42 U.S.C. § 2235

Construction permits and operating licenses

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

(a) All applicants for licenses to construct or modify production or utilization facilities shall, if the application is otherwise acceptable to the Commission, be initially granted a construction permit. The construction permit shall state the earliest and latest dates for the completion of the construction or modification. Unless the construction or modification of the facility is completed by the completion date, the construction permit shall expire, and all rights thereunder be forfeited, unless upon good cause shown, the Commission extends the completion date. Upon the completion of the construction or modification of the facility, upon the filing of any additional information needed to bring the original application up to date, and upon finding that the facility authorized has been constructed and will operate in conformity with the application as amended and in conformity with the provisions of this chapter and of the rules and regulations of the Commission, and in the absence of any good cause being shown to the Commission why the granting of a license would not be in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, the Commission shall thereupon issue a license to the applicant. For all other purposes of this chapter, a construction permit is deemed to be a “license”.(b) After holding a public hearing under section 2239(a)(1)(A) of this title, the Commission shall issue to the applicant a combined construction and operating license if the application contains sufficient information to support the issuance of a combined license and the Commission determines that there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and will operate in conformity with the license, the provisions of this chapter, and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The Commission shall identify within the combined license the inspections, tests, and analyses, including those applicable to emergency planning, that the licensee shall perform, and the acceptance criteria that, if met, are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of this chapter, and the Commission’s rules and regulations. Following issuance of the combined license, the Commission shall ensure that the prescribed inspections, tests, and analyses are performed and, prior to operation of the facility, shall find that the prescribed acceptance criteria are met. Any finding made under this subsection shall not require a hearing except as provided in section 2239(a)(1)(B) of this title.(c)Application Reviews for Production and Utilization Facilities of an Existing Site.—In reviewing an application for an early site permit, construction permit, operating license, or combined construction permit and operating license for a production facility or utilization facility located at the site of a production facility or utilization facility licensed by the Commission, the Commission shall, to the extent practicable, use information that was part of the licensing basis of the licensed production facility or utilization facility.(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, § 185, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, § 1, 68 Stat. 955; renumbered title I and amended Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, § 902(a)(8), title XXVIII, § 2801, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944, 3120; Pub. L. 118–67, div. B, title V, § 505(c), July 9, 2024, 138 Stat. 1478.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), 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

2024—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 118–67 added subsec. (c).

1992—Pub. L. 102–486, § 2801, inserted “and operating licenses” after “permits” in section catchline, designated existing text as subsec. (a), and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Pub. L. 102–486, title XXVIII, § 2806, Oct, 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3121, provided that: “Sections 185 b. and 189 a. (1)(B) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [subsec. (b) of this section and section 2239(a)(1)(B) of this title], as added by sections 2801 and 2802 of this Act, shall apply to all proceedings involving a combined license for which an application was filed after May 8, 1991, under such sections.”

Combined License Review Procedure

Pub. L. 118–67, div. B, title II, § 207, July 9, 2024, 138 Stat. 1463, provided that:“(a)In General.—In accordance with this section, the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission shall establish and carry out an expedited procedure for issuing a combined license pursuant to section 185 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2235(b)).“(b)Qualifications.—To qualify for the expedited procedure under subsection (a), an applicant—“(1) shall submit a combined license application for a new nuclear reactor that—“(A) references a design for which the Commission has issued a design certification (as defined in section 52.1 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation)); or“(B) has a design that is substantially similar to a design of a nuclear reactor for which the Commission has issued a combined license, an operating license, or a manufacturing license under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.);“(2) shall propose to construct the new nuclear reactor on a site—“(A) on which a licensed commercial nuclear reactor operates or previously operated; or“(B) that is directly adjacent to a site on which a licensed commercial nuclear reactor operates or previously operated and has site characteristics that are substantially similar to that site; and“(3) may not be subject to an order of the Commission to suspend or revoke a license under section 2.202 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation).“(c)Expedited Procedure.—With respect to a combined license for which the applicant has satisfied the requirements described in subsection (b), the Commission shall, to the maximum extent practicable—“(1) not later than 18 months after the date on which the application is accepted for docketing—“(A) complete the technical review process and issue a safety evaluation report; and“(B) issue a final environmental impact statement or environmental assessment, unless the Commission finds that the proposed agency action is excluded pursuant to a categorical exclusion in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);“(2) not later than 2 years after the date on which the application is accepted for docketing, complete any necessary public licensing hearings and related processes; and“(3) not later than 25 months after the date on which the application is accepted for docketing, make a final decision on whether to issue the combined license.“(d)Performance and Reporting.—“(1)Delays in issuance.—Not later than 30 days after the applicable deadline, the Executive Director for Operations of the Commission shall inform the Commission of any failure to meet a deadline under subsection (c).“(2)Delays in issuance exceeding 90 days.—If any deadline under subsection (c) is not met by the date that is 90 days after the applicable date required under that subsection, the Commission shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress [Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate] a report describing the delay, including—“(A) a detailed explanation accounting for the delay; and“(B) a plan for completion of the applicable action.”

Executive DocumentsExecutive Order No. 12129

Ex. Ord. No. 12129, Apr. 5, 1979, 44 F.R. 21001, which established a Critical Energy Facility Program, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12553, Feb. 25, 1986, 51 F.R. 7237.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases, 1960–2013 · leading case: Power Reactor Dev. Co. v. Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Power Reactor Dev. Co. v. Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961). · cites it 4× “The last sentence of § 185, 42 U. S. C. § 2235 , expressly so provides, as we shall soon see.”

Blue Ridge Env't Def. League v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 716 F.3d 183 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C. § 2235 (b). Any such license must be accompanied by a full EIS, 10 C.”

Rockford League of Women Voters v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, Commonwealth Edison Co., Intervenor-Respondent, 679 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “The issuance of a construction permit is the first step in the two-step process prescribed by 42 U.S.C. § 2235 for the licensing of nuclear power plants.”

Blue Ridge Env't Def. League v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 668 F.3d 747 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “See 42 U.S.C. § 2235 (a). All construction permits must specify the latest date by which construction must be complete, although the NRC can extend deadlines for good cause.”

Union of Concerned Scientists v. Atomic Energy Comm'n & United States of Am., Boston Edison Co., Intervenor, 499 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1974). “42 U.S.C. § 2235 . Edison sought permission to build Pilgrim at Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1967, and its application was reviewed by the AEC staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).”

New England Power Co. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States of Am., 683 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1982). “The challenged rule allows the NRC to base fees charged to applicants for nuclear reactor licenses upon agency costs, and to collect such fees even though the applications *13 are voluntarily withdrawn before final agency action thereon.”

People's Couns. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 270 A.2d 105 (Md. 1970). · cites it 2× “ived from Calvert County a permit to "construct a metal shed" on land adjacent to the site (later also acquired by the Company) to use in testing condensor tubes; (k) later in January 1968 the Company filed with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) an application for a permit to…”

Oystershell All. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States of Am., Louisiana Power & Light Co., Intervenor, 800 F.2d 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “42 U.S.C. § 2235 . The AEA and regulations issued by the NRC pursuant to the Act provide the procedural framework for the Commission’s exercise of its responsibilities at each stage.”

United States v. City of New York, 463 F. Supp. 604 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). “that the facility authorized has been constructed and will operate in conformity with the application as amended and in conformity with the provisions of this chapter and of the rules and regulations of the Commission, and in the absence of any good cause being shown to the…”

Citizens Ass'n for Sound Energy v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States of Am., Texas Utils. Elec. Co., Intervenors, 821 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 2235 . Thus, CASE would be entitled only to a hearing to determine whether TUEC had shown good cause for the extension, i.”

Citizens for Safe Power, Inc., & Audubon Naturalist Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co., Intervenor, 524 F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “■ Both Section 185 of the Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 2235 ) and 10 CFR § 50.57 (a)(l)(2) require findings that the facility has been constructed and will operate in conformity with the provisions of the Act and of the Commission’s rules and regulations.”

Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 869 F.2d 719 (3rd Cir. 1989). “The Atomic Energy Act and the Licensing Process The Atomic Energy Act provides for a two-stage approval process for consideration of the public health and safety aspects of nuclear power plant licensing: (1) consideration of whether the applicant should be able to construct a…”

Show all 19 citing cases →

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.