42 U.S.C. § 2114

Authorities of Commission respecting certain byproduct material

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

(a) Management functionThe Commission shall insure that the management of any byproduct material, as defined in section 2014(e)(2) of this title, is carried out in such manner as—(1) the Commission deems appropriate to protect the public health and safety and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with the processing and with the possession and transfer of such material, taking into account the risk to the public health, safety, and the environment, with due consideration of the economic costs and such other factors as the Commission determines to be appropriate,,11 So in original.(2) conforms with applicable general standards promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under section 2022 of this title, and(3) conforms to general requirements established by the Commission, with the concurrence of the Administrator, which are, to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable to requirements applicable to the possession, transfer, and disposal of similar hazardous material regulated by the Administrator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended [42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.].(b) Rules, regulations, or orders for certain activities; civil penaltyIn carrying out its authority under this section, the Commission is authorized to—(1) by rule, regulation, or order require persons, officers, or instrumentalities exempted from licensing under section 2111 of this title to conduct monitoring, perform remedial work, and to comply with such other measures as it may deem necessary or desirable to protect health or to minimize danger to life or property, and in connection with the disposal or storage of such byproduct material; and(2) make such studies and inspections and to conduct such monitoring as may be necessary.Any violation by any person other than the United States or any officer or employee of the United States or a State of any rule, regulation, or order or licensing provision, of the Commission established under this section or section 2113 of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty in the same manner and in the same amount as violations subject to a civil penalty under section 2282 of this title. Nothing in this section affects any authority of the Commission under any other provision of this chapter.(c) Alternative requirements or proposals

In the case of sites at which ores are processed primarily for their source material content or which are used for the disposal of byproduct material as defined in section 2014(e)(2) of this title, a licensee may propose alternatives to specific requirements adopted and enforced by the Commission under this chapter. Such alternative proposals may take into account local or regional conditions, including geology, topography, hydrology and meteorology. The Commission may treat such alternatives as satisfying Commission requirements if the Commission determines that such alternatives will achieve a level of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, and a level of protection for public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with such sites, which is equivalent to, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than the level which would be achieved by standards and requirements adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose and any final standards promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with section 2022 of this title.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, § 84, as added Pub. L. 95–604, title II, § 205(a), Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3039; amended Pub. L. 97–415, §§ 20, 22(a), Jan. 4, 1983, 96 Stat. 2079, 2080; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, § 902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, referred to in subsec. (a)(3), is title II of Pub. L. 89–272, as amended generally by Pub. L. 94–580, § 2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2795, which is classified generally to chapter 82 (§ 6901 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6901 of this title and Tables.

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

Amendments

1983—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 97–415, § 22(a), inserted provision that the Commission is to take into account the risk to the public health, safety, and the environment, with due consideration of the economic costs and such other factors as the Commission determines to be appropriate.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 97–415, § 20, added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Nov. 8, 1978, see section 208 of Pub. L. 95–604, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 2014 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1982–2020 · leading case: Quivira Mining Co v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Quivira Mining Co v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 866 F.2d 1246 (10th Cir. 1989). · cites it 7× “4 After reviewing the language and legislative history of AEA § 84(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2114 (a)(1), we believe that Congress did not intend to free the NRC altogether from cost-benefit analysis; rather it intended the NRC to perform cost-benefit rationalization for the 1985…”

Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 194 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2114 (a)(1). Nothing in this provision, or in the rest of the Act, indicates that the license requirement was intended to protect market participants from new entrants.”

Kerr-Mcgee Chem. Corp. v. City of West Chicago, 914 F.2d 820 (7th Cir. 1990). “17 (power of NRC to protect public from non-radiological hazards under 42 U.S.C. § 2114 (a)(1) not incompatible with 42 U.”

Gilberg v. Stepan Co., 24 F. Supp. 2d 325 (D.N.J. 1998). “Gassie also relied upon yet another section of the AEA, 42 U.S.C. § 2114 , “[a]s further support for the appropriateness of applying the Price-Anderson Act in the absence of a regulatory agreement between a state and the NRC.”

Brown v. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp., 767 F.2d 1234 (7th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 2114 (a)(1) (emphasis added); see also 42 U.”

Env't Def. Fund v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 866 F.2d 1263 (10th Cir. 1989). · cites it 4× “More specifically, petitioners argue that certain site-specific deviations, which the NRC claims it has authority to permit under § 84(c) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2114 (c), are impermissible under UMTRCA and ineffective without the EPA’s concurrence therein.”

Bank One, N.A. v. Lewis, 144 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D. Miss. 2001). “The Act not only gives a district court original jurisdiction over such a claim, see ibid.., but provides for removal to a federal court as of right if a putative Price-Anderson action is brought in a state court, see ibid.”

Am. Mining Cong. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 902 F.2d 781 (10th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 2114 . We are here concerned with EPA and NRC.”

Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. v. City of West Chicago, 732 F. Supp. 922 (N.D. Ill. 1990). “) Were it not for the fact that the NRC, in fulfilling its obligations “to protect the public health and safety and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2114 (a)(1), required Kerr-McGee to comply with its representations that…”

People of Illinois v. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp., 677 F.2d 571 (7th Cir. 1982). “, 42 U.S.C. § 2114 (a)(1) (giving the Commission the power to protect the public from both the radiological and non-radiological hazards of certain byproduct materials).”

Env't Def. Fund v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 902 F.2d 785 (10th Cir. 1990). “More specifically, petitioners argue that NRC is obligated under 42 U.S.C. § 2114 (a)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 2022 (f)(3) to adopt EPA’s point of compliance regulation, 40 C.”

Drew v. Figueredo (S.D. Ill. 2020). “§§ 2201-02 (governing declaratory judgment) and 42 U.S.C. § 2114 (governing toxic waste disposal), the latter of which is inapplicable.”

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