Source: http://www.govpulse.us/entries/2011/09/15/2011-23628/licenses-certifications-and-approvals-for-materials-licensees
Timestamp: 2014-09-01 13:42:43
Document Index: 753071852

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 50', 'arts 30', 'art 51', '§ 51', 'arts 30', 'art 51', 'art 51', 'art 51', '§ 51', 'art 150', '§ 51', '§ 51', '§ 161', '§ 40', 'art 40', 'arts 30']

govpulse | Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Materials Licensees
Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Materials Licensees
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is amending its regulations by revising the provisions applicable to the licensing and approval processes for byproduct, source and special nuclear materials licenses, and irradiators. The changes will clarify the definitions of “construction” and “commencement of construction” with respect to materials licensing actions conducted under the NRC's regulations. The NRC is adopting these changes to further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the licensing and approval processes for future materials license applications, as well as to eliminate certain inconsistencies that currently exist within the NRC's regulations with respect to the use and definition of the terms “construction” or “commencement of construction” for certain materials licensees for purposes of its environmental reviews.
II. Summary and Analysis of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
1. Compliance With NEPA
2. LWA Process for Materials Licenses
3. Scope of NRC Authority
4. Site Preparation Activities
A. NRC Authority Pursuant to the AEA
B. NRC Compliance With NEPA and Other Environmental Statutes
Section 30.4, Definitions
Section 30.33, General Requirements for Issuance of Specific Licenses
Section 36.2, Definitions
Section 36.13, Specific Licenses for Irradiators
Section 36.15, Start of Construction
Section 39.13, Specific Licenses for Well-Logging
Section 40.4, Definitions
Section 40.32, General Requirements for Issuance of Specific Licenses
Section 51.4, Definitions
Section 51.45, Environmental Report
Section 70.4, Definitions
Section 70.23, Requirements for the Approval of Applications
Section 150.31, Requirements for Agreement State Regulation of Byproduct Material
VII. Environmental Impact—Categorical Exclusion
Table 1—Compatibility for Final Rule
This final rule is effective on November 14, 2011.
•NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
•NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC Public Library 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 the 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, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
•Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and supporting materials related to this final rule can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2010-0075. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-492-3668; e-mail:Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Ms. Tracey Stokes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1064; e-mail:Tracey.Stokes@nrc.gov.
On July 27, 2010 (75 FR 43865), the NRC published a proposed rule, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Materials Licenses.” The rule proposed to amend the NRC's regulations to clarify the definitions of “construction” and “commencement of construction” applicable to the licensing and approval processes for byproduct, source and special nuclear materials licenses, and irradiators. Theproposed rule sought to eliminate the differences that exist between the NRC's definition of construction and its use for nuclear power reactor licensing, materials licensing, and for purposes of environmental reviews.
The inconsistencies that exist arose after the NRC modified the definition of “construction” applicable to nuclear power reactors and to the NRC environmental review regulations, but did not make comparable changes to its materials licensing regulations. On October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416; corrected at 73 FR 22786 (April 28, 2008)), the NRC had amended the definition of “construction” for utilization and production facilities and amended the limited work authorization (LWA) procedures for nuclear power plants (LWA Rulemaking). As part of that rulemaking, the Commission revised the scope of activities that are considered construction and for which a construction permit, combined license, or LWA is necessary; specified the scope of construction activities that may be performed under an LWA; changed the review and approval process for LWA requests; and clarified the environmental review process for these activities.
Since the completion of the LWA Rulemaking, activities that do not constitute construction under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations(10 CFR) Parts 50, 51, and 52, are currently classified as construction under 10 CFR parts 30, 36, 40, 70, and 150. As such, the site preparation activity from which a materials license applicant, including a licensee applying for an amendment to an existing license, is currently prohibited from engaging are the same activities that the NRC determined in the LWA Rulemaking were not within the scope of the NRC's licensing authority. Materials license applicants and licensees, as well as the NRC's staff, have struggled with this inconsistency. The rules adopted herein eliminate this inconsistency.
II. Summary and Analysis of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule ↑
A. Summary of Public Comments ↑
The proposed rule was published on July 27, 2010 (75 FR 43865), with a 60-day comment period, which ended on September 27, 2010. The comment period was subsequently reopened and extended to November 29, 2010 (75 FR 60341; September 30, 2010). The NRC received 12 public comments on the proposed rule. The commenters include four members of the public, three industry organizations, two public interest and consumer advocacy groups,
one company which indicated an intent to apply for a materials license, one law school environmental law clinic, and one anonymous commenter.
Two of the comments received generally supported the NRC's decision to issue the proposed rule. Three of the comments, while critical of the proposed rule or its applicability to certain materials licenses at all, provided specific comment with respect to the proposed language. Seven of the comments received were opposed to the proposed rule, stating as their main objection their belief that the proposed rule is contrary to, and would negatively impact the NRC's implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and other Federal environmental or conservancy statutes such as, the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
The proposed rule also solicited comments on the utility of an LWA process specific to materials licenses. Four of the twelve commenters addressed this issue, and of the four, one was opposed, claiming that such a process would violate NEPA, and the remaining three indicated that there was some merit in the endeavor, and provided comments on the potential designs of such a process.
B. NRC Response to Public Comments ↑
The NRC has carefully considered the public comments received. The comments have been organized by topic (e.g., Compliance with NEPA) followed by the NRC response. As will be further discussed, the NRC has decided to adopt a final rule substantially similar to that included in the proposed rule. As is also discussed, the NRC has decided not to adopt a specific LWA process for materials licenses, at this time.
1. Compliance With NEPA ↑
Comment: Several of the commenters state that the proposed changes in the definitions of “construction” and “commencement of construction” would violate NEPA, as it would allow materials license applicants to take action that would have significant environmental impacts with no NRC oversight or environmental review. The commenters state that the proposed rule would allow the framework for an entire materials license facility to be prepared and significant environmental impacts to occur without undergoing any meaningful environmental or safety oversight, review or analysis. The commenters maintain that if the contemplated site preparation activities are permitted, the NRC would miss out on the opportunity to catch possible environmental damage early and to require mitigative measures necessary to lessen this damage. The commenters stress that the proposed rule would result in the impermissible segmentation of the licensing action, which could result in the NRC not considering the full effect of the Federal action upon the environment.
Response: As explained in more detail in Section III, Discussion, the NRC disagrees with the commenters. The rule being adopted by the NRC is not intended to thwart or avoid the environmental review requirements of NEPA. The NRC will continue to implement NEPA on the totality of its licensing action. Site preparation activities, which are private actions, will be considered by the NRC in accordance with its regulations in 10 CFR part 51 as part of the agency's cumulative impacts analysis.
The NRC, through this rulemaking, is not authorizing any individual to engage in specific site preparation activities. Rather, the NRC is identifying those specific activities that are not subject to its regulatory authority. The private site preparation activities that occur, while not subject to NRC authority, in all likelihood are subject to regulatory authority of another Federal, State or local agency, through either a permitting or licensing process. Such Federal, State or local authority with permitting or licensing jurisdiction over private site preparation activities would be the proper entity to consider concerns pertaining to the activities, including the potential triggering of NEPA or State environmental review requirements as appropriate. The NRC would consider any request from another Federal, State or local agency with authority over the private action for the NRC to be a cooperating agency on a case-by-case basis within the scope of the NRC's jurisdictional authority and any applicable Memorandum of Understanding.
Comment: Several of the commenters state that the NRC's proposed rule does not fall within the categorical exclusions described in § 51.22(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3)(1), as it is more than administrative in nature. Instead, the commenters stated that the proposed rule would have the effect ofderegulating a substantial amount of construction activity related to materials licensing, and as such, is itself a major action that requires an NEPA environmental review.
Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC's determination with respect to the definition of “construction” originally occurred in the 2007 LWA Rulemaking. This rule merely conforms the definitions in Parts 30, 36, 40, 70 and 150 to the definitions that have been present in Part 51 for several years through the LWA Rulemaking. The NRC is making no new determinations regarding the definition of construction for purposes of Part 51 through this rule, but rather is assuring Part 51's definition clearly applies consistently across NRC licensing activities. Accordingly, this rule meets the categorical exclusions described in § 51.22(c)(1) which expressly excludes amendments to Part 150; § 51.22(c)(2) which excludes amendments to the NRC regulations that are corrective or of a minor or nonpolicy nature; and § 51.22(3)(i) which excludes amendments to the NRC regulations that relate to procedures for filing and reviewing applications for licenses or other forms of permission.
Comment: Several commenters question whether the NRC has consulted with and obtained comments from other Federal agencies, including the Council on Environmental Quality, State Historic Preservation Officers, or Native American Tribes.
Response: This rule was available for public comment for four months, and any interested government or private agency or entity could have provided comments during that time. The NRC did not separately invite other Federal agencies, State Historic Preservation Officers, or Native American Tribes to comment on this rule. While the NRC did not separately invite these entities to comment on this rule, we note that in the LWA Rulemaking through which the amended “construction” definition was originally implemented with respect to some of the NRC's licensees, the NRC did informally contact several Federal agencies for the purpose of seeking their comments on the supplemental proposed LWA rule. These Federal agencies were the Council on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish, and Wildlife Service.
Comment: One commenter states that the proposed rule change is based on a false premise;i.e., that NEPA is a purely procedural statute.
Response: As discussed in more detail in Section III, Discussion, the Federal judiciary has consistently held that NEPA is a procedural statute, and as such it cannot expand the statutory authority of the NRC to regulate non-radiological hazards.
2. LWA Process for Materials Licenses ↑
Four commenters provided comments in response to the NRC's question regarding whether an LWA process is appropriate. One commenter opposed such a process, claiming that an LWA process for materials licenses would result in segmentation of the major Federal action and would violate NEPA. The remaining three commenters were supportive of an LWA process.
One commenter states that an LWA process would permit only limited construction activities and the environmental impacts associated with activities would be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before the LWAs would be issued. However, that commenter also suggests that the NRC lacks the statutory authority to restrict the construction activities of some materials licensees, although the commenter did not identify which materials licensees were affected. This commenter offered suggested changes to the proposed rule. As an initial matter, the commenter suggests that the NRC revise the proposed rule to eliminate the concept of “commencement of construction.” This particular proposal is based, in part, on the commenter's belief that the NRC lacks the statutory authority necessary to prohibit a materials license applicant from engaging in construction. As is discussed further in Section III, Discussion, the NRC disagrees with this proposition. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), confers on the NRC the authority to establish by rule and regulation such standards as the NRC “deems necessary or desirable” to ensure the public health and safety from radiological hazards, including limitations on an applicant's or licensee's ability to engage in construction. See§ 161.b of the AEA. The NRC also disagrees with the commenter's claim that the term “commencement of construction” is no longer necessary for materials licenses. The term “commencement of construction” operates to place the materials license applicant on notice that a site preparation activity may also be considered as construction requiring prior NRC approval if it has a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or common defense and security. Accordingly, this final rule language will retain the definition for “commencement of construction.” Finally, this commenter also suggested other minor textual changes to the proposed rule that the NRC does not believe necessary for the purposes of this rule.
The remaining two commenters address an LWA-like process that would be applicable primarily to in situ uranium recovery (ISR) licensees. The commenters state as an initial proposition that § 40.32(e) is not applicable to ISR licensees and is only applicable to conventional uranium mill operations which produce byproduct material as tailings. According to the commenters, ISRs do not produce large quantities of uranium mill tailings and do not require any tailings disposal areas because liquid waste can be disposed of using a Class I underground-injection-control (UIC) deep-disposal well or evaporation ponds. The NRC disagrees with this rationale. The ISRs require a Part 40 license in order to operate a facility to process radioactive source material. The ISR process produces radioactive waste, in particular 11e.(2) byproduct material. As is discussed further in Section III of this Statement of Considerations (SOC), the NRC's prohibition against construction is applicable to all materials licenses issued under Parts 30, 40, and 70. There is no exception for ISR licensees.
With respect to the proposed rule, the commenters stated that the proposed rule is too narrowly interpreted to meet the needs of ISR licensees. The commenters propose that the list of items that are not construction be modified to include: Wellfields (injection, production/extraction, and monitor well networks); administrative and other buildings and site roads and infrastructure intended to handle or process AEA material; and the central processing plant. The NRC is not adopting the commenters' proposal. Most of the listed construction activities when complete would be utilized to handle, use, process, or store radioactive material; therefore, such activities would be viewed as having a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or common defense and security, and hence would be considered construction. The only exception would be with respect to administrative and other buildings, and site roads and infrastructure. The commenter indicates that this category of actions would include not only construction of buildings that would eventually be used to handle AEA materials, but also construction of buildings and facilities that are not specific to the NRC license or radioactive materials. This lattercategory of buildings and facilities may fall within the definition of site preparation activity, but ultimately the determining factor will be whether the proposed activity has a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or the common defense and security. Objectively, the NRC can indicate that construction of a building or facility intended to hous