[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72002-72019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33142]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 52

RIN 3150-AG23


AP600 Design Certification

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is 
amending its regulations to certify the AP600 standard plant design 
under Subpart B of 10 CFR part 52. This action is necessary so that 
applicants or licensees intending to construct and operate an AP600 
design may do so by referencing this regulation [AP600 design 
certification rule (DCR)]. The applicant for certification of the AP600 
design was Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (hereinafter referred to 
as Westinghouse).

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this rule is January 24, 2000. 
The incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this 
regulation is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal 
Register as of January 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry N. Wilson, Mail Stop O-12 G15, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or telephone (301) 415-3145, or 
e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background.
II. Public comment.
III. Section-by-section discussion.
    A. Introduction.
    B. Definitions.
    C. Scope and contents.
    D. Additional requirements and restrictions.
    E. Applicable regulations.
    F. Issue resolution.
    G. Duration of this appendix.
    H. Processes for changes and departures.
    I. Inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria.
    J. Records and Reporting.
IV. Finding of no significant environmental impact: availability.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act statement.
VI. Regulatory analysis.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act certification.
VIII. Backfit analysis.
IX. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
X. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.

[[Page 72003]]

I. Background

    The NRC added 10 CFR part 52 to its regulations to provide for the 
issuance of early site permits, standard design certifications, and 
combined licenses for nuclear power reactors. Subpart B of 10 CFR part 
52 established the process for obtaining design certifications. On June 
26, 1992, Westinghouse tendered its application for certification of 
the AP600 design with the NRC. Westinghouse submitted this application 
in accordance with Subpart B and Appendix O of 10 CFR part 52. The NRC 
formally accepted the application as a docketed application for design 
certification (Docket No. 52-003) on December 31, 1992 (58 FR 3982, 
January 12, 1993). Information submitted before that date can be found 
under Project No. 676.
    The NRC staff issued a final safety evaluation report (FSER) 
related to certification of the AP600 standard plant design in 
September 1998 (NUREG-1512, 63 FR 48772). The FSER documents the 
results of the staff's safety review of the AP600 design against the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 52, subpart B, and delineates the scope of 
the technical details considered in evaluating the design. The final 
design approval for the AP600 design was issued on September 3, 1998, 
and published in the Federal Register on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 
48772). Subsequently, Westinghouse submitted the AP600 Design Control 
Document (DCD) on November 30, 1998, and four revisions to the DCD. The 
NRC staff reviewed these revisions and determined that they did not 
affect the findings in the FSER. The NRC's evaluation of the DCD is 
discussed in Supplement No. 1 to the FSER. A notice of availability for 
Supplement No. 1 will be published in the Federal Register. The FSER 
and Supplement No. 1 provide the bases for the Commission's approval of 
the AP600 standard plant design through design certification. A copy of 
the FSER may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328 
or the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161-
0002.

II. Public Comment

    Subpart B of 10 CFR part 52 provides for Commission approval of 
standard designs for nuclear power facilities (e.g., design 
certification) through rulemaking. In accordance with the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Part 52 provides the opportunity 
for the public to submit written comments on the proposed design 
certification rule. However, Part 52 goes beyond the requirements of 
the APA by providing the public with an opportunity to request a 
hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel in a design 
certification rulemaking. Therefore, on May 20, 1999, the NRC published 
a proposed rule in the Federal Register (64 FR 27626) that invited 
public comment and provided the public with the opportunity to request 
an informal hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
    The period for requesting an informal hearing or submitting 
comments on the proposed DCR, AP600 DCD, or draft environmental 
assessment expired on August 3, 1999. The NRC did not receive any 
requests for an informal hearing during this period, but it did receive 
a comment from a member of the public. This individual did not comment 
on the AP600 DCD, draft environmental assessment, or proposed DCR. 
Rather, the commenter expressed views on new nuclear power plants and 
nuclear waste. Therefore, the Commission did not change the proposed 
DCR, AP600 DCD, or draft environmental assessment [except for editorial 
revisions and updates to the supplementary information on applicable 
regulations] and has adopted this rule [Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 52] 
as final.

III. Section-by-Section Discussion of Design Certification Rule

    The final rule for the AP600 standard plant design is nearly 
identical to the two design certification rules (DCRs) for the U.S. 
ABWR and the System 80+ designs, which the NRC previously adopted. 
These DCRs are set forth in 10 CFR part 52, appendix A (U.S. ABWR, 62 
FR 25800, May 12, 1997) and appendix B (System 80+, 62 FR 27840, May 
21, 1997). The AP600 DCR emulates the U.S. ABWR and System 80+ DCRs, 
inasmuch as the three designs were reviewed contemporaneously against 
the same technical requirements. Furthermore, many of the procedural 
issues and their resolutions for the ABWR and the System 80+ DCRs 
(e.g., the two-tier structure, Tier 2*, the scope of issue resolution) 
were developed after extensive discussions with nuclear industry 
representatives, and Westinghouse participated in those discussions. It 
was the NRC's intent and Westinghouse's expectation that the 
resolutions for these issues in the ABWR and System 80+ rulemakings 
would also be applied to the AP600 design certification. Accordingly, 
the NRC has modeled the AP600 DCR on the existing DCRs for the ABWR and 
System 80+ designs, with certain departures. These departures were 
necessary to acknowledge that Westinghouse is the applicant for the 
AP600 DCR, and to account for differences in the AP600 design 
documentation (including Tier 2* information), design features, and 
environmental assessment (including severe accident mitigation design 
alternatives). The only significant change was the inclusion of the 
investment protection short-term availability controls in Sections II, 
III, and VI of the AP600 DCR.
    The following discussion sets forth the purpose and key aspects of 
each portion of the final AP600 design certification rule. All section, 
paragraph, and subparagraph references are to the provisions in 
Appendix C to 10 CFR part 52.

A. Introduction

    The purpose of Section I of appendix C to 10 CFR part 52 (``this 
appendix'') is to identify the standard plant design that is approved 
by this design certification rule and the applicant for certification 
of the standard design. Identification of the design certification 
applicant is necessary to implement this appendix, for two reasons. 
First, the implementation of 10 CFR 52.63(c) depends on whether an 
applicant for a combined license (COL) contracts with the design 
certification applicant to provide the generic DCD and supporting 
design information. If the COL applicant does not use the design 
certification applicant to provide this information, then the COL 
applicant must meet the requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(c). Also, 
subparagraph X.A.1 of this appendix imposes a requirement on the design 
certification applicant to maintain the generic DCD throughout the time 
period in which this appendix may be referenced.

B. Definitions

    The terms Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2*, and COL action items (license 
information) are defined in this appendix because these concepts were 
not envisioned when 10 CFR part 52 was developed. The design 
certification applicants and the NRC staff used these terms in 
implementing the two-tiered rule structure that was proposed by 
representatives of the nuclear industry after issuance of 10 CFR part 
52. During consideration of the comments received on Appendices A and B 
to Part 52, the Commission determined that it would be useful to 
distinguish between the ``plant-specific DCD'' and the ``generic DCD,'' 
the latter of which is incorporated by reference into this

[[Page 72004]]

appendix and remains unaffected by plant-specific departures. This 
distinction is necessary in order to clarify the obligations of 
applicants and licensees that reference this appendix. Also, the 
technical specifications that are located in Section 16.1 of the 
generic DCD are designated as ``generic technical specifications'' in 
order to facilitate the special treatment of this information under 
this appendix. Therefore, appropriate definitions for these additional 
terms are included in this appendix.
    The Tier 1 portion of the design-related information contained in 
the DCD is certified by this appendix and, therefore, subject to the 
special backfit provisions in paragraph VIII.A of this appendix. An 
applicant who references this appendix is required to incorporate by 
reference and comply with Tier 1, under paragraph III.B and 
subparagraph IV.A.1 of this appendix. This information consists of an 
introduction to Tier 1, the system based and non-system based design 
descriptions and corresponding inspections, tests, analyses, and 
acceptance criteria (ITAAC), significant interface requirements, and 
significant site parameters for the design. The design descriptions, 
interface requirements, and site parameters in Tier 1 were derived 
entirely from Tier 2, but may be more general than the Tier 2 
information. The NRC staff's evaluation of the Tier 1 information is 
provided in Section 14.3 of the FSER. Changes to or departures from the 
Tier 1 information must comply with paragraph VIII.A of this appendix.
    The Tier 1 design descriptions serve as design commitments for the 
lifetime of a facility referencing the design certification. The ITAAC 
verify that the as-built facility conforms with the approved design and 
applicable regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.103(g), the 
Commission must find that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC are met 
before operation. After the Commission has made the finding required by 
10 CFR 52.103(g), the ITAAC do not constitute regulatory requirements 
for licensees or for renewal of the COL. However, subsequent 
modifications to the facility must comply with the design descriptions 
in the plant-specific DCD unless changes are made in accordance with 
the change process in Section VIII of this appendix. The Tier 1 
interface requirements are the most significant of the interface 
requirements for systems that are wholly or partially outside the scope 
of the standard design, which were submitted in response to 10 CFR 
52.47(a)(1)(vii) and must be met by the site-specific design features 
of a facility that references this appendix. The Tier 1 site parameters 
are the most significant site parameters, which were submitted in 
response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(iii). An application that references 
this appendix must demonstrate that the site parameters (both Tier 1 
and Tier 2) are met at the proposed site (refer to III.D of this SOC).
    Tier 2 is the portion of the design-related information contained 
in the DCD that is approved by this appendix but is not certified. Tier 
2 information is subject to the backfit provisions in paragraph VIII.B 
of this appendix. Tier 2 includes the information required by 10 CFR 
52.47 (with the exception of generic technical specifications, 
conceptual design information, and the evaluation of severe accident 
mitigation design alternatives) and the supporting information on 
inspections, tests, and analyses that will be performed to demonstrate 
that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC have been met. As with Tier 
1, paragraph III.B and subparagraph IV.A.1 of this appendix require an 
applicant who references this appendix to incorporate Tier 2 by 
reference and to comply with Tier 2, except for the COL action items, 
including the investment protection short-term availability controls in 
Section 16.3 of the generic DCD. The definition of Tier 2 makes clear 
that Tier 2 information has been determined by the Commission, by 
virtue of its inclusion in this appendix and its designation as Tier 2 
information, to be an approved (``sufficient'') method for meeting Tier 
1 requirements. However, there may be other acceptable ways of 
complying with Tier 1. The appropriate criteria for departing from Tier 
2 information are specified in paragraph VIII.B of this appendix. 
Departures from Tier 2 do not negate the requirement in paragraph III.B 
to reference Tier 2.
    A definition of ``combined license (COL) action items'' (combined 
license information), which is part of the Tier 2 information, has been 
added to clarify that COL applicants, who reference this appendix, are 
required to address these matters in their license application, but the 
COL action items are not the only acceptable set of information. An 
applicant may depart from or omit these items, provided that the 
departure or omission is identified and justified in the FSAR. After 
issuance of a construction permit or combined license, these items are 
not requirements for the licensee unless such items are restated in its 
FSAR.
    The investment protection short-term availability controls, which 
are set forth in Section 16.3 of the generic DCD, were added to the 
list of information that is part of Tier 2. This set of requirements 
was added to Tier 2 to make it clear that the availability controls are 
not operational requirements for the purposes of paragraph VIII.C of 
this appendix. Rather, the availability controls are associated with 
specific design features, and the availability controls may be changed 
in the same manner as other Tier 2 information.
    Certain Tier 2 information has been designated in the generic DCD 
with brackets and italicized text as ``Tier 2*'' information and, as 
discussed in greater detail in the section-by-section explanation for 
paragraph VIII.B, a plant-specific departure from Tier 2* information 
requires prior NRC approval. However, the Tier 2* designation expires 
for some of this information when the facility first achieves full 
power after the finding required by 10 CFR 52.103(g). The process for 
changing Tier 2* information and the time at which its status as Tier 
2* expires is set forth in subparagraph VIII.B.6 of this appendix. Some 
Tier 2* requirements, concerning special preoperational tests, are 
designated to be performed only for the first plant or first three 
plants referencing the AP600 DCR. The Tier 2* designation for these 
selected tests will expire after the first plant or first three plants 
complete the specified tests. However, a COL action item requires that 
subsequent plants shall also perform the tests or justify that the 
results of the first-plant-only or first-three-plants-only tests are 
applicable to the subsequent plant. The Commission is interested in 
comments addressing whether the first-plant-only or first-three-plants-
only limitations should be part of the Tier 2* information for these 
specified tests.
    During development of Appendices A and B to Part 52, the Commission 
decided that there would be both generic (master) DCDs maintained by 
the NRC and the design certification applicant, as well as individual 
plant-specific DCDs, maintained by each applicant and licensee who 
references this appendix.The generic DCDs (identical to each other) 
would reflect generic changes to the version of the DCD approved in 
this design certification rulemaking. The generic changes would occur 
as the result of generic rulemaking by the Commission (subject to the 
change criteria in Section VIII of this appendix). In addition, the 
Commission understood that each applicant and licensee referencing this 
appendix would be required to submit and maintain a plant-specific DCD. 
This plant-specific DCD would contain (not

[[Page 72005]]

just incorporate by reference) the information in the generic DCD. The 
plant-specific DCD would be updated as necessary to reflect the generic 
changes to the DCD that the Commission may adopt through rulemaking, 
any plant-specific departures from the generic DCD that the Commission 
imposed on the licensee by order, and any plant-specific departures 
that the licensee chose to make in accordance with the relevant 
processes in Section VIII of this appendix. Thus, the plant-specific 
DCD would function akin to an updated Final Safety Analysis Report, in 
the sense that it would provide the most complete and accurate 
information on a plant's licensing basis for that part of the plant 
within the scope of this appendix. Therefore, this appendix defines 
both a generic DCD and plant-specific DCD. Also, the Commission decided 
to treat the technical specifications in Section 16.1 of the generic 
DCD as a special category of information and to designate them as 
generic technical specifications. A COL applicant must submit plant-
specific technical specifications that consist of the generic technical 
specifications, which may be modified under paragraph VIII.C of this 
appendix, and the remaining plant-specific information needed to 
complete the technical specifications, including bracketed values. The 
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) that is required by Sec. 52.79(b) 
will consist of the plant-specific DCD, the site-specific portion of 
the FSAR, and the plant-specific technical specifications.

C. Scope and Contents

    The purpose of Section III of this appendix is to describe and 
define the scope and contents of this design certification and to set 
forth how documentation discrepancies or inconsistencies are to be 
resolved. Paragraph A of this section is the required statement of the 
Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for approval of the incorporation 
by reference of Tier 1, Tier 2, and the generic technical 
specifications into this appendix and paragraph B requires COL 
applicants and licensees to comply with the requirements of this 
appendix. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the 
material is treated as if it were published in the Federal Register. 
This material, like any other properly-issued regulation, has the force 
and effect of law. Tier 1 and Tier 2 information, as well as the 
generic technical specifications, have been combined into a single 
document called the generic design control document, in order to 
effectively control this information and facilitate its incorporation 
by reference into the rule. The generic DCD was prepared to meet the 
requirements of the OFR for incorporation by reference (1 CFR Part 51). 
One of the requirements of OFR for incorporation by reference is that 
the design certification applicant must make the generic DCD available 
upon request after the final rule becomes effective. Therefore, 
paragraph III.A of this appendix identifies a representative of 
Westinghouse who can be contacted to obtain a copy of the generic DCD.
    Paragraphs A and B of Section III also identify the investment 
protection short-term availability controls in Section 16.3 of the 
generic DCD as part of the Tier 2 information. During its review of the 
AP600 design, the NRC determined that residual uncertainties associated 
with passive safety system performance increased the importance of non-
safety-related active systems in providing defense-in-depth functions 
that back-up the passive systems. As a result, Westinghouse developed 
some administrative controls to provide a high level of confidence that 
active systems having a significant safety role are available when 
challenged. Westinghouse named these additional controls ``investment 
protection short-term availability controls,'' and the Commission 
included this statement in Section III to ensure that these 
availability controls are binding on applicants and licensees that 
reference this appendix and will be enforceable by the NRC. The NRC's 
evaluation of the availability controls is provided in Chapter 22 of 
the FSER.
    The generic DCD (master copy) for this design certification will be 
archived at NRC's central file with a matching copy at OFR. Copies of 
the up-to-date generic DCD will also be available at the NRC's Public 
Document Room. Questions concerning the accuracy of information in an 
application that references this appendix will be resolved by checking 
the master copy of the generic DCD in NRC's central file. If a generic 
change (rulemaking) is made to the DCD pursuant to the change process 
in Section VIII of this appendix, then at the completion of the 
rulemaking the NRC will request approval of the Director, OFR for the 
changed incorporation by reference and change its copies of the generic 
DCD and notify the OFR and the design certification applicant to change 
their copies. The Commission is requiring that the design certification 
applicant maintain an up-to-date copy under subparagraph X.A.1 of this 
appendix because it is likely that most applicants intending to 
reference the standard design will obtain the generic DCD from the 
design certification applicant. Plant-specific changes to and 
departures from the generic DCD will be maintained by the applicant or 
licensee that references this appendix in a plant-specific DCD, under 
subparagraph X.A.2.
    In addition to requiring compliance with this appendix, paragraph B 
clarifies that the conceptual design information and Westinghouse's 
evaluation of severe accident mitigation design alternatives are not 
considered to be part of this appendix. The conceptual design 
information is for those portions of the plant that are outside the 
scope of the standard design and are intermingled throughout Tier 2. As 
provided by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(ix), these conceptual designs are not 
part of this appendix and, therefore, are not applicable to an 
application that references this appendix. Therefore, the applicant 
does not need to conform with the conceptual design information that 
was provided by the design certification applicant. The conceptual 
design information, which consists of site-specific design features, 
was required to facilitate the design certification review. Conceptual 
design information is neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2. Section 1.8 of Tier 2 
identifies the location of the conceptual design information. 
Westinghouse's evaluation of various design alternatives to prevent and 
mitigate severe accidents does not constitute design requirements. The 
Commission's assessment of this information is discussed in Section IV 
of this SOC on environmental impacts. The detailed methodology and 
quantitative portions of the design-specific probabilistic risk 
assessment (PRA), as required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(v), were not 
included in the generic DCD, as requested by NEI and the applicant for 
design certification. The NRC agreed with the request to delete this 
information because conformance with the deleted portions of the PRA is 
not necessary. Also, the NRC's position is predicated in part upon 
NEI's acceptance, in conceptual form, of a future generic rulemaking 
that will require a COL applicant or licensee to have a plant-specific 
PRA that updates and supersedes the design-specific PRA supporting this 
rulemaking and maintain it throughout the operational life of the 
facility.
    Paragraphs C and D of section III set forth the manner in which 
potential conflicts are to be resolved. Paragraph C establishes the 
Tier 1 description in the DCD as controlling in the event of an 
inconsistency between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information in the DCD. 
Paragraph D establishes the generic DCD as the controlling document in 
the event

[[Page 72006]]

of an inconsistency between the DCD and either the application for 
certification of the AP600 design (AP600 Standard Safety Analysis 
Report) or the final safety evaluation report for the certified 
standard design.
    Paragraph E makes it clear that design activities that are wholly 
outside the scope of this design certification may be performed using 
site-specific design parameters, provided the design activities do not 
affect Tier 1 or Tier 2, or conflict with the interface requirements in 
the DCD. This provision applies to site-specific portions of the plant, 
such as the administration building. Because this statement is not a 
definition, the Commission decided that the appropriate location is in 
Section III of this appendix.

D. Additional Requirements and Restrictions

    Section IV of this appendix sets forth additional requirements and 
restrictions imposed upon an applicant who references this appendix. 
Paragraph IV.A sets forth the information requirements for these 
applicants. This appendix distinguishes between information and/or 
documents which must actually be included in the application or the 
DCD, versus those which may be incorporated by reference (i.e., 
referenced in the application as if the information or documents were 
actually included in the application), thereby reducing the physical 
bulk of the application. Any incorporation by reference in the 
application should be clear and should specify the title, date, 
edition, or version of a document, and the page number(s) and table(s) 
containing the relevant information to be incorporated by reference.
    Subparagraph A.1 requires an applicant who references this appendix 
to incorporate by reference this appendix in its application. The legal 
effect of such incorporation by reference is that this appendix is 
legally binding on the applicant or licensee. Subparagraph A.2.a is 
intended to make clear that the initial application must include a 
plant-specific DCD. This assures, among other things, that the 
applicant commits to complying with the DCD. This paragraph also 
requires the plant-specific DCD to use the same format as the generic 
DCD and to reflect the applicant's proposed departures and exemptions 
from the generic DCD as of the time of submission of the application. 
The Commission expects that the plant-specific DCD will become the 
plant's final safety analysis report (FSAR), by including within its 
pages, at the appropriate points, information such as site-specific 
information for the portions of the plant outside the scope of the 
referenced design, including related ITAAC, and other matters required 
to be included in an FSAR by 10 CFR 50.34 and 52.79. Integration of the 
plant-specific DCD and remaining site-specific information into the 
plant's FSAR, will result in an application that is easier to use and 
should minimize ``duplicate documentation'' and the attendant 
possibility for confusion. Subparagraph A.2.a is also intended to make 
clear that the initial application must include the reports on 
departures and exemptions as of the time of submission of the 
application.
    Subparagraph A.2.b requires that the application include the 
reports required by paragraph X.B of this appendix for exemptions and 
departures proposed by the applicant as of the date of submission of 
its application. Subparagraph A.2.c requires submission of plant-
specific technical specifications for the plant that consists of the 
generic technical specifications from Section 16.1 of the DCD, with any 
changes made under paragraph VIII.C of this appendix, and the technical 
specifications for the site-specific portions of the plant that are 
either partially or wholly outside the scope of this design 
certification. The applicant must also provide the plant-specific 
information designated in the generic technical specifications, such as 
bracketed values.
    Subparagraph A.2.d makes it clear that the applicant must provide 
information demonstrating that the proposed site falls within the site 
parameters for this appendix and that the plant-specific design 
complies with the interface requirements, as required by 10 CFR 
52.79(b). If the proposed site has a characteristic that exceeds one or 
more of the site parameters in the DCD, then the proposed site is 
unacceptable for this design unless the applicant seeks an exemption 
under Section VIII of this appendix and justifies why the certified 
design should be found acceptable on the proposed site. Subparagraph 
A.2.e requires submission of information addressing COL Action Items, 
which are identified in the generic DCD as Combined License 
Information, in the application. The Combined License Information 
identifies matters that need to be addressed by an applicant that 
references this appendix, as required by Subpart C of 10 CFR part 52. 
An applicant may depart from or omit these items, provided that the 
departure or omission is identified and justified in its application 
(FSAR). Subparagraph A.2.f requires that the application include the 
information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a) that is not within the scope of 
this rule, such as generic issues that must be addressed, in whole or 
in part, by an applicant that references this rule. Subparagraph IV.A.3 
requires the applicant to physically include, not simply reference, the 
proprietary and safeguards information referenced in the DCD, or its 
equivalent, to assure that the applicant has actual notice of these 
requirements.
    Paragraph IV.B reserves to the Commission the right to determine in 
what manner this design certification may be referenced by an applicant 
for a construction permit or operating license under 10 CFR Part 50. 
This determination may occur in the context of a subsequent rulemaking 
modifying 10 CFR part 52 or this design certification rule, or on a 
case-by-case basis in the context of a specific application for a 10 
CFR part 50 construction permit or operating license. This provision is 
necessary because the previous design certifications were not 
implemented in the manner that was originally envisioned at the time 
that 10 CFR part 52 was created. The Commission's concern is with the 
manner in which ITAAC were developed and the lack of experience with 
design certifications in license proceedings. Therefore, it is 
appropriate to have some uncertainty regarding the manner in which this 
appendix could be referenced in a 10 CFR part 50 licensing proceeding.

E. Applicable Regulations

    The purpose of Section V of this appendix is to specify the 
regulations that were applicable and in effect at the time that this 
design certification was approved. These regulations consist of the 
technically relevant regulations identified in paragraph V.A, except 
for the regulations in paragraph V.B that are not applicable to this 
certified design (exempt).
    Paragraph V.A identifies the regulations in 10 CFR parts 20, 50, 
73, and 100 that are applicable to the AP600 design. After the NRC 
staff issued its FSER for the AP600 design (NUREG-1512, September 
1998), the Commission amended several existing regulations and adopted 
new regulations. The Commission has reviewed these regulations to 
determine if they are applicable to this design and, if so, to 
determine if the design meets these regulations. The Commission finds 
that the AP600 design either meets the requirements of these 
regulations or that these regulations are not applicable to the design, 
as discussed below. The Commission's determination of the applicable 
regulations was made as of the date specified in paragraph V.A of

[[Page 72007]]

this appendix. The specified date is the date that this appendix was 
approved by the Commission and signed by the Secretary of the 
Commission.
10 CFR 20, Transfer for Disposal and Manifests; Minor Technical 
Conforming Amendment (63 FR 50127; September 21, 1998)
    This amendment to Part 20 removed expired provisions from the 
regulations on low-level waste shipment manifest information. The 
previous regulation included dual implementation procedures that allow 
use of one of two manifesting procedures. This is a procedural 
requirement that applies to licensees and, therefore, is not applicable 
to either NRC issuance of design certification or applicants for design 
certification.
10 CFR 30 and 50, Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommissioning 
Nuclear Power Reactors (63 FR 50465; September 22, 1998)
    This amendment to the regulations requires power reactor licensees 
to report periodically on the status of their decommissioning funds, 
and on changes in their external trust agreements and other financial 
assurance mechanisms. This regulation applies to licensees and, 
therefore, is not applicable to either NRC issuance of design 
certification or applicants for design certification.
10 CFR 50 and 70, Criticality Accident Requirements (63 FR 63127; 
November 12, 1998)
    This amendment to the regulations provides licensees of light-water 
nuclear reactors with greater flexibility in meeting the requirement to 
maintain a criticality monitoring system in each area in which special 
nuclear material is handled, used, or stored. The criticality 
monitoring system is not considered to be part of the plant design and, 
therefore, is not applicable to either NRC issuance of design 
certification or applicants for design certification.
10 CFR 50, Changes to Quality Assurance Programs (64 FR 9030; February 
23, 1999)
    This amendment to 10 CFR 50.54(a) allows licensees to make routine 
or administrative quality assurance (QA) program changes, which do not 
have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of their QA program, 
without obtaining NRC approval in advance. This is a procedural 
requirement that can be utilized after issuance of a license and, 
therefore, is not applicable to either NRC issuance of design 
certification or applicants for design certification.
10 CFR 50 and 73, Frequency of Reviews and Audits for Emergency 
Preparedness Programs, Safeguards Contingency Plans, and Security 
Programs for Nuclear Power Reactors (64 FR 14814; March 29, 1999)
    This amendment to the regulations allows licensees to change the 
frequency of independent reviews and audits of their emergency 
preparedness programs, safeguards contingency plans, and security 
programs. This is a procedural requirement that can be utilized after 
issuance of a license and, therefore, is not applicable to either NRC 
issuance of design certification or applicants for design 
certification.
10 CFR 50, Codes and Standards: IEEE National Consensus Standard (64 FR 
17944; April 13, 1999)
    This amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a(h) incorporates IEEE Std. 603-1991 
by reference, a national consensus standard for power, instrumentation, 
and control portions of safety systems in nuclear power plants. The NRC 
staff reviewed the AP600 design against this IEEE standard, as 
described in the FSER, and the Commission has determined that the AP600 
design meets the applicable portions of this new requirement [10 CFR 
50.55a(h)].
10 CFR 50, Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements (64 FR 
51370; September 22, 1999)
    This amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a incorporates by reference more 
recent editions and addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code 
(ASME Code) and the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear 
Power Plants. The amended requirements in 10 CFR 50.55a apply to both 
design and operation of nuclear plants.
    The requirements that apply to the AP600 design [10 CFR 
50.55a(a)(2)] are addressed in the exemption discussion below. The 
other amended requirements in 10 CFR 50.55a, e.g. inservice inspection 
and testing, are not applicable to either NRC issuance of design 
certification or applicants for design certification.
    In paragraph V.B of this appendix, the Commission identified the 
regulations that do not apply to the AP600 design. The Commission has 
determined that the AP600 design should be exempt from portions of 10 
CFR 50.34, 50.55a, 50.62, and Appendix A to Part 50, as described in 
the FSER (NUREG-1512) and/or summarized below:
(1) Paragraph (a)(1) of 10 CFR 50.34--Whole Body Dose Criterion
    This regulation sets forth dose criteria to be used in siting 
determinations. The NRC staff performed its evaluation of the 
radiological consequences of postulated design basis accidents for the 
AP600 design against the dose criterion specified in 10 CFR 
50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D) because it was the Commission's intent that the new 
dose criterion be used for future nuclear power plants. However, when 
the NRC codified the new reactor site criteria for nuclear power plants 
(61 FR 65157; December 11, 1996), it made an error in the assignment of 
applicants that could use the new dose criterion [25 rem TEDE], versus 
those that must use the whole body criterion. The assignment of 
applicants in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), who must use the whole body 
criterion, should not have included applicants for a design 
certification or combined license who applied prior to January 10, 1997 
(refer to 61 FR 65158). The Commission adopted 25 rem TEDE as the new 
dose criterion for future plant evaluation purposes, because this value 
is essentially the same level of risk as the current criterion (61 FR 
65160). Therefore, the Commission has determined that the special 
circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in that 
application of the 25 rem whole body criterion is not necessary to 
achieve the underlying purpose of the rule because 25 rem TEDE is 
essentially the same level of risk. On this basis, the Commission 
concludes that the AP600 design review can be performed pursuant to the 
new dose criterion [25 rem TEDE] and an exemption from the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) is authorized by law, will not present an undue 
risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the common 
defense and security.
(2) Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34--Plant Safety Parameter 
Display Console
    10 CFR 50.34(f)(2)(iv) requires that an application provide a plant 
safety parameter display console that will display to operators a 
minimum set of parameters defining the safety status of the plant, be 
capable of displaying a full range of important plant parameters and 
data trends on demand, and be capable of indicating when process limits 
are being approached or exceeded. Westinghouse answered this 
requirement, in Section 18.8.2 of the DCD, with an integrated design 
rather than a stand-alone, add-on system, as is used at most current 
operating plants. Specifically, Westinghouse integrated the SPDS 
requirements into the design requirements for the alarm and display 
systems. In NUREG-0800, the NRC staff indicated that, for applicants 
who are in the early stages of the control room

[[Page 72008]]

design, the ``function of a separate SPDS may be integrated into the 
overall control room design'' (p. 18.0-1). Therefore, the Commission 
has determined that the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in that the requirement for an SPDS console need 
not be applied in this particular circumstance to achieve the 
underlying purpose because Westinghouse has provided an acceptable 
alternative that accomplishes the intent of the regulation. On this 
basis, the Commission concludes that an exemption from the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.34(f)(2)(iv) is authorized by law, will not present an 
undue risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the 
common defense and security.
(3) Paragraphs (f)(2)(vii), (viii), (xxvi), and (xxviii) of 10 CFR 
50.34--Accident Source Terms in TID 14844
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(ii), an applicant for design 
certification must demonstrate compliance with any technically relevant 
TMI requirements in 10 CFR 50.34(f). The TMI requirements in 10 CFR 
50.34(f)(2)(vii), (viii), (xxvi), and (xxviii) refer to the accident 
source term in TID 14844. Specifically, 10 CFR 50.34(f)(2)(xxviii) 
requires the evaluation of pathways that may lead to control room 
habitability problems ``under accident conditions resulting in a TID 
14844 source term release.'' Similar wording appears in requirements 
(vii), (viii), and (xxvi). Westinghouse has adopted the new source term 
technology summarized in NUREG-1465, ``Accident Source Terms for Light-
Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' dated February 1995, not the old TID 
14844 source term cited in 10 CFR part 50.34(f). The new source term is 
a more realistic representation of the source term resulting from 
postulated design basis accidents, therefore, the Commission has 
determined that the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in that these regulations need not be applied in 
this particular circumstance to achieve the underlying purpose because 
Westinghouse has adopted acceptable alternatives that accomplish the 
underlying intent of the regulations that specify TID 14844. On this 
basis, the Commission concludes that a partial exemption from the 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(vii), (viii), (xxvi), and (xxviii) of 
10 CFR 50.34 is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to 
public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and 
security.
(4) Paragraph (a)(2) of 10 CFR 50.55a--ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel 
Code
    This regulation mandates that the AP600 design meet the addenda and 
edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 10 CFR 50.55a. The NRC recently 
amended the version of the ASME Code that is incorporated by reference 
in paragraph (b)(1), as discussed above.
    For the AP600 standard plant, Westinghouse designed the ASME Code 
Class 1, 2, and 3 components to the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code, 
Section III (including the 1989 Addenda with certain limitations), as 
discussed in Section 5.2.1.1 of the AP600 Design Control Document 
(DCD). However, the amended design requirements incorporate by 
reference the 1995 Edition up to and including the 1996 Addenda to the 
ASME Code, Section III. The NRC concluded in its FSER (NUREG-1512) that 
the use of the 1989 Edition (including the 1989 Addenda with certain 
limitations as discussed in Section 5.2.1.1 of the DCD) for the design 
of the ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components in the AP600 plant meets 
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a. The Commission has determined that 
the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) exist in 
that the 1989 Edition provides an acceptable level of safety that 
ensures adequate protection to public health and safety, and that the 
benefits of redesigning the AP600 standard plant to meet the 1995 
Edition and 1996 Addenda of the ASME Code, Section III, are outweighed 
by the substantial costs and delays that redesign would entail at this 
late date. On this basis, the Commission concludes that an exemption 
from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(2) is authorized by law, will 
not present an undue risk to public health and safety, and is 
consistent with the common defense and security.
(5) Paragraph (c)(1) of 10 CFR 50.62--Auxiliary Feedwater System
    The AP600 design relies on the passive residual heat removal system 
(PRHR) in lieu of an auxiliary or emergency feedwater system as its 
safety-related method of removing decay heat. Westinghouse requested an 
exemption from a portion of 10 CFR 50.62(c)(1), which requires 
auxiliary or emergency feedwater as an alternate system for decay heat 
removal during an ATWS event. The NRC staff concluded that Westinghouse 
met the intent of the rule by relying on the PRHR system to remove the 
decay heat and, thereby, met the underlying purpose of the rule. 
Therefore, the Commission has determined that the special circumstances 
described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in that the requirement for 
an auxiliary or emergency feedwater system is not necessary to achieve 
the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.62(c)(1), because Westinghouse has 
adopted acceptable alternatives that accomplish the intent of this 
regulation, and the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an 
undue risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the 
common defense and security.
(6) Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, GDC 17--Offsite Power Sources
    Westinghouse requested a partial exemption from the requirement in 
GDC 17 for a second offsite power supply circuit. The AP600 plant 
design relies on safety-related ``passive'' systems. Unlike operating 
plants with active safety-related systems, the AP600 safety-related 
systems only require a small amount of electric power for valves and 
related instrumentation. The onsite Class 1E batteries and associated 
dc and ac distribution systems can provide the power for these valves 
and instrumentation. In addition, if no offsite power is available, it 
is expected that the non-safety-related onsite diesel generators would 
be available for important plant functions; however, this non-safety-
related ac power is not relied on to maintain core cooling or 
containment integrity. Therefore, the Commission has determined that 
the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in 
that the requirement need not be applied in this particular 
circumstance to achieve the underlying purpose of having two offsite 
power sources because the AP600 design includes an acceptable 
alternative approach to accomplish safety functions that does not rely 
on power from the offsite system and, therefore, accomplishes the 
intent of the regulation. On this basis, the Commission concludes that 
a partial exemption from the requirements of GDC 17 is authorized by 
law, will not present an undue risk to public health and safety, and is 
consistent with the common defense and security.
(7) Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, GDC 19--Whole Body Dose Criterion
    The NRC staff used a criterion of 5 rem TEDE for evaluating the 
radiological consequences of design basis accidents in the control room 
of the AP600 design. The NRC staff used the 5 rem TEDE criterion to be 
consistent with the new reactor site criteria in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) [61 
FR

[[Page 72009]]

65157], although GDC 19 specifies * * * ``5 rem whole body, or its 
equivalent to any part of the body''* * * The Commission has determined 
that the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) 
exist in that application of the 5 rem whole body criterion is not 
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule because a TEDE 
dose provides essentially the same level of risk as a whole body dose 
(see 61 FR 65160). On this basis, the Commission concludes that a 
partial exemption from GDC 19 is authorized by law, will not present an 
undue risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the 
common defense and security.

F. Issue Resolution

    The purpose of Section VI of this appendix is to identify the scope 
of issues that are resolved by the Commission in this rulemaking and; 
therefore, are ``matters resolved'' within the meaning and intent of 10 
CFR 52.63(a)(4). The section is divided into five parts: (A) the 
Commission's safety findings in adopting this appendix, (B) the scope 
and nature of issues which are resolved by this rulemaking, (C) issues 
which are not resolved by this rulemaking, (D) the backfit restrictions 
applicable to the Commission with respect to this appendix, and (E) the 
availability of secondary references.
    Paragraph A describes in general terms the nature of the 
Commission's findings, and makes the finding required by 10 CFR 52.54 
for the Commission's approval of this design certification rule. 
Furthermore, paragraph A explicitly states the Commission's 
determination that this design provides adequate protection of the 
public health and safety.
    Paragraph B sets forth the scope of issues which may not be 
challenged as a matter of right in subsequent proceedings. The 
introductory phrase of paragraph B clarifies that issue resolution as 
described in the remainder of the paragraph extends to the delineated 
NRC proceedings referencing this appendix. The remainder of paragraph B 
describes the categories of information for which there is issue 
resolution. Specifically, subparagraph B.1 provides that all nuclear 
safety issues arising from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
that are associated with the information in the NRC staff's FSER 
(NUREG-1512) and Supplement No. 1, the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information 
(including the availability controls in Section 16.3 of the generic 
DCD), and the rulemaking record for this appendix are resolved within 
the meaning of Sec. 52.63(a)(4). These issues include the information 
referenced in the DCD that are requirements (i.e., ``secondary 
references''), as well as all issues arising from proprietary and 
safeguards information which are intended to be requirements. 
Subparagraph B.2 provides for issue preclusion of proprietary and 
safeguards information. Subparagraphs B.3, B.4, B.5, and B.6 clarify 
that approved changes to and departures from the DCD which are 
accomplished in compliance with the relevant procedures and criteria in 
Section VIII of this appendix continue to be matters resolved in 
connection with this rulemaking. Subparagraph B.7 provides that, for 
those plants located on sites whose site parameters do not exceed those 
assumed in Westinghouse's evaluation of severe accident mitigation 
design alternatives (SAMDAs), all issues with respect to SAMDAs arising 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 associated with the 
information in the Environmental Assessment for this design and the 
information regarding SAMDAs in Appendix 1B of the generic DCD are also 
resolved within the meaning and intent of Sec. 52.63(a)(4). In the 
event an exemption from a site parameter is granted, the exemption 
applicant has the initial burden of demonstrating that the original 
SAMDA analysis still applies to the actual site parameters but, if the 
exemption is approved, requests for litigation at the COL stage must 
meet the requirements of Sec. 2.714 and present sufficient information 
to create a genuine controversy in order to obtain a hearing on the 
site parameter exemption.
    Paragraph C reserves the right of the Commission to impose 
operational requirements on applicants that reference this appendix. 
This provision reflects the fact that operational requirements, 
including generic technical specifications in Section 16.1 of the DCD, 
were not completely or comprehensively reviewed at the design 
certification stage. Therefore, the special backfit provisions of 
Sec. 52.63 do not apply to operational requirements. However, all 
design changes will be controlled by the appropriate provision in 
Section VIII of this appendix. Although the information in the DCD that 
is related to operational requirements was necessary to support the NRC 
staff's safety review of this design, the review of this information 
was not sufficient to conclude that the operational requirements are 
fully resolved and ready to be assigned finality under Sec. 52.63. As a 
result, if the NRC wanted to change a temperature limit and that 
operational change required a consequential change to a design feature, 
then the temperature limit backfit would be controlled by Section VIII 
(paragraph A or B) of this appendix. However, changes to other 
operational issues, such as in-service testing and in-service 
inspection programs, post-fuel load verification activities, and 
shutdown risk that do not require a design change would not be 
restricted by Sec. 52.63 (see paragraph VIII.C of this appendix). 
Paragraph VI.C does allow the NRC to impose future operational 
requirements (distinct from design matters) on applicants who reference 
this design certification. Also, license conditions for portions of the 
plant within the scope of this design certification, e.g. start-up and 
power ascension testing, are not restricted by Sec. 52.63. The 
requirement to perform these testing programs is contained in Tier 1 
information. However, ITAAC cannot be specified for these subjects 
because the matters to be addressed in these license conditions cannot 
be verified prior to fuel load and operation, when the ITAAC are 
satisfied. Therefore, another regulatory vehicle is necessary to ensure 
that licensees comply with the matters contained in the license 
conditions. License conditions for these areas cannot be developed now 
because this requires the type of detailed design information that will 
be developed after design certification. In the absence of detailed 
design information to evaluate the need for and develop specific post-
fuel load verifications for these matters, the Commission is reserving 
the right to impose license conditions by rule for post-fuel load 
verification activities for portions of the plant within the scope of 
this design certification.
    Paragraph D reiterates the restrictions (contained in Section VIII 
of this appendix) placed upon the Commission when ordering generic or 
plant-specific modifications, changes or additions to structures, 
systems or components, design features, design criteria, and ITAAC 
(subparagraph VI.D.3 addresses ITAAC) within the scope of the certified 
design.
    Paragraph E provides the procedure for an interested member of the 
public to obtain access to proprietary or safeguards information for 
the AP600 design, in order to request and participate in proceedings 
identified in paragraph VI.B of this appendix, viz., proceedings 
involving licenses and applications which reference this appendix. As 
set forth in paragraph VI.E, access must first be sought from the 
design certification applicant. If Westinghouse refuses to provide the 
information, the person seeking access

[[Page 72010]]

shall request access from the Commission or the presiding officer, as 
applicable. Access to the proprietary or safeguards information may be 
ordered by the Commission, but must be subject to an appropriate non-
disclosure agreement.

G. Duration of This Appendix

    The purpose of Section VII of this appendix is in part to specify 
the time period during which this design certification may be 
referenced by an applicant for a combined license, under 10 CFR 52.55. 
This section also states that the design certification remains valid 
for an applicant or licensee that references the design certification 
until the application is withdrawn or the license expires. Therefore, 
if an application references this design certification during the 15-
year period, then the design certification continues in effect until 
the application is withdrawn or the license issued on that application 
expires. Also, the design certification continues in effect for the 
referencing license if the license is renewed. The Commission intends 
for this appendix to remain valid for the life of the plant that 
references the design certification to achieve the benefits of 
standardization and licensing stability. This means that changes to or 
plant-specific departures from information in the plant-specific DCD 
must be made pursuant to the change processes in Section VIII of this 
appendix for the life of the plant.

H. Processes for Changes and Departures

    The purpose of Section VIII of this appendix is to set forth the 
processes for generic changes to or plant-specific departures 
(including exemptions) from the DCD. The Commission adopted this 
restrictive change process in order to achieve a more stable licensing 
process for applicants and licensees that reference this design 
certification rule. Section VIII is divided into three paragraphs, 
which correspond to Tier 1, Tier 2, and Operational requirements. The 
language of Section VIII distinguishes between generic changes to the 
DCD versus plant-specific departures from the DCD. Generic changes must 
be accomplished by rulemaking because the intended subject of the 
change is the design certification rule itself, as is contemplated by 
10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). Consistent with 10 CFR 52.63(a)(2), any generic 
rulemaking changes are applicable to all plants, absent circumstances 
which render the change [``modification'' in the language of 
Sec. 52.63(a)(2)] ``technically irrelevant.'' By contrast, plant-
specific departures could be either a Commission-issued order to one or 
more applicants or licensees; or an applicant or licensee-initiated 
departure applicable only to that applicant's or licensee's plant(s), 
similar to a Sec. 50.59 departure or an exemption. Because these plant-
specific departures will result in a DCD that is unique for that plant, 
Section X of this appendix requires an applicant or licensee to 
maintain a plant-specific DCD. For purposes of brevity, this discussion 
refers to both generic changes and plant-specific departures as 
``change processes.''
    Both Section VIII of this appendix and this SOC refer to an 
``exemption'' from one or more requirements of this appendix and the 
criteria for granting an exemption. The Commission cautions that where 
the exemption involves an underlying substantive requirement 
(applicable regulation), then the applicant or licensee requesting the 
exemption must also show that an exemption from the underlying 
applicable requirement meets the criteria of 10 CFR 50.12.

Tier 1 Information

    The change processes for Tier 1 information are covered in 
paragraph VIII.A. Generic changes to Tier 1 are accomplished by 
rulemaking that amends the generic DCD and are governed by the 
standards in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). This provision provides that the 
Commission may not modify, change, rescind, or impose new requirements 
by rulemaking except where necessary either to bring the certification 
into compliance with the Commission's regulations applicable and in 
effect at the time of approval of the design certification or to ensure 
adequate protection of the public health and safety or common defense 
and security. The rulemakings must include an opportunity for hearing 
with respect to the proposed change, as required by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1), 
and the Commission expects such hearings to be conducted in accordance 
with 10 CFR part 2, Subpart H. Departures from Tier 1 may occur in two 
ways: (1) the Commission may order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, as 
provided in subparagraph A.3; or (2) an applicant or licensee may 
request an exemption from Tier 1, as provided in subparagraph A.4. If 
the Commission seeks to order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, 
subparagraph A.3 requires that the Commission find both that the 
departure is necessary for adequate protection or for compliance, and 
that special circumstances are present. Subparagraph A.4 provides that 
exemptions from Tier 1 requested by an applicant or licensee are 
governed by the requirements of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1) and 52.97(b), which 
provide an opportunity for a hearing. In addition, the Commission will 
not grant requests for exemptions that may result in a significant 
decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.

Tier 2 Information

    The change processes for the three different categories of Tier 2 
information (Tier 2, Tier 2*, and Tier 2* with a time of expiration) 
are set forth in paragraph VIII.B. The change processes for Tier 2 have 
the same elements as the Tier 1 change processes, but some of the 
standards for plant-specific orders and exemptions are different. The 
Commission adopted a ``50.59-like'' change process (similar to 10 CFR 
50.59) in accordance with its SRMs on SECY-90-377 and SECY-92-287A. 
However, the Commission plans to revise the change process in 10 CFR 
50.59 (64 FR 53582). As a result, the Commission will determine whether 
similar revisions should be made to the ``50.59-like'' change process 
in subparagraph VIII.B.5, as part of an upcoming 10 CFR part 52 
rulemaking (refer to SECY-98-282), of the design certification rules 
(Appendices A, B, and C to Part 52). Any backfitting implications for 
future revisions to subparagraph VIII.B.5 of the design certification 
rules were covered in the 10 CFR 50.59 rulemaking (64 FR 53612).
    The process for generic Tier 2 changes (including changes to Tier 
2* and Tier 2* with a time of expiration) tracks the process for 
generic Tier 1 changes. As set forth in subparagraph B.1, generic Tier 
2 changes are accomplished by rulemaking amending the generic DCD, and 
are governed by the standards in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). This provision 
provides that the Commission may not modify, change, rescind or impose 
new requirements by rulemaking except where necessary either to bring 
the certification into compliance with the Commission's regulations 
applicable and in effect at the time of approval of the design 
certification or to assure adequate protection of the public health and 
safety or common defense and security. If a generic change is made to 
Tier 2* information, then the category and expiration, if necessary, of 
the new information would also be determined in the rulemaking and the 
appropriate change process for that new information would apply.
    Departures from Tier 2 may occur in five ways: (1) The Commission 
may order a plant-specific departure, as set forth in subparagraph B.3; 
(2) an applicant or licensee may request an

[[Page 72011]]

exemption from a Tier 2 requirement as set forth in subparagraph B.4; 
(3) a licensee may make a departure without prior NRC approval in 
accordance with subparagraph B.5 [the ``50.59-like'' process]; (4) the 
licensee may request NRC approval for proposed departures which do not 
meet the requirements in subparagraph B.5 as provided in subparagraph 
B.5.d; and (5) the licensee may request NRC approval for a departure 
from Tier 2* information under subparagraph B.6.
    Similar to Commission-ordered Tier 1 departures and generic Tier 2 
changes, Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures cannot be imposed except 
where necessary either to bring the certification into compliance with 
the Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time of 
approval of the design certification or to ensure adequate protection 
of the public health and safety or common defense and security, as set 
forth in subparagraph B.3. However, the special circumstances for the 
Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures do not have to outweigh any 
decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in 
standardization caused by the plant-specific order, as required by 10 
CFR 52.63(a)(3). The Commission determined that it was not necessary to 
impose an additional limitation similar to that imposed on Tier 1 
departures by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3) and (b)(1). This type of additional 
limitation for standardization would unnecessarily restrict the 
flexibility of applicants and licensees with respect to Tier 2, which 
by its nature is not as safety significant as Tier 1.
    An applicant or licensee may request an exemption from Tier 2 
information as set forth in subparagraph B.4. The applicant or licensee 
must demonstrate that the exemption complies with one of the special 
circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a). In addition, the Commission will not 
grant requests for exemptions that may result in a significant decrease 
in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design. However, the 
special circumstances for the exemption do not have to outweigh any 
decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in 
standardization caused by the exemption. If the exemption is requested 
by an applicant for a license, the exemption is subject to litigation 
in the same manner as other issues in the license hearing, consistent 
with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). If the exemption is requested by a licensee, 
then the exemption is subject to litigation in the same manner as a 
license amendment.
    Subparagraph B.5 allows an applicant or licensee to depart from 
Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, if the proposed 
departure does not involve a change to or departure from Tier 1 or Tier 
2* information, technical specifications, or involves an unreviewed 
safety question (USQ) as defined in B.5.b and B.5.c of this paragraph. 
The technical specifications referred to in B.5.a and B.5.b of this 
paragraph are the technical specifications in Section 16.1 of the 
generic DCD, including bases, for departures made prior to issuance of 
the COL. After issuance of the COL, the plant-specific technical 
specifications are controlling under subparagraph B.5. The bases for 
the plant-specific technical specifications will be controlled by the 
bases control procedures for the plant-specific technical 
specifications (analogous to the bases control provision in the 
Improved Standard Technical Specifications). The definition of a USQ in 
B.5.b of this paragraph is similar to the definition in 10 CFR 50.59 
and it applies to all information in Tier 2 except for the information 
that resolves the severe accident issues. The process for evaluating 
proposed tests or experiments not described in Tier 2 will be 
incorporated into the change process for the portion of the design that 
is outside the scope of this design certification. Although 
subparagraph B.5 does not specifically state, the Commission has 
determined that departures must also comply with all applicable 
regulations unless an exemption or other relief is obtained.
    The Commission believes that it is important to preserve and 
maintain the resolution of severe accident issues just like all other 
safety issues that were resolved during the design certification review 
(refer to SRM on SECY-90-377). However, because of the increased 
uncertainty in severe accident issue resolutions, the Commission has 
adopted separate criteria in B.5.c for determining whether a departure 
from information that resolves severe accident issues constitutes a 
USQ. For purposes of applying the special criteria in B.5.c, severe 
accident resolutions are limited to design features when the intended 
function of the design feature is relied upon to resolve postulated 
accidents where the reactor core has melted and exited the reactor 
vessel and the containment is being challenged (severe accidents). 
These design features are identified in Section 1.9.5 of the DCD, with 
other issues, and are described in other sections of the DCD. 
Therefore, the location of design information in the DCD is not 
important to the application of this special procedure for severe 
accident issues. However, the special procedure in B.5.c does not apply 
to design features that resolve so-called beyond design basis accidents 
or other low probability events. The important aspect of this special 
procedure is that it is limited solely to severe accident design 
features, as defined above. Some design features may have intended 
functions to meet ``design basis'' requirements and to resolve ``severe 
accidents.'' If these design features are reviewed under subparagraph 
VIII.B.5, then the appropriate criteria from either B.5.b or B.5.c are 
selected depending upon the function being changed.
    An applicant or licensee that plans to depart from Tier 2 
information, under subparagraph VIII.B.5, must prepare a safety 
evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the 
proposed change does not involve an unreviewed safety question, a 
change to Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, or a change to the technical 
specifications, as explained above. In order to achieve the 
Commission's goals for design certification, the evaluation needs to 
consider all of the matters that were resolved in the DCD, such as 
generic issue resolutions that are relevant to the proposed departure. 
The benefits of the early resolution of safety issues would be lost if 
departures from the DCD were made that violated these resolutions 
without appropriate review. The evaluation of the relevant matters 
needs to consider the proposed departure over the full range of power 
operation from startup to shutdown, as it relates to anticipated 
operational occurrences, transients, design basis accidents, and severe 
accidents. The evaluation must also include a review of all relevant 
secondary references from the DCD because Tier 2 information intended 
to be treated as requirements is contained in the secondary references. 
The evaluation should consider Tables 14.3-1 through 14.3-8 and 19.59-
29 of the generic DCD to ensure that the proposed change does not 
impact Tier 1. These tables contain various cross-references from the 
safety analyses and probabilistic risk assessment in Tier 2 to the 
important parameters that were included in Tier 1. Although many issues 
and analyses could have been cross-referenced, the listings in these 
tables were developed only for key analyses for the AP600 design. 
Westinghouse provided more detailed cross-references for important 
analysis assumptions that are included in Tier 1 in its revised 
response to RAI 640.60 (DCP/NRC 1440--September 15, 1998).
    If a proposed departure from Tier 2 involves a change to or 
departure from Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, technical

[[Page 72012]]

specifications, or otherwise constitutes a USQ, then the applicant or 
licensee must obtain NRC approval through the appropriate process set 
forth in this appendix before implementing the proposed departure. The 
NRC does not endorse NSAC-125, ``Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety 
Evaluations,'' for performing safety evaluations required by 
subparagraph VIII.B.5 of this appendix. However, the NRC will work with 
industry, if it is desired, to develop an appropriate guidance document 
for processing proposed changes under paragraph VIII.B of this 
appendix.
    A party to an adjudicatory proceeding (e.g., for issuance of a 
combined license) who believes that an applicant or licensee has not 
complied with subparagraph VIII.B.5 when departing from Tier 2 
information, may petition to admit such a contention into the 
proceeding under B.5.f. This provision was included because an 
incorrect departure from the requirements of this appendix essentially 
places the departure outside of the scope of the Commission's safety 
finding in the design certification rulemaking. Therefore, it follows 
that properly-founded contentions alleging such incorrectly-implemented 
departures cannot be considered ``resolved'' by this rulemaking. As set 
forth in B.5.f of paragraph VIII.B, the petition must comply with the 
requirements of Sec. 2.714(b)(2) and show that the departure does not 
comply with subparagraph B.5. Any other party may file a response to 
the petition. If on the basis of the petition and any responses, the 
presiding officer in the proceeding determines that the required 
showing has been made, the matter shall be certified to the Commission 
for its final determination. In the absence of a proceeding, petitions 
alleging non-conformance with subparagraph B.5 requirements applicable 
to Tier 2 departures will be treated as petitions for enforcement 
action under 10 CFR 2.206.
    Subparagraph B.6 provides a process for departing from Tier 2* 
information. The creation of and restrictions on changing Tier 2* 
information resulted from the development of the Tier 1 information for 
the ABWR design. During this development process, the applicants for 
design certification requested that the amount of information in Tier 1 
be minimized to provide additional flexibility for an applicant or 
licensee who references this appendix. Also, many codes, standards, and 
design processes, which were not specified in Tier 1, that are 
acceptable for meeting ITAAC were specified in Tier 2. The result of 
these actions is that certain significant information only exists in 
Tier 2 and the Commission does not want this significant information to 
be changed without prior NRC approval. This Tier 2* information is 
identified in the generic DCD with italicized text and brackets.
    Although the Tier 2* designation was originally intended to last 
for the lifetime of the facility, like Tier 1 information, the NRC 
determined that some of the Tier 2* information could expire when the 
plant first achieves full (100%) power, after the finding required by 
10 CFR 52.103(g), while other Tier 2* information must remain in effect 
throughout the life of the facility. The determining factors were the 
Tier 1 information that would govern these areas after first full power 
and the NRC's judgement on whether prior approval was required before 
implementation of the change due to the significance of the 
information. Therefore, certain Tier 2* information listed in B.6.c of 
paragraph VIII.B ceases to retain its Tier 2* designation after full 
power operation is first achieved following the Commission finding in 
10 CFR 52.103(g). Thereafter, that information is deemed to be Tier 2 
information that is subject to the departure requirements in 
subparagraph B.5. By contrast, the Tier 2* information identified in 
B.6.b of paragraph VIII.B retains its Tier 2* designation throughout 
the duration of the license, including any period of renewal.
    Certain preoperational tests in B.6.c of paragraph VIII.B are 
designated to be performed only for the first plant or first three 
plants that reference this appendix. Westinghouse's basis for 
performing these ``first-plant-only'' and ``first-three-plants-only'' 
preoperational tests is provided in Section 14.2.5 of the DCD. The NRC 
staff found Westinghouse's basis for performing these tests and its 
justification for only performing the tests on the first-plant or 
first-three-plants acceptable. The NRC staff's decision was based on 
the need to verify that plant-specific manufacturing and/or 
construction variations do not adversely impact the predicted 
performance of certain passive safety systems, while recognizing that 
these special tests will result in significant thermal transients being 
applied to critical plant components. The NRC staff believes that the 
range of manufacturing or construction variations that could adversely 
affect the relevant passive safety systems will be adequately disclosed 
after performing the designated tests on the first plant, or the first 
three plants, as applicable. The COL action item in Section 14.4.6 of 
the DCD states that subsequent plants shall either perform these 
preoperational tests or justify that the results of the first-plant-
only or first-three-plant-only tests are applicable to the subsequent 
plant. The Tier 2* designation for these tests will expire after the 
first plant or first three plants complete these tests, as indicated in 
B.6.c of paragraph VIII.B.
    If Tier 2* information is changed in a generic rulemaking, the 
designation of the new information (Tier 1, 2*, or 2) would also be 
determined in the rulemaking and the appropriate process for future 
changes would apply. If a plant-specific departure is made from Tier 2* 
information, then the new designation would apply only to that plant. 
If an applicant who references this design certification makes a 
departure from Tier 2* information, the new information is subject to 
litigation in the same manner as other plant-specific issues in the 
licensing hearing. If a licensee makes a departure, it will be treated 
as a license amendment under 10 CFR 50.90 and the finality is in 
accordance with VI.B.5 of this appendix. Any requests for departures 
from Tier 2* information that affect Tier 1 must also comply with the 
requirements in paragraph VIII.A of this appendix.

Operational Requirements

    The change process for technical specifications and other 
operational requirements in the DCD is set forth in paragraph VIII.C of 
this appendix. This change process has elements similar to the Tier 1 
and Tier 2 change process in paragraphs VIII.A and VIII.B, but with 
significantly different change standards. Because of the different 
finality status for technical specifications and other operational 
requirements (refer to III.F of this SOC), the Commission decided to 
designate a special category of information, consisting of the 
technical specifications and other operational requirements, with its 
own change process in paragraph VIII.C. The key to using the change 
processes in Section VIII is to determine if the proposed change or 
departure requires a change to a design feature described in the 
generic DCD. If a design change is required, then the appropriate 
change process in paragraph VIII.A or VIII.B applies. However, if a 
proposed change to the technical specifications or other operational 
requirements does not require a change to a design feature in the 
generic DCD, then paragraph VIII.C applies. The language in paragraph 
VIII.C also distinguishes between generic (Section 16.1 of DCD) and 
plant-specific technical specifications to account for the different 
treatment and

[[Page 72013]]

finality accorded technical specifications before and after a license 
is issued.
    The process in subparagraph VIII.C.1 for making generic changes to 
the generic technical specifications in Section 16.1 of the DCD or 
other operational requirements in the generic DCD is accomplished by 
rulemaking and governed by the backfit standards in 10 CFR 50.109. The 
determination of whether the generic technical specifications and other 
operational requirements were completely reviewed and approved in the 
design certification rulemaking is based upon the extent to which an 
NRC safety conclusion in the FSER is being modified or changed. If it 
cannot be determined that the technical specification or operational 
requirement was comprehensively reviewed and finalized in the design 
certification rulemaking, then there is no backfit restriction under 10 
CFR 50.109 because no prior position was taken on this safety matter. 
Some generic technical specifications contain bracketed values, which 
clearly indicate that the NRC staff's review was not complete. Generic 
changes made under subparagraph VIII.C.1 are applicable to all 
applicants or licensees (refer to subparagraph VIII.C.2), unless the 
change is irrelevant because of a plant-specific departure.
    Plant-specific departures may occur by either a Commission order 
under subparagraph VIII.C.3 or an applicant's exemption request under 
subparagraph VIII.C.4. The basis for determining if the technical 
specification or operational requirement was completely reviewed and 
approved for these processes is the same as for subparagraph VIII.C.1. 
If the technical specification or operational requirement was 
comprehensively reviewed and finalized in the design certification 
rulemaking, then the Commission must demonstrate that special 
circumstances are present before ordering a plant-specific departure. 
If not, there is no restriction on plant-specific changes to the 
technical specifications or operational requirements, prior to issuance 
of a license, provided a design change is not required. Although the 
generic technical specifications were reviewed by the NRC staff to 
facilitate the design certification review, the Commission intends to 
consider the lessons learned from subsequent operating experience 
during its licensing review of the plant-specific technical 
specifications. The process for petitioning to intervene on a technical 
specification or operational requirement is similar to other issues in 
a licensing hearing, except that the petitioner must also demonstrate 
why special circumstances are present (subparagraph VIII.C.5).
    Finally, the generic technical specifications will have no further 
effect on the plant-specific technical specifications after the 
issuance of a license that references this appendix. The bases for the 
generic technical specifications will be controlled by the change 
process in paragraph VIII.C of this appendix. After a license is 
issued, the bases will be controlled by the bases change provision set 
forth in the administrative controls section of the plant-specific 
technical specifications.

I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)

    The purpose of Section IX of this appendix is to set forth how the 
ITAAC in Tier 1 of this design certification rule are to be treated in 
a license proceeding. Paragraph A restates the responsibilities of an 
applicant or licensee for performing and successfully completing ITAAC, 
and notifying the NRC of such completion. Subparagraph A.1 makes it 
clear that an applicant may proceed at its own risk with design and 
procurement activities subject to ITAAC, and that a licensee may 
proceed at its own risk with design, procurement, construction, and 
preoperational testing activities subject to an ITAAC, even though the 
NRC may not have found that any particular ITAAC has been successfully 
completed. Subparagraph A.2 requires the licensee to notify the NRC 
that the required inspections, tests, and analyses in the ITAAC have 
been completed and that the acceptance criteria have been met.
    Subparagraphs B.1 and B.2 essentially reiterate the NRC's 
responsibilities with respect to ITAAC as set forth in 10 CFR 52.99 and 
52.103(g). Finally, subparagraph B.3 states that ITAAC do not, by 
virtue of their inclusion in the DCD, constitute regulatory 
requirements after the licensee has received authorization to load fuel 
or for renewal of the license. However, subsequent modifications must 
comply with the design descriptions in the DCD unless the applicable 
requirements in 10 CFR 52.97 and Section VIII of this appendix have 
been complied with. As discussed in paragraph III.D of this SOC, the 
Commission will defer a determination of the applicability of ITAAC and 
their effect in terms of issue resolution in 10 CFR Part 50 licensing 
proceedings to such time that a Part 50 applicant decides to reference 
this appendix.

J. Records and Reporting

    The purpose of Section X of this appendix is to set forth the 
requirements for maintaining records of changes to and departures from 
the generic DCD, which are to be reflected in the plant-specific DCD. 
Section X also sets forth the requirements for submitting reports 
(including updates to the plant-specific DCD) to the NRC. This section 
of the appendix is similar to the requirements for records and reports 
in 10 CFR part 50, except for minor differences in information 
collection and reporting requirements, as discussed in V of this SOC. 
Subparagraph X.A.1 of this appendix requires that a generic DCD and the 
proprietary and safeguards information referenced in the generic DCD be 
maintained by the applicant for this rule. The generic DCD was 
developed, in part, to meet the requirements for incorporation by 
reference, including availability requirements. Therefore, the 
proprietary and safeguards information could not be included in the 
generic DCD because it is not publicly available. However, the 
proprietary and safeguards information was reviewed by the NRC and, as 
stated in subparagraph VI.B.2 of this appendix, the Commission 
considers the information to be resolved within the meaning of 10 CFR 
52.63(a)(4). Because this information is not in the generic DCD, the 
proprietary and safeguards information, or its equivalent, is required 
to be provided by an applicant for a license. Therefore, to ensure that 
this information will be available, a requirement for the design 
certification applicant to maintain the proprietary and safeguards 
information was added to subparagraph X.A.1 of this appendix. The 
acceptable version of the proprietary and safeguards information is 
identified (referenced) in the version of the DCD that is incorporated 
into this rule. The generic DCD and the acceptable version of the 
proprietary and safeguards information must be maintained for the 
period of time that this appendix may be referenced.
    Subparagraphs A.2 and A.3 place record-keeping requirements on the 
applicant or licensee that references this design certification to 
maintain its plant-specific DCD to accurately reflect both generic 
changes to the generic DCD and plant-specific departures made pursuant 
to Section VIII of this appendix. The term ``plant-specific'' was added 
to paragraph A.2 and other Sections of this appendix to distinguish 
between the generic DCD that is incorporated by reference into this 
appendix, and the plant-specific DCD that the applicant is required to 
submit under paragraph IV.A of this appendix. The requirement to 
maintain the generic changes to the generic DCD is explicitly

[[Page 72014]]

stated to ensure that these changes are not only reflected in the 
generic DCD, which will be maintained by the applicant for design 
certification, but that the changes are also reflected in the plant-
specific DCD. Therefore, records of generic changes to the DCD will be 
required to be maintained by both entities to ensure that both entities 
have up-to-date DCDs.
    Paragraph X.A of this appendix does not place record-keeping 
requirements on site-specific information that is outside the scope of 
this rule. As discussed in III.D of this SOC, the final safety analysis 
report required by 10 CFR 52.79 will contain the plant-specific DCD and 
the site-specific information for a facility that references this rule. 
The phrase ``site-specific portion of the final safety analysis 
report'' in X.B.3.d of this appendix refers to the information that is 
contained in the final safety analysis report for a facility (required 
by 10 CFR 52.79) but is not part of the plant-specific DCD (required by 
paragraph IV.A of this appendix). Therefore, this rule does not require 
that duplicate documentation be maintained by an applicant or licensee 
that references this rule, because the plant-specific DCD is part of 
the final safety analysis report for the facility.
    Subparagraphs B.1 and B.2 of this appendix establish reporting 
requirements for applicants or licensees that reference this rule that 
are similar to the reporting requirements in 10 CFR part 50. For 
currently operating plants, a licensee is required to maintain records 
of the basis for any design changes to the facility made under 10 CFR 
50.59. Section 50.59(b)(2) requires a licensee to provide a summary 
report of these changes to the NRC annually, or along with updates to 
the facility final safety analysis report under 10 CFR 50.71(e). 
Section 50.71(e)(4) requires that these updates be submitted annually, 
or 6 months after each refueling outage if the interval between 
successive updates does not exceed 24 months.
    The reporting requirements in subparagraph B.3 of this appendix 
vary according to four different time periods during a facilities' 
lifetime. Under B.3.a of paragraph X.B, if an applicant that references 
this rule decides to make departures from the generic DCD, then the 
departures and any updates to the plant-specific DCD must be submitted 
with the initial application for a license. Under B.3.b of paragraph 
X.B, the applicant may submit any subsequent reports and updates along 
with its amendments to the application provided that the submittals are 
made at least once per year. Because amendments to an application are 
typically made more frequently than once a year, this should not be an 
excessive burden on the applicant. Under B.3.c of paragraph X.B, 
summary reports must be submitted quarterly during the period of 
facility construction. This increase in frequency of summary reports of 
departures from the plant-specific DCD is in response to the 
Commission's guidance on reporting frequency in its SRM on SECY-90-377, 
dated February 15, 1991.
    Quarterly reporting of design changes during the period of 
construction is necessary to closely monitor the status and progress of 
the construction of the plant. To make its finding under 10 CFR 52.99, 
the NRC must monitor the design changes made in accordance with Section 
VIII of this appendix. The ITAAC verify that the as-built facility 
conforms with the approved design and emphasizes design reconciliation 
and design verification. Quarterly reporting of design changes is 
particularly important in times where the number of design changes 
could be significant, such as during the procurement of components and 
equipment, detailed design of the plant at the start of construction, 
and during preoperational testing. The frequency of updates to the 
plant-specific DCD is not increased during facility construction. After 
the facility begins operation, the frequency of reporting reverts to 
the requirement in X.B.3.d of paragraph X.B, which is consistent with 
the requirement for plants licensed under 10 CFR part 50.

IV. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

    The Commission has determined under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Commission's regulations 
in 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, that this design certification rule is 
not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 
human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) is not required. The basis for this determination, as documented 
in the final environmental assessment, is that this amendment to 10 CFR 
part 52 does not authorize the siting, construction, or operation of a 
facility using the AP600 design; it only codifies the AP600 design in a 
rule. The NRC will evaluate the environmental impacts and issue an EIS, 
as appropriate, in accordance with NEPA as part of the application(s) 
for the construction and operation of a facility.
    In addition, as part of the final environmental assessment for the 
AP600 design, the NRC reviewed Westinghouse's evaluation of various 
design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents in 
Appendix 1B of the AP600 Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR). The 
Commission finds that Westinghouse's evaluation provides a reasonable 
assurance that certifying the AP600 design will not exclude severe 
accident mitigation design alternatives for a future facility that 
would prove cost beneficial had they been considered as part of the 
original design certification application. These issues are considered 
resolved for the AP600 design.
    The final environmental assessment (EA), upon which the 
Commission's finding of no significant impact is based, and the AP600 
SSAR are available for examination and copying at the NRC Public 
Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single 
copies of the EA are also available from Jerry N. Wilson, Mailstop O-12 
G15, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule amends information collection requirements 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 (OMB) on August 10, 1999 (OMB #3150-0151). If an application is 
submitted, the additional public reporting burden for this information 
collection is estimated to average 8 person-hours per response, 
including 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 this information collection, 
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Records 
Management Branch (T-6 E6), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at 
[email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0151), Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Public Protection Notification

    If a means used to impose an information collection does not 
display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct 
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information 
collection.

[[Page 72015]]

VI. Regulatory Analysis

    The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this final rule. 
The NRC prepares regulatory analyses for rulemakings that establish 
generic regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees. Design 
certifications are not generic rulemakings in the sense that design 
certifications do not establish standards or requirements with which 
all licensees must comply. Rather, design certifications are Commission 
approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking. 
Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are initiated by an 
applicant for a design certification, rather than the NRC. Preparation 
of a regulatory analysis in this circumstance would not be useful 
because the design to be certified is proposed by the applicant rather 
than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that 
preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required nor 
appropriate.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities. The final rule provides for certification of a nuclear power 
plant design. Neither the design certification applicant, nor 
prospective nuclear power plant licensees who reference this design 
certification rule, fall within the scope of the definition of ``small 
entities'' set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small 
Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small 
Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

VIII. Backfit Analysis

    The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, 
does not apply to this amendment because it does not impose new or 
changed requirements on existing 10 CFR Part 50 licensees. Therefore, a 
backfit analysis was not prepared for this rule.

IX. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    As required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
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, OMB.

X. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology and Transfer Act of 1995 (Act), Pub. L. 
104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that 
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless 
the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. This rule provides for certification of a 
nuclear power plant design. Design certifications are not generic 
rulemakings in the sense that design certifications do not establish 
standards or requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, 
design certifications are Commission approvals of specific nuclear 
power plant designs by rulemaking. Furthermore, design certification 
rulemakings are initiated by an applicant for a design certification, 
rather than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that 
the Act does not apply to this rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 52

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, 
Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, 
Incorporation by reference, Inspection, Limited work authorization, 
Nuclear power plants and reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, 
Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design 
certification.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization 
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting 
the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 52.

PART 52--EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS; AND 
COMBINED LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

    1. The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 52 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 
936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, 
as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); 
secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1243, 1244, 1246, 1246, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

    2. In Sec. 52.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 52.8  Information collection requirements: OMB approval.

* * * * *
    (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in 
this part appear in Secs. 52.15, 52.17, 52.29, 52.35, 52.45, 52.47, 
52.51, 52.57, 52.63, 52.75, 52.77, 52.78, 52.79, 52.89, 52.91, 52.99, 
and appendices A, B, and C.
    3. A new Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 52 is added to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 52--Design Certification Rule for the AP600 
Design

I. Introduction

    Appendix C constitutes the standard design certification for the 
AP600 1 design, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52, 
Subpart B. The applicant for certification of the AP600 design is 
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AP600 is a trademark of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Definitions

    A. Generic design control document (generic DCD) means the 
document containing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information and generic 
technical specifications that is incorporated by reference into this 
appendix.
    B. Generic technical specifications means the information, 
required by 10 CFR 50.36 and 50.36a, for the portion of the plant 
that is within the scope of this appendix.
    C. Plant-specific DCD means the document, maintained by an 
applicant or licensee who references this appendix, consisting of 
the information in the generic DCD, as modified and supplemented by 
the plant-specific departures and exemptions made under Section VIII 
of this appendix.
    D. Tier 1 means the portion of the design-related information 
contained in the generic DCD that is approved and certified by this 
appendix (hereinafter Tier 1 information). The design descriptions, 
interface requirements, and site parameters are derived from Tier 2 
information. Tier 1 information includes:
    1. Definitions and general provisions;
    2. Design descriptions;
    3. Inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria 
(ITAAC);
    4. Significant site parameters; and
    5. Significant interface requirements.
    E. Tier 2 means the portion of the design-related information 
contained in the generic DCD that is approved but not certified by 
this appendix (hereinafter Tier 2 information). Compliance with Tier 
2 is required, but generic changes to and plant-specific departures 
from Tier 2 are governed by Section VIII of this appendix. 
Compliance with Tier 2 provides a sufficient, but not the only 
acceptable, method for complying with Tier 1. Compliance methods 
differing from Tier 2 must satisfy the change process in Section 
VIII of this appendix. Regardless of these differences, an applicant 
or licensee must meet the requirement in Section III.B to reference 
Tier 2 when referencing Tier 1. Tier 2 information includes:
    1. Information required by 10 CFR 52.47, with the exception of 
generic technical specifications and conceptual design information;

[[Page 72016]]

    2. Information required for a final safety analysis report under 
10 CFR 50.34;
    3. Supporting information on the inspections, tests, and 
analyses that will be performed to demonstrate that the acceptance 
criteria in the ITAAC have been met; and
    4. Combined license (COL) action items (combined license 
information), which identify certain matters that shall be addressed 
in the site-specific portion of the final safety analysis report 
(FSAR) by an applicant who references this appendix. These items 
constitute information requirements but are not the only acceptable 
set of information in the FSAR. An applicant may depart from or omit 
these items, provided that the departure or omission is identified 
and justified in the FSAR. After issuance of a construction permit 
or COL, these items are not requirements for the licensee unless 
such items are restated in the FSAR.
    5. The investment protection short-term availability controls in 
Section 16.3 of the DCD.
    F. Tier 2* means the portion of the Tier 2 information, 
designated as such in the generic DCD, which is subject to the 
change process in VIII.B.6 of this appendix. This designation 
expires for some Tier 2* information under VIII.B.6.
    G. All other terms in this appendix have the meaning set out in 
10 CFR 50.2, 10 CFR 52.3, or Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended, as applicable.

III. Scope and Contents

    A. Tier 1, Tier 2 (including the investment protection short-
term availability controls in Section 16.3), and the generic 
technical specifications in the AP600 DCD (12/99 revision) are 
approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the 
Office of the Federal Register on January 24, 2000 in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of the generic DCD 
may be obtained from Mr. Brian A. McIntyre, Manager, Advanced Plant 
Safety and Licensing, Westinghouse Electric Company, P.O. Box 355, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355. A copy of the generic DCD is available 
for examination and copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L 
Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies are also 
available for examination at the NRC Library, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland 20582; and the Office of the Federal Register, 
800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    B. An applicant or licensee referencing this appendix, in 
accordance with Section IV of this appendix, shall incorporate by 
reference and comply with the requirements of this appendix, 
including Tier 1, Tier 2 (including the investment protection short-
term availability controls in Section 16.3), and the generic 
technical specifications except as otherwise provided in this 
appendix. Conceptual design information in the generic DCD and the 
evaluation of severe accident mitigation design alternatives in 
Appendix 1B of the generic DCD are not part of this appendix.
    C. If there is a conflict between Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the DCD, 
then Tier 1 controls.
    D. If there is a conflict between the generic DCD and either the 
application for design certification of the AP600 design or NUREG-
1512, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Certification of 
the AP600 Standard Design,'' (FSER), then the generic DCD controls.
    E. Design activities for structures, systems, and components 
that are wholly outside the scope of this appendix may be performed 
using site-specific design parameters, provided the design 
activities do not affect the DCD or conflict with the interface 
requirements.

IV. Additional Requirements and Restrictions

    A. An applicant for a license that wishes to reference this 
appendix shall, in addition to complying with the requirements of 10 
CFR 52.77, 52.78, and 52.79, comply with the following requirements:
    1. Incorporate by reference, as part of its application, this 
appendix.
    2. Include, as part of its application:
    a. A plant-specific DCD containing the same information and 
utilizing the same organization and numbering as the AP600 DCD, as 
modified and supplemented by the applicant's exemptions and 
departures;
    b. The reports on departures from and updates to the plant-
specific DCD required by X.B of this appendix;
    c. Plant-specific technical specifications, consisting of the 
generic and site-specific technical specifications, that are 
required by 10 CFR 50.36 and 50.36a;
    d. Information demonstrating compliance with the site parameters 
and interface requirements;
    e. Information that addresses the COL action items; and
    f. Information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a) that is not within 
the scope of this appendix.
    3. Physically include, in the plant-specific DCD, the 
proprietary and safeguards information referenced in the AP600 DCD.
    B. The Commission reserves the right to determine in what manner 
this appendix may be referenced by an applicant for a construction 
permit or operating license under Part 50.

V. Applicable Regulations

    A. Except as indicated in paragraph B of this section, the 
regulations that apply to the AP600 design are in 10 CFR Parts 20, 
50, 73, and 100, codified as of December 16, 1999, that are 
applicable and technically relevant, as described in the FSER 
(NUREG-1512) and the supplementary information for this section.
    B. The AP600 design is exempt from portions of the following 
regulations:
    1. Paragraph (a)(1) of 10 CFR 50.34--whole body dose criterion;
    2. Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34--Plant Safety Parameter 
Display Console;
    3. Paragraphs (f)(2)(vii), (viii), (xxvi), and (xxviii) of 10 
CFR 50.34--Accident Source Term in TID 14844;
    4. Paragraph (a)(2) of 10 CFR 50.55a--ASME Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code;
    5. Paragraph (c)(1) of 10 CFR 50.62--Auxiliary (or emergency) 
feedwater system;
    6. Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, GDC 17--Offsite Power Sources; 
and
    7. Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, GDC 19--whole body dose 
criterion.

VI. Issue Resolution

    A. The Commission has determined that the structures, systems, 
components, and design features of the AP600 design comply with the 
provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the 
applicable regulations identified in Section V of this appendix; and 
therefore, provide adequate protection to the health and safety of 
the public. A conclusion that a matter is resolved includes the 
finding that additional or alternative structures, systems, 
components, design features, design criteria, testing, analyses, 
acceptance criteria, or justifications are not necessary for the 
AP600 design.
    B. The Commission considers the following matters resolved 
within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4) in subsequent proceedings 
for issuance of a combined license, amendment of a combined license, 
or renewal of a combined license, proceedings held pursuant to 10 
CFR 52.103, and enforcement proceedings involving plants referencing 
this appendix:
    1. All nuclear safety issues, except for the generic technical 
specifications and other operational requirements, associated with 
the information in the FSER, Tier 1, Tier 2 (including referenced 
information, which the context indicates is intended as 
requirements, and the investment protection short-term availability 
controls in Section 16.3), and the rulemaking record for 
certification of the AP600 design;
    2. All nuclear safety and safeguards issues associated with the 
information in proprietary and safeguards documents, referenced and 
in context, are intended as requirements in the generic DCD for the 
AP600 design;
    3. All generic changes to the DCD pursuant to and in compliance 
with the change processes in Sections VIII.A.1 and VIII.B.1 of this 
appendix;
    4. All exemptions from the DCD pursuant to and in compliance 
with the change processes in Sections VIII.A.4 and VIII.B.4 of this 
appendix, but only for that proceeding;
    5. All departures from the DCD that are approved by license 
amendment, but only for that proceeding;
    6. Except as provided in VIII.B.5.f of this appendix, all 
departures from Tier 2 pursuant to and in compliance with the change 
processes in VIII.B.5 of this appendix that do not require prior NRC 
approval;
    7. All environmental issues concerning severe accident 
mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs) associated with the 
information in the NRC's environmental assessment for the AP600 
design and Appendix 1B of the generic DCD, for plants referencing 
this appendix whose site parameters are within those specified in 
the SAMDA evaluation.
    C. The Commission does not consider operational requirements for 
an applicant or licensee who references this appendix to be matters 
resolved within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4). The Commission 
reserves the right to require operational requirements for an 
applicant or licensee who references this appendix by rule, 
regulation, order, or license condition.
    D. Except in accordance with the change processes in Section 
VIII of this appendix, the Commission may not require an applicant 
or licensee who references this appendix to:

[[Page 72017]]

    1. Modify structures, systems, components, or design features as 
described in the generic DCD;
    2. Provide additional or alternative structures, systems, 
components, or design features not discussed in the generic DCD; or
    3. Provide additional or alternative design criteria, testing, 
analyses, acceptance criteria, or justification for structures, 
systems, components, or design features discussed in the generic 
DCD.
    E.1. Persons who wish to review proprietary and safeguards 
information or other secondary references in the AP600 DCD, in order 
to request or participate in the hearing required by 10 CFR 52.85 or 
the hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103, or to request or 
participate in any other hearing relating to this appendix in which 
interested persons have adjudicatory hearing rights, shall first 
request access to such information from Westinghouse. The request 
must state with particularity:
    a. The nature of the proprietary or other information sought;
    b. The reason why the information currently available to the 
public at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, and/or at the NRC's 
Public Document Room, is insufficient;
    c. The relevance of the requested information to the hearing 
issue(s) which the person proposes to raise; and
    d. A showing that the requesting person has the capability to 
understand and utilize the requested information.
    2. If a person claims that the information is necessary to 
prepare a request for hearing, the request must be filed no later 
than 15 days after publication in the Federal Register of the notice 
required either by 10 CFR 52.85 or 10 CFR 52.103. If Westinghouse 
declines to provide the information sought, Westinghouse shall send 
a written response within ten (10) days of receiving the request to 
the requesting person setting forth with particularity the reasons 
for its refusal. The person may then request the Commission (or 
presiding officer, if a proceeding has been established) to order 
disclosure. The person shall include copies of the original request 
(and any subsequent clarifying information provided by the 
requesting party to the applicant) and the applicant's response. The 
Commission and presiding officer shall base their decisions solely 
on the person's original request (including any clarifying 
information provided by the requesting person to Westinghouse), and 
Westinghouse's response. The Commission and presiding officer may 
order Westinghouse to provide access to some or all of the requested 
information, subject to an appropriate non-disclosure agreement.

VII. Duration of This Appendix

    This appendix may be referenced for a period of 15 years from 
January 24, 2000, except as provided for in 10 CFR 52.55(b) and 
52.57(b). This appendix remains valid for an applicant or licensee 
who references this appendix until the application is withdrawn or 
the license expires, including any period of extended operation 
under a renewed license.

VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures

    A. Tier 1 information.
    1. Generic changes to Tier 1 information are governed by the 
requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1).
    2. Generic changes to Tier 1 information are applicable to all 
applicants or licensees who reference this appendix, except those 
for which the change has been rendered technically irrelevant by 
action taken under paragraphs A.3 or A.4 of this section.
    3. Departures from Tier 1 information that are required by the 
Commission through plant-specific orders are governed by the 
requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3).
    4. Exemptions from Tier 1 information are governed by the 
requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1) and Sec. 52.97(b). The Commission 
will deny a request for an exemption from Tier 1, if it finds that 
the design change will result in a significant decrease in the level 
of safety otherwise provided by the design.
    B. Tier 2 information.
    1. Generic changes to Tier 2 information are governed by the 
requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1).
    2. Generic changes to Tier 2 information are applicable to all 
applicants or licensees who reference this appendix, except those 
for which the change has been rendered technically irrelevant by 
action taken under paragraphs B.3, B.4, B.5, or B.6 of this section.
    3. The Commission may not require new requirements on Tier 2 
information by plant-specific order while this appendix is in effect 
under Secs. 52.55 or 52.61, unless:
    a. A modification is necessary to secure compliance with the 
Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time this 
appendix was approved, as set forth in Section V of this appendix, 
or to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety or 
the common defense and security; and
    b. Special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a) are 
present.
    4. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix may 
request an exemption from Tier 2 information. The Commission may 
grant such a request only if it determines that the exemption will 
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a). The Commission will 
deny a request for an exemption from Tier 2, if it finds that the 
design change will result in a significant decrease in the level of 
safety otherwise provided by the design. The grant of an exemption 
to an applicant must be subject to litigation in the same manner as 
other issues material to the license hearing. The grant of an 
exemption to a licensee must be subject to an opportunity for a 
hearing in the same manner as license amendments.
    5.a. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix may 
depart from Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, unless 
the proposed departure involves a change to or departure from Tier 1 
information, Tier 2* information, or the technical specifications, 
or involves an unreviewed safety question as defined in paragraphs 
B.5.b and B.5.c of this section. When evaluating the proposed 
departure, an applicant or licensee shall consider all matters 
described in the plant-specific DCD.
    b. A proposed departure from Tier 2, other than one affecting 
resolution of a severe accident issue identified in the plant-
specific DCD, involves an unreviewed safety question if--
    (1) The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an 
accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously 
evaluated in the plant-specific DCD may be increased;
    (2) A possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different 
type than any evaluated previously in the plant-specific DCD may be 
created; or
    (3) The margin of safety as defined in the basis for any 
technical specification is reduced.
    c. A proposed departure from Tier 2 affecting resolution of a 
severe accident issue identified in the plant-specific DCD, involves 
an unreviewed safety question if--
    (1) There is a substantial increase in the probability of a 
severe accident such that a particular severe accident previously 
reviewed and determined to be not credible could become credible; or
    (2) There is a substantial increase in the consequences to the 
public of a particular severe accident previously reviewed.
    d. If a departure involves an unreviewed safety question as 
defined in paragraph B.5 of this section, it is governed by 10 CFR 
50.90.
    e. A departure from Tier 2 information that is made under 
paragraph B.5 of this section does not require an exemption from 
this appendix.
    f. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding for either the 
issuance, amendment, or renewal of a license or for operation under 
10 CFR 52.103(a), who believes that an applicant or licensee who 
references this appendix has not complied with VIII.B.5 of this 
appendix when departing from Tier 2 information, may petition to 
admit into the proceeding such a contention. In addition to 
compliance with the general requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b)(2), the 
petition must demonstrate that the departure does not comply with 
VIII.B.5 of this appendix. Further, the petition must demonstrate 
that the change bears on an asserted noncompliance with an ITAAC 
acceptance criterion in the case of a 10 CFR 52.103 preoperational 
hearing, or that the change bears directly on the amendment request 
in the case of a hearing on a license amendment. Any other party may 
file a response. If, on the basis of the petition and any response, 
the presiding officer determines that a sufficient showing has been 
made, the presiding officer shall certify the matter directly to the 
Commission for determination of the admissibility of the contention. 
The Commission may admit such a contention if it determines the 
petition raises a genuine issue of fact regarding compliance with 
VIII.B.5 of this appendix.
    6.a. An applicant who references this appendix may not depart 
from Tier 2* information, which is designated with italicized text 
or brackets and an asterisk in the generic DCD, without NRC 
approval. The departure will not be considered a resolved issue, 
within the meaning of Section VI of this appendix and 10 CFR 
52.63(a)(4).
    b. A licensee who references this appendix may not depart from 
the following Tier 2*

[[Page 72018]]

matters without prior NRC approval. A request for a departure will 
be treated as a request for a license amendment under 10 CFR 50.90.
    (1) Maximum fuel rod average burn-up.
    (2) Fuel principal design requirements.
    (3) Fuel criteria evaluation process.
    (4) Fire areas.
    (5) Human factors engineering.
    c. A licensee who references this appendix may not, before the 
plant first achieves full power following the finding required by 10 
CFR 52.103(g), depart from the following Tier 2* matters except in 
accordance with paragraph B.6.b of this section. After the plant 
first achieves full power, the following Tier 2* matters revert to 
Tier 2 status and are thereafter subject to the departure provisions 
in paragraph B.5 of this section.
    (1) Nuclear Island structural dimensions.
    (2) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, and Code 
Case N-284.
    (3) Design Summary of Critical Sections.
    (4) ACI 318, ACI 349, and ANSI/AISC--690.
    (5) Definition of critical locations and thicknesses.
    (6) Seismic qualification methods and standards.
    (7) Nuclear design of fuel and reactivity control system, except 
burn-up limit.
    (8) Motor-operated and power-operated valves.
    (9) Instrumentation and control system design processes, 
methods, and standards.
    (10) PRHR natural circulation test (first plant only).
    (11) ADS and CMT verification tests (first three plants only).
    d. Departures from Tier 2* information that are made under 
paragraph B.6 of this section do not require an exemption from this 
appendix.
    C. Operational requirements.
    1. Generic changes to generic technical specifications and other 
operational requirements that were completely reviewed and approved 
in the design certification rulemaking and do not require a change 
to a design feature in the generic DCD are governed by the 
requirements in 10 CFR 50.109. Generic changes that do require a 
change to a design feature in the generic DCD are governed by the 
requirements in paragraphs A or B of this section.
    2. Generic changes to generic technical specifications and other 
operational requirements are applicable to all applicants or 
licensees who reference this appendix, except those for which the 
change has been rendered technically irrelevant by action taken 
under paragraphs C.3 or C.4 of this section.
    3. The Commission may require plant-specific departures on 
generic technical specifications and other operational requirements 
that were completely reviewed and approved, provided a change to a 
design feature in the generic DCD is not required and special 
circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 2.758(b) are present. The 
Commission may modify or supplement generic technical specifications 
and other operational requirements that were not completely reviewed 
and approved or require additional technical specifications and 
other operational requirements on a plant-specific basis, provided a 
change to a design feature in the generic DCD is not required.
    4. An applicant who references this appendix may request an 
exemption from the generic technical specifications or other 
operational requirements. The Commission may grant such a request 
only if it determines that the exemption will comply with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a). The grant of an exemption must be 
subject to litigation in the same manner as other issues material to 
the license hearing.
    5. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding for either the 
issuance, amendment, or renewal of a license or for operation under 
10 CFR 52.103(a), who believes that an operational requirement 
approved in the DCD or a technical specification derived from the 
generic technical specifications must be changed may petition to 
admit into the proceeding such a contention. Such petition must 
comply with the general requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b)(2) and must 
demonstrate why special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 2.758(b) 
are present, or for compliance with the Commission's regulations in 
effect at the time this appendix was approved, as set forth in 
Section V of this appendix. Any other party may file a response 
thereto. If, on the basis of the petition and any response, the 
presiding officer determines that a sufficient showing has been 
made, the presiding officer shall certify the matter directly to the 
Commission for determination of the admissibility of the contention. 
All other issues with respect to the plant-specific technical 
specifications or other operational requirements are subject to a 
hearing as part of the license proceeding.
    6. After issuance of a license, the generic technical 
specifications have no further effect on the plant-specific 
technical specifications and changes to the plant-specific technical 
specifications will be treated as license amendments under 10 CFR 
50.90.

IX. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)

    A.1 An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall 
perform and demonstrate conformance with the ITAAC before fuel load. 
With respect to activities subject to an ITAAC, an applicant for a 
license may proceed at its own risk with design and procurement 
activities, and a licensee may proceed at its own risk with design, 
procurement, construction, and preoperational activities, even 
though the NRC may not have found that any particular ITAAC has been 
satisfied.
    2. The licensee who references this appendix shall notify the 
NRC that the required inspections, tests, and analyses in the ITAAC 
have been successfully completed and that the corresponding 
acceptance criteria have been met.
    3. In the event that an activity is subject to an ITAAC, and the 
applicant or licensee who references this appendix has not 
demonstrated that the ITAAC has been satisfied, the applicant or 
licensee may either take corrective actions to successfully complete 
that ITAAC, request an exemption from the ITAAC in accordance with 
Section VIII of this appendix and 10 CFR 52.97(b), or petition for 
rulemaking to amend this appendix by changing the requirements of 
the ITAAC, under 10 CFR 2.802 and 52.97(b). Such rulemaking changes 
to the ITAAC must meet the requirements of paragraph VIII.A.1 of 
this appendix.
    B.1 The NRC shall ensure that the required inspections, tests, 
and analyses in the ITAAC are performed. The NRC shall verify that 
the inspections, tests, and analyses referenced by the licensee have 
been successfully completed and, based solely thereon, find the 
prescribed acceptance criteria have been met. At appropriate 
intervals during construction, the NRC shall publish notices of the 
successful completion of ITAAC in the Federal Register.
    2. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.99 and 52.103(g), the Commission 
shall find that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC for the license 
are met before fuel load.
    3. After the Commission has made the finding required by 10 CFR 
52.103(g), the ITAAC do not, by virtue of their inclusion within the 
DCD, constitute regulatory requirements either for licensees or for 
renewal of the license; except for specific ITAAC, which are the 
subject of a Section 103(a) hearing, their expiration will occur 
upon final Commission action in such proceeding. However, subsequent 
modifications must comply with the Tier 1 and Tier 2 design 
descriptions in the plant-specific DCD unless the licensee has 
complied with the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 52.97 and 
Section VIII of this appendix.

X. Records and Reporting

A. Records

    1. The applicant for this appendix shall maintain a copy of the 
generic DCD that includes all generic changes to Tier 1 and Tier 2. 
The applicant shall maintain the proprietary and safeguards 
information referenced in the generic DCD for the period that this 
appendix may be referenced, as specified in Section VII of this 
appendix.
    2. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall 
maintain the plant-specific DCD to accurately reflect both generic 
changes to the generic DCD and plant-specific departures made 
pursuant to Section VIII of this appendix throughout the period of 
application and for the term of the license (including any period of 
renewal).
    3. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall 
prepare and maintain written safety evaluations which provide the 
bases for the determinations required by Section VIII of this 
appendix. These evaluations must be retained throughout the period 
of application and for the term of the license (including any period 
of renewal).

B. Reporting

    1. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall 
submit a report to the NRC containing a brief description of any 
departures from the plant-specific DCD, including a summary of the 
safety evaluation of each. This report must be filed in accordance 
with the filing requirements applicable to reports in 10 CFR 50.4.
    2. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall 
submit updates to its

[[Page 72019]]

plant-specific DCD, which reflect the generic changes to the generic 
DCD and the plant-specific departures made pursuant to Section VIII 
of this appendix. These updates shall be filed in accordance with 
the filing requirements applicable to final safety analysis report 
updates in 10 CFR 50.4 and 50.71(e).
    3. The reports and updates required by paragraphs B.1 and B.2 of 
this section must be submitted as follows:
    a. On the date that an application for a license referencing 
this appendix is submitted, the application shall include the report 
and any updates to the plant-specific DCD.
    b. During the interval from the date of application to the date 
of issuance of a license, the report and any updates to the plant-
specific DCD must be submitted annually and may be submitted along 
with amendments to the application.
    c. During the interval from the date of issuance of a license to 
the date the Commission makes its findings under 10 CFR 52.103(g), 
the report must be submitted quarterly. Updates to the plant-
specific DCD must be submitted annually.
    d. After the Commission has made its finding under 10 CFR 
52.103(g), reports and updates to the plant-specific DCD may be 
submitted annually or along with updates to the site-specific 
portion of the final safety analysis report for the facility at the 
intervals required by 10 CFR 50.71(e), or at shorter intervals as 
specified in the license.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of December, 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-33142 Filed 12-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P