[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 73 (Monday, April 18, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20062-20080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7658]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 52
RIN 3150-AH56
AP1000 Design Certification
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) proposes
to amend its regulations to certify the AP1000 standard plant design.
This action is necessary so that applicants or licensees intending to
construct and operate an AP1000 design may do so by referencing the
AP1000
[[Page 20063]]
design certification rule (DCR). This proposed DCR is nearly identical
to the AP600 DCR in the current regulations. The applicant for
certification of the AP1000 design is Westinghouse Electric Company LLC
(Westinghouse). The public is invited to submit comments on this
proposed DCR and the AP1000 design control document (DCD) that would be
incorporated by reference into the DCR. The NRC also invites the public
to submit comments on the environmental assessment for the AP1000
design.
DATES: Submit comments on the rule by July 5, 2005. Submit comments
specific to the information collections aspects of this rule by May 18,
2005. Comments received after the above dates will be considered if it
is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given
to comments received after these dates.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH56) in the subject line
of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because
your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact
information, the NRC cautions you against including personal
information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your
submission.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's
rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail
[email protected]. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays
(telephone (301) 415-1966).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301) 415-1101.
Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor
will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments,
can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web
site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this
site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image
files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or
if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737,
or by e-mail to [email protected].
You may submit comments on the information collections by the
methods indicated in the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Quinones-Navarro or Jerry N.
Wilson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-2007 or
(301) 415-3145; e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Technical Evaluation of the AP1000 Design
III. Section-by-Section Discussion
A. Introduction (Section I)
B. Definitions (Section II)
C. Scope and Contents (Section III)
D. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
E. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
F. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
G. Duration of this Appendix (Section VII)
H. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
(Section IX)
J. Records and Reporting (Section X)
IV. Availability of Documents
V. Plain Language
VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
IX. Regulatory Analysis
X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XI. Backfit Analysis
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 52
I. Background
The NRC added 10 CFR part 52 to its regulations to provide for the
issuance of early site permits (ESPs), standard design certifications,
and combined licenses (COLs) for nuclear power plants. Subpart B of 10
CFR part 52 established the process for obtaining design
certifications. On March 28, 2002 (67 FR 20845), Westinghouse tendered
its application for certification of the AP1000 standard plant 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. 52-006) on June 25, 2002 (67 FR 43690). The
pre-application information submitted before the NRC formally accepted
the application can be found under Project No. 711.
II. Technical Evaluation of the AP1000 Design
As stated above, the procedure for certifying a standard design is
performed under 10 CFR part 52, subpart B, and is carried out in two
stages (technical and administrative). The technical review stage is
initiated by an application filed in accordance with the requirements
of 10 CFR 52.45, ``Filing of Applications.'' This stage continues with
reviews by the NRC staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards and ends with the issuance of a final safety evaluation
report (FSER) that discusses the staff's conclusions related to the
acceptability of the AP1000 design. The NRC staff issued the AP1000
FSER in September 2004 (NUREG-1793). The FSER provides the bases for
issuance of a final design approval under appendix O to part 52, which
is a prerequisite to a design certification. The final design approval
for the AP1000 design was issued on September 13, 2004, and published
in the Federal Register on September 17, 2004 (69 FR 56101).
The administrative review stage begins with the publication of a
Federal Register notice that initiates rulemaking, in accordance with
10 CFR 52.51, ``Administrative Review of Applications,'' and includes a
proposed design certification rule. The rulemaking culminates with the
denial of the application or the issuance of a design certification
rule.
III. Section-By-Section Discussion
The following discussion sets forth the purpose and key aspects of
each section and paragraph of the proposed AP1000 DCR. All section and
paragraph references are to the provisions in the proposed appendix D
to 10 CFR part 52. The proposed DCR for the AP1000 standard plant
design is nearly identical to the AP600 DCR, which the NRC
[[Page 20064]]
previously codified in 10 CFR part 52, appendix C (Design Certification
Rule for the AP600 Design, 64 FR 72015, December 23, 1999). Many of the
procedural issues and their resolutions for the AP600 DCR (e.g., the
two-tier structure, Tier 2*, the scope of issue resolution) were
developed after extensive discussions with public stakeholders,
including Westinghouse. Also, Westinghouse requested that policy
resolutions for the AP600 design review be applied to the AP1000.
Accordingly, the NRC has modeled the AP1000 DCR on the existing DCRs,
with certain departures. These departures are necessary to account for
differences in the AP1000 design documentation, design features, and
environmental assessment (including severe accident mitigation design
alternatives).
A. Introduction
The purpose of Section I of proposed appendix D to 10 CFR part 52
(this appendix) would be to identify the standard plant design that is
approved by this DCR 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
COL contracts with the design certification applicant to provide the
generic design control document (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, X.A.1 of this appendix would
impose 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
During development of the first two design certification rules, 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 reference the appendix. This distinction is necessary in
order to specify the plant-specific requirements applicable to
applicants and licensees referencing the appendix. The generic DCDs
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, in accordance
with 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 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
chooses to make in accordance with the relevant processes in section
VIII of this appendix. Thus, the plant-specific DCD would function like
an updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) because 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 would define both a generic DCD and a plant-
specific DCD.
Also, the Commission decided to treat the technical specifications
(TS) in section 16.1 of the generic DCD as a special category of
information and to designate them as generic TS in order to facilitate
the special treatment of this information under this appendix. A COL
applicant must submit plant-specific TS that consist of the generic TS,
which may be modified under paragraph VIII.C of this appendix, and the
remaining plant-specific information needed to complete the TS. The
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 TS.
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 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. Therefore,
appropriate definitions for these additional terms are included in this
appendix. The nuclear industry representatives requested a two-tiered
structure for the design certification rules to achieve issue
preclusion for a greater amount of information than was originally
planned for the design certification rules, while retaining flexibility
for design implementation. The Commission approved the use of a two-
tiered rule structure in its staff requirements memorandum (SRM), dated
February 14, 1991, on SECY-90-377, ``Requirements for Design
Certification Under 10 CFR Part 52,'' dated November 8, 1990. This
document and others are available in the Regulatory History of Design
Certification (see section IV, Availability of Documents).
The Tier 1 portion of the design-related information contained in
the DCD would be certified by this appendix and, therefore, be subject
to the special backfit provisions in paragraph VIII.A of this appendix.
An applicant who references this appendix would be required to
incorporate by reference and comply with Tier 1, under paragraphs III.B
and 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 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 section VIII.A of this appendix.
The Tier 1 design descriptions serve as commitments for the
lifetime of a facility referencing the design certification. The ITAAC
verifies that the as-built facility conforms with the approved design
and applicable regulations. Under 10 CFR 52.103(g), the Commission must
find that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC are met before
authorizing 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 under 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. Tier 1 interface requirements 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,
[[Page 20065]]
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 paragraph III.D of this statement of consideration [SOC]).
Tier 2 is the portion of the design-related information contained
in the DCD that would be approved by this appendix but not certified.
Tier 2 information would be 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 TS, 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,
paragraphs III.B and IV.A.1 of this appendix would 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 would be
specified in paragraph VIII.B of this appendix. Departures from Tier 2
would not negate the requirement in paragraph III.B to reference Tier
2.
A definition of ``combined license action items'' (COL
information), which is part of the Tier 2 information, would be added
to clarify that COL applicants who reference this appendix are required
to address COL action items in their license application. However, the
COL action items are not the only acceptable set of information. An
applicant may depart from or omit COL action items, provided that the
departure or omission is identified and justified in the FSAR. After
issuance of a construction permit or COL, these items would not be
requirements for the licensee unless they are restated in the FSAR. For
additional discussion, see section D.
The investment protection short-term availability controls, which
are set forth in section 16.3 of the generic DCD, would be added to the
information that is part of Tier 2. These requirements were 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. The availability controls may be changed if
the associated design feature is changed under paragraph VIII.B of this
appendix. For additional discussion, see section C.
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
section H, a plant-specific departure from Tier 2* information would
require 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 paragraph 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 AP1000 DCR. The Tier 2* designation for these
selected tests would 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.
In an earlier rulemaking (64 FR 53582; October 4, 1999), the
Commission revised 10 CFR Sec. 50.59 to incorporate new thresholds for
permitting changes to a plant as described in the FSAR without NRC
approval. For consistency and clarity, the Commission proposes to use
these new thresholds in the proposed AP1000 DCR. Inasmuch as Sec.
50.59 is the primary change mechanism for operating nuclear plants, the
Commission believes that future plants referencing the AP1000 DCR
should utilize thresholds as close to Sec. 50.59 as is practicable and
appropriate. Because of some differences in how the change control
requirements are structured in the DCRs, certain definitions contained
in Sec. 50.59 are not applicable to 10 CFR part 52 and are not being
included in this proposed rule. One definition that the Commission is
including is the definition from the new Sec. 50.59 for a ``departure
from a method of evaluation,'' (paragraph II.G), which is appropriate
to include in this rulemaking so that the eight criteria in paragraph
VIII.B.5.b of the proposed rule will be implemented as intended.
C. Scope and Contents
The purpose of section III of this DCR would be 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 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 TS into this appendix. 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 incorporated material has the same legal status as if it were
published in the Code of Federal Regulations. 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 TS, have been combined
into a single document called the generic DCD, 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 (10 CFR part 51). One of the
requirements of the 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 would identify a Westinghouse representative to
be contacted in order to obtain a copy of the generic DCD.
Paragraphs A and B would 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 AP1000 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
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.'' The Commission included
this characterization 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
[[Page 20066]]
evaluation of the availability controls is provided in chapter 22 of
the FSER.
The generic DCD (master copy) for this design certification will be
accessible electronically in ADAMS and at the OFR. Copies of the
generic DCD will also be available at the NRC's PDR. 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 ADAMS. If a generic change (rulemaking) is made
to the DCD by the change process provided in section VIII of this
appendix, then at the completion of the rulemaking the NRC would
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 would require that the design certification applicant
maintain an up-to-date copy under paragraph X.A.1 of this appendix
because it is likely that most applicants intending to reference the
standard design would obtain the generic DCD from the design
certification applicant. Plant-specific changes to and departures from
the generic DCD would be maintained by the applicant or licensee that
references this appendix in a plant-specific DCD under paragraph X.A.2
of this appendix.
In addition to requiring compliance with this appendix, paragraph B
would clarify 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 contained in Tier 2 information.
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 is
not required 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 VII
of this SOC on environmental impacts.
Paragraphs C and D would set forth the manner in which potential
conflicts would 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 would
establish the generic DCD as the controlling document in the event of
an inconsistency between the DCD and the FSER for the certified
standard design.
Paragraph E would clarify 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 would apply to site-specific portions of the
plant, such as the administration building. Because this statement is
not a definition, this provision has been located in section III of
this appendix.
D. Additional Requirements and Restrictions
Section IV of this appendix would set forth additional requirements
and restrictions imposed upon an applicant who references this
appendix. Paragraph IV.A would set forth the information requirements
for these applicants. This appendix would distinguish 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 included in the application). Any incorporation by
reference in the application should be clear and should specify the
title, date, edition, or version of a document, the page number(s), and
table(s) containing the relevant information to be incorporated.
Paragraph A.1 would require an applicant who references this
proposed DCR to incorporate by reference this DCR in its application.
The legal effect of such an incorporation by reference is that this
appendix would be legally binding on the applicant or licensee.
Paragraph A.2.a would require that a plant-specific DCD be included in
the initial application. This would ensure that the applicant commits
to complying with the DCD. This paragraph also would require that the
plant-specific DCD uses the same format as the generic DCD and reflects
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 would become the plant's FSAR, by including
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, would result in an
application that is easier to use and should minimize ``duplicate
documentation'' and the attendant possibility for confusion. Paragraph
A.2.a would also require that the initial application include the
reports on departures and exemptions as of the time of submission of
the application.
Paragraph A.2.b would require that an application referencing this
proposed DCR 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. Paragraph A.2.c would
require submission of plant-specific TS for the plant that consists of
the generic TS from section 16.1 of the DCD, with any changes made
under paragraph VIII.C of this appendix, and the TS 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 TS,
such as bracketed values.
Paragraph A.2.d would require the applicant referencing this
proposed DCR to 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 it
would be unacceptable for this design unless the applicant seeks an
exemption under section VIII of this appendix and provides adequate
justification for locating the certified design on the proposed site.
Paragraph A.2.e would require submission of information addressing COL
action items, identified in the generic DCD as COL information in the
application. The COL information identifies matters that need to be
addressed by an applicant who 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). Paragraph A.2.f would require that
the application include the information specified by 10 CFR 52.47(a)
that is not within the
[[Page 20067]]
scope of this rule, such as generic issues that must be addressed, in
whole or in part, by an applicant that references this rule. Paragraph
A.3 would require the applicant to physically include, not simply
reference, the proprietary and safeguards information referenced in the
DCD, or its equivalent, to ensure that the applicant has actual notice
of these requirements.
Paragraph IV.B would reserve the right to determine to the
Commission in what manner this DCR 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 DCRs were not implemented in the manner
that was originally envisioned at the time that 10 CFR part 52 was
promulgated. The Commission's concern is with the way ITAAC were
developed and the lack of experience with design certifications in
license proceedings. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Commission
retain some discretion regarding the way this DCR 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 would be applicable and in effect if this proposed
design certification is approved. These regulations would consist of
the technically relevant regulations identified in paragraph A, except
for the regulations in paragraph B that would not be applicable to this
certified design.
Paragraph A would identify the regulations in 10 CFR parts 20, 50,
73, and 100 that are applicable to the AP1000 design. The Commission's
determination of the applicable regulations would be made as of the
date specified in paragraph V.A of this appendix, which would be the
date that this appendix is approved by the Commission and signed by the
Secretary.
In paragraph V.B of this appendix, the Commission would identify
the regulations that do not apply to the AP1000 design. The Commission
has determined that the AP1000 design should be exempt from portions of
10 CFR 50.34, 50.62, and appendix A to part 50, as described in the
FSER (NUREG-1793) and/or summarized below:
(1) Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34--Plant Safety Parameter
Display Console.
Under 10 CFR 52.47(a)(ii), an applicant for design certification
must demonstrate compliance with any technically relevant Three Mile
Island (TMI) requirements in 10 CFR 50.34(f). The requirement in 10 CFR
50.34(f)(2)(iv) states that an application must provide a plant safety
parameter display console that will display 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 addresses 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 safety parameter display system (SPDS)
requirements into the design requirements for the alarm and display
systems. The NRC staff has determined that the function of a separate
SPDS may be integrated into the overall control room design. Therefore,
the Commission has determined that the special circumstances for
allowing an exemption as described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist
because 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.
(2) Paragraph (c)(1) of 10 CFR 50.62--Auxiliary feedwater system.
The AP1000 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 anticipated transient without scram (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 for allowing
an exemption described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist because the
requirement for an auxiliary or emergency feedwater system is not
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.62(c)(1). This
is 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.
(3) Appendix A to 10 CFR part 50, GDC 17--Offsite Power Sources.
Westinghouse requested a partial exemption from the requirement in
General Design Criteria (GDC) 17 for a second offsite power supply
circuit. The AP1000 plant design supports an exemption to this
requirement by providing safety-related ``passive'' systems. These
passive safety-related systems only require electric power for valves
and the 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 for allowing an exemption as
described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist because the requirement need
not be applied in this particular circumstance to achieve the
underlying purpose of having two offsite power sources. This is because
the AP1000 design includes an acceptable alternative approach to
accomplish safety functions that do 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.
F. Issue Resolution
The purpose of section VI of this appendix would be 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)
[[Page 20068]]
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 would describe the nature of the Commission's findings
in general terms and make the finding required by 10 CFR 52.54 for the
Commission's approval of this DCR. Furthermore, paragraph A would
explicitly state the Commission's determination that this design
provides adequate protection of the public health and safety.
Paragraph B would set forth the scope of issues that 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, paragraph B.1 would provide 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-1793), 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.
Paragraph B.2 would provide for issue preclusion of proprietary and
safeguards information. Paragraphs B.3, B.4, B.5, and B.6 would 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. Paragraphs B.4, B.5, and B.6, which
would characterize the scope of issue resolution in three situations,
use the phrase ``but only for that plant'' (emphasis added). Paragraph
B.4 would describe how issues associated with a design certification
rule are resolved when an exemption has been granted for a plant
referencing the design certification rule. Paragraph B.5 would describe
how issues are resolved when a plant referencing the design
certification rule obtains a license amendment for a departure from
Tier 2 information.
Paragraph B.6 would describe how issues are resolved when the
applicant or licensee departs from the Tier 2 information on the basis
of paragraph VIII.B.5, which would waive the requirement to get NRC
approval. In all three situations, after a matter (e.g., an exemption
in the case of paragraph B.4) is addressed for a specific plant
referencing a design certification rule, the adequacy of that matter
for that plant would not ordinarily be subject to challenge in any
subsequent proceeding or action for that plant (such as an enforcement
action) listed in the introductory portion of paragraph IV.B. There
would not, by contrast, be any issue resolution on that subject matter
for any other plant.
Paragraph B.7 would provide 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. 2.309 and present sufficient information to create a genuine
controversy in order to obtain a hearing on the site parameter
exemption.
Paragraph C would reserve the right of the Commission to impose
operational requirements on applicants that reference this appendix.
This provision would reflect that operational requirements, including
generic TS 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 would 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'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 VIII.C of this appendix).
Paragraph C would 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 during a combined license review. 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 would reiterate 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
(VI.D.3 would address ITAAC) within the scope of the certified design.
Paragraph E would provide the procedure for an interested member of
the public to obtain access to proprietary or safeguards information
for the AP1000 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. Paragraph E,
[[Page 20069]]
would specify that access must first be sought from the design
certification applicant. If Westinghouse refuses to provide the
information, the person seeking access 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 would be in part, to
specify the period during which this design certification may be
referenced by an applicant for a COL, under 10 CFR 52.55. This section
would also state that the design certification would remain 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 would be effective until the
application is withdrawn or the license issued on that application
expires. Also, the design certification would be effective for the
referencing licensee 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 under 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 would be 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 would require 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.''
Section VIII of this appendix and section XI of 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 when
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 would be 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 when 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 provide for notice and opportunity
for public comment on the proposed change, as required by 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1). Departures from Tier 1 may occur in two ways: (1) The
Commission may order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, as provided in
paragraph A.3; or (2) an applicant or licensee may request an exemption
from Tier 1, as provided in paragraph A.4. If the Commission seeks to
order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, paragraph A.3 would require
that the Commission find both that the departure is necessary for
adequate protection or for compliance, and that special circumstances
are present. Paragraph A.4 would provide 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 would 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, namely, Tier 2, Tier 2*, and Tier 2* with a time of
expiration, would be set forth in paragraph VIII.B. The change process
for Tier 2 has the same elements as the Tier 1 change process, but some
of the standards for plant-specific orders and exemptions would be
different. As stated in section III of this preamble, it is the
Commission's intent that this appendix would emulate appendix C to 10
CFR part 52. However, the Commission has revised the Sec. 50.59-like
change process in paragraph VIII.B.5 of this appendix to be
commensurate with the new 10 CFR 50.59 (64 FR 53613, October 4, 1994).
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 paragraph B.1, generic Tier 2
changes would be accomplished by rulemaking amending the generic DCD
and would be governed by the standards in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). This
provision would provide that the Commission may not modify, change,
rescind, or impose new requirements by rulemaking except when
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. 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 would occur in five ways: (1) The Commission
may order a plant-specific departure, as set forth in paragraph B.3;
(2) an applicant or licensee may request an exemption from a Tier 2
requirement as set forth in paragraph B.4; (3) a licensee may make a
departure without prior NRC approval under paragraph B.5 [the ``Sec.
50.59-like'' process]; (4) the licensee may request NRC approval for
proposed departures which do not meet the requirements in
[[Page 20070]]
paragraph B.5 as provided in paragraph B.5.d; and (5) the licensee may
request NRC approval for a departure from Tier 2* information under
paragraph B.6.
Similar to Commission-ordered Tier 1 departures and generic Tier 2
changes, Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures could not be imposed
except when 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 paragraph B.3. However, the special
circumstances for the Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures would 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 information.
An applicant or licensee would be permitted to request an exemption
from Tier 2 information as set forth in proposed paragraph B.4. The
applicant or licensee would have to demonstrate that the exemption
complies with one of the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a). In
addition, the Commission would 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 would be 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 would be
subject to litigation in the same manner as a license amendment.
For plant-specific Tier 2 information, the change process in the
existing DCRs would be commensurate with the change process in the
former 10 CFR 50.59. The proposed rule would revise paragraph VIII.B.5
to conform the terminology in the Sec. 50.59-like change process to
that used in the revised Sec. 50.59. This amendment would delete
references to unreviewed safety question and safety evaluation, and
would conform to the evaluation criteria concerning when prior NRC
approval is needed. Also, a definition would be added (paragraph II.G)
for ``departure from a method of evaluation'' to support the evaluation
criterion in paragraph VIII.B.5.b(8).
Paragraph B.5 would allow 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, TS, or does not require a license amendment under
paragraphs B.5.b or B.5.c. The TS referred to in B.5.a of this
paragraph are the TS 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 TS would be controlling under paragraph
B.5. The bases for the plant-specific TS would be controlled by the
bases control procedures for the plant-specific TS (analogous to the
bases control provision in the Improved Standard Technical
Specifications). The requirement for a license amendment in paragraph
B.5.b would be similar to the definition in the new 10 CFR 50.59 and
apply to all information in Tier 2 except for the information that
resolves the severe accident issues.
The Commission believes that the resolution of severe accident
issues should be preserved and maintained in the same fashion as 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
proposed separate criteria in paragraph B.5.c for determining if a
departure from information that resolves severe accident issues would
require a license amendment. For purposes of applying the special
criteria in paragraph B.5.c, severe accident resolutions would be
limited to design features when the intended function of the design
feature is relied upon to resolve postulated accidents when the reactor
core has melted and exited the reactor vessel, and the containment is
being challenged. These design features are identified in section 1.9.5
and appendix 19B 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 paragraph B.5.c would 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 would be limited 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 paragraph VIII.B.5, then the
appropriate criteria from either paragraphs B.5.b or B.5.c would be
selected depending upon the function being changed.
An applicant or licensee that plans to depart from Tier 2
information, under paragraph VIII.B.5, would be required to prepare an
evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the
proposed change does not require a license amendment or involve a
change to Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, or a change to the TS, as
explained above. In order to achieve the Commission's goals for design
certification, the evaluation would need 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 would need 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 would also have to include a review of all relevant
secondary references from the DCD because Tier 2 information, which is
intended to be treated as a requirement, would be contained in the
secondary references. The evaluation would consider Tables 14.3-1
through 14.3-8 and 19.59-18 of the generic DCD to ensure that the
proposed change does not impact Tier 1 information. These tables
contain 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 AP1000 design.
A party to an adjudicatory proceeding (e.g., for issuance of a COL)
who believes that an applicant or licensee has not complied with
paragraph VIII.B.5 when departing from Tier 2 information, would be
permitted to petition to admit such a contention into the proceeding
under paragraph B.5.f. This provision has been proposed because an
incorrect departure from the requirements of this appendix
[[Page 20071]]
essentially would place 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 could not be considered ``resolved''
by this rulemaking. As set forth in paragraph B.5.f, the petition would
have to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309 and show that the
departure does not comply with paragraph B.5. Any other party would be
allowed to 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 would be
certified to the Commission for its final determination. In the absence
of a proceeding, petitions alleging nonconformance with paragraph B.5
requirements applicable to Tier 2 departures would be treated as
petitions for enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.
Paragraph B.6 would provide 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
ABWR design certification (appendix A to part 52) and the ABB-CE System
80+ design certification (appendix B to part 52). During this
development process, these applicants requested that the amount of
information in Tier 1 be minimized to provide additional flexibility
for an applicant or licensee who references these appendices. Also,
many codes, standards, and design processes, which would not be
specified in Tier 1 that are acceptable for meeting ITAAC, were
specified in Tier 2. The result of these actions would be that certain
significant information only exists in Tier 2 and the Commission would
not want this significant information to be changed without prior NRC
approval. This Tier 2* information would be identified in the generic
DCD with italicized text and brackets (See Table 1-1 of AP1000 DCD
Introduction).
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 percent) 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 factors
determining whether Tier 2* information could expire after the first
full power was achieved were whether the Tier 1 information would
govern these areas after first full power and the NRC's determination
that prior approval was required before implementation of the change
due to the significance of the information. Therefore, certain Tier 2*
information listed in paragraph B.6.c would cease to retain its Tier 2*
designation after full-power operation is first achieved following the
Commission finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Thereafter, that information
would be deemed to be Tier 2 information that would be subject to the
departure requirements in paragraph B.5. By contrast, the Tier 2*
information identified in paragraph B.6.b would retain its Tier 2*
designation throughout the duration of the license, including any
period of license renewal.
Certain preoperational tests in paragraph B.6.c would be 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 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'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 would result in
significant thermal transients being applied to critical plant
components. The NRC believes that the range of manufacturing or
construction variations that could adversely affect the relevant
passive safety systems would 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 would expire after the first plant or first
three plants complete these tests, as indicated in paragraph B.6.c.
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 would be
subject to litigation in the same manner as other plant-specific issues
in the licensing hearing. If a licensee makes a departure from Tier 2*
information, it would be treated as a license amendment under 10 CFR
50.90 and the finality would be determined in accordance with paragraph
VI.B.5 of this appendix. Any requests for departures from Tier 2*
information that affects Tier 1 would also have to comply with the
requirements in paragraph VIII.A of this appendix.
Operational Requirements
The change process for TS and other operational requirements in the
DCD would be set forth in paragraph VIII.C. 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 TS and other operational
requirements (refer to paragraph III.F of this SOC), the Commission
decided to designate a special category of information, consisting of
the TS and other operational requirements, with its own change process
in proposed paragraph VIII.C. The key to using the change processes
proposed in section VIII is to determine if the proposed change or
departure would require 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 would apply. However, if a
proposed change to the TS or other operational requirements does not
require a change to a design feature in the generic DCD, then paragraph
VIII.C would apply. The language in paragraph VIII.C would also
distinguish between generic (Section 16.1 of DCD) and plant-specific TS
to account for the different treatment and finality accorded TS before
and after a license is issued.
The process in proposed paragraph C.1 for making generic changes to
the generic TS in section 16.1 of the DCD or other operational
requirements in the generic DCD would be accomplished by rulemaking and
governed by the backfit standards in 10 CFR 50.109. The determination
of whether the generic TS and other operational requirements were
completely reviewed and approved in the design certification rulemaking
would be 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
TS or operational requirement was comprehensively
[[Page 20072]]
reviewed and finalized in the design certification rulemaking, then
there would be no backfit restriction under 10 CFR 50.109 because no
prior position was taken on this safety matter. Generic changes made
under proposed paragraph VIII.C.1 would be applicable to all applicants
or licensees (refer to paragraph VIII.C.2), unless the change is
irrelevant because of a plant-specific departure.
Some generic TS contain values in brackets [ ]. The brackets are
placeholders indicating that the NRC's review is not complete, and
represent a requirement that the applicant for a combined license
referencing the AP1000 DCR must replace the values in brackets with
final plant-specific values. The values in brackets are neither part of
the design certification rule nor are they binding. Therefore, the
replacement of bracketed values with final plant-specific values does
not require an exemption from the generic TS.
Plant-specific departures may occur by either a Commission order
under proposed paragraph VIII.C.3 or an applicant's exemption request
under paragraph VIII.C.4. The basis for determining if the TS or
operational requirement was completely reviewed and approved for these
processes would be the same as for proposed paragraph VIII.C.1 above.
If the TS or operational requirement is 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 would be no restriction on
plant-specific changes to the TS or operational requirements, prior to
the issuance of a license, provided a design change is not required.
Although the generic TS 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 TS. The process for petitioning
to intervene on a TS or operational requirement would be similar to
other issues in a licensing hearing, except that the petitioner must
also demonstrate why special circumstances are present (paragraph
VIII.C.5).
Finally, the generic TS would have no further effect on the plant-
specific TS after the issuance of a license that references this
appendix. The bases for the generic TS would be controlled by the
change process in paragraph VIII.C of this appendix. After a license is
issued, the bases would be controlled by the bases change provision set
forth in the administrative controls section of the plant-specific TS.
I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
The purpose of section IX of this appendix would be to set forth
how the ITAAC in Tier 1 of this design certification rule would be
treated in a license proceeding. Paragraph A would restate the
responsibilities of an applicant or licensee for performing and
successfully completing ITAAC, and notifying the NRC of such
completion. Paragraph A.1 would clarify 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. Paragraph A.2 would
require 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.
Paragraphs B.1 and B.2 would reiterate the NRC's responsibilities
with respect to ITAAC as set forth in 10 CFR 52.99 and 52.103(g).\1\
Finally, paragraph B.3 would state 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 has been
granted a renewal of its license. However, subsequent modifications to
the terms of the COL would have to 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 met. As discussed in paragraph
III.D of this SOC, the Commission would defer a determination of the
applicability of ITAAC and its 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For discussion of the verification of ITAAC, see SECY-00-
0092, ``Combined License Review Process,'' dated April 20, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Records and Reporting
The purpose of section X of this appendix would be to set forth the
requirements that would apply to maintaining records of changes to and
departures from the generic DCD, which would be reflected in the plant-
specific DCD. Section X also would set forth the requirements for
submitting reports (including updates to the plant-specific DCD) to the
NRC. This section of the appendix would be similar to the requirements
for records and reports in 10 CFR part 50, except for minor differences
in information collection and reporting requirements.
Paragraph X.A.1 of this appendix would require 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 they are not publicly available. However, the
proprietary and safeguards information was reviewed by the NRC and, as
stated in proposed paragraph VI.B.2 of this appendix, the Commission
would consider 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, would be
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 proposed paragraph X.A.1 of this
appendix. The acceptable version of the proprietary and safeguards
information would be identified (referenced) in the version of the DCD
that would be incorporated into this rule. The generic DCD and the
acceptable version of the proprietary and safeguards information would
be maintained for the period of time that this appendix may be
referenced.
Paragraphs A.2 and A.3 would place recordkeeping requirements on
the applicant or licensee that references this design certification so
that its plant-specific DCD accurately reflects both generic changes to
the generic DCD and plant-specific departures made under proposed
section VIII of this appendix. The term ``plant-specific'' would be
added to paragraph A.2 and other sections of this appendix to
distinguish between the generic DCD that would be incorporated by
reference into this appendix, and the plant-specific DCD that the
applicant would be required to submit under proposed paragraph IV.A of
this appendix. The requirement to maintain the generic changes to the
generic DCD would be explicitly stated to ensure that these changes are
not only reflected in the generic DCD, which would be maintained by the
applicant for design certification, but that the
[[Page 20073]]
changes would also be reflected in the plant-specific DCD. Therefore,
records of generic changes to the DCD would be required to be
maintained by both entities to ensure that both entities have up-to-
date DCDs.
Paragraph X.A of this appendix would not place recordkeeping
requirements on site-specific information that is outside the scope of
this rule. As discussed in paragraph III.D of this SOC, the FSAR
required by 10 CFR 52.79 would 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
paragraph X.B.3.c of this appendix would refer to the information that
is contained in the FSAR for a facility (required by 10 CFR 52.79) but
is not part of the plant-specific DCD (required by proposed paragraph
IV.A of this appendix). Therefore, this rule would not require that
duplicate documentation be maintained by an applicant or licensee that
references this rule, because the plant-specific DCD would be part of
the FSAR for the facility.
Paragraph X.B.1 would require applicants or licensees that
reference this rule to submit reports, which describe departures from
the DCD and include a summary of the written evaluations. The
requirement for the written evaluations would be set forth in paragraph
X.A.1. The frequency of the report submittals would be set forth in
paragraph X.B.3. The requirement for submitting a summary of the
evaluations would be similar to the requirement in 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2).
Paragraph X.B.2 would require applicants or licensees that
reference this rule to submit updates to the DCD, which include both
generic changes and plant-specific departures. The frequency for
submitting updates would be set forth in paragraph X.B.3. The
requirements in paragraph X.B.3 for submitting the reports and updates
would vary according to certain time periods during a facility's
lifetime. If a potential applicant for a combined license who
references this rule decides to depart from the generic DCD prior to
submission of the application, then paragraph B.3.a would require that
the updated DCD be submitted as part of the initial application for a
license. Under proposed paragraph B.3.b, the applicant may submit any
subsequent updates to its plant-specific DCD 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.
Paragraph B.3.b would also require that the reports required by
paragraph X.B.1 be submitted semi-annually. This increase in reporting
frequency during the period of construction and application review is
consistent with Commission guidance. Also, more frequent reporting of
design changes during the period of detailed design and construction is
necessary to closely monitor the status and progress of the facility.
In order to make the finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g), the NRC must
monitor the design changes made under proposed section VIII of this
appendix. Frequent reporting of design changes would be particularly
important in times when the number of design changes could be
significant, such as during the procurement of components and
equipment, detailed design of the plant before and during construction,
and during preoperational testing. After the facility begins operation,
the frequency of reporting would revert to the requirement in paragraph
B.3.c, which is consistent with the requirements for plants licensed
under 10 CFR 50.57.
IV. Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the documents identified below available to
interested persons through one or more of the following:
Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC's Public Document Room is
located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Public File Area O-1 F21, Rockville,
MD 20082. Copies of publicly available documents related to this
rulemaking can be viewed electronically on public computers in the PDR.
The PDR reproduction contractor will make copies of documents for a
fee.
Rulemaking Web Site (Web). The NRC's interactive rulemaking Web
site is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Selected documents may be
viewed and downloaded electronically via this Web site.
Public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS). The NRC's public Electronic
Reading Room is located at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Through this site, the public can gain access to ADAMS, which provides
text and image files of NRC's public documents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document PDR Web ADAMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP1000 Design Certification x x ML043230006
Proposed Rule SECY paper.
AP1000 Environmental x x ML043230023
Assessment.
AP1000 Design Control x .......... ML050750293
Document.
NUREG-1793, ``AP1000 Final x .......... ML043570339
Safety Evaluation Report''.
SECY-99-268, ``Final Rule-- x .......... ML003708259
AP600 Design
Certification''.
Regulatory History of Design x .......... ML003761550
Certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Plain Language
The Presidential memorandum entitled ``Plain Language in Government
Writing'' (63 FR 31883; June 10, 1998), directed that the Government's
writing be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on the proposed
rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the
language used. Comments should be submitted using one of the methods
detailed under the ADDRESSES heading of the preamble to this proposed
rule.
VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology and Transfer Act of 1995 (Act), Public Law
104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless
using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is
otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC proposes to
approve the AP1000 standard plant design for use in a combined license
(COL) application under 10 CFR part 52 or possibly for a construction
permit (CP) application under 10 CFR part 50. Design certifications \2\
are not generic rulemakings establishing a generally applicable
standard with which all parts
[[Page 20074]]
50 and 52 nuclear power plant licensees must comply. Design
certifications are Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant
designs by rulemaking. Furthermore, design certification rulemakings
are initiated by an applicant for rulemaking, rather than by the NRC.
For these reasons, the NRC concludes that the act does not apply to
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The regulatory history of the NRC's design certification
reviews is a package of 100 documents that is available in NRC's
(PERR) and in the PDR. This history spans a 15-year period during
which the NRC simultaneously developed the regulatory standards for
reviewing these designs and the form and content of the rules that
certified the designs. estimated core damage frequencies for the
AP1000 are very low on an absolute scale. These issues are
considered resolved for the AP1000 design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. 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 proposed design certification
rule, if adopted, would not be 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 environmental assessment, is
that this amendment to 10 CFR part 52 would not authorize the siting,
construction, or operation of a facility using the AP1000 design; it
would only codify the AP1000 design in a rule. The NRC will evaluate
the environmental impacts and issue an EIS as appropriate under NEPA as
part of the application(s) for the construction and operation of a
facility.
In addition, as part of the environmental assessment for the AP1000
design, the NRC reviewed Westinghouse's evaluation of various design
alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents in appendix 1B of
the AP1000 DCD Tier 2. Based upon review of Westinghouse's evaluation,
the Commission finds that: (1) Westinghouse identified a reasonably
complete set of potential design alternatives to prevent and mitigate
severe accidents for the AP1000 design; (2) none of the potential
design alternatives are justified on the basis of cost-benefit
considerations; and (3) it is unlikely that other design changes would
be identified and justified in the future on the basis of cost-benefit
considerations, because the estimated core damage frequencies for the
AP1000 are very low on an absolute scale. These issues are considered
resolved for the AP1000 design.
The environmental assessment (EA), upon which the Commission's
finding of no significant impact is based, and the AP1000 DCD are
available for examination and copying at the NRC Public Document Room,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The
NRC has sent a copy of the EA and this proposed rule to every State
Liaison Officer and requests their comments on the EA. Single copies of
the EA are also available from Lauren M. Quinones-Navarro, Mailstop O-
4D9A, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule contains amended information collection
requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and approval of the information
collection requirements.
Type of Submission, New or Revision: Revision.
The Title of the Information Collection: Appendix D to 10 CFR part
52, AP1000 Design Certification, Proposed Rule.
Current OMB Approval Number: 3150-0151.
The Form Number if Applicable: Not applicable.
How Often the Collection is Required: Semi-annually.
Who Will be Required or Asked to Report: Applicant for a combined
license.
An Estimate of the Number of Annual Responses: 2 (1 response plus 1
recordkeeper).
The Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 1.
An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to
complete the requirement or request: Approximately 39 additional burden
hours (5 hours reporting plus 34 hours recordkeeping).
Abstract: The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to certify
the AP1000 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 AP1000 design may do so by referencing the
AP1000 design certification rule (DCR). This proposed DCR, as set out
in appendix D, is nearly identical to the AP600 DCR in appendix C of 10
CFR part 52. The information collection requirements for part 52 were
based largely on the requirements for licensing nuclear facilities
under 10 CFR part 50. The applicant for certification of the AP1000
design is Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on
the potential impact of the information collection contained in this
proposed rule and on the following issues:
1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the
information will have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated collection techniques?
A copy of the OMB clearance package may be viewed free of charge at
the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. The OMB clearance package and
rule are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html for 60 days after the
signature date of this notice and are also available at the rule forum
site, http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Send comments on any aspect of these proposed information
collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the
above issues, by May 18, 2005 to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services
Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to [email protected] and
to the Desk Officer, John A. Asalone, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0151), Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments received after this date will be
considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration
cannot be given to comments received after this date. You may also e-
mail comments to [email protected] or comment by telephone
at (202) 395-4650.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
IX. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this proposed
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
[[Page 20075]]
certifications are Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant
designs by rulemaking, which then may be voluntarily referenced by
applicants for COLs. 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.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
Commission certifies that this proposed rulemaking will not have a
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed 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 in 13 CFR part 121. Thus, this rule does not
fall within the purview of the act.
XI. Backfit Analysis
The Commission has determined that this proposed rule does not
constitute a backfitting as defined in the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109
because this design certification does not impose new or changed
requirements on existing 10 CFR part 50 licensees, nor does it impose
new or change requirements on existing DCRs in appendices A-C of part
52. Therefore, a backfit analysis was not prepared for 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
record keeping 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. 553; the NRC is proposing to
adopt the following amendment 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. 444, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs.
201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note).
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 Sec. Sec. 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, C, and D to this point.
3. A new appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 is added to read as follows:
Appendix D To Part 52--Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design
I. Introduction
Appendix D constitutes the standard design certification for the
AP1000 \3\ design, in accordance with 10 CFR part 52, subpart B. The
applicant for certification of the AP1000 design is Westinghouse
Electric Company LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ AP1000 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 TS 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 (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 (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 Paragraph 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 TS and conceptual design information;
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. COL action items (COL information), which identify certain
matters that shall be addressed in the site-specific portion of the
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
paragraph VIII.B.6 of this appendix. This designation
[[Page 20076]]
expires for some Tier 2* information under paragraph VIII.B.6.
G. Departure from a method of evaluation described in the plant-
specific DCD used in establishing the design bases or in the safety
analyses means:
1. Changing any of the elements of the method described in the
plant-specific DCD unless the results of the analysis are conservative
or essentially the same; or
2. Changing from a method described in the plant-specific DCD to
another method unless that method has been approved by the NRC for the
intended application.
H. 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 TS in the
AP1000 DCD (Revision 14) are approved for incorporation by reference by
the Director of the Office of the Federal Register on [date of
approval] under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the
generic DCD may be obtained from Ronald P. Vijuk, Manager, Passive
Plant Engineering, Westinghouse Electric Company, P.O. Box 355,
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355. A copy of the generic DCD is also available
for examination and copying at the NRC Public Document Room, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Copies are
available for examination at the NRC Library, 11545 Rockville,
Maryland, telephone (301) 415-5610, e-mail [email protected] or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
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 of the DCD), and the generic TS
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 AP1000 design or NUREG-
1793, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Certification of the
AP1000 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 AP1000 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 paragraph X.B of this appendix;
c. Plant-specific TS, consisting of the generic and site-specific
TS 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 AP1000 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 AP1000 design are in 10 CFR parts 20, 50,
73, and 100, codified as of [date final rule signed], that are
applicable and technically relevant, as described in the FSER (NUREG-
1793).
B. The AP1000 design is exempt from portions of the following
regulations:
1. 10 CFR 50.34(f)(2)(iv)--Plant Safety Parameter Display Console;
2. 10 CFR 50.62(c)(1)--Auxiliary (or emergency) feedwater system;
and
3. 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, GDC 17--Offsite Power Sources.
VI. Issue Resolution
A. The Commission has determined that the structures, systems,
components, and design features of the AP1000 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 AP1000 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 COL, amendment of a COL, or renewal of a COL, proceedings
held under to 10 CFR 52.103, and enforcement proceedings involving
plants referencing this appendix:
1. All nuclear safety issues, except for the generic TS 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 of the DCD), and the
rulemaking record for certification of the AP1000 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 AP1000
design;
3. All generic changes to the DCD under 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 under and in compliance with the
change processes in sections VIII.A.4 and VIII.B.4 of this appendix,
but only for that plant;
5. All departures from the DCD that are approved by license
amendment, but only for that plant;
6. Except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.f of this appendix, all
[[Page 20077]]
departures from Tier 2 under and in compliance with the change
processes in paragraph VIII.B.5 of this appendix that do not require
prior NRC approval, but only for that plant;
7. All environmental issues concerning severe accident mitigation
design alternatives (SAMDAs) associated with the information in the
NRC's EA for the AP1000 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 under the change processes in section VIII of this
appendix, the Commission may not require an applicant or licensee who
references this appendix to:
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 AP1000 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
in 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 [date
30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register],
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 Sec. Sec. 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 ensure 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 TS, or requires a license
amendment under paragraphs B.5.b or 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
[[Page 20078]]
severe accident issue identified in the plant-specific DCD, requires a
license amendment if it would:
(1) Result in more than a minimal increase in the frequency of
occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the plant-specific
DCD;
(2) Result in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of
occurrence of a malfunction of a structure, system, or component (SSC)
important to safety and previously evaluated in the plant-specific DCD;
(3) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of
an accident previously evaluated in the plant-specific DCD;
(4) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of a
malfunction of an SSC important to safety previously evaluated in the
plant-specific DCD;
(5) Create a possibility for an accident of a different type than
any evaluated previously in the plant-specific DCD;
(6) Create a possibility for a malfunction of an SSC important to
safety with a different result than any evaluated previously in the
plant-specific DCD;
(7) Result in a design basis limit for a fission product barrier as
described in the plant-specific DCD being exceeded or altered; or
(8) Result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in
the plant-specific DCD used in establishing the design bases or in the
safety analyses.
c. A proposed departure from Tier 2 affecting resolution of a
severe accident issue identified in the plant-specific DCD, requires a
license amendment 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 requires a license amendment under paragraph
B.5.b or B.5.c 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 paragraph 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 2.309, the petition must demonstrate
that the departure does not comply with paragraph 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 material fact regarding compliance with paragraph
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* 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.
(6) Small-break loss-of-coolant (LOCA) Analysis Methodology.
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 under
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
subject to the departure provisions in paragraph B.5 of this section.
(1) Nuclear Island structural dimensions.
(2) American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler & Pressure
Vessel Code (ASME Code), Section III, and Code Case-284.
(3) Design Summary of Critical Sections.
(4) American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318, ACI 349, American
National Standards Institute/American Institute of Steel Construction
(ANSI/AISC)-690, and American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI),
``Specification for the Design of Cold Formed Steel Structural Members,
Part 1 and 2,'' 1996 Edition and 2000 Supplement.
(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) Passive residual heat removal (PRHR) natural circulation test
(first plant only).
(11) Automatic depressurization system (ADS) and core make-up tank
(CMT) verification tests (first three plants only).
(12) Polar Crane Parked Orientation.
(13) Piping design acceptance criteria.
(14) Containment Vessel Design Parameters.
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 TS 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 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 TS 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
TS and other operational requirements that were completely reviewed and
approved, provided a change to a design feature in the generic DCD is
not
[[Page 20079]]
required and special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 2.335 are
present. The Commission may modify or supplement generic TS and other
operational requirements that were not completely reviewed and approved
or require additional TS 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 TS 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 TS derived from the generic TS must be changed may petition to
admit such a contention into the proceeding. The petition must comply
with the general requirements of 10 CFR 2.309 and must demonstrate why
special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 2.335 are present, or
demonstrate 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 to the petition. 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 TS or other operational requirements
are subject to a hearing as part of the license proceeding.
6. After issuance of a license, the generic TS have no further
effect on the plant-specific TS. Changes to the plant-specific TS 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. A licensee may also 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. If 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 under 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 find that 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. Under 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 a 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 under
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 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
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 DCD, which reflect the generic changes to and
plant-specific departures from the generic DCD made under section VIII
of this appendix. These updates shall be filed under 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 X.B.1 and X.B.2
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 generic DCD.
b. During the interval from the date of application for a license
to the date the Commission makes its findings under 10 CFR 52.103(g),
the report must be submitted semi-annually. Updates to the plant-
specific DCD must be submitted annually and may be submitted along with
amendments to the application.
c. After the Commission has made its finding under 10 CFR
52.103(g), the reports and updates to the plant-specific DCD must be
submitted, along with updates to the site-specific portion of the final
safety analysis report for the facility, at the intervals required by
10 CFR 50.59(d)(2) and 50.71(e)(4), respectively, or at shorter
intervals as specified in the license.
[[Page 20080]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of April, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-7658 Filed 4-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P