for Group 2 

decommissioning activities. 

The Commission has now 

determined, however, that there is 

ample data in the form of EA/FONSIs to 

justify the categorical exclusion of 

Group 2 decommissioning activities. 

The data show that, over the last five 

years, every one of the 73 EAs 

performed for a Group 2 

decommissioning action resulted in a 

FONSI. Thus, the Commission proposes 

to add a new paragraph (iii) to 

§ 51.22(c)(20) to categorically exclude 

from the Commission’s environmental 

review the decommissioning of sites 

where radioactive material has been 

used in such a manner that a 

decommissioning plan is not required 

based on §§ 30.36(g)(1), 40.42(g)(1), or 

70.38(g)(1), and the Commission has 

determined under § 20.1402 that the 

facility meets the radiological criteria 

for unrestricted release without further 

remediation or analysis. If additional 

cleanup or analysis is needed to meet 

§ 20.1402, the decommissioning activity 

would be considered a Group 3 or 

higher decommissioning activity in 

accordance with NUREG–1757, and 

would not be covered by this categorical 

exclusion. 

H. Why Add a Categorical Exclusion in 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(24) Which Addresses 

the Awarding of Education Grants? 

The proposed rule would add a new 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(24) to categorically 

exclude the issuance of grants, by the 

NRC, to institutions of higher education 

in the United States, for scholarships, 

fellowships, faculty and curricula 

development in nuclear safety, nuclear 

security, nuclear environmental 

protection, and other fields that the 

Commission determines to be critical to 

the NRC’s regulatory mission. The 

proposed categorical exclusion covers 

those actions that are specifically geared 

toward the development of teaching and 

educational programs in the nuclear 

field. The purpose of the grant program 

is to foster a work force capable of 

supporting the safe design, construction, 

operation, and regulation of nuclear 

facilities, and the safe handling of 

nuclear materials. 

Sections 31.b.(2) and 243 of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

constitute the statutory basis of this 

grants program. Section 243 authorizes 

the creation of a scholarship and 

fellowship program to fund 

scholarships, fellowships, and stipends 

for the study of science, engineering, or 

another field of study that the NRC 

determines is a critical skill area related 

to its regulatory mission, to support 

faculty and curricular development in 

such fields, and to support other 

domestic educational, technical 

assistance, or training programs 

(including those of trade schools) in 

such fields. Section 31.b.(2) authorizes 

the NRC to provide grants, loans, 

cooperative agreements, contracts, and 

equipment to institutions of higher 

education to support courses, studies, 

training, curricula, and disciplines 

pertaining to nuclear safety, security, or 

environmental protection, or any other 

field that the NRC determines to be 

critical to its regulatory mission. 

This new categorical exclusion would 

cover actions that the NRC has 

determined to be administrative in 

nature. As such, these actions (the 

issuance of grant awards and the 

concomitant administration of the 

grants program) will have no significant 

effect on the quality of the human 

environment. The actions covered by 

this proposed categorical exclusion are 

not expected to result in increased 

radiation doses to nuclear industry 

workers or members of the public; 

degradation of water quality or of the 

water supply; any adverse effect to 

federally listed endangered or 

threatened species or their critical 

habitat; increased effluents or changes 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59545 

in effluent pathways; increased noise; 

damage or reduced access to cultural 

resources; changes to local or regional 

socioeconomic conditions; increased 

traffic or other transportation effects; or 

increased competition for available 

resources. Moreover, the NRC will not 

issue awards to fund programs that 

include or involve activities directly 

affecting the environment, such as the 

construction of facilities; a major 

disturbance of the local environment 

brought about by blasting, drilling, 

excavating, or other means; large-scale 

acquisitions of computer equipment; 

field work affecting the local 

environment (except field work which 

only involves noninvasive or nonharmful techniques such as taking water 

or soil samples or collecting nonprotected species of flora and fauna); 

and the testing and release of 

radioactive material. 

I. Why Add a Categorical Exclusion in 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) Which Addresses 

the Granting of Exemptions From 

Regulatory Requirements? 

The proposed rule would add a new 

§ 51.22(c)(25) to categorically exclude 

the NRC action of granting exemptions 

from certain regulatory requirements. 

The NRC has found that the majority of 

the exemptions it grants from various 

regulatory requirements are 

administrative or procedural in nature, 

or are otherwise consistent with the 

existing criteria for approving 

amendments to licenses and permits 

under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (c)(11). As 

a result, numerous EAs, each resulting 

in a FONSI, have been prepared to 

support the granting of such 

exemptions. For example, the majority 

of the EA/FONSIs addressed exemption 

requests concerning the following 

administrative issues: 

(1) Revising the schedule for the 

biennial exercise requirements for 

nuclear reactors in 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix E, Sections IV.F. 2.b and c; 

(2) Applying updated NRC-approved 

ASME Codes; and 

(3) Training and experience 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 35, 

‘‘Medical Use of Byproduct Material.’’ 

The proposed categorical exclusion 

contains prescriptive language that 

would limit its application to only those 

exemptions that will not have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. 

IV. Agreement State Compatibility 

Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on 

Adequacy and Compatibility of 

Agreement State Programs’’ approved by 

the Commission on June 30, 1997, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this 

rule is classified as a Compatibility 

Category ‘‘NRC.’’ The NRC program 

elements in this category are those that 

relate directly to areas of regulation 

reserved to the NRC by the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), 

or the provisions of Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations. Although an 

Agreement State may not adopt program 

elements reserved to NRC, it may wish 

to inform its licensees of certain 

requirements via a mechanism that is 

consistent with the particular State’s 

administrative procedure laws but does 

not confer regulatory authority on the 

State. NEPA applies only to Federal 

agencies. This rulemaking will not have 

any impact on Agreement States’ 

regulations. Therefore, Agreement States 

will not need to make conforming 

changes to their regulations. 

V. Plain Language 

The Presidential Memorandum ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing,’’ 

published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885), 

directed that the Government’s 

documents be written in clear and 

accessible language. The NRC requests 

comments on this proposed rule 

specifically with respect to the clarity 

and effectiveness of the language used. 

Comments should be sent to the address 

listed under the ADDRESSES heading of 

this document. 

VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–113) requires that Federal agencies 

use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies unless the 

use of such a standard is inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The NRC is proposing to 

amend 10 CFR 51.22, the NRC’s list of 

categories of actions that the NRC has 

determined to have no significant effect 

on the human environment. This action 

does not constitute the establishment of 

a standard that establishes generally 

applicable requirements. 

VII. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact: Availability 

Under NEPA and the NRC regulations 

in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC 

has determined that this rule, if 

adopted, would not be a major Federal 

action significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment and, 

therefore, an EIS is not required. The 

NRC has prepared an EA and, on the 

basis of this EA, has made a FONSI. The 

proposed amendments are based upon 

NRC review of environmental 

assessments conducted over the past 5 

years that have consistently resulted in 

FONSIs. The proposed amendments to 

the categorical exclusions are minor, 

administrative, or procedural in nature 

(e.g., no increases in releases/uses of 

radioactive or chemical materials). 

The NRC has sent a copy of the EA 

and this proposed rule to every State 

Liaison Officer and requested their 

comments on the EA. The EA may be 

examined at the NRC Public Document 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room 

O–1F23, Rockville, MD 20852. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Statement 

This proposed rule does not contain 

information collection requirements 

and, therefore, is not subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

IX. Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

X. Regulatory Analysis 

This proposed rule is anticipated to 

be cost-effective. It would eliminate the 

need to prepare EAs for actions that 

have no significant effect on the human 

environment, and would eliminate the 

delays associated with the preparation 

of these documents. A regulatory 

analysis is not required because this 

rulemaking does not impose any new 

requirements on NRC licensees. 

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the 

Commission certifies that this rule 

would not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

XII. Backfit Analysis 

The NRC has determined that the 

backfit rule (§§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 

76.76) does not apply to this proposed 

rule because this amendment would not 

involve any provisions that would 

impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 

Chapter I. Therefore, a backfit analysis 

is not required. 

List of Subjects in Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Environmental impact 

statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
59546 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC 

proposes to adopt the following 

amendments to 10 CFR part 51: 

PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR 

DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED 

REGULATORY FUNCTIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as 

amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 

2953, (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as 

amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 

1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); sec. 1704, 112 

Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A 

also issued under National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 

Stat. 853–854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 

4334, 4335); and Public Law 95–604, Title II, 

92 Stat. 3033–3041; and sec. 193, Public Law 

101–575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243). 

Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80, and 51.97 

also issued under secs. 135, 141, Public Law 

97–425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, 

Public Law 100–203, 101 Stat. 1330–223 (42 

U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 

also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as 

amended by 92 Stat. 3036–3038 (42 U.S.C. 

2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 

10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 

also under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 

sec.114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 10134(f)). 

2. In § 51.22, paragraphs (a), (c)(1), 

(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(9), (c)(10), and (c)(20) 

are revised, and paragraphs (c)(24) and 

(c)(25) are added to read as follows: 

§ 51.22 Criterion for categorical exclusion; 

identification of licensing and regulatory 

actions eligible for categorical exclusion or 

otherwise not requiring environmental 

review. 

(a) Licensing, regulatory, and 

administrative actions eligible for 

categorical exclusion shall meet the 

following criterion: The proposed action 

belongs to a category of actions which 

the Commission, by rule or regulation, 

has declared to be a categorical 

exclusion, after first finding that the 

category of actions does not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. 

* * * * * 

(c) The following categories of actions 

are categorical exclusions: 

(1) Amendments to parts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 25, 

26, 55, 75, 95, 110, 140, 150, 160, 170, 

or 171 of this chapter, and actions on 

petitions for rulemaking relating to parts 

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 

16, 19, 21, 25, 26, 55, 75, 95, 110, 140, 

150, 160, 170, or 171 of this chapter. 

(2) Amendments to the regulations in 

this chapter which are corrective, 

clarifying or of a minor nature or which 

update references, provided that such 

amendments do not substantially 

modify existing regulations, and actions 

on petitions for rulemaking relating to 

these amendments. 

(3) Amendments to any part in this 

chapter, and actions on petitions for 

rulemaking relating to these 

amendments, which relate to— 

(i) Procedures for filing and reviewing 

applications for licenses or construction 

permits or early site permits or other 

forms of permission or for amendments 

to or renewals of licenses or 

construction permits or early site 

permits or other forms of permission; 

(ii) Recordkeeping requirements; 

(iii) Reporting requirements; or 

(iv) Education, training, experience, 

qualification or other employment 

suitability requirements. 

* * * * * 

(9) Issuance of an amendment to a 

permit or license for a reactor under part 

50 or part 52 of this chapter, which 

changes a requirement, or grants an 

exemption from any such requirement, 

with respect to installation or use of a 

facility component located within the 

restricted area, as defined in part 20 of 

this chapter, or which changes an 

inspection or a surveillance 

requirement, provided that: 

(i) The amendment or exemption 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration; 

(ii) There is no significant change in 

the types or significant increase in the 

amounts of any effluents that may be 

released offsite; and 

(iii) There is no significant increase in 

individual or cumulative occupational 

radiation exposure. 

(10) Issuance of an amendment to a 

permit or license issued under this 

chapter which — 

(i) Changes surety, insurance and/or 

indemnity requirements; 

(ii) Changes recordkeeping, reporting, 

or administrative procedures or 

requirements; 

(iii) Changes the licensee’s or permit 

holder’s name, phone number, business 

or e-mail address; 

(iv) Changes the name, position, or 

title of an officer of the licensee or 

permit holder, including but not limited 

to, the radiation safety officer or quality 

assurance manager; or 

(v) Changes the format of the license 

or permit or otherwise makes editorial, 

corrective or other minor revisions, 

including the updating of NRC 

approved references. 

* * * * * 

(20) Decommissioning of sites where 

licensed operations have been limited to 

the use of— 

(i) Small quantities of short-lived 

radioactive materials; 

(ii) Radioactive materials in sealed 

sources, provided there is no evidence 

of leakage of radioactive material from 

these sealed sources; or 

(iii) Radioactive materials in such a 

manner that a decommissioning plan is 

not required by 10 CFR 30.36(g)(1), 

40.42(g)(1), or 70.38(g)(1), and the NRC 

has determined that the facility meets 

the radiological criteria for unrestricted 

release in 10 CFR 20.1402 without 

further remediation or analysis. 

* * * * * 

(24) Grants to institutions of higher 

education in the United States, to fund 

scholarships, fellowships, and stipends 

for the study of science, engineering, or 

another field of study that the NRC 

determines is in a critical skill area 

related to its regulatory mission, to 

support faculty and curricular 

development in such fields, and to 

support other domestic educational, 

technical assistance, or training 

programs (including those of trade 

schools) in such fields, except to the 

extent that such grants or programs 

include activities directly affecting the 

environment, such as: 

(i) The construction of facilities; 

(ii) A major disturbance brought about 

by blasting, drilling, excavating or other 

means; 

(iii) Field work, except that which 

only involves noninvasive or nonharmful techniques such as taking water 

or soil samples or collecting nonprotected species of flora and fauna; or 

(iv) The release of radioactive 

material. 

(25) Granting of an exemption from 

the requirements of any regulation of 

this chapter, provided that— 

(i) There is no significant change in 

the types or significant increase in the 

amounts of any effluents that may be 

released offsite; 

(ii) There is no significant increase in 

individual or cumulative public or 

occupational radiation exposure; 

(iii) There is no significant 

construction impact; 

(iv) There is no significant increase in 

the potential for or consequences from 

radiological accidents; and 

(v) The requirements from which an 

exemption is sought involve: 

(A) Recordkeeping requirements; 

(B) Reporting requirements; 

(C) Inspection or surveillance 

requirements; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59547 

(D) Equipment servicing or 

maintenance requirements; 

(E) Education, training, experience, 

qualification, requalification or other 

employment suitability requirements; 

(F) Requirements for safeguard plans, 

including materials control, accounting, 

or other inventory requirements; 

(G) Scheduling requirements; 

(H) Surety, insurance or indemnity 

requirements; 

(I) Requirements to update references; 

e.g. NRC approved ASME codes, ICRP 

standards, or regulatory guidance; or 

(J) Other requirements of an 

administrative, managerial, 

organizational, or procedural nature. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day 

of October 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–24033 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 51 

RIN: 3150–AI47 

[NRC–2008–0404] 

Consideration of Environmental 

Impacts of Temporary Storage of 

Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor 

Operation 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

revise its generic determination on the 

environmental impacts of storage of 

spent fuel at, or away from, reactor sites 

after the expiration of reactor operating 

licenses. The proposed revision reflects 

findings that the Commission has 

reached in the ‘‘Waste Confidence’’ 

decision update published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register. The 

Commission now proposes to find that, 

if necessary, spent fuel generated in any 

reactor can be stored safely and without 

significant environmental impacts 

beyond the licensed life for operation 

(which may include the term of a 

revised or renewed license) of that 

reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or 

at either onsite or offsite independent 

spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) 

until a disposal facility can reasonably 

be expected to be available. 

DATE: Submit comments on the 

proposed rule by December 8, 2008. 

Comments received after this date will 

be considered if it is practical to do so, 

but NRC is able to assure consideration 

only for comments received on or before 

this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

for public inspection. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2008–0404]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301–415–5905; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at 301–415–1677. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

Federal workdays. (Telephone 301–415– 

1677). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document 

using the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): Publicly available documents 

created or received at the NRC are 

available electronically at the NRC’s 

Electronic Reading Room at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

From this page, the public can gain 

entry into ADAMS, which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. If you do not have access to 

ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR 

reference staff at 1–899–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil 

Jensen, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone 

301–415–8480, e-mail, 

neil.jensen@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In 1990, the Commission concluded a 

generic rulemaking proceeding to 

reassess its degree of confidence that 

radioactive wastes produced by nuclear 

power plants can be safely disposed of, 

to determine when such disposal or 

offsite storage will be available, and to 

determine whether radioactive wastes 

can be safely stored onsite past the 

expiration of existing facility licenses 

until offsite disposal or storage is 

available. This proceeding reviewed 

findings the Commission had made in 

1984 on these issues in a generic 

rulemaking proceeding which became 

known as the ‘‘Waste Confidence 

Proceeding.’’ The 1990 proceeding 

resulted in the following five reaffirmed 

or revised Waste Confidence findings: 

(1) The Commission finds reasonable 

assurance that safe disposal of highlevel radioactive waste (HLW) and spent 

nuclear fuel (SNF) in a mined geologic 

repository is technically feasible; 

(2) The Commission finds reasonable 

assurance that at least one mined 

geologic repository will be available 

within the first quarter of the twentyfirst century, and that sufficient 

repository capacity will be available 

within 30 years beyond the licensed life 

for operation (which may include the 

term of a revised or renewed license) of 

any reactor to dispose of the commercial 

HLW and SNF originating in such 

reactor and generated up to that time; 

(3) The Commission finds reasonable 

assurance that HLW and SNF will be 

managed in a safe manner until 

sufficient repository capacity is 

available to assure the safe disposal of 

all HLW and SNF; 

(4) The Commission finds reasonable 

assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel 

generated in any reactor can be stored 

safely and without significant 

environmental impacts for at least 30 

years beyond the licensed life for 

operation (which may include the term 

of a revised or renewed license) of that 

reactor at its spent fuel storage basin, or 

at either onsite or offsite ISFSIs; 

(5) The Commission finds reasonable 

assurance that safe independent onsite 

spent fuel storage or offsite spent fuel 

storage will be made available if such 

storage capacity is needed. (55 FR 

38474; September 18, 1990). 

These five findings form the basis of 

the Commission’s generic determination 

of no significant environmental impact 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS