*****************************************************************
10/09/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.237
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 IAEA: IAEA Bulletin Volume 49, No. 1
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
2 US: [epa-impact] Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plant
3 BBC NEWS: Veto for nuclear power stations
4 US: toledoblade.com: Fermi 2 likely to finish refueling next month
5 US: Oshkosh Northwestern; Kewaunee Power Station nuclear plant shut 
6 US: Rutland Herald: Lack of leadership on Yankee 
7 US: Rutland Herald: State nuclear expert OK with Vermont Yankee crit
8 The Hindu: It's not a question of sink or sail: Congress
9 The Herald: Scottish minister calls on Govt to drop plans
10 US: Reuters: Entergy shuts La. Waterford 3 reactor for work | 
11 US: Reuters: Ariz. Palo Verde nuke unit to restart by Fri. - APS 
12 US: NRC: NRC Seeks Public Comment on Implementation of Ractor Oversi
13 upi: Romania mulls building second nuke plant
14 CanWest: Canada may restart nuclear exports to India
15 US: Arizona Republic: Leak forces Palo Verde to shut 1 reactor
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
16 US: York Daily Record: NRC: Sleeping guards didn't hurt security at 
17 UPI: Mafia probed for selling nuclear waste - 
18 China Post: Nuke risk model may improve national security - 
19 US: Guardian Unlimited: Panel Wants Tighter Radiation Security 
20 Guardian Unlimited: From cocaine to plutonium: mafia clan accused of
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
21 US: [NYTr] US Considered Radioactive Poisons to Assassinate Cold-War
22 US: [v911t] EASY Ways to Stop the Military Radioactive Contamination
23 AGI: URANIUM: PARISI, 255 SOLDIERS WITH CANCER, 37 DEAD
24 AGI: URANIUM: PARISI, ITALY HAS NEVER USED IT
25 US: Farmington Daily Times: Uranium workers meeting set for Shiprock
26 US: Reuters: U.S. Treasury-Insurers won't cover nuclear risks 
27 US: La Jicarita News: State Opens Office of Nuclear Workers Advocacy
28 Telegraph: Windscale fire: 'We were too busy to panic' - 
29 Regina Leader Post: Depleted uranium
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
30 US: Calgary Sun: Welcome to uranium country
31 US: The Buffalo News: Landfill’s Tonawanda neighbors call for remedi
 
                           PEACE
 
32 BBC NEWS: Sarkozy to meet Putin in Moscow
33 Reuters: Lugar urges U.S.-Russia cooperation before Bush goes 
34 Prague Daily Monitor: Wolfowitz: Missile defence to reduce number of
35 Digital Chosunilbo: China Should Hold N.Korea's Plutonium - NY Times
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
36 DOE: DOE Awards First Three Large-Scale Carbon Sequestration Project
37 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Federal agencies seek comments on LANL, SNL 
38 Las Cruces Sun-News: Federal agencies want comments on layoff contin
39 Knoxville News Sentinel: ORNL's Jaguar to get speed upgrade 
40 Knoxville News Sentinel: Y-12 prepares for possible layoffs
41 Oak Ridger: ORNL director discusses future challenges - 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 IAEA: IAEA Bulletin Volume 49, No. 1

As the founding vision of ‘atoms for peace’ lives on a half century
later, the IAEA is being recreated with expanded responsibilities in
nuclear verification, safety, security, and peaceful development. In
this issue of the IAEA Bulletin we take a look at some of the work
being done in all these areas.

Managing the Nuclear Dilemma

David Waller surveys the changing nuclear landscape over the past
half century and the IAEA’s evolution as the global guardian of
‘atoms for peace’.

Let the Market Decide

Hans-Holger Rogner looks at why nuclear power generation is driving
interest for economic, as well as environmental, reasons in the
climate of global warming.

Nuclear 2017?

Ian Facer highlights what countries must consider today to launch a
nuclear power project that can take ten years or more to finish.

Never Safe Enough

Giovanni Verlini speaks with Richard Meserve, one of the world’s top
advisors on nuclear plant safety.

Nuclear Florida

Lothar Wedekind reports on the USA’s evolving nuclear scene in and
outside the popular ‘sunshine state’.

Schools for Nutrition

Lena Davidsson describes IAEA initiatives in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America to help improve childhood nutrition.

The Gender Dimension

Royal Frederick Kastens and Christine Nelima Okhoya report on key
connections between women and the world’s Millennium Development
Goals.

Copyright 2003-2004, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box
100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimile (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
Official.Mai&#
108;@iaea.org
*****************************************************************
 2 [epa-impact] Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants
 
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:11:29 -0400

http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2007/October/Day-09/  
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 194)]
[Rules and Regulations]              
[Page 57415-57447]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09oc07-16]                        
[[Page 57415]]
[[Page 57416]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 2, 50, 51, 52, and 100
RIN 3150-AI05

Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations applicable to limited work authorizations (LWAs), which
allow certain construction activities on production and utilization
facilities to commence before a construction permit or combined license
is issued. This final rule modifies the scope of activities that are
considered construction for which a construction permit, combined
license, or LWA is necessary, specifies the scope of construction
activities that may be performed under an LWA, and changes the review
and approval process for LWA requests. The NRC is adopting these
changes to enhance the efficiency of its licensing and approval process
for production and utilization facilities, including new nuclear power
reactors.

DATES: The effective date is November 8, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nanette V. Gilles, Office of New
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone 301-415-1180; e-mail: <A HREF="mailto:NVG@nrc.gov">NVG@nrc.gov</A> or Geary Mizuno,
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-1639; e-mail: <A HREF="mailto:GSM@nrc.gov">GSM@nrc.gov</A>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
    A. Development of the Supplemental Proposed LWA Rule
    1. 10 CFR Part 52 Rulemaking
    2. Industry Stakeholder Comments Seeking Changes to LWA Process
    B. Publication of Supplemental Proposed LWA Rule and External
Stakeholder Interactions During the Public Comment Period
    C. Description of Supplemental Proposed LWA Rule
II. Public Comments
    A. Overview of Public Comments
    B. NRC Response to Public Comments
    1. Commission Questions
    2. LWA Process
    3. SSCs Within Scope of ``Construction''
    4. Excavation
    5. Compliance With NEPA
    6. LWA Application Process
    7. Other Topics
III. Discussion
    A. History of the NRC's Concept of Construction and the LWA
    B. NRC's Concept of Construction and the AEA
    C. NRC's LWA Rule Complies With NEPA
    1. NRC's Concept of Construction Is Consistent With the Legal
Effect of NEPA
    2. NRC's Concept of the ``Major Federal Action'' Is Consistent
With NEPA Law
    3. NRC's Phased Approval Approach Is Not Illegal Segmentation
Under NEPA
    D. Consideration of Activities as ``Construction.''
    1. Driving of Piles
    2. Excavation
    3. Temporary Structures and Activities in the Excavation
    4. Construction SSCs
    E. Phased Application and Approval Process
    F. EIS Prepared, but Facility Construction Was Not Completed
    G. Commission Action on PRM-50-82
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Availability of Documents
VI. Agreement State Compatibility
VII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
VIII. Environmental Impact--Categorical Exclusion
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
X. Regulatory Analysis
XI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
XII. Backfit Analysis
XIII. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Development of the Supplemental Proposed LWA Rule

1. 10 CFR Part 52 Rulemaking
    This LWA rulemaking originated as a supplement to an NRC rulemaking
effort to revise 10 CFR part 52. The NRC issued 10 CFR part 52 on April
18, 1989 (54 FR 15372), to reform its licensing process for future
nuclear power plants. 10 CFR part 52 added alternative licensing
processes in 10 CFR part 52 for early site permits (ESPs), 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
(SRM) 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 comments 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, including the experience gained in using
the 10 CFR part 52 early site permit process, 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 (March 13, 2006; 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 (71 FR 12782). The public comment period on the March 2006
proposed rule ended on May 30, 2006.
2. Industry Stakeholder Comments Seeking Changes to LWA Process
    In a May 25, 2006 comment letter,\1\ the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) suggested modifications to the NRC's LWA process including: (1)
That non-safety-related ``LWA-1'' activities, currently reflected in
Sec. Sec.  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-2'' activities be accelerated. NEI's comment also
stated that the current definition of construction in Sec.  50.10(b)
reflects the correct interpretation of the Commission's licensing
authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter from Adrian P. Heymer, Nuclear Energy Institute,
to Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 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 12782
(March 13, 2006) (RIN 3150-AG24) (May 25, 2006) (ADAMS ML061510471).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. To
achieve this goal, NEI stated that non-safety-related ``LWA-1''
activities would need to be initiated up to 2 years before the
activities currently defined as ``construction'' in Sec.  50.10(b). NEI
believes that the current LWA

[[Page 57417]]

approval process would constrain the industry's ability to use modern
construction practices and needlessly add 18 months to estimated
construction schedules for new plants that did not reference an early
site permit with LWA authority. 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 determined that the changes suggested in the NEI letter
could not be incorporated into the final part 52 rule without re-
noticing, but that the NEI letter met the sufficiency requirements for
a petition for rulemaking as described in 10 CFR 2.802(c). Therefore,
the NRC elected to treat the letter as a petition for rulemaking (PRM-
50-82).

B. Publication of Supplemental Proposed LWA Rule and External
Stakeholder Interactions During the Public Comment Period

    The supplemental proposed LWA rule was published in the Federal
Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61330) for a 30-day public comment
period which ended November 16, 2006. During the public comment period,
the NRC held a public meeting on November 1, 2006, to answer external
stakeholder questions about the supplemental proposed LWA rule. A
transcript of the public meeting was made (Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML063190396), as referenced
in the meeting summary (ADAMS Accession No. ML062970517).
    In addition, the NRC informally contacted several Federal agencies
that traditionally have been interested in environmental impacts
statements (EISs) prepared by the NRC before the issuance of LWAs and
construction permits, for the purpose of seeking their comments on the
supplemental proposed LWA rule. These Federal agencies were the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish, and Wildlife Service (FWS).
    Finally, the Commission held a public meeting on November 9, 2006,
on the overall part 52 rulemaking, at which time industry stakeholders
presented additional information on the supplemental proposed LWA rule.

C. Description of Supplemental Proposed LWA Rule

    The supplemental proposed LWA rule would narrow the scope of
activities requiring permission from the NRC in the form of an LWA by
eliminating the concept of ``commencement of construction'' currently
described in Sec.  50.10(c) and the authorization described in Sec. 
50.10(e)(1). Instead, under the supplemental proposed rule, NRC
authorization would be required only 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 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). While the proposed
redefinition of ``construction'' would result in fewer activities
requiring NRC permission in the form of an LWA, it also would redefine
certain activities (such as the driving of piles) that are currently
excluded from the regulatory definition of construction given in Sec. 
50.10(b), as construction requiring an LWA.
    Further, the supplemental proposed LWA rule provided an optional,
phased application and approval procedure for construction permit and
combined license applicants to obtain LWAs. The supplemental proposed
rule provided for 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 an EIS addressing those
activities, but before completion of the comprehensive EIS addressing
the underlying request for a construction permit or combined license.
The supplemental proposed rule also delineated the environmental review
required in situations where the LWA activities are to be conducted at
sites for which the Commission has previously prepared an EIS 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.

II. Public Comments

A. Overview of Public Comments

    The NRC received 13 public comments \2\ on the supplemental
proposed rule. Ten comments were from external industry stakeholders,
consisting of NEI and 7 nuclear power plant licensees--including the 3
applicants for ESPs whose applications are currently pending before the
NRC, and 2 companies who have applied (or are expected to apply) for
standard design certifications (GE Nuclear and Areva NP). One
commenter, Dianne Curran, submitted a comment on behalf of Public
Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, and the Nuclear Information
and Resource Service (NIRS), an information and networking organization
for organizations concerned about nuclear issues and energy
sustainability. One comment was received from the EPA, and one comment
was received from an NRC staff individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A public comment dated November 7, 2006, from Westinghouse
Electric Company LLC, on the main part 52 rulemaking, was
erroneously designated as comment no. 1 on the supplemental proposed
LWA rule. This number was later assigned to a comment filed by Diane
Curran on behalf of Public Citizen and the NIRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEI supported the general approach and objective of the
supplemental proposed rule, but raised three key issues on the
supplemental proposed rule: (1) Inclusion of excavation in the
definition of ``construction;'' (2) Designation of structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) ``required to be described'' in the standard
safety analysis report or final safety analysis report (FSAR) as a key
element of the definition of ``construction;'' and (3) Limiting
submittal of LWA applications up to 12 months in advance of a combined
license application. NEI also proposed a number of changes to the
supplemental proposed rule to address three less-significant areas of
concern: (1) An LWA applicant's reliance on an earlier EIS for an
unconstructed facility; (2) LWA applicant's ability to take advantage
of the provisions of Sec.  2.101(a)(9) for an accelerated hearing
schedule when submitting an LWA application in advance of a combined
license application; and (3) The need for ``grandfathering'' of current
ESP applicants. Finally, NEI suggested that Sec.  2.101(a)(5) be
modified from the March 2006 proposed rule to allow one part of a
combined license application to precede or follow the other part of the
application by no more than 12 months. The other industry commenters,
including GE Nuclear and Areva NP, generally supported the NEI
comments, and in some cases provided additional discussion in support
of one or more of NEI's specific comments.
    Public Citizen and NIRS opposed granting of an LWA in advance of
issuance of a construction permit or combined license, in general
because

[[Page 57418]]

these commenters perceived the process as introducing additional
complexity to the licensing process, and increasing the cost to
individuals who wish to participate in the licensing process. These
organizations supported the NRC's proposal to include excavation and
the driving of piles in the definition of construction.
    The EPA indicated that it had no objections to the supplemental
proposed LWA rule, stating that the supplemental rule would ``enhance
the efficiency of the NRC's LWA approval process, while maintaining
appropriate consideration of environmental effects pursuant to NEPA
[National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended].'' In addition,
NRC was advised by telephone that CEQ had no objection to the
supplemental proposed LWA rule, and therefore would not submit a
written comment on the rule.
    The NRC staff individual provided eight numbered comments on the
supplemental proposed LWA rule. The commenter focused on compliance
with the NEPA and the potential adverse effect of the supplemental
proposed rule on the NRC staff's resources.

B. NRC Response to Public Comments

    The NRC has carefully considered the stakeholder comments, and is
adopting a final LWA rule which differs in some respects from the
supplemental proposed LWA rule. The final rule is described and
discussed in more detail in Sections III. Discussion, and IV. Section-
by-Section Analysis of this document.
    The NRC is adopting the LWA rule as a separate final rule, rather
than incorporating its provisions into the final part 52 rule.
Incorporating the provisions of the final LWA rule into the final part
52 rulemaking would have resulted in a delay in publication of the
final part 52 rule, because of the additional time needed for NRC
consideration and resolution of the substantial issues raised in the
public comments on the supplemental proposed LWA rule. Accordingly, the
NRC has adopted the final part 52 rulemaking in a separate action, in
advance of this final LWA rule.
1. Commission Questions
    In the statement of considerations (SOC) for the supplementary
proposed LWA rule, the Commission posed three questions, as follows
(October 17, 2006; 71 FR 61340, second column):

    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 an 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 an LWA?
    3. What types of activities should only be permitted after
issuance of a construction permit or combined license?
    Only one commenter provided separate responses to these three
Commission questions; but the responses were simply an abbreviated
version of the comments. The remaining commenters addressed the issues
raised in these questions in the course of the commenters' discussion
on the supplementary proposed LWA rule. Accordingly, the NRC is not
providing a separate discussion of these questions and commenters'
responses. Instead, the NRC is responding to these issues in the NRC's
responses to specific comments.
2. LWA Process
    Comment: The Commission should adopt the LWA final rule as a
necessary improvement to the existing LWA process. (NEI, Dominion
Nuclear North Anna, Duke Energy, Florida Power and Light, Progress
Energy, Southern Company, Unistar, Areva, and GE Nuclear)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters that the former
NRC provisions on LWAs should be amended to improve the LWA process.
    Comment: The Commission should not adopt regulations that allow
approval of LWA activities in advance of the issuance of a construction
permit or combined license. Allowing LWA activities before a plant is
licensed would confirm to the public that the licensing process is a
sham. The LWA process represents a further segmentation of the
licensing process, which will add complexity to the licensing process,
and result in further disenfranchisement of the public. (Public
Citizen/NIRS 1)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with these commenters. The
commenters' position fails to recognize that the LWA process has been
used by the agency for over 30 years, and therefore the proposed
changes to the LWA process would not add to complexity, or otherwise
represent further segmentation. The agency's rules include several
longstanding requirements directed at avoiding NEPA segmentation. These
requirements are retained in their essential form in the final LWA
rulemaking.
    The NRC does not believe that the final LWA rule adds any further
complexity to the licensing process, or otherwise results in further
``disenfranchisement'' of the public. As stated above, the NRC's
regulatory regime already includes the LWA process, and the rule does
not modify or change the public's ability to participate in the
licensing process. Indeed, rather than ``disenfranchising'' the public,
the LWA rule may have the effect of enhancing the ability of external
stakeholders to participate in a hearing to resolve their issues with
respect to a particular nuclear power plant. Because of resource
limitations, many public stakeholders have expressed their concern
that, because of the broad range of issues addressed by the NRC at each
stage of licensing, it is difficult for them to seek resolution in an
NRC hearing for the full range of issues that they are interested in.
For these stakeholders, the LWA process--by separating out a defined
set of issues to be resolved in advance of the underlying combined
license or construction permit proceeding--allows public stakeholders
to focus their resources on the relevant issues in an LWA hearing. The
``complexity'' of the process provides an orderly sequencing of the
overall set of issues that must be resolved, without introducing
unlawful segmentation. The NRC believes that if these public
stakeholders consider the revised process in this light, they should
conclude that the LWA process enhances, rather than detracts from,
participation in the licensing process by interested members of the
public who are resource-limited.
    The NRC does not believe that the NRC's proposed redefinition of
``construction'' constitutes unlawful ``segmentation'' which results in
non-compliance with NEPA. Segmentation, as discussed elsewhere in this
SOC, embraces the situation where a Federal agency divides what would
otherwise be regarded as a single, integrated Federal action into
separate, smaller Federal actions, for the purpose of avoiding
compliance with NEPA, or otherwise minimizing the apparent impact of
the single, integrated Federal action. The NRC's redefinition of
construction is not motivated by a desire to avoid compliance with
NEPA, nor will it result in a single Federal action being divided into
smaller, sequential Federal actions. Rather, the NRC's redefinition
reflects its reconsideration of the proper regulatory jurisdiction of
the agency, and properly divides what was considered a single Federal
action into private action for

[[Page 57419]]

which the NRC has no statutory basis for regulation, and the Federal
action (licensing of construction activities with a reasonable nexus to
radiological health and safety or common defense and security, for
which no other regulatory approach is acceptable) which will require
compliance with NEPA.
3. SSCs Within Scope of ``Construction''
    Comment: The scope of SSCs that must be described in the FSAR is
not always clear, even under the words of existing NRC regulations
(e.g., 10 CFR 50.34(b)(2)(i)), which requires discussion of certain
systems ``insofar as they are pertinent.'' (Areva 1, 2)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees, in part, with these comments and has
revised the scope of SSCs that fall within the definition of
construction to clearly identify the SSCs that have a reasonable nexus
to radiological health and safety, or the common defense and security.
    Comment: The NRC's description of activities constituting
``construction,'' which require a combined license or construction
permit (October 17, 2006; 71 FR 61337), should be modified to refer to
the ``installation or integration of that structure, system, or
component into its final plant location and elevation * * *.''
(Progress Energy 4)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees in part with the commenter, and the
corresponding language of this SOC has been modified to state ``into
its final plant location would require * * *.''
4. Excavation
    Comment: It is not necessary to define construction as including
excavation of portions of the nuclear power plant facility having a
``reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety.'' Problems
identified during excavation should be identified as part of the site
characterization and investigation required for preparing a combined
license or construction permit. NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.165,
``Identification and Characterization of Seismic Sources and
Determination of Safe-Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion,'' was updated
in 1997 to provide that combined license (COL) applicants' FSARs should
include a commitment to geologically map all excavations and notify the
NRC when excavations are open for inspection. For safety-related SSCs,
these excavations and characterization/investigation activities would
be conducted under the applicant's quality assurance (QA) program. This
could result in relocation of such SSCs. This provides a better process
for ensuring safety and would better support an effective licensing
process. In addition, NRC will be involved in pre-application
activities and may elect to conduct oversight of any activity involving
site characterization and site preparation. The examples cited by the
NRC in the public meeting as a basis for including excavation within
the definition of ``construction'' did not involve questions about the
safety of the excavation activities themselves, but rather the
conditions that were identified as the result of excavation. In these
cases, the commitments to geologic mapping and notification of the NRC
are sufficient to meet the NRC's regulatory interests. Accordingly,
Sec. Sec.  50.10(b) and 51.4 should be revised in the final rule to
exclude excavation from the definition of construction, provided that
the entity conducting excavation geologically maps the excavations and
the NRC staff is notified when the excavations are opened for
inspection. (NEI 1; GE Nuclear; Progress Energy 1)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees, in part, with this comment and has
deleted excavation from the definition of construction in 10 CFR
50.10(a). A construction permit or combined license applicant is
responsible, under the current regulations, to demonstrate that the
site conditions are acceptable for the proposed facility design. This
responsibility exists regardless of whether or not the NRC reviews and
approves the proposed excavation activities and inspects the excavation
activities as they are accomplished. Inasmuch as NRC inspection and
regulatory oversight of the excavation are not necessary for reasonable
assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety or common
defense and security, and because the applicant bears the burden for
accurately characterizing the parent material, the NRC concludes that
excavation may be excluded from the definition of construction.
    Comment: Excavation and the driving of piles should be considered
``construction.'' Prior agency experience has shown that safety issues
have been identified during excavation, citing to the experience of
North Anna nuclear power plant, as well as a nuclear power plant in the
Midwest where soil conditions identified during excavation necessitated
a change in foundation design. Neither the public nor a reviewing court
would think that the NRC would be able to make the underlying licensing
decision (i.e., granting a construction permit or a combined license)
in an unbiased fashion if excavation proceeded in advance of the
underlying licensing decision. (Public Citizen/NIRS 2)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees, in part, with this comment. As
discussed in the response immediately above, the NRC concludes that
excavation may be excluded from the definition of construction.
However, the driving of piles and any other foundation work is defined
as construction.
    Comment: The SOC for the final rule should specify that excavation
includes appropriate erosion control measures necessary to stabilize
site excavations pending LWA or license (i.e., combined license or
construction permit) approval of construction activities. (NEI 1.5)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees, in part, with this comment. The NRC's
definition of construction in the final LWA rule includes: (1) Any
change made to the parent material in which the excavation occurs
(e.g., soil compaction, rock grouting); and (2) The placement of
permanent SSCs that are put into the excavation during or after the
excavation (e.g., installation of permanent drainage systems, or
placement of mudmats). If the erosion control measures are conducted
outside of the excavated hole and do not cover up the exposed soil
conditions, then those activities would be allowed under Sec. 
50.10(a). However, under the final LWA rule, the placement of temporary
SSCs in the excavation, such as retaining walls, drainage systems, and
erosion control barriers, all of which are to be removed before fuel
load, would not be considered construction.
    Comment: ``Construction'' should be limited to above-ground
installation of certain SSCs. (Areva 1)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees. Even under the former provisions
of Sec.  50.10(e)(3), construction included the setting of foundations
and other work accomplished below grade. The commenter provided no
basis for limiting the definition of construction to the above-grade
installation of SSCs of interest. No change was made in the final rule
as the result of this comment.
    Comment: Temporary buildings, structures, and roads, may be located
in the eventual location of SSCs for which an LWA is required for
excavation under the supplemental proposed LWA rule. If excavation is
required for the temporary buildings, structures, and roads, the
supplemental proposed rule would appear to prohibit such excavation.
The final rule should make clear that excavation for SSCs outside the
scope of an LWA, such as temporary buildings, structures, and roads,
should be excluded from the definition of construction. (Areva 3)

[[Page 57420]]

    NRC Response: As discussed previously, the NRC has decided to
exclude all excavation from the definition of construction. In
addition, the NRC notes that under the final LWA rule, SSCs that are
not within the scope of construction may be installed before receipt of
an LWA, construction permit, or combined license. Accordingly, the
final rule resolves the commenter's issue.
5. Compliance With NEPA
    Comment: The impacts of the construction activities that the NRC
proposes to exclude from its regulations have been part of the NRC
regulations since 1972. What has changed causing the NRC to decided
that these activities will not longer be part of the environmental
review? Has NRC been doing it wrong for more than 30 years (including
the 3 early site permits that are either completed or near completion)?
(Kugler 1)
    NRC Response: As discussed in the ``Discussion'' section of this
final rule (as well as the supplemental proposed rule), the 1972
amendment to the definition of construction in 10 CFR 50.10 was made
early in the Federal government's implementation of then-new NEPA.
Since that time, the Federal case law on NEPA has evolved, with several
U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the requirements of NEPA. In addition,
in preparing for the expected next generation of nuclear power plant
construction applications, the nuclear power industry has reviewed the
overall construction process based upon lessons learned from the
construction and licensing process used for currently operating
reactors. The industry submitted what is essentially a petition for
rulemaking seeking changes to the LWA process, reflecting those lessons
learned and their understanding of the current state of NEPA law. The
NRC has reviewed the applicable law, and for the reasons stated
elsewhere in this SOC, agrees with the petitioner that the current
definition of construction and the current LWA requirements in Sec. 
50.10 are not compelled by NEPA or the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954,
as amended. While the agency's regulations on construction and LWAs
were a reasonable implementation of NEPA as understood in 1972, the NRC
believes that, with more than 30 years experience in implementing NEPA
and the evolving jurisprudence, the time is appropriate for
reconsideration and revamping of these NRC requirements.
    Comment: The impacts of the construction of a nuclear power plant
that NRC now proposes to exclude from NRC regulations are probably 90
percent of the true environmental impacts of construction. Before even
talking to the NRC, a power company can clear and grade the land, build
roads and railroad spurs, erect permanent and temporary buildings,
build numerous plant structures (e.g., cooling water intake and
discharge, cooling towers), and build switchyards and transmission
lines. After potentially doing all of that, THEN the company would come
to the NRC and ask permission to build the power plant for which all of
this work was done. How does this comply with NEPA? The commenter
asserts that the NRC is going to ignore almost all of the construction
impacts of the proposed action. (Kugler 2)
    NRC Response: The commenter assumes that, if a private action is
preparatory to Federal action, then NEPA provides a statutory basis for
the agency to extend its otherwise limited jurisdiction under the AEA
to those private, preparatory actions, solely for the purpose of agency
consideration of the environmental impacts under NEPA. The commenter
has not pointed to, and the NRC has not identified, Federal case law
that supports such a position. Indeed, even in a case where the Federal
agency had unequivocal statutory authority to grant or deny a Federal
permit, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically held that the Federal
agency was not compelled to require mitigation based upon environmental
considerations identified in the NEPA review. Robertson v. Methow
Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989).
    The commenter also asserts that the NRC is going to ``ignore all
the [pre-]construction impacts of the proposed action.'' On the
contrary, as stated elsewhere in this SOC, the pre-construction private
actions of clearing, grading, access road construction, etc., will be
considered in the cumulative impacts analysis in the LWA EIS as the
baseline for analyzing the environmental impacts associated with the
Federal action authorizing LWA activities. This information will be
used when evaluating the environmental impacts of construction and
operation of the proposed nuclear power plant.
    Comment: The commenter states that the final rule says NRC won't
consider the sunk costs of all of this work in your decision whether to
approve the request to build the plant. The commenter asserts that NRC
has allowed the company to do most of the environmental damage. Who
cleans up the mess if the NRC says no? The commenter states that
because the NRC has excluded from its review all of this work that's
specifically for the purpose of building the plant, the NRC also can't
require any redress plan for the site for those impacts. (Kugler 2.a)
    NRC Response: The commenter appears to believe that the NRC has
authority to exercise its regulatory jurisdiction in an area where it
does not otherwise possess regulatory authority under its organic
statute, solely for the purpose of ensuring environmental redress of
private activities with significant environmental impacts. The NRC does
not agree with the commenter's implicit suggestion. As discussed in the
response to the previous comment as well as elsewhere in this SOC, the
NRC does not possess statutory authority to regulate activities that do
not have an impact upon radiological health and safety or common
defense and security, and NEPA does not provide independent statutory
authority to extend the agency's jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
assuring that adverse environmental impacts are considered and
mitigated. While this may be a worthy goal, the NRC may not lawfully
act in such a manner, absent additional statutory authority which is
not currently provided by either NEPA or the AEA.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that NRC won't consider the sunk
costs in its review. The commenter also asserts that it sounds like the
``baseline'' for the environmental review will include the
environmental damage done by a company in terms of ``pre-application''
activities. In other words, if an applicant for an LWA, CP, or COL has
done all of the things NRC now allows without NRC review, the condition
of the cleared and partially built site is now the starting point for
the environmental review. The commenter states that in terms of
comparing this partially built site to any alternative site, NRC has
essentially ``pre-selected'' the site chosen by the applicant. The
commenter states there will be less environmental impacts at a site
that has already had most of the damage done to it as compared to any
other site. The commenter believes the NRC has handed its
responsibility for the site suitability determination over to the
applicant. (Kugler 2.b)
    NRC Response: The commenter makes two incorrect assumptions. First,
the commenter implicitly assumes that environmental matters are the key
determinants of site suitability. The NRC believes that, as a practical
matter and as borne out by the history of site suitability
determinations in the past, other factors, such as seismic activity and
intensity, geological structures, meteorological factors, impediments
to development of emergency plans,

[[Page 57421]]

security issues, and demographics (population density and distance)
from a safety perspective are at least as important, if not more
important, than ``environmental'' matters as a key determinant of site
suitability.
    Second, the commenter assumes that clearing of a site will always
tilt the environmental balance in favor of the applicant's ``pre-
selected site.'' This may not be true in most cases. For example, even
an ``obviously superior'' site from the standpoint of environmental
impacts on water--which is likely to be the determining
``environmental'' impact--will require grading and clearing in order to
be used. If construction were to be abandoned at the applicant's ``pre-
selected site'' and commenced at the ``obviously superior site,'' the
environmental impacts of pre-construction activities such as clearing
and grading would still have to be performed at the ``obviously
superior'' site. In essence, the ``sunk environmental impacts''
associated with preconstruction at the pre-selected site are balanced
out by the ``future'' environmental impacts associated with
preconstruction at the ``obviously superior'' site. Thus, pre-
construction at a ``pre-selected'' site could not, in and of itself,
lead to automatic dismissal of otherwise ``obviously superior'' sites.
    In any event, the issue of the ``baseline'' for purposes of
alternative sites is not addressed directly in the final LWA rule and
will be resolved in the development of NRC guidance on implementation
of the final LWA rule. Furthermore, the NRC notes that pre-construction
impacts will be evaluated as part of the cumulative impacts analysis,
which may render moot some aspects of the commenter's concerns in this
area.
    Comment: How can NRC tell the world in an EIS that the only real
impacts of construction of a nuclear power plant will be related to
digging a big hole and a few other straggling items that will occur
while the structures described in the FSAR are being built? (Kugler
2.c)
    NRC Response: The commenter appears to assert that the NRC's EIS
for a combined license must attribute to the NRC's Federal action all
of the environmental impacts of constructing a nuclear power facility,
including the private, pre-construction activities that may be
accomplished by the applicant without any NRC approval. The commenter's
implicit assertion is incorrect. The NRC's EIS need only describe the
environmental impacts of the Federal action as those construction
activities, as defined under Sec.  50.10, which can only be
accomplished under an LWA and combined license or construction permit.
    The environmental impacts of pre-construction activities will also
be described in the NRC's EIS because such description is necessary to
evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Federal action, in light of the
pre-existing impacts of the private, pre-construction action. The
cumulative impacts discussion should provide information on the total
environmental impacts of constructing the nuclear power plant to both
the NRC decisionmaker and the general public.
    The NRC notes that, under the final LWA rule, excavation for SSCs
that are important from a radiological health and safety or common
defense and security standpoint will not be treated as
``construction.'' Therefore, the environmental effects of excavation
would not be evaluated as an impact attributable to the Federal
licensing action, but instead be added to the environmental baseline
for a site.
    Comment: How are applicants and NRC going to divide impacts if some
of the construction activities now out side (sic.) the NRC's scope are
going on at the same time as activities inside NRC's scope? For
example, traffic impacts of the construction workforce are often an
issue. But how does the NRC deal with it if part of the workforce is
building cooling towers and intake systems, and part is building FSAR-
listed structures? Another case is property taxes. The property taxes
paid by the company are a significant item in the socioeconomic review.
Are the applicant and the NRC now going to have to differentiate
between taxes paid for FSAR-related facilities and taxes paid for other
facilities? (Kugler 2.d)
    NRC Response: The commenter raises a number of detailed issues with
respect to NRC implementation of the final rule in the course of
preparing EISs. None of these matters appear to raise issues that are
insurmountable or would be unusually difficult to resolve. For example,
the need to apportion the taxes for FSAR-related SSCs, versus taxes on
other portions of the facility whose construction does not require NRC
approval could be resolved by simply treating all the taxes paid as a
benefit of operation, and the impacts from all portions of the plant as
an impact of operation. The NRC expects that the staff will develop
supplemental guidance to the environmental standard review plan on
these and other implementation matters.
    Comment: The commenter states that the rule says that if an LWA is
issued, the EIS to build and operate a nuclear power plant will be a
supplement to the EIS for the LWA. The commenter believes this means
that the EIS that evaluates the impacts of building and operating a
large commercial power plant will be a supplement to the EIS for
digging a big hole. The commenter states that assuming the EIS for the
big hole ignores all of the other impacts of construction that may
already have taken place, it's going to be pretty limited in scope. The
commenter states that this EIS of very limited scope will now become
the base document, and the EIS that considers ALL of the impacts of
operations will be a supplement to it. (Kugler 3)
    NRC Response: The NRC believes that the proposed rule is consistent
with NEPA. The commenter presented no rationale why the NRC's proposal
violates either NEPA or CEQ's implementing regulations. NEPA itself
only requires that a statement be prepared addressing the environmental
impacts and alternatives of major Federal actions significantly
affecting the environment. The statute does not contain any language
specifically constraining the manner in which each EIS for two
sequential Federal actions must be prepared. Hence, the NRC is free to
select a manner of NEPA compliance which best meets the agency's needs.
    The commenter appears to be concerned that, if the LWA applicant
chooses to submit an environmental report limited to LWA activities,
then the LWA EIS would be a relatively narrow document which cannot be
the basis for a supplemental EIS with a greatly expanded scope of
subject matters addressed. The NRC does not believe that the
commenter's concern is well-founded. First, the CEQ's regulations
specifically permit ``tiering'' of EISs to ``eliminate repetitive
discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issue ripe
for consideration at each level of the environmental review * * *'' (40
CFR 1502.20). Although most of the tiering discussion refers to a broad
initial EIS followed by more specific EIS tiering on the earlier EIS,
40 CFR 1502.20 also states, ``Tiering may also be appropriate for
different stages of actions (emphasis added).'' The NRC believes that
the LWA is a stage in the overall Federal action of issuing a license
for construction (and, in the case of a combined license under part 52,
operation) of a nuclear power plant. It is logical to evaluate the
environmental impacts of the activities that occur first (i.e., LWA
activities), followed by evaluation of the impacts of activities that
occur thereafter (i.e., main construction and operation). The

[[Page 57422]]

potential for segmentation of the Federal impacts is minimized, as
discussed previously, by various provisions of the rule which, inter
alia, prohibit NRC consideration of sunk costs, require consideration
of all environmental impacts and benefits attributable to LWA
activities in the supplemental EIS prepared for the underlying combined
license or construction permit application, and require the applicant/
licensee to develop and, if necessary, implement a redress plan.
Second, the CEQ regulations also encourage agencies to incorporate by
reference material into an EIS to cut down on bulk without impeding
agency and public review of the action. Nothing in the CEQ regulations
suggests that incorporation by reference is precluded where the
material being incorporated is smaller in bulk than the EIS into which
the material is being incorporated. The NRC believes the purpose of
incorporation by reference is served by incorporating the LWA EIS into
the supplemental EIS prepared at the combined license or construction
permit stage.
    Comment: The commenter states the LWA EIS will only be looking at
the impacts of digging the big hole and pouring the foundation. At what
point does the NRC staff evaluate the impacts of construction and
operation to determine whether the site is SUITABLE for the
construction and operation of a nuclear power plant? Is that done
later? Does that mean that NRC could authorize digging the hole at a
site that could later be determined by NRC to be unsuitable? (Kugler 4)
    NRC Response: The NRC has decided that excavation should not be
considered ``construction,'' and that NRC permission is not required to
undertake excavation activities. Accordingly, a response to this
comment, to the extent that it is focused on NRC consideration of the
impacts of excavation as an impact of the issuance of the LWA,
construction permit, or combined license, is unnecessary. As discussed
elsewhere in this document, the impacts of preconstruction activities
performed by the ESP holder, construction permit, or combined license
applicant must be described by the applicant in its environmental
report, and must be considered in the cumulative impacts analysis.
    Under the final LWA rule, the NRC's evaluation of site suitability
must be made when it issues a construction permit or combined license,
unless the applicant seeks, either as part of an LWA or in advance of
the issuance of the construction permit or combined license under
subpart F of part 2, an early decision on site suitability and/or the
environmental impacts of construction and operation.
    Comment: Has the NRC discussed these changes with key stakeholders
like EPA, CEQ, and FERC? What do they think of this change? The
commenter states that this is a major shift by the NRC away from its
NEPA responsibilities, and believes that other agencies may have real
problems with it beyond the basic NEPA issues. For example, will FERC
commence a review for transmission lines if the power company hasn't
submitted an application to the NRC to build the plant for which it's
needed? Similarly, will the Corps of Engineers issue Section 404
permits to damage wetlands and dredge if there's no request to build a
plant yet? Has anybody talked to them? (Kugler 5)
    NRC Response: The NRC sought comments on the proposed rule from
four Federal agencies who have historically been interested in NRC
construction licensing from an environmental standpoint. Advance copies
of the proposed rule as approved by the Commission were provided to the
CEQ, the EPA, FERC, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS, and
copies of the proposed rule as published in the Federal Register were
electronically transmitted to cognizant individuals in these agencies
on the date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register
(ADAMS Accession Nos. ML062840445, ML062910051, and ML062910049).
Additional telephone calls were made to describe the proposed rule and
to answer any questions from these agency officials. As discussed
earlier in this document, the NRC has received comments from the EPA,
which has no objection to the change. NRC was advised by telephone that
CEQ had no objection to the supplemental proposed LWA rule. The NRC has
been advised by FERC that it ordinarily would not review transmission
line routings for lines commencing at nuclear power facilities. The NRC
believes that it has made reasonable efforts to obtain input from other
cognizant Federal agencies, and none appear to share the concerns of
the commenter. No change from the supplemental proposed LWA rule has
been made as the result of this comment.
    Comment: How does this change affect the current early site permit
applicants? The commenter states that, for example, Exelon and Dominion
submitted redress plans for all of the impacts of construction they'd
be allowed to carry out before receiving a license to build and operate
a plant. The petitioner also believes Southern submitted redress plans.
Future applicants won't have to do this. What happens to the Exelon and
Dominion redress plans? Do they get out of them now? If so, how does
NRC explain that to all of the folks involved in those reviews who
relied on the NRC's representations that a redress plan was required
(e.g., the public, Federal and State environmental regulatory
agencies)? What happens to Southern, which is early in its review?
(Kugler 6)
    NRC Response: The final rule does not affect the NRC staff's
approval of a full-scope redress plan to support LWA activities under
the former LWA provisions in Sec. Sec.  50.10 and 52.17. The three
applicants for ESP which are currently before the NRC are required to
meet the NRC's requirements in effect at the time of the application,
with respect to the content of the application. If the final rule is
adopted before ESPs are issued to the current ESP applicants, then the
applicant may (but is not required to seek to revise its redress plan
and seek NRC approval of a (narrowed) redress plan that meets the
requirements of the final LWA rule. In such a case, the NRC would
advise other Federal and State agencies of the change in NRC's
regulatory requirements and any change in the scope of the approved
redress plan which may be requested by the ESP applicant.
Alternatively, upon issuance of the ESP, the ESP holder may request an
amendment to its ESP, consistent with the recently-adopted revisions to
10 CFR part 52, to seek NRC approval of a (narrowed) redress plan which
is consistent with the requirements of the final LWA rule. In such an
event, the NRC would--as part of its routine procedures--consult with
relevant Federal agencies. No change from the supplemental proposed LWA
rule was made as a result of this comment.
    Comment: Section 51.49(a)(2) should be revised to delete the
requirement for an LWA applicant to state the need for an LWA.
(Progress Energy 5)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenter's proposal. An
EIS should state the purpose and need for a proposed action. 10 CFR
part 51, appendix A, paragraph 4; 40 CFR 1502.13. Inasmuch as the NRC
is acting on a private entity's request in a licensing action, the
purpose and need should be, in the first instance, determined by the
applicant and be adopted by the NRC. No change was made to the final
rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: Sections 51.20(b)(1) and (5), and 51.76(b) and (e) should
be revised to allow the NRC staff the option of preparing and issuing
an

[[Page 57423]]

environmental assessment (EA) if the environmental report shows no
significant environmental impacts associated with LWA activities.
(Progress Energy 6, 7, 8)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenter's proposal. In
preparing the supplementary proposed rule, the NRC considered the
approach recommended by the commenter. However, the NRC rejected
proposing such an approach because it would increase the perception of
Federal segmentation, without any significant countervailing benefits,
in terms of resources or time necessary to complete the NEPA process.
Furthermore, the tiering concept, under CEQ regulations, involves
sequential EISs rather than an EA followed by an EIS. The NRC believes
that it would not be prudent to pursue a new approach to NEPA
compliance, which may result in legal instability in an area of
critical interest to industry stakeholders. The commenter presented no
information in favor of its proposal. Accordingly, in the absence of
new information suggesting that the Commission's initial determination
should be revisited, the Commission declines to adopt the commenter's
proposal. No change was made to the final rule as a result of this
comment.
6. LWA Application Process
    Comment: The commenter states that the NRC expects over 15
applications for COLs in the next 3 years or so. Perhaps it can staff
up to meet the challenge of preparing those 15 EISs. But can it
possibly handle 30? If most or all of the COL applicants choose to
submit an LWA application too, which would seem likely, the NRC staff
will have to prepare two EISs for each site. Has the NRC considered the
resource implications? (And if an applicant chooses to go the ESP route
for some reason, there will be three EISs.) (Kugler 7)
    NRC Response: The commenter appears to believe that, under a
revised LWA rule, the overall resources expended by the NRC in
preparing EISs would increase over the current regulatory regime in a
time frame that would exacerbate any problems that may be caused by
limited NRC staff resources. The NRC disagrees with the commenter. The
final LWA rule merely governs the timing of the NRC's environmental
review of the overall action of licensing the construction and
operation of a nuclear power plant, consistent with NEPA.
    Taking the specific example identified by the commenter of a
combined license applicant, who both seeks an LWA and references an
ESP, it is possible--as the commenter correctly points out--that three
EISs may be prepared in the worst case of a less than complete ESP EIS.
However, the final LWA rule does not require the NRC staff to prepare
entirely new, full-scope EISs at either the LWA or the combined license
issuance stages. Instead, the EIS at the LWA stage would be limited to
considering the environmental impacts of LWA activities only (assuming
that the LWA ER is limited to providing information on the
environmental impacts of LWA activities). This is consistent with NRC
and CEQ regulations that allow incorporation by reference. Preparation
of an LWA EIS limited to those subjects would not be redundant of the
ESP EIS, inasmuch as the impacts of construction under this scenario
were not addressed in the ESP EIS. Accordingly, there is no unnecessary
expenditure of NRC resources attributable to anything in the LWA rule.
When the combined license supplemental EIS is prepared, that EIS will
be limited to considering new and significant information related to
matters concerning construction and operation of the facility which was
not addressed in the ESP EIS, unless the matter was discussed in the
LWA EIS. In that limited case, the nature and description of the LWA
construction impacts are deemed to be resolved, and these impacts would
be considered in the overall balancing and decisionmaking on issuance
of a combined license without the need to re-examine the nature and
description of those LWA impacts. Again, the final LWA rule avoids
redundant NRC review to the maximum extent practicable, inasmuch as the
combined license EIS relies upon the determinations regarding the
nature and impacts of construction and operation which were made at
both the ESP and LWA stages. The overall scope of the NRC environmental
review is not changed; it is merely the timing of the review for
individual issues that is affected by the final LWA rule.
    In sum, the NRC does not agree with the commenter that the LWA rule
will, as the consequence of its provisions, result in an adverse impact
upon the amount and timing of expenditure of NRC resources that cannot
be managed in an effective manner. No change from the supplemental
proposed LWA rule was made in response to this comment.
    Comment: One commenter states that it appears that this new process
will require major changes to NRC guidance documents such as RGs and
the environmental standard review plan. Almost everything related to
the impacts of construction will have to be completely rewritten. Can
this be done before the first applicant uses the new rule? (Kugler 8)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that changes to the
NRC RGs and the environmental standard review plan will be necessary to
provide complete guidance to potential applicants and the NRC review
staff with respect to implementation of the new LWA process in the
final LWA rule. However, the NRC does not agree with the commenter's
implicit assertion that the guidance must be finalized before the first
applicant (or several applicants) can use the new LWA process in an
effective manner. The NRC has, in many other instances, adopted rules
containing substantial changes to its technical and regulatory
requirements applicable to nuclear power reactors. Although the NRC
does not wish to understate the challenge of implementing new rules, it
is confident that the NRC working level technical staff, under careful
and timely oversight by NRC staff management, will be able to implement
the final LWA rule in a timely, consistent, and effective manner.
    Comment: One commenter states that the supplemental proposed rule
does not appear to allow an applicant to use both a phased LWA process
and the hearing process for early partial decision on site suitability
issues, thereby allowing an applicant who wishes to apply for an LWA to
also submit the environmental information under Sec.  2.101(a)(5) and
proceed with an accelerated hearing on the full scope of environmental
matters. The Commission should adopt changes in Sec. Sec.  50.10(c)(2)
and 2.101(a)(5) to allow an applicant to use both processes
simultaneously. (NEI 5; Unistar 1)
    NRC Response: The NRC believes that the commenter misunderstood the
provisions of the supplemental proposed rule. The NRC's intent is that:
    ? Applicants may submit a two-part (phased) application for
an LWA in advance of the application for the underlying combined
license or construction permit, see Sec.  2.101(a)(9).
    ? The environmental information submitted in the LWA portion
of the application may either be limited to the LWA activities
requested, or the full scope of construction and operation impacts, see
Sec.  51.49(b) and (f).
    ? An LWA applicant may seek an early decision on siting and
environmental matters. If the LWA is submitted in advance of the
underlying construction permit or combined license application, the
procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart F, Sec. Sec.  2.641 through 2.649
apply. If the LWA is submitted as part of (or after) the construction
permit or

[[Page 57424]]

combined license application, then the procedures in subpart F,
Sec. Sec.  2.601 through 2.629 would apply because this is the ordinary
procedure for obtaining an early decision on siting and environmental
matters under the existing provisions of subpart F.
    The NRC does not believe the specific language changes to the
proposed rule described by the commenter are necessary to accomplish
these three objectives. Accordingly, the Commission declines to adopt
the changes proposed by the commenter, and no change from the
supplemental proposed LWA rule was made in response to this comment.
    Comment: One commenter proposed that the timing provisions in 10
CFR 2.101(a)(5), requiring that each part of a two-part combined
license application be submitted within 6 months of each other, should
be revised to be consistent with 10 CFR 2.101(a)(9) of the supplemental
proposed rule, which permits the LWA application to be submitted up to
12 months in advance of the underlying combined license or construction
permit. The commenter believes that additional conforming changes
should be made to implement this concept, including changes in Sec. 
50.10(c)(2). (Unistar 2) Another commenter made the same proposal, but
separately suggested that the overall time between parts of
applications be lengthened to 18 months. (NEI 6)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters that the timing
provisions should be consistent. Furthermore, the NRC agrees with the
second commenter (NEI) that the overall time between parts of
applications may be lengthened to 18 months. The 6 month limitation in
former Sec.  2.101(a)(5) for two-part applications was set many years
ago and reflected internal NRC administrative considerations, including
maximizing efficiency and ensuring continuity of review oversight. The
12-month limitation between submission of the LWA application and the
underlying combined license or construction permit application, as
proposed in the supplemental proposed LWA rule, was based upon the same
considerations, as well as environmental/NEPA considerations. The NRC
did not want the time between the initial submission of LWA
environmental information and the subsequent consideration of the
overall environmental impacts to be lengthened to the point that there
would be a substantial likelihood of new and significant information
that would require updating. A 12-month limitation was established as a
reasonable limitation. No consideration was given to having a
consistent limitation in both existing paragraph (a)(5) and proposed
paragraph (a)(9).
    However, after further consideration based upon public comments,
the NRC concludes that the 6-month limitation in paragraph (a)(5) and
the proposed 12-month limitation in paragraph (a)(9) are unduly
restrictive. The NRC believes that administrative efficiency can be
maintained with longer time periods between parts of applications, in
view of modern information technology, NRC's restructuring of the
licensing process in part 52, the NRC's recent adoption of changes to
part 2, subpart D and part 52, appendix N, and the NRC's projected use
of design-centered reviews. In addition, the NRC understands, in
response to informal inquiries with EPA, that 18 months is well within
the time period considered by EPA to be acceptable for referencing a
previously-prepared EIS without updating. For these reasons, the
Commission is adopting an 18-month limitation in paragraphs (a)(5) and
(a)(9) of Sec.  2.101.
7. Other Topics
    Comment: The NRC should include a ``grandfathering'' provision in
the final rule to make clear that the final rule does not require any
change to ESP applications filed before the effective date of the rule,
such as supplementing the application to require a showing of technical
qualifications. The NRC should also clarify that the final rule would
not reduce or limit the authority that such applicants would be
entitled to receive upon issuance of their ESPs under the current
regulations (e.g., perform construction of non-safety-related SSCs).
(NEI 4, Dominion 1)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters that the final LWA
rule does not require any change to ESP applications filed before the
effective date of the rule. Upon further consideration, the NRC has
decided to include a ``grandfathering'' provision in the final rule
which will provide that ESP applications which are under consideration
as of the effective date of the final LWA rule, which include a request
to conduct Sec.  50.10(e)(1) activities, need not comply with the
``content of application'' requirements in the final rule.
    The NRC does not agree with the commenter's view that the final
rule and/or the SOC for the final rule should clarify that the current
ESP applicants should be provided with the authority to conduct LWA
activities under the former provisions of Sec.  50.10(e)(1), that is,
not be bound by the final LWA rule's provisions. The final LWA rule
does allow excavation without an LWA. However, the NRC continues to
believe that pile driving and other subsurface preparation should be
considered construction, inasmuch as none of the comments received
addressed this matter or brought information to the NRC's attention
that suggests that the NRC's regulatory basis for its position should
be reconsidered (the public comments received only addressed excavation
per se, and did not mention pile driving or other subsurface
preparation). In addition, as discussed elsewhere in this SOC, the NRC
has redefined and limited the SSCs whose construction requires an LWA,
construction permit, or combined license. Thus, the NRC believes that
the current ESP applicants will have sufficient authority and
flexibility under the final rule, without any grandfathering of the LWA
provisions. Furthermore, regulatory stability from the standpoint of
backfitting is not relevant, inasmuch as it has been the Commission's
longstanding position that backfitting does not protect an applicant
from changes to regulatory requirements.
    Comment: The commenter states that proposed Sec.  50.10(c)(3)(i)
requires the LWA application to: (1) Describe the design and
construction information otherwise required to be submitted for a
combined license, but limited to the portions of the facility that are
within the scope of the limited work authorization; and (2) Demonstrate
compliance with ``technically relevant 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, is unduly
vague. If specific technical requirements are deemed applicable, they
should be justified and identified in the rule. (Dominion 3)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenter that the
language of Sec.  50.10(c)(3)(i) (Sec.  50.10(d)(3)(i) in the final LWA
rule) is unnecessarily vague, or that it would be practical for the
rule language to specify the technical requirements which are deemed
applicable. The technical requirements that are applicable will depend
upon the scope and nature of LWA activities requested. Furthermore,
this regulatory requirement is modeled on the provisions of former
Sec. Sec.  50.10(e)(2), (e)(3)(i), and (e)(3)(ii), for which the NRC
and the nuclear power industry has had decades of experience. The
commenter did not present either alternative language that would
address its concern with vagueness, or otherwise present a list of NRC
technical requirements that should be specified as applicable. The
original commenter whose submission led to this

[[Page 57425]]

rulemaking did not identify this aspect of the former rule as
presenting a problem which should be addressed as part of the
reformulated rule. To modify the rule language to include a list of
technically relevant requirements would likely require renoticing of
this aspect of the rule for public comment, which would delay issuance
of the rule with little benefit, given the 30+ years of experience in
implementing analogous rule language in the former versions of Sec. 
50.10. Accordingly, the Commission declines to adopt the commenter's
proposal, and no change from the supplemental proposed LWA rule was
made in response to this comment.
    Comment: The commenter states that the finding of technical
qualifications should be limited to LWA activities applicable to
safety-related activities, because there are no design, construction,
or technical requirements in the NRC's rules applicable to non-safety-
related construction work. (Dominion 4)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenter's proposal,
inasmuch as it is based on the longstanding industry misconception that
the NRC's regulations in part 50 apply only to ``safety-related'' SSCs
and activities relevant to those SSCs, as that term is defined in 10
CFR 50.2. This is not a correct understanding. For example, the general
design criteria in 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, apply to SSCs
``important to safety; that is, structures, systems, and components
that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated
without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.''  Id.
(first introductory paragraph). There are numerous other regulations
applicable to the design, construction, and operation of a nuclear
power facility whose applicability extends beyond ``safety-related''
SSCs. It is consistent with Section 182.a of the AEA and the NRC's past
practice that a technical qualifications finding be made as part of the
finding necessary for NRC issuance of an LWA. Accordingly, the NRC
declines to adopt the commenter's proposal, and no change from the
supplemental proposed LWA rule was made in response to this comment.
    Comment: The commenter states that the reference in Sec. 
50.10(d)(2) to Sec.  52.17(c) should be changed to Sec. 
50.10(c)(3)(iii), inasmuch as the requirement for a redress plan has
been removed from Sec.  52.17(c) and relocated in Sec. 
50.19(c)(3)(iii). (Progress Energy 3)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the substance of this comment.
Inasmuch as the proposed rule has been reorganized in the final rule,
the final rule refers to the appropriate paragraph.
    Comment: The commenter states that an LWA is not the functional
equivalent of an ESP. There are significant differences between them,
and the time and level of NRC staff effort necessary to conduct an LWA
review should not be as great as for an ESP review. The NRC should
clarify the differences between an LWA and ESP in the SOC for the final
rule. (Areva 4)
    NRC Response: NRC agrees with the commenter that there are some
significant differences between an LWA review and an ESP. In
particular, issuance of an LWA does not require the NRC to make a
finding with respect to site suitability from either a safety or
environmental standpoint (although the LWA applicant may, under
Sec. Sec.  2.101(a)(9), 52.17, and 51.49 of the final rule, submit an
environmental report addressing the issues of alternative, obviously
superior sites, and the impacts of construction and operation of the
nuclear power plant, in which case the NRC would make a finding on all
environmental matters, including alternative, obviously superior
sites). The NRC has modified the section-by-section discussion of the
SOC to make clearer the requirements for obtaining an LWA.
    Comment: The commenter states that proposed Sec. Sec.  51.76(e) and
51.49(e) are slightly inconsistent, in that the former refers to the
LWA applicant's authority to incorporate by reference an earlier EIS
prepared for the same site if a construction permit was issued but
construction never commenced. By contrast, Sec.  51.49(e) refers to the
LWA applicant's environmental report to reference an earlier EIS
prepared for the same site if a construction permit was issued but
construction was never completed. The commenter also states that
inasmuch as the NRC intended to adopt the more expansive concept
embodied in Sec.  51.49(e), the final rule should modify Sec.  51.76(e)
to be consistent to refer to construction not being ``completed.'' (NEI
3)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees, and the language of Sec.  51.76(e)
has been conformed in the final rule. In addition, conforming changes
were made in the subtitles of Sec. Sec.  51.49(e) and 51.76(e), and the
relevant SOC discussion.

III. Discussion

A. History of the NRC's Concept of Construction and the LWA

    Section 101 of the 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 NRC. While construction of a nuclear power reactor is not mentioned
in Section 101, Section 185 of the AEA requires that the NRC 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 NRC. However, the term construction is
not defined anywhere in the AEA or in the legislative history of the
AEA.
    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, Sec.  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 Sec.  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 turbogenerators 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
Sec.  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

[[Page 57426]]

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 NEPA, as amended, the NRC
adopted a major amendment to the definition of construction in Sec. 
50.10 (37 FR 5745; March 21, 1972). In that rulemaking, the NRC adopted
a much more expansive concept of construction. Specifically, a new
Sec.  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 the 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 non-nuclear 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; March 21, 1972)

    The NRC 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 NEPA, 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; March 21, 1972)

    Thus, the NRC's interpretation of its responsibilities under NEPA,
not the AEA, was the driving factor leading to its adoption of Sec. 
50.10(c).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 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 (January 12,
1977) (explaining that NEPA led the AEC to amend its regulations in
several respects, including the changes to Sec.  50.10(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC issued Sec.  50.10(e) two (2) years after the expansion of
the NRC's permitting authority resulting from the issuance of Sec. 
50.10(c) (39 FR 14506; April 24, 1974). This provision created the
current LWA process, which was added to allow site preparation,
excavation, and certain other onsite activities to proceed before
issuance of a construction permit. Before the issuance of Sec. 
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 Sec.  50.12. Section 50.10(e) allowed the NRC to
authorize the commencement of both safety-related (known as ``LWA-2''
activities) and non-safety-related (known as ``LWA-1'' activities)
onsite construction activities before issuance of a construction
permit, if the NRC had completed a site suitability report and 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 site suitability,
environmental and, in the case of an LWA-2, safety-related findings.

B. NRC's Concept of Construction and the AEA

    Industry stakeholders have stated that the business environment,
today and in the foreseeable future, requires that new plant applicants
minimize the time interval between a decision to proceed with the
construction of a nuclear power plant and the start of commercial
operation. To achieve that goal, these stakeholders have indicated that
non-safety-related ``LWA-1'' activities would need to be initiated up
to 2 years before the activities currently defined as ``construction''
in Sec.  50.10(b). NEI believes that the current LWA approval process
would constrain the nuclear industry's ability to use modern
construction/management practices and needlessly add 18 months to
estimated construction schedules for new plants that did not reference
an early site permit with LWA authority.
    Based upon the representations of the industry, the NRC agrees that
the agency's regulatory processes should be revised and optimized to
ensure that these stakeholder's needs are met, consistent with the
NRC's statutory obligations and in a manner that is fair to all
stakeholders. Accordingly, the NRC is adopting this LWA final rule
which revises 10 CFR 50.10, and makes conforming changes in 10 CFR
parts 2, 51, and 52. The LWA final rule narrows the scope of activities
requiring permission from the NRC in the form of an LWA by eliminating
the concept of ``commencement of construction'' formerly described in
Sec.  50.10(c) and the authorization formerly described in Sec. 
50.10(e)(1). Instead, under the final LWA 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 for which regulatory oversight is necessary and/or most
effective in ensuring reasonable assurance of adequate protection to
public health and safety or common defense and security. While the
NRC's redefinition of ``construction'' will result in fewer activities
requiring NRC permission in the form of an LWA, construction permit, or
combined license, it will also define certain activities (such as the
driving of piles) that are currently excluded from the regulatory
definition of construction given in Sec.  50.10(b), as construction
requiring such NRC review and approval.
    The LWA final rule also provides an optional, phased application
and approval procedure for construction permit and combined license
applicants to obtain LWAs. An applicant may either submit its LWA
application jointly with a complete construction permit or combined
license application, or submit it in two parts, with the information
relevant to issuance of an LWA submitted up to 18 months in advance of
the remainder of the application addressing the underlying construction
permit or combined license. Furthermore, under the LWA final rule, the
NRC need not address the suitability of the site for the operation of a
nuclear power plant before issuing an LWA. Site suitability will be
addressed as part of the NRC's consideration of the underlying
construction permit or combined license. Moreover, under the LWA final
rule the applicant could seek a separate determination on site
suitability issues under subpart F of 10 CFR part 2.
    The phased approach in the final LWA rule also provides for an
environmental review and approval

[[Page 57427]]

process for LWA requests which allows the NRC to grant an applicant
permission to engage in LWA activities after completion of a limited
EIS addressing those activities, but before completion of the
comprehensive EIS addressing the underlying request for a construction
permit or combined license. The final LWA rule also delineates the
environmental review required in situations where the LWA activities
are to be conducted at sites for which the NRC has previously prepared
an EIS 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.
    The NRC concludes that the LWA final rule is fully consistent with
the NRC's radiological health and safety and common defense and
security responsibilities under the AEA.\4\ As previously mentioned,
the term ``construction'' is not defined in the AEA or in the
legislative history of the AEA. Instead of expressly defining the term
in the AEA, Congress entrusted the agency with the responsibility of
determining what activities constitute construction.\5\ The NRC 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. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that its
definition of the term, ``construction,'' is reasonable and complies
with the AEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See State of New Hampshire v. Atomic Energy Commission, 406
F.2d 170, 174-75 (1st Cir. 1969).
    \5\ Shearon Harris, 7 AEC 939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC also concludes that issuance of the LWA in advance of a
consideration of site suitability is reasonable and complies with the
AEA. Any work under the LWA is done at the risk of the LWA holder.

C. NRC's LWA Rule Complies With NEPA

1. NRC's Concept of Construction is Consistent With the Legal Effect of
NEPA
    The definition of construction in the LWA final rule is 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 given 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 NRC's
permitting/licensing authority under the AEA, the elimination of the
blanket inclusion of site preparation activities in the definition of
construction under Sec.  50.10(c) does not violate NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See,e.g., Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490
US 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NRC's Concept of the ``Major Federal Action'' Is Consistent With
NEPA Law
    The AEA does not authorize the 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 NRC considers these activities to
involve ``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 NRC believes that these
non-Federal site preparation activities would not generally be
``federalized'' if the NRC were to ultimately grant a combined license
or construction permit. The grant of a construction permit or combined
license by the NRC is not a legal condition precedent to these non-
Federal, site preparation activities. While the NRC recognizes that
there may be a ``but for'' causal relationship between certain non-
Federal 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Save the Bay, Inc., v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 610
F.2d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1980).
    \8\ See Landmark West! v. U.S. Postal Service, 840 F. Supp. 994,
1006 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (citing cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under the narrowed definition of construction in the
LWA final rule, the NRC concludes that it does not have the 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 NRC 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 NRC
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, 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 NRC'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 will be
considered in order to establish a baseline against which the
incremental effect of the NRC's major Federal action (i.e., issuing an
LWA, construction permit, or combined license) would be measured. These
incremental impacts may be additive or synergistic. To ensure that the
NRC has sufficient information to perform the cumulative impacts
analysis in a timely fashion, the final LWA rule includes a
requirement, in Sec.  51.45(c), for the environmental report submitted
by an applicant for an ESP, construction permit, or combined license to
include a description of impacts of the applicant's preconstruction
activities at the proposed site (i.e., the activities listed in
paragraph (b)(1) through (8) in the definition of construction
contained in Sec.  51.4) that are necessary to support the construction
and operation of the facility which is the subject of the LWA,
construction permit, or combined license application, and an analysis
of the cumulative impacts of the activities to be authorized by the
LWA, construction permit, or combined license in light of the
preconstruction impacts.
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

[[Page 57428]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Daniel R. Mandelker, NEPA Law and Litigation, 9-25 (2nd ed.
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither of these segmentation concerns are presented by the
approach embodied in the LWA final rule. First, under both LWA
application options in the LWA final rule, 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 NRC'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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Tennessee Valley Authority (Clinch River Breeder
Reactor Plant), 16 NRC 412, 424 (August 17, 1982) (hereinafter
Clinch River).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These considerations are reflected in the provisions of the LWA
final rule. Specifically, Sec.  50.10(f) states that any activity
undertaken pursuant to an 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
EIS associated with the underlying request will not consider the sunk
costs associated with the LWA activities. In addition, Sec. 
50.10(d)(3) requires an applicant requesting an LWA to submit a plan
for redress of the activities permitted by the LWA, which would to be
implemented in the event that the LWA holder is ultimately not issued a
construction permit or combined license. The redress plan would achieve
this objective by addressing impacts resulting from LWA activities
(e.g., pile driving, placement of permanent retaining walls in
excavations, and construction of foundations for SSCs within the scope
of the LWA final rule). Impacts associated with pre-LWA activities
would not be addressed in the redress plan. Further, Sec.  50.10(f)
requires that the site redress plan be implemented within a reasonable
time and that the redress of the site occur within 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 used for a permissible, non-
nuclear alternative use. In this way, the redress plan helps to
preserve the NRC'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.
    In sum, the LWA final rule does not constitute unlawful
segmentation in view of the provisions ensuring that the issuance of an
LWA does not predispose or bias the NRC's decision on the underlying
construction permit or combined license application.

D. Consideration of Activities as ``Construction''

1. Driving of Piles
    A significant change proposed in the LWA supplemental proposed rule
is the inclusion of the driving of piles for certain SSCs in the
definition of construction that are not currently defined as
construction in Sec.  50.10(b). Although the driving of piles was not
expressly included in the definition of ``construction'' contained in
Sec.  50.10(b) before the amendment of Sec.  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 1967 proposed rule suggested that the driving of piles be
expressly excluded from the definition of construction because that
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 non-
inclusion of pile driving (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. See 32 FR 11278; August 3,
1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The proposed rule language was issued without modification
in the final rule. (33 FR 2381; January 31, 1968.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC does not believe that the exclusion of pile driving from
the definition of construction should hinge on these factors. The
Commission believes that the driving of piles for certain SSCs (as
discussed separately below) has a reasonable nexus to radiological
health and safety, and/or common defense and security and, therefore,
is properly considered ``construction'' as that term is used in Section
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.
Accordingly, the final rule's definition of construction includes the
driving of piles for certain SSCs.

[[Page 57429]]

2. Excavation
    The LWA supplemental proposed rule would have included excavation
within the definition of construction. The inclusion of excavation
within the ambit of construction was based upon two factors: (1)
Excavation activities in the past have uncovered potentially adverse
geologic, soil, and hydrological conditions not anticipated by the
construction permit applicant, which have resulted in design changes;
and (2) Excavation activities in the past have caused unanticipated
damage to surrounding native rock, which had to be corrected by the
construction permit holder. The NRC believed that, in these situations,
these considerations provided the ``reasonable nexus to radiological
health and safety and/or common defense and security'' necessary to
include excavation in the definition of construction.
    Upon consideration of stakeholder comments and further evaluation,
the NRC has determined that it is not necessary to include excavation
within the definition of construction, thus requiring some kind of NRC
review and approval before undertaking excavation, to ensure public
health and safety or common defense and security in the situations
noted previously. With respect to geologic, soils, and hydrological
matters, prior NRC review and approval of excavation is not necessary
to ensure that any adverse geologic, soil, or hydrological conditions
that result in the need for design changes or some other form of
mitigation are considered in NRC's review of the associated LWA,
construction permit, or combined license application. In the situation
where a potential applicant performs excavation activities before
submitting its LWA, construction permit, or combined license
application, 10 CFR 52.6(a) requires that information provided to the
Commission by an applicant for a license be complete and accurate in
all material respects. In the situation where an applicant performs
excavation activities after submitting its LWA, construction permit, or
combined license application, 10 CFR 52.6(b) requires the applicant to
notify the Commission of information identified by the applicant as
having, for the regulated activity, a significant implication for
public health and safety or common defense and security. The staff
believes that 10 CFR 52.6 provides an equally-acceptable way of
ensuring public health and safety if excavation is eliminated from the
definition of construction for those limited situations where
excavation activities uncover potentially adverse geologic, soil, and
hydrological conditions not anticipated by the applicant, or if
excavation activities cause unanticipated damage to the surrounding
native rock. The LWA, construction permit, and combined license
applicant, as applicable, would be responsible--as is currently the
case--for adequately describing the geologic, soil, and hydrologic
conditions of the site. The difference with the approach in this final
rule is that the approved site description will, in many cases, be
based upon actual knowledge of the conditions as revealed or confirmed
by the excavation activities, and not only on reasonable assumptions
based upon extrapolations from test borings and other indirect
information. Therefore, in many cases, the actual foundation and
structural design to be approved at the construction permit or combined
license stage would be based upon actual geologic, soils, and
hydrological information as revealed or confirmed by the excavation.
    For these reasons, the Commission concludes that existing
regulatory mechanisms provide reasonable assurance of public health and
safety and common defense and security without imposition of the
regulatory mechanism of prior NRC review and approval of excavation
activities. Accordingly, the LWA final rule does not define excavation
as being within the ambit of construction.
3. Temporary Structures and Activities in the Excavation
    Construction, under the LWA final rule, includes the placement/
installation of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within
an excavation. These activities involve the placement/installation of
permanent parts of the overall facility, and therefore are properly
considered ``construction.'' By contrast, the placement/installation of
temporary SSCs which will not become part of the final facility, and
therefore are removed, should not be treated as ``construction,''
inasmuch as they have no ongoing nexus to radiological health and
safety or common defense and security. Accordingly, activities in the
excavation for SSCs within the scope of construction, such as the
placement/installation of temporary drainage, erosion control,
retaining walls, environmental mitigation, are not considered to be
within the purview of ``construction,'' so long as these temporary
items are removed from the excavation before fuel load. The NRC chose
fuel loading as a convenient, well understood and clear event for
delineating the time by which temporary SSCs must be removed from the
excavation, in order for those temporary SSCs to be excluded from the
definition of construction.
4. Construction SSCs
    The LWA supplemental proposed rule revised the former definition of
construction in 10 CFR 50.10(c) to include the onsite, in-place
fabrication, erection, integration, or testing of any SSC 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. This definition of construction included
basically all SSCs of a facility, except for those SSCs that were
specifically excluded by the proposed definition (e.g., potable water
systems). However, as stated in the supplemental proposed rule, the
Commission has determined that construction should include all of the
activities that have a reasonable nexus to radiological health and
safety, or common defense and security.
    Upon consideration of stakeholder comments and further evaluation,
the NRC has determined that there may be some SSCs of a facility which
are required to be described in the FSAR, but which do not have a
reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or the common
defense and security. These SSCs are those which are required to be
described in the FSAR to provide contextual information for
understanding the overall design and operation of the facility, but
which do not actually directly affect the radiological health and
safety of the public or the common defense and security, and their
indirect effect on such health and safety or common defense and
security is so low as to be considered negligible. The determination of
SSCs which do not have a reasonable nexus to radiological health and
safety or common defense and security depends on the design of the
facility. An example SSC is the administration building. However, an
administration building that includes the technical support center
would fall within the scope of SSCs covered by the definition of
construction. In sum, the NRC has clarified and narrowed the scope of
SSCs falling within the scope of construction to exclude those SSCs
which have no reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or
common defense and security.
    For the LWA final rule, the scope of SSCs falling within the
definition of construction was derived from the scope of SSCs that are
included in the program for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance
at nuclear power plants, as

[[Page 57430]]

defined in 10 CFR 50.65(b). This definition is well understood and
there is good agreement on its implementation. The NRC has supplemented
the definition in Sec.  50.65(b) to include the SSCs that are necessary
to comply with 10 CFR 50.48 and criterion 3 of 10 CFR part 50, appendix
A, and the onsite emergency facilities, that is, technical support and
operations support centers, that are necessary to comply with 10 CFR
50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. These SSCs were added because
they have a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety. The
SSCs that are necessary to comply with 10 CFR part 73 were added
because they are required for the common defense and security.

E. Phased Application and Approval Process

    Another significant change in this final rule is the modification
of the procedure for obtaining LWA approval by implementing an optional
phased application and approval process. Specifically, Sec. 
2.101(a)(9) allows 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 final rule
allows the NRC to consider the environmental impacts attributable to
the requested LWA activities separately, either as part of a
comprehensive 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 may 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 and approval process
is more efficient because it prevents unnecessary delay in nuclear
power plant construction schedules. This delay would result if issuance
of an LWA for safety-related activities were delayed until the final
EIS and adjudicatory hearing on the entire underlying license
application were complete. In addition, the final rule's application
and approval process should 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.

F. EIS Prepared, but Facility Construction Was Not Completed

    The LWA final rule also 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 final rule allows 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 Sec.  51.49(a). Further, in
these special cases the final rule provides that the NRC will
incorporate by reference the previous EIS when preparing its draft EIS
on the LWA activities. The draft EIS on the LWA request is limited to
the consideration of any new and significant 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 is limited to determining
whether there is new and significant 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 new and significant
information in determining whether an LWA should be issued as proposed
by either the Director of the Office of New Reactors or the Director of
the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as applicable.
    This provision is designed to gain efficiency by using existing
EISs to evaluate the environmental impacts of 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 an 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 these
differences 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. Therefore, these
differences should be addressed in the applicant's environmental
report, analyzed by the NRC staff in a supplement to the existing FEIS,
and considered by the presiding officer.
    Further, for the reasons previously discussed in Section C.3 of
this document, the Commission does not believe that authorizing LWA
activities before completion of the FEIS on the combined license or
construction permit will have the effect of prejudging the license/
permit, or foreclosing reasonable alternatives.

G. Commission Action on PRM-50-82

    As discussed previously, the Commission is treating the May 25,
2006, comments of NEI on the March 2006 proposed part 52 rule as a
petition for rulemaking, which has been designated PRM-50-82. The
petition was effectively granted when the supplemental proposed LWA
rule was published (71 FR 61330; October 17, 2006). With the adoption
of this final LWA rule, the Commission has completed action on PRM-50-
82.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Part 2--Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and
Issuance of Orders

Section 2.101, Filing of Application
    Section 2.101 is revised by adding a new paragraph (a)(9), which
provides 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
combined license application, the application must include the
information required by Sec.  50.10(d)(3).
    If the application is a phased LWA application, the first part must
contain the information required by Sec.  50.10(d)(3) on the LWA, as
well as the general information required of all production and
utilization facility applicants under Sec.  50.33(a) through (f). The
second part of the application must

[[Page 57431]]

contain the remaining information otherwise required to be filed in a
complete application under Sec.  2.101(a)(1) thorough (4). However, the
applicant would have the further option of submitting part two in
additional subparts in accordance with Sec.  2.101(a-1). The second
part (or the first subpart of multiple subparts under Sec.  2.101(a-1))
must be filed no later than 18 months after the filing of part one.
Part two of the application (or the first subpart of any additional
subparts submitted in accordance with Sec.  2.101(a-1)) must be
submitted no later than 18 months after submission of part one of the
application.
    An applicant for an ESP may not submit its LWA application in
advance of the underlying ESP application, and therefore is not
permitted to use the procedures of subpart F of part 2, or submit its
application in two parts under Sec.  2.101(a)(9). Similarly, the holder
of an ESP is not permitted to use the procedures of subpart F of part
2, nor to submit its ESP amendment application for LWA authority in two
parts under Sec.  2.101(a)(9).
Section 2.102, Administrative Review of Application
    Paragraph (a) of Sec.  2.102 is revised by adding an LWA to the
list of docketed applications for which the NRC staff must establish a
schedule for review of the application.
Section 2.104, Notice of Hearing
    The introductory text of paragraph (a) is revised to add LWAs to
the list of application types for which the Commission must issue a
hearing notice. In addition, paragraph (c)(1) is revised to require the
relevant NRC Staff Director to transmit a copy of the notice of hearing
for an application for an LWA to state and local officials. In many
cases, this is a formality, inasmuch as pre-application interactions
between the NRC and the potential LWA applicant will result in informal
contacts with those state and local officials.

Subpart F

    The title of subpart F is revised to reflect the broader scope of
matters covered under this section, as described under Sec.  2.600.
Section 2.600, Scope of Subpart
    The statement of scope in Sec.  2.600 is revised to reflect the new
set of procedures for phased LWA applications in proposed Sec. Sec. 
2.641 through 2.649. A new paragraph (d) is added to refer to
Sec. Sec.  2.641 through 2.649 as containing the applicable procedures
for phased construction permit and combined license applications which
also request LWA authority.
Section 2.606, Partial Decision on Site Suitability Issues
    Paragraph (a) of Sec.  2.606, which provides that an LWA may not be
issued without completion of the ``full review'' required by NEPA, is
revised to remove the reference to an LWA, because LWAs are now covered
in Sec. Sec.  2.641 through 2.649.
Section 2.641, Filing Fees
    Section 2.641, which is comparable to current Sec.  2.602, provides
that a phased LWA application must be accompanied by the applicable
filing fees in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 relevant
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 Sec.  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 will 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 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
Sec.  2.101(a-1), which provides for submission of applications in
three parts.
    Finally, under paragraph (e), the Director is required to publish a
second notice of docketing in the Federal Register 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 NRC notes that nothing in Sec.  2.101(a)(9), or any part of
subpart F of part 2, 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.
Section 2.645, Notice of Hearing
    Section 2.645, which is comparable to current Sec.  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 Sec.  50.33(a) through (f), and the LWA 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 Sec.  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 specified in the notice of hearing, and must meet the applicable
requirements of subpart C of part 2, including the contention
requirements in Sec.  2.309.
    Paragraph (c) addresses continued participation in a phased
application involving a request for advance consideration for an LWA.
The provisions of paragraph (c) differ somewhat from the existing
procedures in Sec.  2.604 applicable to phased applications which do
not involve LWAs, in that the Commission has decided 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 Sec.  2.309. The petition

[[Page 57432]]

need not, however, address the interest and standing requirements in
Sec.  2.309(d). The petition must be filed within the time provided by
the supplementary notice of hearing published in the Federal Register
for part two of the application.
    Paragraph (d) makes clear that a non-timely petition for
intervention filed under paragraph (b) (incorrectly referred to as
paragraph (c) in the supplemental proposed rule) must meet the factors
in both 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iv), as well as 2.309(d). This is no
different than non-timely petitions for intervention filed in ordinary,
non-phased proceedings.
    As noted in the Section-by-Section Analysis in this document for
Sec.  2.643, nothing in Sec.  2.101(a)(9) or subpart F of part 2
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 Sec.  2.606, denotes the
provisions in subparts C and G to part 2 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 an 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 for
the Commission to exercise its review and sua sponte authority is the
same time provided for in part 2 with respect to a final decision on
issuance of a construction permit or combined license.

Part 50--Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities

50.10, License Required; Limited Work Authorization
    Paragraph (a), which is derived from former Sec.  50.10(b), sets
forth a new definition of ``construction'' for purposes of this section
(the same definition is also used in part 51, see 10 CFR 51.4). The
definition of construction has been substantially modified from the
definition in former Sec.  50.10(b) in both structure and content, and
supersedes the definition of construction in former Sec.  50.10(c). The
new definition is divided into two parts, with the first specifying the
activities deemed to constitute ``construction,'' and the second part
specifying activities which are excluded from the definition.
    Under the new definition, excavation is excluded from construction.
Excavation includes the removal of any soil, rock, gravel, or other
material below the final ground elevation to the final parent material.
Thus, all these excavation activities may be conducted without an LWA,
construction permit, or combined license. However, the placement of
permanent, non-structural dewatering materials, mudmats and/or
engineered backfill which are placed in advance of the placement of the
foundation and associated permanent retaining walls for SSCs within the
scope of the definition of construction are not excavation activities,
but instead fall within the scope of construction. Any person or entity
that conducts excavation, however, should be aware that the NRC expects
any subsequent LWA, construction permit, or combined license
application to accurately document and address the conditions exposed
by excavation, to ensure that the NRC will have an adequate basis for
evaluating the relevant portions of the LWA, construction permit, or
combined license application.
    Whereas former Sec.  50.10(b) allowed the driving of piles for the
facility without NRC approval, the LWA final rule does not permit
driving of piles for SSCs described in the definition of construction,
unless NRC permission is obtained in the form of an LWA, construction
permit, or combined license. The ``driving of piles'' not related to
ensuring the structural stability or integrity of any SSC within the
scope of the definition of construction does not fall within the
definition of construction in this paragraph, and therefore may be
accomplished without an LWA, construction permit, or combined license.
For example, 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 an
LWA, construction permit, or combined license.
    The SSCs which are within the scope of the definition of
construction, and which have a reasonable nexus to radiological health
and safety or common defense and security are set forth in paragraph
(a)(1). This definition was derived from the scope of SSCs that are
included in the program for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance
at nuclear power plants under 10 CFR 50.65, and supplemented with SSCs
that are needed for fire protection, security, and onsite emergency
facilities. There may be some SSCs of a facility which do not have a
reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or common defense
and security. The determination of the SSCs that do not have a
reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or common defense
and security will be dependent upon the design of the facility. An
example SSC that would not be within the scope of construction is a
cooling tower that is used to cool the turbine condenser. However, a
cooling system that is used for both safety and non-safety functions
would fall within the definition of construction.
    Construction, as defined in this paragraph includes installation of
the foundation, including soil compaction; the installation of
permanent drainage systems and geofabric; the placement of backfill,
concrete (e.g., ``mudmats'') or other materials which will not be
removed before 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 in-
place permanently (even if non-structural); and placement of concrete
or other material constituting the foundation of any SSC within scope
of the definition of construction. Foundation installation activities
will require an LWA, construction permit, or combined license. The term
``permanent'' in this context, includes anything that will exist in its
final, in-place plant location after fuel load. By contrast, the term,
``temporary,'' means anything that will be removed from the excavation
before fuel load.
    Construction also includes the ``onsite, in-place,'' fabrication,
erection, integration, or testing activities for any in-scope SSC. The
term, ``onsite, in place, fabrication, erection, integration or
testing'' is intended to describe the historical process of
constructing a nuclear power plant in its final, onsite plant location,
where components or modules are integrated into the final, in-plant
location. The definition is intended to exclude persons from

[[Page 57433]]

having to obtain an LWA, construction permit, or combined license, to
fabricate, assemble, and test components and modules in a shop
building, warehouse, or laydown area located onsite. However, the
installation or integration of that SSC into its final plant location
would require either a construction permit or combined license. The NRC
notes that under Sec.  50.10(a)(2)(ix), construction does not include
manufacturing of a nuclear power reactor under subpart F of part 52,
even if the manufacturing is accomplished onsite, so long as the
manufacturing is not done in-place, at the final (permanent) plant
location on the site.
    Paragraph (b), which is derived from former Sec.  50.10(a),
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 Sec.  50.11.
    Paragraph (c), which is substantially modified from the former
Sec.  50.10(b), 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 an LWA
under paragraph (d) of this section.
    Paragraph (d), which is substantially modified from the former
Sec.  50.10(e), addresses the need for, nature and contents of an
application for an LWA. Paragraph (d)(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 (d)(2) provides that an LWA application may be submitted
as:

--Part of a complete application for a construction permit or combined
license under Sec.  2.101(a)(1) through (4).
--Part one of a phased application under Sec.  2.101(a)(9).
--Part of a complete application for an ESP under Sec.  2.101(a)(1)
through (4).
--An amendment to an already issued ESP.

    Paragraph (d)(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
FSAR, 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 in this document 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 address the
placement of piles and ensure removal of the foundation, which are the
only activities which may be accomplished under an LWA. Redress of site
impacts resulting from pre-LWA activities will not be required under
the redress plan. In addition, while redress of LWA 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 (e) generally addresses the requirements associated with
issuance of an LWA. Paragraph (e)(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: (1) Necessary technical qualifications, and the matter of foreign
ownership or control relevant to the information required by Sec. 
50.33(a) through (f), as mandated by Sections 103.d. and 182.a. of the
AEA; (2) 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; (3) NRC staff issuance of a final EIS on the
LWA in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 51; and (4)
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 (e)(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, ESP, or combined license.
    Paragraph (f), which is also derived from former Sec.  50.10(e),
addresses the legal effect of an issued LWA. Paragraph (f)(1) provides
that any activities undertaken under an LWA shall be entirely at the
risk of the applicant and, with exception of the matters determined
under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) and (iii), the issuance of the LWA shall
have no bearing on the issuance of a construction permit or combined
license with respect to the requirements of the AEA, and rules,
regulations, or orders issued under the AEA. Thus, this paragraph
states that the EIS for a construction permit or combined license
application for which an LWA was previously issued will not address,
and the presiding officer will not consider, the sunk costs of the
holder of the LWA in determining the proposed action (i.e., issuance of
the construction permit or combined license).
    New paragraph (g) requires the LWA holder to begin implementation
of the redress plan in a reasonable time, and complete the redress no
later than 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 construction permit or the combined license application, as
applicable.

Part 51--Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing
and Related Regulatory Functions

Section 51.4, Definitions
    Section 51.4 is revised by adding a new definition of
``construction.'' This makes applicable throughout part 51 the
definition of construction in proposed Sec.  50.10(a), and has the
effect of excluding from an EIS for any ESP, construction permit,
combined license,

[[Page 57434]]

or an LWA, any discussion, evaluation or consideration of the
environmental impacts or benefits associated with non-construction
activities as set forth in Sec.  50.10(a). This also removes 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) is revised by adding a reference to a new Sec. 
51.49, which requires submission of an environmental report by LWA
applicants. While Sec.  51.49 contains a new information collection
requirement, this will not 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 these applicants
as part of a complete environmental report for the underlying ESP,
construction permit or combined license under Sec.  51.50. The primary
effect of this final rule would be to allow delayed 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
Sec.  51.49 at the LWA stage would, in most cases, be limited in scope
to address environmental impacts of LWA activities only.
Section 51.45, Environmental Report
    Paragraph (c) is revised by adding a new requirement requiring
environmental reports for ESP, construction permits, and combined
licenses to include a description of impacts of the applicant's pre-
construction activities at the proposed site (i.e., the activities
listed in paragraph (b)(1) through (8) in the definition of
construction contained in Sec.  51.4) that are necessary to support the
construction and operation of the facility which is the subject of the
LWA, construction permit, or combined license application, and an
analysis of the cumulative impacts of the activities to be authorized
by the LWA, construction permit, or combined license in light of the
preconstruction impacts.
Section 51.49, Environmental Report-Limited Work Authorization
    A new Sec.  51.49 is added to part 51. This new section requires
the applicant for an LWA to submit an environmental report containing
certain specified information. Both paragraph (a), which applies to an
applicant requesting an LWA as part of a complete application, and
paragraph (b), which applies to an applicant submitting its application
in two parts under Sec.  2.101(a)(9), requires the applicant to submit
an environmental report which describes: (1) The activities proposed to
be conducted under the LWA; (2) The need to conduct those LWA
activities in advance of the main action; (3) A description of the
environmental impacts that may reasonably be expected to result from
the conduct of the requested LWA activities; (4) The mitigation
measures to be implemented to achieve the level of environmental
impacts described; and (5) A discussion of the reasons for rejecting
other mitigation measures that could be used to further reduce
environmental impacts. Regardless of whether an LWA applicant submits
an application in two parts, or seeks early consideration and decision
on site suitability and environmental siting matters, the environmental
report for the LWA should address any impacts attributable to
activities for which NRC approval is not required (i.e., the activities
excluded from the definition of construction in Sec.  50.12(a)).
    Paragraph (c) describes the contents of the environmental report
when the request for the LWA is submitted as part of an ESP
application. There is no opportunity for an ESP holder to submit its
application in two parts, with the LWA information submitted in advance
of the main ESP application.
    Paragraph (d) describes the contents of the environmental report
when the LWA request is submitted by an ESP 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 Sec.  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
for which the Commission previously prepared an EIS for the
construction and operation of a nuclear power plant, the construction
permit was issued, but the construction of the plant was never
completed, then the applicant's environmental report may incorporate by
reference the earlier EIS. However, in the event of incorporation by
reference, 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). In addition, analogous to the requirement in Sec. 
51.50(c)(1)(iv) of the 2007 final part 52 rule, the environmental
report must include a description of the process for identifying new
and significant information. The applicant should have a reasonable
process for identifying new and significant information that may have a
bearing on the earlier NRC conclusion, and should document the results
of this process in an auditable form. Documentation related to the
applicant's search for new information and its determination about the
significance of that new information should be maintained in an
auditable form by the applicant. The NRC staff will verify that the
applicant's process for identifying new and significant information is
effective.
    Paragraph (f) requires, for any application containing an LWA
request, that the environmental report must separately evaluate the
environmental impacts and proposed alternatives to the activities
proposed to be conducted under the LWA. However, at the option of the
applicant, the environmental report may also include the information
required by Sec.  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 51.71, Draft Environmental Impact Statement--Contents
    Section 51.71 is revised by redesignating the current paragraph (e)
as paragraph (f), and a new paragraph (e) is added to re-emphasize that
the draft EIS 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 Sec.  50.10(f) and new Sec. 
51.103(a)(6).
Section 51.76, Draft Environmental Impact Statement--Limited Work
Authorization
    Section 51.76 is a new section governing the NRC's preparation of a
draft EIS to support a decision on an LWA. The internal organization of
Sec.  51.76 parallels that of Sec.  51.49.

[[Page 57435]]

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 at the time of the LWA
application 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 NRC 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 an 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  51.50, the NRC will prepare a supplemental EIS for
the construction permit or combined license in accordance with Sec. 
51.71, and Sec.  51.75(a) or (c), as applicable. By contrast, if the
environmental report submitted in part one is a complete environmental
report required by Sec.  51.50, then the NRC will prepare at the LWA
phase a single, complete EIS for the construction permit or combined
license in accordance with Sec.  51.71, and Sec.  51.75(a) or (c), as
applicable.
    Paragraph (c) applies to an EIS prepared for issuance of an ESP
which will also include an LWA. The EIS will address the scope of
matters required to be addressed under Sec.  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 ESP holder (as
opposed to an applicant) requests an LWA. 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 referencing a 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 and a construction
permit issued, but construction of the nuclear power plant was not
completed. In these 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
this type of information in accordance with Sec.  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, 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. However, this paragraph also makes clear that if the
applicant's environmental report contains the comprehensive information
necessary to address construction and operation impacts for the
proposed facility, as is allowed under 10 CFR 2.101, then the EIS must
similarly address those impacts, including the costs and benefits of
the underlying proposed action.
Section 51.103, Record of Decision--General
    Section 51.103 is 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 Sec. Sec.  50.10(f) 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, and thereby avoid NEPA segmentation claims.
Section 51.104, NRC Proceeding Using Public Hearings; Consideration of
Environmental Impact Statement
    Section 51.104 is 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 also specifies that, in the LWA phase of the
proceeding, the presiding officer will decide the matters in
controversy among the parties, viz., the contentions related to the
adequacy of the EIS prepared for the LWA. The scope of the EIS will, in
turn, depend upon whether the LWA applicant chooses to submit an
environmental report limited to LWA impacts, or whether the LWA
applicant chooses to submit a more comprehensive environmental report
as permitted under 10 CFR 2.101 and seeks an early decision on siting
matters under subpart F of 10 CFR part 2.
Section 51.105, Public Hearings In Proceedings for Issuance of
Construction Permits or Early Site Permits; Limited Work Authorizations
    The title of this section is revised to add a reference to LWAs,
reflecting the expanded scope of matters addressed in this section.
Second, a new paragraph (c) is 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.
--Determine whether the applicant's proposed redress plan is reasonably
expected, from a technical standpoint, to redress activities conducted
under the LWA, should LWA activities be terminated by the holder or the
LWA be revoked by the NRC, or upon effectiveness of the Commission's
final decision denying the associated construction permit or combined
license application, as applicable.
--In an uncontested proceeding, determine whether the NRC's NEPA review
has been adequate.
--In a contested proceeding, determine whether the LWA should be issued
in

[[Page 57436]]

accordance with the regulations in part 51.
Section 51.107, Public hearings in proceedings for issuance of combined
licenses; limited work authorizations
    Section 51.107 is revised in two respects. The title of this
section is revised to add a reference to LWAs, reflecting the expanded
scope of matters addressed in this section. Finally, a new paragraph
(d) is also 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 Sec.  51.105(c).

Part 52--Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power
Plants

Section 52.1, Definitions
    A new definition of LWA is added which would be defined as the
authorization provided under Sec.  50.10(d). The NRC notes that an
applicant of an ESP who requests authority to perform the activities
permitted by Sec.  50.10(d), would not, if the request were granted,
receive an LWA separate from its ESP. Instead, the ESP itself would
authorize the activities permitted by Sec.  50.10(d). This regulatory
approach is consistent with the current language of Sec. Sec.  52.17(c)
and 52.25(b). However once an ESP is issued, the holder could apply for
permission to conduct LWA activities under Sec.  52.27 in the form of
an amendment to the ESP.
Section 52.17, Contents of Applications; Technical Information
    Paragraph (c) of Sec.  52.17 is revised by removing the proposed
language with respect to LWAs, and specifying that if the applicant
wishes to obtain an LWA, then the information required by Sec. 
50.10(d)(3) must be included in the site safety analysis report. This
paragraph also makes clear that for early site applications which were
submitted before the effective date of the final LWA rule, the new
requirements in Sec.  52.17(c) do not apply and their applications need
only meet the requirements in former Sec.  52.17(c).
Section 52.24, Issuance of Early Site Permit
    Paragraph (c) is revised to state that an ESP must specify the
activities under Sec.  50.10 that the permit holder is authorized to
perform.
Section 52.27, Limited Work Authorization After Issuance of Early Site
Permit
    Section 52.27 is redesignated as Sec.  52.26, and a new Sec.  52.27
is added. The new Sec.  52.27 allows an ESP holder to request an LWA in
accordance with Sec.  50.10--a matter which was not clear under the
former provisions of part 52.
Section 52.80, Content of Applications; Additional Technical
Information
    Paragraph (b) is revised to state that a combined license
application that does not request an LWA must include an environmental
report prepared in accordance with Sec.  51.50(c), and that a combined
license application that does request an LWA must include an
environmental report prepared in accordance with Sec. Sec.  51.49 and
51.50(c).
    Paragraph (c) is revised to require that a combined license
application containing a request for an LWA must contain the
information otherwise required by 10 CFR 50.10.
Section 52.91, Authorization To Conduct Limited Work Authorization
Activities
    The heading for Sec.  52.91 is revised. Section 52.91 is revised to
reflect the elimination of ``LWA-1'' and ``LWA-2'' in former Sec. 
50.10(e). Under paragraph (a) of Sec.  52.91, an applicant for a
combined license may undertake LWA activities only if it: (1)
References an ESP which includes LWA authority; or (2) the combined
license applicant applies for and is granted LWA authority under Sec. 
50.10. Paragraph (b) requires the combined license applicant who begins
construction under an LWA, to implement the LWA redress plan if the
underlying combined license application is withdrawn by the applicant
or denied by the NRC.
Section 52.99, Inspection During Construction
    Paragraph (a) is revised to replace the reference to 10 CFR
50.10(b) with a reference to 10 CFR 50.10(a).

Part 100--Reactor Site Criteria

Section 100.23, Geologic and Seismic Siting Criteria
    Paragraph (b) is revised to reflect the revisions in 10 CFR 50.10
that redefine what is considered ``construction.'' This paragraph
formerly stated that the investigations required in 10 CFR 100.23(c)
are within the scope of investigations permitted by former 10 CFR
50.10(c)(1). This sentence has been revised to state that the
investigations required in 10 CFR 100.23(c) are not considered
``construction'' as defined in 10 CFR 50.10(a).

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 PDR is located at 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. <A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/contact-pdr.html">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/contact-pdr.html</A>.

    The NRC staff contact. Geary Mizuno, Mail Stop O-15D21, Washington,
DC 20555-0001; telephone number 301-415-1639.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           NRC
                    Document                       PDR      Web                  ADAMS No.                staff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006/05/25--Comment (4) submitted by Nuclear          X        X   ML061510471                           .......
 Energy Institute, Adrian P. Heymer on Proposed
 Rules.
SECY-98-282, Part 52 Rulemaking Plan...........  .......  .......  ML032801416                           .......
Staff Requirements--SECY-98-282--Part 52         .......  .......  ML032801439                           .......
 Rulemaking Plan.
Draft Regulatory Analysis......................       X        X   ML062750434                                X
Final Regulatory Analysis......................       X        X   ML071870012                                X
Regulatory History Index for October 17, 2006    .......       X   ML070240575                                X
 Supplemental Proposed Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Agreement State Compatibility

    Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement States Programs,'' approved 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

[[Page 57437]]

procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

VII. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub.
L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless
using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is
otherwise impractical. In this rule, the NRC is: (1) Redefining the
scope of activities constituting ``construction'' for which NRC
approval is required; (2) redefining the scope of activities
constituting construction which the NRC may approve in an LWA granted
in advance of the issuance of a construction permit or combined
license, or which may be conducted by a holder of an ESP; and (3)
revising the NRC's procedures for granting LWAs. This rulemaking does
not establish standards or substantive requirements with which all
applicants and licensees must comply. For these reasons, the Commission
concludes that this action does not constitute the establishment that
contains generally applicable standards.

VIII. 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 qualify for the categorical
exclusion described in Sec.  51.22(c)(1). The changes to parts 50, 51,
and 52 that describe procedures for filing and reviewing applications
for LWAs qualify for the categorical exclusion described in Sec. 
51.22(c)(3)(i). All other changes qualify for the categorical exclusion
described in Sec.  51.22(c)(3)(iv).\13\ Therefore, neither an EIS nor
an EA has been prepared for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although 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) 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 published a supplemental
proposed rule for public comment. The NRC determined that Comment 4
meets the sufficiency requirements described in 10 CFR 2.802(c), and
that it was appropriate to seek public comment on the petition by
publishing the supplemental proposed rule developed in response to
the petition, as allowed under 10 CFR 2.802(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule amends information collection requirements
contained in (10 CFR parts 50, 51, and 52 that are subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These
requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget,
approval numbers 3150-0011, 3150-0021, and 3150-0151 and the changes
contain new or amended information collection requirements. Existing
requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget,
approval number(s) 3150-0011, 3150-0021, and 3150-0151.
    The net burden to the public for the information collections in 10
CFR parts 50, 51, and 52 is estimated to average zero hours per
response, as burden is being shifted from part 52 to part 50, and
within sections of part 51. The burden to the public for the
information collections in 10 CFR part 50 is estimated to average 1,900
hours per response and the burden for the information collections in 10
CFR part 52 is estimated to average a reduction of 1,900 hours per
response, resulting in no change in burden. The burden to the public
for the information collections in 10 CFR part 51 is estimated to
result in no change in burden, as information collection requirements
are shifted from one section to another. This includes the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
information collection. Send comments on any aspect of these
information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden,
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 <A HREF="mailto:INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV">INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV</A>; and to the Desk Officer,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011,
3150-0021, 3150-0151; 10 CFR parts 50, 51, and 52), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
OMB control number.

X. Regulatory Analysis

    The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis for this rule. The
analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered
by the Commission. Availability of the regulatory analysis is provided
in Section V of this document.

XI. 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 have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This 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 in this 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).

XII. Backfit Analysis

    The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not require the
NRC to prepare a backfit analysis for this rulemaking, because the
rulemaking 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 construction permits or combined
licenses for nuclear power plants that would be protected by the
backfitting restrictions in Sec.  50.109. To the extent that the
rulemaking revises the LWA requirements for future ESPs, construction
permits, or combined licenses for nuclear power plants, these revisions
do 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. With
respect to the ESPs issued by the NRC prior to adoption of the final
LWA rule, the rule does not represent backfitting for several reasons.
The ESPs issued prior to the effective date of the final rule were
granted authority to conduct activities identified in former Sec. 
50.10(e)(1), commonly referred to as an LWA-1 activities. Under the
final rule, NRC review and approval is not required before applicants
can commence these activities. In practical effect, the final rule
moots the LWA authority granted in the applicable ESPs. Therefore, the
final LWA rule has no applicability to these ESP holders with respect
to their already-complete ESP application

[[Page 57438]]

process. Finally, the ESP holders are free to seek additional authority
under their ESP in accordance with the final LWA rules provisions; in
this respect, the current LWA holders are treated no differently than
future ESP holders who do not seek LWA authority in their initial ESP
application. For these reasons, the NRC concludes that the final LWA
rule does not constitute backfitting.

XIII. Congressional Review Act

    Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined
that this action is not a major rule and has verified this
determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, 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, 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.

10 CFR Part 100

    Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reactor siting criteria.

? 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, 52 and 100.

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. 161b, 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 2.390 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. 91-550, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135).


? 2. In Sec.  2.101, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) introductory text,
(a)(4), and (a)(5) are revised, paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(8) are
reserved, and paragraph (a)(9) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  2.101  Filing of application.

    (a)(1) An application for a limited work authorization (LWA), a
permit, a license, a license transfer, a license amendment, a license
renewal, or a standard design approval, shall be filed with the
Director of New Reactors, 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 limited work authorization, 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 inspection at the NRC Web
site, <A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov">http://www.nrc.gov</A>, and/or at the NRC PDR. 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 Sec.  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 New Reactors, Director of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as
appropriate, determines that a tendered application for a limited work
authorization, 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), (a)(9), 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

[[Page 57439]]

is acceptable for docketing, the applicant will be requested to:
* * * * *
    (4) The tendered application for a limited work authorization,
construction permit, operating license, early site permit, standard
design approval, combined license, or manufacturing license for a
production or utilization facility will be formally docketed upon
receipt by the Director of New Reactors, 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 New Reactors,
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 New Reactors, 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 New
Reactors, 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 New
Reactors, 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.
    (5) An applicant for a construction permit under part 50 of this
chapter or a combined license under part 52 of this chapter for a
production or utilization facility which is subject to Sec.  51.20(b)
of this chapter, and is of the type specified in Sec.  50.21(b)(2) or
(3) or Sec.  50.22 of this chapter or is a testing facility may submit
the information required of applicants by part 50 or part 52 of this
chapter in two parts. One part shall be accompanied by the information
required by Sec.  50.30(f) of this chapter, or Sec.  52.80(b) of this
chapter, as applicable. The other part shall include any information
required by Sec.  50.34(a) and, if applicable, Sec.  50.34a of this
chapter, or Sec. Sec.  52.79 and 52.80(a), as applicable. One part may
precede or follow other parts by no longer than 18 months. If it is
determined that either of the parts as described previously is
incomplete and not acceptable for processing, the Director of New
Reactors, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or Director of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, 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 30 days. Whichever part is filed first shall also
include the fee required by Sec. Sec.  50.30(e) and 170.21 of this
chapter and the information required by Sec. Sec.  50.33, 50.34(a)(1)
or 52.79(a)(1), as applicable, and Sec.  50.37 of this chapter. The
Director of New Reactors, Director Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or
Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate,
will accept for docketing an application for a construction permit
under part 50 of this chapter or a combined license under part 52 of
this chapter for a production or utilization facility which is subject
to Sec.  51.20(b) of this chapter, and is of the type specified in
Sec.  50.21(b)(2) or (3) or Sec.  50.22 of this chapter or is a testing
facility where one part of the application as described previously is
complete and conforms to the requirements of part 50 or part 52 of this
chapter, as applicable. The additional part will be docketed upon a
determination that it is complete, by the Director of New Reactors,
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or Director of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate.
    (6)-(8) [Reserved]
    (9) An applicant for a construction permit for a utilization
facility which is subject to Sec.  51.20(b) of this chapter and is of
the type specified in Sec.  50.21(b)(2) or (b)(3) or Sec.  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 Sec.  50.10(d) of this chapter may submit a complete application
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section which includes
the information required by Sec.  50.10(d) of this chapter.
Alternatively, the applicant (other than an applicant for or holder of
an early site permit) may submit its application in two parts:
    (i) Part one must include the information required by Sec. 
50.33(a) through (f) of this chapter, and the information required by
Sec.  50.10(d)(2) and (d)(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)(5) of this
section, or, for a construction permit applicant, paragraph (a)(1) of
this section. Part two of the application must be submitted no later
than 18 months after submission of part one.
* * * * *

? 3. In Sec.  2.102, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.102  Administrative review of application.

    (a) During review of an application by the NRC staff, an applicant
may be required to supply additional information. The staff may request
any one party to the proceeding to confer with the NRC staff
informally. In the case of docketed application for a limited work
authorization, construction permit, operating license, early site
permit, standard design approval, combined license, or manufacturing
license under this chapter, the NRC staff shall establish a schedule
for its review of the application, specifying the key intermediate
steps from the time of docketing until the completion of its review.
* * * * *

? 4. In Sec.  2.104, paragraph (a) and paragraph (c)(1) are revised to
read as follows:


Sec.  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. The notice
must be published at least 15 days, and in the case of an application
concerning a limited work authorization, construction permit, early
site permit, or combined license for a facility of the type described
in Sec. Sec.  50.21(b) or 50.22 of this chapter or a testing facility,
at least 30 days, before

[[Page 57440]]

the date set for hearing in the notice.\1\ In addition, in the case of
an application for a limited work authorization, construction permit,
early site permit, or combined license for a facility of the type
described in Sec.  50.22 of this chapter, or a testing facility, the
notice must be issued as soon as practicable after the NRC has docketed
the application. If the Commission decides, under Sec.  2.101(a)(2), 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ If the notice of hearing concerning an application for a
limited work authorization, construction permit, early site permit,
or combined license for a facility of the type described in
Sec. Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c)(1) The Secretary will transmit a notice of hearing on an
application for a license for a production or utilization facility,
including a limited work authorization, 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 high-
level waste 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).
* * * * *

? 5. The heading of subpart F is revised to read as follows:

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

? 6. In Sec.  2.600, the introductory text is revised, and a new
paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the type
specified in Sec.  50.21(b)(2) or (3) or Sec.  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 Sec.  51.20(b) of this chapter and is of
the type specified in Sec.  50.21(b)(2) or (3) or Sec.  50.22 of this
chapter, or proceedings for a combined license under part 52 of this
chapter, either of which includes a request to conduct the activities
authorized under Sec.  50.10(d) of part 50 of this chapter in advance
of issuance of the construction permit or combined license, and submits
an application in accordance with Sec.  2.101(a)(9).
* * * * *
    (d) The procedures in Sec. Sec.  2.641 through 2.649 apply to
phased applications for construction permits or combined licenses which
request limited work authorizations to be issued in advance of issuance
of the construction permit or combined license (i.e., a phased
application).

? 7. In Sec.  2.606, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.606  Partial decision on site suitability issues.

    (a) The provisions of Sec. Sec.  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 or combined license may be issued without
completion of the full review required by Section 102(2) of the NEPA,
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 as in the case of a full
decision relating to the issuance of a construction permit or combined
license.
* * * * *

? 8. Following Sec.  2.629, an undesignated center heading and Sec. Sec. 
2.641, 2.643, 2.645, and 2.649 are added and Sec.  2.647 is reserved to
read as follows:

Phased Applications Involving Limited Work Authorizations

Sec.
2.641 Filing fees.
2.643 Acceptance and docketing of application for limited work
authorization.
2.645 Notice of hearing.
2.647 [Reserved]
2.649 Partial decisions on limited work authorization.


Sec.  2.641  Filing fees.

    Each application which contains a request for limited work
authorization under the procedures of Sec.  2.101(a)(9) and this
subpart shall be accompanied by any fee required by Sec.  50.30(e) and
part 170 of this chapter.


Sec.  2.643  Acceptance and docketing of application for limited work
authorization.

    (a) Each part of an application submitted in accordance with Sec. 
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 Sec. 
2.101(a)(9) is incomplete and not acceptable for processing, the
Director of New Reactors or 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 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 Sec.  51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the type
specified in Sec.  50.21(b)(2) or (3) or Sec.  50.22 of this chapter or
an application for a combined license where part one of the application
as described in Sec.  2.101(a)(9) is complete. Part one will not be
considered complete unless it contains the information required by
Sec.  50.10(d)(3) of this chapter. Upon assignment of a docket number,
the procedures in Sec.  2.101(a)(3) and (4) relating to formal
docketing and the submission and distribution of additional copies of
the application must be followed.

[[Page 57441]]

    (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.


Sec.  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
Sec.  2.104, which will be modified to state that the hearing will
relate only to the matters related to Sec.  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
Sec. Sec.  2.101(a)(9) and 2.643(d), a supplementary notice of hearing
will be published under Sec.  2.104 with respect to the remaining
unresolved issues in the proceeding within the scope of Sec.  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 this part, including Sec.  2.309. This
supplementary notice will also provide appropriate opportunities for
participation by a representative of an interested State under Sec. 
2.315(c) and for limited appearances under Sec.  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 this part, including Sec.  2.309, provided, however, that
the petition need not address Sec.  2.309(d). However, a person who was
granted discretionary intervention under Sec.  2.309(e) must address in
its petition the factors in Sec.  2.309(e) as they apply to the
supplementary hearing.
    (d) A party who files a non-timely petition for intervention under
paragraph (b) 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 Sec. Sec. 
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 under the supplemental notice of hearing will be the
same as the membership or individual designated to preside in the
initial notice of hearing.


Sec.  2.647  [Reserved]


Sec.  2.649  Partial decisions on limited work authorization.

    The provisions of Sec. Sec.  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(d) 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 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

? 9. 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).


? 10. Section 50.10 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  50.10  License required; limited work authorization.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section, construction means the
activities in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and does not mean the
activities in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) Activities constituting construction are the driving of piles,
subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent
retaining walls within an excavation, installation of foundations, or
in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing, which are for:
    (i) Safety-related structures, systems, or components (SSCs) of a
facility, as defined in 10 CFR 50.2;
    (ii) SSCs relied upon to mitigate accidents or transients or used
in plant emergency operating procedures;
    (iii) SSCs whose failure could prevent safety-related SSCs from
fulfilling their safety-related function;
    (iv) SSCs whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of
a safety-related system;

[[Page 57442]]

    (v) SSCs necessary to comply with 10 CFR part 73;
    (vi) SSCs necessary to comply with 10 CFR 50.48 and criterion 3 of
10 CFR part 50, appendix A; and
    (vii) Onsite emergency facilities, that is, technical support and
operations support centers, necessary to comply with 10 CFR 50.47 and
10 CFR part 50, appendix E.
    (2) Construction does not include:
    (i) Changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational
purposes;
    (ii) 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;
    (iii) Preparation of a 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;
    (iv) Erection of fences and other access control measures;
    (v) Excavation;
    (vi) Erection of support buildings (such as, construction equipment
storage sheds, warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, concrete
mixing plants, docking and unloading facilities, and office buildings)
for use in connection with the construction of the facility;
    (vii) Building of service facilities, such as paved roads, parking
lots, railroad spurs, exterior utility and lighting systems, potable
water systems, sanitary sewerage treatment facilities, and transmission
lines;
    (viii) Procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the
proposed facility occurring at other than the final, in-place location
at the facility;
    (ix) Manufacture of a nuclear power reactor under a manufacturing
license under subpart F of part 52 of this chapter to be installed at
the proposed site and to be part of the proposed facility; or
    (x) With respect to production or utilization facilities, other
than testing facilities and nuclear power plants, required to be
licensed under Section 104.a or Section 104.c of the Act, the erection
of buildings which will be used for activities other than operation of
a facility and which may also be used to house a facility (e.g., the
construction of a college laboratory building with space for
installation of a training reactor).
    (b) Requirement for license. Except as provided in Sec.  50.11 of
this chapter, 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.
    (c) Requirement for construction permit, early site permit
authorizing limited work authorization activities, 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, a combined license under part 52 of this
chapter, an early site permit authorizing the activities under
paragraph (d) of this section, or a limited work authorization under
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (d) Request for limited work authorization. (1) Any person to whom
the Commission may otherwise issue either a license or permit under
Sections 103, 104.b, or 185 of the Act for a facility of the type
specified in Sec. Sec.  50.21(b)(2), (b)(3), or 50.22 of this chapter,
or a testing facility, may request a limited work authorization
allowing that person to perform the driving of piles, subsurface
preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining
walls within an excavation, installation of the foundation, including
placement of concrete, any of which are for an SSC of the facility for
which either a construction permit or combined license is otherwise
required under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (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
(a)(5), 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
(a)(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 of this chapter, 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 technically-
relevant 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 Sec.  51.49 of this
chapter; and
    (iii) A plan for redress of activities performed under the limited
work authorization, should limited work activities be terminated by the
holder or the limited work authorization be revoked by the NRC, or upon
effectiveness of the Commission's final decision denying the associated
construction permit or combined license application, as applicable.
    (e) Issuance of limited work authorization. (1) The Director of New
Reactors or the Director 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 Sec.  51.105(c) or
Sec.  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. 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.
    (f) 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
(e)(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 issued under the Act. The environmental impact
statement for a

[[Page 57443]]

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).
    (g) 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 limited work authorization is revoked by
the NRC, then the holder must begin implementation of the redress plan
in a reasonable time. The holder must also complete the redress of the
site no later than 18 months after termination of construction,
revocation of the limited work authorization, or upon effectiveness of
the Commission's final decision denying the associated construction
permit application or the underlying combined license application, as
applicable.

PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC
LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

? 11. 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)).


? 12. In Sec.  51.4, a new definition of ``construction'' is added to
read as follows:


Sec.  51.4  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Construction means the activities in paragraph (1) of this
definition, and does not mean the activities in paragraph (2) of this
definition.
    (1) Activities constituting construction are the driving of piles,
subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent
retaining walls within an excavation, installation of foundations, or
in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing, which are for:
    (i) Safety-related structures, systems, or components (SSCs) of a
facility, as defined in 10 CFR 50.2;
    (ii) SSCs relied upon to mitigate accidents or transients or used
in plant emergency operating procedures;
    (iii) SSCs whose failure could prevent safety-related SSCs from
fulfilling their safety-related function;
    (iv) SSCs whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of
a safety-related system;
    (v) SSCs necessary to comply with 10 CFR part 73;
    (vi) SSCs necessary to comply with 10 CFR 50.48 and criterion 3 of
10 CFR part 50, appendix A; and
    (vii) Onsite emergency facilities (i.e., technical support and
operations support centers), necessary to comply with 10 CFR 50.47 and
10 CFR part 50, appendix E.
    (2) Construction does not include:
    (i) Changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational
purposes;
    (ii) 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;
    (iii) Preparation of a 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;
    (iv) Erection of fences and other access control measures;
    (v) Excavation;
    (vi) Erection of support buildings (such as, construction equipment
storage sheds, warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, concrete
mixing plants, docking and unloading facilities, and office buildings)
for use in connection with the construction of the facility;
    (vii) Building of service facilities, such as paved roads, parking
lots, railroad spurs, exterior utility and lighting systems, potable
water systems, sanitary sewerage treatment facilities, transmission
lines;
    (viii) Procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the
proposed facility occurring at other than the final, in-place location
at the facility;
    (ix) Manufacture of a nuclear power reactor under a manufacturing
license under subpart F of part 52 of this chapter to be installed at
the proposed site and to be part of the proposed facility; or
    (x) With respect to production or utilization facilities, other
than testing facilities and nuclear power plants, required to be
licensed under Section 104.a or Section 104.c of the Act, the erection
of buildings which will be used for activities other than operation of
a facility and which may also be used to house a facility (e.g., the
construction of a college laboratory building with space for
installation of a training reactor).
* * * * *

? 13. In Sec.  51.17, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  51.17  Information collection requirements; OMB approval.

* * * * *
    (b) The approved information collection requirements in this part
appear in Sec. Sec.  51.6, 51.16, 51.41, 51.45, 51.49, 51.50, 51.51,
51.52, 51.53, 51.54, 51.55, 51.58, 51.60, 51.61, 51.62, 51.66, 51.68,
and 51.69.

? 14. In Sec.  51.45, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  51.45  Environmental report.

* * * * *
    (c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis
that considers and balances 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. An environmental report prepared at the early
site permit stage under Sec.  51.50(b), construction permit stage under
Sec.  51.50(a), or combined license stage under Sec.  51.50(c) must
include a description of impacts of the preconstruction activities
performed by the applicant (i.e., those activities listed in paragraph
(b)(1) through (b)(8) in the definition of construction contained in
Sec.  51.4) necessary to support the construction and operation of the
facility which is the subject of the limited work authorization,
construction permit, or combined license application. The environmental
report must also contain an analysis of the cumulative impacts of the
activities to be authorized by the limited work authorization,
construction permit, or combined license in light of the
preconstruction impacts described in the environmental report. Except
for an environmental report prepared at the early site permit stage, or
an environmental report prepared at the

[[Page 57444]]

license renewal stage under Sec.  51.53(c), the analysis in the
environmental report should also include consideration of the economic,
technical, and other benefits and costs of the proposed action and its
alternatives. Environmental reports prepared at the license renewal
stage under Sec.  51.53(c) need not discuss the economic or technical
benefits and costs of either the proposed action or alternatives except
if these 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, environmental
reports prepared under Sec.  51.53(c) need not discuss issues not
related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and its
alternatives. The analyses for environmental reports shall, 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, those considerations or factors
shall be discussed in qualitative terms. The environmental report
should contain sufficient data to aid the Commission in its development
of an independent analysis.
* * * * *

? 15. A new Sec.  51.49 is added under the heading Environmental Reports-
Production and Utilization Facilities to read as follows:


Sec.  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
a construction permit or combined license applying for a limited work
authorization under Sec.  50.10(d) of this chapter in a complete
application under 10 CFR 2.101(a)(1) through (a)(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 Sec.  51.50 of this
part. Each environmental 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 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 Sec. 
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. 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 Sec. 
51.50, as applicable.
    (c) Limited work authorization submitted as part of an early site
permit application. Each applicant for an early site permit under
subpart A of part 52 of this chapter requesting a limited work
authorization shall submit with its application the environmental
report required by Sec.  51.50(b). Each environmental report 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 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 requesting a limited
work authorization shall submit with its application a document
entitled, ``Applicant's Environmental Report--Limited Work
Authorization under Early Site Permit,'' 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 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) Any new and significant information for issues related to the
impacts of construction of the facility that were resolved in the early
site permit proceeding with respect to the environmental impacts of the
activities to be conducted under the limited work authorization.
    (5) A description of the process used to identify new and
significant information regarding NRC's conclusions in the early site
permit environmental impact statement. The process must be a reasonable
methodology for identifying this new and significant information.
    (e) Limited work authorization for a site where an environmental
impact statement was prepared, but the facility construction was not
completed. 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 incorporate by reference the earlier
environmental impact statement. In the event of such referencing, the
environmental report must identify:
    (1) Any new and significant information material to issues related
to the impacts of construction of the facility that were resolved in
the construction permit proceeding for the matters required to be
addressed in paragraph (a) of this section; and
    (2) A description of the process used to identify new and
significant information regarding the NRC's conclusions in the
construction permit environmental impact statement. The process must
use a reasonable methodology for identifying this new and significant
information.
    (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
Sec.  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

[[Page 57445]]

discusses the overall costs and benefits balancing for the proposed
action.

? 16. In Sec.  51.71, paragraph (e) is redesignated as paragraph (f), and
a new paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  51.71  Draft environmental impact statement--contents.

* * * * *
    (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.
* * * * *

? 17. Section 51.76 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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. The analysis
called for by Sec.  51.71(d) must 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 Sec.  51.75(a) or (c), as applicable.
    (b) Phased application for limited work authorization under Sec. 
2.101(a)(9) of this chapter. If the application for a limited work
authorization is submitted in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec. 
51.50(a) or (c), then a draft environmental impact statement must be
prepared in accordance with Sec.  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, 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 Sec.  51.72. No updating of the
information contained in the final environmental impact 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 Sec.  51.75(b). However, the analysis called for by Sec.  51.71(d)
must also address the activities proposed to be conducted under the
limited work authorization.
    (d) Limited work authorization request submitted by an 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 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 new and significant information identified with respect to
issues related to the impacts of construction of the facility that were
resolved in the early site permit proceeding 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 impact statement prepared for the
early site permit is required.
    (e) Limited work authorization for a site where an environmental
impact statement was prepared, but the facility construction was not
completed. 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 not completed, then the draft
environmental impact statement shall incorporate by reference the
earlier environmental impact statement. The draft environmental impact
statement must 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, so that the conclusion of the referenced
environmental impact statement on the impacts of construction would,
when analyzed in accordance with Sec.  51.71, lead to the conclusion
that the limited work authorization should not be issued or should be
issued with appropriate conditions.
    (f) Draft environmental impact statement. 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
Sec.  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 Sec.  51.71, and
Sec.  51.75(a) or (c), as applicable.

? 18. In Sec.  51.103, a new paragraph (a)(6) is added to read as
follows:


Sec.  51.103  Record of decision--general.

    (a) * * *
    (6) In a construction permit or a 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.
* * * * *

? 19. In Sec.  51.104, a new paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  51.104  NRC proceeding using public hearings; consideration of
environmental impact statement.

* * * * *

[[Page 57446]]

    (c) 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 all matters in
controversy among the parties.

? 20. The heading of Sec.  51.105 is revised, and a new paragraph (c) is
added to read as follows:


Sec.  51.105  Public hearings in proceedings for issuance of
construction permits or early site permits; limited work
authorizations.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) In addition to complying with the applicable provisions of
Sec.  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 Sec.  50.10(d) 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) Determine whether the redress plan will adequately redress
the activities performed under the limited work authorization, should
limited work activities be terminated by the holder or the limited work
authorization be revoked by the NRC, or upon effectiveness of the
Commission's final decision denying the associated construction permit
or early site permit, as applicable;
    (iv) In an uncontested proceeding, determine whether the NEPA
review conducted by the NRC staff for the limited work authorization
has been adequate; and
    (v) 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, new and significant 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.

? 21. In Sec.  51.107, the heading is revised, and a new paragraph (d) is
added to read as follows:


Sec.  51.107  Public hearings in proceedings for issuance of combined
licenses; limited work authorizations.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) In any proceeding for the issuance of a combined license
where the applicant requests a limited work authorization under Sec. 
50.10(d) of this chapter, the presiding officer, in addition to
complying with any applicable provision of Sec.  51.104, shall:
    (i) Determine whether the requirements of Section 102(2)(A), (C),
and (E) of NEPA and the regulations in this 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) Determine whether the redress plan will adequately redress
the activities performed under the limited work authorization, should
limited work activities be terminated by the holder or the limited work
authorization be revoked by the NRC, or upon effectiveness of the
Commission's final decision denying the combined license application;
    (iv) In an uncontested proceeding, determine whether the NEPA
review conducted by the NRC staff for the limited work authorization
has been adequate; and
    (v) 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 Director of New Reactors or the
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as applicable.
    (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, new and significant information
on the environmental impacts of those activities, so that the limited
work authorization should not be issued as proposed by the Director of
New Reactors or the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as
applicable.
    (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--LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS FOR NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS

? 22. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat.
444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2235, 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).


? 23. In Sec.  52.1(a), the definition for ``Limited work authorization''
is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1  Definitions.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 57447]]

    Limited work authorization means the authorization provided by the
Director of New Reactors or the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
under Sec.  50.10 of this chapter.
* * * * *

? 24. In Sec.  52.17, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  52.17  Contents of applications; technical information.

* * * * *
    (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)(3). Applications submitted before, and pending as of
November 8, 2007, must include the information required by Sec. 
52.17(c) effective on the date of docketing.

? 25. In Sec.  52.24, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  52.24  Issuance of early site permit.

* * * * *
    (c) The early site permit shall specify those 10 CFR 50.10
activities requested under Sec.  52.17(c) that the permit holder is
authorized to perform.

? 26. Section 52.27 is redesignated as Sec.  52.26, and a new Sec.  52.27
is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.27  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 Sec.  50.10 of this chapter.

? 27. In Sec.  52.80, paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised to read as
follows:


Sec.  52.80  Contents of applications; additional technical
information.

* * * * *
    (b) An environmental report, either 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 Sec. Sec.  51.49 and 51.50(c) of this chapter if a
limited work authorization is requested in conjunction with the
combined license application.
    (c) If the applicant wishes to request that a limited work
authorization under 10 CFR 50.10 be issued before 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 (a)(4), or 10 CFR 2.101(a)(9).

? 28. Section 52.91 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  52.91  Authorization to conduct limited work authorization
activities.

    (a) If the application does not reference an early site permit
which authorizes the holder to perform the activities under 10 CFR
50.10(d), the applicant may not perform those activities without
obtaining the separate authorization required by 10 CFR 50.10(d).
Authorization may be granted only after the presiding officer in the
proceeding on the application has made the findings and determination
required by 10 CFR 50.10(e), and the Director of New Reactors or the
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation makes the determination required
by 10 CFR 50.10(e).
    (b) If, after an applicant has performed the activities permitted
by paragraph (a) of this section, the application for the combined
license is withdrawn or denied, then the applicant shall implement the
approved site redress plan.

? 29. In Sec.  52.99, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  52.99  Inspection during construction.

    (a) The licensee shall submit to the NRC, no later that 1 year
after issuance of the combined license or at the start of construction
as defined in 10 CFR 50.10(a), whichever is later, its schedule for
completing the inspections, tests, or analyses in the ITAAC. The
licensee shall submit updates to the ITAAC schedules every 6 months
thereafter and, within 1 year of its scheduled date for initial loading
of fuel, the licensee shall submit updates to the ITAAC schedule every
30 days until the final notification is provided to the NRC under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
* * * * *

PART 100--REACTOR SITE CRITERIA

? 30. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948,
953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232); 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).


? 31. In Sec.  100.23, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  100.23  Geologic and seismic siting criteria.

* * * * *
    (b) Commencement of construction. The investigations required in
paragraph (c) of this section are not considered ``construction'' as
defined in 10 CFR 50.10(a).
* * * * *

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of September 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7-19312 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

------------------------------------------

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/

------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-485116N@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.

For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
 3 BBC NEWS: Veto for nuclear power stations

Last Updated: Tuesday, 9 October 2007, 20:04 GMT 21:04 UK

The Scottish Government rejected any new nuclear power stations

Ministers have formally rejected new nuclear power stations 
saying they were dangerous and unnecessary.

Energy Minister Jim Mather said the billions of pounds earmarked 
for nuclear power could be used on renewable technologies.

The Scottish Government was responding to the UK Government's 
consultation on nuclear power.

The Scottish Government said renewable energy generation produced 
less carbon emissions than nuclear power and that the costs of 
new nuclear power stations were likely to be significantly higher 
than UK Government estimates.

Scotland already has the skills and leadership to pursue a clean, 
low carbon approach

Energy Minister Jim Mather

Mr Mather said: "We completely reject the development of dangerous,
unnecessary and costly new nuclear power stations in Scotland.

"We already have clean, green and reliable alternatives. Scotland
has massive renewables potential, as well as significant
opportunities for clean fossil-fuel technologies and carbon storage.

"Harnessing that potential can meet our future energy demands
several times over, while tackling climate change.

"Scotland already has the skills and leadership to pursue a clean,
low carbon approach. A vibrant and growing energy sector will make a
significant contribution to Scotland's prosperity through investment
and jobs."

'Rational consideration'

David Cairns, Minister of State at the Scotland Office, said: "The
facts on nuclear power are crystal clear: the UK currently gets
around 18% of its electricity from nuclear power and this figure is
nearer 40% in Scotland from this low-emission and reliable power
source.

"The UK Government is currently consulting on the part nuclear power
has to play in our future energy mix and will make its decision
known in the coming months.

"This is definitively not short-sightedness on the government's part
but entirely the opposite.

"It is a rational consideration of all our future energy options -
including the significant contribution of renewables - designed to
create a balanced and secure energy policy for the future."

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 4 toledoblade.com: Fermi 2 likely to finish refueling next month

Article published Tuesday, October 9, 2007

MONROE COUNTY REACTOR

Fermi 2 isn't steaming like this as tests, inspections, and
maintenance tasks are done.

( ASSOCIATED PRESS )

By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER

NEWPORT, Mich. - Now in the 11th day of a planned outage that 
could last six weeks, the Fermi 2 nuclear plant in northern 
Monroe County should be back online in early November.

The plant is owned and operated by Detroit Edison Co., a 
subsidiary of DTE Energy.

John Austerberry, a DTE spokesman, said a third of the reactor 
core is being refueled.

This is the plant's 12th refueling outage since it went online in 
1988. Nuclear plants are refueled once every 18 to 24 months 
depending on the grade of uranium in their fuel rods.

The outages are no vacation. To the contrary, work is stepped up 
because utilities have a limited window of time to perform tasks 
they can't do when the plant is in operation.

About 2,300 tests, inspections, and maintenance activities are 
being done. DTE is bringing in 1,400 contractors to assist Fermi 
2's regular work force of 900 employees, Mr. Austerberry said.

"We're pretty much on schedule so far," he said.

The three biggest projects:

•Upgrading the plant's three low-pressure turbines. That will 
include new diaphragms for each. The diaphragms are stationary 
internal structures that direct the flow of steam within the 
turbine housing.

•Overhauling one of two coolant-recirculation pump motors. Such 
motors drive the devices that move coolant through the reactor 
core.

The 7,500-horsepower motor weighs 40,000 pounds and is 10 feet 
tall. It will be refurbished off-site and be reinstalled before 
the plant resumes operation.

"This is scheduled preventive maintenance," Mr. Austerberry said.

•Replacing pumps and motors on both divisions of the emergency 
equipment cooling water system.

Fermi 2 has been offline since 4 a.m. Sept. 29. That ended a 
425-day streak of continuous operation for it, a record for that 
plant. The old record was 338 days, Mr. Austerberry said.

The plant is licensed to operate through March 20, 2025, 
according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Like other utilities, DTE is expected to apply for a 20-year 
license extension a few years before Fermi 2's existing license 
expires.

Fermi 2 is one of America's 104 nuclear plants.

NRC records show 70, including FirstEnergy Corp's Davis-Besse 
nuclear plant in Ottawa County, have pressurized water reactors. 
Fermi 2 is one of 34 with boiling water reactors that operate at 
lower temperature and pressure than their design counterpart.

Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.

 © 2007 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of
our privacy statement and our visitor agreement. Please read them.
The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 ,
(419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
 5 Oshkosh Northwestern; Kewaunee Power Station nuclear plant shut down for maintenance

Posted October 9, 2007

Kewaunee Power Station nuclear plant was shut down Thursday for 
scheduled maintenance, according to owner Dominion Resources Inc.

Kewaunee spokesman Mark Kanz said work is being done on hydrogen 
coolers on the main generator.

"We are taking the opportunity to do some other maintenance as 
well," he said.

Wisconsin Public Service Corp. is contracted to purchase Kewaunee 
Power Station's electricity and Dominion continues to provide 
power to the Green Bay-based utility, Kanz said.

He did not say when the 556-megawatt plant was expected to resume 
operation, citing competitive reasons.

— Richard Ryman/Press-Gazette


Contact us at 920-235-7700.        thenorthwestern.com is a 
Gannett Company website. Use of this site signifies your 
agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, updated 
April 11, 2007.

*****************************************************************
 6 Rutland Herald: Lack of leadership on Yankee 

October 9, 2007

Headlines in the Oct. 5 Rutland Herald, "Douglas assails plan to
regulate Yankee." He talks out of both sides of his mouth. He tries
to control the tire burn at International Paper, but he is not
concerned about the operation of Vermont Yankee where there was a
cooling tower collapse, a bearing froze up because of the lack of
grease, and they are storing nuclear waste above ground with no idea
of when if ever it will be removed. This is very toxic material. The
plant is near the end of its useful life, and it is allowed to
increase its power by 20 percent. With all this going on why should
we have any confidence in decisions made by the overseeing federal
agency? In that same issue of the Herald I noticed an article
stating public opinion of Congress has fallen to a new low.

I am very concerned about the lack of leadership both in Washington
and Montpelier. I find many people that feel as I do. This great
nation is in serious trouble.

FRED THURLOW

Wallingford

   © 2007 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 7 Rutland Herald: State nuclear expert OK with Vermont Yankee critics

October 9, 2007

By DAVE GRAM The Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Critics of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant routinely
call for an "independent safety assessment" of the sort that led to
the closing of the Maine Yankee plant in 1997. But Vermont's new
point man on nuclear power, a veteran of the Maine Yankee wars, is
cool to the idea.

"Without a doubt, if I compare Vermont Yankee to when Maine Yankee
was running into trouble, there's no comparison. Vermont Yankee is
not experiencing the mechanical difficulties that Maine Yankee was,"
said Uldis Vanags. Vanags joined the Department of Public Service in
August, replacing William Sherman, who retired earlier this year.

But he doesn't mind critics like the New England Coalition and
Citizens Action Network staying on the case.

"They bring up issues that you may not have looked at," he said. "I
don't have a problem with people bringing up issues, even opposing
the plant. If you had it the other way, if nobody opposed, that
would not be good. You've got to have this check and balance."

Vanags, 53, was born of Latvian immigrant parents in New York's
Hudson Valley, graduated high school there and played bass in a rock
band for three years before following his parents when they moved to
Maine. He enrolled at the University of Maine in Orono, where he
majored in physics.

He later got a master's degree in health physics specializing in
radiation protection at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

He has spent the bulk of his career working for the state of Maine,
for 12 years as nuclear safety adviser to the governor and
Legislature, for a shorter period for Maine Yankee as it was being
decommissioned and later back in government as a senior policy
analyst on a broad range of energy issues.

Vanags said he decided to apply for the $84,000-a-year job in
Vermont after hearing of Sherman's retirement, because he wanted to
narrow his focus to nuclear energy again.

"I really wanted to get back to the nuclear field," he said. "It's
what I enjoy most."

His first weeks on the new job have been busy ones. He started Aug.
20. The next day, a cooling tower collapsed at Vermont Yankee, with
critics immediately seizing on the pile of rubble as evidence the
plant's license should not get the 20-year extension owner Entergy
Nuclear is seeking.

Just nine days later, on Aug. 30, technicians working to repair a
stuck steam valve triggered an automatic shutdown at the plant.

Vanags said the twin problems put the plant under a cloud.

"They need to communicate more about what they're doing at the
plant, to assure people that they're operating safely, that they're
operating correctly. … They need to instill confidence in people,"
he said.

As he represents the state on Vermont Yankee matters, Vanags will be
dealing with an old adversary. The New England Coalition's technical
adviser, Raymond Shadis, lives in Maine and was a leader in the
effort to shut down that state's lone reactor.

"I consider Ray a friend of mine. He's a great guy and I really like
him," Vanags said.

The often acerbic Shadis returned the compliment, but not without a
fishing tackle box full of barbs thrown in. He criticized Vanags for
saying shortly after the cooling tower collapse that it did not
appear related to the 20 percent increase in power output Vermont
Yankee implemented last year.

Noting that Vanags' degrees are in physics and health physics and
not in engineering, Shadis said, "Uldis is a nice guy, but he is no
one to make any pronouncements about the structural integrity of the
cooling tower. … My sense of it is, on his first day on the job, he
was essentially acting as an apologist for VY."

For his part, Vanags said he would be vigorous in representing the
public's interest — including safety — as he keeps tabs on Vermont
Yankee.

"I will be out there looking at everything," he said.

   © 2007 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 8 The Hindu: It's not a question of sink or sail: Congress

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 : 2200 Hrs

New Delhi (PTI): The Congress on Tuesday downplayed the Left's
threat to Government on the nuclear issue, saying the Indo-US nuke
deal was not a matter of saving or destroying the party-led
coalition.

"It is not a question of sink or sail. Where is the question of
sacrificing the government. A happy solution will come out and that
is the desire of both the parties," AICC Media Department Chairman
Veerappa Moily told reporters here.

Noting that Tuesday's meeting of the UPA-Left was a "healthy
meeting", he said, "when there is a meeting, there is a meeting
ground and you can't call it a deadlock".

At the same time, he refuted the Left's charge that the deal was a
surrender of national interests to the US.

Quoting English poet T S Elliot, Moily, who is himself a
litterateur, said, "there is a shadow between idea and reality and
the shadow has to be removed by the Left and the UPA".

He said the meeting between the Left leaders and UPA Chairperson
Sonia Gandhi on Monday indicated that efforts are on to find a
solution through formal and informal means.

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the
*****************************************************************
 9 The Herald: Scottish minister calls on Govt to drop plans

Web Issue 2961 October 10 2007   
  
The Government was today urged by a Scottish minister to drop 
"short-sighted" plans for new nuclear power stations.

The call came at a conference where Energy Minister Malcolm 
Wickes announced the go-ahead for a big wind energy scheme in 
Devon and told of moves to speed up the planning process for 
green power developments.

The call from his Scottish ministerial counterpart, Jim Mather, 
came the day before the close of a consultation exercise on 
nuclear power.

Mr Mather told the wind energy industry annual conference in Glasgow
that supporters of nuclear power argued it was needed to meet energy
needs and a reduction in emissions.

"We feel those claims are desperate and hollow, particularly in the
Scottish context," said Mr Mather.

"Scotland has vast resources of renewable energy - enough to meet
our demands for power several times over."

There was also "tremendous opportunity" to invest in clean fossil
fuel technology.

"Let me be absolutely clear - the (Scottish) Government completely
rejects the development of dangerous, unnecessary and costly new
nuclear power stations in Scotland.

"And I call on the UK Government to abandon its short-sighted plans
to support an expansion in nuclear capacity and instead to focus its
energies on providing the investment in new renewable technologies
that have the long-term promise that we know can be delivered."

Mr Wickes addressed the conference earlier, and was not in the
auditorium to hear Mr Mather's call.

The Energy Minister told the British Wind Energy Association
conference a decision on nuclear would be taken before the end of
the year.

"We are finishing a consultation on nuclear - a difficult, complex
and still controversial issue," he said.

"The Government will make its own judgment on that before Christmas."

He also confirmed that he was giving the green light to the
Fullabrook Down wind energy scheme planned for North Devon.

When fully operational, the 66-megawatt, 22-turbine scheme will
generate enough power for 30,000 domestic customers, or 30% of North
Devon's total energy consumption.

But the scheme has generated fierce controversy.

North Devon Council and rural campaigners were opposed to the scheme
near an area of "outstanding natural beauty".

Mr Wicks said this was the biggest wind farm in Devon and a
"significant" contribution to Britain's renewable target.

And he said achieving planning reforms would be key in Britain
achieving its goals for green energy.

"For the long term, we are proposing a new infrastructure planning
commission will take planning decisions on nationally-significant
infrastructure projects, including large-scale renewables," he said.

He went on: "We recognise that change is also needed in planning
systems for renewables in the short term, to deliver quicker
decisions including prioritising wind farm appeals, training
planners on renewable energy, and further work for the Government
and the industry to improve scheme application and quality.

"There will be new guidance in the forthcoming climate change policy
planning statement.

"It is expected that this will contain a requirement on local
authorities to consider renewables applications favourably, and not
simply use an argument that projects might be located elsewhere."

© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without

Posted by: Im not really here, VOTE SNP FOR A NUCLEAR FREE SCOTLAND
on 1:56pm Tue 9 Oct 07

Lets not be nationalistic about this one. The federal government of
the UK should be told to drop ALL nuclear plans to build plans
anywhere in the UK. Mather is right. Scotland already exports
electricity to England. We have the potential to invest and develop
Wind, Tidal, Wave, Solar and Hydro-power - all of which is under
funded, and none of which needs tens of millions of funds to clean
up nuclear spills after them.

Lets not be nationalistic about this one. The federal government of
the UK should be told to drop ALL nuclear plans to build plans
anywhere in the UK.

Mather is right. Scotland already exports electricity to England. We
have the potential to invest and develop Wind, Tidal, Wave, Solar
and Hydro-power - all of which is under funded, and none of which
needs tens of millions of funds to clean up nuclear spills after
them.

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Stevie, Bo'ness on 2:47pm Tue 9 Oct 07

Well said.

Well said.

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Doug, Dundee on 3:31pm Tue 9 Oct 07

I feel quite strongly that nuclear has been blown out of all
proportion as an unsafe alternative (no pun intended). I am also a
firm proponent of renewable sources of power, but at the moment
there is no renewable source technology that is capable of producing
the power we currently require (although that is different to what
we actually [italic]need[/italic]). This leads me to two options: 1)
We change our culture to stop using such a large amount of energy
and survive on that produced by current renewable technologies - a
nice thought, but a trip to any high street shows the hard sell from
enegy hungry appliances; or 2) We continue to develop renewable
technologies to get them up to scratch and in the meantime use
nuclear to plug the energy gap. I hate to be cynical, but 1 is not
in our sights. I would like to suggest that we should be building
new nuclear power stations, and fast. Time is running out and all of
this procrastination is just loosing time. I would even like to
suggest that Scotland should be leading the way, and building these
first. Sadly, the Scottish Government doesn't seem to think that
this will be a possibility

I feel quite strongly that nuclear has been blown out of all
proportion as an unsafe alternative (no pun intended). I am also a
firm proponent of renewable sources of power, but at the moment
there is no renewable source technology that is capable of producing
the power we currently require (although that is different to what
we actually need).

This leads me to two options: 1) We change our culture to stop using
such a large amount of energy and survive on that produced by
current renewable technologies - a nice thought, but a trip to any
high street shows the hard sell from enegy hungry appliances; or 2)
We continue to develop renewable technologies to get them up to
scratch and in the meantime use nuclear to plug the energy gap.

I hate to be cynical, but 1 is not in our sights. I would like to
suggest that we should be building new nuclear power stations, and
fast. Time is running out and all of this procrastination is just
loosing time. I would even like to suggest that Scotland should be
leading the way, and building these first. Sadly, the Scottish
Government doesn't seem to think that this will be a possibility

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Grow - or go! on 3:44pm Tue 9 Oct 07

[quote]Scotland has vast resources of renewable energy[/quote] YES,
and that's the WIND. The biggest challenge we face today, as a
species, as a nation, as participants in whatever organisations we
are part of, is growing into the next dimension of human life. We
are being summoned by the forces of conatus to adopt - which means
to grow - in order to reach the higher levels of human existance
required by changing conditions to SURVIVE. Those who do not answer
this summons are doomed. GROW - or go!

Scotland has vast resources of renewable energy

YES, and that's the WIND.

The biggest challenge we face today, as a species, as a nation, as
participants in whatever organisations we are part of, is growing
into the next dimension of human life.

We are being summoned by the forces of conatus to adopt - which
means to grow - in order to reach the higher levels of human
existance required by changing conditions to SURVIVE. Those who do
not answer this summons are doomed.

GROW - or go!

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Margaret Lyons on 6:12pm Tue 9 Oct 07

What this means is that there is going to have to be a much bigger
connector built between England and Scotland in ten years time when
our current electricity generation is all retired. 2mws is not
nearly enough - we will need 5mws of English nuclear generation to
survive.

What this means is that there is going to have to be a much bigger
connector built between England and Scotland in ten years time when
our current electricity generation is all retired. 2mws is not
nearly enough - we will need 5mws of English nuclear generation to
survive.

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Nature's Rule, of Survival on 7:22pm Tue 9 Oct 07

Ageless Marketing [bold]Nature's rule of survival[/bold]:
[italic]grow or go[/italic] - The future is disorder (chaos???) - A
door like this has cracked open - five or six times - Since we got
up on our hind legs - It's the best possible time - to be ALIVE -
When almost everything - you thought you knew - is wrong do you like
it?

Ageless Marketing
Nature's rule of survival: grow or go

- The future is disorder (chaos???)
- A door like this has cracked open
- five or six times
- Since we got up on our hind legs
- It's the best possible time
- to be ALIVE
- When almost everything
- you thought you knew
- is wrong

do you like it?

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Oscar on 10:26pm Tue 9 Oct 07

Can any of the pro nuclear dependence junkies tell me where they are
going to get the uranium for the next generation of nuclear power
stations? My reason for asking is quite simple, according to the New
Scientist (26 May 2007) at todays rate of use Uranium deposits will
be exhausted in 59 years time. What will the 30 US stations, 10 UK
and countless others; China, Russia, EU, Pakistan, India, Libya and
Iran run on?

Can any of the pro nuclear dependence junkies tell me where they are
going to get the uranium for the next generation of nuclear power
stations?

My reason for asking is quite simple, according to the New Scientist
(26 May 2007) at todays rate of use Uranium deposits will be
exhausted in 59 years time.

What will the 30 US stations, 10 UK and countless others; China,
Russia, EU, Pakistan, India, Libya and Iran run on?

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 11:12pm Tue 9 Oct 07

[quote]The [bold]Government[/bold] was today urged by a Scottish
minister[/quote] Which government? The Scottish Government or THE
Government?

The Government was today urged by a Scottish minister
Which government? The Scottish Government or THE Government?

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Aelle, Airborne on 11:49pm Tue 9 Oct 07

How safe is wind energy? [bold]Wind energy is one of the safest
energy technologies[/bold]. No member of the public has ever been
injured by wind energy or wind turbines anywhere in the world. More
on the subject tomorrow. @};-

How safe is wind energy?

Wind energy is one of the safest energy technologies.
No member of the public has ever been injured by wind energy or wind
turbines anywhere in the world.
More on the subject tomorrow.
@};-

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: The Lord High Catheter on 11:54pm Tue 9 Oct 07

GROW - or go! said [italic]"We are being summoned [bold]by the
forces of conatus[/bold] to adopt - which means to grow - in order
to reach the higher levels of human existance..."[/italic] Herbert -
we warned you never to refer to the dread forces of C******. Now we
we will come for your precious bodily essences.

GROW - or go! said "We are being summoned by the forces of conatus
to adopt - which means to grow - in order to reach the higher levels
of human existance..."

Herbert - we warned you never to refer to the dread forces of
C******. Now we we will come for your precious bodily essences.



Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Rembrandt, De Nachtwacht on 12:20am today

The SPOOK of the Opera roams at midnight around by the Herald . . .
. . . where's my flashlight, Saskia?

The SPOOK of the Opera roams at midnight around by the Herald . . .
. . . where's my flashlight, Saskia?

Quote | Report this post


                           Add your comment
                                Name: 
                              Email: * 
                              Location: 
                                 ** 


                                   
                             e.g. 123-123
                               Comment:



Please note: All HTML tags will be ignored.

Format Text:





By posting a comment, I confirm that I have read and agree to the
terms of use. Comments are not moderated but we will react if
anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention and we may
delete inappropriate postings. Please treat other people with
respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent,
unlawful or defamatory. Remember, you are personally liable for what
you post on this site. If you wish to complain about a comment,
contact us here.




* Your email address will not be displayed
** To avoid register now or login








  
 IN YOUR AREA
Weather
- please select - Aberdeen Aviemore Campbeltown Dumfries Dunbar
Dundee Edinburgh Falkirk Fort William Glasgow Hawick Inverness
Kilmarnock Kirkwall Lerwick Oban Peebles Perth Portree St Andrews
Stirling Stranraer Thurso Tiree Ullapool
Local News Search
-- please select -- All Scotland Aberdeen (City) Aberdeenshire Angus
Argyll and Bute Borders Clackmannanshire Dumfries and Galloway
Dundee (City) East Ayrshire East Dunbartonshire East Lothian East
Renfrewshire Edinburgh (City) Falkirk Fife Glasgow (City) Highland
Inverclyde Midlothian Moray North Ayrshire North Lanarkshire Orkney
Perth and Kinross Renfrewshire Shetland South Ayrshire South
Lanarkshire Stirling West Dunbartonshire West Lothian Western Isles
(Na H-Eileanan Siar)

Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 10 Reuters: Entergy shuts La. Waterford 3 reactor for work | 

Tue Oct 9, 2007 10:35am EDT

NEW YORK, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp (ETR.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) shut the 1,158-megawatt Unit 3 at the Waterford nuclear
power station in Louisiana on Monday for planned work, a spokesman
for the plant said Tuesday.

He said the company would work on several things but could not say
when the plant would return due to competitive reasons.

Electricity traders guessed the unit would return in about a week.

The 1,980 MW Waterford station is located in Taft in St. Charles
Parish, about 30 miles west of New Orleans. There are three units at
the Waterford station, including two 411 MW natural gas- and
oil-fired Units 1 and 2, and the 1,158 MW nuclear Unit 3. Units 1
and 2 entered service in 1975 and Unit 3 in 1985.

One MW powers about 500 homes in Louisiana.

Entergy, of New Orleans, owns and operates about 30,000 MW of
generating capacity, markets energy commodities, and transmits and
distributes power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas.


© Reuters2007All rights reserved


*****************************************************************
 11 Reuters: Ariz. Palo Verde nuke unit to restart by Fri. - APS 

Tue Oct 9, 2007 5:24pm EDT

LOS ANGELES, Oct 9 (Reuters) - The 1,314-megawatt Unit 2 at the
3,875-MW Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona is scheduled to
reconnect to the power grid by Friday and get to full power by
Saturday, operator Arizona Public Service said on Tuesday.

The unit was taken off line last Saturday to fix leaks at two sites
on the nonradioactive cooling portion of the unit, said an APS
spokeswoman.

The unit should reach about 12 percent of its output capacity by
either late Thursday or early Friday, a level needed to reconnect to
the regional power grid, the spokeswoman said.

This week's power demand is light enough so that APS can handle
electricity demand and does not have to enter the spot market to
make up for power not produced during the outage, APS said.

Meanwhile, the adjacent 1,247-MW Unit 3 remained shut for planned
refueling and maintenance. Unit 3 is expected to return by the end
of the year following steam generator and turbine replacement.

The 1,314-MW Unit 1 continued to run at full power on Tuesday, APS
said.

The Palo Verde station is located in Wintersburg, Arizona, about 50
miles west of Phoenix.

One MW powers about 400 homes in Arizona.

APS, a subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp (PNW.N: Quote,
Profile, Research), operates the station for its owners. 
Continued...

*****************************************************************
 12 NRC: NRC Seeks Public Comment on Implementation of Ractor Oversight Process

News Release - 2007-133 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs 
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking comment from members 
of the public on the implementation of the Reactor Oversight 
Process (ROP), which the agency put in place seven years ago to 
revamp and improve its inspection and enforcement programs for 
commercial nuclear power plants.  Each year the NRC seeks 
feedback to help the agency continue to improve its regulatory 
approach.

In particular, the NRC would appreciate the public&rsquo;s answers
to a list of 26 questions relating to the ROP, including the
following:
* Does the Inspection Program adequately cover areas important to
  safety?
* Is the information in NRC inspection reports useful to you?
* Is the ROP understandable, and are the processes, procedures and
  products clear and written in plain English?
* Has the public had sufficient opportunity to participate in the
  ROP and provide input and comments?


All 26 questions are contained in the Federal Register notice, 
which should be published shortly.  The notice is available on 
the NRC&rsquo;s Web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/rop2007survey.pdf . 
            The comment period runs until Dec. 7. Comments may be 
e-mailed to nrcrep@nrc.gov

NRC news releases are available through a free listserv 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007
*****************************************************************
 13 upi: Romania mulls building second nuke plant

United Press International - International Security - Energy -

Published: Oct. 9, 2007 at 2:28 PM

By ANDREA MIHAILESCU

Romania is considering building a second nuclear power plant to
ameliorate potential supply disruption, Rompres reported.

More than 30 prospective investors expressed interest in
constructing reactors.

Prime Minister Calin Popescu-Tariceanu asked the Minister of Economy
to find a location where the new nuclear-electric plant could be
built, since Romania needs to continue to develop its electric
energy production capacities.

“Several surveys have been conducted as to the potential locations
where we could build a new nuclear-electric plant. I ask Minister of
Economy and Finance (Varujan Vosganian -- editor note) to think of a
location, as of today,” Tariceanu said. The potential locations of
the new plant are either along the Olt River, in Fagaras or in
Moldova.

Last Friday, Popescu-Tariceanu inaugurated reactor 2 of Cernavoda
based Nuclear Power Plant. The plant will have only four reactors.
“In case of reactors 3 and 4, we can use our own forces, or we
consider a public-private partnership,” he said.

India eyes Sri Lanka’s oil

Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Videsh Ltd., the overseas arm of state-run
ONGC, paid $1 million to Norwegian seismic survey group TGS NOPE for
data on Mannar Offshore Basin in Sri Lanka, a step that may lead to
the firm bidding for the block, Indian news agency PTI reported.

"OVL has already paid $1 million to TGS and bought the data for
identifying acreages in the Mannar basin," A.H.M. Fawzy, Sri Lankan
minister of petroleum and petroleum resources development, told PTI.

Earlier this year Sri Lanka offered Block 1 to ONGC on nomination
basis, but the Indian company sought Block 2 on better prospects.

The Sri Lankan authorities alleged this was an attempt by the Indian
oil major to buy the Block 1 later at a cheaper price as there would
be no buyers for it.

"We did not find prospect (in accepting Block 1). Moreover, they
were asking for a fantastic signature bonus for that. So we are not
interested," ONGC Chairman R. S. Sharma said last month in New Delhi.

Russia to continue developing gas pipelines

The pace at which Russia is building its regional natural gas
pipelines will not slow down, Dmitry Medvedev, first deputy prime
minister, told the Voskresnoye Vremya television program.

"All in all, 43 billion rubles will be spent on the development of
regional pipelines in 2005-2007," he said. "We have started gas
supplies to many regions. This year alone we will begin gas
deliveries to 2 million apartments and homesteads."

He added: “Gas means not just heating and normal life, but also
opportunities for business and agriculture. Once a village receives
gas, it can resolve plenty of problems and build greenhouses and
farms as part of the national projects.”

The first vice premier, who also chairs the Gazprom Board of
Directors, said earlier that investments in regional gas
distribution networks will grow in 2008.

"It is the most important that Gazprom will spread its activity into
the Far East and include new regions -- the Khabarovsk territory,
Sakhalin and Yakutia -- in the gas distribution project," he said.

He criticized regional authorities for the failure to accomplish
their part in the project and demanded a normal price policy.

"We are strongly dissatisfied with their negligence. The
administrations of certain regions do not fulfill their commitments
in co-funding the project in villages," Medvedev said.

Closing oil prices, Oct. 9, 3 p.m. London

Brent crude oil: $76.08

West Texas Intermediate crude oil: $78/69

(e-mail: energy@upi.com)

© Copyright United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 14 CanWest: Canada may restart nuclear exports to India

Mike De Souza , CanWest News Service

Published: Tuesday, October 09, 2007

OTTAWA - Two years after the government of former prime minister
Paul Martin launched Canada on a path to renew its civilian nuclear
trade with India, officials from both countries are optimistic about
reaching a deal that could open the door for the Canadian industry
to export nuclear reactors and energy to the emerging economy for
the first time in over three decades.

Canada first cut its nuclear ties with India in 1974 after the
latter detonated a weapon using materials from a Canadian reactor.
But on the heels of a deal signed with the U.S., that is still in
the process of being ratified by legislators, India has indicated
that Canada may not be far behind.

"Canada is a country which started nuclear cooperation with India.
This is now more than 50 years, a half century old, so Canada is a
very special country for us, and of course we've traditionally had
very friendly relations with Canada," India's High Commissioner to
Canada, R.L. Narayan told CanWest News Service in an interview.
"There have been blips, and those have essentially been occasioned
by the nuclear issue and when we tested first in 1974 and 1998 and
so forth. But hopefully we've got over those blips now."

Some Canadian industry officials estimate billions of dollars in
economic spinoffs from a new trade arrangement. But one of the main
benefits being touted is the environmental impact of using an energy
source that produces virtually no air pollution or greenhouse gas
emissions.

Indian officials have insisted that they need more clean energy to
support a rapidly expanding economy in an age when coal-fired power
plants and oil are being blamed for massive pollution and dangerous
growth in heat-trapping gases that could cause dangerous changes to
the earth's climate.

"We are very concerned about the fact that global warming seems to
have accelerated to almost uncontrollable (levels)," said Narayan.
"The matter of the Northwest Passage (seaway linking Europe and Asia
through the Canadian Arctic) being ice-free is a matter not for
jubilation but of great concern. So we want to do our bit and this
is really the best way of doing it."

About three per cent of India's power now comes from nuclear
reactors, but it is hoping to increase that ratio to at least 20 per
cent. Although it is also exploring other clean technologies,
becoming one of the world's largest markets for wind power, Narayan
said nuclear technology was the best solution to support economic
growth with the potential of wiping out poverty in the nation within
25 years.

"So what has not been achieved for thousands of years, we now have a
chance to achieve over the next 20 to 25 years," he said. "It's very
clear that we won't obviously slow down our growth, because we
(need) this energy somehow. So I think it's very essential that
India have access to sustainable forms of energy with a small carbon
imprint, and basically, given the state of the technology, nuclear
is the only viable source."

"We're insisting that other people honour their obligations under 
the non-proliferation treaty and here we are making a nice cosy 
relationship with India that hasn't even signed it. It makes no 
sense at all," said Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian 
Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

"It basically sends a mixed signal to entire rest of world (that) 
before you get (nuclear weapons) you're treated as a pariah, but 
after you get them, then you're okay, then you're part of the 
club."

Narayan said India has never used nuclear weapons in a war, and 
it is prepared to offer guarantees to ensure that new civilian 
technology doesn't get mixed up in its existing military program.

"If you see the history of the last four or five years, the U.S. 
has been very concerned with the nuclear ambitions of non-nuclear 
states, including Pakistan, and North Korea, and Iran," he said. 
"So the very fact that the U.S. has negotiated with India for two 
years and negotiated an agreement obviously means that... they're 
looking at India in a different way. That's precisely why there's 
an exception for India."

He added that the previous military tests in India didn't violate 
international law since India never signed the treaty.

When asked for an update on the status of nuclear trade 
relations, an official from the Department of Foreign Affairs 
referred questions to the International Trade Department. An 
International Trade official called back a few hours later saying 
he would have to check with Foreign Affairs to get more 
information.

But industry representatives say it's clear that the Canadian 
government is waiting for ratification of the U.S. agreement 
before moving forward with a new deal for Canada.

Martyn Wash, general manager of the Canadian Association of CANDU 
Industries, said Foreign Affairs officials are "very 
straightforward with us, and they're saying: 'Look, the Indians 
only have so many people to deal with this particular issue and 
once the Americans are through, we intend to move ahead and try 
to get an accord with them that satisfies all the requirements. 
We're very pleased by that, because we do think there's a huge 
amount of opportunity there."

Wash estimates billions of dollars in possible spinoffs. But 
Canadian Nuclear Association president Murray Elston said it 
might not be that easy since the Americans will likely get there 
first, while his own industry could be stalled for years because 
of the politics of a minority Parliament in Ottawa.

"In the market and business, usually the guy that gets there 
first is going to come up with the bigger rewards," Elston said.

mdesouza@canwest.com


c CanWest News Service 2007

© 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks
*****************************************************************
 15 Arizona Republic: Leak forces Palo Verde to shut 1 reactor

Ryan Randazzo The Arizona Republic

Oct. 9, 2007 12:00 AM

The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station shut down one of its three
reactors Saturday because of a cooling-water leak, officials said.

The leak in Unit 2 is not radioactive and not a threat to the
public, said a spokeswoman for the plant, which is 50 miles west of
downtown Phoenix.

Unit 3 is undergoing a scheduled refueling and steam-generator
repair that is expected to keep it off-line for 75 days.

Unit 2's cooling-water leak should be repaired quickly and the
reactor could be at full power by Friday, said Betty Dayyo, an
Arizona Public Service Co. spokeswoman. The utility operates the
facility for several owners.

Unexpected outages can affect the price Arizonans pay for
electricity because they force utilities to buy or generate
more-expensive energy to replace the relatively cheap energy
generated at Palo Verde.

APS can turn up some of its natural-gas-fired power plants in the
region that are not running at capacity to make sure Arizonans have
enough electricity, Dayyo said.

"We're looking at the costs between our own units and what the
market (price for electricity) is," Dayyo said.

A Salt River Project spokesman said that it likely will cost the
utility and its customers more to replace power that utility
normally gets from Palo Verde but that it is difficult to determine
how much this early in the outage.

"Our resources are plenty to meet customer demand," SRP spokesman
Scott Harelson said.

Most of the Valley is served by APS or SRP.

Separately, an independent audit of reactor problems in 2005 and
2006 at Palo Verde's Unit 1 caused by a vibrating cooling pipe found
that APS' actions were "reasonable and prudent" in handling that
expensive problem.

GDS Associates Inc. of Georgia reviewed the problem and determined
that it could not have been anticipated and that repairs were made
"in a reasonable amount of time."

It cost APS $79 million to replace the power lost during that
episode, and it has been collecting the increase from ratepayers.

If the GDS report showed the utility acted irresponsibly, regulators
might have been more likely to ask the utility to refund the money.

GDS has previously determined that some earlier outages at the plant
were the utility's fault, and it recommended against allowing APS to
collect higher energy costs.

"APS believes that all replacement power costs (from the
vibrating-pipe outage) were prudently incurred and that . . . (the
money) will not have to be refunded," APS spokesman Alan Bunnell
said.

Reach the reporter at ryan.randazzo@arizonarepublic.com or (602)
444-4331.

Copyright © 2007, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. Users of this
*****************************************************************
 16 York Daily Record: NRC: Sleeping guards didn't hurt security at Peach Bottom

Daily Record/Sunday News

Article Last Updated: 10/09/2007 05:48:08 PM EDT

Oct 9, 2007 — Marsha Gamberoni, the director of the division of
reactor safety of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's region 1
office, said today the office found that Exelon did not do a good
enough job of getting across the message that inattentiveness in any
form is not tolerated.

She talked about the findings in advance of a public meeting to
discuss the results of an NRC investigation into information
relating to Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station security guards who
had been filmed sleeping on the job.

The office determined that there were missed opportunities by
security advisers to identify the inattentiveness, and that the
company failed to provide sufficient stimuli to the guards.

But the office did not find that the security at the plant was
degraded because of the inattentiveness.

Gamberoni's office determined that the security program at Peach
Bottom provided reasonable insurance that the health and safety of
the public was adequately protected.

To fix the problem, Exelon will conduct random and regular checks of
guard alertness; change the configuration of the plant ready room;
and put more training in place.

In response to a video that showed Wackenhut Corp. security 
officers sleeping on the job inside a secure area of the Peach 
Bottom Atomic Power Station, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission on Sept. 21 sent a five-member special inspection team 
to the plant to investigate the power station's security program.

The commission forms Augmented Inspection Teams to investigate more
serious issues at NRC-licensed plants.

The inspection team that visited Peach Bottom between Sept. 21 and
Sept. 28 consisted of specialists from the commission's Region 1
office in King of Prussia and from its headquarters in Rockville, Md.

As part of its own investigation into the video that was shot over
several months by a fellow security officer, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station ended its contract with Wackenhut Corp.

Instead, the plant will soon put in place an in-house security force
that will be managed by a subsidiary of Exelon Nuclear.

The security officers seen in the video nodding off in the plant's
ready room no longer have access to the power station.

Also known as the assembly room, the ready room is a section in the
plant where guards are allowed to read, study, eat and relax.

Despite the room's intended use, guards must be ready and alert to
respond to a situation within the plant.

Copyright &copy York Daily Record
1891 Loucks Road
York, PA 17408, (717) 771-2000
*****************************************************************
 17 UPI: Mafia probed for selling nuclear waste - 

UPI.com

Published: 9, 2007 at 12:45 PM

ROME, Oct. 9 (UPI) -- Italian federal officials have launched an 
investigation into allegations a Mafia clan trafficked in and 
illegally disposed of nuclear waste 20 years ago.

The claims came from an informant who turned on the 'Ndrangheta 
clan, based in Calabria, a correspondent for England's The 
Guardian newspaper reported from Rome.

At least 10 people are being investigated, including former 
officials with the country's state energy research agency, Enea.

An Enea manager allegedly paid the clan to get rid of 600 drums 
of toxic and radioactive waste from Italy, Switzerland, France, 
Germany and the United States, with its eventual dumping in 
Somalia, the report said.

Francesco Basentini, head of anti-Mafia police at Potenza, in 
southern Italy, said several people who have taken part in the 
investigation have died of mysterious illnesses, a Times of 
London correspondent reported.

The 'Ndrangheta clan has a reputation of kidnappings and cocaine 
trafficking and was accused of ordering the shooting deaths of 
six men in Germany in August, the reports said.

c Copyright United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or 
manipulated in any form.


*****************************************************************
 18 China Post: Nuke risk model may improve national security - 

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

By Dimitri Bruyas, Special to The China Post

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- In the wake of serious damage to Taiwan's
infrastructure inflicted by Typhoon Krosa, officials from the
Institute of Nuclear Energy Research (INER) recommended yesterday
that the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) model, currently used
to evaluate the safety of Taiwan's nuclear power plants, be
implemented to better protect the island's infrastructure.

"We have been applying the PRA model to [the country's three nuclear
power plants] for more than 24 years," said Yang Chao-yie, deputy
minister of the Atomic Energy Council, Executive Yuan.

PRA calculates the probability and consequences of system failures
so that the appropriate contingencies can be formulated.

Yang said that in nuclear facilities, "deviation tests" are used to
evaluate the impact of repair work on the safety of the whole
system. During "fire drills," the PRA model assesses the weaknesses
of the system, the likeliness of a mistake, and the possible
consequences if anything goes wrong.

"The PRA provides concrete evaluation norms to judge the work at a
nuclear power plant," said Yang. The same PRA "objective
quantification" based on scientific knowledge could be used to
formulate emergency scenario contingencies for large, complex
systems such as refineries, liquefied natural gas (LNG) lines,
public transportation, and even national security as a whole, Yang
said.

The Department of Homeland Security and other agencies in the U.S.
have been applying PRA models to protect the nation's infrastructure
from terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

PRA defines risk as a product of three factors: the frequency or
likelihood of a threat (F), the vulnerability of a target (V), and
the costs and consequences (C). Risk (R) is related to these factors
in the formula R=FVC. According to experts working on these
projects, the difficult part is assigning values to F, V and C
because each domain has different specifications.

ˇ@ Copyright © 1999 ˇV 2007 The China Post. Breaking News, World
News, and News from Taiwan. 
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: Panel Wants Tighter Radiation Security 

From the Associated Press

Tuesday October 9, 2007 8:31 PM

By PAMELA HESS Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. government should replace more than 
1,000 irradiation machines used in hospitals and research 
facilities because terrorists could use the radioactive materials 
inside to make a ``dirty'' bomb, a government advisory panel has 
concluded.

   ``Any one of these 1,000-plus sources could shut down 25 
square kilometers, anywhere in the United States, for 40-plus 
years,'' according to panel documents obtained by The Associated 
Press.

     The machines are in relatively unprotected locations such as 
hospitals and research facilities all over the country, and may 
be a tempting source of radioactive materials for terrorists who 
want bombs that explode and disperse radioactive debris over a 
large area, rendering it uninhabitable, the board found.

  The irradiators contain Cesium-137, one of the most dangerous 
and long-lasting radioactive materials. They are used for 
radiation therapy and to sterilize blood and food.

  Swapping the Cesium irradiators for X-ray machines or 
irradiators that use other materials would cost about $200 
million over five years, but it would take the most accessible 
source of dangerous radioactive material inside the United States 
``off the table'' for terrorists, the panel says.

    The recommendation is part of an as-yet-unreleased report 
that describes how unfriendly nations or terrorist groups could 
undermine the computers and satellites the U.S. military relies 
on and attack the United States with radiological or biological 
weapons or blackmail the U.S. government with a threat of a 
nuclear detonation, all while manipulating world opinion against 
the United States in the media and on the Internet.

 The report comes from the Defense Science Board, a panel of 
retired military and CIA officials and defense industry experts 
who offer the Pentagon possible solutions to actual and potential 
national security problems. It is expected to be released late 
this year.

  The board wants the Pentagon to create a joint military force 
able to locate and seize illicit nuclear materials and weapons 
when they are still in transit, and to safely destroy nuclear 
weapons captured from terrorists or defeated states.

 It says U.S. intelligence has failed to determine what countries 
or groups are developing or trying to obtain nuclear, 
radiological and biological weapons and how and when they are 
likely to use them.

   ``No adversary can exercise all options; but we don't know 
which options they can exercise,'' the documents state.

   The report recommends creating ``unfettered X-treme 
intelligence teams'' to improve the ``poor intelligence community 
posture.'' Exactly what the teams would do is classified.

 The board advocates diplomacy and trying to influence world 
opinion so the United States is less likely to be attacked or 
lured into a foreign war it might not win.

   ``We are unprepared,'' state the documents. ``At best we will 
be deterred. Worse, we will enter the fray and then quit when we 
appreciate the cost of success. Instruments of national power 
other than the military, such as strategic communication, will 
assume greater importance.''

  The U.S government should be promoting universally accepted 
values like human dignity, economic well-being, health care and 
education rather than ``democracy'' and ``freedom,'' the panel 
states.

 ``What we say is often not what others may hear -- concepts such 
as 'democracy,' 'rule of law' and 'freedom' have different 
meanings in different cultures and at different stages of their 
development,'' the documents state. ``It is about them, not only 
about us.''

 It recommends that the State Department spend $250 million over 
five years to create an independent ``Center for Global 
Engagement'' to conduct opinion research and analyses on media 
and culture that the government can use to design projects and 
messages that will advance those values.

   It also recommends deploying more hospital ships for medical 
and humanitarian relief; releasing spy imagery to help other 
countries in crop management, weather forecasting, and 
environmental studies; and adopting policies that will help 
create jobs in key strategic nations such as Lebanon, Pakistan 
and Iraq.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 20 Guardian Unlimited: From cocaine to plutonium: mafia clan accused of trafficking nuclear waste 

Special report: Italy

From cocaine to plutonium: mafia clan accused of trafficking 
nuclear waste

Tom Kington in Rome
Tuesday October 9, 2007

Blue drums displaying radioactive sign. David Woodfall/David Woodfall

Authorities in Italy are investigating a mafia clan accused of
trafficking nuclear waste and trying to make plutonium.

The 'Ndrangheta mafia, which gained notoriety in August for its
blood feud killings of six men in Germany, is alleged to have made
illegal shipments of radioactive waste to Somalia, as well as
seeking the "clandestine production" of other nuclear material.

Two of the Calabrian clan's members are being investigated, along
with eight former employees of the state energy research agency Enea.

The eight are suspected of paying the mobsters to take waste off
their hands in the 1980s and 1990s. At the time they were based at
the agency's centre at Rotondella, a town in Basilicata province in
the toe of Italy, which today treats "special" and "hazardous"
waste. At other centres, Enea studies nuclear fusion and fission
technologies.

The 'Ndrangheta has been accused by investigators of building on its
origins as a kidnapping gang to become Europe's top cocaine
importer, thanks to ties to Colombian cartels. But the nuclear
accusation, if true, would take it into another league.

An Enea official who declined to be named denied the accusation,
saying: "Enea has always worked within the rules and under strict
national and international supervision."

A magistrate, Francesco Basentini, in the city of Potenza began the
investigation following others by magistrates and the leaking to the
press of the police confession of an 'Ndrangheta turncoat, detailing
his role in the alleged waste-dumping.

An Enea manager is said to have paid the clan to get rid of 600
drums of toxic and radioactive waste from Italy, Switzerland,
France, Germany, and the US, the turncoat claimed, with Somalia as
the destination lined up by the traffickers.

But with only room for 500 drums on a ship waiting at the northern
port of Livorno, 100 drums were secretly buried somewhere in the
southern Italian region of Basilicata. Clan members avoided burying
the waste in neighbouring Calabria, said the turncoat, because of
their "love for their home region", and because they already had too
many kidnap victims hidden in grottoes there.

Investigators have yet to locate the radioactive drums allegedly
buried in Basilicata - although, in a parallel investigation, police
are searching for drums of non-radioactive toxic waste they believe
were dumped by the 'Ndrangheta near the Unesco town of Matera in
Basilicata, famous for its ancient houses dug into the rock, the
Ansa news agency reported yesterday.

Shipments to Somalia, where the waste was buried after buying off
local politicians, continued into the 1990s, while the mob also
became adept at blowing up shiploads of waste, including radioactive
hospital waste, and sending them to the sea bed off the Calabrian
coast, the turncoat told investigators. Although he made no mention
of attempted plutonium production, Il Giornale newspaper wrote that
the mobsters may have planned to sell it to foreign governments.

"The 'Ndrangheta has no morals and, if there is money in an
activity, it will have no problem getting involved, even nuclear
waste," said Nicola Gratteri, the anti-mafia magistrate
investigating the shooting in Germany in August of six Italians -
the most recent episode of a blood feud between clans in the
Calabrian village of San Luca, which cast the spotlight on the
'Ndrangheta's global trafficking and drug-dealing business worth up
Ł25bn, a year. According to the turncoat, the plan to enter the
radioactive waste business also started in San Luca, hatched by its
then boss, Giuseppe Nirta.

Mr Gratteri warned that Europe's police forces were "unequipped" to
take on the mafia, whether the 'Ndrangheta, Naples' Camorra, or
Sicily's Cosa Nostra. "The mafias were the first to take advantage
of Europe's disappearing frontiers, but when I go to Germany I see
they have not introduced the crime of mafia association and do not
allow wire taps in public places. I'm tired of round tables and
conventions; what we need is more courage."

Italian police are holding 33 San Luca locals suspected of being in
the blood feud, with court hearings approaching, said Mr Gratteri.
"We get more cooperation from Colombia in our enquiries than some
European countries," he said. "The 'Ndrangheta is not just a
Calabrian product that every so often makes an appearance somewhere.
The problem needs to be of interest to Europe," he urged.

Useful links
Italian government
Italian parliament
Ministry of foreign affairs (in English)

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 21 [NYTr] US Considered Radioactive Poisons to Assassinate Cold-War Enemies
 
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:58:02 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
AP via Boston Globe via Info Clearing House - Oct 8, 2007
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18520.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/08/us_considered_radiological_weapon?mode=PF

 U.S. considered radiological weapon

By Robert Burns, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON --In one of the longest-held secrets of the Cold War, the
U.S. Army explored the potential for using radioactive poisons to
assassinate "important individuals" such as military or civilian
leaders, according to newly declassified documents obtained by The
Associated Press.

Approved at the highest levels of the Army in 1948, the effort was a
well-hidden part of the military's pursuit of a "new concept of
warfare" using radioactive materials from atomic bombmaking to
contaminate swaths of enemy land or to target military bases, factories
or troop formations.

Military historians who have researched the broader radiological
warfare program said in interviews that they had never before seen
evidence that it included pursuit of an assassination weapon. Targeting
public figures in such attacks is not unheard of; just last year an
unknown assailant used a tiny amount of radioactive polonium-210 to
kill Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in London.

No targeted individuals are mentioned in references to the
assassination weapon in the government documents declassified in
response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the AP in
1995.

The decades-old records were released recently to the AP, heavily
censored by the government to remove specifics about radiological
warfare agents and other details. The censorship reflects concern that
the potential for using radioactive poisons as a weapon is more than a
historic footnote; it is believed to be sought by present-day
terrorists bent on attacking U.S. targets.

The documents give no indication whether a radiological weapon for
targeting high-ranking individuals was ever used or even developed by
the United States. They leave unclear how far the Army project went.
One memo from December 1948 outlined the project and another memo that
month indicated it was under way. The main sections of several
subsequent progress reports in 1949 were removed by censors before
release to the AP.

The broader effort on offensive uses of radiological warfare apparently
died by about 1954, at least in part because of the Defense
Department's conviction that nuclear weapons were a better bet.

Whether the work migrated to another agency such as the CIA is unclear.
The project was given final approval in November 1948 and began the
following month, just one year after the CIA's creation in 1947.

It was a turbulent time on the international scene. In August 1949, the
Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic bomb, and two months
later Mao Zedong's communists triumphed in China's civil war.

As U.S. scientists developed the atomic bomb during World War II, it
was recognized that radioactive agents used or created in the
manufacturing process had lethal potential. The government's first
public report on the bomb project, published in 1945, noted that
radioactive fission products from a uranium-fueled reactor could be
extracted and used "like a particularly vicious form of poison gas."

Among the documents released to the AP -- an Army memo dated Dec. 16,
1948, and labeled secret -- described a crash program to develop a
variety of military uses for radioactive materials. Work on a
"subversive weapon for attack of individuals or small groups" was
listed as a secondary priority, to be confined to feasibility studies
and experiments.

The top priorities listed were:

-- 1 -- Weapons to contaminate "populated or otherwise critical areas
for long periods of time."

-- 2 -- Munitions combining high explosives with radioactive material
"to accomplish physical damage and radioactive contamination
simultaneously."

-- 3 -- Air and-or surface weapons that would spread contamination
across an area to be evacuated, thereby rendering it unusable by enemy
forces.

The stated goal was to produce a prototype for the No. 1 and No. 2
priority weapons by Dec. 31, 1950.

The 4th ranked priority was "munitions for attack on individuals" using
radioactive agents for which there is "no means of therapy."

"This class of munitions is proposed for use by secret agents or
subversive units for lethal attacks against small groups of important
individuals, e.g., during meetings of civilian or military leaders," it
said.

Assassination of foreign figures by agents of the U.S. government was
not explicitly outlawed until President Gerald R. Ford signed an
executive order in 1976 in response to revelations that the CIA had
plotted in the 1960s to kill Cuban President Fidel Castro, including by
poisoning.

The Dec. 16, 1948, memo said a lethal attack against individuals using
radiological material should be done in a way that makes it impossible
to trace the U.S. government's involvement, a concept known as
"plausible deniability" that is central to U.S. covert actions.

"The source of the munition, the fact that an attack has been made, and
the kind of attack should not be determinable, if possible," it said.
"The munition should be inconspicuous and readily transportable."

Radioactive agents were thought to be ideal for this use, the document
said, because of their high toxicity and the fact that the targeted
individuals could not smell, taste or otherwise sense the attack.

"It should be possible, for example, to develop a very small munition
which could function unnoticeably and which would set up an invisible,
yet highly lethal concentration in a room, with the effects noticeable
only well after the time of attack," it said.

"The time for lethal effects could, it is believed, be controlled
within limits by the amount of radioactive agent dispersed. The
toxicities are such that should relatively high concentrations be
required for early lethal effects, on a weight basis, even such
concentrations may be found practicable."

Tom Bielefeld, a Harvard physicist who has studied radiological weapons
issues, said that while he had never heard of this project, its
technical aims sounded feasible.

Bielefeld noted that polonium, the radioactive agent used to kill
Litvinenko in November 2006, has just the kind of features that would
be suitable for the lethal mission described in the Dec. 16 memo.

Barton Bernstein, a Stanford history professor who has done extensive
research on the U.S. military's radiological warfare efforts, said he
did not believe this aspect had previously come to light.

"This is one of those items that surprises us but should not shock us,
because in the Cold War all kinds of ways of killing people, in all
kinds of manners -- inhumane, barbaric and even worse -- were
periodically contemplated at high levels in the American government in
what was seen as a just war against a hated and hateful enemy,"
Bernstein said.

The project was run by the Army Chemical Corps, commanded by Maj. Gen.
Alden H. Waitt, and supervised by a now-defunct agency called the Armed
Forces Special Weapons Project. The project's first chief was Maj. Gen.
Leslie R. Groves, the Army's head of the Manhattan Project that built
the first atomic bombs. The radiological project was approved by
Groves' successor, Maj. Gen. Kenneth D. Nichols.

The released documents were in files of the Armed Forces Special
Weapons Project held by the National Archives.

Among the officials copied in on the Dec. 16 memo were Herbert
Scoville, Jr., then the technical director of the Armed Forces Special
Weapons Project and later the CIA's deputy director for research, and
Samuel T. Cohen, a physicist with RAND Corp. who had worked on the
Manhattan Project.

The initial go-ahead for the Army to pursue its radiological weapons
project was given in May 1948, a point in U.S. history, following the
successful use of two atomic bombs against Japan to end World War II,
when the military was eager to explore the implications of atomic
science for the future of warfare.

In a July 1948 memo outlining the program's intent, before specifics
had received final approval, a key focus was on long-lasting
contamination of large land areas where residents would be told that
unless the areas were abandoned they probably would die from radiation
within one to 10 years.

"It is thought that this is a new concept of warfare, with results that
cannot be predicted," it said.

B) Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

                                 *
=================================================================
 NY Transfer News Collective     *    A Service of Blythe Systems
           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
            Our main website:   http://www.blythe.org
   List Archives:       http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
   Subscribe:     http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
*****************************************************************
 22 [v911t] EASY Ways to Stop the Military Radioactive Contamination of Hawaii
 
Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:23:43 -0500 (CDT)

EASY Ways to Stop the Military Radioactive Contamination of Hawaii

by Cathy Garger

Tuesday Oct 9th, 2007 10:14 AM

The Army is salivating to get the 2/25th Stryker Brigade Combat
Team established in Hawaii. Even volunteering one hour of your time
will help! Here's how.

stryker_cannon_fires_depl...

EASY Ways to Stop the Military Radioactive Contamination of Hawaii

The Stones belt it out like nobodys business: "Ain't too proud to
beg... ain't too proud to plead"... And personally speaking, if I
have to beg and please for your sympathy, I dont mind, cause the
good people of Hawaii mean that much to me!

Yes, Im groveling, begging, and pleading for your help. I realize
you dont have any spare time, so Im asking you to make some. And
if this were not truly critical, I wouldnt bother getting on my
hands and knees now, begging, pleading for your help.

Nope, Im not asking for a blessed dime. All I want from you is an
hour, even - just one hour of your most precious commodity  your
time. Im not sure how you spend your free time, but if youre anything
like most people? Then you can probably forego an hour watching
Jack Bauer save the world from the evil doers, or give up an hour
salivating all over the hunky Bachelor - or, as is your preference,
the eye-candy of three Platinum Blondes wiggling their cute little
20-something Bunny tails in a mind boggling minage-a-quatre in a
round bed with a filthy rich dude nearly four times their age who,
its been rumored, has died and gone to heaven already.

All Im begging you to do is simply turn off the Boob tube for just
one hour tonight because our own people, the people of Hawaii, need
our help right now. Im pleading for your sympathy as I ask you to
kindly stop whatever youre doing and spend just a little time to,
quite literally, help save Hawaiian Paradise!

Heres the deal, in a nutshell. Before October 30, we need you and
a whole lot of other people to write (make that a whole LOT of other
people to write) public comments telling Uncle Sam why the Armys
Stryker Brigade should not be permanently stationed in Hawaii.

The Army is salivating to get the 2/25th Stryker Brigade Combat
Team established in Hawaii. What are Strykers, you may wonder?
Strykers are basically large, relatively fast-moving, armored,
19-ton vehicles that look like tanks.

Each Stryker vehicle has a cannon  a great big gun - that can fire
Depleted Uranium, explosives, and titanium. A total of 4,000 soldiers
(and their families) are hoping to be positioned permanently inside
Hawaii to perform military training that reportedly prepares them
for urban warfare inside cities in Iraq. And for obvious reasons,
it is apparently easier to get soldiers and their families to commit
to staying for long deployments in Hawaiian paradise than it is to
get them to move to Colorado or Alaska!

In its Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the military has stated
that they plan on using not inert, not environmentally friendly,
but instead, live fire ammunition within Hawaii. And even the Army
itself admits that positioning the 2/25th Stryker Brigade permanently
inside Hawaii will have an adverse, significant impact upon Hawaii
in more than a few ways.

The military is planning on stationing approximately 320 of these
huge, eight-wheeled Stryker vehicles (and approximately 600 other
vehicles, 4,000 employees, and their spouses and kids) on military
bases that have been found to contain toxic and radioactive Depleted
Uranium contamination.

That Uncle Sam is ever the thoughtful guy, eh?

Furthermore, according to experts of radioactive military maneuvers,
allowing hundreds of Stryker vehicles to train on these grounds
will rustle up radiation currently within the soils out into the
Hawaiian air and tropical environment, rendering soldiers and their
families, as well as the Hawaiian Islanders and their pristine
environment [which includes dozens of endangered species of plants
and wildlife, etc.] at increased risk for Uranium poisoning.

Here are simple things Hawaiians are asking you to do to help!

1) Write before October 30 and tell the Army why you do not wish
the Stryker Brigade to be stationed inside Hawaii. The email address
to write to is: PublicComments [at] aec.apgea.army.mil . To learn
more about the impact the 2/25th Stryker Brigade Combat Team will
have in Hawaii, go to http://www.sbct-seis.org/ to read more.

2) Forward the articles below everywhere!

3) Volunteer to help post articles on various alternative media
sites, email groups, and blogs. Hawaiians desperately need volunteers
to help with this task  and theyll train you how to do this. All
you need is a bit of time and a working computer  along with a
desire to help protect Hawaii and keep it clean and safe. Please
write to NoDUHawaii [at] yahoo.com today with your offer to help!

4) Forward this email to everyone you know!

READ WHY the Stryker Brigade must not stay in Hawaii!

Ten Reasons to Oppose the Stryker Brigade in Hawaii
http://www.dmzhawaii.org/stop_stryker_hawaii.pdf

Hawaiian Islands Are Radioactive
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/893755.shtml

Depleted Uranium Contamination By Strykers In Hawaii
http://www.indymedia.org/it/2007/09/893176.shtml

Death By Breath http://www.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/893823.shtml

Hawaiian Islands Contaminated With Ballistic Uranium
http://www.rense.com/general78/hawa.htm

Armys Environmental Impact Statement for the Stryker Brigade Invasion
of Hawaii:

http://www.sbct-seis.org/

To see photos of Strykers, search on this page by the word Stryker:

http://www.army.mil/mediaplayer/armyimages/

Go to Protect Hawaii website:

http://www.protecthawaii.ws/

Ive never been to Hawaii, but have spoken to many lovely, warm-hearted
people who do live there. Please wont you help keep the Hawaiian
people safe - and protect the closest thing to Paradise that Americas
got?

Warm best wishes and Mahalo to you all!

Cathy Garger http://www.mytown.ca/garger

Article Link:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/09/18453016.php

--------------------------------- Check out  the hottest 2008 models
today at Yahoo! Autos.

*****************************************************************
 23 AGI: URANIUM: PARISI, 255 SOLDIERS WITH CANCER, 37 DEAD

Agenzia Italia | chi siamo | Contattaci

mercoledì 10 ottobre 2007   h. 9:06 director: Giuliano De Risi

(AGI) - Rome, Oct 9 - 255 Italian soldiers who worked abroad - in
the Balkans, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon from 1996 to 2006 -
have cancer.

  Of these, 37 are dead. 161 soldiers belong to the regular army, 47
to the navy, 26 to the air forces and 21 to the carabinieri. It was
reported by the defence minister Arturo Parisi to the Senate
commission on depleted uranium.

  In the same period 1427 soldiers who never took part in missions
abroad have also had cancer. 'There are no state secrets on this
topic, also because the relationship between cause and effect has
not yet been demonstrated,' he said. 'In any case the ministry of
defence wants to find out about the crystal-clear truth.'


© 1999 - 2007 AGI S.P.A. - Privacy - P.IVA 00893701003

*****************************************************************
 24 AGI: URANIUM: PARISI, ITALY HAS NEVER USED IT

Agenzia Italia | chi siamo | Contattaci

mercoledì 10 ottobre 2007   h. 9:06 director: Giuliano De Risi

(AGI) - Rome, Oct 9 - Italy has never used armament of depleted
uranium, nor has it been used at our firing range by others.

  Defence Minister Arturo Parisi said this in a hearing in Senate.
"Defence and the armed forces" Parisi explained "are the first to
consider the health of its soldiers as a precious good that has to
be protected. Finding all causes of serious diseases our soldiers
can get is an absolute priority for us".

  So the defence minister said he is sorry for the "climate of
distrust" on this argument and the polemics that often appear
"unjustly". "In particular" Parisi added "the polemics seem to take
the existence of unquestioned scientific certainties on the cause of
diseases for granted, while the precise cause-effect is still to be
verified". The defence minister then reminded that from 1996 to 2006
the soldiers who got cancer, and had been deployed abroad, in the
Balkan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, are 255: 161 for the Army, 47
the Navy, 26 the Air Force and 21 in the Police forces. The Health
Direction says 37 of these have died, 29 in the Army, 1 in the Air
Force, 7 in the Police forces. In the same period, without
participating in foreign missions, 1,427 soldiers were found to have
tumours: 604 in the Army, 45 in the Navy, 49 in the Air Force, 729
in the Police.

AGENZIA ITALIA | AREA CLIENTI | ARCHIVIO | SANITA' | CONTATTI | INFO
PUBBLICITA' | COPYRIGHT

© 1999 - 2007 AGI S.P.A. - Privacy - P.IVA 00893701003
*****************************************************************
 25 Farmington Daily Times: Uranium workers meeting set for Shiprock

By Alysa Landry The Daily Times

Article Launched: 10/09/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT

SHIPROCK &mdash; Navajo Nation residents who worked with uranium are
invited to an informational meeting Wednesday at the Shiprock
Chapter house.

Known as the "yellow monster," uranium is blamed for thousands of
cases of cancer, lung conditions and pulmonary and renal diseases,
said Larry Martinez, program manager for the Office of Navajo
Uranium Workers. Those affected by the element prior to 1971 are
eligible for federal payments and free health care.

"A lot doesn't affect you until 20 years later," Martinez said. "The
illnesses that are most common don't reveal themselves until later."

An average of 4,000 Navajos are seeking relief through the Office of
Uranium Workers at any given time, Martinez said. Former miners,
millers and haulers have two compensation options.

Uranium workers exposed to the element for at least one year prior
to 1971 who have primary lung cancer, secondary pulmonary disease or
renal disease are eligible for $100,000, under the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act.

After workers are approved for RECA compensation, they can apply 
for medical benefits or home nursing through the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. Uranium workers 
may also qualify for an additional payment of $250,000 based on 
the amount of impairment and lost work they incurred.

"A lot of folks out here don't totally understand how it works,"
Martinez said. "I'm hoping anyone who still has questions will come
to the outreach meeting."

It is unknown how many people have illnesses related to uranium
mining, said Barbara Escajeda, regional vice president for the
Denver-based Professional Case Management, which provides in-home
nursing care to chronically-ill uranium workers. Nearly 10,000 New
Mexico workers and 3,000 Arizona workers have already filed claims.

A representative from Professional Case Management will attend the
Wednesday meeting to discuss free, 24-hour nursing for those who are
eligible.

The laws are complex, Martinez said, and many former workers are
excluded from receiving benefits. More than 400 miners who worked
with uranium after 1971 have contacted the office and were turned
down, he said.

"We keep files on them just in case the law changes," Martinez said.
"We have people lobbying for more eligible years, more money and
money for dependants."


Alysa Landry: alandry@daily-times.com

*****************************************************************
 26 Reuters: U.S. Treasury-Insurers won't cover nuclear risks 

Tue Oct 9, 2007 3:58pm EDT

WASHINGTON, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Private insurers are unlikely to
develop a functioning market for coverage of nuclear, biological,
chemical and radiological attack risk despite a U.S. House of
Representatives bill requiring them to offer it, a senior U.S.
Treasury official said on Tuesday.

David Nason, assistant secretary for financial institutions, said
the provision in the House-passed Terrorism Risk Insurance Act
renewal bill might even make it more difficult for insurers to
provide conventional terrorism risk insurance.

"If insurers must offer NBCR-terrorism risk coverage, insurer
capacity might draw from conventional attack capacity," Nason told
an insurance group conference in Amelia Island, Florida.

"Moreover, some insurers are concerned about taking on such exposure
and the effect on credit ratings and more importantly, their
solvency in the event of an actual attack," he added.

The Bush administration has threatened to veto the TRIA
reauthorization bill if it is approved by the U.S. Senate without
changes.

TRIA was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks to
make the federal government the insurer of last resort for damages
from a terrorist attack too massive for private insurers to handle.
It is due to expire on Dec. 31 unless it is extended by Congress.

Even with the current TRIA law, there is little availability of NBCR
coverage, Nason said, adding, "We at Treasury are not convinced that
the House's approach will lead to the development of a NBCR market."

He added that the federal government already shoulders some NBCR
risk, given expectations that uninsured losses from such an attack
would likely be compensated through federal disaster aid programs.

Nason said the Treasury objects to the 15-year extension of the
program, which he called a "de facto permanent extension". The
Treasury wants to phase out TRIA to increase private sector
participation in terrorism risk coverage.

The Treasury also objects to the bill's failure to increase private
sector retentions and to a new backstop for group life insurance.


© Reuters2007All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 27 La Jicarita News: State Opens Office of Nuclear Workers Advocacy By Mark Schiller 

Community Advocacy for Northern New Mexico

Box 6 El Valle Route, Chamisal, NM 87521

By Mark Schiller

In the June 2007 La Jicarita News we told the stories of two former
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) workers who believe they
developed cancer as a result of exposure to radiation and other
toxic chemicals during their employment at the Lab. Both filed
claims under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act (EEOICPA) of 2000 and both were denied compensation. In
fact, the vast majority of claims filed by former LANL workers have
been denied. Recent statistics show that 6,235 such claims have been
filed and only 551, less than 9%, have actually been granted
compensation. By comparison, Department of Labor statistics show
that workers at nuclear facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee and
Paducah, Kentucky have been granted compensation in over 25% of the
claims that have been filed.

The good new is that in response to this problem, New Mexico State
Legislature House Speaker Ben Luján, who formerly worked at LANL
himself, sponsored a $125,000 appropriation to open an office to
assist and do advocacy for claimants who have been denied
compensation or have encountered other problems with their claims.
In a press release Lujan stated, "The current system requires lay
people to navigate through a difficult bureaucracy. I believe that
it is the duty of the state of New Mexico to advocate and assist
nuclear workers who have been exposed to toxic substances, which
have adversely affected their bodies, livelihood and quality of
life. "

Loretta Valerio, who heads the new Office of Nuclear Workers
Advocacy, told La Jicarita News that she's been flooded with
inquiries since her office opened about two weeks ago. Valerio
formerly worked at the Department of Labor's Espańola Resource
Center and has a great deal of experience with EEOICPA claims. She
explained that the Espańola Resource Center can help claimants begin
the application process and that her office is geared towards
helping applicants appeal claims that have been denied and acquire
information they need to help in the adjudication of their claims.
Valerio is currently trying to get the word out about the services
her office offers by meeting with nuclear worker organizations and
individual claimants. She can be contacted in Santa Fe at
505-827-1636. The number at the Espańola Resource Center is
505-747-6766.

While Valerio is clearly very competent and dedicated to ensuring
that claimants get the benefits to which they are entitled, the bad
news is the original request to the state legislature was more than
four times what the office ultimately received. There are thousands
of claims pending and, by Valerio's own admission, "tens of
thousands of people [who] may qualify for the program." $125,000 is
simply not going to pay for the administrative staff and medical and
legal expertise necessary to help all these people.

Moreover, members of the Alliance of Nuclear Workers Advocacy Groups
assert that the state should also be addressing the overarching
issue that the criteria EEOICPA uses to evaluate claims is
inherently unjust. They are particularly outspoken in their
denunciation of the "Dose Reconstruction" component of the EEOICPA,
which theoretically reconstructs a claimant's radiation exposure and
determines the "likelihood" of their having contracted cancer based
on what it terms "reasonable estimates" of those exposures.
Activists assert that the Department of Energy simply does not have
accurate enough records to make a reasonable estimate, and that the
program deals with claimants like an insurance company seeking to
limit its liability rather than a compassionate employer who accepts
culpability.

Activists hope that over the next few months Valerio's work will
demonstrate the critical need for nuclear worker advocacy services
and the 2008 state legislature will allocate funds to both expand
her office's services and lobby the federal government to amend the
EEOIPA so that it more justly evaluates claims.

Pete Domenici's Toxic Legacy

By Kay Matthews

New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici is perceived in Washington as a
behind-the-scenes guy who shuns the limelight to gets things done.
Here in his home state, however, those behind-the-scenes
machinations have created a toxic legacy: if New Mexico were to
secede from the union, the state would be the third largest nuclear
power in the world. Domenici's unrelenting promotion of the nuclear
weapons industry at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Sandia
National Laboratory has resulted in a one-dimensional economy that
contributes to a growing divide between the haves and have-nots, as
well as the contamination of our air, water, forests, and homes.
Now, in his latest scheme to "get things done", the senator is using
his considerable power to get the three New Mexico Indian Water
Rights settlements-Navajo/San Juan River, Aamodt (Pojoaque, Tesuque,
San Ildefonso, and Nambe pueblos), and the Abeyta (Taos Pueblo)
approved by Congress and funded by the administration.

Domenici has enjoyed an almost 36-year reign in New Mexico that has
rarely been challenged or criticized. The son of Italian immigrants,
he was born in Albuquerque, graduated from the University of New
Mexico (he got his law degree at the University of Denver), and won
his first electoral position on the Albuquerque City Commission in
1966. In 1968 he was elected Commission chairman, a postion which at
that time was equivalent to that of mayor. He ran unsuccessfully for
governor against New Mexico favorite son Bruce King in 1970, but was
back two years later in a successful U.S. Senate run. He was the
first Republican to be elected to that position in 38 years. He has
subsequently been re-elected five times, and is raising money for
his 2008 bid.

Domenici is the second-most senior Republican in the Senate, and
while his party was the majority in Congress, he used that position
to wield his influence, particularly as ranking member of the U.S.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. He has
also used his membership on the Appropriations Committee to enhance
his image as a leading fiscal conservative who watchdogs
Congressional spending.
                        Bringing Home the Pork


A conservative, that is, unless it means dollars for New Mexico.
Domenici has always known how to bring home the bacon by
understanding the nature of the pork. During the Cold War the
free-flowing money went towards weapons production, and once Los
Alamos was chosen as a site for the Manahatten project in the 1940s
(see Atomic Spaces article on page 4), the potential for New
Mexico's development as the nation's leading bomb builder was set.
Concurrently, during the post war boom in oil and gas production,
Domenici made sure that the corporations doing business in New
Mexico had easy-and subsidized-access to New Mexico reserves that
also fueled, and continue to fuel, that growing economy (during the
controversy over gas and oil drilling in northern New Mexico's Valle
Vidal Domenici was the last of the New Mexico congressional
delegation to support its protection). As we reported in the July
issue of La Jicarita News, with pressure from both Domenici and New
Mexico's other senator Jeff Bingaman, a Senate subcommittee recently
recommended increasing weapons funding for the three nuclear
labs-LANL, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore in California-by $213
million after a subcommittee in the House recommended reducing
weapons-related production by $369 million to focus funding on
energy research (a joint funding bill has yet to be negotiated). Los
Alamos National Security, the corporate consortium that runs the
Lab, has already laid off contract workers and is now threatening to
lay off as many as 2,500 workers from all Lab sectors, which, of
course, will have a huge impact on the one-dimensional economy of
northern New Mexico.

No one would know from Domenici's record that the Cold War is
supposedly over (the current administration would have us believe
it's being resurrected in Iran). But now that the threat of global
warming is finally forcing global corporations to look for new
sources of energy to exploit, Domenici can bring his support of all
things nuclear full circle: he is committed to making commercial
nuclear power the main source of energy in this country. He's even
written and edited two books about it: A Brighter Tomorrow:
Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy, and Advanced Nuclear
Technologies-Hearing Before the Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate. In 2005 he was instrumental in the passage of the Energy
Policy Act, which contained $85 billion in subsidies and tax breaks
for all kinds of energy companies, including $13 billion for nuclear
power. In August of this year he threatened to oppose the
confirmation of former Iowa Representative Jim Nussle to head the
White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless Nussle
agreed to allow the DOE to issue guarantees for 80 percent of the
loans slated for nuclear power in the recently passed Senate energy
bill. These loans could add up to as much as $50 billion.

As the Senate's "chief nuclear apostle" his political career has
profited as well. According to research by MSNBC.com, Domencici has
received $1.2 million in campaign donations from individuals and
political action committees in the energy and natural resources
sector, a tenth of his total campaign funds. In his latest coup for
New Mexico, he convinced Louisiana Energy Services, made up of some
of the biggest players in the nuclear power field, to build its
uranium-enrichment plant in southern New Mexico near Eunice (after
citizens in Louisiana and Tennessee blocked the project in their
states). Furthermore, he inserted language into last year's energy
bill that required the Department of Energy to dispose of the
radioactive waste generated by the plant. Only after Senator John
McCain and others complained about this obvious pork was the
language removed from the bill.
                    Indian Water Rights Settlement


It's obvious to everyone, not just Pete Domenici, that our most
precious and fundamental resourse-water-is the next market commodity
critical to continued corporate growth, particularly in the
semi-arid southwest, and so, of course, Domenici is right there
directing the action in New Mexico. He's using all his
behind-the-scenes power in Congress to arm twist the administration
to expedite approval of the three Indian water rights claims in New
Mexico. La Jicarita News has covered the controversies surrounding
all three settlements: that the federal government is reluctant to
provide its share of their enormous costs; that the settlements
terms discriminate against the largely Hispano communities in the
Pojoaque basin; that the proposed infrastructure and water systems
will facilitate growth and development primarily benefiting the
developers, rather than the Indians or the state's citizens; and
that because the settlements rely on the importation of water by
means of water transfers from outside their regions and will
facilitate water marketing, they are unsustainable.

Domenici's considerable power is particularly being exerted to get
the Navajo/San Juan River Water Rights settlement approved. Federal
legislation was introduced this year to implement the settlement
that will fund the Navajo Irrigation Project and the Navajo-Gallup
Water Supply Project, at a cost of $800 million. In April, Domenici
and Bingaman introduced the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water
Projects Act (S. 117) that would contribute funding over two decades
to construct the pipeline. When the federal government balked at the
cost, however, citing that implementation of the three settlements
would exceed $1.5 billion, Domenici then came up with a scheme to
fund all three settlements. In June he introduced the Reclamation

Water Settlements Fund Act, which would authorize a 10-year funding
source to generate an estimated $1.37 billion to pay for the
settlements once they have been signed into law. Along with his
threat to hold up the OMB nomination of Nussle over the nuclear
industry loan guarantees, Domenici demanded a commitment that the
Bush administration not oppose the legislation to fund the proposed
settlements. The administration expressed its support.
                         Chinks in the Armor


So much for his reputation as a fiscal conservative and Conressional
watchdog. The environmental community has long criticized his
unequivocable support of energy development and the 1872 Mining Act,
and anti-nuclear organizations have opposed increased weapons
production at LANL and Sandia. But until he backed down on his
support for oil and gas drilling in the Valle Vidal (he has always
supported drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge) he rarely
acknowledged public opposition to his agenda. Now, however, after
the Department of Justice controversy, some of his support has
eroded.

Everyone knows about Domenici's phone call to New Mexico's U.S.
Attorney David Iglesias, prior to the 2006 midterm election, urging
him to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation
that involved former Democratic state senator and legislative
powerhouse Manny Aragon. Iglesias informed the senator (and U.S.
Representative Heather Wilson, who also called Iglesias on the same
subject) that indictments wouldn't be handed down until December,
and a month later he was fired, along with a number of other U.S.
Attorneys. It's a violation of ethics rules for a member of Congress
to communicate with federal prosecutors regarding ongoing criminal
investigations, but it remains to be seen whether Domenici or Wilson
will be formally accused of ethics violations and how that might
affect their re-election campaigns.

After enjoying many years as a purveyor of pork, this episode has
shown that the senator is finally vulnerable. While his re-election
may not be a fait accompli this time around, New Mexico must live
with a toxic legacy that has and will affect many peoples' lives
economically, socially, and physically (see articles on pages 1 and
4). And it remains to be seen whether the opposition party, here or
in Washington, will have the political will to address the
inequities and dangers of continued LANL funding for nuclear weapons
production and work with the communities of New Mexico to find
economic parity.

Editorial: It's All About Money

By Kay Matthews

They have collectively lost their minds. By "they" I mean the New
Mexico bureaucrats charged with managing the state's water
resources. In response to a scheme concocted by a Roswell rancher
who wants to buy water rights from Fort Sumner farmers and pipe the
water 145 miles uphill to Santa Fe and Albuquerque, State Engineer
John D'Antonio's response was: "We're in a growing state and if
you're going to continue to grow there's a certain amount of water
that's going to have to come out of agriculture." He also stated
that allowing farmers to sell their water rights to cities is one of
the state engineer's missions "as long as the sales aren't harmful
to the public welfare."

Of course, the concept of "public welfare" has never actually been
defined, and if the local bureaucrats, like those in the Town of
Taos, have anything to say about it, public welfare will come to
mean just what D'Antonio claims is his mission: underwriting growth
and development in urban areas with water from agricultural lands.
As we're noted previously in La Jicarita News, Taos, along with El
Prado Water and Sanitation District and Taos Pueblo, are vigorously
opposing the promulgation of the Taos Regional Water Plan Public
Welfare Statement, which attempts to not only define public welfare
but establish a regional board or committee to review potential
water transfers in the Taos area and make recommendations to the
state engineer as to whether those transfers are in the best
interest of the public.

These parties to the Abeyta adjudication settlement have been trying
for months to scuttle the Public Welfare statement. At the last
meeting of the Plan's Public Welfare Subcommittee with Tomas
Benavidez, Taos city manager, and Jim Brockman, the El Prado
District lawyer, they tried to obscure that goal with talk of the
burden an oversight committee would bring to the process of
transferring water to their good citizens and the threat it
represents to the settlement of the adjudication: both the town and
the district are committed to finding water to facilitate growth and
to offset depletions that have incurred from overpumping to serve
their constituents.Why don't we just exempt them from any oversight
and let them get down to the business of implementing the settlement
whether or not it might be in the best interest of the rest of us in
northern or southern Taos County?

The real agenda with these bureacrats, as it is with the upper
eschelon ones, is the opportunity to commodify water and buy and
sell it on the open market. It's all about moving water to its
"highest and best use", as the lawyers and bureaucrats and
developers like to say. Or, in plain and simple terms, it's all
about money.

? UNM Professor Jake Kosek's book Understories: The Political Life
of Forests in Northern New Mexico (reviewed in the December 2006 and
January 2007 issues of La Jicarita News), was selected as the
recipient of the American Studies Association's 2007 John Hope
Franklin Prize. The prize subcommittee received 121 submissions, and
arrived&endash;quickly and unanimously&endash;at the decision to
award the prize to _Understories_. Congratulations!
                      Elevator Nine Found Guilty


The Elevator Nine, who were arrested in September 2006 when they
refused to leave a federal office building after trying to get
Senator Pete Domenici to sign a Declaration of Peace, which called
for the end of the war in Iraq, were found guilty at their
Albuquerque trial this September. Sentencing will occur within 30
days, and while it is unlikely they will receive jail time, the
verdict was a shock. In an e-mail sent out by Stop the War Machine
(stopthewarmachine@ comcast.net), one of the defendants responded to
the judge's decision: "I feel like I was kicked in the stomach and
now have been let down by every branch of our government when it
comes to this war: the Executive, when Bush lied us into this war;
the Legislative, who abandoned their Constitutional
responsibilities; the Judicial, who basically said that the nine of
us don't have the right to meet with our senator and petition him
against this war; and the media, who many call our fourth branch of
government, who parroted Bush's lies and did next to nothing to try
to expose those lies (Amy Goodman et al. not included, of course). .
. . [B]ut how badly we may feel can't compare to what the family and
friends of both the Iraqi and American dead must feel, as well as
the wounded on both sides and the two million poor Iraqis who have
been forced to leave their own county. I do know that it is going to
take many more of our fellow Americans to stand up against this war
in imaginative and nonviolent ways before we will get peace."

? Author, professor, and activist Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz will be in
New Mexico to read from and discuss the new edition (University of
Oklahoma Press) of her book Roots of Resistance: A History of Land
Tenure in New Mexico. On Tuesday, October 9th, 6-7:30 pm, she will
read and discuss her book at Otowi Station, 1350 Central Ave, Los
Alamos. On Saturday, October 13th, 2-4 pm, she will be in Taos at an
informal signing with poet Simon Ortiz, who wrote the introduction
to her book, at Moby Dickens Bookshop, 124-A Bent Street. That
evening at 6:30 she and Simon Ortiz will discuss the book at a Peace
Action New Mexico meeting at Kit Carson Electric Cooperative Board
Room, 118 Cruz Alta Rd. For more information go to:
http://www.reddirtsite.com/bk-roots-1.htm.

? The annual High Road Art Tour will take place the weekends of
September 22-23 and 29-30, 10 am-5 pm. The tour begins with studios
in Chimayó and continues through the mountain villages of Córdova,
Truchas, Ojo Sarco, Las Trampas, Chamisal, Rio Lucio, Picuris
Pueblo, Peńasco, Rodarte, Llano San Juan, Llano de la Yegua, and
Vadito. To obtain a brochure or more information visit the website
at www.highroadnewmexico.com or call 866-343-5381.

Living In "Atomic Spaces"

By Mark Schiller

Last week, in the wake of an announcement by Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) that it may be laying off as many as 2,500
employees, many of whom live in Espańola and other parts of Rio
Arriba County, Espańola mayor Richard Maestas called for the county
to start diversifying its economy so that it wouldn't be so
dependent on the Lab. Maestas' comments seemed particularly
poignant, as I was in the midst of reading Peter Bacon Hales' book
Atomic Spaces, Living on the Manhattan Project, which discusses the
strangle hold the Manhattan Project (MP) (responsible for the
research and production of the first atomic bomb) established over
the economies of northern New Mexico (LANL), eastern Tennessee (the
site of the Oak Ridge production facility), and eastern Washington
(the site of the Hanford production facility). The book also
documents the many injustices perpetrated on the American people in
the name of national security by the administrators of the MP,
including knowingly exposing thousands of workers and military
personnel to dangerous levels of radiation and other toxic chemicals
and failing to adequately compensate hundreds of farmers who owned
land condemned for the major production and research sites. Hale
also traces the origins of the "military-industrial complex" (which
President Eisenhower in his farewell address warned the country to
be wary of) to the MP and discusses the effects the project has had
on our social institutions and the advancement of scientific and
technical research.

Hanford Nuclear Facility: Truth in Advertising?

Los Alamos Study Group billboard

Photo by Jakob Schiller

The MP, Hales asserts, drew "the scientific community into a new set
of relations with government, industry, and each other." Suggesting
initially that representatives from the government, military, and
scientific communities would share equally in the administration of
a program to research the potential of atomic technology, the
program quickly devolved into a hierarchical military-industrial
bureaucracy, under the aegis of the National Defense Research
Committee (NDRC), that treated the scientists as employees and
restricted research to military goals rather than atomic energy's
broader potentials. According to Hales, "By the Fall of 1940 [over a
year before Pearl Harbor], the NDRC had effectively taken over the
world of experimental atomic physics" by signing contracts for the
development of its programs with Columbia, Harvard, Princeton,
Cornell, Johns Hopkins, the University of Minnesota, Berkeley, and
the University of Chicago. NDRC also enlisted the corporate elite by
including members of Standard Oil, Kellogg, Union Carbide,
Westinghouse, and others major corporations on its Planning Board.
That board was appointed ostensibly to award production contracts to
the technologically most advanced corporations, but as Hales notes,
"quite naturally these corporate representatives recommended their
own companies . . . [and] were accepted as prime contractors for the
nascent production phase of the atomic enterprise." Thus, the most
advanced scientific research was commodified and limited to the
agenda of the military-corporate decision makers. Moreover, the work
and business arrangements of the MP were exempt from any kind of
governmental or public oversight. As Hales points out, it was
assumed "that all actions by the Project were necessary and right.
Thus there would be no justifications, no investigations, no demands
for statistics or reports . . . ."

This enormous project was ruthlessly and cunningly orchestrated by
General Leslie R. Groves, who also directed the construction of the
Pentagon and whom Hales refers to as "the invisible presence." Hales
notes, ". . . Groves did not appear on the bureaucratic maps of
power, no matter how vast or complex they became over the years of
the District's [The Manhattan Project was originally referred to as
the Manhattan Engineer District] history. At the top was always the
district engineer-first [Colonel James C.] Marshall, then [Colonel
K. D.] Nichols. Groves himself existed immaterially, at once
everywhere and nowhere." In other words, if Robert Oppenheimer was
the so-called "father" of the atomic bomb, then Groves could aptly
be called its "godfather."

Although Groves insisted in his 1962 account of the MP, Now It Can
Be Told, that the Project was governed by three guiding principals:
"1, safety first against both known and unknown hazards; 2,
certainty of operation-every possible chance of failure was guarded
against; and 3, the utmost saving of time in achieving full
production," Hales asserts that the facts demonstrate Groves was a
liar. He suggests that "The first priority lay with production, then
with prevention of liability or bad publicity, and last of all with
health or safety." A chapter detailing the toxic hazards many MP
workers were exposed to chillingly bears this out.

According to Hales, Groves sought to "supersede" medico-ethical
concerns related to the production of the atomic bomb. To this end,
Groves appointed Stafford Warren to head a medical program "owing
unconditional allegiance to the military-industrial culture and to
Groves." Hales asserts that "Warren's program left the doctors and
researchers diffident servants to the contracting corporations and
the district engineer's office." But apparently even Warren's
"draconian recommendations" were not enough for Groves. "He wanted
further guarantees that the doctors . . . would not let humanitarian
concerns get in the way of their duty [to the program]. He sought an
authority that could supersede the Hippocratic oath. . . . " He
therefore demanded and ultimately succeeded in placing the entire
medical program under military control which "assured that
individual doctors would not concern themselves with ethical
matters."

Groves was also successful in placing strict limits on research into
the effects of exposure to radiation and forced the medical program
to embrace "a philosophy of purposeful ignorance, of knowledge
control . . . in order to prevent revelations that might hamper the
project." Hales claims that "When it came to medical research, the
prime focus was 'medico-legal'-the function of research was to
prevent, not injuries, but lawsuits resulting from injuries."
Warren's own account of the project concedes ". . . the general
attitude of the medicobiologic workers was 'If this is all we need
to know, we don't want the responsibility of knowing any more.'"

As a result of this policy, work-related illness and injury
proliferated throughout the Project. The Oak Ridge electromagnetic
processing facility, Hales states, "used dangerous uranium
hexafluoride gas and uranium oxyfluorine as well. Just how volatile
these processes were is indicated by the [MP's] official historian's
1946 statement that Tennessee Eastman's electromagnetic process
resulted in 'an average of 150 cases of occupational injury or
illness . . . every 24 hours' when the process was in full
production. And these were only the cases treated by the Tennessee
Eastman Corporation medical team; lower-level injuries, such as skin
rashes from contact with radioactive and toxic materials, may have
been much higher."

Not until after the first bomb had been detonated at Alamogordo in
late July of 1945 did the Medical and Insurance Sections of the
Project acknowledge that proper safety procedures had not been
followed and that the government could face legal consequences. At
that point the Medical Section, according to Hales, fearing its own
legal liability, insisted that "the employees must necessarily be
rotated out, and not be permitted to resume further exposure." Hales
goes on to say, "For the doctors themselves, radiation injury
provided a particularly troubling matter. On the one hand, they had
no idea how to treat the disease; in fact, they might not even be
able to make an informed diagnosis, thanks in part to the District's
orders limiting research. What were they to tell those patients who
came to them with symptoms of severe radiation illness? According to
the District: nothing." In point of fact the District closed ranks,
and in an effort to impose a policy to limit its liability,
officially discouraged workers from consulting doctors outside the
facilities by suggesting that the District's own medical staff was
"best equipped and trained to treat any cases arising out of the
peculiar working conditions of the area."

Although the federal government finally passed the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program in 2000 (see page 1),
which allows for limited financial compensation for workers who can
"prove" they contracted occupational related diseases as a result of
working for the Department of Energy, fewer than 8.5% of LANL
employees' claims have been awarded, clearly substantiating Hales'
assertion that "The campaign of duplicity concerning the dangers
continues today."

Atomic Spaces also presents a devastating critique of the rigid
class, race, and gender biases that pervaded the MP and which
current employment and wage statistics demonstrate continue today.
Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanos, and women were all
discriminated against and relegated to low paying, menial jobs.

While the intelligentsia at LANL tended to romanticize the Native
American culture, they were also condescending and contemptuous of
the hundreds of Native Americans who worked as construction and
maintenance personnel as well as domestic servants. A 1944 letter,
in which the wife of a LANL scientist discussed hiring a Native
American woman to work as a domestic servant, is indicative of the
prevailing sentiment: "I have household help today for the first
time. She came to the house rolled up in a bright red blanket and
smiles. She calls me "Meesie Feesha" [the woman's name was Phyllis
Fisher] and tells me her name is Apolonia. She is a short,
middle-aged, stooped Indian woman from a nearby pueblo. She looks as
though she couldn't lift a feather. But whether or not she can clean
the house is immaterial. I'm sure she'll be worth her wages in
entertainment value alone. She is sweet, picturesque, and I love to
watch her. If she does nothing more than stand around, I'll find my
housework less boring."

Ironically, within the patriarchal culture of the MP, even LANL
wives who were well educated and sophisticated were marginalized.
Isolated from their husbands who worked long hours and were given
strict orders not to discuss their work with anyone, many of these
women suffered severe depression. Laura Fermi, the wife of Nobel
laureate Enrico Fermi, recalled that the MP encouraged scientists'
wives to take low-paying white-collar jobs, crunching numbers,
collating data, typing, filing and organizing in order to "keep them
out of mischief." Hales notes that by August of 1944 three quarters
of scientists' wives were employed in what he calls "mind-numbing"
work: "They sat in rooms filled with other women doing the same
work, and they typed in the endless lists of numbers. They were
hired not because they were intelligent, but because they were
available. They were never told the rationale behind their work.
When the calculations didn't live up to the hopes of the scientists
and mathematicians who devised the theories, they found themselves
the butt of anger, contempt, blame. The assumption was: the failure
was their fault, not the fault of the theory or the prediction. When
they were vindicated, as they often were, they never found out."

Employment of African Americans and Hispanos, who had been
dispossessed by the MP from their homes and farms, amounted to a
kind of forced servitude (they had nowhere to go and no marketable
job skills) that included substandard wages and housing. At Los
Alamos, for instance, Hispano workers were housed in uninsulated
metal Quonset huts that were set-up as dormitories, providing little
protection from the heat and cold and no privacy whatsoever.

As jaded as we've all become by more recent revelations regarding
the government's covert operations, reading Atomic Spaces is still a
very disturbing experience: the litany of horrors associated with MP
seems endless and overwhelming. More importantly, as Hales points
out, "the systems of behavior and belief that guided the actors and
participants of the District spread from the sites and spaces [of
the MP] as the fences came down. The Manhattan District influenced
the course of America and of international civilization in important
ways . . ." As citizens of the most powerful nation in the world,
whose domestic and foreign policies are shaped by a
military-corporate elite, and as residents of New Mexico who live
down wind, down stream and down trodden by LANL, the legacy of the
Manhattan Project pervades our lives and, I suspect, our anatomies
as well.

Copyright 1996-2006 La Jicarita Box 6 El Valle Route, Chamisal, New
Mexico 87521.
*****************************************************************
 28 Telegraph: Windscale fire: 'We were too busy to panic' - 

Wednesday 10 October 2007

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 09/10/2007

It is 50 years since a fire broke out at Windscale – the worst 
nuclear accident the West has ever seen. Roger Highfield meets 
the physicist who helped to contain the leak of radioactive gases

Fifty years ago tomorrow, Vic Goodwin arrived for work at 
Windscale, the plutonium plant used to make nuclear weapons in 
Cumbria.

 More workers were called in to create a 'firebreak' by clearing the
                       fuel around the inferno


A graduate trainee reactor physicist working for the Atomic Energy
Authority (AEA), he noticed immediately that radioactivity was
registering at the top of one of the giant cooling chimneys.

This should not have been happening. A meteorological station
elsewhere on the site was also detecting a leak. "I thought we had a
bad burst," says Goodwin, slang for the failure of a fuel rod sealed
around the uranium to contain toxic radioactive gases.

In fact, he was soon swept up in a chain of events that conspired to
produce the worst nuclear accident ever seen in the West.


It was the courage and ingenuity of those present, including
Goodwin, that averted total catastrophe – but only just.

There were two major releases of radiation – one on October 10 and a
second the following day when water was poured on the fire.

The fallout was detected in Belgium, Germany and Norway and may have
been carried further east. It caused an estimated 200 cancers in
Britain, half of them fatal.

You could say it was an accident waiting to happen.

Windscale was Britain's makeshift answer to Hanford, the nuclear
reactor in Washington State that had manufactured the plutonium for
the world's first atomic test in July 1945 and for the bomb dropped
on Nagasaki the following month.

The Cumbrian plant consisted of two reactors (or piles) built to
make more than 200lb of plutonium a year. According to Goodwin,
Windscale's prototype design was "dodgy" from the start.

The most noticeable feature of each Windscale pile was its 400ft
chimney, which vented the tons of air used to cool the reactor.

At the base of each pile, some 2,000 tons of graphite, surrounded by
a seven-foot shield of concrete, was used to control the chain
reaction in the pile's 3,440 fuel channels. Spent fuel was pushed
out of the pile for reprocessing to extract plutonium.

The Monday before the accident, the first reactor, Pile 1, was
activated to release a build-up of energy – a routine procedure. The
fuel was well below normal operating temperatures and was warming
slower than expected.

On the Tuesday, a second heating was applied. The temperature rise
was "more than intended", recalls Goodwin, but the release of energy
went well. By Wednesday night, the temperature was more than 400°C
and Goodwin asked for more air to be vented through the graphite to
cool it.


By midday on October 10, however, temperatures were rising 
rapidly. When Goodwin drew in more air, the pile cooled - but one 
temperature reading surged on, and radioactivity measurements in 
the chimney were also rising.

Goodwin knew something was horribly wrong.

By late afternoon, workers were sent into the reactor to clear 
what was thought to be a single damaged fuel element that was 
causing the problem.

To their horror, they saw several fuel channels glowing cherry 
red. The workers attempted to push the burning fuel out of the 
reactor with metal rods but the fuel, distorted by the heat, 
jammed.

More workers were called in to create a "firebreak" by clearing 
the fuel around the inferno. "We were working like fury," 
remembers Goodwin, "but we were too busy to panic."

That midnight, there was an atomic cloud drifting to the 
north-east.

Where Goodwin had first seen a red glow, by 8pm there were flames 
- "not huge flames, but a neat array of cones of burning gas, 
like in a gas cooker".

With a blaze in the heart of the reactor, there were two 
available options: to use inert gas to smother it or to douse it 
with water.

"I got the job of making a water-injection system," said Goodwin. 
By midnight, with the help of the fire brigade, makeshift hoses 
were positioned high up on the reactor. But by then, the blue 
glow of the flames suggested the fire had reached a more critical 
1,300řC.

There was concern that at such a temperature the water would 
simply break down, generate hydrogen and cause an explosion. It 
was at this point that a site emergency was declared.

With the water-cooling method declared too dangerous, they tried 
to quell the inferno using carbon dioxide from the new gas-cooled 
Calder Hall reactors next door. By 4.30am on the Friday, it was 
clear that this strategy had failed.

An estimated 11 tons of uranium were ablaze. At 8.55am, despite 
the dangers involved, the hoses were turned on.

The blowers that had kept temperatures tolerable for the 
fire-fighters - but had also been fanning the flames - were 
switched off. "It did the trick," says Goodwin. "By midday, the 
fire was finally out."

While it was front-page news, the scale of the disaster was 
played down by officials. The government asked Sir William 
Penney, one of Britain's foremost authorities on nuclear weapons, 
to investigate to Windscale fire, but his report was heavily 
censored and spun to blame personnel rather than the plant.

Prime minister Harold Macmillan feared that Penney's original 
report would shake public confidence and harm Britain's nuclear 
pact with America, which was awaiting congressional approval.

 The government was equally tight-lipped about the radioactive 
fallout - although the authorities banned the sale of milk from 
local farms.

A new study by John Garland, formerly of the UK Atomic Energy 
Authority, and Richard Wakeford, a visiting professor at the 
University of Manchester, suggests there was roughly twice the 
amount of radiation released than initially assessed because the 
radioactive plume actually travelled further east.

Vic Goodwin received a radiation dose, although "it was not 
significant by the standard of the day", he says, and has 
suffered no known side effects.

It is estimated that the accident caused an estimated 100 deaths 
in Britain. But it remains hard to link individual deaths to the 
fire.

The worst part of the tragedy, says Goodwin, is that the fire 
happened in two reactors that had been obsolescent since August 
1956; the neighbouring station, Calder Hall, was already safely 
generating both plutonium and electricity.

"The Windscale reactors were allowed to run on a year too long," 
he says. "It needn't have happened."

INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS

Kyshtym Incident, September 1957

A high-level waste tank exploded in the Mayak complex, one of the 
Soviet Union's bomb factories, in the Chelyabinsk region. The 
radioactive fallout contaminated 15,000 sq km of land and 
prompted the authorities to evacuate more than 10,000 people. The 
disaster, named after a nearby town, was hushed up and the health 
effects remain unclear.

SL-1 Incident, January 1961

The first fatal US nuclear reactor accident, at the experimental 
plant SL-1 in Idaho. Three operators were killed when the 
facility exploded.

Three Mile Island, March 1979

When the core of the nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania partly 
melted down, it was the most significant incident in the history 
of the American commercial nuclear power-generating industry. 
However, there were no deaths or injuries to plant workers or 
members of the nearby community.

Chernobyl, April 1986

The Chernobyl reactor explosion in the Ukraine released 1,000 
times as much radioactivity as Windscale. It is thought to have 
caused 47 deaths among the workforce and killed nine children 
with thyroid cancer. WHO also estimates there may have been up to 
9,000 further related cancer deaths, but there is controversy 
over these estimates due to poor health records and secrecy.

THE FUTURE

Today, there are 439 nuclear reactors worldwide, including 19 
still operational in Britain. Could Windscale happen again? "No," 
says Dr Paul Howarth of the Dalton Nuclear Institute, Manchester, 
"there are much greater levels of safety, our level of 
understanding is greatly improved and the technology is 
fundamentally different."


&copy; Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | Terms
*****************************************************************
 29 Regina Leader Post: Depleted uranium

enduring risk

John W. Warnock, Special to The Leader-Post

Published: Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Six years ago this past Sunday, the U.S. government launched a war
against the government of Afghanistan.

Air power was the key. Two B-2 Stealth bombers flew from Whiteman
Air Force Base in Missouri, each carrying sixteen 2,000-lb
satellite-directed bombs. Five B-1B and 10 B-52 heavy bombers flew
from Diego Garcia, the U.S. island base guarding the Persian Gulf.
Twenty-five strike aircraft attacked from two U.S. aircraft carriers
in the Arabian Sea. U.S. Navy F-18 Hornets and F-14 Tomcats dropped
500-lb guided bombs and 2,000-lb earth penetrators. Fifty Tomahawk
cruise missiles were launched from U.S. and British ships and
submarines. The targets for the first few days were military
facilities, both those of the Taliban government and those used by
Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.

For the Tora Bora bunkers, the U.S. Air Force allotted 32 individual
GBU-31, 2,000-lb bombs, carried by the B-1 Lancer bombers, launched
from the U.S.A. and from Diego Garcia. A single aircraft can carry
up to 24 tons of bombs. The 5,000-lb bunker busters and the earth
penetrator weapons were dropped by B-2 bombers. Within a few days,
the U.S. government announced that they had destroyed the main
targets.

By Oct. 29, 70 per cent of U.S. air strikes were in support of the
Northern Alliance armed forces, most guided by the U.S. Special
Forces on the ground. The MQ-1 Predator drone with Hellfire missiles
was operating over Taliban forces, directing air attacks and
launching missiles.

By Nov. 5 the number of individual air missions was up to 120 per
day, adding F-16 and

F-15 fighter-bombers out of U.S. bases in Kuwait.

The turning point in the war to oust the Taliban government came on
Nov. 6 at Mazar-e Sharif, a key city in the northern plains. Attack
aircraft rained down hundreds of MK82 500-lb bombs. B-52 bombers
used carpet bombing to kill thousands of Taliban forces. It was here
that U.S. forces dropped the first BLU-82 Daisy Cutter bomb, each
weighing 15,000 lbs, producing devastation over a 600-yard radius.
All the weapons used by the U.S. air attack included depleted
uranium shielding.

Depleted uranium (DU) is produced during the uranium enrichment
process. The U-235 used to produce fuel for reactors generating
electricity is removed, leaving the U-238 isotope. The material is
extremely dense and increases the penetration ability of weapons; it
is used to coat shells and warheads on missiles and bombs. On
impact, the shell, with its uranium and traces of americium and
plutonium, vaporizes and becomes very tiny particles of radioactive
dust. When it is inhaled it can stay in the body, emitting radiation.

The DU used in U.S. weapons comes from the uranium mines in
Saskatchewan.

n August 2003 Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor 
used a Geiger counter to test several sites in Baghdad near where 
bunker-buster bombs and missiles had fallen. He found radiation 
readings that were between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than 
normal background radiation readings. DU weapons are still being 
extensively used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After the 1991 Gulf War, birth defects and leukemia rose 
dramatically in the areas around Basra where these weapons were 
used. By 2003, the U.S. Defense Department admitted that over 
200,000 Gulf War veterans had filed for compensation for death, 
illness or disabilities.

The veterans refer to this as "Gulf War Syndrome." In the first 
Gulf War, the U.S.-led coalition suffered 148 deaths.

Since then 8,000 veterans of this war have experienced early 
death.

In 1996 the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring 
that DU weapons were illegal "weapons of mass destruction." In 
2002, the U.N. Human Rights Convention passed a resolution urging 
a ban on the use of any DU weapons. We will have to wait to find 
out the impact of these weapons on the people of Afghanistan and 
the men and women in the U.S., Canadian and NATO armed forces.

- Warnock is a Regina political economist and author.

This is an extract from his forthcoming book Afghanistan: The 
Creation of a Failed State, to be published by Fernwood in 2008.

© 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks
*****************************************************************
 30 Calgary Sun: Welcome to uranium country

Tue, October 9, 2007

UPDATED: 2007-10-09 01:56:32 MST

By BILL KAUFMANN, CALGARY SUN

 Complex plan wows surging city

SASKATOON -- The sculpture dominating the reception area of the
world's largest uranium producer puts a drill-wielding miner next to
a raven and wolf family.

"Mining and nature in harmony" reads the attached plaque -- a claim
many environmentalists would dispute.

A flood a year ago at Cameco's Cigar Lake mine, 660 km north of
Saskatoon, has raised fears radioactive contamination could seep
into the nearby watershed.

Company spokesman Gordon Struthers calls the flood, which was caused
by a subterranean rock collapse, "a pretty serious setback."

But Struthers says the prospects of nuclear energy, fuelled partly
by the urge to control greenhouse gas emissions, are glowing.

He says uranium extraction has become one of the mining
cornerstones, along with potash and diamonds, of Saskatchewan's
economic future.

"We make a big difference in northern Saskatchewan, and we make sure
as many northern people as possible work on our operations," says
Struthers at Cameco's head office in Saskatoon.


It doesn't hurt that Saskatchewan supplies 30% of the world's
uranium, with Cameco filling 20% of the world's demand, he says.

Uranium's promise has attracted Albertans, who've left lucrative
jobs to work in the company's Saskatchewan operations.

Common areas in the Cameco headquarters' ground floor are festooned
with signs touting the industry's safety record and the demand for
uranium -- the latter soon to take off as the number of nuclear
reactors is expected to jump from 430 to more than 500 within a
decade.

News of Calgary-based Energy Alberta's application for a licence to
construct a twin Candu reactor facility near Peace River is only
mildly heartening to the company, which employs 2,000 people.

"Nobody's jumping up and down, because it takes a long time to
generate energy," says Struthers.

"The presence of another nuclear reactor isn't going to make a huge
difference, but it's part of an incremental growth worldwide."

In another setback earlier this summer, Cameco announced
contaminated soil had been discovered beneath its plant in Port
Hope, Ont., which is used to process uranium hexafluoride for light
nuclear reactors.

Struthers says he doesn't expect such headaches to greatly
strengthen public opposition to uranium mining or nuclear power.

"If you look at the record, the nuclear industry is by far the
safest energy industry in the world," he says.

The need to reduce global warming emissions in Alberta, he says,
will only grow. Nuclear energy, possibly provided by Cameco uranium,
is one obvious solution.

After the 1979 nuclear mishap at Three Mile Island, no new nuclear
reactors went on line for a quarter century, leading to lean times
and rock-bottom prices for uranium, which fell to $7 per pound of
concentrate.

But a stunning rebound shot prices up to $136 per lb. in June, which
has since settled to a still lucrative $85.

"Nobody was investing in exploration or new mine development --
there were very few companies like Cameco that kept the faith," says
Struthers.

Now, he says, "in 10 years, demand is going to far outweigh supply,"
which Cameco is in an ideal position to exploit.

Better still, the quality of Saskatchewan uranium is 10 times the
world average, says Struthers.

That's cause for as much fear as it is expectation of a royalty
bonanza for her province, says Ann Coxworth of the Saskatchewan
Environmental Society.

"We have concerns about the whole nuclear fuel cycle -- it cannot be
regarded as a sustainable energy source," she says, adding there are
no guarantees some of the uranium won't be diverted for weapons use.

"We mine the stuff, so we have to have responsibility for what
happens in other places."

Waste storage technology hasn't progressed in two decades, she says.

Coxworth questions the dedication of companies and governments to
continue monitoring the threat posed by mine tailings and Cigar
Lake-type floods.

"Since this material is so long-lived, we have nothing in human
history to compare it to."

Alberta going nuclear, she says, is unthinkable since the
oilsands-scarred province "is already such an environmental disaster
area."

But she admits it's not easy opposing economic development in an
area of Saskatchewan crying out for jobs.

For now, it's full speed ahead for Cameco's two active mines in
Saskatchewan and two mines in the U.S.

Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 31 The Buffalo News: Landfill’s Tonawanda neighbors call for remediation

Updated: 10/08/07 8:06 AM

Charles Lewis/Buffalo News
Leonard Batiuk signs a petition to have hazardous waste
removed from the Tonawanda Landfill.

The Tonawanda Landfill has a chain-link fence around it, keeping
people out.

But for decades, there was no fence. Children played freely on the
site, with their parents unaware a top-secret program begun during
World War II had left behind potentially lifethreatening
contaminants.

Linde Air Products Co. had enriched uranium for use in the atomic
bomb under a contract with the Army’s Manhattan Project.

“Everyone played on the landfill,” said Carleton R. Zeisz, Tonawanda
City Council president. “Kids rode their dirt bikes, there was even
a pit where people swam. We knew there was garbage up there, but it
was just garbage — we didn’t think anything of it.”

The idea of radioactive garbage — or soil, or swimming holes — never
crossed anyone’s mind then. Today, more than 60 years since those
experiments began, it does.

So far, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has concluded no costly
site remediation is necessary. But residents — with the backing of
the state Department of Environmental Conservation, despite finding
no signs of radioactive contamination in a recent survey of
neighboring residences and the grounds of Riverview Elementary
School — are insisting on full cleanup and remediation.

With the federal government nearing a decision on closing the site,
Zeisz, County Legislator Michele M. Iannello and Councilman Rick
Davis went door-todoor Sunday on Hackett Drive and Brookside
Terrace. Many of the modest-sized, shingle- and vinyl-sided houses
are just 50 feet from the fence.

The local lawmakers asked their neighbors to sign letters urging the
Army Corps of Engineers to do a full cleanup of the site. A public
comment period expires next Monday.

Jennifer Reynolds, an original homeowner in the neighborhood, said
she had already written a letter expressing her concerns.

“When we moved in 40 years ago, we had absolutely no idea [about the
toxic waste]. We were young, my husband and I, and no one tells you
these things, so of course you just assume you’re safe,” Reynolds
said. “You’re dealing with the government and they are slow, and
that’s normal, but it’s about time they showed people they can move
and do something when it’s the public health.”

Reynolds added she and others also were concerned about the value of
their homes.

Richard Anderson, who declared to the Democratic lawmakers that he
was a Republican, signed the letter. “Why do we have a Corps of
Engineers anymore?” he asked. “They have never done anything good
for us and are just Mickey Mousing around.”

Tara Bihary said she, too, wondered about health risks from the
landfill.

“I want to get [the toxic waste] out of here, because I have dogs,”
she said.

The lawmakers recalled a public hearing in which the Army Corps of
Engineers showed where there were hot spots on the landfill site and
how long a child could be in contact.

“People were told that you could play for 15 minutes a day. You
could spend this much time in a day, a week, a lifetime,” Carleton
said, suggesting such talk was absurd.

“When you’re talking human life, my standards and their standards
are not the same,” Iannello said.

She said the time for action is now.

“There are toxins there, and we know they can cause cancer. I don’t
care what the level is, let’s remove them and then we don’t have to
worry about it,” she said.

Davis, who is also co-chairman of CURE, which wants to get the
toxins removed, said some statewide politicians had come out in
support of the homeowners but also called for more testing.

Davis said the time for that is past.

“We don’t need further testing. What we need is their backing behind
a full push to remediate the landfill,” Davis said. “They need to
tell the Army Corps to change their course of action, and do the
right thing.”

msommer@buffnews.com

Copyright 1999 - 2007 - The Buffalo News copyright-protected
material.

© 2007 The Buffalo News. The information you receive online from The
*****************************************************************
 32 BBC NEWS: Sarkozy to meet Putin in Moscow
          
Last Updated: Tuesday, 9 October 2007, 14:44 GMT 15:44 UK

The two presidents met for the first time at the G8 summit n June

The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has arrived in Moscow for 
his first bilateral summit with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir 
Putin.

They are expected to discuss energy and industrial co-operation, 
as well as Iran's nuclear programme and Kosovo.

Mr Sarkozy accused Russia last week of "complicating" the world's 
problems.

"Between resignation and war - two words which are not in my
vocabulary - there is a responsible attitude: increasing sanctions
to bring Iran to reason, but also openness to dialogue if Iran
chooses to respect its obligations," he told the Russian official
newspaper, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, in an interview to be published on
Tuesday.

Correspondents say Mr Sarkozy is likely to be backed by the UK and
US, but Russia, China and Germany oppose imposing tougher UN
sanctions.

"The sanctions have made it possible to obtain first results by
pushing Iranian leaders towards greater transparency. So this is
proof that they are making the government think," he added,
according to a copy obtained by the AFP news agency. "I won't
compromise on such a serious issue."

Tehran has denied Western accusations that it is trying to build a
nuclear weapon.

'Open and constructive spirit'

Mr Sarkozy is due to hold talks with Mr Putin on Wednesday.

In addition to Iran, the two presidents are likely to discuss the 
future status of Serbia's breakaway province of Kosovo, whose 
independence Russia opposes.

There is no contradiction between the desire of the French to 
reinforce their friendship with the United States and the 
development of their traditional partnership with us

Alexander Grushko
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister

They are also due to discuss possible collaboration between the 
European aerospace firm, EADS, and its Russian counterpart, UAC, 
on the construction of a new passenger jet, as well as the 
partnership between the energy giants, Total and Gazprom.

The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Alexander Grushko, said the 
negotiations would take place in an "open and constructive 
spirit".

"There is no contradiction between the desire of the French to 
reinforce their friendship with the United States and the 
development of their traditional partnership with us," he told 
Interfax news agency.

Mr Sarkozy's office said he would tell President Putin of his 
"conviction that Russia is and will remain a major player in 
international relations and an essential partner."

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 33 Reuters: Lugar urges U.S.-Russia cooperation before Bush goes 

Tue Oct 9, 2007 1:51am EDT

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration should pursue
cooperation with Russia on missile defense, arms control and
non-proliferation in its waning months despite the many differences
between Washington and Moscow, an influential U.S. senator said on
Monday.

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee's senior Republican, offered the advice as U.S. Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates head to
Moscow this week for so-called "2+2" talks with their Russian
counterparts on Friday and Saturday.

"The visit provides the last, best opportunity to lay the foundation
for bold initiatives," before U.S. President George W. Bush and
Russian President Vladimir Putin step down, Lugar said in a speech
at the Brookings Institution think tank.

Lugar said the two countries -- which disagree on topics including
how to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions, European missile defense
and independence for Kosovo -- have a "narrow window of opportunity"
to make progress.

The most controversial issue ahead of the talks is the U.S. plan to
place 10 interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic as
part of a shield designed to protect Europe from missile attacks by
states such as Iran and North Korea.

Russia has said this would upset the strategic balance and pose a
threat to its security. In July, Moscow proposed the two countries
use a Russian-operated early warning radar in Azerbaijan as an
alternative to the U.S. missile shield.

While acknowledging that missile defense "is seen by many as a major
source of the current malaise in the relationship," Lugar said the
Russian proposal held promise.

"Sharing information gathered by U.S. and NATO systems (with) Russia
and possibly linking radar and early warning systems would be useful
in ensuring transparency and reaffirming our cooperative approach,"
Lugar said.  Continued...

*****************************************************************
 34 Prague Daily Monitor: Wolfowitz: Missile defence to reduce number of nuclear weapons -

Wednesday, 10 October 2007 / Log in

By ÄŚTK / Published 9 October 2007

Prague, Oct 8 (CTK) - Missile defence, including the possible U.S.
radar base near Prague, should help reduce the number of nuclear
weapons in the world, Paul Wolfowitz, former World Bank head and
former U.S. deputy secretary of defense, told CTK during the Forum
2000 conference in Prague Monday.

He said the anti-missile shield diminishes the fear of someone
keeping and hiding nuclear weapons.

The anti-missile shield will enable effective defence against a
nuclear threat, he added.

Wolfowitz said he would "like to see a much bigger reduction in
nuclear weapons" in the world.

"The reasons we developed the kind of the forces we have were unique
in the circumstances of the Cold War," he said.

The circumstances have changed now. "The biggest difference today is
that we could eventually face a threat from nuclear weapons in the
hands of terrorists," Wolfowitz said.

The possible threat should be prevented by an effort to reduce the
number of nuclear weapons.

"Not unilaterally. It has to be [done by] everybody," he said.

At present Wolfowitz works with the American Enterprise Institute
(AEI) where he mainly focuses on issues related to development.

He addressed problems in Africa in the debate at Forum 2000, an
annual international conference of leading politicians, thinkers and
intellectuals, Monday.

He said financial subsidies are not the only way to help Africa as
some countries mishandle them.

"I think more assistance is needed, but it should be targeted more
carefully," he said.

Rather than financial subsidies he said he prefers an improvement in
the trade with advanced countries, which could help African states
improve their economic situation.

It is a mistake that some African countries cannot export their
farming products to the USA, he said.

As an example he gave Burkina Faso 70 percent of whose income come
from cotton, but it still cannot export cotton to the USA.

"That's wrong," Wolfowitz said.

This story is from the Czech News Agency (CTK).
The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its
content.

Copyright 2007 by the Czech News Agency (CTK). All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 35 Digital Chosunilbo: China Should Hold N.Korea's Plutonium - NY Times

Updated Oct.10,2007 06:41 KST

Experts have proposed that China take physical custody of North
Korea's weapons-grade plutonium in order to help denuclearize the
peninsula. This was the suggestion in a column published in the New
York Times on Tuesday entitled "Kim Jong-il's Last Card."

The column was written by James Laney, former U.S. ambassador to
South Korea from 1993 to 1997, and Jason Shaplen, a former policy
adviser at the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization from
1995 to 1999.

"The (February) nuclear accord is ambiguous on one issue that
threatens to derail it: the question of what will happen to North
Korea's existing stockpile of fissile material," they wrote. "To
break the impasse, we propose that China, North Korea's closest
remaining ally, assume physical custody in North Korea of the
fissile material."

According to the writers, North Korea has reprocessed approximately
50kg of weapons-grade plutonium -- "enough for as many as 10 nuclear
bombs." Although the denuclearization efforts are proceeding at a
rapid clip, Kim Jong-il may insist on keeping his stockpile of
plutonium as his "last remaining card".

If China were to take custody of the plutonium, it would give Kim
room to negotiate and allow him to continue holding the "card", the
column suggested. It would also ensure that "the North does not use
it to make additional bombs, send it to another country for
safekeeping or sell some of it to a terrorist organization for
much-needed cash."

Because North Korea distrusts the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, China is a better choice to hold
the plutonium, the writers said. China opposes the collapse of the
North Korean regime.

"And if the North fails to abide by its commitments, China could use
its huge fuel and food subsidies to bring added pressure to bear,"
the column said. "To be sure, allowing weapons-grade plutonium to
remain in the country for any period of time is less than ideal. But
no agreement that is practical will be ideal for all parties.
Compromise is essential to the accord's success."

(englishnews@chosun.com )

*****************************************************************
 36 DOE: DOE Awards First Three Large-Scale Carbon Sequestration Projects

October 9, 2007

U.S. Projects Total $318 Million and Further President Bush’s
Initiatives to Advance Clean Energy Technologies to Confront Climate
Change

WASHINGTON, DC — In a major step forward for demonstrating the
promise of clean energy technology, U.S Deputy Secretary of Energy
Clay Sell today announced that the Department of Energy (DOE)
awarded the first three large-scale carbon sequestration projects in
the United States and the largest single set in the world to date. 
The three projects - Plains Carbon Dioxide Reduction Partnership;
Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership; and Southwest
Regional Partnership for Carbon Sequestration - will conduct large
volume tests for the storage of one million or more tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) in deep saline reservoirs.  DOE plans to invest $197
million over ten years, subject to annual appropriations from
Congress, for the projects, whose estimated value including
partnership cost share is $318 million.  These projects are the
first of several sequestration demonstration projects planned
through DOE’s Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships.

The formations to be tested during this third phase of the regional
partnerships program are recognized as the most promising of the
geologic basins in the United States.  Collectively, these
formations have the potential to store more than one hundred years
of CO2 emissions from all major point sources in North America.

“Successful demonstration of large volume carbon capture and storage
technology plays a key role in achieving President Bush’s goals for
a cleaner energy future,” Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell said.
 “Coal is vitally important to America’s energy security and this
technology will help enable our Nation, and future generations, to
use this abundant resource more efficiently and without emitting
greenhouse gas emissions.”

The projects include participation from 27 states and the Canadian
provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.  They will
demonstrate the entire CO2 injection process—pre-injection
characterization, injection process monitoring, and post-injection
monitoring—at large volumes to determine the ability of different
geologic settings to permanently store CO2.

The projects awarded today are as follows:
* Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership - The Plains CO2 Reduction
  Partnership, led by the Energy & Environmental Research Center at
  the University of North Dakota, will conduct geologic CO2 storage
  projects in the Alberta and Williston Basins.  The Williston Basin
  project in North Dakota will couple enhanced oil recovery and CO2
  storage in a deep carbonate formation that is also a major saline
  formation. The CO2 for this project will come from a
  post-combustion capture facility located at a coal-fired power
  plant in the region.  A second test will be conducted in
  northwestern Alberta, Canada, and will demonstrate the
  co-sequestration of CO2 and hydrogen sulfide from a large
  gas-processing plant into a deep saline formation.  This will
  provide data about how hydrogen sulfide affects the sequestration
  process.  The Plains partnership includes North Dakota, South
  Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and
  Wisconsin, along with the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
  Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
  Total Project Cost: $135,586,059
  DOE Share: $67,000,000
  Partner Share: $68,586,059
* Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership - This
  partnership, led by Southern States Energy Board, will demonstrate
  CO2 storage in the lower Tuscaloosa Formation Massive Sand Unit. 
  This geologic formation stretches from Texas to Florida and has
  the potential to store more than 200 years of CO2 emissions from
  major point sources in the region.  The partnership will inject
  CO2 at two locations to assess different CO2 streams and how the
  heterogeneity of the formation affects the injection and
  containment.  Injection of several million tons of CO2 from a
  natural deposit is expected to begin in late 2008.  The project
  will then conduct a second injection into the formation using CO2
  captured from a coal-fired power plant in the region.  The results
  of these projects will provide the foundation for the future
  development of CO2 capture and storage opportunities.  The
  Southeast partnership covers Georgia, Florida, South Carolina,
  North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi,
  Arkansas, Louisiana, and southeast Texas.
  Total Project Cost: $93,689,242
  DOE Share: $64,949,079
  Partner Share: $28,740,163
* Southwest Regional Partnership for Carbon Sequestration -
  Coordinated by the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology,
  the Southwest Regional Partnership for Carbon Sequestration will
  inject several million tons of CO2 into the Jurassic-age Entrada
  Sandstone Formation in the southwestern United States.  The
  Entrada formation stretches from Colorado to Wyoming and is a
  significant storage reservoir in the region.  The partnership will
  inject CO2 into the formation after extensive baseline
  characterization and simulation modeling.  The project will test
  the limits of injection and demonstrate the integrity of the cap
  rock to trap the gas.  Information gained from the project will be
  used to evaluate locations throughout the region where future
  power plants are being considered.  The Southwest partnership
  includes the states of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and
  Utah, and portions of Texas, Wyoming, and Arizona.
  Total Project Cost: $88,845,571
  DOE Share: $65,437,395
  Partner Share: $23,408,176


Over the first 12 to 24 months of these projects, researchers and
industry partners will characterize the injection sites and then
complete the modeling, monitoring, and infrastructure improvements
needed before CO2 can be injected.  These efforts will establish a
baseline for future monitoring after CO2 injection begins.  Each
project will then inject a large volume of CO2 into a regionally
significant storage formation.  After injection, researchers will
monitor and model the CO2 to determine the effectiveness of the
storage reservoir.

These three projects will double the number of large-volume carbon
storage demonstrations in operation worldwide.  Current projects
include the Weyburn Project in Canada, which uses CO2 captured
during coal gasification in North Dakota for enhanced oil recovery;
Norway’s Sleipner Project, which stores CO2 in a saline formation
under the North Sea; and the In Salah Project in Algeria, which
stores CO2 in a natural gas field.  The successful demonstration of
carbon storage in these U.S. geologic basins by the Regional
Partnerships will play a crucial role in future infrastructure
development and sequestration technology to mitigate CO2 emissions.

The newly awarded projects kick off the third phase of the Regional
Carbon Sequestration Partnerships program.  This initiative,
launched by DOE in 2003, forms the centerpiece of national efforts
to develop the infrastructure and knowledge base needed to place
carbon sequestration technologies on the path to commercialization. 
During the first phase of the program, seven partnerships -
consisting of organizations from government, industry and academia,
and extending across the United States and into Canada -
characterized the potential for CO2 storage in deep oil-, gas-,
coal-, and saline-bearing formations.  When Phase I ended in 2005,
the partnerships had identified more than 3,000 billion metric tons
of potential storage capacity in promising sinks. This has the
potential to represent more than 1,000 years of storage capacity
from point sources in North America.  In the program’s second phase,
the partnerships implemented a portfolio of small-scale geologic and
terrestrial sequestration projects.  The purpose of these tests was
to validate that different geologic formations have the injectivity,
containment, and storage effectiveness needed for long-term
sequestration.

For more information on DOE’s Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnerships, visit the Fossil Energy website.

Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 

 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 37 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Federal agencies seek comments on LANL, SNL layoff contingency plans

The Current-Argus

Article Launched: 10/09/2007 12:25:32 PM MDT

LOS ALAMOS - The National Nuclear Security Administration's draft
plan on how Los Alamos National Laboratory might deal with layoffs
resulting from a smaller budget does not speculate on how many
people might lose their jobs.

Los Alamos officials said the plan, released Friday, is a general
one required anytime layoffs might occur at a U.S. Department of
Energy nuclear facility.

Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque released a similar
''work force restructuring'' plan Tuesday, which also did not
discuss numbers for possible layoffs at Sandia or its satellite
locations.

The NNSA will take comments until Oct. 19 on the draft plans, which
are aimed at minimizing layoffs, reducing problems for people who do
lose their jobs and minimizing the effects of layoffs on nearby
communities.

Officials will analyze the comments, make any changes and send the
documents to DOE and NNSA headquarters for approval. The plans then
will go to Congress.

Congress has approved stopgap legislation to keep the federal 
government running until mid-November, giving Los Alamos and 
Sandia a short-term reprieve from automatic budget cuts and 
giving Congress time to work out differences with President Bush 
over the federal budget.

The two New Mexico labs together employ tens of thousands of
workers, including contractors.

Both draft documents - which warn that the terms of the plans can be
changed - would offer any laid-off employees help finding other jobs
inside or outside the lab, retraining assistance and medical
benefits.

Both plans said employees should be given as much notice as possible
about layoffs, with a target of 120 days. The proposals also said
officials should consider a voluntary severance program before
layoffs, and outlined terms of rehiring preferences.

Sandia's plan said the lab should give its workers information about
restructuring before releasing it to the media.

Los Alamos laboratory Director Michael Anastasio, in a Sept. 6 memo
to employees, said top officials did not know when a final budget
will be approved or what it would be - anything from ''a best-case
scenario flat budget to a budget cut by more than $350 million.''

Sandia's director, Tom Hunter, told employees in an early September
memo that the lab was developing a worst case plan, but would not
implement it unless directed to do so.

From The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2007 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group
*****************************************************************
 38 Las Cruces Sun-News: Federal agencies want comments on layoff contingency plan 

By The Associated Press
Article Launched: 10/09/2007 08:29:19 AM MDT

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) — The National Nuclear Security
Administration's draft plan on how Los Alamos National Laboratory
might deal with layoffs resulting from a smaller budget does not
speculate on how many people might lose their jobs.

Los Alamos officials said the plan, released Friday, is a general
one required anytime layoffs might occur at a U.S. Department of
Energy nuclear facility.

The NNSA will take comments until Oct. 19 on the 17-page draft plan,
which is aimed at minimizing layoffs, reducing problems for people
who do lose their jobs and minimizing the effects of layoffs on
nearby communities.

Officials will analyze the comments, make any changes and send the
document to DOE and NNSA headquarters for approval. The plan then
will go to Congress.

Congress has approved stopgap legislation to keep the federal
government running until mid-November, giving Los Alamos and Sandia
national laboratories in New Mexico a short-term reprieve from
automatic budget cuts and giving Congress time to work out
differences with President Bush over the federal budget.

The two New Mexico labs together employ tens of thousands of
workers, including contractors.

Los Alamos' contingency plan says laid-off employees can expect 
help finding other jobs inside or outside the lab, retraining 
assistance and medical benefits.

However, the plan also warns any part can change depending on budget
constraints.

Los Alamos laboratory Director Michael Anastasio, in a Sept. 6 memo
to employees, said top officials did not know when a final budget
will be approved or what it would be — anything from "a best-case
scenario flat budget to a budget cut by more than $350 million."

Sandia's director, Tom Hunter, told employees in an early September
memo that the lab was developing a worst case plan, but would not
implement it unless directed to do so.

Los Alamos' plan said employers should give as much notice as
possible to workers about layoffs, with a target of 120 days'
notice. It also said officials should consider a voluntary severance
program before layoffs. Laid-off workers covered by union agreements
would receive severance pay as provided for under contracts, the
plan said.

On the Net:

Los Alamos draft plan: www.doeal.gov/laso

Information from: The Santa Fe New Mexican, www.sfnewmexican.com

Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 39 Knoxville News Sentinel: ORNL's Jaguar to get speed upgrade 

The IBM computer has a peak capability of 27 teraflops — or 27
trillion calculations per second — and is housed in two cabinets,
the lab official said. “So it’s not a huge machine,” he said.

The computer’s architecture, however, is terrific for certain
types of research, including material studies that support the
lab’s nanoscience projects, Zacharia said. He also praised the
emerging partnership with IBM, saying it’s important for the
research lab to have relationships with all the major computer
vendors.

The star of the show is still the Jaguar, which started out as a
25-teraflop machine and later expanded to 50 teraflops and then 119.
It will top out at 250 teraflops with the upgrade planned for
December.

Even though the Jaguar could be further expanded, ORNL is
collaborating with Cray on a supercomputer of a new design that will
have a peak performance of one petaflop — a thousand trillion
calculations per second. That machine, code-named Baker, is still
under development and should arrive here sometime in 2009.

The Oak Ridge lab, as part of its partnership with the University of
Tennessee, will become home to another petascale machine to be
funded by the National Science Foundation. Zacharia, who holds a
faculty position at UT as well as his leadership role at ORNL,
headed the university’s proposal team.

The NSF announced the five-year, $65 million grant computer award in
August, but negotiations have not been completed, Zacharia said. He
said he hoped to be able to talk more about that project in a few
weeks.

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

© 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.

*****************************************************************
 40 Knoxville News Sentinel: Y-12 prepares for possible layoffs

; restructuring plan under way 

By Frank Munger (Contact)

Updated 04:16 p.m., October 9, 2007

OAK RIDGE — Federal officials today announced that a
workforce-restructuring plan is being developed at the Y-12 nuclear
weapons plant.

The announcement apparently is a legal step to prepare for layoffs
at the Oak Ridge plant.

BWXT, the main contractor at Y-12, last month warned employees that
job reductions — and possibly layoffs — might be necessary
because of budget uncertainties for fiscal 2008. BWXT employs about
4,500 workers.

The fiscal year began Oct. 1, and federal facilities currently are
spending at levels mandated by a “continuing resolution” because
Congress has not yet passed a budget for 2008.

The plan announced today is required under Section 3161 of the
National Defense Authorization Act whenever there’s a possible
restructuring of the workforce at one of the government’s nuclear
defense facilities.

The plan will “mitigate the impact of any potential workforce
reductions among contractor employees” at Y-12, its satellite
facilities and the surrounding communities, the National Nuclear
Security Administration said in statement released to the news
media. The NNSA is a part of the U.S. Department of Energy that
oversees the nuclear weapons complex.

Federal and contractor officials would not address how many Y-12
jobs might be at stake.

Steve Jones, an official with the Atomic Trades and Labor Council,
said union officials hadn’t been notified of any layoffs.

“All they’ve told us is the budget is short this year, and of
course we have to draw our own conclusions,” Jones said.

Y-12 is planning for operations at the lower of the proposed budgets
in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, according to a
statement attributed to George Dials, the president and chief
executive officer of BWXT Y-12.

He said the management team has taken steps to assess the potential
impacts, but he did not say what those impacts were. He also said
BWXT has taken aggressive actions to control spending at Y-12,
including reduced overtime, travel and procurements.

“This budget situation will not affect Y-12’s ability to remain
compliant and able to safely and securely complete its missions,”
Dials’ statement said.

The draft workforce-restructuring plan is available for online
review and public comment at: www.yso.doe.gov.

One of the objectives is to give 120 days notice prior to
“involuntary separation” of employees, the draft plan said.

More details as they develop online and in Wednesday’s News
Sentinel.

© 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 41 Oak Ridger: ORNL director discusses future challenges - 

Story last updated at 12:17 am on 10/9/2007

By: From Staff Reports | from staff reports

A crowd of Oak Ridge National Laboratory supporters, science 
buffs and interested citizens visited the American Museum of 
Science and Energy last Thursday night for ORNL Director Thom 
Mason's report on lab programs, progress and recent achievements.

Mason, lab director since July 1, talked of the importance of 
energy on the world's agenda and how science at ORNL can help 
address some of the related challenges, an ORNL press release 
stated.

"Energy has moved to the top of the national and international 
policy agenda," Mason said. "The dialogue is increasingly focused 
on generation, distribution, and consumption of energy and its 
impact on the environment, national security, and the economy.


"ORNL has an extraordinary set of tools that uniquely positions 
us to deliver science and technology critical to addressing these 
energy challenges."

Mason said those tools include world leadership in open science 
computing and neutron sciences; the Department of Energy's first 
nanoscience center; the nation's broadest portfolio of energy 
programs; and robust programs in nuclear technology, materials 
sciences, and national security.

"Our challenge is to use these assets to deliver results that are 
significant on both the national and the international scale," 
Mason said. "Now is the time to execute the science."

Mason cited several recent successes at ORNL, including:

&bull; DOE awarding an ORNL-led team a $125 million BioEnergy 
Science Center.

&bull; ORNL's Cray Jaguar being ranked the second most powerful 
computer in the world.

&bull; Researchers at the lab winning six R&D 100 awards.

&bull; The University of Tennessee-ORNL Joint Institute for 
Computational Sciences receiving $65 million from National 
Science Foundation to develop a computer capable of 1,000 
trillion calculations per second.

&bull; The High Flux Isotope Reactor restarting with a new cold 
neutron source and world-class instrumentation.

In addition to applying world-class facilities toward its scientific
output, Mason said the lab will continue recruiting top talent,
upgrading facilities, and maintaining operational excellence with a
strong emphasis on safety. The continuing modernization includes
plans for new laboratory facilities to replace those in the 4500
complex, construction on the Oak Ridge Science & Technology Park,
and the central campus cleanup gaining momentum in 2010, he said.

The talk was hosted by Friends of ORNL. ORNL is managed by
UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy.

|  &copy; 2004 The Oak Ridger  |  Conditions of Use
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************