[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20248-20257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8921]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
[NRC-2009-0269]
RIN 3150-AI27
Categorical Exclusions From Environmental Review
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations that describe the categories of actions which do not
require an environmental review under the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as the NRC has determined that
such actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. The amended regulations eliminate the
need for the preparation of environmental assessments for NRC actions
that are minor, administrative, or procedural in nature. The amendments
do not change any requirements for licensees, but may provide for more
time for NRC action on more substantial issues and/or speed up the
process for review of the amendments.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 19, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search
[[Page 20249]]
for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2008-0269. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher at 301-492-3668; e-mail
[email protected].
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine
and may have copied for a fee publicly available document 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
[email protected].
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, [email protected].
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 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 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
XIII. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
NEPA requires Federal agencies to undertake an assessment of the
environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a
decision on whether to approve or disapprove of the proposed action.
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 analyses: An environmental impact
statement (EIS), an environmental assessment (EA), and 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
prepares an EIS. A categorical exclusion, in contrast, is a category of
actions that the agency has determined not to have a significant
effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the human environment.
A categorical exclusion is established by rulemaking. 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 July 18, 1974, the NRC published a final rule (39 FR 26279) that
added 10 CFR Part 51, ``Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures
for Environmental Protection,'' to the NRC regulations. This rulemaking
listed four categorical exclusions. On March 12, 1984, the NRC
published a final rule (49 FR 9352) revising and renaming 10 CFR Part
51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions and Related Conforming Amendments.'' This
final rule expanded the number of categorical exclusions from four to
eighteen, and redesignated the section listing the NRC's approved
categorical exclusions as 10 CFR 51.22, ``Criterion for and
identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for
categorical exclusion.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The section heading was revised to its current heading,
``Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing
and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or
otherwise not requiring environmental review,'' by a final rule
published on July 3, 1989 (54 FR 27870).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Amendments to NRC Categorical Exclusion Regulations
NRC has made 14 amendments to the categorical exclusions in Sec.
51.22 since 1984. Ten 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
Sec. 51.22(c) increased from 18 to 23 categorical exclusions. The
NRC's categorical exclusions include administrative, managerial, or
organizational amendments to certain types of NRC regulations,
licenses, and certificates; minor changes related to application filing
procedures; and certain personnel and procurement activities.
D. Basis for Amendment of Categorical Exclusion Regulation
The NRC is amending the 10 CFR 51.22 categorical exclusions to
reflect regulatory experience gained since the development of this
regulation in March 1984. Prior to this amendment effort, there has
been no comprehensive review and update of Sec. 51.22. The amendments
being adopted in this final rule are 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 effect on the human
[[Page 20250]]
environment. The Task Force Report recommends the use of information
from past actions to establish the basis for the no significant effect
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 amendments being adopted in this final rule are 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 period 2003-2007. 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 amendments being adopted in this final rule.
II. Discussion
A. What Is a Categorical Exclusion?
The CEQ Task Force report defines the term ``categorical
exclusion'' as ``a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and,
therefore, preparing an EA or an EIS is not required unless
extraordinary circumstances indicate otherwise.'' \2\ If a certain type
of regulatory action, such as the amendment 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 Task Force Report's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CEQ regulations define the term ``categorical exclusion'' at
40 CFR 1508.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 51.22, and for which, therefore
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact
statement 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 applying a categorical exclusion to a proposed action, it
should be determined whether there are any special circumstances that
would potentially effect 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 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 amending 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 Sec. 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. In addition, these amendments broaden the scope of
the categorical exclusion that addresses decommissioning activities and
adds categorical exclusions that address the awarding of education
grants and the granting of exemptions from certain regulatory
requirements.
The amendments to the categorical exclusion regulations will reduce
inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the implementation of NRC's
regulatory program. The amendments will eliminate the need to prepare
unnecessary EAs for NRC regulatory actions that have no significant
effect on the human environment. The amendments will also support the
NRC's organizational objectives of ensuring that its actions are
effective, efficient, realistic, and timely.
E. Who Would This Action Affect?
This amendment will not impose any new requirements on NRC
licensees. It will ensure that review of licensees' amendment requests
are completed by the NRC in a more efficient, effective, and timely
manner, and will result in cost savings to the NRC and licensees. The
amendments eliminate the need for the preparation of EA/FONSIs for
actions that routinely have been shown to have no effect on the human
environment, e.g., licensee requests concerning administrative,
managerial, or organizational matters. For example, 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. Summary of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule to amend the categorical exclusions in 10 CFR
51.22 was published on October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59540), with a 75-day
comment period, which ended on December 23, 2009. The NRC received four
comment submissions on the proposed rule. The commenters included a
member of the public, one industry organization, and two State
agencies. Copies of the public comments are available for review in the
NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, or
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2008-0269.
Analysis of Public Comments
1. Comment. The commenter, a member of the public, stated that
there should never be exemptions from any environmental review. The
comment
[[Page 20251]]
submission also included other comments that are beyond the scope of
this rulemaking.
Response: Excluding categories of actions from environmental
review, for which the agency has demonstrated that there will be no
significant effect on the human environment, either individually or
cumulatively, is an established, authorized NEPA practice. CEQ
regulations expressly authorize and encourage the use of categorical
exclusions by agencies to reduce ``excessive paperwork.'' \3\ According
to the CEQ Task Force Report, CEQ ``strongly discourages procedures
that require additional paperwork to document that an activity has been
categorically excluded.'' \4\ The categorical exclusion process
provides that if a certain type of regulatory action 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 40 CFR 1500.4(p). See also 40 CFR 1501.4(a)(2) (agency
determines under its procedures whether action would be one that is
normally subject to an EIS or is not subject to an EIS or EA and
thus, a categorical exclusion); and 40 CFR 1508.4 (CEQ definition of
categorical exclusion).
\4\ CEQ, ``The NEPA Task Force Report to the Council on
Environmental Quality: Modernizing NEPA Implementation'' (Task Force
Report) 57-58 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, a categorical exclusion does not indicate the absence of
an environmental review, but rather, that the agency has established a
sufficient administrative record to show that the subject actions do
not, either individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on
the human environment. Agencies establish sufficient administrative
records to support categorical exclusions through the use of
professional staff opinions, past NEPA records which show that the
agency made a FONSI each time it considered the action, and the
establishment of similar categorical exclusions by other agencies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Task Force Report at 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to those categorical exclusions established by this
final rule, the NRC has established a sufficient administrative record,
consisting of professional staff opinions and past NEPA records, which
shows that these actions, either individually or cumulatively, do not
result in a significant effect on the human environment. The statements
of consideration for this final rule summarize the NRC's administrative
record for each categorical exclusion. Also, under 10 CFR 51.22(b), in
the event that special circumstances are present, the NRC retains
discretion to prepare either an EA or EIS for an action that is
otherwise categorically excluded.
2. Comment: The commenter, an industry organization, stated in its
comment submission that it had reviewed the proposed revisions to 10
CFR Part 51 as described in the proposed rule and agreed that the
categories of actions included therein have been shown to have no
significant effect on the human environment, either individually or
collectively, and should be excluded in accordance with NEPA and as
defined in NRC regulations. The commenter supported issuance of a final
rule to implement the proposed revisions set forth in the proposed
rule.
Response: No response necessary.
3. Comment: The commenter, a State Department of Health, stated in
its comment submission that it had reviewed the proposed revisions to
10 CFR Part 51 as described in the proposed rule and concurred with the
recommendation that the NRC periodically examine its categorical
exclusion regulations to identify potential revisions that would
eliminate unnecessary and costly environmental assessments. The
commenter also supported the concept that information from past actions
be used to identify and modify or eliminate requirements that have no
significant impact on humans or the environment. The commenter also
agreed that the proposed revisions of the categorical exclusion
regulations would minimize inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the
implementation of NRC's regulatory program.
Response: No response necessary.
4. Comment: The commenter, a State Department of Environmental
Conservation, raised concerns about the broadening of existing
categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) to include power reactor
licensee exemption requests from requirements concerning the
installation or use of a facility component located within the
restricted area of a Part 50 or 52 facility. The commenter stated that
the fact that an EA and FONSI have been issued in the past is not
sufficient justification to preclude all future requests for an
exemption from Part 50 or 52 from a NEPA review. The commenter noted
that Parts 50 and 52 regulate a broad range of activities at nuclear
facilities and urged the NRC to take a hard look at the breadth of
activities to be covered under the proposed revisions and to more
carefully define the types of exception requests that qualify to be
classified as a ``categorical exclusion.'' The commenter stated that
the proposed revision to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) had two critical defects:
(1) That the public will be deprived of an opportunity to comment on an
exemption from one or more of the enumerated requirements that
potentially impacts public health, safety or welfare, and (2) important
technical reviews will be foregone because a permit or license holder's
request for exemption is erroneously considered insignificant. The
commenter concludes that the amendment to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) is overly
broad and warrants additional, more refined conditioning language to
ensure that the above two critical defects are avoided.
Response: The commenter asserts that the fact that an EA and FONSI
have been issued in the past is not sufficient justification to
preclude all future requests for an exemption from Part 50 or 52 from a
NEPA review under the amendment to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). As described in
the CEQ Task Force Report, a consistent record of EA and FONSIs for a
given category of actions is an acceptable basis to establish a
categorical exclusion. In this regard, the NRC staff determined that
during the 5-year period 2003 through 2007, over 50 EAs were prepared
for licensee requests for exemptions, all of which resulted in a FONSI.
Moreover, an environmental review is not precluded by the
establishment of this categorical exclusion. Before the categorical
exclusion is applied, the NRC staff must find that the exemption
request involves no significant hazards consideration, there is no
significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts
of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation
exposure.\6\ The above findings would be made as part of the NRC's
safety analysis for any licensee exemption request. If the NRC cannot
make these findings, then the categorical exclusion will not apply and
the NRC will prepare an EA, and if necessary, an EIS. Furthermore, the
NRC can, in the event of special circumstances, as provided in 10 CFR
51.22(b), choose to prepare an EA or an EIS. Thus, the NRC concludes
that the broadening of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter urges the NRC to take a ``hard look'' at the breadth
of activities to be covered under the amendment to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)
in order to more carefully define the types of exemption requests that
``truly qualify'' to be classified as categorical exclusions. The
amendment to this categorical exclusion, however, only covers exemption
requests from a specified
[[Page 20252]]
subset of requirements under Part 50 or 52, namely, those exemption
requests from Part 50 or 52 requirements related to the installation of
or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as
defined by 10 CFR Part 20. The land covered by the restricted area is
typically improved or otherwise previously disturbed and restricted to
plant personnel or other screened individuals.
Given the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii) criteria and the nature of
the restricted area, it is extremely unlikely that granting any such
exemption request would create any significant impact on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the plant, or to threatened,
endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Similarly, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any impacts to
socioeconomic, or historical and cultural resources. Thus, the NRC
concludes that the amendment to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) is not overly broad,
has sufficient protection, and is supported by an adequate
administrative record.
The commenter further asserts that the public will be deprived of
an opportunity to comment on an exemption from one or more of the
enumerated requirements that potentially impact public health, safety,
or welfare. In response, the NRC has concluded that broadening the
categorical exclusion to include exemption requests will not have a
significant effect on the human environment and will reduce unnecessary
agency work. The NRC has further concluded that this amendment will not
adversely impact public health and safety. This conclusion is based on
the NRC's administrative record and the findings that must be made
before the exemption can be approved, as required by 10 CFR
51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii).
The commenter also asserts that important technical reviews will be
foregone because a permit or license holder's request for exemption is
erroneously considered insignificant. The application of the
categorical exclusion to any exemption request, however, is separate
and distinct from the safety analysis of the exemption request that
will be conducted by the NRC staff. Absent the EA, the staff will still
review the plant's procedures and technical specifications as well as
evaluate the exemption request against the significance criteria in 10
CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii).
5. Comment: The commenter, a State Department of Environmental
Conservation, raised a concern about one of the new categorical
exclusions, 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), which covers exemption requests from
administrative, managerial, or organizational requirements.
Specifically, the commenter stated that the activities addressed in
subparagraphs (C), (D), and (F) of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(vi)(25) \7\ appear
to be more safety-related than administrative, or that the requirements
were more than administrative. Subparagraph (C) covered exemption
requests from inspection or surveillance requirements; subparagraph (D)
covered exemption requests from equipment servicing or maintenance
requirements; and subparagraph (F) covered exemption requests from
safeguards plans, including materials control, accounting, or other
inventory requirements. The commenter urged the NRC to remove these
exemption requests from the list of activities eligible for listing as
a categorical exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The paragraph in question was designated as 10 CFR
51.22(c)(25)(v) in the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The NRC makes a distinction between conducting a safety
analysis and conducting an environmental analysis. The NRC has
determined that granting exemption requests from the types of
requirements described in subparagraphs (C), (D), and (F) will not have
a significant effect on the human environment. The commenter asserts
that these requirements are more safety-related than administrative.
The NRC will conduct a safety review and must make findings similar to
those required by 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). The proposed rule listed four
findings, namely, that granting the exemption request would not result
in a: (i) Significant change in the types or significant increase in
the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (ii)
significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational
radiation exposure; (iii) significant construction impact; or (iv)
there is no significant increase the potential for or consequences from
radiological accidents.
In response to this comment, the final rule adds a fifth required
finding that there will be no significant hazards consideration, set
forth in this final rule as 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i). In addition, the
term ``procedural'' will be deleted from 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(I)
(formerly subparagraph (c)(25)(v)(J) in the proposed rule) as the term
``procedural'' could be misconstrued in this context to include the
requirement for licensees to implement procedures for substantive
requirements. Thus, with these changes, the NRC concludes that the
requirement to make these findings as part of its safety analysis
provides adequate protection of public health and safety and as such,
the revised categorical exclusion is appropriate.
IV. Discussion of Amendments by Section
A. Why Revise the Description of Categorical Exclusions in 10 CFR
51.22(a)?
This rule amends Sec. 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?
This rule amends Sec. 51.22(c)(1) to include references to 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. The NRC has established that these types of regulatory
actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment.
This amendment updates 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.
[[Page 20253]]
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 the Commission Has Chosen Not To Revise the Categorical
Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2)
The proposed rule proposed broadening the scope of 10 CFR
51.22(c)(2) to include regulatory amendments that updated references,
and to make other modifications to the language. Subsequent to the
publication of the proposed rule, the NRC staff re-evaluated this
proposed amendment and determined the proposed changes were overly
broad, particularly regarding those amendments to the NRC regulations
that incorporated by reference updates to American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) or similar codes. For example, it was
determined that certain code cases for Section II of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel code, ``Materials,'' could result in an alloy being
altered to include a new material. Such new material, if in contact
with the reactor coolant system, could become radioactively activated
and could ultimately be released to the environment. Thus, the NRC
staff concluded that such reference updates should be subject to an
environmental review. The final rule will not amend 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2).
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?
The final rule amends 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3) to delete the specific
listing of 10 CFR Parts and to add a generic reference to reflect any
part of CFR Chapter 10. This 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.
This amendment redesignates the existing subparagraph (iv) as
subparagraph (v) and adds a new subparagraph (iv) to 10 CFR 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 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 final rule amends 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) to broaden the scope of
the categorical exclusion to include the granting of a power reactor
licensee exemption request 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. Under the previous
provision, the granting of such an exemption request would not be
covered by this categorical exclusion and therefore, would have
required the preparation of an EA. The Commission has now determined
that there is ample data in the form of EA and FONSIs to justify the
categorical exclusion of the granting of these exemptions, provided
that for each exemption request, the NRC first finds that the safety
criteria set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) are met (i.e., the exemption
involves no significant hazards consideration, there is no significant
change in the types of, or significant increase in the amounts of any
effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure).
During the period 2003 through 2007, 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 final rule amends 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) to delete the specific
listing of 10 CFR Parts and to add a generic reference to cover any
part of 10 CFR, Chapter 1. This revision eliminates the need for
changes due to new parts being added or deleted. As a result,
efficiencies are gained in the rulemaking process.
In addition, 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) is revised to add new
subparagraphs (iii), (iv), and (v) to clarify that changes to a license
or permit that are administrative, 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 10 CFR 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 and updated NRC-approved guidance (e.g.,
NUREG documents). Under the previous provision, the NRC was required to
prepare EA and FONSIs 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 effect on the human environment.
G. Why Revise the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) Which
Addresses Decommissioning of Sites?
The final rule adds a new subparagraph (iii) to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20)
to broaden the scope of the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) categorical exclusion
to include Group 2 decommissioning activities. Decommissioning
activities
[[Page 20254]]
are described in NRC's guidance, NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Rev. 2,
``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning.'' NUREG-1757 divides
decommissioning activities into seven decommissioning groups, Groups 1-
7. Prior to this amendment, the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) categorical
exclusion covered Group 1 decommissioning activities only. Group 2
decommissioning activities are those activities that involve 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 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 use in 10 CFR 20.1402, without
further remediation or analysis.
Group 2 decommissioning activities cover:
(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 and the licensee's survey demonstrated that levels of
radiological contamination on building surfaces or surface soils meet
the provisions for unrestricted use in 10 CFR 20.1402 by applying NRC-
approved 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 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. In order for the
decommissioning action to meet Group 2 criteria, the licensee must
maintain radiological survey records that characterize the residual
radiological contamination levels present within the facilities and at
their sites. In addition, Group 2 licensees must be able to demonstrate
residual radiological contamination levels without more sophisticated
survey procedures or dose modeling. These licensees are not required to
have a decommissioning plan, but must demonstrate that their site meets
the screening criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402.
In many cases, the NRC conducts confirmatory surveys during the
licensee's decommissioning activities to verify the accuracy of the
measuring techniques used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR
20.1402. The NRC uses a risk-informed process that assigns higher
priority for conducting confirmatory surveys at sites that may pose a
greater 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.
Prior to this amendment, 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) categorically excluded
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 10 CFR 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, codified at 10 CFR Part 20,
Subpart E, established a dose-based radiological criterion of 25 mrem/
yr in 10 CFR 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
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 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 were performed for Group 2
decommissioning activities.
The Commission has now determined that there is ample data in the
form of EA and FONSIs to justify the categorical exclusion of Group 2
decommissioning activities. The data shows that, during the period 2003
through 2007, each of the 73 EAs performed for a Group 2
decommissioning action resulted in a FONSI. Thus, subparagraph (iii) is
added to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) to categorically exclude from further
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 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 use in 10 CFR 20.1402 without further
remediation or analysis. If further remediation or analysis is needed
to meet 10 CFR 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 final rule adds a new categorical exclusion, 10 CFR
51.22(c)(24), which categorically excludes the issuance of grants, by
the NRC, to institutions of higher education in the United States, for
scholarships, fellowships, and stipends in science, engineering, or
another field of study that the NRC determines is in a critical skill
area related to its regulatory mission. These grants may also support
faculty or curriculum development as well as other domestic
educational, technical assistance, or training programs (including
those of trade schools) in such fields. This 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
[[Page 20255]]
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 covers actions that the NRC has
determined to be administrative in nature. The categorical exclusion
contains prescriptive language (10 CFR 51.22(c)(24)(i)-(iv)) that
limits its application to only those grants that will not have a
significant effect on the human environment. In this regard, the
categorical exclusion does not apply to those grants that may be used
to directly support the construction of facilities, field work (except
field work which only involves noninvasive or non-harmful techniques),
or the testing and release of radioactive material. Furthermore, the
categorical exclusion would not apply to those grants that would
directly support any action that would lead to a major disturbance of
the environment brought about by blasting, drilling, excavating, or
other means.
I. Why Add a Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) Which
Addresses the Granting of Exemptions From Regulatory Requirements?
The final rule adds a new categorical exclusion, 10 CFR
51.22(c)(25), which addresses the granting of licensee exemption
requests from certain regulatory requirements. Various NRC regulations
allow for the granting of specific exemptions from NRC regulations.\8\
Before an exemption may be granted, the NRC must satisfy certain
criteria, namely, it must make findings that the exemption is
``authorized by law,'' ``will not endanger life or property or the
common defense and security,'' and is ``otherwise in the public
interest.'' In the case of Part 50 and 52 exemptions, the exemption
request must meet additional criteria.\9\ The NRC thoroughly evaluates
each exemption request under these provisions, and only those exemption
requests that meet these provisional criteria are granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ E.g., 10 CFR 20.2301, 30.11, 40.14, 50.12, 52.7, 70.17,
72.7, and 76.23.
\9\ 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2); 10 CFR 52.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to this final rule, 10 CFR 51.22 did not provide a
categorical exclusion for the granting of exemption requests from
administrative, managerial, or organizational regulatory requirements
that will not have a significant effect on the human environment. The
NRC has found that the majority of the exemptions it grants are
administrative or otherwise minor in nature and do not trigger any of
the significance criteria that are required findings under other
categorical exclusions, such as 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii). The NRC
has prepared numerous EAs, each resulting in a FONSI, to support the
granting of such exemption requests.
This categorical exclusion contains prescriptive criteria that
limit its application to only those exemptions that will not have a
significant effect on the human environment. The categorical exclusion
only applies to those exemption requests that meet all of the criteria
enumerated in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(vi). Thus, the requirements from
which the exemption is sought must be one of those listed in 10 CFR
51.22(c)(25)(vi). In addition, the granting of the exemption request
cannot result in any:
(1) Significant hazards consideration;
(2) Significant change in the types or significant increase in the
amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite;
(3) Significant increase in individual or cumulative public or
occupational radiation exposure;
(4) Significant construction impact; or
(5) Significant increase in the potential for or consequences from
radiological accidents.
The NRC has found that granting exemptions for the types of
requirements listed in subparagraphs 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(A)-(I) are
categories of actions that normally do not result in any significant
effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the human environment.
Thus, in order for the categorical exclusion to be applicable to a
specific exemption request, the NRC staff must first make the safety
findings described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(v) and then determine
that the requirement is of a type listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi).
V. 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 final rule will not have any impact on Agreement States'
regulations. Therefore, Agreement States will not need to make
conforming changes to their regulations.
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 amending 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 would not be a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
and, therefore, an EIS is not required. The NRC prepared an EA and, on
the basis of this EA, has made a FONSI. These amendments are based upon
NRC review of environmental assessments conducted during the period
2003-2007 that have consistently resulted in FONSIs. The amendments to
the categorical exclusions are administrative, procedural, or otherwise
[[Page 20256]]
minor in nature (e.g., no significant increases in the amounts of any
effluents that may be released offsite).
The NRC sent a copy of the EA and the proposed rule to every State
Liaison Officer and requested their comments on the EA. Two State
comment submissions were received. The States' comments and the NRC
responses thereto are described in the Analysis of Public Comments
section of this final rule. 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 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 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 will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
XII. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (Sec. Sec. 50.109,
70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) does not apply to this 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.
XIII. Congressional Review Act
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC
has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified
this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects in Part 51
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
statement, Hazardous waste, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
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. 552 and 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
0
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 Pub. L. 95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041; and sec.
193, Pub. L. 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, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, Pub. L. 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)).
0
2. Amend Sec. 51.22 by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1), (c)(3),
(c)(9), (c)(10), and (c)(20) and adding paragraphs (c)(24) and (c)(25)
to read as follows:
Sec. 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 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) * * *
(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.
* * * * *
(3) Amendments to any part in this chapter 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;
(iv) Education, training, experience, qualification or other
employment suitability requirements or
(v) Actions on petitions for rulemaking relating to these
amendments.
* * * * *
(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
[[Page 20257]]
(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 use 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
non-harmful techniques such as taking water or soil samples or
collecting non-protected 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 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;
(iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative
public or occupational radiation exposure;
(iv) There is no significant construction impact;
(v) There is no significant increase in the potential for or
consequences from radiological accidents; and
(vi) The requirements from which an exemption is sought involve:
(A) Recordkeeping requirements;
(B) Reporting requirements;
(C) Inspection or surveillance requirements;
(D) Equipment servicing or maintenance scheduling requirements;
(E) Education, training, experience, qualification, requalification
or other employment suitability requirements;
(F) Safeguard plans, and materials control and accounting inventory
scheduling requirements;
(G) Scheduling requirements;
(H) Surety, insurance or indemnity requirements; or
(I) Other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or
organizational nature.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of April 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-8921 Filed 4-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P