Categorical Exclusions From Environmental Review, 54727-54737 [2024-14367]
Download as PDF
54727
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 89, No. 127
Tuesday, July 2, 2024
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.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
[NRC–2018–0300]
RIN 3150–AK54
Categorical Exclusions From
Environmental Review
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its regulations on categorical
exclusions for licensing, regulatory, and
administrative actions that individually
or cumulatively do not have a
significant effect on the human
environment. The proposed revisions
would eliminate the preparation of
environmental assessments for such
NRC actions. The proposed rule would
not change any requirements for
applicants or licensees. The NRC plans
to hold a public meeting to promote full
understanding of the proposed rule and
facilitate public comment.
DATES: Submit comments by September
16, 2024. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods;
however, the NRC encourages electronic
comment submission through the
Federal rulemaking website:
• Federal rulemaking website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID: NRC–2018–0300. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Dawn
Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407;
email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For
technical questions contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Email comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive an automatic email reply
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
confirming receipt, then contact us at
301–415–1677.
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
• 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 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
eastern time, Federal workdays;
telephone: 301–415–1677.
You can read a plain language
description of this proposed rule at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/
NRC-2018-0300. For additional
direction on obtaining information and
submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining
Information and Submitting Comments’’
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Martinez, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards,
telephone: 630–829–9734, email:
Nancy.Martinez@nrc.gov and Gregory
Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301–
415–6244, email: Gregory.Trussell@
nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting
Comments
A. Obtaining Information
B. Submitting Comments
II. Background
A. General Overview of Categorical
Exclusions
B. NRC Categorical Exclusion Regulations
C. Basis for Proposed Amendment of
Categorical Exclusion Regulation
D. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
III. Discussion
A. What action is the NRC taking?
B. How are categorical exclusions applied?
C. Who would this action affect?
D. Why is the NRC taking this action now?
E. How did the NRC determine which
categorical exclusions to modify or add?
F. What are the proposed revisions to
address inefficiencies and
inconsistencies?
G. What is the basis for proposed new
categorical exclusions?
H. What is the basis for proposed revisions
to existing categorical exclusions?
I. Why is the NRC proposing to remove
existing categorical exclusions?
IV. Specific Requests for Comments
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VII. Regulatory Analysis
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
X. Plain Writing
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
XII. Compatibility of Agreement State
Regulations
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XIV. Availability of Guidance
XV. Public Meeting
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018–
0300 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly
available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2018–0300.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For
problems with ADAMS, please contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by email to
PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS
accession number for each document
referenced (if it is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that it is
mentioned in this document.
• NRC’s PDR: The PDR, where you
may examine and order copies of
publicly available documents, is open
by appointment. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please
send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov
or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–
4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
B. Submitting Comments
The NRC encourages electronic
comment submission through the
Federal rulemaking website (https://
www.regulations.gov). Please include
Docket ID NRC–2018–0300 in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
54728
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Background
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal
agencies to undertake an assessment of
the environmental effects of their
proposed actions prior to deciding
whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed actions. The NRC’s NEPA
implementing regulations are contained
in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
‘‘Environmental Protection Regulations
for Domestic Licensing and Related
Regulatory Functions.’’
A. General Overview of Categorical
Exclusions
There are three types of NEPA
analyses: environmental assessments
(EAs), environmental impact statements
(EISs), and categorical exclusions. If a
Federal agency believes that the
environmental impacts of a proposed
action are not likely to be significant,
the agency may prepare an EA. An EA
is a concise document that provides
sufficient evidence and analysis for
determining whether to make a finding
of no significant impact (FONSI) or to
prepare an EIS. If a Federal agency
believes that the environmental impacts
of a proposed action may be significant
(for example, because an EA did not
result in a FONSI), the agency will
prepare an EIS. An EIS is a detailed
written statement of the environmental
impacts of a proposed action and
alternatives to the proposed action.
A categorical exclusion, by contrast,
falls into the category of actions that do
not have a significant effect on the
human environment, as defined by a
Federal agency in its NEPA
implementing regulations. If the Federal
agency finds that actions in a given
category have no significant effect on
the human environment, either
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
individually or cumulatively, then the
agency may establish a categorical
exclusion for that category of actions.
The NRC has the option to prepare and
issue an EA or EIS for any proposed
action, even if the proposed action
meets the criteria for a categorical
exclusion. 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 circumstances that
would preclude use of the categorical
exclusion. Categorical exclusions
increase efficiency in the environmental
review 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,
including § 51.22, ‘‘Criterion for
categorical exclusion: identification of
licensing and regulatory actions eligible
for categorical exclusion or otherwise
not requiring environmental review.’’
The regulation included the NRC’s first
list of 18 categorical exclusions in
§ 51.22(c). Since 1984, the NRC has
made 18 amendments to the categorical
exclusions in § 51.22(c). The NRC’s
categorical exclusions include
administrative, organizational, and
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 for which environmental
review by the NRC is excluded by
statute.
On September 24, 2003 (68 FR 55954),
the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) National Environmental Policy
Act Task Force published a report,
‘‘Modernizing NEPA Implementation’’
(Task Force Report) that recommended
Federal agencies periodically review
and update their categorical exclusion
regulations. The Task Force Report
stated that an agency can use, among
other things, information from past
actions to establish the basis for the
determination of no significant effects. It
also provided that ‘‘[w]hile the criteria
for identifying new categorical
exclusions might vary from agency to
agency, some candidates for categorical
exclusions include repetitive actions
that do not individually or cumulatively
have significant effects on the human
environment, those that generally
require limited environmental review,
and those that are noncontroversial.’’
In a December 6, 2010, Federal
Register notification (75 FR 75628), the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CEQ issued final guidance,
‘‘Establishing, Applying, and Revising
Categorical Exclusions under [NEPA]’’
(hereafter ‘‘CEQ guidance
memorandum’’), which recommends
agencies periodically review categorical
exclusions to assure their continued
appropriate use and usefulness. The
review should help determine if the
existing categorical exclusions are still
relevant or if there are additional
eligible actions. Further, the CEQ
recommended that agencies develop a
process and timeline to periodically
review their categorical exclusions to
ensure that their categorical exclusions
remain current and appropriate, and
that those reviews should be conducted
at least every seven years. The NRC last
amended its categorical exclusion
regulations in 2010 (75 FR 20248; April
19, 2010).
Consistent with the CEQ
recommendations, the NRC reviewed its
environmental programs and
organization to identify potential
opportunities to continue to protect
people and the environment in different
ways that would enhance the process,
save time, and reduce resources. That
review resulted in SECY–20–0065,
‘‘Rulemaking Plan-Categorical
Exclusions from Environmental
Review,’’ which recommended to the
Commission that the staff conduct this
rulemaking activity (ADAMS Accession
No. ML20021A160).
C. Basis for Proposed Amendment of
Categorical Exclusion Regulation
In staff requirements memorandum
(SRM) SRM–SECY–20–0065,
‘‘Rulemaking Plan—Categorical
Exclusions from Environmental
Review,’’ dated November 30, 2020
(ADAMS Accession No. ML20336A009),
the Commission approved the staff’s
recommendation to initiate a
rulemaking to add new categorical
exclusions and amend existing
categorical exclusions.
This proposed rule is based upon a
review of NRC regulatory actions,
consistent with the CEQ guidance
memorandum, which recommends that
agencies evaluate past EA/FONSIs for
particular categories of actions to
develop new or expand existing
categorical exclusions. Consistent with
this recommendation, the NRC
conducted an in-depth review of the
NRC activities, including EA/FONSIs,
completed since the 2010 rulemaking
was conducted. The review identified
several recurring categories of regulatory
actions that are not addressed in § 51.22
and have no significant effect on the
human environment, either individually
or cumulatively. These categories of
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules
actions were considered in developing
this proposed rule.
The NRC held a public meeting on
June 16, 2021, to help facilitate
comments on the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that was
published on May 7, 2021 (86 FR
24514). The ANPR identified potential
rulemaking changes that would allow
the NRC to continue to protect people
and the environment in different ways
that would enhance the process, save
time, and reduce resources. The ANPR
raised the possibility of reorganizing the
existing categorical exclusions and
adding new categorical exclusions.
During the meeting, the NRC presented
background information, the NRC’s
regulations on categorical exclusions,
and the potential rulemaking changes
under consideration. Participants asked
clarifying questions on the NRC’s
approach and were provided details on
how to submit their comments.
The NRC received more than 2,300
comment submittals on the ANPR; most
were identical comments on topics that
the NRC determined were out of scope
for this rulemaking. Approximately 20
unique comment submittals were within
scope. The NRC evaluated and
considered the comments during the
development of this proposed rule.
Some of the comments supported
reorganizing the list of categorical
exclusions to eliminate redundancy and
add clarity. Additionally, some
comments supported revisions to
eliminate distinctions in categorical
exclusions between license
amendments, exemptions, rulemaking,
and other forms of NRC actions to
ensure that categorical exclusions are
based on the activities that would be
authorized rather than the
administrative and legal differences
between the different forms of NRC
approvals.
The NRC received comments that did
not support some of the categories
considered in the ANPR. Based on an
in-depth review of these comments, the
NRC modified some of the changes
under consideration; for example, the
NRC is not pursuing categorical
exclusions for four categories of actions
considered in the ANPR: (1) the
issuance of exemptions to low-level
waste disposal sites for the storage and
disposal of special nuclear material
regulated by Agreement States; (2)
approvals for alternative waste disposal
procedures for reactor and materials
licenses in accordance with 10 CFR
20.2002, ‘‘Method for obtaining
approval of proposed disposal
procedures’’; (3) the NRC’s concurrence,
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (AEA), section 274c., on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
termination by an Agreement State of
licenses for AEA section 11e.(2)
byproduct material where all
decommissioning activities have been
completed; and (4) approvals of longterm surveillance plans for
decommissioned uranium mills.
In addition, based on a comment
received on the ANPR, the NRC
evaluated categorical exclusions
adopted by other Federal agencies for
potential adoption by the NRC. This
evaluation did not identify any
categorical exclusions for incorporation
in this proposed rule.
D. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
The NRC acknowledges recent
amendments to the NEPA statute
enacted in section 321 of the Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118–
5, 137 Stat. 10).
The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
added a new NEPA section 109, which
includes a provision allowing agencies
to adopt a categorical exclusion
prepared by another agency, and NEPA
now defines ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ in
section 111(1). The NRC has not
identified categorical exclusions
prepared by other agencies that it would
adopt under NEPA section 109, nor has
the NRC identified any need to change
its existing categorical exclusions or
those proposed in this rule to address
the new definition in NEPA section
111(1).
III. Discussion
A. What action is the NRC taking?
The NRC is proposing changes to its
list of categorical exclusions to clarify
the scope of existing categories, to
improve consistency in their
application, and to add new categories
of actions that have no significant effect
on the human environment. For
example, the NRC is proposing to
eliminate distinctions in categorical
exclusions between license
amendments, exemptions, rulemaking,
and other forms of NRC actions to
ensure that categorical exclusions are
based on the activities that would be
authorized (e.g., certain maintenance
activities) rather than on the different
forms of the NRC approvals. The
proposed amendments would ensure
resources are directed to activities that
have the potential to significantly affect
the environment.
B. How are categorical exclusions
applied?
If a Federal agency finds that actions
in a given category have no significant
effect on the human environment, either
individually or cumulatively, then the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54729
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
extraordinary circumstances (called
special circumstances in the NRC’s
regulations) that may have a significant
effect on the human environment. If
such special circumstances are or are
likely to be present, the agency would
prepare an EA (which may result in a
FONSI) or, if necessary, an EIS. If
special circumstances are not present,
the categorical exclusion may be
applied and the agency will have
satisfied its NEPA obligation for that
proposed action.
Under NRC regulations, the
determination of whether special
circumstances are present is a matter of
agency discretion. The determination
that special circumstances are not
present does not require the preparation
of any specific or additional
documentation beyond the
documentation normally prepared
indicating that the categorical exclusion
is being invoked for the proposed
action.
C. Who would this action affect?
The amendments would not impose
any new requirements on NRC
applicants or licensees but would
ensure that NRC actions (including
decisions on licensing requests) are
completed in a more consistent,
efficient and effective manner and
would result in cost savings to the NRC
and applicants and licensees. The
proposed amendments would eliminate
the NRC’s preparation of EA/FONSIs for
actions that the NRC knows from staff
expertise or that routinely have no
significant effect on the human
environment (e.g., administrative,
procedural, or organizational licensee
requests). For example, ambiguities in
the current categorical exclusion
regulations have resulted in resources
being directed to EAs for approvals of
organizational name changes, which do
not significantly affect the environment.
The NRC is not required to provide
opportunity for comment on draft EA/
FONSIs. However, the NRC under
certain circumstances does provide
opportunity for comment on draft EA/
FONSIs. Therefore, the NRC cannot rule
out the possibility that adding new
categorical exclusions (as proposed in
this proposed rule) could result in fewer
opportunities for public participation in
the NRC’s environmental review
process, albeit only for activities where
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
54730
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the NRC has determined there will not
be a significant effect on the human
environment.
D. Why is the NRC taking this action
now?
This proposed rule is based upon a
review of NRC regulatory actions. As
noted, the CEQ guidance memorandum
recommends that Federal agencies
regularly review their categorical
exclusion regulations to identify
potential revisions that would ensure
resources are directed to activities that
have the potential to significantly affect
the environment.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
E. How did the NRC determine which
categorical exclusions to modify or add?
In accordance with CEQ’s 2010
guidance memorandum, the NRC
reviewed and analyzed past actions,
including their supporting NEPA
documentation, to develop initial
candidates for potential changes to
categorical exclusion regulations. The
NRC then solicited input from internal
stakeholders and, through an ANPR,
from the public on the initial candidates
and to identify any additional potential
candidates. The NRC then considered
available information and experience to
determine whether the candidates for
categorical exclusion and revisions to
the existing categorical exclusions could
be substantiated.
The CEQ guidance memorandum
provides four methods for substantiating
a new or revised categorical exclusion.
The NRC used two of those methods in
substantiating its proposed changes. The
methods used in the NRC’s proposal are
based on (1) data from implementing
comparable past actions and the expert
judgment of the NRC staff who
conducted the past actions, and (2)
professional opinions and information
from other NRC staff. Based on its
review of all the information collected,
the NRC determined that actions
covered by the proposed changes would
not individually or cumulatively have
significant effects on the human
environment.
The NRC has prepared a supporting
rationale in Section III of this document
for each of its proposed changes that
provides specific background and
context.
F. What are the proposed revisions to
address inefficiencies and
inconsistencies?
The NRC is proposing to reorganize
the list of categorical exclusions to
eliminate redundancy, add clarity, and
improve consistency. The current
regulation contains 25 separate
paragraphs, several of which contain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
multiple categorical exclusions. The
NRC has identified several actions
where staff have cited different,
potentially overlapping, categorical
exclusions for similar or even identical
actions (e.g., § 51.22(c)(9) versus (c)(25)).
The reorganization would eliminate
distinctions in categorical exclusions
between license amendments,
exemptions, rulemaking, and other
forms of NRC actions to ensure that
categorical exclusions are based on the
activities that would be authorized
rather than the administrative and legal
differences between the different forms
of NRC approvals. The reorganization
would remove the overlapping actions
and consolidate similar actions into one
categorical exclusion.
The proposed organization would list
the categorical exclusions in four
separate categorical exclusion
paragraphs, paragraphs (a) through (d)
based on threshold criteria used to more
clearly and consistently identify the
categories of actions being excluded. For
example, each paragraph would be
organized into similar actions to add
clarity.
The NRC is proposing to remove the
‘‘no significant hazards consideration’’
criterion in § 51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v).
The ‘‘no significant hazards
consideration’’ is a procedural standard
from § 50.92, ‘‘Issuance of amendment’’
that governs whether an opportunity for
a hearing must be provided before a
license amendment action is taken by
the NRC for a production and utilization
facility under part 50 (51 FR 7746;
March 6, 1986). It is not related to NEPA
and not applicable to exemptions that
do not include license amendments or
actions related to materials licenses
(e.g., 10 CFR part 30, ‘‘Rules of General
Applicability to Domestic Licensing of
Byproduct Material,’’ or 10 CFR part 40,
‘‘Domestic Licensing of Source
Material,’’ licenses). The remaining
criteria in § 51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v)
are sufficient for determining whether
the categorical exclusion applies to an
action. Therefore, as part of the
reorganization, the NRC is proposing to
eliminate the criterion for no significant
hazards considerations criteria currently
in § 51.22(c)(9) and (25).
In addition, the ‘‘no significant
construction impact’’ criterion in
§ 51.22(c)(6), (11), (12)(i), and (25)(iv)
would be revised to ‘‘provided that any
ground disturbance is limited to
previously disturbed areas.’’ The
purpose of this change is to provide
clarification. The regulatory history
indicates that the ‘‘no significant
construction’’ impact criterion was
intended to preclude actions that would
result in ground disturbing activities in
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
undisturbed areas, which would have
the potential to alter, modify, or destroy
important attributes of environmental
resource areas (e.g., land use, terrestrial
ecology, historic and cultural resources).
Based on experience with the use of
these categorical exclusions, the NRC’s
view is that it would be clearer to
explicitly state the relevant
consideration in the regulations.
G. What is the basis for proposed new
categorical exclusions?
The NRC is proposing to add the
following categorical exclusions.
Termination of licenses that were
issued but for which no construction
activities have begun or where all
decommissioning activities have been
completed and approved and license
termination is a final administrative
step.
First, the termination of licenses that
were issued but for which no
construction has begun would remove
authorization for activities that could
affect the environment. Second, when
all site decommissioning activities have
been approved and completed, license
termination is an NRC administrative
action. To be eligible for license
termination, facilities must complete
necessary dismantlement and
decontamination activities and have met
radiological criteria in 10 CFR part 20,
‘‘Standards for Protection Against
Radiation,’’ for site release and
demonstrated that public health and
safety and the environment will be
protected. Therefore, the action of
terminating a license after all site
decommissioning activities have been
approved and completed is
administrative in nature and does not
have the potential to individually or
cumulatively affect the human
environment. The NRC has historically
cited various other categorical
exclusions or prepared an EA for these
activities. The inclusion of this example
in proposed § 51.22(a)(1)(xiii) would
provide clarity and consistency for
future license terminations. This
proposed categorical exclusion would
not include the NRC’s concurrence on
termination by an Agreement State of an
Agreement State license for AEA
§ 11e.(2) byproduct material. It would
also not include partial site releases or
license termination plans.
Actions on or changes to requirements
for decommissioning funding plans
under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50, 70, or 72.
Decommissioning funding actions only
relate to changes in the management of
funds allowed for managing irradiated
fuel activities. They do not authorize
new land-disturbing activities that
could affect land use, soils and geology,
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules
water resources, ecological resources,
historic and cultural resources, air
quality, traffic and transportation,
socioeconomics, environmental justice,
or accidents. Categorically excluding
decommissioning funding plan
submittals would provide clarity and
surety for future such actions and
eliminate inconsistencies in the
decommissioning funding plan approval
process. Licensees would continue to
comply with all appropriate NRC
regulations related to occupational and
public radiation exposure and therefore
decommissioning funding actions
would not result in an increase to
occupational or public doses. Finally,
licensees are required to maintain
adequate funding for radiological
decommissioning and to provide
information regarding this funding to
the NRC. Since 2010 the NRC has
completed approximately 30 EAs for
decommissioning funding plans, all
resulting in FONSIs. Therefore, the NRC
determined that decommissioning
funding actions are strictly financial in
nature and do not have the potential to
individually or cumulatively affect the
human environment. These actions
would be categorically excluded by
proposed § 51.22(a)(1) and listed as an
example in subparagraph (xii).
Issuance of amendments to § 72.214
for new, amended, revised, or renewed
certificates of compliance for cask
designs used for spent fuel storage. The
codification of certificates of
compliance for cask designs is
accomplished by rulemaking to amend
10 CFR part 72. As background, on July
18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued
an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to
provide for the storage of spent fuel
under a general license in cask designs
approved by the NRC. The potential
environmental impact of using NRCapproved storage casks was initially
analyzed in the EA for the 1990 final
rule. Currently, the NRC prepares EAs
for new, amended, revised, and renewed
certificates of compliance for cask
designs used for spent fuel storage.
Since the 2010 rulemaking the NRC has
completed approximately 125 EAs for
amendments to § 72.214 for new,
amended, revised, or renewed
certificates of compliance for cask
designs, all resulting in FONSIs.
Accordingly, the NRC determined that
certificate of compliance cask design
changes do not result in any radiological
or non-radiological environmental
impacts that significantly differ from the
environmental impacts evaluated in the
EA and FONSI supporting the 1990 final
rule. Therefore, the NRC concludes that
codifying certificates of compliance for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
cask designs do not individually or
cumulatively affect the human
environment. This categorical exclusion
is proposed as § 51.22(a)(12).
Actions under § 50.55a, ‘‘Codes and
standards.’’ Section 50.55a establishes
minimum quality standards for the
design, fabrication, erection,
construction, testing, and inspection of
certain systems, structures, and
components of boiling and pressurized
water-cooled nuclear power plants.
Under § 50.55a, the NRC can authorize
proposed alternatives to these standards
(§ 50.55a(z)), grant relief from or impose
augments to requirements for in service
inspection and testing of components
due to impracticality (§ 50.55a(f)(6)(i)
and (g)(6)(i)), or approve the early use of
later code editions for in service
inspection and testing of components
(§ 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv)).
Categorically excluding these actions
would provide clarity and surety for
future actions of this type. For the
following reasons, these approvals
under § 50.55a do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment, which makes
these actions eligible for categorical
exclusion. Approvals under § 50.55a do
not authorize new ground disturbance
or the installation of new systems,
structures, or components; rather, they
relate to requirements for the design,
construction, and maintenance of
systems, structures and components
authorized for use by other actions (i.e.,
licensing). These approvals also do not
increase the probability or consequences
of accidents, result in changes to the
types or amounts of effluents released
offsite, result in an increase to
occupational or public dose, or result in
other radiological or nonradiological
environmental impacts. Therefore, the
NRC concludes that actions under
§ 50.55a do not individually or
cumulatively affect the human
environment. This categorical exclusion
is proposed as § 51.22(a)(16).
Changes to requirements for fire
protection, emergency planning,
physical security, cybersecurity, or
quality assurance. Since 2010, the NRC
has completed 51 EAs/FONSIs
associated with the approval of
exemptions or license amendments
related to emergency planning, physical
security, or fire protection requirements.
The EAs have concluded that these
amendments or exemptions do not
increase the probability or consequences
of accidents and do not result in
significant changes to the types or
amounts of effluents released offsite,
increases to occupational or public
dose, or any other radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54731
However, some of these actions include
ground disturbing activities, such as
construction of security fences.
Therefore, the NRC concludes that these
changes to requirements for fire
protection, emergency planning, or
physical security plans do not
individually or cumulatively affect the
human environment, provided that any
associated ground disturbance is limited
to previously disturbed areas.
Quality assurance programs are
intended to provide adequate
confidence that a structure, system, or
component will perform satisfactorily in
service. Elements of a quality assurance
program include procedures,
recordkeeping, inspections, corrective
actions, and audits. Cybersecurity plans
protect computer and digital
communication systems and networks
against cyber-attacks. Changes to quality
assurance programs or cybersecurity
plans affect activities that occur inside
buildings. These changes do not
increase the probability or consequences
of accidents and do not result in
significant changes to the types or
amounts of effluents released offsite,
increases to occupational or public
dose, or any other radiological or nonradiological impacts and do not involve
ground disturbance in undisturbed
areas. Therefore, changes to
requirements for quality assurance or
cybersecurity do not have the potential
to individually or cumulatively affect
the human environment.
These actions would be categorically
excluded by proposed § 51.22(d)(4).
Changes to extend implementation
dates for activities previously found to
not have a significant environmental
impact. These revisions would
categorically exclude actions
authorizing licensees to delay
implementation of certain new NRC
requirements. This proposed categorical
exclusion only applies to
implementation date delays for
activities previously found to have no
significant environmental impact and
where the delay would result in no
significant increase in the potential for
or consequences from radiological
accidents, no ground disturbance in
undisturbed areas, no changes in
effluents released offsite, and no
additional doses to individuals. The
proposed categorical exclusion does not
apply to authorizations for other date
extensions, such as license term
extensions. Since 2010 the NRC has
completed approximately 44 EAs to
extend implementation dates, all
resulting in FONSIs. Therefore, the NRC
determined that implementation date
extensions do not have the potential to
individually or cumulatively affect the
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
54732
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
human environment. These actions
would be categorically excluded by
proposed § 51.22(d)(6).
H. What is the basis for the proposed
revisions to existing categorical
exclusions?
The NRC is proposing to reorganize
the list of categorical exclusions to
eliminate redundancy, add clarity, and
improve consistency. The
reorganization would eliminate
distinctions in categorical exclusions
between license amendments,
exemptions, rulemaking, and other
forms of NRC actions, to ensure that
categorical exclusions are based on the
activities that would be authorized
rather than the administrative and legal
differences between the different forms
of NRC approvals. The reorganization
would consolidate similar actions into
one categorical exclusion. In some
instances, the revisions would expand
or clarify language used in the existing
categorical exclusions (e.g., focusing on
ground disturbance rather than on
whether there would be a significant
construction impact). In these cases, the
rulemaking analyzes these newly
included actions for suitability for
categorical exclusion but does not
revisit the suitability of the existing
categorical exclusion. The NRC would
also make a small number of editorial
revisions. This section provides the
basis for the proposed revisions.
The proposed new categorical
exclusion in § 51.22(a)(1) applies to all
NRC actions that are administrative,
procedural, or solely financial in nature
including exemptions and orders
pertaining to these actions. The list of
activities in proposed paragraphs
51.22(a)(1)(i) through (xi) consolidates
all existing categorical exclusions that
fit into the new category, but is not
exclusive; rather it provides examples of
actions that are included in the category
for clarity. The actions included in
proposed § 51.22(a)(1) are limited to
administrative, procedural, or solely
financial in nature. The NRC notes that
actions that are ‘‘solely financial in
nature’’ do not include, for example,
grants or contracts that enable activities
that could have environmental effects.
Instead, this refers to activities that
relate only to sources or means of
funding or verifying that adequate
funding is available for approved
activities. Actions that are solely
financial in nature affect the financial
arrangements of the licensees, but do
not have environmental impacts.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
these actions would not have significant
individual or cumulative effects on the
human environment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
The proposed § 51.22(a)(8) would
expand the categorical exclusion for
issuance, amendment, or renewal of
operators’ licenses under 10 CFR part 55
to include all forms of related NRC
actions, including exemptions and
orders. Part 55 of 10 CFR prohibits
persons from performing the functions
of an operator or a senior operator at a
licensed facility unless authorized to do
so by a license issued by the
Commission. Although issuance or
denial of an operator’s license may have
a significant economic effect on the
individual applicant, the action of the
Commission in issuing, amending, or
renewing an operator’s license in
accordance with the procedures of 10
CFR part 55 does not have an
environmental effect. The
environmental impact of the operation
of a licensed facility by a licensed
operator is fully considered in the EIS
or EA prepared in connection with the
licensing action authorizing operation of
the facility. The formal action of
certifying an operator does not authorize
facility operation. Accordingly, the NRC
finds that issuance, amendment, or
renewal of operators’ licenses under 10
CFR part 55 comprises a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. For the same
reasons, the NRC concludes that neither
exemptions nor orders relating to these
requirements would have significant
effects on the human environment.
The proposed § 51.22(a)(10) would
expand an existing categorical exclusion
to include all forms of related NRC
actions, including exemptions and
orders, but not rulemakings.
Specifically, it would expand the
current categorical exclusions for
issuance, amendment, or renewal of
materials licenses issued under 10 CFR
parts 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40,
or 70 authorizing the types of activities
listed in the current § 51.22(c)(14). It has
been the NRC’s experience that
additional NRC actions such as
exemptions and orders involve
insignificant amounts of source,
byproduct, or special nuclear material
in quantities and form similar to those
categorically excluded in § 51.22(c)(14)
and, therefore, have no significant
individual or cumulative environmental
impact. For the same reasons, the NRC
concludes that neither exemptions nor
orders relating to these requirements
would have significant individual or
cumulative effects on the human
environment.
The proposed § 51.22(b) and (d)
include a criterion stating that the
actions would not result in disturbances
to previously undisturbed areas. This
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
wording replaces the previous wording
of ‘‘no significant construction impact.’’
The purpose of this new wording is to
clarify that ground disturbance in areas
that are already disturbed can be a factor
in determining whether an action would
have potential impacts. Actions that
involve ground disturbance in areas not
already disturbed will be reviewed for
potential environmental impacts. The
proposed § 51.22(b) is otherwise
substantively unchanged from the
existing § 51.22(c)(6).
The proposed § 51.22(d)(1) through
(3), and (5) would expand the following
categorical exclusions to include
rulemaking, orders, and license
amendments, provided the actions
would not disturb previously
undisturbed areas, would not result in
a significant change in the types or
amounts of effluents released offsite,
would not significantly increase
individual or cumulative public or
occupational radiation exposure, and
would not increase the potential for or
consequences from radiological
accidents:
• changes to inspection or
surveillance requirements (proposed
§ 51.22(d)(1)): this would also be
expanded to apply to facilities other
than reactors (i.e., would eliminate
reference to 10 CFR part 50 or 52).
Expanding this categorical exclusion to
include facilities other than reactors
improves the consistency of the
categorical exclusion. The NRC expects
that the application of this categorical
exclusion to non-reactor facilities would
not be materially different from the
current application to reactor facilities
because the activities are substantially
similar at all NRC licensed facilities;
• changes to equipment servicing or
maintenance requirements (proposed
§ 51.22(d)(2));
• changes to safeguards plans or
material control and accounting
inventory requirements, including
modifications to systems used for
security and/or materials accountability
(proposed § 51.22(d)(3)); and
• changes to scheduling requirements
(proposed § 51.22(d)(5)).
In addition to exemptions, the NRC
conveys its regulatory decisions using
other forms, such as rulemaking, orders,
and license amendments. The NRC
previously found that requests for
exemptions from requirements for
inspection and surveillance, equipment
servicing and maintenance, safeguards
plans and material control and
accounting, and scheduling
requirements would not lead to
significant environmental impacts on
the human environment individually or
cumulatively. Similarly, the NRC
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules
concludes that changes to these
requirements resulting from
rulemakings, orders, and license
amendments, assuming the changes
meet the criteria in the proposed
§ 51.22(d), would not have significant
individual or cumulative effects on the
human environment.
The proposed § 51.22(d)(7) would
expand an existing categorical
exclusion, current § 51.22(c)(11), to
include exemptions, orders, and
rulemaking. Specifically, current
§ 51.22(c)(11) is a categorical exclusion
for amendments to licenses for fuel
cycle plants and radioactive waste
disposal sites and amendments to
materials licenses identified in
§ 51.60(b)(1) that are administrative,
organizational, or procedural in nature,
or that result in a change in process
operations or equipment, provided that
there is no significant change in the
types or significant increase in the
amounts of any effluents released
offsite, no significant increase in
individual or cumulative public or
occupational radiation exposure, no
significant construction impact, and no
significant increase in the potential for
or consequences from radiological
accidents. In the NRC’s experience,
these actions also do not result in any
significant adverse incremental impacts
to the environment. Implementation of
these minor and routine types of
changes do not significantly alter the
previously evaluated environmental
impacts associated with the licensed
activity, considering the potential for
ground disturbance, types and amounts
of effluents released by the operation,
occupational exposure to employees, or
potential accidents. The actions that
would be categorically excluded do not
affect the scope or nature of the licensed
activity. Therefore, the issuance of
exemptions and orders relating to these
matters in and of themselves would not
cause any significant individual or
cumulative environmental effects.
The proposed § 51.22(d)(7) relating to
authorizations that result in changes in
process operations or equipment under
certain licenses, would be subject to the
criterion in proposed § 51.22(d) stating
that the actions would not result in
disturbances to previously undisturbed
ground. This wording replaces the
limitation in the existing categorical
exclusion (at § 51.22(c)(11)) to activities
that involve ‘‘no significant construction
impact.’’ The purpose of this new
wording is to clarify that ground
disturbance can be a factor in
determining whether an action would
have potential impacts and should not
be categorically excluded from
environmental review.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
The proposed § 51.22(d)(8), relating to
certain authorizations under part 50 or
52, would expand the existing
categorical exclusion in § 51.22(c)(9) to
include rulemakings and orders.
Specifically, it would expand the
existing categorical exclusion for the
issuance of an amendment to a permit
or license for a reactor under 10 CFR
part 50 or 52 that changes a requirement
or issuance of an exemption from a
requirement with respect to installation
or use of a facility component. The
proposed rule would also expand this
categorical exclusion to include
installation or use of a facility
component outside the restricted area
under certain circumstances. Changes
which relate to the installation or use of
a facility component located within a
restricted area and which do not involve
significant hazards considerations,
significant changes in offsite effluents,
or significant increases in occupational
doses do not result in offsite effects that
could have a significant individual or
cumulative effects on the human
environment. Associated effects, if any,
would be minimal and would be
confined to limited access areas on site.
The proposed § 51.22(d)(8) would be
subject to the criterion in proposed
§ 51.22(d) stating that the actions would
not result in disturbances to previously
undisturbed areas. This criterion would
replace restriction in the current
categorical exclusion (at § 51.22(c)(9)) to
facility components located within the
restricted area. The purpose of the
existing restriction is to ensure that
ground disturbance is limited to
previously disturbed areas, which was
the basis for the previous limitation for
this categorical exclusion to
components in the restricted area. Thus,
this proposed revision would continue
to ensure that the categorical exclusion
does not apply to activities that include
ground disturbance in areas not already
disturbed. As a result of this proposed
change, this categorical exclusion would
apply where a facility component is
located inside or outside the restricted
area as long as installation or use of the
component would not disturb
previously undisturbed areas (and meets
the other criteria in § 51.22(d)).
I. Why is the NRC proposing to remove
existing categorical exclusions?
The NRC evaluated all existing
categorical exclusions to determine if
any are no longer necessary or have
proven to no longer meet the criteria for
categorical exclusion. The NRC
determined that two existing categorical
exclusions are no longer necessary
because they are obsolete. The
remaining existing categorical
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54733
exclusions continue to be valid. The
NRC is proposing to remove
§ 51.22(c)(17), ‘‘Issuance of an
amendment to a permit or license under
10 CFR part 30, 40, 50, 52, or 70, which
removes any limiting condition of
operation or monitoring requirement
based on or applicable to any matter
subject to the provisions of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.’’ The NRC
has concluded its activity to amend
applicable NRC licenses and permits to
remove limiting conditions of operation
or monitoring requirements pertaining
to nonradiological discharge pollutants
under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and no longer includes such
conditions in NRC permits and licenses
(49 FR 9380; March 12, 1984).
Therefore, the NRC has determined that
this categorical exclusion is no longer
necessary.
The NRC is also proposing to remove
§ 51.22(c)(18), ‘‘Issuance of amendments
or orders authorizing licensees of
production or utilization facilities to
resume operation, provided the basis for
the authorization rests solely on a
determination or redetermination by the
Commission that applicable emergency
planning requirements are met.’’ This
categorical exclusion was established in
the NRC 1984 NEPA implementing
regulations (49 FR 9352; March 12,
1984) to support the implementation of
a 1980 emergency planning rule (45 FR
55402; August 19, 1980). That
emergency planning rule has been fully
implemented, therefore, the NRC has
determined that this categorical
exclusion is no longer applicable and
should be removed.
IV. Specific Requests for Comments
The NRC is seeking feedback from the
public on the proposed rule. We are
particularly interested in comments and
supporting rationale from the public on
the following:
• The categorical exclusions in
proposed § 51.22(b) (related to
confirmatory research and review and
approval of transportation routes under
10 CFR 73.3) and (d) (addressing nine
different types of actions) will require
the application of threshold criteria to
determine whether the actions listed in
those sections may be categorically
excluded. The threshold criteria used in
current § 51.22 include ‘‘no significant
construction impact.’’ The NRC is
proposing to substitute the phrase ‘‘any
ground disturbance is limited to
previously disturbed areas’’ for ‘‘no
significant construction impact.’’ The
purpose of this change would be to
prevent the categorical exclusion of
actions that would disturb previously
undisturbed land, which have the
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
54734
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules
potential to affect historic or cultural
resources, and actions that would
disturb areas that have been allowed to
return to a natural state, which have the
potential to affect functioning ecologies.
The NRC is requesting input on the
proposed phrase ‘‘any ground
disturbance is limited to previously
disturbed areas.’’
• The NRC is considering defining
the phrase, ‘‘previously disturbed areas’’
to refer to ‘‘areas that have been changed
such that its functioning ecological
processes have been and remain altered
by human activity. The phrase
encompasses areas that have been
transformed from natural cover to nonnative species or a managed state,
including, but not limited to, utility and
electric power transmission corridors
and rights-of-way, and other areas
where active utilities and currently used
roads are readily available.’’ The NRC is
requesting input on the proposed
definition.
• As discussed in Section III.F, of this
document, the NRC is proposing to
remove the ‘‘no significant hazards
consideration’’ determination in
§ 51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v), which is
related to a process for issuance of
license amendments for nuclear power
reactor and testing facility licenses, but
is not related to environmental impacts
and not relevant to materials licenses.
The ‘‘no significant hazards
consideration’’ is a procedural standard
that governs whether an opportunity for
a hearing must be provided before an
action is taken by the NRC. The NRC is
requesting input on the removal of the
‘‘no significant hazards consideration’’
determination in § 51.22(c)(9), (25)(i)
and (v).
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following paragraphs describe the
specific changes proposed by this
rulemaking.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Section 51.21 Criteria for and
Identification of Licensing and
Regulatory Actions Requiring
Environmental Assessments
This proposed rule would revise
§ 51.21 to update the references for
those categorical exclusions and other
actions identified as not requiring an
environmental review.
Section 51.22 Criterion for Categorical
Exclusion; Identification of Licensing
and Regulatory Actions Eligible for
Categorical Exclusion or Otherwise Not
Requiring Environmental Review
This proposed rule would revise the
section heading to more accurately
reflect the section. The proposed rule
also would add introductory text,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph
(e), add a new paragraph (d), and revise
paragraphs (a) through (c) to add,
clarify, and eliminate categorical
exclusions.
Section 51.25 Determination To
Prepare Environmental Impact
Statement or Environmental
Assessment; Eligibility for Categorical
Exclusion
This proposed rule would revise
§ 51.25 to update the reference for the
location of categorical exclusions to
§ 51.22 (a) through (d).
Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51,
Format for Presentation of Material in
Environmental Impact Statements
This proposed rule would revise
footnote 4 to remove the reference to
§ 51.22(c)(17).
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
the Commission certifies that this rule,
if adopted, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
VII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has prepared a regulatory
analysis on this proposed regulation.
The analysis examines the costs and
benefits of the alternatives considered
by the NRC. The conclusion from the
analysis is that this proposed rule and
associated guidance would result in a
net benefit to the NRC of $71,000 using
a 7-percent discount rate and $266,200
using a 3-percent discount rate. The
NRC requests public comment on the
draft regulatory analysis. The regulatory
analysis is available under ADAMS
Accession No. ML24165A234.
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
This proposed rule would eliminate
the NRC’s requirement to prepare
environmental assessments or
environmental impact statements for
certain categories of actions. Although
the proposed rule would not alter
requirements for applicants or
petitioners for rulemaking to provide
environmental reports under §§ 51.40–
51.68, it could reduce the information
an applicant or petitioner for
rulemaking would be obligated to
provide in an environmental report.
Reductions in the information required
to be included in applications and
petitions for rulemaking constitutes a
voluntary reduction in requirements
and therefore is not a backfit under the
backfitting rules (§§ 50.109, 70.76,
72.62, or 76.76) nor a violation of any
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part
52.
Further, applicants and petitioners are
not, with certain exceptions, within the
scope of either the backfitting rules
(§§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) or any
issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part
52. The backfitting and issue finality
regulations include language delineating
when those provisions begin; in general,
they begin after the issuance of a
license, permit, or approval (e.g.,
§ 50.109(a)(1)(iii) and § 52.98(a)).
Neither the backfitting provisions nor
the issue finality provisions, with
certain exceptions, are intended to
apply to NRC actions that substantially
change the expectations of current and
future applicants. These applicants
cannot reasonably expect that future
requirements will not change.
Therefore, this proposed rule does not
involve any provisions within the scope
of the backfit rules (§§ 50.109, 70.76,
72.62, or 76.76) or the issue finality
provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
Accordingly, the NRC did not prepare a
backfit or forward fit analysis for this
proposed rule.
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
The NRC is following its Cumulative
Effects of Regulation (CER) process by
engaging with external stakeholders
throughout this proposed rule and
related regulatory activities.
Opportunity for public comment is
provided to the public at this proposed
rule stage.
The staff published an ANPR in the
Federal Register on May 7, 2021. The
NRC held a public meeting on June 16,
2021, to help facilitate comments for the
ANPR. The NRC will conduct another
public meeting during the comment
period for this proposed rule.
The NRC is requesting CER feedback
on the following questions:
1. In light of any current or projected
CER challenges, would a 30-day
effective date from the publication of
the final rule provide sufficient time to
implement the new requirements as
proposed?
2. If CER challenges currently exist or
are expected, what should be done to
address them? For example, if more
time is required for implementation of
the new requirements, what period of
time is sufficient?
3. Do other (NRC or other agency)
regulatory actions (e.g., orders, generic
communications, license amendment
requests, inspection findings of a
generic nature) influence the
implementation of the proposed rule’s
requirements?
4. Are there unintended
consequences? Does the proposed rule
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules
create conditions that would be contrary
to the proposed rule’s purpose and
objectives? If so, what are the
unintended consequences, and how
should they be addressed?
5. Please comment on the NRC’s cost
and benefit estimates in the regulatory
analysis that supports the proposed
rule.
X. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub.
L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to
write documents in a clear, concise, and
well-organized manner. The NRC has
written this document to be consistent
with the Plain Writing Act as well as the
Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain
Language in Government Writing,’’
published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).
The NRC requests comment on this
document with respect to the clarity and
effectiveness of the language used.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain
a collection of information as defined in
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and, therefore,
is not subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
XII. Compatibility of Agreement State
Regulations
Under the ‘‘Agreement State Program
Policy Statement’’ approved by the
Commission on October 2, 2017, and
published in the Federal Register (82
FR 48535; October 18, 2017), this rule
is classified as compatibility ‘‘NRC.’’
Category NRC consists of program
elements over which the NRC cannot
discontinue its regulatory authority
pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (AEA), as amended, or provisions
of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Under the Policy
Statement, a program element means
any component or function of a
radiation control regulatory program,
including regulations and other legally
binding requirements imposed on
regulated persons, which contributes to
the implementation of that program.
The NRC maintains regulatory authority
over program elements classified as
category NRC and the Agreement States
must not adopt these NRC program
elements. However, an Agreement State
may inform its licensees of these NRC
requirements through a mechanism
under the State’s administrative
procedure laws, as long as the State
adopts these provisions solely for the
purposes of notification, and does not
exercise any regulatory authority as a
result.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995, Public
Law 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 § 51.22, the NRC’s list of
categories of actions that the NRC has
determined to have no significant
individual or cumulative effect on the
human environment. This action does
not constitute the establishment of a
standard that contains generally
applicable requirements.
XIV. Availability of Guidance
There is no licensee or applicant
implementation or compliance required
by this rulemaking. The NRC staff plans
to update guidance documents that
currently contain references to § 51.22
(e.g., standard review plans). The NRC
will publish notice in the Federal
Register announcing the availability of
the revised guidance documents. The
final guidance documents will be
available on the NRC website and at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
on Docket ID NRC–2018–0300.
XV. Public Meeting
The NRC will conduct a public
meeting during the comment period for
this proposed rule for the purpose of
facilitating the submittal of comments
and answering questions from the
public on this proposed rule.
The NRC will publish a notice of the
location, time, and agenda of the
meeting on the NRC’s public meeting
website at least 10 calendar days before
the meeting. Stakeholders should
monitor the NRC’s public meeting
website for information about the public
meeting at: https://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolve/public-meetings/index.cfm.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and
procedure, Environmental impact
statements, Hazardous waste, Nuclear
energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear
power plants and reactors, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
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 is proposing to amend 10 CFR
part 51 as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54735
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: Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
secs. 161, 193 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2243); Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202
(42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332, 4334, 4335); Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982, secs. 144(f), 121, 135, 141, 148 (42
U.S.C. 10134(f), 10141, 10155, 10161, 10168);
44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
2. Revise and republish § 51.21 to read
as follows:
■
§ 51.21 Criteria for and identification of
licensing and regulatory actions requiring
environmental assessments.
All licensing and regulatory actions
subject to this subpart require an
environmental assessment except those
identified in § 51.20(b) as requiring an
environmental impact statement, those
covered by categorical exclusions
identified in § 51.22(a) through (d), and
those identified in § 51.22(e) as other
actions not requiring environmental
review. As provided in § 51.22, the
Commission may, in special
circumstances, prepare an
environmental assessment on an action
covered by a categorical exclusion.
■ 3. Revise and republish § 51.22 to read
as follows:
§ 51.22
Categorical exclusions.
Licensing, regulatory, and
administrative actions eligible for
categorical exclusion must belong to a
category of actions that the Commission,
by rule or regulation, has declared to be
a categorical exclusion, after first
finding that the actions within the
category do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Except in
special circumstances, as determined by
the Commission upon its own initiative
or upon request of any interested
person, an environmental assessment or
an environmental impact statement is
not required for any action within a
category of actions included in the list
of categorical exclusions set out in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section. Special circumstances include
the circumstance where the proposed
action involves unresolved conflicts
concerning alternative uses of available
resources within the meaning of section
102(2)(E) of NEPA.
(a) The following categories of NRC
actions are excluded from the
requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement:
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
54736
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(1) Actions that are administrative,
procedural, or solely financial in nature,
including, for example:
(i) Issuance of or changes to
procedures for filing and reviewing
applications;
(ii) Issuance of or changes to
recordkeeping or reporting
requirements;
(iii) Issuance of or changes to surety,
insurance, or indemnity requirements;
(iv) Issuance of or changes to
administrative procedures or
requirements;
(v) Actions on petitions for
rulemaking, but not including
rulemakings in response to a petition for
rulemaking;
(vi) Amendments to the regulations in
this chapter that are corrective or of a
minor or nonpolicy nature and do not
substantially modify existing
regulations;
(vii) Issuance of or changes to
guidance for the implementation of
regulations in this chapter and other
informational and procedural
documents that do not impose any legal
requirements;
(viii) Changes to a person or
organization’s name, position, or title;
(ix) Revisions that are editorial,
corrective, or otherwise minor,
including the updating of NRCapproved references, or changes to
formatting of a document;
(x) Changes to contact information;
(xi) Personnel or managerial actions;
(xii) Actions on or changes to
requirements for decommissioning
funding under parts 30, 40, 50, 70, or 72
of this chapter; or
(xiii) Termination of licenses that
were issued but for which no
construction activities have begun or
where all decommissioning activities
have been completed and approved and
license termination is a final
administrative step.
(2) Issuance of or changes to
education, training, experience,
qualification, or other employment
suitability requirements.
(3) 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.
(4) Procurement of general equipment
and supplies, and procurement of
technical assistance and personal
services relating to the safe operation
and protection of commercial reactors,
other facilities, and materials subject to
NRC licensing and regulation.
(5) Entrance into or amendment,
suspension, or termination of all or part
of an agreement with a State under
section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, providing for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
assumption by the State and
discontinuance by the Commission of
certain regulatory authority of the
Commission.
(6) Approvals of direct or indirect
transfers of any license issued by the
NRC (any associated amendments of a
license required to reflect the approval
of a direct or indirect transfer of an NRC
license are included in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section).
(7) The import of nuclear facilities
and materials under part 110 of this
chapter, but not including the import of
spent power reactor fuel.
(8) Approvals of or changes to
operators’ licenses under part 55 of this
chapter.
(9) Approvals of package designs for
packages to be used for the
transportation of licensed materials.
(10) Actions under parts 30, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, or 70 of this
chapter authorizing the following:
(i) Distribution of radioactive material
and devices or products containing
radioactive material to general licensees
and to persons exempt from licensing;
(ii) Distribution of
radiopharmaceuticals, generators,
reagent kits and/or sealed sources to
persons licensed under 10 CFR 35.18;
(iii) Nuclear pharmacies;
(iv) Use of radioactive materials for
medical and veterinary purposes;
(v) Use of radioactive materials for
research and development and for
educational purposes;
(vi) Industrial radiography;
(vii) Irradiators;
(viii) Use of sealed sources and use of
gauging devices, analytical instruments
and other devices containing sealed
sources;
(ix) Use of uranium as shielding
material in containers or devices;
(x) Possession of radioactive material
incident to performing services such as
installation, maintenance, leak tests and
calibration;
(xi) Use of sealed sources and/or
radioactive tracers in well-logging
procedures;
(xii) Acceptance of packaged
radioactive wastes from others for
transfer to licensed land burial facilities
provided the interim storage period for
any package does not exceed 180 days
and the total possession limit for all
packages held in interim storage at the
same time does not exceed 50 curies;
(xiii) Manufacturing or processing of
source, byproduct, or special nuclear
materials for distribution to other
licensees, except processing of source
material for extraction of rare earth and
other metals;
(xiv) Nuclear laundries;
(xv) Possession, manufacturing,
processing, shipment, testing, or other
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
use of depleted uranium military
munitions; or
(xvi) Any use of source, byproduct, or
special nuclear material not listed above
which involves quantities and forms of
source, byproduct, or special nuclear
material similar to those listed in
paragraphs (a)(10)(i) through (xv) of this
section.
(11) Standard design approvals under
part 52 of this chapter.
(12) Issuance of amendments to 10
CFR 72.214 for new, amended, revised,
or renewed certificates of compliance
for cask designs used for spent fuel
storage.
(13) Issuance, amendment,
modification, or renewal of a certificate
of compliance of gaseous diffusion
enrichment plants under part 76 of this
chapter.
(14) The 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), 10
CFR 40.42(g)(1), or 10 CFR 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.
(15) The Commission finding for a
combined license under 10 CFR
52.103(g).
(16) Actions under 10 CFR 50.55a.
(b) The following categories of NRC
actions are excluded from the
requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement,
provided that any ground disturbance is
limited to previously disturbed areas:
(1) Procurement of confirmatory
research.
(2) Review and approval of
transportation routes under 10 CFR
73.37.
(c) The following categories of NRC
actions are excluded from the
requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement except
to the extent they include activities
directly affecting the environment, such
as the construction of facilities; a major
disturbance brought about by blasting,
drilling, excavating or other means; 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
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules
and fauna; or the release of radioactive
material:
(1) 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.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) The following categories of NRC
actions are excluded from the
requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement
provided that any ground disturbance is
limited to previously disturbed areas
and there is no significant change in the
types or significant increase in the
amounts of any effluents that may be
released offsite, no significant increase
in individual or cumulative public or
occupational radiation exposure, and no
significant increase in the potential for
or consequences from radiological
accidents.
(1) Changes to inspection or
surveillance requirements.
(2) Changes to equipment servicing or
maintenance requirements.
(3) Changes to safeguard plans or
materials control and accounting
inventory requirements, including
modifications to systems used for
security and/or materials accountability.
(4) Changes to requirements for fire
protection, emergency planning,
physical security, cybersecurity, or
quality assurance.
(5) Changes to scheduling
requirements.
(6) Changes to extend implementation
dates for activities previously found to
not have a significant environmental
impact.
(7) Actions that result in a change in
process operations or equipment under
licenses for fuel cycle facilities or
radioactive waste disposal sites, or
under the materials licenses identified
in § 51.60(b)(1).
(8) Authorizations under, or changes
to requirements in 10 CFR part 50 or 52
with respect to installation or use of a
facility component.
(e) In accordance with section 121 of
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(42 U.S.C. 10141), the promulgation of
technical requirements and criteria that
the Commission will apply in approving
or disapproving applications under part
60 or 63 of this chapter shall not require
an environmental impact statement, an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jul 01, 2024
Jkt 262001
environmental assessment, or any
environmental review under
subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 102(2)
of NEPA.
■ 4. Revise and republish § 51.25 to read
as follows:
§ 51.25 Determination to prepare
environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment; eligibility for
categorical exclusion.
Before taking a proposed action
subject to the provisions of this subpart,
the appropriate NRC director will
determine on the basis of the criteria
and classifications of types of actions in
§§ 51.20, 51.21 and 51.22, whether the
proposed action is of the type listed in
§ 51.22(a) through (d) as a categorical
exclusion or whether an environmental
impact statement or an environmental
assessment should be prepared. An
environmental assessment is not
necessary if it is determined that an
environmental impact statement will be
prepared.
■ 5. In appendix A to subpart A of part
51, revise footnote 4 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart A—Format for
Presentation of Material in
Environmental Impact Statements
*
*
*
*
*
4 With
respect to limitations on NRC’s
NEPA authority and responsibility imposed
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, see §§ 51.10(c) and
51.71(d).
Dated: June 25, 2024.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carrie Safford,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024–14367 Filed 7–1–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2024–1880; Project
Identifier AD–2023–01149–T]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 737–600,
–700, –700C, –800, –900, and –900ER
series airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report of a frame web
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54737
crack at fuselage station (STA) 328
between stringers S–20R and S–21R
common to the frame web notch. This
proposed AD would require repetitive
detailed inspections of the forward and
aft sides of the frames and high
frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections of the frames for cracks and
repairing any crack found. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by August 16,
2024.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA–2024–1880; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is
listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For service information, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes,
Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC
110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600;
telephone 562–797–1717; website
myboeingfleet.com.
• You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety
Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 206–231–3195. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA–
2024–1880.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill
Ashforth, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206–231–
3520; email: bill.ashforth@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM
02JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54727-54737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14367]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 54727]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
[NRC-2018-0300]
RIN 3150-AK54
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 on categorical exclusions for licensing,
regulatory, and administrative actions that individually or
cumulatively do not have a significant effect on the human environment.
The proposed revisions would eliminate the preparation of environmental
assessments for such NRC actions. The proposed rule would not change
any requirements for applicants or licensees. The NRC plans to hold a
public meeting to promote full understanding of the proposed rule and
facilitate public comment.
DATES: Submit comments by September 16, 2024. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods;
however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the
Federal rulemaking website:
Federal rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID: NRC-2018-0300. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder; telephone: 301-415-3407;
email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact
us at 301-415-1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at 301-415-1101.
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 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. eastern time, Federal
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
You can read a plain language description of this proposed rule at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NRC-2018-0300. For additional
direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Martinez, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 630-829-9734, email:
[email protected] and Gregory Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-6244, email:
[email protected]. Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
B. Submitting Comments
II. Background
A. General Overview of Categorical Exclusions
B. NRC Categorical Exclusion Regulations
C. Basis for Proposed Amendment of Categorical Exclusion
Regulation
D. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
III. Discussion
A. What action is the NRC taking?
B. How are categorical exclusions applied?
C. Who would this action affect?
D. Why is the NRC taking this action now?
E. How did the NRC determine which categorical exclusions to
modify or add?
F. What are the proposed revisions to address inefficiencies and
inconsistencies?
G. What is the basis for proposed new categorical exclusions?
H. What is the basis for proposed revisions to existing
categorical exclusions?
I. Why is the NRC proposing to remove existing categorical
exclusions?
IV. Specific Requests for Comments
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VII. Regulatory Analysis
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
X. Plain Writing
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
XII. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XIV. Availability of Guidance
XV. Public Meeting
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0300 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0300.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first
time that it is mentioned in this document.
NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
[email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
B. Submitting Comments
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the
Federal rulemaking website (https://www.regulations.gov). Please
include Docket ID NRC-2018-0300 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly
[[Page 54728]]
disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment
submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Background
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
Federal agencies to undertake an assessment of the environmental
effects of their proposed actions prior to deciding whether to approve
or disapprove the proposed actions. The NRC's NEPA implementing
regulations are contained in part 51 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), ``Environmental Protection Regulations for
Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.''
A. General Overview of Categorical Exclusions
There are three types of NEPA analyses: environmental assessments
(EAs), environmental impact statements (EISs), and categorical
exclusions. If a Federal agency believes that the environmental impacts
of a proposed action are not likely to be significant, the agency may
prepare an EA. An EA is a concise document that provides sufficient
evidence and analysis for determining whether to make a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) or to prepare an EIS. If a Federal agency
believes that the environmental impacts of a proposed action may be
significant (for example, because an EA did not result in a FONSI), the
agency will prepare an EIS. An EIS is a detailed written statement of
the environmental impacts of a proposed action and alternatives to the
proposed action.
A categorical exclusion, by contrast, falls into the category of
actions that do not have a significant effect on the human environment,
as defined by a Federal agency in its NEPA implementing regulations. If
the Federal agency finds that actions in a given category have no
significant effect on the human environment, either individually or
cumulatively, then the agency may establish a categorical exclusion for
that category of actions. The NRC has the option to prepare and issue
an EA or EIS for any proposed action, even if the proposed action meets
the criteria for a categorical exclusion. 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 circumstances that would preclude use of the
categorical exclusion. Categorical exclusions increase efficiency in
the environmental review 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,
including Sec. 51.22, ``Criterion for categorical exclusion:
identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for
categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental
review.'' The regulation included the NRC's first list of 18
categorical exclusions in Sec. 51.22(c). Since 1984, the NRC has made
18 amendments to the categorical exclusions in Sec. 51.22(c). The
NRC's categorical exclusions include administrative, organizational,
and 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 for which environmental review by the NRC is excluded by
statute.
On September 24, 2003 (68 FR 55954), the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act Task Force published a
report, ``Modernizing NEPA Implementation'' (Task Force Report) that
recommended Federal agencies periodically review and update their
categorical exclusion regulations. The Task Force Report stated that an
agency can use, among other things, information from past actions to
establish the basis for the determination of no significant effects. It
also provided that ``[w]hile the criteria for identifying new
categorical exclusions might vary from agency to agency, some
candidates for categorical exclusions include repetitive actions that
do not individually or cumulatively have significant effects on the
human environment, those that generally require limited environmental
review, and those that are noncontroversial.''
In a December 6, 2010, Federal Register notification (75 FR 75628),
the CEQ issued final guidance, ``Establishing, Applying, and Revising
Categorical Exclusions under [NEPA]'' (hereafter ``CEQ guidance
memorandum''), which recommends agencies periodically review
categorical exclusions to assure their continued appropriate use and
usefulness. The review should help determine if the existing
categorical exclusions are still relevant or if there are additional
eligible actions. Further, the CEQ recommended that agencies develop a
process and timeline to periodically review their categorical
exclusions to ensure that their categorical exclusions remain current
and appropriate, and that those reviews should be conducted at least
every seven years. The NRC last amended its categorical exclusion
regulations in 2010 (75 FR 20248; April 19, 2010).
Consistent with the CEQ recommendations, the NRC reviewed its
environmental programs and organization to identify potential
opportunities to continue to protect people and the environment in
different ways that would enhance the process, save time, and reduce
resources. That review resulted in SECY-20-0065, ``Rulemaking Plan-
Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,'' which recommended
to the Commission that the staff conduct this rulemaking activity
(ADAMS Accession No. ML20021A160).
C. Basis for Proposed Amendment of Categorical Exclusion Regulation
In staff requirements memorandum (SRM) SRM-SECY-20-0065,
``Rulemaking Plan--Categorical Exclusions from Environmental Review,''
dated November 30, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20336A009), the
Commission approved the staff's recommendation to initiate a rulemaking
to add new categorical exclusions and amend existing categorical
exclusions.
This proposed rule is based upon a review of NRC regulatory
actions, consistent with the CEQ guidance memorandum, which recommends
that agencies evaluate past EA/FONSIs for particular categories of
actions to develop new or expand existing categorical exclusions.
Consistent with this recommendation, the NRC conducted an in-depth
review of the NRC activities, including EA/FONSIs, completed since the
2010 rulemaking was conducted. The review identified several recurring
categories of regulatory actions that are not addressed in Sec. 51.22
and have no significant effect on the human environment, either
individually or cumulatively. These categories of
[[Page 54729]]
actions were considered in developing this proposed rule.
The NRC held a public meeting on June 16, 2021, to help facilitate
comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that was
published on May 7, 2021 (86 FR 24514). The ANPR identified potential
rulemaking changes that would allow the NRC to continue to protect
people and the environment in different ways that would enhance the
process, save time, and reduce resources. The ANPR raised the
possibility of reorganizing the existing categorical exclusions and
adding new categorical exclusions. During the meeting, the NRC
presented background information, the NRC's regulations on categorical
exclusions, and the potential rulemaking changes under consideration.
Participants asked clarifying questions on the NRC's approach and were
provided details on how to submit their comments.
The NRC received more than 2,300 comment submittals on the ANPR;
most were identical comments on topics that the NRC determined were out
of scope for this rulemaking. Approximately 20 unique comment
submittals were within scope. The NRC evaluated and considered the
comments during the development of this proposed rule. Some of the
comments supported reorganizing the list of categorical exclusions to
eliminate redundancy and add clarity. Additionally, some comments
supported revisions to eliminate distinctions in categorical exclusions
between license amendments, exemptions, rulemaking, and other forms of
NRC actions to ensure that categorical exclusions are based on the
activities that would be authorized rather than the administrative and
legal differences between the different forms of NRC approvals.
The NRC received comments that did not support some of the
categories considered in the ANPR. Based on an in-depth review of these
comments, the NRC modified some of the changes under consideration; for
example, the NRC is not pursuing categorical exclusions for four
categories of actions considered in the ANPR: (1) the issuance of
exemptions to low-level waste disposal sites for the storage and
disposal of special nuclear material regulated by Agreement States; (2)
approvals for alternative waste disposal procedures for reactor and
materials licenses in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002, ``Method for
obtaining approval of proposed disposal procedures''; (3) the NRC's
concurrence, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA),
section 274c., on termination by an Agreement State of licenses for AEA
section 11e.(2) byproduct material where all decommissioning activities
have been completed; and (4) approvals of long-term surveillance plans
for decommissioned uranium mills.
In addition, based on a comment received on the ANPR, the NRC
evaluated categorical exclusions adopted by other Federal agencies for
potential adoption by the NRC. This evaluation did not identify any
categorical exclusions for incorporation in this proposed rule.
D. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
The NRC acknowledges recent amendments to the NEPA statute enacted
in section 321 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5,
137 Stat. 10).
The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 added a new NEPA section 109,
which includes a provision allowing agencies to adopt a categorical
exclusion prepared by another agency, and NEPA now defines
``categorical exclusion'' in section 111(1). The NRC has not identified
categorical exclusions prepared by other agencies that it would adopt
under NEPA section 109, nor has the NRC identified any need to change
its existing categorical exclusions or those proposed in this rule to
address the new definition in NEPA section 111(1).
III. Discussion
A. What action is the NRC taking?
The NRC is proposing changes to its list of categorical exclusions
to clarify the scope of existing categories, to improve consistency in
their application, and to add new categories of actions that have no
significant effect on the human environment. For example, the NRC is
proposing to eliminate distinctions in categorical exclusions between
license amendments, exemptions, rulemaking, and other forms of NRC
actions to ensure that categorical exclusions are based on the
activities that would be authorized (e.g., certain maintenance
activities) rather than on the different forms of the NRC approvals.
The proposed amendments would ensure resources are directed to
activities that have the potential to significantly affect the
environment.
B. How are categorical exclusions applied?
If a Federal agency finds that actions in a given category 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
extraordinary circumstances (called special circumstances in the NRC's
regulations) that may have a significant effect on the human
environment. If such special circumstances are or are likely to be
present, the agency would prepare an EA (which may result in a FONSI)
or, if necessary, an EIS. If special circumstances are not present, the
categorical exclusion may be applied and the agency will have satisfied
its NEPA obligation for that proposed action.
Under NRC regulations, the determination of whether special
circumstances are present is a matter of agency discretion. The
determination that special circumstances are not present does not
require the preparation of any specific or additional documentation
beyond the documentation normally prepared indicating that the
categorical exclusion is being invoked for the proposed action.
C. Who would this action affect?
The amendments would not impose any new requirements on NRC
applicants or licensees but would ensure that NRC actions (including
decisions on licensing requests) are completed in a more consistent,
efficient and effective manner and would result in cost savings to the
NRC and applicants and licensees. The proposed amendments would
eliminate the NRC's preparation of EA/FONSIs for actions that the NRC
knows from staff expertise or that routinely have no significant effect
on the human environment (e.g., administrative, procedural, or
organizational licensee requests). For example, ambiguities in the
current categorical exclusion regulations have resulted in resources
being directed to EAs for approvals of organizational name changes,
which do not significantly affect the environment.
The NRC is not required to provide opportunity for comment on draft
EA/FONSIs. However, the NRC under certain circumstances does provide
opportunity for comment on draft EA/FONSIs. Therefore, the NRC cannot
rule out the possibility that adding new categorical exclusions (as
proposed in this proposed rule) could result in fewer opportunities for
public participation in the NRC's environmental review process, albeit
only for activities where
[[Page 54730]]
the NRC has determined there will not be a significant effect on the
human environment.
D. Why is the NRC taking this action now?
This proposed rule is based upon a review of NRC regulatory
actions. As noted, the CEQ guidance memorandum recommends that Federal
agencies regularly review their categorical exclusion regulations to
identify potential revisions that would ensure resources are directed
to activities that have the potential to significantly affect the
environment.
E. How did the NRC determine which categorical exclusions to modify or
add?
In accordance with CEQ's 2010 guidance memorandum, the NRC reviewed
and analyzed past actions, including their supporting NEPA
documentation, to develop initial candidates for potential changes to
categorical exclusion regulations. The NRC then solicited input from
internal stakeholders and, through an ANPR, from the public on the
initial candidates and to identify any additional potential candidates.
The NRC then considered available information and experience to
determine whether the candidates for categorical exclusion and
revisions to the existing categorical exclusions could be
substantiated.
The CEQ guidance memorandum provides four methods for
substantiating a new or revised categorical exclusion. The NRC used two
of those methods in substantiating its proposed changes. The methods
used in the NRC's proposal are based on (1) data from implementing
comparable past actions and the expert judgment of the NRC staff who
conducted the past actions, and (2) professional opinions and
information from other NRC staff. Based on its review of all the
information collected, the NRC determined that actions covered by the
proposed changes would not individually or cumulatively have
significant effects on the human environment.
The NRC has prepared a supporting rationale in Section III of this
document for each of its proposed changes that provides specific
background and context.
F. What are the proposed revisions to address inefficiencies and
inconsistencies?
The NRC is proposing to reorganize the list of categorical
exclusions to eliminate redundancy, add clarity, and improve
consistency. The current regulation contains 25 separate paragraphs,
several of which contain multiple categorical exclusions. The NRC has
identified several actions where staff have cited different,
potentially overlapping, categorical exclusions for similar or even
identical actions (e.g., Sec. 51.22(c)(9) versus (c)(25)). The
reorganization would eliminate distinctions in categorical exclusions
between license amendments, exemptions, rulemaking, and other forms of
NRC actions to ensure that categorical exclusions are based on the
activities that would be authorized rather than the administrative and
legal differences between the different forms of NRC approvals. The
reorganization would remove the overlapping actions and consolidate
similar actions into one categorical exclusion.
The proposed organization would list the categorical exclusions in
four separate categorical exclusion paragraphs, paragraphs (a) through
(d) based on threshold criteria used to more clearly and consistently
identify the categories of actions being excluded. For example, each
paragraph would be organized into similar actions to add clarity.
The NRC is proposing to remove the ``no significant hazards
consideration'' criterion in Sec. 51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v). The
``no significant hazards consideration'' is a procedural standard from
Sec. 50.92, ``Issuance of amendment'' that governs whether an
opportunity for a hearing must be provided before a license amendment
action is taken by the NRC for a production and utilization facility
under part 50 (51 FR 7746; March 6, 1986). It is not related to NEPA
and not applicable to exemptions that do not include license amendments
or actions related to materials licenses (e.g., 10 CFR part 30, ``Rules
of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material,''
or 10 CFR part 40, ``Domestic Licensing of Source Material,''
licenses). The remaining criteria in Sec. 51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v)
are sufficient for determining whether the categorical exclusion
applies to an action. Therefore, as part of the reorganization, the NRC
is proposing to eliminate the criterion for no significant hazards
considerations criteria currently in Sec. 51.22(c)(9) and (25).
In addition, the ``no significant construction impact'' criterion
in Sec. 51.22(c)(6), (11), (12)(i), and (25)(iv) would be revised to
``provided that any ground disturbance is limited to previously
disturbed areas.'' The purpose of this change is to provide
clarification. The regulatory history indicates that the ``no
significant construction'' impact criterion was intended to preclude
actions that would result in ground disturbing activities in
undisturbed areas, which would have the potential to alter, modify, or
destroy important attributes of environmental resource areas (e.g.,
land use, terrestrial ecology, historic and cultural resources). Based
on experience with the use of these categorical exclusions, the NRC's
view is that it would be clearer to explicitly state the relevant
consideration in the regulations.
G. What is the basis for proposed new categorical exclusions?
The NRC is proposing to add the following categorical exclusions.
Termination of licenses that were issued but for which no
construction activities have begun or where all decommissioning
activities have been completed and approved and license termination is
a final administrative step.
First, the termination of licenses that were issued but for which
no construction has begun would remove authorization for activities
that could affect the environment. Second, when all site
decommissioning activities have been approved and completed, license
termination is an NRC administrative action. To be eligible for license
termination, facilities must complete necessary dismantlement and
decontamination activities and have met radiological criteria in 10 CFR
part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation,'' for site
release and demonstrated that public health and safety and the
environment will be protected. Therefore, the action of terminating a
license after all site decommissioning activities have been approved
and completed is administrative in nature and does not have the
potential to individually or cumulatively affect the human environment.
The NRC has historically cited various other categorical exclusions or
prepared an EA for these activities. The inclusion of this example in
proposed Sec. 51.22(a)(1)(xiii) would provide clarity and consistency
for future license terminations. This proposed categorical exclusion
would not include the NRC's concurrence on termination by an Agreement
State of an Agreement State license for AEA Sec. 11e.(2) byproduct
material. It would also not include partial site releases or license
termination plans.
Actions on or changes to requirements for decommissioning funding
plans under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50, 70, or 72. Decommissioning funding
actions only relate to changes in the management of funds allowed for
managing irradiated fuel activities. They do not authorize new land-
disturbing activities that could affect land use, soils and geology,
[[Page 54731]]
water resources, ecological resources, historic and cultural resources,
air quality, traffic and transportation, socioeconomics, environmental
justice, or accidents. Categorically excluding decommissioning funding
plan submittals would provide clarity and surety for future such
actions and eliminate inconsistencies in the decommissioning funding
plan approval process. Licensees would continue to comply with all
appropriate NRC regulations related to occupational and public
radiation exposure and therefore decommissioning funding actions would
not result in an increase to occupational or public doses. Finally,
licensees are required to maintain adequate funding for radiological
decommissioning and to provide information regarding this funding to
the NRC. Since 2010 the NRC has completed approximately 30 EAs for
decommissioning funding plans, all resulting in FONSIs. Therefore, the
NRC determined that decommissioning funding actions are strictly
financial in nature and do not have the potential to individually or
cumulatively affect the human environment. These actions would be
categorically excluded by proposed Sec. 51.22(a)(1) and listed as an
example in subparagraph (xii).
Issuance of amendments to Sec. 72.214 for new, amended, revised,
or renewed certificates of compliance for cask designs used for spent
fuel storage. The codification of certificates of compliance for cask
designs is accomplished by rulemaking to amend 10 CFR part 72. As
background, on July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment
to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a
general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential
environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially
analyzed in the EA for the 1990 final rule. Currently, the NRC prepares
EAs for new, amended, revised, and renewed certificates of compliance
for cask designs used for spent fuel storage. Since the 2010 rulemaking
the NRC has completed approximately 125 EAs for amendments to Sec.
72.214 for new, amended, revised, or renewed certificates of compliance
for cask designs, all resulting in FONSIs. Accordingly, the NRC
determined that certificate of compliance cask design changes do not
result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts
that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in
the EA and FONSI supporting the 1990 final rule. Therefore, the NRC
concludes that codifying certificates of compliance for cask designs do
not individually or cumulatively affect the human environment. This
categorical exclusion is proposed as Sec. 51.22(a)(12).
Actions under Sec. 50.55a, ``Codes and standards.'' Section 50.55a
establishes minimum quality standards for the design, fabrication,
erection, construction, testing, and inspection of certain systems,
structures, and components of boiling and pressurized water-cooled
nuclear power plants. Under Sec. 50.55a, the NRC can authorize
proposed alternatives to these standards (Sec. 50.55a(z)), grant
relief from or impose augments to requirements for in service
inspection and testing of components due to impracticality (Sec.
50.55a(f)(6)(i) and (g)(6)(i)), or approve the early use of later code
editions for in service inspection and testing of components (Sec.
50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv)). Categorically excluding these actions
would provide clarity and surety for future actions of this type. For
the following reasons, these approvals under Sec. 50.55a do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, which makes these actions eligible for categorical
exclusion. Approvals under Sec. 50.55a do not authorize new ground
disturbance or the installation of new systems, structures, or
components; rather, they relate to requirements for the design,
construction, and maintenance of systems, structures and components
authorized for use by other actions (i.e., licensing). These approvals
also do not increase the probability or consequences of accidents,
result in changes to the types or amounts of effluents released
offsite, result in an increase to occupational or public dose, or
result in other radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts.
Therefore, the NRC concludes that actions under Sec. 50.55a do not
individually or cumulatively affect the human environment. This
categorical exclusion is proposed as Sec. 51.22(a)(16).
Changes to requirements for fire protection, emergency planning,
physical security, cybersecurity, or quality assurance. Since 2010, the
NRC has completed 51 EAs/FONSIs associated with the approval of
exemptions or license amendments related to emergency planning,
physical security, or fire protection requirements. The EAs have
concluded that these amendments or exemptions do not increase the
probability or consequences of accidents and do not result in
significant changes to the types or amounts of effluents released
offsite, increases to occupational or public dose, or any other
radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts. However, some
of these actions include ground disturbing activities, such as
construction of security fences. Therefore, the NRC concludes that
these changes to requirements for fire protection, emergency planning,
or physical security plans do not individually or cumulatively affect
the human environment, provided that any associated ground disturbance
is limited to previously disturbed areas.
Quality assurance programs are intended to provide adequate
confidence that a structure, system, or component will perform
satisfactorily in service. Elements of a quality assurance program
include procedures, recordkeeping, inspections, corrective actions, and
audits. Cybersecurity plans protect computer and digital communication
systems and networks against cyber-attacks. Changes to quality
assurance programs or cybersecurity plans affect activities that occur
inside buildings. These changes do not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents and do not result in significant changes to
the types or amounts of effluents released offsite, increases to
occupational or public dose, or any other radiological or non-
radiological impacts and do not involve ground disturbance in
undisturbed areas. Therefore, changes to requirements for quality
assurance or cybersecurity do not have the potential to individually or
cumulatively affect the human environment.
These actions would be categorically excluded by proposed Sec.
51.22(d)(4).
Changes to extend implementation dates for activities previously
found to not have a significant environmental impact. These revisions
would categorically exclude actions authorizing licensees to delay
implementation of certain new NRC requirements. This proposed
categorical exclusion only applies to implementation date delays for
activities previously found to have no significant environmental impact
and where the delay would result in no significant increase in the
potential for or consequences from radiological accidents, no ground
disturbance in undisturbed areas, no changes in effluents released
offsite, and no additional doses to individuals. The proposed
categorical exclusion does not apply to authorizations for other date
extensions, such as license term extensions. Since 2010 the NRC has
completed approximately 44 EAs to extend implementation dates, all
resulting in FONSIs. Therefore, the NRC determined that implementation
date extensions do not have the potential to individually or
cumulatively affect the
[[Page 54732]]
human environment. These actions would be categorically excluded by
proposed Sec. 51.22(d)(6).
H. What is the basis for the proposed revisions to existing categorical
exclusions?
The NRC is proposing to reorganize the list of categorical
exclusions to eliminate redundancy, add clarity, and improve
consistency. The reorganization would eliminate distinctions in
categorical exclusions between license amendments, exemptions,
rulemaking, and other forms of NRC actions, to ensure that categorical
exclusions are based on the activities that would be authorized rather
than the administrative and legal differences between the different
forms of NRC approvals. The reorganization would consolidate similar
actions into one categorical exclusion. In some instances, the
revisions would expand or clarify language used in the existing
categorical exclusions (e.g., focusing on ground disturbance rather
than on whether there would be a significant construction impact). In
these cases, the rulemaking analyzes these newly included actions for
suitability for categorical exclusion but does not revisit the
suitability of the existing categorical exclusion. The NRC would also
make a small number of editorial revisions. This section provides the
basis for the proposed revisions.
The proposed new categorical exclusion in Sec. 51.22(a)(1) applies
to all NRC actions that are administrative, procedural, or solely
financial in nature including exemptions and orders pertaining to these
actions. The list of activities in proposed paragraphs 51.22(a)(1)(i)
through (xi) consolidates all existing categorical exclusions that fit
into the new category, but is not exclusive; rather it provides
examples of actions that are included in the category for clarity. The
actions included in proposed Sec. 51.22(a)(1) are limited to
administrative, procedural, or solely financial in nature. The NRC
notes that actions that are ``solely financial in nature'' do not
include, for example, grants or contracts that enable activities that
could have environmental effects. Instead, this refers to activities
that relate only to sources or means of funding or verifying that
adequate funding is available for approved activities. Actions that are
solely financial in nature affect the financial arrangements of the
licensees, but do not have environmental impacts. Accordingly, the NRC
concludes that these actions would not have significant individual or
cumulative effects on the human environment.
The proposed Sec. 51.22(a)(8) would expand the categorical
exclusion for issuance, amendment, or renewal of operators' licenses
under 10 CFR part 55 to include all forms of related NRC actions,
including exemptions and orders. Part 55 of 10 CFR prohibits persons
from performing the functions of an operator or a senior operator at a
licensed facility unless authorized to do so by a license issued by the
Commission. Although issuance or denial of an operator's license may
have a significant economic effect on the individual applicant, the
action of the Commission in issuing, amending, or renewing an
operator's license in accordance with the procedures of 10 CFR part 55
does not have an environmental effect. The environmental impact of the
operation of a licensed facility by a licensed operator is fully
considered in the EIS or EA prepared in connection with the licensing
action authorizing operation of the facility. The formal action of
certifying an operator does not authorize facility operation.
Accordingly, the NRC finds that issuance, amendment, or renewal of
operators' licenses under 10 CFR part 55 comprises a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. For the same reasons, the NRC
concludes that neither exemptions nor orders relating to these
requirements would have significant effects on the human environment.
The proposed Sec. 51.22(a)(10) would expand an existing
categorical exclusion to include all forms of related NRC actions,
including exemptions and orders, but not rulemakings. Specifically, it
would expand the current categorical exclusions for issuance,
amendment, or renewal of materials licenses issued under 10 CFR parts
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, or 70 authorizing the types of
activities listed in the current Sec. 51.22(c)(14). It has been the
NRC's experience that additional NRC actions such as exemptions and
orders involve insignificant amounts of source, byproduct, or special
nuclear material in quantities and form similar to those categorically
excluded in Sec. 51.22(c)(14) and, therefore, have no significant
individual or cumulative environmental impact. For the same reasons,
the NRC concludes that neither exemptions nor orders relating to these
requirements would have significant individual or cumulative effects on
the human environment.
The proposed Sec. 51.22(b) and (d) include a criterion stating
that the actions would not result in disturbances to previously
undisturbed areas. This wording replaces the previous wording of ``no
significant construction impact.'' The purpose of this new wording is
to clarify that ground disturbance in areas that are already disturbed
can be a factor in determining whether an action would have potential
impacts. Actions that involve ground disturbance in areas not already
disturbed will be reviewed for potential environmental impacts. The
proposed Sec. 51.22(b) is otherwise substantively unchanged from the
existing Sec. 51.22(c)(6).
The proposed Sec. 51.22(d)(1) through (3), and (5) would expand
the following categorical exclusions to include rulemaking, orders, and
license amendments, provided the actions would not disturb previously
undisturbed areas, would not result in a significant change in the
types or amounts of effluents released offsite, would not significantly
increase individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation
exposure, and would not increase the potential for or consequences from
radiological accidents:
changes to inspection or surveillance requirements
(proposed Sec. 51.22(d)(1)): this would also be expanded to apply to
facilities other than reactors (i.e., would eliminate reference to 10
CFR part 50 or 52). Expanding this categorical exclusion to include
facilities other than reactors improves the consistency of the
categorical exclusion. The NRC expects that the application of this
categorical exclusion to non-reactor facilities would not be materially
different from the current application to reactor facilities because
the activities are substantially similar at all NRC licensed
facilities;
changes to equipment servicing or maintenance requirements
(proposed Sec. 51.22(d)(2));
changes to safeguards plans or material control and
accounting inventory requirements, including modifications to systems
used for security and/or materials accountability (proposed Sec.
51.22(d)(3)); and
changes to scheduling requirements (proposed Sec.
51.22(d)(5)).
In addition to exemptions, the NRC conveys its regulatory decisions
using other forms, such as rulemaking, orders, and license amendments.
The NRC previously found that requests for exemptions from requirements
for inspection and surveillance, equipment servicing and maintenance,
safeguards plans and material control and accounting, and scheduling
requirements would not lead to significant environmental impacts on the
human environment individually or cumulatively. Similarly, the NRC
[[Page 54733]]
concludes that changes to these requirements resulting from
rulemakings, orders, and license amendments, assuming the changes meet
the criteria in the proposed Sec. 51.22(d), would not have significant
individual or cumulative effects on the human environment.
The proposed Sec. 51.22(d)(7) would expand an existing categorical
exclusion, current Sec. 51.22(c)(11), to include exemptions, orders,
and rulemaking. Specifically, current Sec. 51.22(c)(11) is a
categorical exclusion for amendments to licenses for fuel cycle plants
and radioactive waste disposal sites and amendments to materials
licenses identified in Sec. 51.60(b)(1) that are administrative,
organizational, or procedural in nature, or that result in a change in
process operations or equipment, provided that there is no significant
change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any
effluents released offsite, no significant increase in individual or
cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure, no significant
construction impact, and no significant increase in the potential for
or consequences from radiological accidents. In the NRC's experience,
these actions also do not result in any significant adverse incremental
impacts to the environment. Implementation of these minor and routine
types of changes do not significantly alter the previously evaluated
environmental impacts associated with the licensed activity,
considering the potential for ground disturbance, types and amounts of
effluents released by the operation, occupational exposure to
employees, or potential accidents. The actions that would be
categorically excluded do not affect the scope or nature of the
licensed activity. Therefore, the issuance of exemptions and orders
relating to these matters in and of themselves would not cause any
significant individual or cumulative environmental effects.
The proposed Sec. 51.22(d)(7) relating to authorizations that
result in changes in process operations or equipment under certain
licenses, would be subject to the criterion in proposed Sec. 51.22(d)
stating that the actions would not result in disturbances to previously
undisturbed ground. This wording replaces the limitation in the
existing categorical exclusion (at Sec. 51.22(c)(11)) to activities
that involve ``no significant construction impact.'' The purpose of
this new wording is to clarify that ground disturbance can be a factor
in determining whether an action would have potential impacts and
should not be categorically excluded from environmental review.
The proposed Sec. 51.22(d)(8), relating to certain authorizations
under part 50 or 52, would expand the existing categorical exclusion in
Sec. 51.22(c)(9) to include rulemakings and orders. Specifically, it
would expand the existing categorical exclusion for the issuance of an
amendment to a permit or license for a reactor under 10 CFR part 50 or
52 that changes a requirement or issuance of an exemption from a
requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility
component. The proposed rule would also expand this categorical
exclusion to include installation or use of a facility component
outside the restricted area under certain circumstances. Changes which
relate to the installation or use of a facility component located
within a restricted area and which do not involve significant hazards
considerations, significant changes in offsite effluents, or
significant increases in occupational doses do not result in offsite
effects that could have a significant individual or cumulative effects
on the human environment. Associated effects, if any, would be minimal
and would be confined to limited access areas on site.
The proposed Sec. 51.22(d)(8) would be subject to the criterion in
proposed Sec. 51.22(d) stating that the actions would not result in
disturbances to previously undisturbed areas. This criterion would
replace restriction in the current categorical exclusion (at Sec.
51.22(c)(9)) to facility components located within the restricted area.
The purpose of the existing restriction is to ensure that ground
disturbance is limited to previously disturbed areas, which was the
basis for the previous limitation for this categorical exclusion to
components in the restricted area. Thus, this proposed revision would
continue to ensure that the categorical exclusion does not apply to
activities that include ground disturbance in areas not already
disturbed. As a result of this proposed change, this categorical
exclusion would apply where a facility component is located inside or
outside the restricted area as long as installation or use of the
component would not disturb previously undisturbed areas (and meets the
other criteria in Sec. 51.22(d)).
I. Why is the NRC proposing to remove existing categorical exclusions?
The NRC evaluated all existing categorical exclusions to determine
if any are no longer necessary or have proven to no longer meet the
criteria for categorical exclusion. The NRC determined that two
existing categorical exclusions are no longer necessary because they
are obsolete. The remaining existing categorical exclusions continue to
be valid. The NRC is proposing to remove Sec. 51.22(c)(17), ``Issuance
of an amendment to a permit or license under 10 CFR part 30, 40, 50,
52, or 70, which removes any limiting condition of operation or
monitoring requirement based on or applicable to any matter subject to
the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.'' The NRC
has concluded its activity to amend applicable NRC licenses and permits
to remove limiting conditions of operation or monitoring requirements
pertaining to nonradiological discharge pollutants under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and no longer includes such conditions in
NRC permits and licenses (49 FR 9380; March 12, 1984). Therefore, the
NRC has determined that this categorical exclusion is no longer
necessary.
The NRC is also proposing to remove Sec. 51.22(c)(18), ``Issuance
of amendments or orders authorizing licensees of production or
utilization facilities to resume operation, provided the basis for the
authorization rests solely on a determination or redetermination by the
Commission that applicable emergency planning requirements are met.''
This categorical exclusion was established in the NRC 1984 NEPA
implementing regulations (49 FR 9352; March 12, 1984) to support the
implementation of a 1980 emergency planning rule (45 FR 55402; August
19, 1980). That emergency planning rule has been fully implemented,
therefore, the NRC has determined that this categorical exclusion is no
longer applicable and should be removed.
IV. Specific Requests for Comments
The NRC is seeking feedback from the public on the proposed rule.
We are particularly interested in comments and supporting rationale
from the public on the following:
The categorical exclusions in proposed Sec. 51.22(b)
(related to confirmatory research and review and approval of
transportation routes under 10 CFR 73.3) and (d) (addressing nine
different types of actions) will require the application of threshold
criteria to determine whether the actions listed in those sections may
be categorically excluded. The threshold criteria used in current Sec.
51.22 include ``no significant construction impact.'' The NRC is
proposing to substitute the phrase ``any ground disturbance is limited
to previously disturbed areas'' for ``no significant construction
impact.'' The purpose of this change would be to prevent the
categorical exclusion of actions that would disturb previously
undisturbed land, which have the
[[Page 54734]]
potential to affect historic or cultural resources, and actions that
would disturb areas that have been allowed to return to a natural
state, which have the potential to affect functioning ecologies. The
NRC is requesting input on the proposed phrase ``any ground disturbance
is limited to previously disturbed areas.''
The NRC is considering defining the phrase, ``previously
disturbed areas'' to refer to ``areas that have been changed such that
its functioning ecological processes have been and remain altered by
human activity. The phrase encompasses areas that have been transformed
from natural cover to non-native species or a managed state, including,
but not limited to, utility and electric power transmission corridors
and rights-of-way, and other areas where active utilities and currently
used roads are readily available.'' The NRC is requesting input on the
proposed definition.
As discussed in Section III.F, of this document, the NRC
is proposing to remove the ``no significant hazards consideration''
determination in Sec. 51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v), which is related
to a process for issuance of license amendments for nuclear power
reactor and testing facility licenses, but is not related to
environmental impacts and not relevant to materials licenses. The ``no
significant hazards consideration'' is a procedural standard that
governs whether an opportunity for a hearing must be provided before an
action is taken by the NRC. The NRC is requesting input on the removal
of the ``no significant hazards consideration'' determination in Sec.
51.22(c)(9), (25)(i) and (v).
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following paragraphs describe the specific changes proposed by
this rulemaking.
Section 51.21 Criteria for and Identification of Licensing and
Regulatory Actions Requiring Environmental Assessments
This proposed rule would revise Sec. 51.21 to update the
references for those categorical exclusions and other actions
identified as not requiring an environmental review.
Section 51.22 Criterion for Categorical Exclusion; Identification of
Licensing and Regulatory Actions Eligible for Categorical Exclusion or
Otherwise Not Requiring Environmental Review
This proposed rule would revise the section heading to more
accurately reflect the section. The proposed rule also would add
introductory text, redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), add a
new paragraph (d), and revise paragraphs (a) through (c) to add,
clarify, and eliminate categorical exclusions.
Section 51.25 Determination To Prepare Environmental Impact Statement
or Environmental Assessment; Eligibility for Categorical Exclusion
This proposed rule would revise Sec. 51.25 to update the reference
for the location of categorical exclusions to Sec. 51.22 (a) through
(d).
Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51, Format for Presentation of Material
in Environmental Impact Statements
This proposed rule would revise footnote 4 to remove the reference
to Sec. 51.22(c)(17).
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
VII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this proposed
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the
alternatives considered by the NRC. The conclusion from the analysis is
that this proposed rule and associated guidance would result in a net
benefit to the NRC of $71,000 using a 7-percent discount rate and
$266,200 using a 3-percent discount rate. The NRC requests public
comment on the draft regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis is
available under ADAMS Accession No. ML24165A234.
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
This proposed rule would eliminate the NRC's requirement to prepare
environmental assessments or environmental impact statements for
certain categories of actions. Although the proposed rule would not
alter requirements for applicants or petitioners for rulemaking to
provide environmental reports under Sec. Sec. 51.40-51.68, it could
reduce the information an applicant or petitioner for rulemaking would
be obligated to provide in an environmental report. Reductions in the
information required to be included in applications and petitions for
rulemaking constitutes a voluntary reduction in requirements and
therefore is not a backfit under the backfitting rules (Sec. Sec.
50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) nor a violation of any issue finality
provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
Further, applicants and petitioners are not, with certain
exceptions, within the scope of either the backfitting rules
(Sec. Sec. 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) or any issue finality
provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The backfitting and issue finality
regulations include language delineating when those provisions begin;
in general, they begin after the issuance of a license, permit, or
approval (e.g., Sec. 50.109(a)(1)(iii) and Sec. 52.98(a)). Neither
the backfitting provisions nor the issue finality provisions, with
certain exceptions, are intended to apply to NRC actions that
substantially change the expectations of current and future applicants.
These applicants cannot reasonably expect that future requirements will
not change.
Therefore, this proposed rule does not involve any provisions
within the scope of the backfit rules (Sec. Sec. 50.109, 70.76, 72.62,
or 76.76) or the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
Accordingly, the NRC did not prepare a backfit or forward fit analysis
for this proposed rule.
IX. Cumulative Effects of Regulation
The NRC is following its Cumulative Effects of Regulation (CER)
process by engaging with external stakeholders throughout this proposed
rule and related regulatory activities. Opportunity for public comment
is provided to the public at this proposed rule stage.
The staff published an ANPR in the Federal Register on May 7, 2021.
The NRC held a public meeting on June 16, 2021, to help facilitate
comments for the ANPR. The NRC will conduct another public meeting
during the comment period for this proposed rule.
The NRC is requesting CER feedback on the following questions:
1. In light of any current or projected CER challenges, would a 30-
day effective date from the publication of the final rule provide
sufficient time to implement the new requirements as proposed?
2. If CER challenges currently exist or are expected, what should
be done to address them? For example, if more time is required for
implementation of the new requirements, what period of time is
sufficient?
3. Do other (NRC or other agency) regulatory actions (e.g., orders,
generic communications, license amendment requests, inspection findings
of a generic nature) influence the implementation of the proposed
rule's requirements?
4. Are there unintended consequences? Does the proposed rule
[[Page 54735]]
create conditions that would be contrary to the proposed rule's purpose
and objectives? If so, what are the unintended consequences, and how
should they be addressed?
5. Please comment on the NRC's cost and benefit estimates in the
regulatory analysis that supports the proposed rule.
X. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized
manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the
Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain
Language in Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31885). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the
clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information as
defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
XII. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
Under the ``Agreement State Program Policy Statement'' approved by
the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal
Register (82 FR 48535; October 18, 2017), this rule is classified as
compatibility ``NRC.'' Category NRC consists of program elements over
which the NRC cannot discontinue its regulatory authority pursuant to
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, or provisions of title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Under the Policy Statement, a
program element means any component or function of a radiation control
regulatory program, including regulations and other legally binding
requirements imposed on regulated persons, which contributes to the
implementation of that program. The NRC maintains regulatory authority
over program elements classified as category NRC and the Agreement
States must not adopt these NRC program elements. However, an Agreement
State may inform its licensees of these NRC requirements through a
mechanism under the State's administrative procedure laws, as long as
the State adopts these provisions solely for the purposes of
notification, and does not exercise any regulatory authority as a
result.
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
Public Law 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
Sec. 51.22, the NRC's list of categories of actions that the NRC has
determined to have no significant individual or cumulative effect on
the human environment. This action does not constitute the
establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable
requirements.
XIV. Availability of Guidance
There is no licensee or applicant implementation or compliance
required by this rulemaking. The NRC staff plans to update guidance
documents that currently contain references to Sec. 51.22 (e.g.,
standard review plans). The NRC will publish notice in the Federal
Register announcing the availability of the revised guidance documents.
The final guidance documents will be available on the NRC website and
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2018-0300.
XV. Public Meeting
The NRC will conduct a public meeting during the comment period for
this proposed rule for the purpose of facilitating the submittal of
comments and answering questions from the public on this proposed rule.
The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of
the meeting on the NRC's public meeting website at least 10 calendar
days before the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public
meeting website for information about the public meeting at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
statements, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear
power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
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 is proposing
to amend 10 CFR part 51 as follows:
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: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 161, 193 (42 U.S.C.
2201, 2243); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42
U.S.C. 5841, 5842); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs.
144(f), 121, 135, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10141, 10155, 10161,
10168); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
0
2. Revise and republish Sec. 51.21 to read as follows:
Sec. 51.21 Criteria for and identification of licensing and
regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments.
All licensing and regulatory actions subject to this subpart
require an environmental assessment except those identified in Sec.
51.20(b) as requiring an environmental impact statement, those covered
by categorical exclusions identified in Sec. 51.22(a) through (d), and
those identified in Sec. 51.22(e) as other actions not requiring
environmental review. As provided in Sec. 51.22, the Commission may,
in special circumstances, prepare an environmental assessment on an
action covered by a categorical exclusion.
0
3. Revise and republish Sec. 51.22 to read as follows:
Sec. 51.22 Categorical exclusions.
Licensing, regulatory, and administrative actions eligible for
categorical exclusion must belong to a category of actions that the
Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical
exclusion, after first finding that the actions within the category do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. Except in special circumstances, as determined by the
Commission upon its own initiative or upon request of any interested
person, an environmental assessment or an environmental impact
statement is not required for any action within a category of actions
included in the list of categorical exclusions set out in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section. Special circumstances include the
circumstance where the proposed action involves unresolved conflicts
concerning alternative uses of available resources within the meaning
of section 102(2)(E) of NEPA.
(a) The following categories of NRC actions are excluded from the
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement:
[[Page 54736]]
(1) Actions that are administrative, procedural, or solely
financial in nature, including, for example:
(i) Issuance of or changes to procedures for filing and reviewing
applications;
(ii) Issuance of or changes to recordkeeping or reporting
requirements;
(iii) Issuance of or changes to surety, insurance, or indemnity
requirements;
(iv) Issuance of or changes to administrative procedures or
requirements;
(v) Actions on petitions for rulemaking, but not including
rulemakings in response to a petition for rulemaking;
(vi) Amendments to the regulations in this chapter that are
corrective or of a minor or nonpolicy nature and do not substantially
modify existing regulations;
(vii) Issuance of or changes to guidance for the implementation of
regulations in this chapter and other informational and procedural
documents that do not impose any legal requirements;
(viii) Changes to a person or organization's name, position, or
title;
(ix) Revisions that are editorial, corrective, or otherwise minor,
including the updating of NRC-approved references, or changes to
formatting of a document;
(x) Changes to contact information;
(xi) Personnel or managerial actions;
(xii) Actions on or changes to requirements for decommissioning
funding under parts 30, 40, 50, 70, or 72 of this chapter; or
(xiii) Termination of licenses that were issued but for which no
construction activities have begun or where all decommissioning
activities have been completed and approved and license termination is
a final administrative step.
(2) Issuance of or changes to education, training, experience,
qualification, or other employment suitability requirements.
(3) 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.
(4) Procurement of general equipment and supplies, and procurement
of technical assistance and personal services relating to the safe
operation and protection of commercial reactors, other facilities, and
materials subject to NRC licensing and regulation.
(5) Entrance into or amendment, suspension, or termination of all
or part of an agreement with a State under section 274 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, providing for assumption by the State
and discontinuance by the Commission of certain regulatory authority of
the Commission.
(6) Approvals of direct or indirect transfers of any license issued
by the NRC (any associated amendments of a license required to reflect
the approval of a direct or indirect transfer of an NRC license are
included in paragraph (a)(1) of this section).
(7) The import of nuclear facilities and materials under part 110
of this chapter, but not including the import of spent power reactor
fuel.
(8) Approvals of or changes to operators' licenses under part 55 of
this chapter.
(9) Approvals of package designs for packages to be used for the
transportation of licensed materials.
(10) Actions under parts 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, or 70
of this chapter authorizing the following:
(i) Distribution of radioactive material and devices or products
containing radioactive material to general licensees and to persons
exempt from licensing;
(ii) Distribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits
and/or sealed sources to persons licensed under 10 CFR 35.18;
(iii) Nuclear pharmacies;
(iv) Use of radioactive materials for medical and veterinary
purposes;
(v) Use of radioactive materials for research and development and
for educational purposes;
(vi) Industrial radiography;
(vii) Irradiators;
(viii) Use of sealed sources and use of gauging devices, analytical
instruments and other devices containing sealed sources;
(ix) Use of uranium as shielding material in containers or devices;
(x) Possession of radioactive material incident to performing
services such as installation, maintenance, leak tests and calibration;
(xi) Use of sealed sources and/or radioactive tracers in well-
logging procedures;
(xii) Acceptance of packaged radioactive wastes from others for
transfer to licensed land burial facilities provided the interim
storage period for any package does not exceed 180 days and the total
possession limit for all packages held in interim storage at the same
time does not exceed 50 curies;
(xiii) Manufacturing or processing of source, byproduct, or special
nuclear materials for distribution to other licensees, except
processing of source material for extraction of rare earth and other
metals;
(xiv) Nuclear laundries;
(xv) Possession, manufacturing, processing, shipment, testing, or
other use of depleted uranium military munitions; or
(xvi) Any use of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material not
listed above which involves quantities and forms of source, byproduct,
or special nuclear material similar to those listed in paragraphs
(a)(10)(i) through (xv) of this section.
(11) Standard design approvals under part 52 of this chapter.
(12) Issuance of amendments to 10 CFR 72.214 for new, amended,
revised, or renewed certificates of compliance for cask designs used
for spent fuel storage.
(13) Issuance, amendment, modification, or renewal of a certificate
of compliance of gaseous diffusion enrichment plants under part 76 of
this chapter.
(14) The 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), 10 CFR 40.42(g)(1), or 10
CFR 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.
(15) The Commission finding for a combined license under 10 CFR
52.103(g).
(16) Actions under 10 CFR 50.55a.
(b) The following categories of NRC actions are excluded from the
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement, provided that any ground disturbance is limited to
previously disturbed areas:
(1) Procurement of confirmatory research.
(2) Review and approval of transportation routes under 10 CFR
73.37.
(c) The following categories of NRC actions are excluded from the
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement except to the extent they include activities directly
affecting the environment, such as the construction of facilities; a
major disturbance brought about by blasting, drilling, excavating or
other means; 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
[[Page 54737]]
and fauna; or the release of radioactive material:
(1) 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.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) The following categories of NRC actions are excluded from the
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement provided that any ground disturbance is limited to
previously disturbed areas and there is no significant change in the
types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may
be released offsite, no significant increase in individual or
cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure, and no
significant increase in the potential for or consequences from
radiological accidents.
(1) Changes to inspection or surveillance requirements.
(2) Changes to equipment servicing or maintenance requirements.
(3) Changes to safeguard plans or materials control and accounting
inventory requirements, including modifications to systems used for
security and/or materials accountability.
(4) Changes to requirements for fire protection, emergency
planning, physical security, cybersecurity, or quality assurance.
(5) Changes to scheduling requirements.
(6) Changes to extend implementation dates for activities
previously found to not have a significant environmental impact.
(7) Actions that result in a change in process operations or
equipment under licenses for fuel cycle facilities or radioactive waste
disposal sites, or under the materials licenses identified in Sec.
51.60(b)(1).
(8) Authorizations under, or changes to requirements in 10 CFR part
50 or 52 with respect to installation or use of a facility component.
(e) In accordance with section 121 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10141), the promulgation of technical requirements
and criteria that the Commission will apply in approving or
disapproving applications under part 60 or 63 of this chapter shall not
require an environmental impact statement, an environmental assessment,
or any environmental review under subparagraph (E) or (F) of section
102(2) of NEPA.
0
4. Revise and republish Sec. 51.25 to read as follows:
Sec. 51.25 Determination to prepare environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment; eligibility for categorical exclusion.
Before taking a proposed action subject to the provisions of this
subpart, the appropriate NRC director will determine on the basis of
the criteria and classifications of types of actions in Sec. Sec.
51.20, 51.21 and 51.22, whether the proposed action is of the type
listed in Sec. 51.22(a) through (d) as a categorical exclusion or
whether an environmental impact statement or an environmental
assessment should be prepared. An environmental assessment is not
necessary if it is determined that an environmental impact statement
will be prepared.
0
5. In appendix A to subpart A of part 51, revise footnote 4 to read as
follows:
Appendix A to Subpart A--Format for Presentation of Material in
Environmental Impact Statements
* * * * *
\4\ With respect to limitations on NRC's NEPA authority and
responsibility imposed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, see Sec. Sec. 51.10(c) and 51.71(d).
Dated: June 25, 2024.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carrie Safford,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-14367 Filed 7-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P