61330 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 2, 50, 51 and 52 

RIN 3150–AG24 

Licenses, Certifications, and 

Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants; 

Supplemental Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

supplement its proposed rule entitled 

‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals 

for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ which was 

published on March 13, 2006 (71 FR 

12782). The NRC is proposing to 

supplement that proposed rule by 

amending the regulations applicable to 

limited work authorizations (LWA), 

which allow limited construction 

activities on nuclear power plants to 

commence before a construction permit 

or combined license is issued. This 

supplemental proposed rule would 

modify the scope of activities that are 

considered construction requiring a 

LWA and would also make changes to 

the review and approval process for 

LWA requests. The NRC is proposing 

these changes to enhance the efficiency 

of its licensing and approval process for 

new nuclear reactors. 

DATES: Submit comments by November 

16, 2006. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the Commission is able to 

ensure consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Please include the following number 

RIN 3150–AG24 in the subject line of 

your comments. Comments on 

rulemakings submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

to the public in their entirety on the 

NRC rulemaking Web site. Personal 

information will not be removed from 

your comments. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attn: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If 

you do not receive a reply e-mail 

confirming that we have received your 

comments, contact us directly at (301) 

415–1966. You may also submit 

comments via the NRC’s rulemaking 

Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Address questions about our rulemaking 

Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415– 

5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments 

may also be submitted via the Federal 

eRulemaking portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 

415–1966). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 

415–1101. 

Publicly available documents related 

to this rulemaking may be examined 

and copied for a fee at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), Public File Area 

O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

Selected documents, including 

comments, can be viewed and 

downloaded electronically via the NRC 

rulemaking Web site at http:// 

ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Publicly available documents created 

or received at the NRC after November 

1, 1999, are available electronically at 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/ 

index.html. From this site, the public 

can gain entry into the NRC’s 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. If you do not have 

access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC 

Public Document Room (PDR) Reference 

staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 

or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Geary Mizuno, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone (301) 415–1639; e-mail: 

GSM@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I.. Background 

A. History of the Part 52 Rulemaking 

Proceeding 

II. Discussion 

A. History of the NRC’s Concept of 

Construction and the LWA 

B. NRC’s Proposed Concept of 

Construction and the LWA (PRM–50–82) 

C. NRC’s Proposed Concept of 

Construction and the AEA 

D. Proposed Supplement Complies With 

NEPA 

1. NRC’s Proposed Concept of Construction 

Is Consistent With the Legal Effect of 

NEPA 

2. NRC’s Proposed Concept of the ‘‘Major 

Federal Action’’ Is Consistent With 

NEPA Law 

3. NRC’s Phased Approval Approach Is not 

Illegal Segmentation Under NEPA 

E. Inclusion of Additional Activities as 

‘‘Construction’’ under § 50.10(b) 

F. Phased Application and Approval Process 

G. EIS Prepared, but Facility Never 

Constructed 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

IV. Specific Request for Comments 

V. Availability of Documents 

VI. Plain Language 

VII. Agreement State Compatibility 

VIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

IX. Environmental Impact—Categorical 

Exclusion 

X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

XI. Regulatory Analysis 

XII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

XIII. Backfit Analysis 

I. Background 

A. History of the Part 52 Rulemaking 

Proceeding 

The NRC issued 10 CFR part 52 on 

April 18, 1989 (54 FR 15372), to reform 

its licensing process for future nuclear 

power plants. The rule added 

alternative licensing processes in 10 

CFR part 52 for early site permits, 

standard design certifications, and 

combined licenses. These were 

additions to the two-step licensing 

process that already existed in 10 CFR 

part 50. The processes in 10 CFR part 

52 allow for resolving safety and 

environmental issues early in the 

licensing proceedings and were 

intended to enhance the safety and 

reliability of nuclear power plants 

through standardization. 

The NRC had planned to update 10 

CFR part 52 after using the standard 

design certification process. The 

proposed rulemaking action began with 

the issuance of SECY–98–282, ‘‘Part 52 

Rulemaking Plan,’’ on December 4, 

1998. The Commission issued a staff 

requirements memorandum on January 

14, 1999 (SRM on SECY–98–282), 

approving the NRC staff’s plan for 

revising 10 CFR part 52. Subsequently, 

the NRC obtained considerable 

stakeholder comment on its planned 

action, conducted three public meetings 

on the proposed rulemaking, and twice 

posted draft rule language on the NRC’s 

rulemaking Web site before issuance of 

the initial proposed rule on July 3, 2003 

(68 FR 40026). However, a number of 

factors led the NRC to question whether 

the July 2003 proposed rule would meet 

the NRC’s objective of improving the 

effectiveness of its processes for 

licensing future nuclear power plants 

(71 FR 12782). As a result, the NRC 

decided that a substantial rewrite and 

expansion of the original proposed 

rulemaking was desirable so that the 

agency may more effectively and 

efficiently implement the licensing and 

approval processes for future nuclear 

power plants under part 52. 

Accordingly, the Commission decided 

to revise the July 2003 proposed rule 

and published the revised proposed rule 

for public comment on March 13, 2006 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61331 

1See The Carolina Power and Light Company 

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 

and 4), 7 AEC 939, 943 (June 11, 1974) (hereinafter 

Shearon Harris) (‘‘The regulations were revised in 

1972, not because of any requirements of the 

Atomic Energy Act, but rather to implement the 

precepts of NEPA which had then recently been 

enacted.’’); Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf 

Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1), 5 

NRC 1, 5 (Jan. 12, 1977) (explaining that NEPA led 

the AEC to amend its regulations in several 

respects, including the changes to 50.10(c)). 

2See Letter from Adrian P. Heymer, Nuclear 

Energy Institute to Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Continued 

(71 FR 12782). The public comment 

period on the March 2006 proposed rule 

ended on May 30, 2006. 

II. Discussion 

A. History of the NRC’s Concept of 

Construction and the LWA 

Section 101 of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (AEA) prohibits the 

manufacture, production, or use of a 

commercial nuclear power reactor, 

except where the manufacture, 

production or use is conducted under a 

license issued by the Commission. 

While construction of a nuclear power 

reactor is not mentioned in section 101, 

section 185 of the AEA requires that the 

Commission grant construction permits 

to applicants for licenses to construct or 

modify production or utilization 

facilities, if the applications for such 

permits are acceptable to the 

Commission. However, the term 

construction is not defined anywhere in 

the AEA or in the legislative history of 

the Act. 

To prevent the construction of 

production or utilization facilities 

before a construction permit is issued, 

the NRC proposed a regulatory 

definition of construction in 1960 (25 

FR 1224; February 11, 1960). The 

definition of construction was adopted 

in a final rule that same year and 

codified in 10 CFR 50.10(b) (25 FR 8712; 

September 9, 1960). As promulgated, 

§ 50.10(b) stated that no person shall 

begin the construction of a production 

or utilization facility on a site on which 

the facility is to be operated until a 

construction permit had been issued. 

Construction was defined in § 50.10(b) 

as including: 

pouring the foundation for, or the installation 

of, any portion of the permanent facility on 

the site; but [not to] include: (1) Site 

exploration, site excavation, preparation of 

the site for construction of the facility and 

construction of roadways, railroad spurs and 

transmission lines; (2) Procurement or 

manufacture of components of the facility; (3) 

Construction of non-nuclear facilities (such 

as turbo-generators and turbine buildings) 

and temporary buildings (such as 

construction equipment storage sheds) for 

use in connection with the construction of 

the facility; and (4) with respect to 

production or utilization facilities, other than 

testing facilities, required to be licensed 

pursuant to section 104a. or section 104c. of 

the Act, the construction of buildings which 

will be used for activities other than 

operation of a facility and which may also be 

used to house a facility. (For example, the 

construction of a college laboratory building 

with space for installation of a training 

reactor is not affected by this paragraph). (25 

FR 8712; September 9, 1960) 

The definition of construction 

remained unchanged until 1968, when 

the driving of piles was specifically 

excluded from the definition (33 FR 

2381; January 31, 1968). This change 

was implemented by amending 

§ 50.10(b)(1) to read: ‘‘Site exploration, 

site excavation, preparation of the site 

for construction of the reactor, including 

the driving of piles, and construction of 

roadways, railroad spurs, and 

transmission lines.’’ The rationale for 

this change, as articulated in the 

proposed rule (32 FR 11278; August 3, 

1967), seems to have been that the 

driving of piles was closely related to 

‘‘preparation of the site for 

construction’’ and that the performance 

of this type of site preparation activity 

would not affect the NRC’s subsequent 

decision to grant or deny the 

construction permit. With the exception 

of the exclusion of the driving of piles 

from the definition of construction in 

1968, the NRC’s interpretation of the 

scope of activities requiring a 

construction permit under the AEA has 

remained largely unchanged. 

However, following the enactment of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the 

Commission adopted a major 

amendment to the definition of 

construction in § 50.10 (37 FR 5745; 

March 21, 1972). In that rulemaking, the 

Commission adopted a much more 

expansive concept of construction. 

Specifically, a new § 50.10(c) was 

adopted stating that no person shall 

effect ‘‘commencement of construction’’

of a production or utilization facility on 

the site on which such facility will be 

constructed until a construction permit 

has been issued. ‘‘Commencement of 

construction’’ was defined as 

any clearing of land, excavation or other 

substantial action that would adversely affect 

the natural environment of a site and 

construction of nonnuclear facilities (such as 

turbogenerators and turbine buildings) for 

use in connection with the facility, but does 

not mean: (1) Changes desirable for the 

temporary use of the land for public 

recreational uses, necessary boring to 

determine foundation conditions or other 

preconstruction monitoring to establish 

background information related to the 

suitability of the site or to the protection of 

environmental values; (2) Procurement or 

manufacture of components of the facility; 

and (3) With respect to production or 

utilization facilities, other than testing 

facilities, required to be licensed pursuant to 

section 104a or section 104c of the Act, the 

construction of buildings which will be used 

for activities other than operation of a facility 

and which may also be used to house a 

facility * * * . (37 FR 5748) 

The Commission explained that expansion 

of the NRC’s permitting authority was: 

[C]onsistent with the direction of the 

Congress, as expressed in section 102 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

that, to the fullest extent possible, the 

policies, regulations and public laws of the 

United States shall be interpreted and 

administered in accordance with the policies 

set forth in that Act. Since site preparation 

constitutes a key point from the standpoint 

of environmental impact, in connection with 

the licensing of nuclear facilities and 

materials, these amendments will facilitate 

consideration and balancing of a broader 

range of realistic alternatives and provide a 

more significant mechanism for protecting 

the environment during the earlier stages of 

a project for which a facility or materials 

license is being sought. (37 FR 5746) 

Thus, the Commission’s interpretation 

of its responsibilities under NEPA, not 

the AEA, was the driving factor leading 

to its adoption of § 50.10(c).1

Two years after the expansion of the 

Commission’s permitting authority 

resulting from the promulgation of 

§ 50.10(c), the NRC promulgated 

§ 50.10(e) (39 FR 14506; April 24, 1974). 

This provision created the current LWA 

process, which was added to allow site 

preparation, excavation and certain 

other on-site activities to proceed before 

issuance of a construction permit. Prior 

to the promulgation of § 50.10(e), NRC 

permission to engage in site preparation 

activities before a construction permit 

was issued could only be obtained via 

an exemption issued under § 50.12. The 

provisions of § 50.10(e) allowed the 

NRC to authorize the commencement of 

both safety-related (known as ‘‘LWA–II’’

activities) and non safety-related 

(known as ‘‘LWA–I’’ activities) on-site 

construction activities before issuance 

of a construction permit if the NRC had 

completed a final environmental impact 

statement (FEIS) on the issuance of the 

construction permit and the presiding 

officer in the construction permit 

proceeding had made the requisite 

environmental and, in the case of an 

LWA–II, safety-related findings. 

B. NRC’s Proposed Concept of 

Construction and the LWA (PRM–50–82) 

The NRC received several comments 

in response to its Part 52 proposed rule 

revision published on March 13, 2006 

(71 FR 12782), including comments 

submitted by the Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI) dated May 25, 2006.2


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61332 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Pre-Licensing Construction Activity and Limited 

Work Authorization Issues relating to NRC 

Proposed Rule, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications and 

Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ 71 FR 12, 782 

(March 13, 2006) (RIN 3150–AG24) (May 25, 2006). 

3 Industry stakeholders did not raise issues 

relating to perceived problems either with the LWA 

process or, more generally, with the definition of 

construction during the period leading to the March 

2006 proposed rule and no such changes were 

suggested in the proposed rule. Therefore, the NRC 

is providing notice and an opportunity for public 

comment on the changes proposed in this 

supplement. The Commission may adopt this 

supplemental proposed rule either as part of the 

final rule promulgating the changes to Part 52 (see 

71 FR 12782; March 13, 2006), or in a separate final 

rule. 

4See State of New Hampshire v. Atomic Energy 

Commission, 406 F.2d 170, 174–75 (1st Cir. 1969). 

5Shearon Harris, 7 AEC 939. 

6See, e.g., Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens 

Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350–52 (1989); Natural 

Resources Defense Counsel v. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 822 F.2d 104, 129 (D.C. Cir 

1987); Kitchen v. Federal Communications 

Commission, 464 F.2d 801, 802 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 

NEI’s comments suggested 

modifications to the NRC’s LWA 

process including: (1) That non-safety 

related ‘‘LWA–I’’ activities, currently 

reflected in § 50.10(c) and § 50.10(e)(1), 

be allowed to proceed without prior 

authorization from the NRC, and (2) that 

the approval process for safety-related 

‘‘LWA–II’’ activities be accelerated. 

NEI’s comment also stated that the 

current definition of construction in 

§ 50.10(b) reflects the correct 

interpretation of the Commission’s 

licensing authority under the AEA. 

Further, NEI’s comment letter stated 

that ‘‘[t]o the extent the NRC determines 

that these LWA issues cannot be 

addressed in the current rulemaking, we 

ask that the Commission initiate an 

expedited rulemaking.’’ The NRC has 

determined that the changes suggested 

in the NEI comment could not be 

incorporated into the final Part 52 rule 

without re-noticing. Therefore, the 

Commission has decided that the NEI 

letter meets the sufficiency 

requirements described in 10 CFR 

2.802(c) and is docketing the letter as a 

petition for rulemaking (PRM–50–82). 

Furthermore, the NRC has determined 

that it is appropriate to seek public 

comment on the action requested by 

petitioner within the context of this 

supplemental proposed rule, which has 

been developed in response to NEI’s 

request, as allowed under 10 CFR 

2.802(e). 

NEI supported its suggested changes 

to the LWA process, stating that the 

business environment requires that new 

plant applicants seek to minimize the 

time interval between a decision to 

proceed with a combined license 

application and the start of commercial 

operation. In order to achieve this goal, 

NEI states that non safety-related 

‘‘LWA–I’’ activities would need to be 

initiated up to two years before the 

activities currently defined as 

‘‘construction’’ in § 50.10(b). In NEI’s 

view, the current LWA approval process 

would constrain the industry’s ability to 

use modern construction practices and 

needlessly add eighteen (18) months to 

estimated construction schedules for 

new plants that did not reference an 

early site permit (ESP) with LWA 

authority. 

The NRC agrees, in part, with NEI’s 

comments and is now issuing this 

supplement to the March 13, 2006 

proposed rule.3 This supplemental 

proposed rule would narrow the scope 

of activities requiring permission from 

the NRC in the form of limited work 

authorizations (LWA) by eliminating the 

concept of ‘‘commencement of 

construction’’ currently described in 

§ 50.10(c) and the authorization 

described in § 50.10(e)(1). Instead, 

under the supplemental proposed rule, 

NRC authorization would only be 

required before undertaking activities 

that have a reasonable nexus to 

radiological health and safety and/or 

common defense and security (i.e. 

excavation, subsurface preparation, 

installation of the foundation, and onsite, in-place fabrication, erection, 

integration or testing, for any structure, 

system or component of a facility 

required by the Commission’s rules and 

regulations to be described in the site 

safety analysis report or preliminary or 

final safety analysis report). While this 

redefinition of ‘‘construction’’ would 

result in fewer activities requiring NRC 

permission in the form of a LWA, it also 

redefines certain activities (such as the 

driving of piles), that are currently 

excluded from the regulatory definition 

of construction given in § 50.10(b), as 

construction requiring a LWA. 

Further, this proposed rule would 

provide an optional, phased application 

and approval procedure for construction 

permit and combined license applicants 

to obtain limited work authorizations. 

Specifically, the proposed rule would 

provide an environmental review and 

approval process for LWA requests that 

would allow the NRC to grant an 

applicant permission to engage in LWA 

activities after completion of a limited 

environmental impact statement 

addressing those activities, but before 

completion of the comprehensive 

environmental impact statement 

addressing the underlying request for a 

construction permit or combined 

license. Finally, this proposed rule 

would specifically address the 

environmental review required in 

situations where the LWA activities are 

to be conducted at sites for which the 

Commission has previously prepared an 

environmental impact statement for the 

construction and operation of a nuclear 

power plant, and for which a 

construction permit was issued, but 

construction of the plant was never 

completed. 

C. NRC’s Proposed Concept of 

Construction and the AEA 

This change is fully consistent with 

the Commission’s radiological health 

and safety and common defense and 

security responsibilities under the 

AEA.4 Specifically, the Commission has 

determined that the site-preparation 

activities that would no longer be 

considered construction under this 

proposed rule do not have a reasonable 

nexus to radiological health and safety, 

or the common defense and security. 

Further, as previously mentioned, the 

term ‘‘construction’’ is not defined in 

the AEA or in the Act’s legislative 

history. Instead of expressly defining 

the term in the AEA, Congress entrusted 

the agency with the responsibility of 

determining what activities constitute 

construction.5 The Commission believes 

that its proposed definition of the term 

‘‘construction’’ is reasonable. 

D. Proposed Supplement Complies With 

NEPA 

1. NRC’s Proposed Concept of 

Construction is Consistent with the 

Legal Effect of NEPA 

The proposed change in the definition 

of construction is also consistent with 

the legal effect of NEPA. Section 

50.10(c) was originally added to part 50 

due to the interpretation that the 

enactment of NEPA, not a change in the 

powers delegated to the agency in the 

AEA, required the NRC to expand its 

permitting/licensing authority. 

However, subsequent judicial decisions 

have made it clear that NEPA is a 

procedural statute and does not expand 

the jurisdiction delegated to an agency 

by its organic statute.6 Therefore, while 

NEPA may require the NRC to consider 

the environmental effects caused by the 

exercise of its permitting/licensing 

authority, the statute cannot be the 

source of the expansion of the NRC’s 

authority to require construction 

permits, combined licenses, or other 

forms of permission for activities that 

are not reasonably related to 

radiological health and safety or 

protection of the common defense and 

security. Since NEPA cannot expand the 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61333 

7Save the Bay, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 610 F.2d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1980). 

8See Landmark West! v. U.S. Postal Service, 840 

F.Supp. 994, 1006 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (citing cases). 

9 Daniel R. Mandelker, NEPA Law and Litigation, 

9–25 (2nd ed. 2004). 

10See Tennessee Valley Authority (Clinch River 

Breeder Reactor Plant), 16 NRC 412, 424 (Aug. 17, 

1982) (hereinafter Clinch River). 

11 Id. 

Commission’s permitting/licensing 

authority under the AEA, the 

elimination of the blanket inclusion of 

site preparation activities in the 

definition of construction under 

§ 50.10(c) does not violate NEPA. 

2. NRC’s Proposed Concept of the 

‘‘Major Federal Action’’ is Consistent 

with NEPA Law 

Because the AEA does not authorize 

NRC to require an applicant to obtain 

permission before undertaking site 

preparation activities that do not 

implicate radiological health and safety 

or common defense and security, as a 

general matter the Commission 

considers these activities ‘‘non-Federal 

action’’ for the purposes of 

implementing its NEPA responsibilities. 

Generally, non-Federal actions are not 

subject to the requirements of NEPA.7

Further, the Commission believes that 

these non-Federal site preparation 

activities would not generally be 

‘‘federalized’’ if the Commission were to 

ultimately grant a combined license or 

construction permit. The grant of a 

construction permit or combined license 

by the Commission is not a legal 

condition precedent to these nonFederal, site preparation activities. 

While the Commission recognizes that 

there may be a ‘‘but for’’ causal 

relationship between certain nonFederal site preparation activities and 

the major Federal action of issuing a 

construction permit or combined 

license, such a ‘‘but for’’ causal 

relationship is not sufficient to require 

non-Federal site preparation activities to 

be treated as Federal action for the 

purposes of NEPA.8

In addition, under the proposed 

definition of construction, the 

Commission does not believe that it has 

sufficient ability or discretion to 

influence or control the non-Federal, 

site preparation activities to the extent 

that its influence or control would 

constitute practical or factual veto 

power over the non-Federal action. 

Further, the Commission does not 

believe that allowing the non-Federal, 

site preparation activities to be 

undertaken would restrict its 

consideration of alternative sites or the 

need to assess whether there is an 

‘‘obviously superior’’ site. Specifically, 

while the Commission recognizes that 

narrowing the definition of construction 

may result in substantial changes to the 

physical properties of a site, many of the 

fundamental elements that enter into a 

determination of the existence of an 

‘‘obviously superior’’ site would not be 

affected by the changes to those 

physical properties. For example, 

meteorology and seismology would not 

be affected in any significant way by the 

non-Federal site preparation activities. 

However, while the effects caused by 

the non-Federal, site preparation 

activities would not be considered 

effects of the Commission’s licensing 

action, the effects of the non-Federal 

activities would be considered during 

any subsequent ‘‘cumulative impacts’’

analysis. Specifically, the effects of the 

non-Federal activities would be 

considered in order to establish a 

baseline against which the incremental 

effect of the Commission’s major 

Federal action (i.e. issuing a LWA, 

construction permit or combined 

license) would be measured. These 

incremental impacts may be additive or 

synergistic. 

3. NRC’s Phased Approval Approach is 

not Illegal Segmentation Under NEPA 

The phased application and approval 

of LWAs does not raise the concerns 

underlying the prohibition of 

segmentation under NEPA law. 

Generally, the NEPA segmentation 

problem arises when the environmental 

impacts of projects are evaluated in a 

piecemeal fashion and, as a result, the 

comprehensive environmental impacts 

of the entire Federal action are never 

considered or are only considered after 

the agency has committed itself to 

continuation of the project. Another 

associated segmentation problem arises 

when pieces of a Federal action are 

evaluated separately and, as a result, 

none of the individual pieces are 

considered ‘‘major federal actions’’

requiring an EIS.9

Neither of these segmentation 

concerns are presented by the approach 

proposed here. First, under both LWA 

application options, the environmental 

effects associated with the LWA 

activities and the project as a whole (i.e. 

issuance of a construction permit or 

combined license) would be evaluated 

in an EIS. Therefore, the segmentation 

problem of considering a project in 

phases, thereby avoiding completion of 

an EIS, is not an issue. In addition, all 

of the environmental impacts associated 

with the construction and operation of 

the proposed plant, including the 

impacts associated with the LWA 

activities, would be considered together, 

through incorporation by reference, in 

the EIS prepared on the construction 

permit or combined license application. 

This comprehensive consideration of 

environmental impacts would take 

place before the NRC is committed to 

issuing any construction permit or 

combined license. The fact that the NRC 

will not have prejudged the ultimate 

decision of whether to grant a 

construction permit or a combined 

license by issuing the LWA, coupled 

with the requirement that the site 

redress plan be implemented in the 

event that the permit or license is 

ultimately not issued, also ensures that 

issuance of the LWA would not 

foreclose reasonable alternatives. 

In addition, the proposed application 

and approval process is consistent with 

the Commission’s previously expressed 

position that NEPA does not, as a 

general matter, prohibit an agency from 

undertaking part of a project without a 

complete environmental analysis of the 

whole project.10 The key factors used to 

support the Commission’s position in 

Clinch River were; (1) That the site 

preparation activities in that case would 

not result in irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments to the remaining portions 

of the project and (2) the environmental 

impacts of the site preparation activities 

allowed in that case were substantially 

redressable.11

These considerations are reflected in 

the provisions of the supplemental 

proposed rule. Specifically, § 50.10(c)(6) 

of the proposed rule states that any 

activity undertaken pursuant to a LWA 

are entirely at the risk of the applicant, 

that the issuance of the LWA has no 

bearing on whether the construction 

permit or combined license should be 

issued, and that the environmental 

impact statement associated with the 

underlying request will not consider the 

sunk costs associated with the LWA 

activities. In addition, § 50.10(c)(3) 

would require an applicant requesting a 

LWA to submit a plan for redress of the 

site to be implemented in the event that 

the LWA holder is ultimately not issued 

a construction permit or combined 

license. This site redress plan must 

‘‘achieve an environmentally stable and 

aesthetically acceptable site suitable for 

whatever non-nuclear use may conform 

with local zoning laws’’ in the event 

that the LWA holder is not ultimately 

issued a construction permit or 

combined license. The redress plan 

would achieve this objective by 

addressing site impacts resulting from 

LWA activities. Impacts associated with 

pre-LWA activities would not be 

addressed in the redress plan. Further, 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61334 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

12The proposed rule language was promulgated 

without modification in the final rule. 33 FR 2381. 

§ 50.10(c)(7) would require that the site 

redress plan be implemented within a 

reasonable time and that the redress of 

the site occur within eighteen (18) 

months of the Commission’s final 

decision denying a construction permit 

or combined license. 

It should be noted that while redress 

of site impacts may have the practical 

effect of mitigating some environmental 

impacts, the redress plan is not a 

substitute for a thorough evaluation of 

environmental impacts, or development 

of mitigation measures that may be 

necessary to provide relief from 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed LWA activities. The 

primary purpose of the site redress plan 

is to ensure that impacts associated with 

any LWA activities performed at the site 

will not prevent the site from being 

utilized for a permissible, non-nuclear 

alternative use. In this way, the redress 

plan helps to preserve the Commission’s 

ability to objectively evaluate an 

application for a construction permit or 

combined license, despite the fact that 

LWA activities have been undertaken at 

the site. 

E. Inclusion of Additional Activities as 

‘‘Construction’’ Under § 50.10(b) 

A significant change proposed in this 

supplemental proposed rule is the 

inclusion of activities—such as the 

driving of piles and excavation of 

foundations for safety-related 

structures—in the definition of 

construction that are not currently 

defined as construction in § 50.10(b). 

Although the driving of piles was not 

expressly included in the definition of 

‘‘construction’’ contained in § 50.10(b) 

before the amendment of § 50.10(b)(1) in 

1968, this activity was generally 

considered to be encompassed in the 

existing definition of construction at 

that time (See 33 FR 2381; January 31, 

1968). The proposed rule suggesting that 

the driving of piles be expressly 

excluded from the definition of 

construction simply states that the 

‘‘activity is closely related to, and may 

be appropriately included in’’ site 

preparation activities, which were not 

considered construction (32 FR 11278; 

August 3, 1967).12 The rationale for not 

including the driving of piles, and site 

preparation activities generally, in the 

definition of construction seems to have 

been that these activities would have no 

effect on the NRC’s ultimate decision to 

grant or deny a construction permit and 

that these activities were undertaken 

entirely at the applicant’s risk (32 FR 

11278). 

The NRC does not currently believe 

that the exclusion of a site preparation 

activity from the definition of 

construction should hinge on this factor. 

The Commission believes that the site 

preparation activities described in 

§ 50.10(b) of this supplement, including 

the driving of piles and excavation of 

foundations in certain situations, have a 

reasonable nexus to radiological health 

and safety, and/or common defense and 

security and, therefore, are properly 

considered ‘‘construction’’ as that term 

is used in § 185 of the AEA. In addition, 

the inclusion of these activities in the 

definition of construction (i.e. requiring 

an LWA before they are undertaken), 

coupled with the phased approval 

process suggested in this supplemental 

proposed rule, would allow for early 

resolution of the safety issues associated 

with these activities. Early resolution of 

safety issues is consistent with the 

general rationale underlying the 

licensing and permitting processes 

provided in 10 CFR part 52. 

F. Phased Application and Approval 

Process 

Another significant change suggested 

in this supplemental proposed rule is 

the modification of the procedure for 

obtaining LWA approval by 

implementing an optional phased 

application and approval process. 

Specifically, as proposed, § 2.101(a)(9) 

would allow applicants for construction 

permits and combined licenses the 

option of submitting either: (1) A 

complete application or (2) a two part 

application with part one including 

information required for the NRC to 

make a decision on the applicant’s 

request to undertake LWA activities and 

part two containing all other 

information required to obtain the 

underlying license or permit. The 

proposed rule would allow the NRC to 

consider the environmental impacts 

attributable to the requested LWA 

activities separately, either as part of a 

comprehensive environmental impact 

statement (EIS) in the case where a 

complete application is submitted, or in 

a separate EIS addressing only the LWA 

activities in the case of a two-part 

application. After consideration of the 

environmental impacts and the relevant 

safety-related issues associated with the 

LWA activities, the NRC would be 

permitted to allow the applicant to 

undertake the LWA activities, even if 

the EIS on the underlying request (i.e. 

construction permit or combined 

license) is not complete. 

The NRC believes that this phased 

application/approval process would add 

efficiencies to the licensing/ 

construction process by preventing 

unnecessary delay in construction 

schedules, which would result if 

issuance of an LWA for safety-related 

activities were delayed until the final 

environmental impact statement and 

adjudicatory hearing on the entire 

underlying license application were 

complete. In addition, the proposed 

application/approval process would 

result in the timely resolution of 

relevant safety and environmental 

issues at an earlier stage in the licensing 

process. As previously discussed, the 

NRC believes that these efficiencies can 

be gained without compromising the 

agency’s NEPA responsibilities, as the 

phased approach presented in this 

supplemental proposed rule does not 

constitute illegal segmentation. 

G. EIS Prepared, but Facility Never 

Constructed 

The supplemental proposed rule also 

specifically addresses the situation 

where a request is made to perform 

LWA activities at a site for which an EIS 

has previously been prepared for the 

construction and operation of a nuclear 

power plant, and a construction permit 

has been issued, but construction of the 

plant was never completed. In this 

special situation, the proposed 

supplement would allow an applicant to 

reference the previous EIS in its 

environmental report, but requires that 

the applicant identify any new and 

significant information material to the 

matters required to be addressed in the 

proposed § 51.49(a). Further, in these 

special cases the proposed supplement 

would allow the NRC to incorporate the 

previous EIS by reference when 

preparing its draft EIS on the LWA 

activities. The draft EIS on the LWA 

request would be limited to the 

consideration of any significant new 

information dealing with the 

environmental impacts of construction, 

relevant to the activities to be carried 

out under the LWA. Further, in a 

hearing on issuance of an LWA at such 

sites, the presiding officer would be 

limited to determining whether there is 

significant new information pertaining 

to the environmental impacts of the 

construction activities encompassed by 

the previous EIS that are analogous to 

the activities to be conducted under the 

LWA. The presiding officer would 

evaluate significant new information 

indetermining whether an LWA should 

be issued as proposed by the Director of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

This provision is designed to gain 

efficiency by using existing 

environmental impact statements to 

evaluate the environmental impacts of 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61335 

activities to be performed under an 

LWA. The Commission believes that 

this practice is appropriate because the 

referenced environmental review will 

come in the form of a FEIS prepared by 

NRC staff for sites on which permission 

to construct a nuclear power plant was 

ultimately granted by the Commission. 

The Commission understands that the 

activities proposed in a current LWA 

request may be different from the 

activities proposed and analyzed in the 

previous FEIS referenced by an 

applicant and relied upon by NRC staff. 

However, it is the Commission’s intent 

that if such differences will likely result 

in significant changes to the 

environmental impacts caused by the 

LWA activities currently proposed by 

the applicant, then the differences 

should be considered ‘‘new and 

significant information’’ material to the 

environmental impacts that may 

reasonably be expected to result from 

the LWA activities and, therefore, 

should be addressed in the applicant’s 

environmental report, analyzed by the 

staff in a supplement to the existing 

FEIS, and considered by the presiding 

officer. 

Further, for the reasons previously 

discussed in section D.3, the 

Commission does not believe that 

authorizing LWA activities before 

completion of the FEIS on the combined 

license or construction permit would 

have the effect of prejudging the license/ 

permit, or foreclosing reasonable 

alternatives. 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Part 2 

Section 2.101 Filing of Application 

Section 2.101 would be revised to add 

a new paragraph (a)(9), which would 

state that an applicant for a construction 

permit or combined license may submit 

a request for an LWA either as part of 

a complete application under 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4), or in two 

parts under this paragraph (i.e., a 

‘‘phased LWA application’’). If the LWA 

application is submitted as part of a 

complete construction permit or 

operating license application, the 

application must include the 

information required by § 50.10(c). 

If the application is a phased LWA 

application, the first part must contain 

the information required by § 50.10(c) 

on the LWA, as well as the general 

information required of all production 

and utilization facility applicants under 

§ 50.33(a) through (f). The second part of 

the application would contain the 

remaining information otherwise 

required to be filed in a complete 

application under § 2.101(a)(1) thorough 

(4). However, the applicant would have 

the further option of submitting part two 

in additional subparts in accordance 

with § 2.101(a–1). The second part (or 

the first subpart of multiple subparts 

under § 2.101(a–1)) must be filed no 

later than twelve (12) months after the 

filing of part one. Part two of the 

application (or the first subpart of any 

additional subparts submitted in 

accordance with § 2.101(a–1)) must be 

submitted no later that twelve (12) 

months after submission of part one of 

the application. 

An applicant for an early site permit 

may not submit its LWA application in 

advance of the underlying early site 

permit application, and therefore is not 

permitted to use the procedures of 

Subpart F. 

Section 2.104 Notice of Hearing 

Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of § 2.104 would 

be modified to more clearly refer to the 

authority requested under § 52.17(c) as 

the limited work authorization under 

§ 50.10. 

Subpart F 

The title of Subpart F would be 

revised to reflect the broader scope of 

matters covered under this section, as 

described under § 2.600. 

Section 2.600 Scope of Subpart 

The statement of scope in § 2.600 

would be revised to reflect the new set 

of procedures for phased LWA 

applications in proposed §§ 2.641 

through 2.649. 

Section 2.601 Applicability of Other 

Sections 

Section 2.601 would be corrected to 

add references to subparts C, L and N of 

part 2, in order to make clear that these 

subparts (in addition to subparts A and 

G) apply to applications and 

proceedings under subpart F, except as 

specifically provided in subpart F. 

Section 2.606 Partial Decision on Site 

Suitability Issues 

Paragraph (a) of § 2.606, which 

provides that a LWA may not be issued 

without completion of the ‘‘full review’’

required by NEPA, would be revised to 

remove the reference to a LWA, 

inasmuch as LWAs would now be 

covered in §§ 2.641 through 2.649. 

Section 2.641 Filing Fees 

Section 2.641, which is comparable to 

current § 2.602, provides that a phased 

LWA application shall be accompanied 

by the applicable filing fees in § 50.30(e) 

and part 170 of this chapter. 

Section 2.643 Acceptance and 

Docketing of Application for Limited 

Work Authorization 

Section 2.643, which is comparable to 

current § 2.603, describes the 

acceptance and docketing requirements 

for phased LWA applications, and the 

requirement for publication in the 

Federal Register of a notice of docketing. 

Paragraph (a) provides that each part of 

the application, when first received, 

will be treated as a tendered application 

and assessed for sufficiency. If the 

submitted part of the application is 

determined to be incomplete, the 

Director of NRR (Director) will inform 

the applicant. The determination of 

completeness will generally be made in 

30 days, barring unusual circumstances. 

Under paragraph (b), the Director will 

docket part one of the application only 

if that part is ‘‘complete.’’ The NRC 

would use the existing guidelines and 

practices for determining the 

completeness of applications under this 

section, as are used in determining 

completeness under § 2.101. Upon 

docketing, the Director will assign a 

docket number that will be used 

throughout the entire proceeding 

(including that part of the proceeding on 

part two of the application). Under 

paragraph (c), the Director would make 

the designated distributions to the 

Governor of the state in which the 

nuclear power plant will be located, and 

publish a notice of docketing in the 

Federal Register. Often in practice, the 

notice of hearing required by the AEA 

is included in the notice of docketing, 

but as with existing applications, this 

will remain a matter of discretion by the 

NRC, who will determine what is the 

most efficient course of action in this 

regard. 

Paragraph (d) provides that part two 

of the application will be docketed, as 

with part one, when it is determined to 

be complete. The Commission reiterates 

that ‘‘part two’’ could be submitted in 

several subparts, if the applicant chose 

to take advantage of the provisions of 

§ 2.101(a–1), which provides for 

submission of applications in three 

parts. 

Finally, under paragraph (e), the 

Director will publish a second notice of 

docketing in the Federal Register, in 

this case for part two of the application. 

As with the notice of docketing for part 

one, the notice of docketing for part two 

may also include a notice of hearing on 

the second part of the application. 

The Commission notes that nothing in 

§ 2.101(a)(9), or any part of subpart F, 

requires that the hearing on part one of 

the application be completed and an 

initial decision issued by the presiding 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61336 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

officer, before part two of the 

application is filed. 

Section 2.645 Notice of Hearing 

Section 2.645, which is comparable to 

current § 2.604, sets forth the content of 

the notice of hearing for each of the two 

parts of the proceeding. Paragraph (a) 

provides that the notice of hearing for 

part one specify that the hearing will 

relate only to consideration of the 

matters related to § 50.33(a) through (f), 

and the limited work authorization 

issues under review. Although not 

explicitly stated in this paragraph, 

interested persons who seek to 

intervene in the hearing on part one of 

the application must file a petition to 

intervene in accordance with the notice 

of hearing, and § 2.309. 

Under paragraph (b), a supplementary 

notice of hearing will be published in 

the Federal Register when part two of 

the application is docketed. This 

provides a second opportunity for 

interested persons to file petitions to 

intervene with respect to the matters 

relevant to part two of the application. 

These petitions must be filed within the 

time period specified in the notice of 

hearing, and must meet the applicable 

requirements of subpart C of part 2, 

including the contention requirements 

in § 2.309. 

Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule 

differs somewhat from § 2.604, in that 

the Commission proposes not to allow 

a party admitted in part one of the 

proceeding, who did not withdraw or 

was not otherwise dismissed, to 

automatically continue as a party in 

phase two of the proceeding. Instead, 

each party who wishes to participate in 

the second phase must submit a second 

petition to intervene in accordance with 

§ 2.309, but the petition need not 

address the interest and standing 

requirements in § 2.309(d). The petition 

must be filed within the time period 

provided by the supplementary notice 

of hearing published in the Federal 

Register for part two of the application. 

As noted in the section-by-section 

analysis for § 2.643, nothing in 

§ 2.101(a)(9) or subpart F requires that 

the hearing on part one of the 

application be completed and an initial 

decision issued by the presiding officer, 

before part two of the application is 

filed. Thus, there may be simultaneous 

hearings on parts one and two of the 

application. However, as reflected in 

paragraph (e), the Commission’s intent 

is that the membership of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board designated 

for hearings under part one be the same 

as for the hearings under part two, to the 

extent practical and consistent with 

timely completion of each hearing. 

Section 2.647 [Reserved] 

This section is reserved for future use 

by the Commission. 

Section 2.649 Partial Decisions on 

Limited Work Authorization 

Section 2.649, which is comparable to 

§ 2.606, denotes the provisions in 

subparts C and G relative to issues such 

as oral arguments, immediate 

effectiveness of the presiding officer’s 

initial decision, and petitions for 

Commission review, that apply to 

partial initial decisions on a LWA 

rendered in accordance with this 

subpart. This section also states that the 

LWA may not be issued without 

completion of the environmental review 

required for LWAs under subpart A of 

part 51. Finally, this section provides 

that the time periods for the 

Commission to exercise its review and 

sua sponte authority are the same time 

periods provided for in part 2 with 

respect to a final decision on issuance 

of a construction permit or combined 

license. 

Part 50 

Section 50.10 License Required; 

Limited Work Authorization 

Paragraph (a). This paragraph, which 

is unchanged from the current rule, 

prohibits any person within the United 

States from transferring or receiving in 

interstate commerce, manufacturing, 

producing, transferring, acquiring, 

possessing, or using any production or 

utilization facility except as authorized 

by a license issued by the Commission, 

or as provided in § 50.11. 

Paragraph (b). This paragraph, which 

is substantially modified from the 

current rule, prohibits any person from 

beginning the ‘‘construction’’ of a 

production or utilization facility on a 

site on which the facility is to be 

operated until that person has been 

issued a construction permit, a 

combined license under part 52, or a 

limited work authorization under 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

The remainder of this paragraph is 

devoted to specifying what activities 

are, and are not, deemed to constitute 

‘‘construction’’ for purposes of this 

paragraph’s prohibition. Activities, such 

as site clearing, grading, site 

exploration, test boring, erection of 

temporary buildings and erection of 

permanent structures which are not 

required to be described in the site 

safety analysis report, preliminary safety 

analysis report, or final safety analysis 

report, would not be regarded as 

‘‘construction,’’ and no NRC approval 

would be needed to conduct those 

activities. The only work that would be 

considered construction would be the 

excavation, subsurface preparation, and 

on-site, in-place fabrication, erection, 

integration or testing (including the 

installation of foundations) of any 

structure, system or component required 

by the Commission’s rules and 

regulations to be described in the site 

safety analysis report, preliminary safety 

analysis report, or final safety analysis 

report. The term, ‘‘on-site, in place, 

fabrication, erection, integration or 

testing’’ is intended to describe the 

historical process of constructing a 

nuclear power plant in its final, on-site 

location, where components or modules 

are integrated into the final, in-plant 

location and elevation. The definition is 

intended to exclude persons from 

having to obtain a LWA, construction 

permit, or combined license, in order to 

fabricate, assemble and test components 

and modules in a shop building, 

warehouse, or laydown area located onsite. 

Thus, the proposed redefinition of 

construction for the most part returns to 

the pre-1972 definition of 

‘‘construction’’ in § 50.10(b), and 

removes the need for NRC approval to 

conduct the activities currently 

described in § 50.10(e)(1), except in two 

important respects. First, whereas 

existing § 50.10(b) allows the driving of 

piles for the facility, proposed § 50.10(b) 

would not permit driving of piles for 

any structure, system or component 

required to be described in an SSAR, 

PSAR, or FSAR unless NRC permission 

is obtained in the form of a LWA, 

construction permit, or combined 

license. Second, existing § 50.10(e)(1) 

allows a person, with NRC permission 

in the form of a LWA, to excavate and 

install the structural foundations for any 

structure, systems and components 

‘‘which do not prevent or mitigate the 

consequences of postulated accidents 

that could cause undue risk to the 

health and safety of the public.’’ The 

proposed redefinition would not remove 

the need for NRC approval, but 

substitutes a slightly different scope of 

structures, systems and components 

whose excavation and foundation 

installation may be allowed under an 

LWA, viz., those which are required to 

be described in the FSAR. 

‘‘Excavation,’’ as used in paragraph 

(b), excludes initial site grading to attain 

the final ground elevation, and erosion 

control measures to preclude run-off, at 

the location where further excavation 

will be required for a structure, systems 

or component required by the 

Commission’s regulations to be 

described in the FSAR. By contrast, the 

removal of any soil, rock, gravel or other 

material below the final ground 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61337 

elevation, in preparation for the 

placement of the foundation and 

associated retaining walls, is excavation 

that may not be performed without an 

LWA, construction permit, or combined 

license under part 52. The ‘‘driving of 

piles’’ not related to ensuring the 

structural stability or integrity of any 

structure, systems or component 

required by the Commission’s 

regulations to be described in the FSAR 

does not fall within the definition of 

construction in this paragraph. 

Therefore, piles driven to support the 

erection of a bridge for a temporary or 

permanent access road would not be 

considered ‘‘construction’’ under this 

section and may be performed without 

a LWA, construction permit, or 

combined license. ‘‘Installation of the 

foundation,’’ means soil compaction; 

the installation of drainage systems and 

geofabric; the placement of concrete 

(e.g., ‘‘mudmats’’) or other materials 

which will not be removed prior to 

placement of the foundation of a 

structure; the placement and 

compaction of a subbase; the 

installation of reinforcing bars to be 

incorporated into the foundation of the 

structure; the erection of concrete forms 

for the foundations that will remain inplace permanently (even if nonstructural); and placement of concrete or 

other material constituting the 

foundation of any structure, systems or 

component required by the 

Commission’s regulations to be 

described in the FSAR. Foundation 

installation activities will require a 

LWA, construction permit, or combined 

license. 

Construction is deemed to also 

include the ‘‘on-site, in-place,’’

fabrication, erection, integration or 

testing activities for any structure, 

system or component required by the 

Commission’s regulations to be 

described in the FSAR. The use of the 

term, ‘‘on-site, in place,’’ is intended to 

allow such structures, systems and 

components, including any ‘‘modules’’

and subassemblies, to be fabricated, 

assembled and tested in a shop 

building, warehouse, or laydown area 

located on-site without a LWA, 

construction permit, or combined 

license. However, the installation or 

integration of that structure, system, or 

component into its final location in the 

reactor would require either a 

construction permit or combined 

license. The Commission notes that this 

paragraph does not apply to 

manufacturing, inasmuch as 

‘‘manufacturing’’ is not ‘‘construction.’’

Moreover, paragraph (b) refers to 

construction ‘‘on a site on which the 

facility is to be operated;’’ which is not 

within the scope of a ‘‘manufacturing 

license’’ under subpart F of part 52. 

Accordingly, manufacturing is not 

covered by paragraph (b). 

Paragraph (c). This paragraph, which 

is substantially modified from the 

current rule, addresses the need for, 

nature and contents of an application 

for a LWA. Paragraph (c)(1) allows the 

Commission to issue an LWA in 

advance of a construction permit or 

combined license, authorizing the 

holder to perform certain delineated 

construction requirements. 

Paragraph (c)(2) provides that an LWA 

application may be submitted as: 

—Part of a complete application for a 

construction permit or combined 

license under § 2.101(a)(1) through 

(4). 

—Part one of a phased application 

under § 2.101(a)(9). 

—Part of a complete application for an 

early site permit under § 2.101(a)(1) 

through (4). 

—An amendment to an already-issued 

early site permit 

Paragraph (c)(3) establishes the 

requirements for the content of an LWA 

application. The application must 

include a safety analysis report, an 

environmental report, and a redress 

plan. The safety analysis report, which 

may be a stand-alone document or 

incorporated into the construction 

permit or combined license 

application’s preliminary or final safety 

analysis report, as applicable, must 

describe the LWA activities that the 

applicant seeks to perform, provide the 

final design for the structures to be 

constructed under the LWA and a safety 

analysis for those portions of the 

structure, and provide a safety analysis 

of the design demonstrating that the 

activities will be conducted in 

accordance with applicable Commission 

safety requirements. 

The environmental report must meet 

the requirements of 10 CFR 51.49, 

which is discussed in more detail in the 

section by section analysis for that 

provision. 

The redress plan must describe the 

activities that would be implemented by 

the LWA holder, should construction be 

terminated by the holder, the LWA is 

revoked by the NRC, or upon 

effectiveness of the Commission’s final 

decision denying the associated 

operating license application or the 

underlying combined license 

application, as applicable. The primary 

purpose of the redress plan is to return 

the site to an environmentally stable 

and aesthetically acceptable condition 

that would allow the site to be utilized 

for alternative, non-nuclear uses that 

conform with local zoning laws. This 

will be accomplished through redress of 

site impacts resulting from LWA 

activities performed at the site. Redress 

of site impacts resulting from pre-LWA 

activities will not be required under the 

redress plan. In addition, while redress 

of site impacts may have the practical 

effect of mitigating some environmental 

impacts, the redress plan is not a 

substitute for a thorough evaluation of 

environmental impacts, or development 

of mitigation measures that may be 

necessary to provide relief from 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed LWA activities. 

Paragraph (d). This paragraph, which 

is substantially modified from the 

current rule, generally addresses the 

requirements associated with issuance 

of a LWA. Paragraph (d)(1) sets forth the 

requirements for the appropriate 

Director to issue an LWA under this 

section. The Director may issue an LWA 

only after making the appropriate 

findings on: (i) Necessary technical 

qualifications, and the matter of foreign 

ownership or control relevant to the 

information required by § 50.33(a) 

through (f), as mandated by sections 

103.d. and 182.a. of the AEA; (ii) 

making the necessary findings on public 

health and safety and common defense 

and security with respect to the 

activities to be carried out under the 

LWA; (iii) NRC staff issuance of a final 

EIS on the LWA in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of part 51; and 

(iv) the presiding officer finding on the 

environmental issues relevant to the 

LWA in accordance with the applicable 

requirements of part 51, and a finding 

on the safety issues relevant to the 

LWA. 

Paragraph (d)(2) requires that the 

LWA specify the activities that the 

holder is authorized to perform, 

consistent with the LWA application 

and as modified based upon the NRC’s 

review. In addition, each LWA will be 

issued with a condition requiring 

implementation of the redress plan if 

the LWA holder terminates 

construction, the LWA is revoked, or 

upon effectiveness of the Commission’s 

final decision denying the associated 

operating license application or the 

underlying combined license 

application, as applicable. As discussed 

in the analysis of paragraph (e), this 

condition survives the merging of the 

LWA into the underlying construction 

permit, early site permit, or combined 

license. 

Paragraph (e). This paragraph, which 

is substantially modified from the 

current rule, addresses the legal effect of 

an issued LWA. Paragraph (e)(1) 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61338 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

provides that any activities undertaken 

under a limited work authorization shall 

be entirely at the risk of the applicant 

and, with exception of the matters 

determined under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) 

and (iii), the issuance of the limited 

work authorization shall have no 

bearing on the issuance of a 

construction permit or combined license 

with respect to the requirements of the 

Act, and rules, regulations, or orders 

promulgated pursuant thereto. Thus, 

this paragraph states that the 

environmental impact statement for a 

construction permit or combined license 

application for which a limited work 

authorization was previously issued 

will not address, and the presiding 

officer will not consider, the sunk costs 

of the holder of limited work 

authorization in determining the 

proposed action (i.e., issuance of the 

construction permit or combined 

license). 

Paragraph (f). This new paragraph 

would require the LWA holder to begin 

implementation of the redress plan in a 

reasonable time, and complete the 

redress no later than eighteen (18) 

months after termination of construction 

by the holder, revocation of the LWA, or 

upon effectiveness of the Commission’s 

final decision denying the associated 

operating license application or the 

underlying combined license 

application, as applicable. 

Part 51 

Section 51.4 Definitions 

Section 51.4 would be revised by 

adding a new definition of 

‘‘construction,’’ which would make 

applicable throughout part 51 the 

definition of construction in proposed 

§ 50.10(b). This would have the effect of 

excluding from an EIS for any early site 

permit, construction permit, combined 

license, or LWA issued under § 50.10(c), 

any discussion, evaluation or 

consideration of the environmental 

impacts or benefits associated with nonconstruction activities as effectively 

defined in § 50.10(b). This would also 

remove the need for the NRC decision 

maker, including a presiding officer, to 

make a NEPA finding with respect to 

the environmental impacts or benefits 

associated with those non-construction 

activities. 

Section 51.17 Information collection 

requirements; OMB approval 

Paragraph (b) of § 51.17 of the March 

2006 proposed rule would be further 

modified by adding a reference to a new 

§ 51.49, which requires submission of 

an environmental report by LWA 

applicants. While § 51.49 contains a 

new information collection requirement, 

it is not expected to result in a net 

increase in the burden placed on LWA 

applicants because the information 

required under this new section was 

formerly required to be submitted by 

such applicants as part of a complete 

environmental report for the underlying 

construction permit or combined license 

under § 51.50, or for the ESP application 

(or amendment) under Part 52. The 

primary effect of this supplementary 

proposed rule would be to delay 

submission of most of the 

environmental information to the time 

that the underlying construction permit 

or combined license application and 

environmental report is submitted. 

Thus, the environmental report 

submitted under § 51.49 at the LWA 

stage would be limited in scope to 

address environmental impacts of LWA 

activities. 

Section 51.20 Criteria for and 

identification of licensing and 

regulatory actions requiring 

environmental impact statements 

Section 51.20 would be revised by 

adding a new paragraph (b)(6), 

explicitly stating that issuance of a LWA 

under § 50.10 is one of the actions 

requiring the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement (or a 

supplement to environmental impact 

statement). 

Section 51.49 Environmental reportlimited work authorization 

Section 51.49 is a new section that the 

Commission proposes to add to part 51, 

to require the applicant for an LWA to 

submit an environmental report 

containing certain specified 

information. Both paragraph (a), which 

applies to an applicant requesting a 

LWA as part of a complete application, 

and paragraph (b), which applies to an 

applicant submitting its application in 

two parts under § 2.101(a)(9), must 

submit an environmental report which 

describes the activities proposed to be 

conducted under the LWA, the need to 

conduct those activities in advance of 

the main action, a description of the 

environmental impacts that may 

reasonably be expected to result from 

the conduct of the requested activities, 

the mitigation measures to be 

implemented in order to achieve the 

level of environmental impacts 

described, and a discussion of the 

reasons for rejecting other mitigation 

measures that could be utilized to 

further reduce environmental impacts. 

Paragraph (c) describes the contents of 

the environmental report when the 

request for the LWA is submitted as part 

of an early site permit application. 

There is no opportunity for an early site 

permit holder to submit its application 

in two parts, with the LWA information 

submitted in advance of the main early 

site permit application. 

Paragraph (d) describes the contents 

of the environmental report when the 

LWA request is submitted by an early 

site permit holder. In this situation, the 

environmental report need only contain 

information on the LWA activities and 

their environmental impact, and would 

not include the general information 

required by § 51.50(b). 

Paragraph (e) establishes a limited 

exception from the information required 

by paragraphs (a) and (b) to be 

submitted in an environmental report. 

For those situations where the LWA is 

to be conducted at a site: (i) For which 

the Commission previously prepared an 

environmental impact statement for the 

construction and operation of a nuclear 

power plant, (ii) the construction permit 

was issued, but (iii) the construction of 

the plant was never completed, then the 

applicant’s environmental report may 

reference the earlier environmental 

impact statement. However, in the event 

of such referencing, the environmental 

report must identify whether there is 

new and significant information relative 

to the matters required to be addressed 

in the environmental report with respect 

to the environmental impacts of the 

requested LWA activities, as specified 

in paragraphs (a) or (b). 

Paragraph (f) would require, for any 

application containing a LWA request, 

that the environmental report must 

separately evaluate the environmental 

impacts and proposed alternatives to the 

activities proposed to be conducted 

under the limited work authorization. 

However, at the option of the applicant, 

the environmental report may also 

include the information required by 

§ 51.50 to be submitted in the 

environmental report for the 

construction permit or combined license 

application. In those situations, the 

‘‘integrated’’ environmental report 

would separately address the total 

impacts of constructing (including the 

LWA activities) and operating the 

proposed facility. This will allow the 

NRC to prepare in parallel the EIS for 

the LWA activities and a supplemental 

EIS for the underlying construction 

permit or operating license, or a 

complete EIS at the LWA stage. 

Section 51.50 Environmental reportconstruction permit, early site permit, or 

combined license stage 

Section 51.50 of the March 2006 

proposed rule would be modified by 

deleting in its entirety, proposed 

paragraph (c)(4), and revising paragraph 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61339 

(b), to eliminate the requirements for 

submission of a redress plan by an early 

site permit applicant. The redress plan 

would be required under 

§ 50.10(c)(3)(iii). 

Section 51.71 Draft environmental 

impact statement-contents 

Section 51.71 would be modified by 

redesignating the current paragraph (e) 

as paragraph (f), and a new paragraph 

(e) would be added to re-emphasize that 

the draft environmental impact 

statement for the underlying 

construction permit or combined license 

will not address or consider the sunk 

costs associated with the LWA. 

Paragraph (e) is consistent with 

§§ 50.10(c)(6) and 51.71(e). 

Section 51.76 Draft environmental 

impact statement-limited work 

authorization 

Section 51.76 is a new section that the 

Commission proposes to add to part 51, 

governing the NRC’s preparation of a 

draft environmental impact statement to 

support a decision on a LWA. The 

internal organization of § 51.76 parallels 

that of § 51.49. Paragraph (a) addresses 

the EIS to be prepared in connection 

with a complete application for a 

construction permit or combined 

license. This section allows the NRC to 

prepare either an EIS limited to LWA 

activities (to be followed by a 

supplemental EIS on the underlying 

construction permit or combined 

license), or a single, complete EIS for 

the construction permit or combined 

license. The Commission notes that this 

paragraph addresses the situation where 

the application for the construction 

permit or combined license is complete 

and includes the request and necessary 

information for a LWA. Paragraph (b), 

by contrast, addresses the situation 

where the LWA request is submitted in 

advance of the complete application for 

the construction permit or combined 

license. 

Paragraph (b) applies to an EIS 

prepared in support of a phased LWA 

under § 2.101(a)(9). In this situation, if 

the environmental report submitted in 

part one is limited to the LWA 

activities, then the NRC will prepare an 

EIS limited to the LWA activities. Once 

part two of the application is received, 

which includes the environmental 

report required by § 51.50, the NRC will 

prepare a supplemental EIS for the 

construction permit or combined license 

in accordance with § 51.71, and ‘‘

51.75(a) or (c), as applicable. By 

contrast, if the environmental report 

submitted in part one is a complete 

environmental report required by 

§ 51.50, then the NRC will prepare a 

single, complete EIS for the construction 

permit or combined license in 

accordance with § 51.71, and § 51.75(a) 

or (c), as applicable. 

Paragraph (c) applies to an EIS 

prepared for issuance of an early site 

permit which will also include an LWA. 

The EIS will address the scope of 

matters required to be addressed under 

§ 51.75(d), which depends upon the 

matters which the applicant chooses to 

address in its environmental report, as 

well as the environmental impacts of 

conducting the LWA activities 

requested. 

Paragraph (d) addresses the situation 

where an early site permit holder (as 

opposed to an applicant) requests a 

limited work authorization. In this 

situation, siting and many of the 

environmental issues have been 

addressed and resolved in the EIS 

supporting issuance of the ESP. This 

paragraph provides for the NRC to 

prepare a supplemental EIS, addressing 

the impacts of conducting LWA 

activities (including any new and 

significant information that would 

change the NRC’s prior conclusion with 

respect to those construction activities 

which would actually be conducted 

earlier under the LWA instead of a 

referencing construction permit or 

combined license), and the adequacy of 

the proposed redress plan. Other than 

this updating, the supplemental EIS will 

not present any updated information on 

the matters resolved in the ESP EIS. 

Paragraph (e) addresses the nature of 

the EIS prepared for an LWA requested 

for a site that was approved by the NRC 

for a plant which was never built. In 

such cases, the EIS will incorporate by 

reference the earlier EIS, address 

whether there is any significant new 

information with respect to the 

environmental impacts of construction 

relevant to the scope of activities to be 

performed under the LWA, and evaluate 

any such information in accordance 

with § 51.71 in determining if the LWA 

should be issued, or issued with 

appropriate conditions. 

Paragraph (f) indicates that in all 

cases, the EIS must separately address 

the impacts of and proposed alternatives 

to the activities to be conducted under 

the LWA, in order to ensure that there 

are specific environmental findings 

addressing LWA activities for purposes 

of transparency of the final NRC NEPA 

findings and decision on the LWA 

request. 

Section 51.103 Record of decision—

general 

Section 51.103 would be revised by 

adding a new paragraph (a)(6), which 

specifies that in a construction permit or 

combined license proceeding, where an 

LWA was previously issued, the 

Commission’s decision on the 

construction permit or combined license 

application will not address or consider 

the sunk costs associated with the LWA. 

This provision, which is consistent with 

§§ 50.10(c)(6) and 51.71(e), is intended 

to ensure that the Commission’s 

decision whether to issue the 

construction permit or combined license 

is not biased in favor of issuance in 

evaluating the environmental impacts 

and benefits of the construction permit 

or combined license. 

Section 51.104 NRC proceedings using 

public hearings, consideration of 

environmental impact statements or 

environmental assessment 

Section 51.104 would be revised by 

adding a new paragraph (c) specifying 

that in an LWA proceeding, a party may 

only take a position and offer evidence 

on the aspects of the proposed action 

within the scope of NEPA and this 

subpart which are within the scope of 

that party’s admitted contention. This 

paragraph would also specify that the 

presiding officer will decide the matters 

in controversy among the parties, viz., 

the contentions related to the adequacy 

of the environmental impact statement 

prepared for the LWA. 

Section 51.105 Public hearings in 

proceedings for issuance of construction 

permits or early site permits; limited 

work authorizations 

Section 51.105 of the March 2006 

proposed rule would be modified in two 

respects. The title of this section would 

be modified to add a reference to LWAs, 

reflecting the expanded scope of matters 

addressed in this section. Second, a new 

paragraph (c) would be added to specify 

the determinations which must be made 

by the presiding officer in an LWA 

hearing associated with either a 

construction permit or early site permit. 

Under this new paragraph, the presiding 

officer would: 

—Determine whether the requirements 

of section 102(2)(A), (C) and (E) of 

NEPA have been met with respect to 

the activities to be conducted under 

the LWA. 

—Independently consider the balance 

among conflicting factors with respect 

to the LWA. 

—In an uncontested proceeding, 

determine whether the NRC’s NEPA 

review has been adequate. 

—In a contested proceeding, determine 

whether in accordance with the 

regulations in subpart 51 the LWA 

should be issued. 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61340 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Section 51.107 Public hearings in 

proceedings for issuance of combined 

licenses; limited work authorizations 

Section 51.107 of the March 2006 

proposed rule would be modified in two 

respects. The title of this section would 

be modified to add a reference to LWAs, 

reflecting the expanded scope of matters 

addressed in this section. A new 

paragraph (d) would also be added to 

specify the determinations which must 

be made by the presiding officer in an 

LWA hearing associated with a 

combined license. This paragraph is 

essentially the same as § 51.105(c). 

Part 52 

Section 52.1 Definitions 

A new definition of limited work 

authorization would be added to § 52.1 

of the March 2006 proposed rule, which 

would be defined as the authorization 

provided under § 50.10(c). The 

Commission wishes to clarify that an 

applicant of an early site permit who 

requests authority to perform the 

activities permitted by § 50.10(c), would 

not, if the request were granted, receive 

a limited work authorization separate 

from its early site permit. Instead, the 

early site permit itself would authorize 

the activities permitted by § 50.10(c). 

This regulatory approach is consistent 

with the current language of § 52.17(c) 

and 52.25(b). However, once an ESP is 

issued, the holder could apply for, and 

would be issued an LWA directly under 

§ 50.10(c). 

Section 52.17 Contents of applications; 

technical information 

Paragraph (c) of § 52.17 of the March 

2006 proposed rule would be modified 

by removing the proposed language 

with respect to limited work 

authorizations, and instead specify that 

if the applicant wishes to obtain an 

LWA, then the information required by 

§ 50.10(c)(2) must be included in the 

site safety analysis report. 

Section 52.24 Issuance of early site 

permit 

This section would be removed from 

the March 2006 proposed rule. The 

requirements applicable to the holder of 

an early site permit with respect to 

limited work authorization activities are 

set forth in proposed § 50.10(f). 

Section 52.25 Limited Work 

Authorization After Issuance of Early 

Site Permit 

Section 52.25 is a new section that 

allows an early site permit holder to 

request a LWA in accordance with 

§ 50.10. 

Section 52.79 Contents of Application; 

Technical Information in Final Safety 

Analysis Report 

Section 52.79 of the March 2006 

proposed rule would be modified by 

removing the proposed language in 

paragraph (a)(23) with respect to limited 

work authorizations. Instead, this 

paragraph would specify that if the 

applicant wishes to obtain a LWA, then 

the applicant must include the 

information required by § 50.10, either 

as part of a complete application under 

§ 2.101(a)(1) through (4), or as a phased 

application under § 2.101(a)(9). 

Section 52.80 Content of Applications; 

Additional Technical Information 

Paragraph (c) of § 52.80(c) of the 

March 2006 proposed rule would be 

modified to require that a combined 

license application containing a request 

for a LWA must contain an 

environmental report, either: (i) In 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.50(c) if a 

limited work authorization under 10 

CFR 50.10 is not requested in 

conjunction with the combined license 

application; or (ii) in accordance with 

§§ 51.49 and 51.50(c) of part 51 of this 

chapter if a limited work authorization 

is requested in conjunction with the 

combined license application. 

IV. Specific Request for Comments 

As explained above, this 

supplemental proposed rule would 

impact the types of activities that could 

be undertaken without prior approval 

from the NRC, with NRC approval in the 

form of a LWA, and with NRC approval 

in the form of a construction permit or 

combined license. 

Therefore, in addition to the general 

invitation to submit comments on the 

proposed rule, the NRC also requests 

comments on the following questions: 

1. What types of activities should be 

permitted without prior NRC approval? 

2. What types of activities should be 

permitted under a LWA? 

3. What types of activities should only 

be permitted after issuance of a 

construction permit or combined 

license? 

V. Availability of Documents 

The NRC is making the documents 

identified below available to interested 

persons through one or more of the 

following methods as indicated. 

Public Document Room (PDR). The 

NRC Public Document Room is located 

at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

Rulemaking Web site (Web). The 

NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web site 

is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

These documents may be viewed and 

downloaded electronically via this Web 

site. 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading 

Room (EPDR). The NRC’s electronic 

public reading room is located at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 

The NRC staff contact. Geary Mizuno, 

Mail Stop O–15D21, Washington, DC 

20555, 301–415–1639. 

Document PDR Web EPDR NRC 

Staff 

2006/5/25—Comment (4) submitted by Nuclear Energy Institute, Adrian P. Heymer on 

Proposed Rules .............................................................................................................. X X ML061510471 ................

SECY–98–282, Part 52 Rulemaking Plan ......................................................................... ................ ................ ML032801416 ................

Staff Requirements—SECY–98–282—Part 52 Rulemaking Plan ..................................... ................ ................ ML032801439 ................

Regulatory Analysis ........................................................................................................... X X ML062750434 X 

VI. Plain Language 

The Presidential memorandum dated 

June 1, 1998, entitled ‘‘Plain Language 

in Government Writing’’ directed that 

the Government’s writing be in plain 

language. This memorandum was 

published on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 

31883). In complying with this 

directive, the NRC made editorial 

changes to improve the organization and 

readability of the existing language of 

the paragraphs being revised. These 

types of changes are not discussed 

further in this document. The NRC 

requests comments on this proposed 

rule specifically with respect to the 

clarity and effectiveness of the language 

used. Comments should be submitted 

using one of the methods described 

under the ADDRESSES heading of the 

preamble to this proposed rule. 

VII. Agreement State Compatibility 

Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on 

Adequacy and Compatibility of 

Agreement States Programs,’’ approved 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61341 

13Although the industry’s request came in the 

form of a comment on the proposed Part 52 rule (71 

FR 12782; March 13, 2006), the comment letter 

stated; ‘‘To the extent the NRC determines that 

these LWA issues cannot be addressed in the 

current rulemaking, we ask that the Commission 

initiate an expedited rulemaking.’’ The NRC has 

determined that the changes suggested by the 

industry in Comment 4 (docketed on May 30, 2006, 

4:50 PM) could not be incorporated into the final 

Part 52 rule without re-noticing. Therefore, the 

Commission has decided to treat the comments 

submitted by the industry as a petition for 

expedited rulemaking and is publishing this 

supplemental proposed rule for public comment. 

The NRC has determined that Comment 4 meets the 

sufficiency requirements described in 10 CFR 

2.802(c) and that it is appropriate to seek public 

comment on the petition by publishing this 

proposed rule developed in response to the 

petition, as allowed under 10 CFR 2.802(e). 

by the Commission on June 20, 1997, 

and published in the Federal Register 

(62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997), this 

rule is classified as compatibility ‘‘NRC’’

regulations. The NRC program elements 

in this category are those that relate 

directly to areas of regulation reserved 

to the NRC by the AEA or provisions of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, and although an Agreement 

State may not adopt program elements 

reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform 

its licensees of certain requirements via 

a mechanism that is consistent with the 

particular State’s administrative 

procedure laws, but does not confer 

regulatory authority on the State. 

VIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

(Public Law 104) 

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 

using such a standard is inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. In this rule, the NRC is 

proposing to: (i) Redefine the scope of 

activities constituting ‘‘construction’’ for 

which NRC approval is required; (ii) 

redefine the scope of activities 

constituting construction which the 

NRC may approve in a limited work 

authorization granted in advance of the 

issuance of a construction permit or 

combined license, or which may be 

conducted by a holder of an early site 

permit; and (iii) revise the NRC’s 

procedures for granting limited work 

authorizations. This rulemaking does 

not establish standards or substantive 

requirements with which all applicants 

and licensees must comply. For the 

reasons set forth 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 adopting the following 

amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 50, 51 

and 52. 

IX. Environmental Impact—Categorical 

Exclusion 

The NRC has determined that the 

changes made in this rule fall within the 

types of actions described in categorical 

exclusions described in 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(1) and (c)(3). Specifically, the 

conforming changes made to 10 CFR 

part 2 would qualify for the categorical 

exclusion described in § 51.22(c)(1). The 

changes to parts 50, 51 and 52 that 

describe procedures for filing and 

reviewing applications for limited work 

authorizations would qualify for the 

categorical exclusion described in 

§ 51.22(c)(3)(i). All other changes would 

qualify for the categorical exemption 

described in § 51.22(c)(3)(iv).13

Therefore, neither an environmental 

impact statement nor an environmental 

assessment has been prepared for this 

regulation. 

X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

The proposed rule published on 

March 13, 2006 imposed new or 

amended information collection 

requirements contained in 10 CFR parts 

21, 25, 50, 52, and 54 that are subject 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These new and 

amended information collection 

requirements were submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget for 

review and approval. The existing 

requirements were approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget, 

approval numbers 3150–0044, 3150–

0014, 3150–0146, 3150–0018, 3150–

0132, 3150–0002, 3150–0055, 3150–

0047, and 3150–0039. 

This supplement would reduce the 

proposed rule burden by eliminating the 

requirement to obtain NRC permission 

to engage in site preparation activities 

that do not have a direct impact on 

radiological health and safety or 

common defense and security at sites 

where new nuclear power plants are to 

be constructed. Specifically, the burden 

associated with the preparation of 

applications for permission to engage in 

these activities, as well as the burden of 

responding to requests for additional 

information associated with these 

applications, would be eliminated by 

the supplement. The burden reduction 

for information collections contained in 

10 CFR part 52 (OMB approval number 

3150–0151), is estimated to be 50 hours 

per application. The burden reduction 

associated with this proposed rule 

supplement will be included in the 

revised OMB clearance package 

prepared for the final rule. 

This supplement also contains a new 

information collection requirement in 

§ 51.49, however this new information 

collection is not expected to result in a 

net increase in the burden for LWA 

applicants because the information to be 

submitted under this new requirement 

was formerly submitted by such 

applicants as part of a complete 

environmental report for the underlying 

construction permit or combined license 

under § 51.50, or for the ESP application 

(or amendment) under part 52. The 

primary effect of the new information 

collection requirement in part 51 of the 

supplemental proposed rule would be to 

delay submission of most of the 

environmental information to the time 

that the underlying construction permit 

or combined license application and 

environmental report is submitted. 

Thus, changes in burden for information 

collections contained in 10 CFR part 51 

(OMB approval number 3150–0021) are 

expected to be minimal. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission is seeking public comment 

on the potential impact of the 

information collections contained in the 

proposed rule supplement and on the 

following issues: 

1. Is the proposed information 

collection necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

NRC, including whether the information 

will have practical utility? 

2. Is the estimate of burden accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 

information collection be minimized, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques? 

Send comments on any aspect of this 

proposed information collection, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden and on the above issues, by 

December 18, 2006 to the Records and 

FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T–5 

F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, or by Internet electronic mail to 

INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV and to the 

Desk Officer, John A. Asalone, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

NEOB–10202, (3150–0021, 3150–0151), 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC 20503. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered if it is practical to do so, but 

assurance of consideration cannot be 

given to comments received after this 

date. You may also e-mail comments to 

John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or 

comment by telephone at (202) 395–

4650. 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61342 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

XI. Regulatory Analysis 

The commission has prepared a draft 

regulatory analysis on this proposed 

regulation. The analysis examines the 

costs and benefits of the alternatives 

considered by the Commission. The 

Commission requests public comment 

on the draft regulatory analysis. 

Availability of the regulatory analysis is 

provided in Section V. Comments on 

the draft analysis may be submitted to 

the NRC as indicated under the 

ADDRESSES heading. 

XII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the 

Commission certifies that this rule will 

not, if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed 

rule affects only the licensing of nuclear 

power plants. The companies that will 

apply for an approval, certification, 

permit, site report, or license in 

accordance with the regulations affected 

by this proposed rule do not fall within 

the scope of the definition of ‘‘small 

entities’’ set forth in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act or the size standards 

established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). 

XIII. Backfit Analysis 

The NRC has determined that the 

backfit rule does not apply to this 

proposed rule and, therefore, a backfit 

analysis is not required, because the 

proposed rule does not contain any 

provisions that would impose 

backfitting as defined in the backfit rule, 

10 CFR 50.109. 

There are no current holders of early 

site permits, construction permits, or 

combined licenses for nuclear power 

plants that would be protected by the 

backfitting restrictions in § 50.109. To 

the extent that the proposed rule would 

revise the requirements for future early 

site permits, construction permits, or 

combined licenses for nuclear power 

plants, these revisions would not 

constitute backfits because they are 

prospective in nature and the backfit 

rule was not intended to apply to every 

NRC action which substantially changes 

the expectations of future applicants. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 

material, Classified information, 

Environmental protection, Nuclear 

materials, Nuclear power plants and 

reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination, 

Source material, Special nuclear 

material, Waste treatment and disposal. 

10 CFR Part 50 

Antitrust, Classified information, 

Criminal penalties, Emergency 

Planning, Fire protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Radiation 

protection, Reactor siting criteria, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Environmental impact 

statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 52 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, 

Combined license, Early site permit, 

Emergency planning, Fees, Inspection, 

Limited work authorization, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Probabilistic 

risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor 

siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Standard design, Standard design 

certification. 

For the reasons set forth 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. 553, the NRC 

is proposing to adopt the following 

amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 50, 51 

and 52. 

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR 

DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS 

AND ISSUANCE OF ORDERS 

1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 

953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 

191, as amended, Pub. L. 87–615, 76 Stat. 409 

(42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552; sec. 

1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 

Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 

63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 

935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); 

sec. 114(f), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2213, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(f)), sec. 102, Pub. 

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 

U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 

2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 

104, 105, 183i, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 

954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 

2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Sections 2.105 also 

issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073 

(42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200–2.206 also 

issued under secs. 161 b, I, o, 182, 186, 234, 

68 Stat. 948–951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (I), (o), 2236, 

2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 

5846). Section 2.205(j) also issued under Pub. 

L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by 

section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104–134, 110 Stat. 

1321–373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Sections 

2.600–2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. 

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754, 

2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 

557. Section 2.764 also issued under secs. 

135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 

(42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also 

issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2133), and 5 U.S.C. 552. 

Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under 

5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under 

5 U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85–256, 71 

Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039). 

Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 

955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97–

425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Subpart 

L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 

U.S.C. 2239). Subpart M also issued under 

sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234) and sec. 189, 68 

Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also 

issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91–560, 84 Stat. 

1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135). 

2. In § 2.101, paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) are revised, the introductory text 

of paragraph (a)(3) is revised, paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii) is revised, paragraph (a)(4) is 

revised, paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(8) 

are added and reserved, and a paragraph 

(a)(9) is added to read as follows: 

§ 2.101 Filing of application. 

(a)(1) An application for a permit, a 

license, a license transfer, a license 

amendment, a license renewal, and a 

standard design approval, shall be filed 

with the Director of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation or Director of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, as 

prescribed by the applicable provisions 

of this chapter. A prospective applicant 

may confer informally with the NRC 

staff before filing an application. 

(2) Each application for a license for 

a facility or for receipt of waste 

radioactive material from other persons 

for the purpose of commercial disposal 

by the waste disposal licensee will be 

assigned a docket number. However, to 

allow a determination as to whether an 

application for a construction permit, 

operating license, early site permit, 

standard design approval, combined 

license, or manufacturing license for a 

production or utilization facility is 

complete and acceptable for docketing, 

it will be initially treated as a tendered 

application. A copy of the tendered 

application will be available for public 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61343 

inspection at the NRC Web site, 

http://www.nrc.gov, and/or at the NRC 

Public Document Room. Generally, the 

determination on acceptability for 

docketing will be made within a period 

of 30 days. However, in selected 

applications, the Commission may 

decide to determine acceptability based 

on the technical adequacy of the 

application as well as its completeness. 

In these cases, the Commission, under 

§ 2.104(a), will direct that the notice of 

hearing be issued as soon as practicable 

after the application has been tendered, 

and the determination of acceptability 

will be made generally within a period 

of 60 days. For docketing and other 

requirements for applications under part 

61 of this chapter, see paragraph (g) of 

this section. 

(3) If the Director of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation or Director of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, as 

appropriate, determines that a tendered 

application for a construction permit, 

operating license, early site permit, 

standard design approval, combined 

license, or manufacturing license for a 

production or utilization facility, and/or 

any environmental report required 

under subpart A of part 51 of this 

chapter, or part thereof as provided in 

paragraphs (a)(5) or (a–1) of this section 

are complete and acceptable for 

docketing, a docket number will be 

assigned to the application or part 

thereof, and the applicant will be 

notified of the determination. With 

respect to the tendered application and/ 

or environmental report or part thereof 

that is acceptable for docketing, the 

applicant will be requested to: 

* * * * * 

(ii) Serve a copy on the chief 

executive of the municipality in which 

the facility or site which is the subject 

of an early site permit is to be located 

or, if the facility or site which is the 

subject of an early site permit is not to 

be located within a municipality, on the 

chief executive of the county, and serve 

a notice of availability of the application 

or environmental report on the chief 

executives of the municipalities or 

counties which have been identified in 

the application or environmental report 

as the location of all or part of the 

alternative sites, containing the 

following information, as applicable: 

Docket number of the application, a 

brief description of the proposed site 

and facility; the location of the site and 

facility as primarily proposed and 

alternatively listed; the name, address, 

telephone number, and e-mail address 

(if available) of the applicant’s 

representative who may be contacted for 

further information; notification that a 

draft environmental impact statement 

will be issued by the Commission and 

will be made available upon request to 

the Commission; and notification that if 

a request is received from the 

appropriate chief executive, the 

applicant will transmit a copy of the 

application and environmental report, 

and any changes to these documents 

which affect the alternative site 

location, to the executive who makes 

the request. In complying with the 

requirements of this paragraph, the 

applicant should not make public 

distribution of those parts of the 

application subject to § 2.390(d). The 

applicant shall submit to the Director of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation an affidavit 

that service of the notice of availability 

of the application or environmental 

report has been completed along with a 

list of names and addresses of those 

executives upon whom the notice was 

served; and 

* * * * * 

(4) The tendered application for a 

construction permit, operating license, 

early site permit, standard design 

approval, combined license, or 

manufacturing license will be formally 

docketed upon receipt by the Director of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director 

of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards, as appropriate, of the 

required additional copies. Distribution 

of the additional copies shall be deemed 

to be complete as of the time the copies 

are deposited in the mail or with a 

carrier prepaid for delivery to the 

designated addresses. The date of 

docketing shall be the date when the 

required copies are received by the 

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

or Director of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards, as appropriate. Within 

10 days after docketing, the applicant 

shall submit to the Director of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation or Director of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

as appropriate, an affidavit that 

distribution of the additional copies to 

Federal, State, and local officials has 

been completed in accordance with the 

requirements of this chapter and written 

instructions furnished to the applicant 

by the Director of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation or Director of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, as 

appropriate. Amendments to the 

application and environmental report 

shall be filed and distributed and an 

affidavit shall be furnished to the 

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

or Director of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards, as appropriate, in the 

same manner as for the initial 

application and environmental report. If 

it is determined that all or any part of 

the tendered application and/or 

environmental report is incomplete and 

therefore not acceptable for processing, 

the applicant will be informed of this 

determination, and the respects in 

which the document is deficient. 

* * * * * 

(6)–(8) Reserved. 

(9) Limited work authorization. An 

applicant for a construction permit for 

a utilization facility which is subject to 

§ 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the 

type specified in § 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or 

§ 50.22 of this chapter, an applicant for 

or holder of an early site permit under 

part 52 of this chapter, or an applicant 

for a combined license under part 52 of 

this chapter, who seeks to conduct the 

activities authorized under § 50.10(c) of 

this chapter may submit a complete 

application under paragraphs (a)(1)–(4) 

of this section which includes the 

information required by § 50.10(c) of 

this chapter. Alternatively, the applicant 

(other than a holder of an early site 

permit) may submit its application in 

two parts: 

(i) Part one must include the 

information required by § 50.33(a) 

through (f) of this chapter, and the 

information required by § 50.10(c)(2) 

and (3) of this chapter. 

(ii) Part two must include the 

remaining information required by the 

Commission’s regulations in this 

chapter which was not submitted in part 

one, provided, however, that this 

information may be submitted in 

accordance with the applicable 

provisions of paragraph (a–1) of this 

section. 

(iii) Part two of the application must 

be submitted no later than twelve (12) 

months after submission of part one. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 2.104, the introductory text of 

paragraph (a) is revised, current 

paragraphs (d) and (e) are redesignated 

as paragraphs (l) and (m), respectively, 

and revised, new paragraphs (d), (e), 

and (f) are added, and paragraphs (g) 

through (k) are added and reserved, and 

footnote 1 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 2.104 Notice of hearing. 

(a) In the case of an application on 

which a hearing is required by the Act 

or this chapter, or in which the 

Commission finds that a hearing is 

required in the public interest, the 

Secretary will issue a notice of hearing 

to be published in the Federal Register 

as required by law at least 15 days, and 

in the case of an application concerning 

a construction permit, early site permit, 

or combined license for a facility of the 

type described in § 50.21(b) or § 50.22 of 

this chapter or a testing facility, at least 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61344 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

1 If the notice of hearing concerning an 

application for a construction permit, early site 

permit, or combined license for a facility of the type 

described in § 50.21(b) or § 50.22 of this chapter or 

a testing facility does not specify the time and place 

of initial hearing, a subsequent notice will be 

published in the Federal Register which will 

provide at least 30 days notice of the time and place 

of that hearing. After this notice is given the 

presiding officer may reschedule the 

commencement of the initial hearing for a later date 

or reconvene a recessed hearing without again 

providing at least 30 days notice. 

30 days, before the date set for hearing 

in the notice.1 In addition, in the case 

of an application for an early site 

permit, construction permit or 

combined license for a facility of the 

type described in § 50.22 of this chapter, 

or a testing facility, the notice (other 

than a notice under paragraph (d) of this 

section) must be issued as soon as 

practicable after the application has 

been docketed. However, if the 

Commission, under § 2.101(a)(2), 

decides to determine the acceptability of 

the application based on its technical 

adequacy as well as completeness, the 

notice must be issued as soon as 

practicable after the application has 

been tendered. The notice will state: 

* * * * * 

(d) In the case of an application for an 

early site permit under subpart A of part 

52 of this chapter, the notice of hearing 

will state, in implementation of 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section: 

(1) If the proceeding is a contested 

proceeding, the presiding officer will 

consider the following issues: 

(i) Whether applicable standards and 

requirements of the Act and the 

Commission’s regulations have been 

met; 

(ii) Whether any required 

notifications to other agencies or bodies 

have been duly made; 

(iii) If the applicant requests, under 

§ 52.17(c) of this chapter, a limited work 

authorization under § 50.10 of this 

chapter, whether there is reasonable 

assurance that the proposed site is a 

suitable location for a reactor of the 

general size and type described in the 

application from the standpoint of 

radiological health and safety 

considerations under the Act and 

regulations issued by the Commission; 

(iv) Whether there is reasonable 

assurance that the site is in conformity 

with the provisions of the Act, and the 

Commission’s regulations; 

(v) Whether the applicant is 

technically qualified to engage in any 

activities authorized; 

(vi) Whether the proposed 

inspections, tests, analyses and 

acceptance criteria, including any on 

emergency planning, are necessary and 

sufficient within the scope of the early 

site permit to provide reasonable 

assurance that the facility has been 

constructed and will be operated in 

conformity with the license, the 

provisions of the Act, and the 

Commission’s regulations; 

(vii) Whether issuance of the early site 

permit will be inimical to the common 

defense and security or to the health 

and safety of the public; and 

(viii) Whether, in accordance with the 

requirements of subpart A of part 52 of 

this chapter and subpart A of part 51 of 

this chapter, the early site permit should 

be issued as proposed. 

(2) If the proceeding is not a contested 

proceeding, the presiding officer will 

determine, without conducting a de 

novo evaluation of the application, 

whether: 

(i) The application and the record of 

the proceeding contain sufficient 

information, and the review of the 

application by the NRC staff has been 

adequate to support affirmative findings 

on paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (v) and 

(viii) of this section, and a negative 

finding on paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this 

section; and 

(ii) The review conducted under part 

51 of this chapter under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has 

been adequate. 

(3) Regardless of whether the 

proceeding is contested or uncontested, 

the presiding officer will, in accordance 

with subpart A of part 51 of this 

chapter: 

(i) Determine whether the 

requirements of section 102(2) (A), (C), 

and (E) of the NEPA and subpart A of 

part 51 of this chapter have been 

complied with in the proceeding; 

(ii) Independently consider the final 

balance among conflicting factors 

contained in the record of the 

proceeding with a view to determine the 

appropriate action to be taken; and 

(iii) If the applicant requests 

authorization to perform the activities 

under § 52.17(c) of this chapter, whether 

there is reasonable assurance that the 

proposed site is a suitable location for 

a reactor of the general size and type 

described in the application from the 

standpoint of radiological health and 

safety considerations under the Act and 

regulations issued by the Commission. 

(iv) Determine whether the combined 

license should be issued, denied or 

appropriately conditioned to protect 

environmental values. 

(e) In the case of an application for a 

combined license under subpart C of 

part 52 of this chapter, the notice of 

hearing will state, in implementation of 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section: 

(1) If the proceeding is a contested 

proceeding, the presiding officer will 

consider the following issues: 

(i) Whether applicable standards and 

requirements of the Act and the 

Commission’s regulations have been 

met; 

(ii) Whether any required 

notifications to other agencies or bodies 

have been duly made; 

(iii) Whether there is reasonable 

assurance that the facility will be 

constructed and will operate in 

conformity with the license, the 

provisions of the Act, and the 

Commission’s regulations; 

(iv) Whether the applicant is 

technically and financially qualified to 

engage in the activities authorized; 

(v) Whether the proposed inspections, 

tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria, 

including those applicable to emergency 

planning, 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 the Act, and the 

Commission’s regulations; 

(vi) Whether any inspections, tests, or 

analyses have been successfully 

completed and the acceptance criteria in 

a referenced early site permit, standard 

design certification or for a 

manufactured reactor have been met, 

but only to the extent that the combined 

license application represents that those 

inspections, tests and analyses have 

been successfully completed and the 

acceptance criteria have been met; 

(vii) Whether the issuance of the 

combined license will be inimical to the 

common defense and security or to the 

health and safety of the public; and 

(viii) Whether, in accordance with the 

requirements of subpart C of part 52 of 

this chapter and subpart A of part 51 of 

this chapter, the combined license 

should be issued as proposed. 

(2) If the proceeding is not a contested 

proceeding, the presiding officer will 

determine, without conducting a de 

novo evaluation of the application, if: 

(i) The application and the record of 

the proceeding contain sufficient 

information, and the review of the 

application by the NRC staff has been 

adequate to support affirmative findings 

on paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (vii) and 

(e)(1)(ix) of this section, and a negative 

finding on paragraph (e)(1)(viii) of this 

section; and 

(ii) The review conducted under part 

51 of this chapter under NEPA has been 

adequate. 

(3) Regardless of whether the 

proceeding is contested or uncontested, 

the presiding officer will, in accordance 

with subpart A of part 51 of this 

chapter: 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61345 

(i) Determine whether the 

requirements of section 102(2) (A), (C), 

and (E) of the NEPA and subpart A of 

part 51 of this chapter have been 

complied with in the proceeding; 

(ii) Independently consider the final 

balance among conflicting factors 

contained in the record of the 

proceeding with a view to determine the 

appropriate action to be taken; and 

(iii) Determine whether the combined 

license should be issued, denied or 

appropriately conditioned to protect 

environmental values. 

(f) In the case of an application for a 

manufacturing license under subpart F 

of part 52 of this chapter, the issues 

stated in the notice of hearing under 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section will not 

involve consideration of the particular 

sites at which any of the nuclear power 

reactors to be manufactured may be 

located and operated. Unless the 

Commission determines otherwise, the 

notice of hearing will state: 

(1) If the proceeding is a contested 

proceeding, the presiding officer will 

consider the following issues: 

(i) Whether applicable standards and 

requirements of the Act and the 

Commission’s regulations have been 

met; 

(ii) Whether there is reasonable 

assurance that the reactor(s) will be 

manufactured, and can be transported, 

incorporated into a nuclear power plant, 

and operated in conformity with the 

manufacturing license, the provisions of 

the Act, and the Commission’s 

regulations; 

(iii) Whether the proposed reactor(s) 

to be manufactured can be incorporated 

into a nuclear power plant at sites 

having characteristics that fall within 

the site parameters postulated for the 

design of the manufactured reactor(s) 

without undue risk to the health and 

safety of the public; 

(iv) Whether the applicant is 

technically qualified to design and 

manufacture the proposed nuclear 

power reactor(s); 

(v) Whether the proposed inspections, 

tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria 

are necessary and sufficient, within the 

scope of the manufacturing license, to 

provide reasonable assurance that the 

reactor has been manufactured and will 

be operated in conformity with the 

license, the provisions of the Act, and 

the Commission’s regulations; 

(vi) Whether the issuance of a license 

for manufacture of the reactor(s) will be 

inimical to the common defense and 

security or to the health and safety of 

the public; and 

(vii) Whether, in accordance with the 

requirements of subpart F of part 52 and 

subpart A of part 51 of this chapter, the 

license should be issued as proposed. 

(2) If the proceeding is not a contested 

proceeding, the presiding officer will 

determine, without conducting a de 

novo evaluation of the application, 

whether: 

(i) The application and the record of 

the proceeding contain sufficient 

information, and the review of the 

application by the NRC staff has been 

adequate to support affirmative findings 

on paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (v) and 

(f)(1)(vii) of this section proposed to be 

made and a negative finding on 

paragraph (f)(1)(vi) of this section; and 

(ii) The review conducted under part 

51 of this chapter under NEPA has been 

adequate. 

(3) Regardless of whether the 

proceeding is contested or uncontested, 

the presiding officer will, in accordance 

with subpart A of part 51 of this 

chapter: 

(i) Determine whether the 

requirements of section 102(2) (A), (C), 

and (E) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act and subpart A of part 51 of 

this chapter have been complied with in 

the proceeding; 

(ii) Independently consider the final 

balance among conflicting factors 

contained in the record of the 

proceeding with a view to determine the 

appropriate action to be taken; and 

(iii) Determine whether the 

manufacturing license should be issued, 

denied or appropriately conditioned to 

protect environmental values. 

(4) The place of hearing on an 

application for a manufacturing license 

will be Rockville, Maryland, or such 

other location as the Commission deems 

appropriate. 

(g)–(k) Reserved 

(l) In an application for a construction 

permit or an operating license for a 

facility on which a hearing is required 

by the Act or this chapter, the notice of 

hearing will, unless the Commission 

determines otherwise, state: 

(1) A time of the hearing, which will 

be as soon as practicable after 

compliance with section 189a of the Act 

and this part; 

(2) The presiding officer for the 

hearing who shall be either an 

administrative law judge or an atomic 

safety and licensing board established 

by the Commission or by the Chief 

Administrative Judge of the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel; and 

(3) That matters of radiological health 

and safety and common defense and 

security, and matters raised under 

NEPA, will be considered at another 

hearing if otherwise required or ordered 

to be held, for which a notice will be 

published under paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section, unless otherwise 

authorized by the Commission. 

(m)(1) The Secretary will transmit a 

notice of hearing on an application for 

a license for a production or utilization 

facility including an early site permit, 

combined license (but not for a 

manufacturing license), for a license for 

receipt of waste radioactive material 

from other persons for the purpose of 

commercial disposal by the waste 

disposal licensee, for a license under 

part 61 of this chapter, for a 

construction authorization for a HLW 

repository at a geologic repository 

operations area under parts 60 or 63 of 

this chapter, for a license to receive and 

possess high-level radioactive waste at a 

geologic repository operations area 

under parts 60 or 63 of this chapter, and 

for a license under part 72 of this 

chapter to acquire, receive or possess 

spent fuel for the purpose of storage in 

an independent spent fuel storage 

installation (ISFSI) to the governor or 

other appropriate official of the State 

and to the chief executive of the 

municipality in which the facility is to 

be located or the activity is to be 

conducted or, if the facility is not to be 

located or the activity conducted within 

a municipality, to the chief executive of 

the county (or to the Tribal organization, 

if it is to be located or conducted within 

an Indian reservation). 

(2) The Secretary will transmit a 

notice of opportunity for hearing under 

§ 52.103 of this chapter on whether the 

facility as constructed complies, or on 

completion will comply, with the 

acceptance criteria in the combined 

license, except for those ITAAC that the 

Commission found were met under 

§ 52.97 of this chapter, to the governor 

or other appropriate official of the State 

and to the chief executive of the 

municipality in which the facility is to 

be located or the activity is to be 

conducted or, if the facility is not to be 

located or the activity conducted within 

a municipality, to the chief executive of 

the county (or to the Tribal organization, 

if it is to be located or conducted within 

an Indian reservation). 

(3) The Secretary will transmit a 

notice of hearing on an application for 

a license under part 72 of this chapter 

to acquire, receive or possess spent fuel, 

high-level radioactive waste or 

radioactive material associated with 

high-level radioactive waste for the 

purpose of storage in a monitored 

retrievable storage installation (MRS) to 

the same persons who received the 

notice of docketing under § 72.16(e) of 

this chapter. 

4. The heading of subpart F is revised 

to read as follows: 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61346 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart F—Additional Procedures 

Applicable to Early Partial Decisions 

on Site Suitability Issues in 

Connection With an Application for a 

Construction Permit or Combined 

License To Construct Certain 

Utilization Facilities; and Advance 

Issuance of Limited Work 

Authorizations 

5. Section 2.600 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 2.600 Scope of Subpart. 

This subpart prescribes procedures 

applicable to licensing proceedings 

which involve an early submittal of site 

suitability information in accordance 

with § 2.101(a–1), and a hearing and 

early partial decision on issues of site 

suitability, in connection with an 

application for a permit to construct a 

utilization facility which is subject to 

§ 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the 

type specified in § 50.21(b) (2) or (3) or 

§ 50.22 of this chapter or is a testing 

facility. This subpart also prescribes 

procedures applicable to proceedings 

for a construction permit for a 

utilization facility which is subject to 

§ 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the 

type specified in § 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or 

§ 50.22 of this chapter, or an applicant 

for a combined license under part 52 of 

this chapter, who seeks to conduct the 

activities authorized under § 50.10(c) of 

part 50 of this chapter in advance of 

issuance of the construction permit or 

combined license, and submits an 

application in accordance with 

§ 2.101(a)(9). 

6. Section 2.601 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 2.601 Applicability of other sections. 

The provisions of subparts A, C, G, L 

and N of this part relating to 

applications for construction permits 

and proceedings thereon apply, 

respectively, to applications and 

proceedings in accordance with this 

subpart, except as specifically provided 

otherwise by the provisions of this 

subpart. 

7. Preceding § 2.602, an undesignated 

center heading is added to read as 

follows: 

Early Partial Decisions on Site 

Suitability 

8. In § 2.606, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 2.606 Partial decision on site suitability 

issues. 

(a) The provisions of §§ 2.331, 2.339, 

2.340(b), 2.343, 2.712, and 2.713 apply 

to any partial initial decision rendered 

in accordance with this subpart. Section 

2.340(c) does not apply to any partial 

initial decision rendered in accordance 

with this subpart. No construction 

permit may be issued without 

completion of the full review required 

by section 102(2) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended, and subpart A of part 51 of 

this chapter. The authority of the 

Commission to review such a partial 

initial decision sua sponte, or to raise 

sua sponte an issue that has not been 

raised by the parties, will be exercised 

within the same time period as in the 

case of a full decision relating to the 

issuance of a construction permit. 

* * * * * 

9. Following § 2.606, an undesignated 

center heading and §§ 2.641 through 

2.649 are added to read as follows: 

Phased Applications Involving Limited 

Work Authorizations 

Sec. 

2.641 Filing Fees. 

2.643 Acceptance and docketing of 

applications for limited work 

authorization. 

2.645 Notice of hearing. 

2.647 [Reserved] 

2.649 Partial decisions on limited work 

authorization. 

§ 2.641 Filing fees. 

Each application which contains a 

request for limited work authorization 

under the procedures of § 2.101(a)(9) 

and this subpart shall be accompanied 

by any fee required by § 50.30(e) and 

part 170 of this chapter. 

§ 2.643 Acceptance and docketing of 

application for limited work authorization. 

(a) Each part of an application 

submitted in accordance with 

§ 2.101(a)(9) will be initially treated as 

a tendered application. If it is 

determined that any one of the parts as 

described in § 2.101(a)(9) is incomplete 

and not acceptable for processing, the 

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

will inform the applicant of this 

determination and the respects in which 

the document is deficient. A 

determination of completeness will 

generally be made within a period of 

thirty (30) days. 

(b) The Director will accept for 

docketing part one of an application for 

a construction permit for a utilization 

facility which is subject to § 51.20(b) of 

this chapter and is of the type specified 

in § 50.21(b) (2) or (3) or § 50.22 of this 

chapter or an application for a 

combined license where part one of the 

application as described in § 2.101(a)(9) 

is complete. Part one will not be 

considered complete unless it contains 

the information required by § 50.10(c) of 

this chapter. Upon assignment of a 

docket number, the procedures in 

§ 2.101(a)(3) and (4) relating to formal 

docketing and the submission and 

distribution of additional copies of the 

application must be followed. 

(c) If part one of the application is 

docketed, the Director will cause to be 

published in the Federal Register and 

send to the Governor or other 

appropriate official of the State in which 

the site is located, a notice of docketing 

of the application which states the 

purpose of the application, states the 

location of the proposed site, states that 

a notice of hearing will be published, 

and requests comments on the limited 

work authorization from Federal, State, 

and local agencies and interested 

persons. The notice will state that 

comments must be submitted to the 

NRC within 60 days or such other time 

as may be specified in the notice. 

(d) Part two of the application will be 

docketed upon a determination by the 

Director that it is complete. 

(e) If part two of the application is 

docketed, the Director will cause to be 

published in the Federal Register and 

sent to the Governor or other 

appropriate official of the State in which 

the site is located, a notice of docketing 

of part two of the application which 

states the purpose of the application, 

states that a notice of hearing will be 

published, and requests comments on 

the construction permit or combined 

license application, as applicable, from 

Federal, State, and local agencies and 

interested persons. The notice will state 

that comments must be submitted to the 

NRC within 60 days or such other time 

as may be specified in the notice. 

2.645 Notice of hearing. 

(a) The notice of hearing on part one 

of the application must set forth the 

matters of fact and law to be considered, 

as required by § 2.104, which will be 

modified to state that the hearing will 

relate only to the matters related to 

§ 50.33(a) through (f) of this chapter, 

and the limited work authorization. 

(b) After docketing of part two of the 

application, as provided in 

§§ 2.101(a)(9) and 2.643(d), a 

supplementary notice of hearing will be 

published under § 2.104 with respect to 

the remaining unresolved issues in the 

proceeding within the scope of § 2.104. 

The supplementary notice of hearing 

will provide that any person whose 

interest may be affected by the 

proceeding and who desires to 

participate as a party in the resolution 

of the remaining issues shall file a 

petition for leave to intervene within the 

time prescribed in the notice. The 

petition to intervene must meet the 

applicable requirements in subpart C of 

part 2 of this chapter, including § 2.309. 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61347 

This supplementary notice will also 

provide appropriate opportunities for 

participation by a representative of an 

interested State under § 2.315(c) and for 

limited appearances under § 2.315(a). 

(c) Any person who was permitted to 

intervene under the initial notice of 

hearing on the limited work 

authorization and who was not 

dismissed or did not withdraw as a 

party, may continue to participate as a 

party with respect to the remaining 

unresolved issues only if, within the 

time prescribed for filing of petitions for 

leave to intervene in the supplementary 

notice of hearing, that person files a 

petition for intervention which meets 

the applicable requirements in subpart 

C of part 2, including § 2.309, provided, 

however, that the petition need not 

address § 2.309(d). However, a person 

who was granted discretionary 

intervention under § 2.309(e) must 

address in its petition the factors in 

§ 2..309(e) as they apply to the 

supplementary hearing. 

(d) A party who files a non-timely 

petition for intervention under 

subsection (c) of this section to continue 

as a party may be dismissed from the 

proceeding, absent a determination that 

the party has made a substantial 

showing of good cause for failure to file 

on time, and with particular reference to 

the factors specified in §§ 2.309(c)(1)(i) 

through (iv) and 2.309(d). The notice 

will be ruled upon by the Commission 

or presiding officer designated to rule 

on petitions for leave to intervene. 

(e) To the maximum extent 

practicable, the membership of the 

atomic safety and licensing board, or the 

individual presiding officer, as 

applicable, designated to preside in the 

proceeding on the remaining unresolved 

issues pursuant to the supplemental 

notice of hearing will be the same as the 

membership or individual designated to 

preside in the initial notice of hearing. 

§ 2.647 [Reserved]. 

§ 2.649 Partial decisions on limited work 

authorization. 

The provisions of §§ 2.331, 2.339, 

2.340(b), 2.343, 2.712, and 2.713 apply 

to any partial initial decision rendered 

in accordance with this subpart. Section 

2.340(c) does not apply to any partial 

initial decision rendered in accordance 

with this subpart. A limited work 

authorization may not be issued under 

10 CFR 50.10(c) without completion of 

the review for limited work 

authorizations required by subpart A of 

part 51 of this chapter. The authority of 

the Commission to review such a partial 

initial decision sua sponte, or to raise 

sua sponte an issue that has not been 

raised by the parties, will be exercised 

within the same time period as in the 

case of a full decision relating to the 

issuance of a construction permit or 

combined license. 

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 

FACILITIES 

10. The authority citation for Part 50 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 

182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 

948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 

234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 

2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 

202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 

1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 

112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95–

601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5841). 

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 

185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 

853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 

50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 

108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 

also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 

U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and 

Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. 

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). 

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under 

sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). 

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued 

under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 

U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under 

sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). 

Sections 50.80–50.81 also issued under sec. 

184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 

187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). 

11. Section 50.10 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 50.10 License required; limited work 

authorization. 

(a) Requirement for license. Except as 

provided in § 50.11, no person within 

the United States shall transfer or 

receive in interstate commerce, 

manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, 

possess, or use any production or 

utilization facility except as authorized 

by a license issued by the Commission. 

(b) Requirement for construction 

permit, early site permit, combined 

license, or limited work authorization. 

No person may begin the construction of 

a production or utilization facility on a 

site on which the facility is to be 

operated until that person has been 

issued either a construction permit 

under this part or a combined license 

under part 52 of this chapter, or a 

limited work authorization under 

paragraph (c) of this section. As used in 

this paragraph, the term ‘‘construction’’

includes excavation, subsurface 

preparation, including the driving of 

piles, installation of the foundation, 

including the placement of concrete, 

and on-site, in-place fabrication, 

erection, integration or testing, for any 

structure, system or component of a 

facility required by the Commission’s 

rules and regulations to be described in 

the site safety analysis report or 

preliminary or final safety analysis 

report. The term ‘‘construction’’

excludes: 

(1) Changes for the temporary use of 

the land for public recreational 

purposes; 

(2) Site exploration, including: 

necessary borings to determine 

foundation conditions or other 

preconstruction monitoring to establish 

background information related to the 

suitability of the site, the environmental 

impacts of construction or operation, or 

the protection of environmental values; 

(3) Preparation of the site for 

construction of a facility, including 

clearing of the site, grading, installation 

of drainage, erosion and other 

environmental mitigation measures, and 

construction of temporary roads and 

borrow areas; 

(4) Construction of fencing and other 

access control measures; 

(5) Construction of temporary 

construction support buildings (such as 

construction equipment storage sheds, 

warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, 

concrete mixing plants, docking and 

unloading facilities, and construction 

support buildings and offices) for use in 

connection with the construction of the 

facility; 

(6) Construction of permanent service 

facilities, such as paved roads, parking 

lots, railroad spurs, exterior utility and 

lighting systems, potable water systems, 

sanitary sewerage treatment facilities, 

transmission lines, support buildings, 

and office buildings; 

(7) Procurement or manufacture of the 

components of the proposed facility, or 

the manufacture of a nuclear power 

reactor under a manufacturing license 

under subpart F of this part to be 

installed at the proposed site and be 

part of the proposed facility; and 

(8) With respect to production or 

utilization facilities, other than testing 

facilities and nuclear power plants, 

required to be licensed pursuant to 

section 104.a or section 104.c of the Act, 

the construction of buildings which will 

be used for activities other than 

operation of a facility and which may 

also be used to house a facility (for 

example, the construction of a college 

laboratory building with space for 

installation of a training reactor). 

(c) Request for limited work 

authorization. (1) Any person to whom 

the Commission may otherwise issue 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61348 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

either a license or permit under Sections 

103, 104.b, or 185 of the Act for a 

facility of the type specified in 

§ 50.21(b)(2) or (3), § 50.22, or a testing 

facility, may request a limited work 

authorization allowing that person to 

perform excavation, subsurface 

preparation, including the driving of 

piles, and installation of the foundation, 

including placement of concrete, for any 

structure, system or component of the 

facility. 

(2) An application for a limited work 

authorization may be submitted as part 

of a complete application for a 

construction permit or combined license 

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a)(1) 

through (4), or as a partial application 

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a)(9). 

An application for a limited work 

authorization must be submitted by an 

applicant for or holder of an early site 

permit as a complete application in 

accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a)(1) 

through (4). 

(3) The application must include: 

(i) A safety analysis report required by 

10 CFR 50.34, 10 CFR 52.17 or 10 CFR 

52.79, as applicable, a description of the 

activities requested to be performed, 

and the design and construction 

information otherwise required by the 

Commission’s rules and regulations to 

be submitted for a construction permit 

or combined license, but limited to 

those portions of the facility that are 

within the scope of the limited work 

authorization. The safety analysis report 

must demonstrate that activities 

conducted under the limited work 

authorization will be conducted in 

compliance with the technicallyrelevant Commission requirements in 10 

CFR Chapter I applicable to the design 

of those portions of the facility within 

the scope of the limited work 

authorization; 

(ii) An environmental report in 

accordance with § 51.49 of this chapter; 

and 

(iii) A plan for redress of the site to 

achieve an environmentally stable and 

aesthetically acceptable site suitable for 

whatever non-nuclear use may conform 

with local zoning laws, should limited 

work activities be terminated by the 

holder, the limited work authorization 

is revoked by the NRC, or upon 

effectiveness of the Commission’s final 

decision denying the associated 

construction permit or combined license 

application, as applicable. 

(d) Issuance of limited work 

authorization. (1) The Director of the 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

may issue a limited work authorization 

only after: 

(i) The NRC staff issues the final 

environmental impact statement for the 

limited work authorization in 

accordance with subpart A of part 51 of 

this chapter; 

(ii) The presiding officer makes the 

finding in § 51.105(c) or § 51.107(d) of 

this chapter, as applicable; 

(iii) The Director determines that the 

applicable standards and requirements 

of the Act and the Commission’s 

regulations applicable to the activities to 

be conducted under the limited work 

authorization have been met; the 

applicant is technically qualified to 

engage in the activities authorized; and 

issuance of the limited work 

authorization will provide reasonable 

assurance of adequate protection to 

public health and safety and will not be 

inimical to the common defense and 

security; and 

(iv) The presiding officer finds that 

there are no unresolved safety issues 

relating to the activities to be conducted 

under the limited work authorization 

that would constitute good cause for 

withholding the authorization. 

(2) Each limited work authorization 

will specify the activities that the holder 

is authorized to perform. The limited 

work authorization will include a 

condition requiring the holder to redress 

the site in accordance with the redress 

plan required by § 52.17(c) of this 

chapter, if construction is terminated by 

the holder, the LWA is revoked by the 

NRC, or upon effectiveness of the 

Commission’s final decision denying 

the associated operating license 

application or the underlying combined 

license application, as applicable. 

(e) Effect of limited work 

authorization. Any activities 

undertaken under a limited work 

authorization are entirely at the risk of 

the applicant and, except as to the 

matters determined under paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section, the issuance of the 

limited work authorization has no 

bearing on the issuance of a 

construction permit or combined license 

with respect to the requirements of the 

Act, and rules, regulations, or orders 

promulgated pursuant thereto. The 

environmental impact statement for a 

construction permit or combined license 

application for which a limited work 

authorization was previously issued 

will not address, and the presiding 

officer will not consider, the sunk costs 

of the holder of limited work 

authorization in determining the 

proposed action (i.e., issuance of the 

construction permit or combined 

license). 

(f) Implementation of redress plan. If 

construction is terminated by the 

holder, the underlying application is 

withdrawn by the applicant or denied 

by the NRC, or the LWA is revoked by 

the NRC, then the holder must begin 

implementation of the redress plan in a 

reasonable time, and complete the 

redress of the site no later than eighteen 

(18) months after termination of 

construction, revocation of the LWA, 

upon effectiveness of the Commission’s 

final decision denying the associated 

operating license application or the 

underlying combined license 

application, as applicable. 

PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR 

DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED 

REGULATORY FUNCTIONS 

12. The authority citation for Part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as 

amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 

2953 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as 

amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 

1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); sec. 1704, 112 

Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A 

also issued under National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 

Stat. 853–854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 

4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95–604, Title II, 92 

Stat. 3033–3041; and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101–

575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections 

51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80, and 51.97 also 

issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 

96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, Pub. L. 

100–203, 101 Stat. 1330–223 (42 U.S.C. 

10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also 

issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as 

amended by 92 Stat. 3036–3038 (42 U.S.C. 

2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 

10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 

also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982, sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)). 

13. In § 51.4, a new definition of 

construction is added to read as follows: 

§ 51.4 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Construction includes excavation, 

subsurface preparation, including the 

driving of piles, installation of the 

foundation, including the placement of 

concrete, and on-site, in-place 

fabrication, erection, integration or 

testing, for any structure, system or 

component of a facility required by the 

Commission’s rules and regulations to 

be described in the site safety analysis 

report or preliminary or final safety 

analysis report. The term ‘‘construction’’

excludes: 

(1) Changes for the temporary use of 

the land for public recreational 

purposes; 

(2) Site exploration, including: 

Necessary borings to determine 

foundation conditions or other 

preconstruction monitoring to establish 

background information related to the 

suitability of the site, the environmental 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61349 

impacts of construction or operation, or 

the protection of environmental values; 

(3) Preparation of the site for 

construction of a facility, including 

clearing of the site, grading, installation 

of drainage, erosion and other 

environmental mitigation measures, and 

construction of temporary roads and 

borrow areas; 

(4) Construction of fencing and other 

access control measures; 

(5) Construction of temporary 

construction support buildings (such as 

construction equipment storage sheds, 

warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, 

concrete mixing plants, docking and 

unloading facilities, and construction 

support buildings and offices) for use in 

connection with the construction of the 

facility; 

(6) Construction of permanent service 

facilities, such as paved roads, parking 

lots, railroad spurs, exterior utility and 

lighting systems, potable water systems, 

sanitary sewerage treatment facilities, 

transmission lines, support buildings, 

and office buildings; 

(7) Procurement or manufacture of the 

components of the proposed facility, or 

the manufacture of a nuclear power 

reactor under a manufacturing license 

under subpart F of this part to be 

installed at the proposed site and be 

part of the proposed facility; and 

(8) With respect to production or 

utilization facilities, other than testing 

facilities and nuclear power plants, 

required to be licensed pursuant to 

section 104.a or section 104.c of the Act, 

the construction of buildings which will 

be used for activities other than 

operation of a facility and which may 

also be used to house a facility (for 

example, the construction of a college 

laboratory building with space for 

installation of a training reactor). 

14. In § 51.17, paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 51.17 Information collection 

requirements; OMB approval. 

* * * * * 

(b) The approved information 

collection requirements in this part 

appear in §§ 51.6, 51.16, 51.41, 51.45, 

51.49, 51.50, 51.51, 51.52, 51.53, 51.54, 

51.58, 51.60, 51.61, 51.62, 51.66, 51.68, 

and 51.69. 

15. In § 51.20, the introductory text of 

paragraph (b) is republished and a new 

paragraph (b)(5) is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.20 Criteria for and identification of 

licensing and regulatory actions requiring 

environmental impact statements. 

* * * * * 

(b) The following types of actions 

require an environmental impact 

statement or a supplement to an 

environmental impact statement: 

* * * * * 

(5) Issuance of a limited work 

authorization under 10 CFR 50.10 of the 

chapter. 

* * * * * 

16. A new § 51.49 is added under the 

heading Environmental Reports—

Production and Utilization Facilities to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.49 Environmental report—limited 

work authorization. 

(a) Limited work authorization 

submitted as part of complete 

construction permit or combined license 

application. Each applicant for 

construction permit or combined license 

who applies for a limited work 

authorization under § 50.10(c) of part 50 

of this chapter in a complete application 

under 10 CFR 2.101(a)(1) through (4), 

shall submit with its application a 

separate document, entitled, 

‘‘Applicant’s Environmental Report—

Limited Work Authorization Stage,’’

which is in addition to the 

Environmental Report required by 

§ 51.50 of this section. The Applicant’s 

Environmental Report—Limited Work 

Authorization Stage must contain the 

following information: 

(1) A description of the activities 

proposed to be conducted under the 

limited work authorization; 

(2) A statement of the need for the 

activities; and 

(3) A description of the environmental 

impacts that may reasonably be 

expected to result from the activities, 

the mitigation measures that the 

applicant proposes to implement in 

order to achieve the level of 

environmental impacts described, and a 

discussion of the reasons for rejecting 

mitigation measures that could be 

employed by the applicant to further 

reduce environmental impacts. 

(b) Phased application for limited 

work authorization and construction 

permit or combined license. If the 

construction permit or combined license 

application is filed in accordance with 

§ 2.101(a)(9) of this chapter, then the 

environmental report for part one of the 

application may be limited to a 

discussion of the activities proposed to 

be conducted under the limited work 

authorization, and the proposed redress 

plan. If the scope of the environmental 

report for part one is so limited, then 

part two of the application must include 

the information required by § 51.50, as 

applicable. 

(c) Limited work authorization 

submitted as part of early site permit 

application. Each applicant for an early 

site permit under subpart A of part 51 

who is requesting a limited work 

authorization shall submit with its 

application the environmental report 

required by § 51.50(b), provided, 

however, that the report must also 

contain the following information: 

(1) A description of the activities 

proposed to be conducted under the 

limited work authorization; 

(2) A statement of the need for the 

activities; and 

(3) A description of the environmental 

impacts that may reasonably be 

expected to result from the activities, 

the mitigation measures that the 

applicant proposes to implement in 

order to achieve the level of 

environmental impacts described, and a 

discussion of the reasons for rejecting 

mitigation measures that could be 

employed by the applicant to further 

reduce environmental impacts. 

(d) Limited work authorization 

request submitted by early site permit 

holder. Each holder of an early site 

permit who requests a limited work 

authorization shall submit with its 

application the environmental report 

containing the following information: 

(1) A description of the activities 

proposed to be conducted under the 

limited work authorization; 

(2) A statement of the need for the 

activities; 

(3) A description of the environmental 

impacts that may reasonably be 

expected to result from the activities, 

the mitigation measures that the 

applicant proposes to implement in 

order to achieve the level of 

environmental impacts described, and a 

discussion of the reasons for rejecting 

mitigation measures that could be 

employed by the applicant to further 

reduce environmental impacts; and 

(4) A discussion of any new and 

significant information on the 

environmental impacts of construction 

as determined in the environmental 

impact statement for the early site 

permit, which may materially affect the 

conclusions of the early site permit with 

respect to the environmental impacts of 

the activities to be conducted under the 

limited work authorization. 

(e) Limited work authorization for site 

where EIS was prepared, but the facility 

was not constructed. If the limited work 

authorization is for activities to be 

conducted at a site for which the 

Commission has previously prepared an 

environmental impact statement for the 

construction and operation of a nuclear 

power plant, and a construction permit 

was issued but construction of the plant 

was never completed, then the 

applicant’s environmental report may 

reference the earlier environmental 

impact statement. In the event of such 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61350 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

referencing, the environmental report 

must identify whether there is new and 

significant information material to the 

matters required to be addressed in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(f) Environmental Report. An 

environmental report submitted in 

accordance with this section must 

separately evaluate the environmental 

impacts and proposed alternatives 

attributable to the activities proposed to 

be conducted under the limited work 

authorization. At the option of the 

applicant, the Applicant’s 

Environmental Report—Limited Work 

Authorization Stage may contain the 

information required to be submitted in 

the environmental report required under 

§ 51.50, which addresses the impacts of 

construction and operation for the 

proposed facility (including the 

environmental impacts attributable to 

the limited work authorization), and 

discusses the overall costs and benefits 

balancing for the proposed action. 

17. Section 51.50 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.50 Environmental report—

construction permit, early site permit, or 

combined license stage. 

(a) Construction permit stage. Each 

applicant for a permit to construct a 

production or utilization facility 

covered by § 51.20 shall submit with its 

application a separate document, 

entitled ‘‘Applicant’s Environmental 

Report—Construction Permit Stage,’’

which shall contain the information 

specified in §§ 51.45, 51.51 and 51.52. 

Each environmental report shall identify 

procedures for reporting and keeping 

records of environmental data, and any 

conditions and monitoring requirements 

for protecting the non-aquatic 

environment, proposed for possible 

inclusion in the license as 

environmental conditions in accordance 

with § 50.36b of this chapter. 

(b) Early site permit stage. Each 

applicant for an early site permit shall 

submit with its application a separate 

document, entitled ‘‘Applicant’s 

Environmental Report—Early Site 

Permit Stage,’’ which shall contain the 

information specified in §§ 51.45, 51.51, 

and 51.52, as modified in this 

paragraph. Environmental reports need 

not include an assessment of the 

economic, technical, and other benefits 

and costs of the proposed action or an 

analysis of other energy alternatives. 

Environmental reports must focus on 

the environmental effects of 

construction and operation of a reactor, 

or reactors, which have characteristics 

that fall within the postulated site 

parameters. Environmental reports must 

include an evaluation of alternative sites 

to determine whether there is any 

obviously superior alternative to the site 

proposed. For other than light-watercooled nuclear power reactors, the 

environmental report shall contain the 

basis for evaluating the contribution of 

the environmental effects of fuel cycle 

activities for the nuclear power reactor. 

Each environmental report shall identify 

procedures for reporting and keeping 

records of environmental data, and any 

conditions and monitoring requirements 

for protecting the non-aquatic 

environment, proposed for possible 

inclusion in the license as 

environmental conditions in accordance 

with § 50.36b of this chapter. 

(c) Combined license stage. Each 

applicant for a combined license shall 

submit with its application a separate 

document, entitled ‘‘Applicant’s 

Environmental Report—Combined 

License Stage.’’ Each environmental 

report shall contain the information 

specified in §§ 51.45, 51.51 and 51.52, 

for other than light-water-cooled nuclear 

power reactors, the environmental 

report shall contain the basis for 

evaluating the contribution of the 

environmental effects of fuel cycle 

activities for the nuclear power reactor. 

Each environmental report shall identify 

procedures for reporting and keeping 

records of environmental data, and any 

conditions and monitoring requirements 

for protecting the non-aquatic 

environment, proposed for possible 

inclusion in the license as 

environmental conditions in accordance 

with § 50.36b of this chapter. The 

combined license environmental report 

may reference information contained in 

a final environmental document 

previously prepared by the NRC staff. 

(1) Application referencing an early 

site permit. The applicant must have a 

reasonable process for identifying any 

new and significant information 

regarding the NRC’s conclusions in the 

early site permit environmental impact 

statement. If the combined license 

application references an early site 

permit, then the ‘‘Applicant’s 

Environmental Report—Combined 

License Stage’’ need not contain 

information or analyses submitted to the 

Commission in ‘‘Applicant’s 

Environmental Report—Early Site 

Permit Stage,’’ but must contain, in 

addition to the environmental 

information and analyses otherwise 

required: 

(i) Information to demonstrate that the 

design of the facility falls within the site 

characteristics and design parameters 

specified in the early site permit; 

(ii) Information to resolve any other 

significant environmental issue not 

considered in the early site permit 

proceeding, either for the site or design; 

and 

(iii) Any new and significant 

information on the site or design to the 

extent that it differs from, or is in 

addition to, that discussed in the early 

site permit environmental impact 

statement. 

(2) Application referencing standard 

design certification. If the combined 

license references a standard design 

certification, then the combined license 

environmental report may incorporate 

by reference the environmental 

assessment previously prepared by the 

NRC for the referenced design 

certification. If the design certification 

environmental assessment is referenced, 

then the combined license 

environmental report must contain 

information to demonstrate that the site 

characteristics for the combined license 

site fall within the site parameters in the 

design certification environmental 

assessment. 

(3) Application referencing a 

manufactured reactor. If the combined 

license application proposes to use a 

manufactured reactor, then the 

combined license environmental report 

may incorporate by reference the 

environmental assessment previously 

prepared by the NRC for the underlying 

manufacturing license. If the 

manufacturing license environmental 

assessment is referenced, then the 

combined license environmental report 

must contain information to 

demonstrate that the site characteristics 

for the combined license site fall within 

the site parameters in the manufacturing 

license environmental assessment. The 

environmental report need not address 

the environmental impacts associated 

with manufacturing the reactor under 

the manufacturing license. 

* * * * * 

18. In § 51.71, paragraph (d) and 

footnote 3 are revised, paragraph (e) is 

redesignated as paragraph (f), and a new 

paragraph (e) is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.71 Draft environmental impact 

statement-contents. 

* * * * * 

(d) Analysis. (1) Unless excepted in 

this paragraph, the draft environmental 

impact statement will include a 

preliminary analysis that considers and 

weighs the environmental effects of the 

proposed action; the environmental 

impacts of alternatives to the proposed 

action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects and consideration 

of the economic, technical, and other 

benefits and costs of the proposed 

action and alternatives and indicate 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61351 

3Compliance with the environmental quality 

standards and requirements of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (imposed by EPA or 

designated permitting states) is not a substitute for, 

and does not negate the requirement for NRC to 

weigh all environmental effects of the proposed 

action, including the degradation, if any, of water 

quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed 

action that are available for reducing adverse 

effects. Where an environmental assessment of 

aquatic impact from plant discharges is available 

from the permitting authority, the NRC will 

consider the assessment in its determination of the 

magnitude of environmental impacts for striking an 

overall cost-benefit balance at the construction 

permit and operating license and early site permit 

and combined license stages, and in its 

determination of whether the adverse 

environmental impacts of license renewal are so 

great that preserving the option of license renewal 

for energy planning decision-makers would be 

unreasonable at the license renewal stage. When the 

assessment of aquatic impacts is not available from 

the permitting authority, NRC will establish on its 

own, or in conjunction with the permitting 

authority and other agencies having relevant 

expertise, the magnitude of potential impacts for 

striking an overall cost-benefit balance for the 

facility at the construction permit and operating 

license and early site permit and combined license 

stages, and in its determination of whether the 

adverse environmental impacts of license renewal 

are so great that preserving the option of license 

renewal for energy planning decision-makers would 

be unreasonable at the license renewal stage. 

what other interests and considerations 

of Federal policy, including factors not 

related to environmental quality if 

applicable, are relevant to the 

consideration of environmental effects 

of the proposed action identified under 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) The draft environmental impact 

statement prepared at the early site 

permit stage must focus on the 

environmental effects of construction 

and operation of a reactor, or reactors, 

which have characteristics that fall 

within the postulated site parameters, 

and will not include an assessment of 

the benefits (for example, need for 

power) of the proposed action or an 

evaluation of other alternative energy 

sources unless considered by the 

applicant, but must include an 

evaluation of alternative sites to 

determine whether there is any 

obviously superior alternative to the site 

proposed. 

(3) The draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement 

prepared at the combined license stage 

when an early site permit is referenced 

need not include detailed information 

or analyses that were resolved in the 

final environmental impact statement 

prepared by the Commission in 

connection with the early site permit, if: 

(i) The design of the facility falls 

within the design parameters specified 

in the early site permit; 

(ii) The site falls within the site 

characteristics specified within the early 

site permit; and 

(iii) There is no significant new 

environmental issue or information not 

considered on the site or the design only 

to the extent that they differ from that 

discussed in the final environmental 

impact statement prepared by the 

Commission in connection with the 

early site permit. 

(4) The draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement 

prepared at the license renewal stage 

under § 51.95(c) need not discuss the 

economic or technical benefits and costs 

of either the proposed action or 

alternatives except if benefits and costs 

are either essential for a determination 

regarding the inclusion of an alternative 

in the range of alternatives considered 

or relevant to mitigation. In addition, 

the supplemental environmental impact 

statement prepared at the license 

renewal stage need not discuss other 

issues not related to the environmental 

effects of the proposed action and 

associated alternatives. The draft 

supplemental environmental impact 

statement for license renewal prepared 

under § 51.95(c) will rely on 

conclusions as amplified by the 

supporting information in the GEIS for 

issues designated as Category 1 in 

appendix B to subpart A of this part. 

The draft supplemental environmental 

impact statement must contain an 

analysis of those issues identified as 

Category 2 in appendix B to subpart A 

of this part that are open for the 

proposed action. 

(5) The analysis for all draft 

environmental impact statements will, 

to the fullest extent practicable, quantify 

the various factors considered. To the 

extent that there are important 

qualitative considerations or factors that 

cannot be quantified, these 

considerations or factors will be 

discussed in qualitative terms. 

(6) Due consideration will be given to 

compliance with environmental quality 

standards and requirements that have 

been imposed by Federal, State, 

regional, and local agencies having 

responsibility for environmental 

protection, including applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations and water 

pollution limitations or requirements 

issued or imposed under the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act. The 

environmental impact of the proposed 

action will be considered in the analysis 

with respect to matters covered by 

environmental quality standards and 

requirements irrespective of whether a 

certification or license from the 

appropriate authority has been 

obtained.3 While satisfaction of 

Commission standards and criteria 

pertaining to radiological effects will be 

necessary to meet the licensing 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, 

the analysis will, for the purposes of 

NEPA, consider the radiological effects 

of the proposed action and alternatives. 

(e) Effect of limited work 

authorization. If a limited work 

authorization was issued either in 

connection with or subsequent to an 

early site permit, or in connection with 

a construction permit or combined 

license application, then the 

environmental impact statement for the 

construction permit or combined license 

application will not address or consider 

the sunk costs associated with the 

limited work authorization. 

* * * * * 

19. Section 51.76 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.76 Draft environmental impact 

statement-limited work authorization. 

The NRC will prepare a draft 

environmental impact statement relating 

to issuance of a limited work 

authorization in accordance with the 

procedures and measures described in 

§§ 51.70, 51.71, and 51.73, as further 

supplemented or modified in the 

following paragraphs. 

(a) Limited work authorization 

submitted as part of complete 

construction permit or combined license 

application. If the application for a 

limited work authorization is submitted 

as part of a complete construction 

permit or combined license application, 

then the NRC may prepare a partial draft 

environmental impact statement, 

provided, however, that the analysis 

called for by § 51.71(d) will be limited 

to the activities proposed to be 

conducted under the limited work 

authorization. Alternatively, the NRC 

may prepare a complete draft 

environmental impact statement 

prepared in accordance with § 51.75(a) 

or (c), as applicable. 

(b) Phased application for limited 

work authorization under § 2.101(a)(9) 

of this chapter. If the application for a 

limited work authorization is submitted 

in accordance with § 2.101(a)(9) of this 

chapter, then the draft environmental 

impact statement for part one of the 

application may be limited to 

consideration of the activities proposed 

to be conducted under the limited work 

authorization, and the proposed redress 

plan. However, if the environmental 

report contains the full set of 

information required to be submitted 

under § 51.50(a) or (c), then the draft 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared in accordance with § 51.75(a) 

or (c), as applicable. Siting issues, 

including whether there is an obviously 

superior alternative site, or issues 

related to operation of the proposed 

nuclear power plant at the site, 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61352 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

including need for power may not be 

considered. After part two of the 

application is docketed, the NRC will 

prepare a draft supplement to the final 

environmental impact statement for part 

two of the application under § 51.72. No 

updating of the information contained 

in the final environmental statement 

prepared for part one is necessary in 

preparation of the supplemental 

environmental impact statement. The 

draft supplement must consider all 

environmental impacts associated with 

the prior issuance of the limited work 

authorization, but may not address or 

consider the sunk costs associated with 

the limited work authorization. 

(c) Limited work authorization 

submitted as part of an early site permit 

application. If the application for a 

limited work authorization is submitted 

as part of an application for an early site 

permit, then the NRC will prepare an 

environmental impact statement in 

accordance with § 51.75(b). However, 

the analysis called for by § 51.71(d) 

must also address the activities 

proposed to be conducted under the 

limited work authorization. 

(d) Limited work authorization 

request submitted by early site permit 

holder. If the application for a limited 

work authorization is submitted by a 

holder of an early site permit, then the 

NRC will prepare a prepare a draft 

supplement to the environmental 

impact statement for the early site 

permit. The supplement is limited to 

consideration of the activities proposed 

to be conducted under the limited work 

authorization, the adequacy of the 

proposed redress plan, and whether 

there is significant new information on 

the impacts of construction which 

materially affect the conclusions of the 

early site permit with respect to the 

environmental impacts of the activities 

to be conducted under the limited work 

authorization. No other updating of the 

information contained in the final 

environmental statement prepared for 

the early site permit is required. 

(e) Limited work authorization for site 

where EIS was prepared, but the facility 

was not constructed. If the limited work 

authorization is for activities to be 

conducted at a site for which the 

Commission has previously prepared an 

environmental impact statement for the 

construction and operation of a nuclear 

power plant, a construction permit was 

issued but construction of the plant (as 

defined in § 50.10 of this chapter) was 

never commenced, the draft 

environmental impact statement shall 

incorporate by reference the earlier 

environmental impact statement. The 

draft environmental impact statement 

will be limited to a consideration of 

whether there is significant new 

information with respect to the 

environmental impacts of construction, 

relevant to the activities to be conducted 

under the limited work authority, such 

that the conclusion of the referenced 

environmental impact statement on the 

impacts of construction would, when 

analyzed in accordance with § 51.71, 

lead to the conclusion that the limited 

work authorization should not be issued 

or should be issued with appropriate 

conditions. 

(f) A draft environmental impact 

statement prepared under this section 

must separately evaluate the 

environmental impacts and proposed 

alternatives attributable to the activities 

proposed to be conducted under the 

limited work authorization. However, if 

the Applicant’s Environmental Report—

Limited Work Authorization Stage also 

contains the information required to be 

submitted in the environmental report 

required under § 51.50, then the 

environmental impact statement must 

address the impacts of construction and 

operation for the proposed facility 

(including the environmental impacts 

attributable to the limited work 

authorization), and discuss the overall 

costs and benefits balancing for the 

underlying proposed action, in 

accordance with § 51.71, and § 51.75(a) 

or (c), as applicable. 

20. In § 51.103, a new paragraph (a)(6) 

is added to read as follows: 

§ 51.103 Record of decision—general. 

(a) * * * 

(6) In a construction permit or the 

combined license proceeding, where a 

limited work authorization under 10 

CFR 50.10 was issued, the 

Commission’s decision on the 

construction permit or combined license 

application will not address or consider 

the sunk costs associated with the 

limited work authorization in 

determining the proposed action. 

* * * * * 

21. In § 51.104, a new paragraph (c) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 51.104 NRC proceedings using public 

hearings; consideration of environmental 

impact statement. 

* * * * * 

(c) Limited work authorization. In any 

proceeding in which a limited work 

authorization is requested, unless the 

Commission orders otherwise, a party to 

the proceeding may take a position and 

offer evidence only on the aspects of the 

proposed action within the scope of 

NEPA and this subpart which are within 

the scope of that party’s admitted 

contention, in accordance with the 

provisions of part 2 of this chapter 

applicable to the limited work 

authorization or in accordance with the 

terms of any notice of hearing 

applicable to the limited work 

authorization. In the proceeding, the 

presiding officer will decide any such 

matters in controversy among the 

parties. 

22. Section 51.105, is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 51.105 Public hearings in proceedings 

for issuance of construction permits or 

early site permits; limited work 

authorizations. 

(a) In addition to complying with 

applicable requirements of § 51.104, in 

a proceeding for the issuance of a 

construction permit or early site permit 

for a nuclear power reactor, testing 

facility, fuel reprocessing plant or 

isotopic enrichment plant, the presiding 

officer will: 

(1) Determine whether the 

requirements of section 102(2) (A), (C), 

and (E) of NEPA and the regulations in 

this subpart have been met; 

(2) Independently consider the final 

balance among conflicting factors 

contained in the record of the 

proceeding with a view to determining 

the appropriate action to be taken; 

(3) Determine, after weighing the 

environmental, economic, technical, 

and other benefits against 

environmental and other costs, and 

considering reasonable alternatives, 

whether the construction permit or early 

site permit should be issued, denied, or 

appropriately conditioned to protect 

environmental values; 

(4) Determine, in an uncontested 

proceeding, whether the NEPA review 

conducted by the NRC staff has been 

adequate; and 

(5) Determine, in a contested 

proceeding, whether in accordance with 

the regulations in this subpart, the 

construction permit or early site permit 

should be issued as proposed. 

(b) The presiding officer in an early 

site permit hearing shall not admit 

contentions proffered by any party 

concerning the benefits assessment (e.g., 

need for power) or alternative energy 

sources if those issues were not 

addressed by the applicant in the early 

site permit application. 

(c)(1) In addition to complying with 

the applicable provisions of § 51.104, in 

any proceeding for the issuance of a 

construction permit for a nuclear power 

plant or an early site permit under part 

52 of this chapter where the applicant 

requests a limited work authorization 

under § 50.10(c) of this chapter, the 

presiding officer shall—–

(i) Determine whether the 

requirements of section 102(2)(A), (C) 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61353 

and (E) of NEPA and the regulations in 

the subpart have been met, with respect 

to the activities to be conducted under 

the limited work authorization; 

(ii) Independently consider the 

balance among conflicting factors with 

respect to the limited work 

authorization which is contained in the 

record of the proceeding, with a view to 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken; 

(iii) In an uncontested proceeding, 

determine whether the NEPA review 

conducted by the NRC staff for the 

limited work authorization has been 

adequate; and 

(iv) In a contested proceeding, 

determine whether in accordance with 

the regulations in this subpart, the 

limited work authorization should be 

issued as proposed. 

(2) If the limited work authorization is 

for activities to be conducted at a site for 

which the Commission has previously 

prepared an environmental impact 

statement for the construction and 

operation of a nuclear power plant, and 

a construction permit was issued but 

construction of the plant was never 

completed, then in making the 

determinations in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section, the presiding officer shall 

be limited to a consideration whether 

there is, with respect to construction 

activities encompassed by the 

environmental impact statement which 

are analogous to the activities to be 

conducted under the limited work 

authorization, significant new 

information on the environmental 

impacts of those activities, such that the 

limited work authorization should not 

be issued as proposed. 

(3) The presiding officer’s 

determination in this paragraph shall be 

made in a partial initial decision to be 

issued separately from, and in advance 

of, the presiding officer’s decision in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

23. Section 51.107 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.107 Public hearings in proceedings 

for issuance of combined licenses; limited 

work authorizations. 

(a) In addition to complying with 

applicable requirements of § 51.104, in 

a proceeding for the issuance of a 

combined license for a nuclear power 

reactor, the presiding officer will: 

(1) Determine whether the 

requirements of section 102(2) (A), (C), 

and (E) of NEPA and the regulations in 

this subpart have been met; 

(2) Independently consider the final 

balance among conflicting factors 

contained in the record of the 

proceeding with a view to determining 

the appropriate action to be taken; 

(3) Determine, after weighing the 

environmental, economic, technical, 

and other benefits against 

environmental and other costs, and 

considering reasonable alternatives, 

whether the combined license should be 

issued, denied, or appropriately 

conditioned to protect environmental 

values; 

(4) Determine, in an uncontested 

proceeding, whether the NEPA review 

conducted by the NRC staff has been 

adequate; and 

(5) Determine, in a contested 

proceeding, whether in accordance with 

the regulations in this subpart, the 

combined license should be issued as 

proposed by the NRC’s Director of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

(b) If the combined license 

application references an early site 

permit, then the presiding officer in a 

combined license hearing shall not 

admit contentions proffered by any 

party on environmental issues which 

have been accorded finality under 

§ 52.39 of this chapter, unless this 

contention—

(1) Demonstrates that the design of the 

facility falls outside the design 

parameters specified in the early site 

permit; 

(2) Demonstrates that the site no 

longer falls within the site 

characteristics specified in the early site 

permit; or 

(3) Raises any other significant 

environmental issue not considered 

which is material to the site or the 

design only to the extent that it differs 

from those discussed or it reflects 

significant new information in addition 

to that discussed in the final 

environmental impact statement 

prepared by the Commission in 

connection with the early site permit. 

(c) If the combined license application 

references a standard design 

certification, or proposes to use a 

manufactured reactor, then the 

presiding officer in a combined license 

hearing may not admit contentions 

proffered by any party concerning 

severe accident mitigation design 

alternatives unless the contention 

demonstrates that the site characteristics 

fall outside of the site parameters in the 

standard design certification or 

underlying manufacturing license for 

the manufactured reactor. 

(d)(1) In addition to complying with 

the applicable provisions of § 51.104, in 

any proceeding for the issuance of a 

combined license where the applicant 

requests a limited work authorization 

under § 50.10(c) of this chapter, the 

presiding officer shall—

(i) Determine whether the 

requirements of section 102(2)(A), (C) 

and (E) of NEPA and the regulations in 

the subpart have been met, with respect 

to the activities to be conducted under 

the limited work authorization; 

(ii) Independently consider the 

balance among conflicting factors with 

respect to the limited work 

authorization which is contained in the 

record of the proceeding, with a view to 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken; 

(iii) In an uncontested proceeding, 

determine whether the NEPA review 

conducted by the NRC staff for the 

limited work authorization has been 

adequate; and 

(iv) In a contested proceeding, 

determine whether in accordance with 

the regulations in this subpart, the 

limited work authorization should be 

issued as proposed by the NRC’s 

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

(2) If the limited work authorization is 

for activities to be conducted at a site for 

which the Commission has previously 

prepared an environmental impact 

statement for the construction and 

operation of a nuclear power plant, and 

a construction permit was issued but 

construction of the plant was never 

completed, then in making the 

determinations in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section, the presiding officer shall 

be limited to a consideration whether 

there is, with respect to construction 

activities encompassed by the 

environmental impact statement which 

are analogous to the activities to be 

conducted under the limited work 

authorization, significant new 

information on the environmental 

impacts of those activities, such that the 

limited work authorization should not 

be issued as proposed by the Director of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

(3) In making the determination 

required by this section, the presiding 

officer may not address or consider the 

sunk costs associated with the limited 

work authorization. 

(4) The presiding officer’s 

determination in this paragraph shall be 

made in a partial initial decision to be 

issued separately from, and in advance 

of, the presiding officer’s decision in 

paragraph (a) of this section on the 

combined license. 

PART 52—EARLY SITE PERMITS; 

STANDARD DESIGN 

CERTIFICATIONS; AND COMBINED 

LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER 

PLANTS 

24. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 

186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 

956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61354 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

1The fission product release assumed for this 

evaluation should be based upon a major accident, 

hypothesized for purposes of site analysis or 

postulated from considerations of possible 

accidental events. Such accidents have generally 

been assumed to result in substantial meltdown of 

the core with subsequent release into the 

containment of appreciable quantities of fission 

products. 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 

2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 

Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 

(44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 

25. Section 52.1 is removed. 

26. Section 52.3 is redesignated as 

§ 52.1 and revised to read as follows: 

§ 52.1 Definitions. 

(a) As used in this part—

Combined license means a combined 

construction permit and operating 

license with conditions for a nuclear 

power facility issued under subpart C of 

this part. 

Decommission means to remove a 

facility or site safely from service and 

reduce residual radioactivity to a level 

that permits—

(i) Release of the property for 

unrestricted use and termination of the 

license; or 

(ii) Release of the property under 

restricted conditions and termination of 

the license. 

Design characteristics are the actual 

features of a reactor or reactors. Design 

characteristics are specified in a 

standard design approval, a standard 

design certification, or a combined 

license application. 

Design parameters are the postulated 

features of a reactor or reactors that 

could be built at a proposed site. Design 

parameters are specified in an early site 

permit. 

Early site permit means a Commission 

approval, issued under subpart A of this 

part, for a site or sites for one or more 

nuclear power facilities. 

License means a license, including an 

early site permit, combined license or 

manufacturing license under this part or 

a renewed license issued by the 

Commission under this part or part 54 

of this chapter. 

Licensee means a person who is 

authorized to conduct activities under a 

license issued by the Commission. 

Limited work authorization means the 

authorization provided by the Director 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 

§ 50.10 of this chapter. 

Manufacturing license means a 

license, issued under subpart F of this 

part, authorizing the manufacture of 

nuclear power reactors but not their 

construction, installation, or operation 

at the sites on which the reactors are to 

be operated. 

Modular design means a nuclear 

power station that consists of two or 

more essentially identical nuclear 

reactors (modules) and each module is 

a separate nuclear reactor capable of 

being operated independent of the state 

of completion or operating condition of 

any other module co-located on the 

same site, even though the nuclear 

power station may have some shared or 

common systems. 

Prototype plant means a nuclear 

power plant that is used to test new 

safety features, such as the testing 

required under 10 CFR 50.43(e). The 

prototype plant is similar to a first-of-akind or standard plant design in all 

features and size, but may include 

additional safety features to protect the 

public and the plant staff from the 

possible consequences of accidents 

during the testing period. 

Site characteristics are the actual 

physical, environmental and 

demographic features of a site. Site 

characteristics are specified in an early 

site permit or in a final safety analysis 

report for a combined license. 

Site parameters are the postulated 

physical, environmental and 

demographic features of an assumed 

site. Site parameters are specified in a 

standard design approval, standard 

design certification, or a manufacturing 

license. 

Standard design means a design 

which is sufficiently detailed and 

complete to support certification in 

accordance with subpart B or E of this 

part, and which is usable for a multiple 

number of units or at a multiple number 

of sites without reopening or repeating 

the review. 

Standard design approval or design 

approval means an NRC staff approval, 

issued under subpart E of this part, of 

a final standard design for a nuclear 

power reactor of the type described in 

10 CFR 50.22. The approval may be for 

either the final design for the entire 

reactor facility or the final design of 

major portions thereof. 

Standard design certification or 

design certification means a 

Commission approval, issued under 

subpart B of this part, of a final standard 

design for a nuclear power facility. This 

design may be referred to as a certified 

standard design. 

(b) All other terms in this part have 

the meaning set out in 10 CFR 50.2, or 

Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act, as 

applicable. 

27. Section 52.17 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.17 Contents of applications; technical 

information. 

(a) The application must contain: 

(1) A site safety analysis report. The 

site safety analysis report must include 

the following: 

(i) The specific number, type, and 

thermal power level of the facilities, or 

range of possible facilities, for which the 

site may be used; 

(ii) The anticipated maximum levels 

of radiological and thermal effluents 

each facility will produce; 

(iii) The type of cooling systems, 

intakes, and outflows that may be 

associated with each facility; 

(iv) The boundaries of the site; 

(v) The proposed general location of 

each facility on the site; 

(vi) The seismic, meteorological, 

hydrologic, and geologic characteristics 

of the proposed site with appropriate 

consideration of the most severe of the 

natural phenomena that have been 

historically reported for the site and 

surrounding area and with sufficient 

margin for the limited accuracy, 

quantity, and period of time in which 

the historical data have been 

accumulated; 

(vii) The location and description of 

any nearby industrial, military, or 

transportation facilities and routes; 

(viii) The existing and projected 

future population profile of the area 

surrounding the site; 

(ix) A description and safety 

assessment of the site on which a 

facility is to be located. The assessment 

must contain an analysis and evaluation 

of the major structures, systems, and 

components of the facility that bear 

significantly on the acceptability of the 

site under the radiological consequence 

evaluation factors identified in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(ix)(A) and (a)(1)(ix)(B) 

of this section. In performing this 

assessment, an applicant shall assume a 

fission product release 1 from the core 

into the containment assuming that the 

facility is operated at the ultimate power 

level contemplated. The applicant shall 

perform an evaluation and analysis of 

the postulated fission product release, 

using the expected demonstrable 

containment leak rate and any fission 

product cleanup systems intended to 

mitigate the consequences of the 

accidents, together with applicable site 

characteristics, including site 

meteorology, to evaluate the offsite 

radiological consequences. Site 

characteristics must comply with part 

100 of this chapter. The evaluation must 

determine that: 

(A) An individual located at any point 

on the boundary of the exclusion area 

for any 2 hour period following the 

onset of the postulated fission product 

release, would not receive a radiation 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61355 

2A whole body dose of 25 rem has been stated 

to correspond numerically to the once in a lifetime 

accidental or emergency dose for radiation workers 

which, according to NCRP recommendations at the 

time could be disregarded in the determination of 

their radiation exposure status (see NBS Handbook 

69 dated June 5, 1959). However, its use is not 

intended to imply that this number constitutes an 

acceptable limit for an emergency dose to the public 

under accident conditions. Rather, this dose value 

has been set forth in this section as a reference 

value, which can be used in the evaluation of plant 

design features with respect to postulated reactor 

accidents, to assure that these designs provide 

assurance of low risk of public exposure to 

radiation, in the event of an accident. 

dose in excess of 25 rem 2 total effective 

dose equivalent (TEDE). 

(B) An individual located at any point 

on the outer boundary of the low 

population zone, who is exposed to the 

radioactive cloud resulting from the 

postulated fission product release 

(during the entire period of its passage) 

would not receive a radiation dose in 

excess of 25 rem TEDE; 

(x) For nuclear power facilities to be 

sited on multi-unit sites, an evaluation 

of the potential hazards to the 

structures, systems, and components 

important to safety of operating units 

resulting from construction activities, as 

well as a description of the managerial 

and administrative controls to be used 

to provide assurance that the limiting 

conditions for operation are not 

exceeded as a result of construction 

activities at the multi-unit sites; 

(xi) Information demonstrating that 

site characteristics are such that 

adequate security plans and measures 

can be developed; 

(xii) For applications submitted after 

[effective date of final rule], a 

description of the quality assurance 

program applied to site-related activities 

for the future design, fabrication, 

construction, and testing of the 

structures, systems, and components of 

a facility or facilities that may be 

constructed on the site. Appendix B to 

10 CFR part 50 contains requirements 

for quality assurance programs for 

nuclear power plants. The description 

of the quality assurance program for a 

nuclear power plant site must include a 

discussion of how the applicable 

requirements of appendix B to 10 CFR 

part 50 will be satisfied; and 

(xiii) An evaluation of the site against 

applicable sections of the Standard 

Review Plan (SRP) revision in effect 6 

months before the docket date of the 

application. The evaluation required by 

this section must include an 

identification and description of all 

differences in analytical techniques and 

procedural measures proposed for a site 

and those corresponding techniques and 

measures given in the SRP acceptance 

criteria. Where such a difference exists, 

the evaluation must discuss how the 

proposed alternative provides an 

acceptable method of complying with 

the Commission’s regulations, or 

portions thereof, that underlie the 

corresponding SRP acceptance criteria. 

The SRP was issued to establish criteria 

that the NRC staff intends to use in 

evaluating whether an applicant/ 

licensee meets the Commission’s 

regulations. The SRP is not a substitute 

for the regulations, and compliance is 

not a requirement. 

(2) A complete environmental report 

as required by 10 CFR 51.50(b). 

(b)(1) The application must identify 

physical characteristics of the proposed 

site, such as egress limitations from the 

area surrounding the site, that could 

pose a significant impediment to the 

development of emergency plans. If 

physical characteristics are identified 

that could pose a significant 

impediment to the development of 

emergency plans, the application must 

identify measures that would, when 

implemented, mitigate or eliminate the 

significant impediment. 

(2) The application may also: 

(i) Propose major features of the 

emergency plans in the site safety 

analysis report, in accordance with the 

pertinent standards of 10 CFR 50.47, 

and the requirements of appendix E to 

10 CFR part 50, such as the exact size 

and configuration of the emergency 

planning zones, that can be reviewed 

and approved by NRC in consultation 

with the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) in the 

absence of complete and integrated 

emergency plans; or 

(ii) Propose complete and integrated 

emergency plans in the site safety 

analysis report for review and approval 

by the NRC, in consultation with FEMA, 

in accordance with the applicable 

standards of 10 CFR 50.47, and the 

requirements of appendix E to 10 CFR 

part 50. To the extent approval of 

emergency plans is sought, the 

application must contain the 

information required by §§ 50.33(g) and 

(j) of this chapter. 

(3) Emergency plans, and each major 

feature of an emergency plan, submitted 

under paragraph (b)(2) of this section 

must include the proposed inspections, 

tests, and analyses that the holder of a 

combined license referencing the early 

site permit shall perform, and the 

acceptance criteria that are necessary 

and sufficient to provide reasonable 

assurance that, if the inspections, tests, 

and analyses are performed and the 

acceptance criteria met, the facility has 

been constructed and will operate in 

conformity with the license, the 

provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 

and the NRC’s regulations. 

(4) Under paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2)(i) of this section, the application 

must include a description of contacts 

and arrangements made with Federal, 

State, and local governmental agencies 

with emergency planning 

responsibilities. The application must 

contain any certifications that have been 

obtained. If these certifications cannot 

be obtained, the application must 

contain information, including a utility 

plan, sufficient to show that the 

proposed plans provide reasonable 

assurance that adequate protective 

measures can and will be taken in the 

event of a radiological emergency at the 

site. Under the option set forth in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the 

applicant shall make good faith efforts 

to obtain from the same governmental 

agencies certifications that: 

(i) The proposed emergency plans are 

practicable; 

(ii) These agencies are committed to 

participating in any further 

development of the plans, including any 

required field demonstrations; and 

(iii) That these agencies are 

committed to executing their 

responsibilities under the plans in the 

event of an emergency. 

(c) An applicant may request that a 

limited work authorization under 10 

CFR 50.10 be issued in conjunction with 

the early site permit. The application 

must include the information otherwise 

required by 10 CFR 50.10. 

(d) The NRC staff will advise the 

applicant on whether any information 

beyond that required by this section 

must be submitted. 

28. Section 52.24 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.24 Issuance of early site permit. 

(a) After conducting a hearing under 

§ 52.21 and receiving the report to be 

submitted by the ACRS under § 52.23, 

the Commission may issue an early site 

permit, in the form the Commission 

deems appropriate, if the Commission 

finds that: 

(1) An application for an early site 

permit meets the applicable standards 

and requirements of the Act and the 

Commission’s regulations; 

(2) Notifications, if any, to other 

agencies or bodies have been duly 

made; 

(3) There is reasonable assurance that 

the site is in conformity with the 

provisions of the Act, and the 

Commission’s regulations; 

(4) The applicant is technically 

qualified to engage in any activities 

authorized; 

(5) The proposed inspections, tests, 

analyses and acceptance criteria, 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61356 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

1The fission product release assumed for this 

evaluation should be based upon a major accident, 

hypothesized for purposes of site analysis or 

postulated from considerations of possible 

accidental events. Such accidents have generally 

been assumed to result in substantial meltdown of 

the core with subsequent release into the 

containment of appreciable quantities of fission 

products. 

2A whole body dose of 25 rem has been stated 

to correspond numerically to the once in a lifetime 

accidental or emergency dose for radiation workers 

which, according to NCRP recommendations at the 

time could be disregarded in the determination of 

their radiation exposure status (see NBS Handbook 

69 dated June 5, 1959). However, its use is not 

intended to imply that this number constitutes an 

acceptable limit for an emergency dose to the public 

under accident conditions. Rather, this dose value 

has been set forth in this section as a reference 

value, which can be used in the evaluation of plant 

design features with respect to postulated reactor 

accidents, to assure that these designs provide 

assurance of low risk of public exposure to 

radiation, in the event of an accident. 

3The fission product release assumed for this 

evaluation should be based upon a major accident, 

hypothesized for purposes of site analysis or 

postulated from considerations of possible 

accidental events. These accidents have generally 

been assumed to result in substantial meltdown of 

the core with subsequent release into the 

containment of appreciable quantities of fission 

products. 

including any on emergency planning, 

are necessary and sufficient, within the 

scope of the early site permit, to provide 

reasonable assurance that the facility 

has been constructed and will be 

operated in conformity with the license, 

the provisions of the Act, and the 

Commission’s regulations; 

(6) Issuance of the permit will not be 

inimical to the common defense and 

security or to the health and safety of 

the public; 

(7) Any significant adverse 

environmental impact resulting from 

activities requested under § 52.17(c) can 

be redressed; and 

(8) The findings required by subpart 

A of 10 CFR part 51 have been made. 

(b) The early site permit must specify 

the site characteristics, design 

parameters, and terms and conditions of 

the early site permit the Commission 

deems appropriate. Before issuance of 

either a construction permit or 

combined license referencing an early 

site permit, the Commission shall find 

that any relevant terms and conditions 

of the early site permit have been met. 

29. Section 52.25 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.25 Limited work authorization after 

issuance of early site permit. 

A holder of an early site permit may 

request a limited work authorization in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.10 of this 

chapter. 

30. Section 52.79 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.79 Contents of applications; technical 

information in final safety analysis report. 

(a) The application must contain a 

final safety analysis report that 

describes the facility, presents the 

design bases and the limits on its 

operation, and presents a safety analysis 

of the structures, systems, and 

components of the facility as a whole. 

The final safety analysis report must 

include the following information, at a 

level of information sufficient to enable 

the Commission to reach a final 

conclusion on all safety matters that 

must be resolved by the Commission 

before issuance of a combined license: 

(1)(i) The boundaries of the site; 

(ii) The proposed general location of 

each facility on the site; 

(iii) The seismic, meteorological, 

hydrologic, and geologic characteristics 

of the proposed site with appropriate 

consideration of the most severe of the 

natural phenomena that have been 

historically reported for the site and 

surrounding area and with sufficient 

margin for the limited accuracy, 

quantity, and time in which the 

historical data have been accumulated; 

(iv) The location and description of 

any nearby industrial, military, or 

transportation facilities and routes; 

(v) The existing and projected future 

population profile of the area 

surrounding the site; 

(vi) A description and safety 

assessment of the site on which the 

facility is to be located. The assessment 

must contain an analysis and evaluation 

of the major structures, systems, and 

components of the facility that bear 

significantly on the acceptability of the 

site under the radiological consequence 

evaluation factors identified in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(vi)(A) and (a)(1)(vi)(B) 

of this section. In performing this 

assessment, an applicant shall assume a 

fission product release 1 from the core 

into the containment assuming that the 

facility is operated at the ultimate power 

level contemplated. The applicant shall 

perform an evaluation and analysis of 

the postulated fission product release, 

using the expected demonstrable 

containment leak rate and any fission 

product cleanup systems intended to 

mitigate the consequences of the 

accidents, together with applicable site 

characteristics, including site 

meteorology, to evaluate the offsite 

radiological consequences. Site 

characteristics must comply with part 

100 of this chapter. The evaluation must 

determine that: 

(A) An individual located at any point 

on the boundary of the exclusion area 

for any 2 hour period following the 

onset of the postulated fission product 

release, would not receive a radiation 

dose in excess of 25 rem 2 total effective 

dose equivalent (TEDE). 

(B) An individual located at any point 

on the outer boundary of the low 

population zone, who is exposed to the 

radioactive cloud resulting from the 

postulated fission product release 

(during the entire period of its passage) 

would not receive a radiation dose in 

excess of 25 rem TEDE; and 

(2) A description and analysis of the 

structures, systems, and components of 

the facility with emphasis upon 

performance requirements, the bases, 

with technical justification, upon which 

these requirements have been 

established, and the evaluations 

required to show that safety functions 

will be accomplished. It is expected that 

reactors will reflect through their 

design, construction and operation an 

extremely low probability for accidents 

that could result in the release of 

significant quantities of radioactive 

fission products. The descriptions must 

be sufficient to permit understanding of 

the system designs and their 

relationship to safety evaluations. Items 

as the reactor core, reactor coolant 

system, instrumentation and control 

systems, electrical systems, containment 

system, other engineered safety features, 

auxiliary and emergency systems, power 

conversion systems, radioactive waste 

handling systems, and fuel handling 

systems must be discussed insofar as 

they are pertinent. The following power 

reactor design characteristics and 

proposed operation will be taken into 

consideration by the Commission: 

(i) Intended use of the reactor 

including the proposed maximum 

power level and the nature and 

inventory of contained radioactive 

materials; 

(ii) The extent to which generally 

accepted engineering standards are 

applied to the design of the reactor; 

(iii) The extent to which the reactor 

incorporates unique, unusual or 

enhanced safety features having a 

significant bearing on the probability or 

consequences of accidental release of 

radioactive materials; 

(iv) The safety features that are to be 

engineered into the facility and those 

barriers that must be breached as a 

result of an accident before a release of 

radioactive material to the environment 

can occur. Special attention must be 

directed to plant design features 

intended to mitigate the radiological 

consequences of accidents. In 

performing this assessment, an 

applicant shall assume a fission product 

release 3 from the core into the 

containment assuming that the facility 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61357 

is operated at the ultimate power level 

contemplated; 

(3) The kinds and quantities of 

radioactive materials expected to be 

produced in the operation and the 

means for controlling and limiting 

radioactive effluents and radiation 

exposures within the limits set forth in 

part 20 of this chapter; 

(4) The design of the facility 

including: 

(i) The principal design criteria for the 

facility. Appendix A to part 50 of this 

chapter, ‘‘General Design Criteria for 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ establishes 

minimum requirements for the principal 

design criteria for water-cooled nuclear 

power plants similar in design and 

location to plants for which 

construction permits have previously 

been issued by the Commission and 

provides guidance to applicants in 

establishing principal design criteria for 

other types of nuclear power units; 

(ii) The design bases and the relation 

of the design bases to the principal 

design criteria; 

(iii) Information relative to materials 

of construction, arrangement, and 

dimensions, sufficient to provide 

reasonable assurance that the design 

will conform to the design bases with 

adequate margin for safety. 

(5) An analysis and evaluation of the 

design and performance of structures, 

systems, and components with the 

objective of assessing the risk to public 

health and safety resulting from 

operation of the facility and including 

determination of the margins of safety 

during normal operations and transient 

conditions anticipated during the life of 

the facility, and the adequacy of 

structures, systems, and components 

provided for the prevention of accidents 

and the mitigation of the consequences 

of accidents. Analysis and evaluation of 

ECCS cooling performance and the need 

for high-point vents following 

postulated loss-of-coolant accidents 

must be performed in accordance with 

the requirements of §§ 50.46 and 50.46a 

of this chapter; 

(6) A description and analysis of the 

fire protection design features for the 

reactor necessary to comply with 10 

CFR part 50, appendix A, GDC 3, and 

§ 50.48 of this chapter; 

(7) A description of protection 

provided against pressurized thermal 

shock events, including projected values 

of the reference temperature for reactor 

vessel beltline materials as defined in 

§§ 50.60, and 50.61(b)(1) and (b)(2) of 

this chapter; 

(8) The analyses and the descriptions 

of the equipment and systems required 

by § 50.44 of this chapter for 

combustible gas control; 

(9) The coping analyses required, and 

any necessary design features necessary 

to address station blackout, as described 

in § 50.63 of this chapter; 

(10) A description of the program 

required by § 50.49(a) of this chapter for 

the environmental qualification of 

electric equipment important to safety 

and the list of electric equipment 

important to safety that is required by 

10 CFR 50.49(d); 

(11) A description of the program(s) 

necessary to ensure that the systems and 

components meet the requirements of 

the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel 

Code in accordance with § 50.55a of this 

chapter; 

(12) A description of the primary 

containment leakage rate testing 

program necessary to ensure that the 

containment meets the requirements of 

Appendix J to 10 CFR part 50; 

(13) A description of the reactor 

vessel material surveillance program 

required by Appendix H to 10 CFR part 

50; 

(14) A description of the operator 

training program necessary to meet the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 55; 

(15) A description of the program for 

monitoring the effectiveness of 

maintenance necessary to meet the 

requirements of § 50.65 of this chapter; 

(16) The information with respect to 

the design of equipment to maintain 

control over radioactive materials in 

gaseous and liquid effluents produced 

during normal reactor operations, as 

described in § 50.34a(d) of this chapter; 

(17) The information with respect to 

compliance with technically relevant 

positions of the Three Mile Island 

requirements in § 50.34(f) of this 

chapter, with the exception of 

§§ 50.34(f)(1)(xii), (f)(2)(ix), and (f)(3)(v); 

(18) If the applicant seeks to use riskinformed treatment of SSCs in 

accordance with § 50.69 of this chapter, 

the information required by § 50.69(b)(2) 

of this chapter; 

(19) Information necessary to 

demonstrate that the SSCs important to 

safety comply with the earthquake 

engineering criteria in 10 CFR part 50, 

appendix S; 

(20) Proposed technical resolutions of 

those unresolved safety issues and 

medium- and high-priority generic 

safety issues that are identified in the 

version of NUREG–0933 current on the 

date 6 months before application and 

that are technically relevant to the 

design; 

(21) Emergency plans complying with 

the requirements of § 50.47 of this 

chapter, and 10 CFR part 50, appendix 

E; 

(22)(i) All emergency plan 

certifications that have been obtained 

from the State and local governmental 

agencies with emergency planning 

responsibilities must state that: 

(A) The proposed emergency plans 

are practicable; 

(B) These agencies are committed to 

participating in any further 

development of the plans, including any 

required field demonstrations; and 

(C) These agencies are committed to 

executing their responsibilities under 

the plans in the event of an emergency; 

(ii) If certifications cannot be obtained 

after sustained, good faith efforts by the 

applicant, then the application must 

contain information, including a utility 

plan, sufficient to show that the 

proposed plans provide reasonable 

assurance that adequate protective 

measures can and will be taken in the 

event of a radiological emergency at the 

site. 

(23) An applicant may request that a 

limited work authorization under 10 

CFR 50.10 be issued in advance of 

issuance of the combined license. The 

application must include the 

information otherwise required by 10 

CFR 50.10, in accordance with either 10 

CFR 2.101(a)(1) through (4), or 10 CFR 

2.101(a)(9). 

(24) If the application is for a nuclear 

power reactor design which differs 

significantly from light-water reactor 

designs that were licensed before 1997 

or use simplified, inherent, passive, or 

other innovative means to accomplish 

their safety functions, the application 

must describe how the design meets the 

requirements in § 50.43(e) of this 

chapter; 

(25) A description of the quality 

assurance program to be applied to the 

design, fabrication, construction, and 

testing of the structures, systems, and 

components of the facility. Appendix B 

to 10 CFR part 50 sets forth the 

requirements for quality assurance 

programs for nuclear power plants. The 

description of the quality assurance 

program for a nuclear power plant shall 

include a discussion of how the 

applicable requirements of appendix B 

to 10 CFR part 50 will be satisfied; 

(26) The applicant’s organizational 

structure, allocations or responsibilities 

and authorities, and personnel 

qualifications requirements for 

operation; 

(27) Managerial and administrative 

controls to be used to assure safe 

operation. Appendix B to 10 CFR part 

50 sets forth the requirements for these 

controls for nuclear power plants. The 

information on the controls to be used 

for a nuclear power plant shall include 

a discussion of how the applicable 

requirements of appendix B to 10 CFR 

part 50 will be satisfied; 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
61358 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

4A physical security plan that contains all the 

information required in both §§ 73.55 of this 

chapter and appendix C to 10 CFR part 73 satisfies 

the requirement for a contingency plan. 

(28) Plans for preoperational testing 

and initial operations; 

(29) Plans for conduct of normal 

operations, including maintenance, 

surveillance, and periodic testing of 

structures, systems, and components; 

(30) Proposed technical specifications 

prepared in accordance with the 

requirements of §§ 50.36 and 50.36a of 

this chapter; 

(31) For nuclear power plants to be 

operated on multi-unit sites, an 

evaluation of the potential hazards to 

the structures, systems, and components 

important to safety of operating units 

resulting from construction activities, as 

well as a description of the managerial 

and administrative controls to be used 

to provide assurance that the limiting 

conditions for operation are not 

exceeded as a result of construction 

activities at the multi-unit sites; 

(32) The technical qualifications of 

the applicant to engage in the proposed 

activities in accordance with the 

regulations in this chapter; 

(33) A description of the training 

program required by § 50.120 of this 

chapter; 

(34) A description and plans for 

implementation of an operator 

requalification program. The operator 

requalification program must as a 

minimum, meet the requirements for 

those programs contained in § 55.59 of 

this chapter; 

(35) A physical security plan, 

describing how the applicant will meet 

the requirements of 10 CFR part 73 (and 

10 CFR part 11, if applicable, including 

the identification and description of 

jobs as required by § 11.11(a) of this 

chapter, at the proposed facility). The 

plan must list tests, inspections, audits, 

and other means to be used to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR parts 11 and 73, 

if applicable; 

(36)(i) A safeguards contingency plan 

in accordance with the criteria set forth 

in appendix C to 10 CFR part 73. The 

safeguards contingency plan shall 

include plans for dealing with threats, 

thefts, and radiological sabotage, as 

defined in part 73 of this chapter, 

relating to the special nuclear material 

and nuclear facilities licensed under 

this chapter and in the applicant’s 

possession and control. Each 

application for this type of license shall 

include the information contained in 

the applicant’s safeguards contingency 

plan.4 (Implementing procedures 

required for this plan need not be 

submitted for approval.) 

(ii) Each applicant who prepares a 

physical security plan, a safeguards 

contingency plan, or a guard 

qualification and training plan, shall 

protect the plans and other related 

Safeguards Information against 

unauthorized disclosure in accordance 

with the requirements of § 73.21 of this 

chapter, as appropriate. 

(37) The information which 

demonstrates how operating experience 

insights from generic letters and 

bulletins issued up to 6 months before 

the docket date of the application, or 

comparable international operating 

experience, have been incorporated into 

the plant design; 

(38) A description and analysis of 

design features for the prevention and 

mitigation of severe accidents (core-melt 

accidents), including challenges to 

containment integrity caused by coreconcrete interaction, steam explosion, 

high-pressure core melt ejection, 

hydrogen detonation, and containment 

bypass; 

(39) The earliest and latest dates for 

completion of the construction; 

(40) [Reserved] 

(41) For applications for light-water 

cooled nuclear power plant combined 

licenses, an evaluation of the facility 

against the Standard Review Plan (SRP) 

in effect 6 months before the docket date 

of the application. The evaluation 

required by this section must include an 

identification and description of all 

differences in design features, analytical 

techniques and procedural measures 

proposed for a facility and those 

corresponding features, techniques and 

measures given in the SRP acceptance 

criteria. Where a difference exists, the 

evaluation must discuss how the 

proposed alternative provides an 

acceptable method of complying with 

the Commission’s regulations, or 

portions thereof, that underlie the 

corresponding SRP acceptance criteria. 

The SRP was issued to establish criteria 

that the NRC staff intends to use in 

evaluating whether an applicant/ 

licensee meets the Commission’s 

regulations. The SRP is not a substitute 

for the regulations, and compliance is 

not a requirement; 

(42) Information demonstrating how 

the applicant will comply with 

requirements for reduction of risk from 

anticipated transients without scram 

(ATWS) events in § 50.62 of this 

chapter; 

(43) Information demonstrating how 

the applicant will comply with 

requirements for criticality accidents in 

§ 50.68 of this chapter; 

(44) The NRC staff will advise the 

applicant on whether any information 

beyond that required by this section 

must be submitted. 

(b) If the application for a final safety 

analysis report references an early site 

permit, then the following requirements 

apply: 

(1) The final safety analysis report 

need not contain information or 

analyses submitted to the Commission 

in connection with the early site permit, 

but must contain, in addition to the 

information and analyses otherwise 

required, information sufficient to 

demonstrate that the design of the 

facility falls within the site 

characteristics and design parameters 

specified in the early site permit. 

(2) If the final safety analysis report 

does not demonstrate that design of the 

facility falls within the site 

characteristics and design parameters, 

the application must include a request 

for a variance that complies with the 

requirements of §§ 52.39 and 52.93. 

(3) The final safety analysis report 

must demonstrate that all terms and 

conditions that have been included in 

the early site permit will be satisfied by 

the date of issuance of the combined 

license. 

(4) If the early site permit approves 

complete and integrated emergency 

plans, or major features of emergency 

plans, then the final safety analysis 

report must include any new or 

additional information that updates and 

corrects the information that was 

provided under § 52.17(b), and discuss 

whether the new or additional 

information materially changes the 

bases for compliance with the 

applicable requirements. If the proposed 

facility emergency plans incorporate 

existing emergency plans or major 

features of emergency plans, the 

application must identify changes to the 

emergency plans or major features of 

emergency plans that have been 

incorporated into the proposed facility 

emergency plans and that constitute a 

decrease in effectiveness under 

§ 50.54(q) of this chapter. 

(5) If complete and integrated 

emergency plans are approved as part of 

the early site permit, new certifications 

meeting the requirements of paragraph 

(a)(22) of this section are not required. 

(c) If the combined license application 

references a standard design approval, 

then the following requirements apply: 

(1) The final safety analysis report 

need not contain information or 

analyses submitted to the Commission 

in connection with the design approval, 

but must contain, in addition to the 

information and analyses otherwise 

required, information sufficient to 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61359 

demonstrate that the characteristics of 

the site fall within the site parameters 

specified in the design approval. 

(2) The final safety analysis report 

must demonstrate that the interface 

requirements established for the design 

under § 52.137 have been met. 

(3) The final safety analysis report 

must demonstrate that all terms and 

conditions that have been included in 

the final design approval will be 

satisfied by the date of issuance of the 

combined license. 

(d) If the combined license 

application references a standard design 

certification, then the following 

requirements apply: 

(1) The final safety analysis report 

need not contain information or 

analyses submitted to the Commission 

in connection with the design 

certification, but must contain, in 

addition to the information and analyses 

otherwise required, information 

sufficient to demonstrate that the 

characteristics of the site fall within the 

site parameters specified in the design 

certification. 

(2) The final safety analysis report 

must demonstrate that the interface 

requirements established for the design 

under § 52.47 have been met. 

(3) The final safety analysis report 

must demonstrate that all requirements 

and restrictions set forth in the 

referenced design certification rule must 

be satisfied by the date of issuance of 

the combined license. 

(e) If the combined license application 

references the use of one or more 

manufactured nuclear power reactors 

licensed under subpart F of this part, 

then the following requirements apply: 

(1) The final safety analysis report 

need not contain information or 

analyses submitted to the Commission 

in connection with the manufacturing 

license, but must contain, in addition to 

the information and analyses otherwise 

required, information sufficient to 

demonstrate that the site parameters for 

the manufactured reactor are bounded 

by the site where the manufactured 

reactor is to be installed and used. 

(2) The final safety analysis report 

must demonstrate that the interface 

requirements established for the design 

have been met. 

(3) The final safety analysis report 

must demonstrate that all terms and 

conditions that have been included in 

the manufacturing license will be 

satisfied by the date of issuance of the 

combined license. 

31. Section 52.80 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.80 Contents of applications; 

additional technical information. 

The application must contain: 

(a) A plant-specific probabilistic risk 

assessment (PRA). If the application 

references a standard design 

certification or standard design 

approval, or if the application proposes 

to use a nuclear power reactor 

manufactured under a manufacturing 

license under subpart F of this part, the 

plant-specific PRA must use the PRA for 

the design certification, design 

approval, or manufactured reactor, as 

applicable, and must be updated to 

account for site-specific design 

information and any design changes, 

departures, or variances. 

(b) The proposed inspections, tests, 

and analyses, including those applicable 

to emergency planning, that the licensee 

shall perform, and the acceptance 

criteria which are necessary and 

sufficient to provide reasonable 

assurance that, if the inspections, tests, 

and analyses are performed and the 

acceptance criteria met, the facility has 

been constructed and will operate in 

conformity with the combined license, 

the provisions of the Atomic Energy 

Act, and the NRC’s regulations. 

(1) If the application references an 

early site permit with ITAAC, the early 

site permit ITAAC must apply to those 

aspects of the combined license which 

are approved in the early site permit. 

(2) If the application references a 

standard design certification, the ITAAC 

contained in the certified design must 

apply to those portions of the facility 

design which are approved in the design 

certification. 

(3) If the application references an 

early site permit with ITAAC or a 

standard design certification or both, the 

application may include a notification 

that a required inspection, test, or 

analysis in the ITAAC has been 

successfully completed and that the 

corresponding acceptance criterion has 

been met. The Federal Register 

notification required by § 52.85 must 

indicate that the application includes 

this notification. 

(c) An environmental report, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.50(c) if a 

limited work authorization under 10 

CFR 50.10 is not requested in 

conjunction with the combined license 

application, or in accordance with 

§§ 51.49 and 51.50(c) of this chapter if 

a limited work authorization is 

requested in conjunction with the 

combined license application. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day 

of October 2006. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 06–8656 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2