[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 112 (Friday, June 12, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28112-28147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13582]
[[Page 28111]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 50 and 52
Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for New Nuclear Power Reactors; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 28112]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 50 and 52
RIN 3150-AI19
[NRC-2007-0009]
Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for New Nuclear Power Reactors
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is amending its regulations to require applicants for new nuclear power
reactors to perform a design-specific assessment of the effects of the
impact of a large, commercial aircraft. The applicant is required to
use realistic analyses to identify and incorporate design features and
functional capabilities to show, with reduced use of operator actions,
that either the reactor core remains cooled or the containment remains
intact, and either spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is
maintained. These requirements apply to applicants for new construction
permits; new operating licenses that reference a new construction
permit; new standard design certifications; renewal of any of the four
existing design certifications if the design has not previously been
amended to comply with the rule; new standard design approvals;
manufacturing licenses that don't reference a standard design
certification or standard design approval, or that reference a standard
design certification issued before the effective date of the rule which
has not been amended to comply with the rule; and combined licenses
that don't reference a standard design certification, standard design
approval, or manufactured reactor, or that reference a standard design
certification issued before the effective date of the rule which has
not been amended to comply with the rule. In addition, these amendments
contain requirements for control of changes to any design features or
functional capabilities credited to show that the facility can
withstand the effects of an aircraft impact.
ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID [NRC-2007-0009]. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Ms. Carol Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail
[email protected].
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public
File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
available electronically at the NRC's electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain
entry into 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's PDR
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
DATES: The effective date is July 13, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stewart Schneider, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-4123; e-mail:
[email protected] or Ms. Nanette Gilles, Office of New
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone 301-415-1180; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Currently Operating Power Reactors
III. Currently Approved Standard Design Certifications and Combined
Licenses Referencing These Certifications
IV. Renewal of an Operating License, Standard Design Certification,
Combined License, or Manufacturing License
V. New Nuclear Power Reactors
A. Introduction
B. Description of Beyond-Design-Basis Aircraft Impact
C. Aircraft Impact Assessment
VI. Responses to Public Comments
A. Overview of Public Comments
B. Responses to Specific Requests for Comments
C. Responses to Remaining Comments
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
VIII. Guidance
IX. Availability of Documents
X. Agreement State Compatibility
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XIV. Regulatory Analysis
XV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
XVI. Backfit Analysis
XVII. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction
The Commission believes that it is prudent for nuclear power plant
designers to take into account the potential effects of the impact of a
large, commercial aircraft. The Commission has determined that the
impact of a large, commercial aircraft is a beyond-design-basis event,
and the NRC's requirements that apply to the design, construction,
testing, operation, and maintenance of design features and functional
capabilities for design basis events will not apply to design features
or functional capabilities selected by the applicant solely to meet the
requirements of this final rule (aircraft impact rule). The NRC's
approach to aircraft impacts is consistent with its previous approach
to beyond-design-basis events. The objective of this rule is to require
nuclear power plant \1\ designers to perform a rigorous assessment of
the design to identify design features and functional capabilities that
could provide additional inherent protection to withstand the effects
of an aircraft impact (i.e., meet the rule's acceptance criteria). This
rule should result in new nuclear power reactor facilities being more
inherently robust with regard to an aircraft impact than if they were
designed in the absence of this final rule. This final rule provides an
enhanced level of protection beyond that which is provided by the
existing adequate protection requirements, which all operating power
reactors are required to meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The requirements of the final aircraft impact rule may
apply, in some contexts, to the designer who is responsible for, or
seeks certification or regulatory approval of something less than a
complete nuclear power plant (e.g., a nuclear reactor without site-
specific elements such as the ultimate heat sink). For ease of
discussion in the remainder of this Supplementary Information,
reference to a ``nuclear power plant designer'' or ``facility
designer'' is meant to include, in the appropriate context, a
designer of something less than a complete nuclear power plant, but
is at least as encompassing as a ``nuclear reactor.'' Similarly, a
reference to the design of a ``facility'' also encompasses, in the
appropriate context, the design of something less than a complete
nuclear power plant (e.g., the design of a reactor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule requirement to perform a design-specific assessment
to identify design features and functional capabilities applies to
applicants for new construction permits; new operating licenses that
reference a new construction permit; new standard design
certifications; renewal of any of the four existing design
certifications if the design has not previously been amended to comply
with the final rule; new standard design approvals; manufacturing
licenses that don't reference a standard design certification
[[Page 28113]]
or standard design approval, or that reference a standard design
certification issued before the effective date of the rule which has
not been amended to comply with the rule; and combined licenses that
don't reference a standard design certification, standard design
approval, or manufactured reactor, or that reference a standard design
certification issued before the effective date of the rule which has
not been amended to comply with the rule. All of these applicants as a
whole are referred to as ``applicants for new nuclear power reactors''
throughout the remainder of the Supplementary Information for this
final rule. These applicants are required to perform an assessment of
the effects on the designed facility of the impact of a large,
commercial aircraft. Using realistic analyses, applicants must identify
and incorporate into the design those design features and functional
capabilities to show, with reduced use of operator action, that the
reactor core remains cooled or the containment remains intact and spent
fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained (herein after
referred to as the acceptance criteria). Applicants are required to
describe how such design features and functional capabilities meet the
acceptance criteria of the rule. Applicants and licensees are subject
to requirements for the control of changes to the design features and
functional capabilities identified as a result of complying with this
final rule.
The Commission-approved design basis threat (DBT) does not include
an aircraft attack. The NRC published its final DBT rule in the Federal
Register on March 19, 2007 (72 FR 12705) (Title 10, Sec. 73.1,
``Purpose and scope,'' of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR
73.1)). Two well-established bases support the exclusion of aircraft
attacks from the DBT. First, it is not reasonable to expect a licensee
with a private security force using weapons legally available to it to
be able to defend against such an attack. Second, such an act is in the
nature of an attack by an enemy of the United States (U.S.). Power
reactor licensees are not required to design their facilities or
otherwise provide measures to defend against such an attack, as
provided by 10 CFR 50.13, ``Attacks and destructive acts by enemies of
the United States; and defense activities.''
The Commission has addressed aircraft attacks by regulatory means
other than the DBT rule in 10 CFR 73.1. By order dated February 25,
2002 (Interim Compensatory Measures (ICM) Order), the Commission
required all operating power reactor licensees to develop and adopt
mitigative strategies to cope with large fires and explosions from any
cause, including beyond-design-basis aircraft impacts (67 FR 9792;
March 4, 2002). The Commission first proposed incorporating the
continuing requirement to provide for such mitigative measures in the
NRC's regulations in the proposed 10 CFR part 73 power reactor security
requirements (71 FR 62663; October 26, 2006), specifically, the
proposed Appendix C to 10 CFR part 73, ``Licensee Safeguards
Contingency Plans.'' During development of the power reactor security
final rule, the NRC determined that several significant changes to the
proposed rule language would be needed to adequately address
stakeholder comments and associated implementation concerns. To address
these comments and concerns, the NRC proposed to relocate the
provisions from 10 CFR part 73 to a new paragraph (hh) in 10 CFR 50.54,
``Conditions of licenses,'' in a supplement to the power reactor
security requirements proposed rule (73 FR 19443; April 10, 2008). On
March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13925), the Commission published a final rule
amending existing security regulations and adding new security
requirements pertaining to current and future nuclear power reactors
that included the new provisions in 10 CFR 50.54(hh). All current and
future power reactors are required to comply with the requirements in
10 CFR 50.54(hh), which were promulgated on the basis of adequate
protection of public health and safety and common defense and security.
The current requirements, in conjunction with the revisions to 10
CFR 50.54 to address loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions
or fires, will continue to provide adequate protection of the public
health and safety and the common defense and security. Nevertheless,
the Commission has decided to also require applicants for new nuclear
power reactors to incorporate into their design additional features to
show that the facility can withstand the effects of an aircraft impact.
This final rule to address the capability of new nuclear power reactors
relative to an aircraft impact is based both on enhanced public health
and safety and enhanced common defense and security, but is not
necessary for adequate protection. Rather, this rule's goal is to
enhance the facility's inherent robustness at the design stage.
Requiring applicants for new nuclear power reactors to perform a
rigorous aircraft impact assessment and identify and incorporate into
their design those design features and functional capabilities that
address the effects of a beyond-design-basis aircraft impact is
consistent with the NRC's historic approach to beyond-design-basis
events and with the NRC's position in its ``Policy Statement on Severe
Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants'' (50 FR
32138; August 8, 1985). The policy statement notes, ``The Commission
expects that vendors engaged in designing new standard [or custom]
plants will achieve a higher standard of severe accident safety
performance than their prior designs.'' The NRC reiterated that
regulatory approach in its ``Policy Statement on the Regulation of
Advanced Nuclear Power Plants'' (59 FR 35461; July 12, 1994), when it
stated, ``The Commission expects that advanced reactors would provide
enhanced margins of safety and/or utilize simplified, inherent,
passive, or other innovative means to accomplish their safety
functions.'' These concepts continue to be NRC policy as reflected in
the NRC's 2008 ``Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced
Reactors'' (73 FR 60612; October 14, 2008). This regulatory approach
has demonstrated its success, as all designs subsequently submitted to
and certified by the Commission represent substantial improvement in
safety for operational events and accidents. The final aircraft impact
rule will further enhance the safety of new nuclear power plants for
aircraft impacts and is consistent with these policy statements.
The Commission considered the appropriate location for requirements
on an aircraft impact assessment during its deliberations on the
security assessment rulemaking (draft 10 CFR 73.62) proposed by the NRC
staff in SECY-06-0204, ``Proposed Rulemaking--Security Assessment
Requirements for New Nuclear Power Reactor Designs (RIN 3150-AH92),''
dated September 26, 2006. In its Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on
SECY-06-0204, dated April 24, 2007, the Commission disapproved the
staff's recommended rulemaking as described in SECY-06-0204. The
Commission directed the NRC staff to include the aircraft impact
assessment requirements in 10 CFR part 52, ``Licenses, Approvals, and
Certifications for Nuclear Power Plants,'' to encourage reactor
designers to incorporate practical measures at an early stage in the
design process.
As a result of the Commission's SRM, the NRC published a proposed
rule for comment in the Federal Register (72 FR 56287; October 3,
2007). The proposed rule would have required applicants to assess the
effects of the impact of a
[[Page 28114]]
large, commercial aircraft on the nuclear power facility. Based on the
insights gained from the assessment, the applicant would have been
required to include in its application a description and evaluation of
design features, functional capabilities, and strategies to avoid or
mitigate, to the extent practicable, the effects of the aircraft impact
with reduced reliance on operator actions. The public comment period
for the proposed rule closed on December 17, 2007. A public meeting was
held during the public comment period to discuss the proposed rule and
to address any questions on the proposed rule. The NRC received 32
comment letters from industry representatives, public interest groups,
and concerned citizens on the proposed rule.
This final rule revises 10 CFR parts 50, ``Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities,'' and 52 to require applicants
for new nuclear power reactors to perform a design-specific assessment
of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft. The
applicant is required to identify and incorporate into the design those
design features and functional capabilities to show that the facility
can withstand the effects of an aircraft impact with reduced use of
operator actions. This aircraft impact rule, along with provisions in
the NRC's power reactor security rule, including the addition of the
provisions in 10 CFR 50.54(hh), and voluntarily-submitted safeguards
assessments, render as duplicative and, therefore, unnecessary the
draft proposed rule (10 CFR 73.62) to require security assessments. The
draft proposed security assessment rule would have required a security
assessment which would include mitigation of large fires and
explosions, a target set analysis, and design features to protect
target sets against DBTs. The provisions of that draft proposed rule
applicable to large fires and explosions from an aircraft impact are
subsumed by this final aircraft impact rule and by the addition of the
provisions in 10 CFR 50.54(hh). Sufficient target set provisions are
included in the NRC's changes to 10 CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for
physical protection of licensed activities in nuclear power reactors
against radiological sabotage,'' which applicants for new facilities
will have to satisfy. Designers of new nuclear power reactors are
encouraged to account for the provisions for mitigation of large fires
and explosions in the facility design so as to minimize more costly,
post-design features to meet those requirements. Design certification
and combined license applicants are voluntarily submitting security
assessments that identify design features to protect target sets
against DBTs. Accordingly, the draft proposed 10 CFR 73.62 is not
necessary.
This new aircraft impact assessment rule complements the revisions
to 10 CFR 50.54(hh) to mitigate the effects of large fires and
explosions. The 10 CFR 50.54(hh) provisions on mitigating large fires
and explosions codify the adequate protection requirement imposed on
existing operating reactors by ICM Order, Item B.5.b. The 10 CFR
50.54(hh) provisions, therefore, are necessary for adequate protection
and must remain in regulations that are applicable to all currently
operating reactors and must be satisfied by all newly licensed power
reactors. Current reactor licensees have already developed and
implemented procedures to comply with the 10 CFR 50.54(hh)
requirements, and would not require any additional action to comply
with those rule provisions. New applicants for and new holders of
operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50 and combined licenses under 10
CFR part 52 will be required to develop and implement procedures that
will employ mitigating strategies similar to those now employed by
current licensees to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and
spent fuel pool cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated
with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire. The
requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(hh) relate to the development of
procedures for addressing certain events that are the cause of large
fires and explosions that affect a substantial portion of the nuclear
power plant, and are not limited or directly linked to an aircraft
impact. The rule contemplates that the initiating event for such large
fires and explosions could be any number of DBT or beyond-DBT events.
In addition, the NRC regards 10 CFR 50.54(hh) as necessary for
reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety
and common defense and security. This is consistent with the NRC's
designation of the orders on which 10 CFR 50.54(hh) is based as being
necessary for reasonable assurance of adequate protection.
In contrast to the adequate protection requirements of 10 CFR
50.54(hh), this aircraft impact final rule will enhance safety and
security by requiring an assessment of newly designed facilities to
show that the facility can withstand the effects of an aircraft impact.
New nuclear power reactor applicants will be subject to both the
requirements of the aircraft impact rule and the requirements in 10 CFR
50.54(hh). The overall objective of these rules is to enhance a nuclear
power plant's capabilities to withstand the effects of a large fire or
explosion, whether caused by an aircraft impact or other event, from
the standpoints of both design and operation. The impact of a large
aircraft on the nuclear power plant is regarded as a beyond-design-
basis event. In light of the NRC's view that effective mitigation of
the effects of events causing large fires and explosions (including the
impact of a large, commercial aircraft) can be provided through
operational actions, the NRC believes that the mitigation of the
effects of aircraft impacts through design should be regarded as a
safety enhancement which is not necessary for adequate protection.
Therefore, the aircraft impact rule--unlike 10 CFR 50.54(hh)--is
regarded as a safety enhancement, which is not necessary for adequate
protection.
The NRC regards the aircraft impact and 10 CFR 50.54(hh)
rulemakings to be complementary in scope and objective. The aircraft
impact rule focuses on enhancing the design of future nuclear power
plants to withstand large, commercial aircraft impacts, with reduced
use of operator actions. The provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(hh) focus on
ensuring that the nuclear power plant's licensees will be able to
implement effective mitigation measures for large fires and explosions,
including (but not explicitly limited to) those caused by the impact of
a large, commercial aircraft.
Consideration of a rule to require applicants for new nuclear power
reactors to perform an aircraft impact assessment and describe design
features and functional capabilities addressing such impacts, which are
beyond-design-basis scenarios, is similar to the Commission's
consideration in the mid-1980's of new rules addressing accidents more
severe than design basis accidents. The 1985 ``Policy Statement on
Severe Reactor Accidents'' explained the Com mission's conclusion that,
although it was proposing criteria to show new reactor designs to be
acceptable for severe accident concerns, then-existing plants posed no
undue risk to public health and safety, and thus, there was no need for
action on operating reactors based on severe accident risks. The
Commission's reasoning in the severe accident context supports its
conclusion that although new nuclear power reactors should be assessed
for aircraft impacts and designed to show that they can withstand the
effects of an aircraft impact, existing reactors and designs
[[Page 28115]]
provide adequate protection of the public health and safety and common
defense and security.
The NRC is making several changes from the proposed rule
requirements in this final rule. First, based on consideration of
public comments, the NRC is revising the criteria necessary to comply
with the final rule. The proposed rule would have required applicants
for new nuclear power reactors to perform a design-specific assessment
of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft. Based
upon the insights gained from the aircraft impact assessment, the
applicant would have been required to include a description and
evaluation of the design features, functional capabilities, and
strategies to avoid or mitigate the effects of the applicable, beyond-
design-basis aircraft impact and describe how such design features,
functional capabilities, and strategies avoid or mitigate, to the
extent practicable, the effects of the applicable aircraft impact with
reduced reliance on operator actions. The evaluation of such design
features, functional capabilities, and strategies would have been
required to include core cooling capability, containment integrity, and
spent fuel pool integrity. In the final rule, applicants continue to be
required to perform a design-specific assessment of the effects of the
impact of a large, commercial aircraft. In addition, the applicant is
required to use realistic analyses to identify and incorporate into the
design those design features and functional capabilities which show,
with reduced use of operator action, that the reactor core remains
cooled or the containment remains intact and spent fuel cooling or
spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. The final rule removes
references to considering the practicality of including the design
features and functional capabilities identified as a result of the
assessment. The acceptance criteria in the rule must be shown to be met
to achieve compliance with the rule's requirements.
The Commission ultimately decided that the final rule should
require applicants to show that, in the event of an aircraft impact at
a nuclear power plant, the reactor core would remain cooled or the
containment structure would remain intact and spent fuel cooling or
spent fuel pool integrity would be maintained. With implementation of
this final rule, applicants for new nuclear power reactors can use
realistic analyses to assess their designs but cannot rely solely on
operator actions to meet the acceptance criteria. The Commission
continues to believe that subsequent generations of plants to be built
in the U.S. will be inherently more capable of resisting beyond design
basis events, including aircraft impacts, due to safety improvements
previously incorporated into these designs. The addition of this rule,
revised to include specific acceptance criteria, will provide
additional assurance that all reasonable design measures were taken to
add additional margin beyond the adequate protection standard that is
being met through compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(hh). The addition of
specific acceptance criteria to this rule adds regulatory stability and
predictability that is not achievable with criteria that must only be
met ``to the extent practical.'' Acceptance criteria that are based on
functional requirements provide a benchmark that can be assessed for
the purpose of determining compliance with this rule, yet provide the
distinction necessary to keep enhancements implemented for a beyond-
design-basis event separate from design requirements necessary to meet
10 CFR part 100, ``Reactor site criteria.''
The NRC is also expanding the class of applicants that are required
to comply with this rule based on consideration of public comments and
implementation issues. In one change, the NRC is applying the final
rule to 10 CFR part 50 license applicants as well as applicants under
10 CFR part 52. The final rule requires both new power reactor
construction permit applicants and operating license applicants to
perform the required assessment and include the description of the
identified design features and functional capabilities in their
applications. The NRC is applying the final rule to applicants at both
the construction permit and operating license stages because it is not
until the operating license stage that the applicant is required to
provide the NRC with its final design. The NRC can issue a construction
permit based on preliminary design information. Therefore, the NRC
believes it is necessary to require applicants to perform the aircraft
impact assessment at both stages and to include the required
information in both applications based on the level of design
information available at the time of each application. These changes
are reflected in the addition of new paragraphs (a)(13) and (b)(12) in
10 CFR 50.34, ``Contents of construction permit and operating license
applications; technical information,'' requiring all applicants for a
construction permit or operating license which are subject to 10 CFR
50.150(a) (proposed 10 CFR 52.500) to submit the information required
by 10 CFR 50.150(b) as a part of their application. Paragraph (a) of 10
CFR 50.150 has similarly been revised.
In making these additions, the NRC is making it clear that the
requirements are not meant to apply to current or future operating
license applications for which construction permits were issued before
the effective date of this final rule. This is because existing
construction permits are likely to involve designs which are
essentially complete and may involve sites where construction has
already taken place. Applying the final rule to operating license
applications for which there are existing construction permits could
result in an unwarranted financial burden to change a design for a
plant that is partially constructed. Such a financial burden is not
justifiable in light of the fact that the NRC considers the events to
which the aircraft impact rule is directed to be beyond-design-basis
events and compliance with the rule is not needed for adequate
protection to public health and safety or common defense and security.
Moreover, such operating license applicants will be required to comply
with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(hh) to identify actions to
mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions, including those
caused by aircraft impacts. For these reasons, the NRC is not requiring
operating license applicants with an existing construction permit to
comply with the final rule.
The NRC is also adding requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(c) (proposed
10 CFR 52.502) for controlling changes to the information required by
10 CFR 50.150(b) to be included in the preliminary safety analysis
report (PSAR) by a construction permit applicant and the final safety
analysis report (FSAR) by an operating license applicant. The NRC is
applying the same change control requirements to construction permit
and operating license holders as it is applying to combined license
holders. If the permit holder or licensee changes the information
required by 10 CFR 50.34 to be included in the PSAR or FSAR, then the
permit holder or licensee must consider the effect of the changed
feature or capability on the original assessment required by 10 CFR
50.150(a) and amend the information required by 10 CFR 50.34 to be
included in the PSAR or FSAR to describe how the modified design
features and functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment
requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
Because the final rule is applicable to applicants under both 10
CFR parts 50
[[Page 28116]]
and 52, the NRC is relocating the aircraft impact assessment
requirements that were contained in proposed 10 CFR 52.500 to a new
section, 10 CFR 50.150. This change is also consistent with the recent
revision to 10 CFR part 52, where the NRC took a comprehensive approach
to reorganizing 10 CFR part 52 and making conforming changes throughout
10 CFR Chapter I, ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'' to reflect the
licensing and approval processes in 10 CFR part 52. In making
conforming changes involving 10 CFR part 50 provisions in that
rulemaking, the NRC adopted the general principle of keeping technical
requirements in 10 CFR part 50 and maintaining applicable procedural
requirements in 10 CFR part 52. For these reasons, the NRC is
relocating the proposed aircraft impact requirements from proposed 10
CFR 52.500 to 10 CFR 50.150.
Based on public comments, the NRC is making the requirements in 10
CFR 50.150 applicable to the four existing design certifications in 10
CFR part 52, appendices A through D, at their first renewal if the
design has not previously been amended to comply with the final rule.
This change is discussed in detail in Section IV, ``Renewal of an
Operating License, Standard Design Certification, Combined License, or
Manufacturing License,'' of this document.
The NRC is also making several changes to the terminology that was
used in the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, 10 CFR 52.500 stated
that applicants for new nuclear power reactors were required to perform
a design-specific assessment of the effects on the designed facility of
the impact of a large, commercial aircraft. Based on the insights
gained from that assessment, applicants would have been required to
include a description and ``evaluation'' of the design features,
functional capabilities, and strategies to avoid or mitigate the
effects of the applicable aircraft impact. Reference to such an
``evaluation'' was made throughout the Supplementary Information in the
proposed rule. However, the NRC determined that the term ``evaluation''
was used in more than one context and concluded that such inconsistent
use could cause confusion. In the final rule, the NRC has eliminated
the use of the term ``evaluation'' in the rule language. The new
requirements governing what covered applicants are required to submit
in their applications (10 CFR 50.150(b)) states that applicants must
submit a description of the design features and functional capabilities
identified in the assessment and a description of how the identified
design features and functional capabilities meet the assessment
requirements.
Another area where the NRC is changing the terminology used in the
final aircraft impact rule is the elimination of the term,
``strategies.'' The proposed aircraft impact rule required the
assessment to include a description of the design features, functional
capabilities, and strategies to avoid or mitigate the effects of the
applicable, beyond-design-basis aircraft impact (proposed 10 CFR
52.500(c)). Neither the proposed rule nor its Supplementary Information
defined ``strategies.'' Upon consideration, the NRC has decided to
eliminate that term in the final rule. A ``strategy'' is typically
associated with human action and may, therefore, appear to conflict
with the direction in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) of the final aircraft impact
rule that there should be ``reduced use of operator actions.'' In
addition, the aircraft impact rule is focused only on design, and was
not intended to address or impose requirements on the operation of a
facility. By using the term, ``strategies'' in the proposed aircraft
impact rule, there is a real possibility that stakeholders may
erroneously interpret the aircraft impact rule as requiring a designer
to address as part of the aircraft impact rule the requirements in 10
CFR 50.54(hh) to mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions.
This would be an unnecessary duplication of effort, and would require
consideration of procedural and operational matters at an early stage,
which is not the NRC's intent and may not be the optimal time for
consideration of operational matters. For these reasons, the NRC is
dropping its use of the term ``strategies'' in the final rule. Thus,
under 10 CFR 50.150(b), the relevant applicants need only include in
their applications a description of the relevant identified design
features and functional capabilities, and need not address strategies.
The elimination of the term ``strategies,'' does not, however, relieve
applicants from the responsibility to consider reducing use of operator
actions in performance of the aircraft impact assessment and
identification of design features and functional capabilities to comply
with this final rule.
In addition, the NRC's decision to remove the need for the designer
to identify design ``strategies'' does not obviate the need for the
designer to determine, when considering potential design features and
functional capabilities, whether there are responsive actions and
strategies (e.g., firefighting) that the nuclear power plant licensee
could take to mitigate the effects of the impact of a large, commercial
aircraft that would be made possible, or whose effectiveness could be
enhanced, by inclusion of such features and capabilities in the design.
One objective of the final aircraft impact rule is that the designer
identifies and includes in the design those features and capabilities
to support the eventual development of effective response and
mitigation actions and strategies at the facility licensing stage which
make possible or enhance the capability of the plant licensee to
respond to aircraft impacts. The NRC believes that it is reasonable for
the designer to include appropriate design features and functional
capabilities to support practical responsive actions and strategies
that the plant licensee could implement. The plant licensee should not
be precluded from using an effective responsive action and strategy,
simply because the designer failed to include a well-placed design
feature that is necessary for an effective responsive action (e.g., a
wall, a water outlet, a control panel).
Finally, the Commission is adding a requirement in the final rule
that any changes to the detailed aircraft impact parameters set forth
in guidance shall be approved by the Commission.
II. Currently Operating Power Reactors
The Commission has determined that the existing designs of
currently operating nuclear power plants, together with the security
program actions mandated by the NRC's orders (some of which are
codified in the NRC's final DBT rulemaking and others of which are
incorporated into other NRC regulations) provide an adequate level of
protection to public health and safety and common defense and security
against aircraft impacts. As a result of the events of September 11,
2001, the NRC has undertaken a series of actions to provide continued
reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety
and common defense and security at the U.S. commercial nuclear power
facilities. The NRC has assessed the potential vulnerabilities of
operating nuclear power reactors to aircraft impacts, and it has issued
orders and provided associated guidance to licensees for implementing a
range of mitigative strategies. The results of these aircraft impact
assessments were derived from evaluation of plant damage mechanisms
(e.g., structural failures, shock and vibration effects, and fire
effects). The NRC ensured that implementation of the February 25, 2002,
ICM Order included measures to mitigate such scenarios.
[[Page 28117]]
The Commission's ICM Order, Item B.5.b, established the requirement
for licensees to implement certain mitigation measures at existing
power reactors for these beyond-design-basis events. This requirement
was specifically intended to address ``losses of large areas of a
(reactor) plant due to fires and explosions.'' The Commission has since
incorporated this requirement into 10 CFR 50.54 in the power reactor
security rulemaking. Under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54, future
license applicants must identify and implement mitigative measures
similar to those required for currently operating nuclear power plants.
On March 19, 2007 (72 FR 12705), the Commission published a final
rule amending the DBT in 10 CFR 73.1. The DBT rule describes general
attributes that nuclear power plant licensees must defend against with
high assurance. This rulemaking enhanced the DBT by codifying
generically applicable security requirements similar to those
previously imposed by the Commission's April 29, 2003, DBT Orders.
On the basis of the previous information, the NRC concludes that
existing power reactors pose no undue risk to public health and safety
or common defense and security from the effects of an aircraft impact
based on the Commission's specified aircraft impact characteristics.
Therefore, the NRC is not applying this final rule to existing
operating nuclear power plants.
III. Currently Approved Standard Design Certifications and Combined
Licenses Referencing These Certifications
Based upon consideration of public comments, the NRC has decided
that the designs of all newly designed and constructed nuclear power
plants (i.e., those designed and constructed after July 13, 2009) must
comply with the aircraft impact rule. The NRC agreed with the majority
of commenters who stated that the underlying objectives of the aircraft
impact rule would not be fully achieved if a subset of new nuclear
power plant applicants--namely, those applicants who reference one of
the four existing design certifications--is not required to comply with
the aircraft impact rule. This decision stems from acknowledgement of
the views expressed by a wide range of stakeholders in favor of
requiring all new nuclear power plants to meet the requirements of the
aircraft impact rule. Thus, the NRC is requiring that all new nuclear
power plants in the U.S. be required to use designs that comply with
the aircraft impact rule.
In evaluating this change, the NRC considered regulatory approaches
that could be used if a combined license application references one of
the four currently approved standard design certifications in
Appendices A through D of 10 CFR part 52 which has not been voluntarily
amended to comply with the aircraft impact rule. The NRC considered
whether the combined license applicant should be required to perform
the assessment of aircraft impacts itself and use the design features
and functional capabilities identified as the result of its assessment
in the design of their plant, but with no obligation to modify the
referenced design certification. A second approach considered by the
NRC would require that the four currently approved design
certifications be amended by the original design certification
applicant to comply with the aircraft impact rule within a short time
after issuance of the final aircraft impact rule. The NRC also
considered a third approach, whereby the NRC would require that the
four currently approved design certifications be amended to comply with
the aircraft impact rule (without specifying who is responsible for
prosecuting the amendment), but only if they are referenced in a
combined license application. This approach would also restrict the NRC
from issuing a combined license referencing one of the four currently
approved design certifications, unless it had been amended to comply
with the aircraft impact rule (again, without specifying who is
responsible for prosecuting the amendment). The NRC has determined that
the first approach should be adopted in the aircraft impact rule (i.e.,
the combined license applicant be required to perform the assessment of
aircraft impacts and incorporate design features and functional
capabilities into the design of the applicant's facility with no
concurrent obligation to modify the referenced design certification).
The NRC believes that this approach will ensure that a nuclear power
plant which is constructed using one of the currently approved design
certifications will nonetheless meet the aircraft impact rule without
unnecessary delays associated with amending the referenced design
certification rule. The NRC recognizes that the first approach may
result in less standardization of design features and functional
capabilities addressing aircraft impact for nuclear power plants
referencing one of the four currently approved design certifications.
However, the NRC believes that, as a practical matter, given the likely
small number of combined license applications referencing one of the
four currently approved design certifications which has not been
amended to comply with the rule, any reduction in standardization is
likely to be minimal.
However, the NRC has also decided that if any of the four currently
approved design certifications are not amended to comply with the
aircraft impact rule by the end of the initial period of effectiveness
and an applicant seeks to renew the design certification, then the
certified design must be amended to comply with the aircraft impact
rule before the renewal is approved by the NRC under the provisions of
10 CFR 52.57 through 10 CFR 52.61. The NRC's determination in this
regard is discussed in Section IV, ``Renewal of an Operating License,
Standard Design Certification, Combined License, or Manufacturing
License,'' of this document. The NRC has concluded that it should use
the same criteria for evaluating voluntary requests for amendments to
existing design certifications as it uses for evaluating new
applications for design certifications, to ensure consistency among all
new reactor designs.
IV. Renewal of an Operating License, Standard Design Certification,
Combined License, or Manufacturing License
This rulemaking does not require updating the assessment of
aircraft impacts required by 10 CFR 50.150 as part of an application
for either a renewed operating license under 10 CFR part 54,
``Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power
Plants,'' a renewed design certification under 10 CFR 52.57,
``Application for renewal,'' a renewed combined license under 10 CFR
52.107, ``Application for renewal,'' and 10 CFR part 54, or a renewed
manufacturing license under 10 CFR 52.177, ``Application for renewal.''
The NRC's requirement for assessment of large, commercial aircraft
impacts is not an aging-related matter, nor is it based on time-limited
considerations. Hence, aircraft impacts under the final rule are
outside the scope of any operating license or combined license renewal
proceeding under 10 CFR part 54, and neither operating nor combined
license holders need to update the assessment required by 10 CFR
50.150(b) at the license renewal stage.
With regard to design certifications and manufacturing licenses
which comply with the aircraft impact rule upon initial issuance or
upon amendment, the NRC believes that their renewal review should not
include a
[[Page 28118]]
reassessment of aircraft impacts and possible changes to the design to
include new design features and functional capabilities. In the NRC's
view, there will not be any significant benefit to requiring applicants
for renewal to reassess the design's vulnerability to aircraft impacts
absent a Commission-approved change in the detailed parameters on
aircraft impact characteristics set forth in guidance for use in the
aircraft impact assessment. As discussed later in Section V.B,
``Description of Beyond-Design-Basis Aircraft Impact,'' of the
Supplementary Information for this final rule, the final rule requires
that the design-specific impact assessment use the Commission-specified
aircraft impact characteristics as described in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(2) and
changes to the detailed parameters on aircraft impact characteristics
set forth in guidance shall be approved by the Commission. Because this
final rule is intended to provide added protection against the effects
of a beyond-design-basis event, the choice of aircraft impact
characteristics and the scenario used for this assessment will not be
linked to threat assessments or to any evolution of aircraft design.
Therefore, there is no need to require a reassessment at the design
certification or manufacturing license renewal stage. In addition,
mandating a change to the design at the renewal stage would pose an
undue burden on those licensees who have referenced the design
certification in their license, or used the manufactured reactor at
their facility. Under 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3) and 10 CFR 52.171(a)(2), the
NRC requires that any modification it imposes on a design certification
rule or on the design of a manufactured reactor be applied to all
plants referencing the certified design or reactor manufactured under
the manufacturing license, except those to which the modification has
been rendered technically irrelevant. If the NRC were to require
reassessment of the design at renewal, this could cause licensees who
have already designed and constructed their plants (or used a
manufactured reactor) to modify their plants to come into conformance
with the reassessed design. Such modifications are likely to be costly.
Given the NRC's determination that the impact of a large, commercial
aircraft is a beyond-design-basis event, the imposition of such costs
as the result of reassessment at design certification or manufacturing
license renewal does not seem warranted. Moreover, once the design
features and functional capabilities for addressing an aircraft impact
have been incorporated into a nuclear power plant's design, the goal of
this final rule has been achieved in that consideration of aircraft
impacts has been factored into the design. In any event, 10 CFR 52.59,
which establishes limited finality control over the NRC's renewal of
design certifications, does permit the NRC to impose modifications to
the design at design certification renewal under certain circumstances
(see 10 CFR 52.59(b)(1) through (3)). Accordingly, given that future
design certifications and manufacturing licenses must, under the final
aircraft impact rule, meet the requirements of the rule upon initial
issuance, the NRC has decided that these design certifications and
manufacturing licenses need not be required by rule to update the
aircraft impact assessment at the time of renewal.
However, upon consideration of these factors in relation to the
renewal of the four currently approved design certifications, the NRC
has come to the conclusion that if any of these four design
certifications have not been updated in the first 15-year duration of
effectiveness, then the design must be amended to comply with the
aircraft impact rule at the time of renewal under 10 CFR 52.57 through
52.61. In this situation, the NRC believes that regulatory consistency,
predictability, and efficiency all favor requiring any of the four
current design certifications which have not been amended to meet the
aircraft impact rule at the time of renewal of the design certification
to comply with the aircraft impact rule as part of the renewal process.
The NRC's determination is reflected in the final rule as an
amendment to 10 CFR 52.59(a). As revised, paragraph (a) requires the
NRC to find, at the first renewal of any of the four currently approved
design certifications, that the renewed design (i.e., the design which
is being approved for use in the renewed term of the design
certification rule) complies with the requirements of the aircraft
impact rule.
The NRC has determined, consistent with the intent of 10 CFR
52.59(b), that requiring the renewed design to comply with the aircraft
impact rule constitutes a substantial increase in protection to public
health and safety. The reasons supporting this determination are set
forth in Section XVI, ``Backfit Analysis,'' of the Supplementary
Information for this final rule. The NRC wishes to emphasize that
imposing this requirement on the renewal of the four currently approved
design certifications does not represent any substantial decrease in
the commercial interests of the original applicants for these design
certifications (or their successors in interests). Accordingly, the NRC
concludes that the four currently approved design certifications, if
they have not already been amended to comply with the aircraft rule,
must comply with the rule the first time any of those design
certifications are renewed.
The NRC notes that one of the consequences of the NRC's
determination that each of the four currently approved design
certifications must comply with the aircraft impact rule if renewed, is
that there may be increased public confidence in the safety of the
renewed designs. The NRC's view is based upon public comments from
several stakeholders urging that the four design certifications be
required to comply with the aircraft impact rule.
V. New Nuclear Power Reactors
A. Introduction
Under this final rule, relevant applicants for new nuclear power
reactors are required to:
Perform an assessment of the effects on the designed
facility of a beyond-design-basis aircraft impact.
Using realistic analyses, identify and incorporate into
the design those design features and functional capabilities to show,
with reduced use of operator action, that the facility can withstand
the effects of an aircraft impact (i.e., that the rule's acceptance
criteria are met).
Describe how such design features and functional
capabilities show, with reduced use of operator action, that the
facility can withstand the effects of an aircraft impact.
This final rule is based on the premise that it is desirable for
newly-constructed power reactors to be designed to withstand the
effects of an aircraft impact through design features or functional
capabilities that reduce or eliminate the need for operator actions.
Because this type of consideration is more effectively done during the
development of the design itself, the NRC directs the requirements of
this final rule at plant designers.
The NRC does not expect plant designers to demonstrate that design
features alone, without operator action or mitigative response activity
as required under 10 CFR 50.54(hh), will completely address the effects
of the aircraft impact. The NRC recognizes that the decision to rely on
design features (as opposed to operator action or mitigative strategies
required under 10 CFR 50.54(hh)) is complex, and often involves a set
of trade-offs between competing considerations. The NRC's goal is to
have the designer implement
[[Page 28119]]
a rigorous assessment process to ensure that the design process
constitutes a reasoned approach for assessing the plant design to
identify design features and functional capabilities to show that the
facility can withstand the effects of an aircraft impact.
B. Description of Beyond-Design-Basis Aircraft Impact
Since September 11, 2001, the Commission has used state-of-the art
technology to assess the effects of aircraft impacts on nuclear power
plants. As part of a comprehensive review of security for NRC-licensed
facilities, the NRC conducted detailed, site-specific engineering
studies of a limited number of nuclear power plants to assess potential
vulnerabilities of deliberate attacks involving large, commercial
aircraft. In conducting these studies, the NRC consulted national
experts from several Department of Energy laboratories using state-of-
the-art structural and fire analyses. The agency also used realistic
predictions of accident progression and radiological consequences.
This final rule presents a general description of the aircraft
impact characteristics that are required to be used to perform the
beyond-design-basis aircraft impact assessment. The assessment must be
based on the beyond-design-basis impact of a large, commercial aircraft
used for long distance flights in the U.S., with aviation fuel loading
typically used in such flights, and an impact speed and angle of impact
considering the ability of both experienced and inexperienced pilots to
control large, commercial aircraft at the low altitude representative
of a nuclear power plant's low profile.
Beyond these general characteristics, the NRC will specify for
plant designers in a safeguards information (SGI) guidance document
more detailed parameters describing the large, commercial aircraft
impact that are considered appropriate for use in the required
assessment. Although the detailed aircraft impact assessment parameters
will be described in an SGI guidance document and will not be publicly
available because of their potential value to terrorists, the following
description of some of the factors used in selecting the parameters is
offered to foster a better understanding of this final rulemaking.
Changes to these detailed parameters on aircraft impact characteristics
set forth in this guidance shall be approved by the Commission.
1. The aircraft used by the terrorists on September 11, 2001. The
NRC staff has reviewed the results of the September 11, 2001 attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The NRC has used these reviews
in previous studies for operating reactors. The NRC also used these
reviews to make its decisions with respect to this final rulemaking.
2. Communications with other U.S. Government agencies. Since
September 11, 2001, the NRC has worked closely with the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and other agencies, both
to understand their information on terrorist threats and to communicate
the NRC's study results.
3. Communications with foreign governments. A number of foreign
governments are considering the construction of new nuclear power
plants. The NRC is communicating with the regulatory authorities in
these countries to understand their requirements and to convey its own
results and plans.
4. Evaluations of commercial aircraft. The NRC has studied the
types, numbers, and characteristics of commercial aircraft flown in
U.S. airspace.
Because this final rule is intended to provide added protection
against the effects of a beyond-design-basis event, the choice of
aircraft impact characteristics and the scenario used for this
assessment will not be linked to threat assessments or to any evolution
of aircraft design. The final rule requires that the design-specific
impact assessment use the Commission-specified aircraft impact
characteristics as described in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(2) (proposed 10 CFR
52.500(b)). As stated previously, more specific details about the
aircraft impact characteristics will be contained in a separate
guidance document under SGI controls. Because this guidance document
containing more detailed aircraft impact assessment parameters will be
SGI, the document will only be made available to those individuals with
a need-to-know and who are otherwise qualified to have access to SGI.
Plant designers (including their employees and agents) who meet the
Commission's requirements for access to SGI will have access to the
guidance document containing these more detailed parameters to perform
the assessments required by this final rule.
C. Aircraft Impact Assessment
Technical Issues
Because the aircraft impact is a beyond-design-basis event, the
methods and acceptance criteria used should be based on realistic
assumptions. The aircraft impact assessment is expected to include the
items detailed in the following paragraphs:
1. Consideration of aircraft impact characteristics. The assessment
must consider the impact of a large, commercial aircraft of the type
currently in use for long distance flights in the U.S. as described
previously in this document and in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(2). More detailed
aircraft impact assessment parameters that are considered appropriate
for use in this assessment will be contained in a separate guidance
document under SGI controls.
2. Plant functions, structures, systems, components, and locations
to be assessed. The critical functions required to be evaluated in the
aircraft impact assessment include core cooling capability,
containment, spent fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel pool
integrity. Evaluation of the survivability of these critical functions
should consider not only the key components, but also power supplies,
cable runs, and other components that support these functions. The
assessment may take credit for the availability of both safety and non-
safety equipment. The assessment should evaluate whether the structures
containing equipment that provides these critical functions are likely
to be affected by the specified large, commercial aircraft impact.
Factors to be considered in the assessment include the size and
location of the structures and the presence of external impediments to
impact.
3. Damage mechanisms. The assessment should model the structural
response, shock and vibration effects, and fire effects of the aircraft
impact.
a. Structural assessment. The structural assessment should be based
on a detailed structural model of the plant taking into account the
nonlinear materials and geometric behavior. The assessment should
consider both local and global (plant-wide) behavior, as well as
thermal effects resulting from fire.
b. Shock assessment. The assessment should evaluate both the local
and global (plant-wide) shock and vibration effects resulting from the
aircraft impact.
c. Fire assessment. The fire assessment should consider the extent
of structural damage and aviation fuel deposition, if any, spread
within the impacted buildings. The assessment should consider both
short- and long-term fire effects.
4. Consideration of potential responsive actions and strategies in
identifying design features and functional capabilities. In determining
[[Page 28120]]
design features and functional capabilities, the designer is expected
to consider the potential responsive actions and strategies in
determining what design features and functional capabilities to adopt.
After considering potential actions and strategies, the designer may
identify design features and functional strategies that would
facilitate the implementation and/or enhance the effectiveness of such
responsive actions and strategies. An objective of the rule is to
ensure that practical actions and strategies that the nuclear power
plant licensee could use to respond to the effects of an aircraft
impact are not precluded by the design and are available as effective
options through inclusion of appropriate design features and functional
capabilities.
Regulatory Treatment of the Assessment
The aircraft impact assessment will be subject to inspection by the
NRC and, therefore, must be maintained by the applicant along with the
rest of the information that forms the basis for the relevant
application, consistent with paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 52.0, ``Scope;
applicability of 10 CFR Chapter I provisions,'' 10 CFR 50.70,
``Inspections,'' and 10 CFR 50.71, ``Maintenance of records, making of
reports.'' The applicant is not required to submit the aircraft impact
assessment--as opposed to the ``description of the identified design
features and functional capabilities'' required by 10 CFR 50.150(b)
(proposed 10 CFR 52.500(c))--to the NRC in its application.
Under the final rule, the NRC will confirm that the information
required by 10 CFR 50.150(b) is included in the applicant's PSAR or
FSAR, namely, the description of the design features and functional
capabilities identified as a result of the assessment and a description
of how those features and capabilities show, with reduced use of
operator action, that the assessment requirements in 10 CFR
50.150(a)(1) are met. The NRC will review the information contained in
the application and reach conclusions as to whether the applicant has:
(1) Adequately described design features and functional capabilities in
accordance with the aircraft impact rule; and (2) conducted an
assessment reasonably formulated to identify design features and
functional capabilities to show, with reduced use of operator action,
that the facility can withstand the effects of an aircraft impact. The
NRC's decision on an application subject to 10 CFR 50.150 will be
separate from any NRC determination that may be made with respect to
the adequacy of the impact assessment which the rule does not require
be submitted to the NRC. Therefore, the adequacy of the impact
assessment may not be the subject of a contention submitted as part of
a petition to intervene under 10 CFR 2.309, ``Hearing requests,
petitions to intervene, requirements for standing, and contentions.'' A
person who seeks NRC rulemaking action with respect to a proposed
standard design certification on the basis that the requirements of the
rule with respect to the identification and description of design
features and functional capabilities has not been met could submit
comments in the notice and comment phase of that rulemaking. A person
who seeks rulemaking action after the NRC has adopted a final design
certification rule on the basis that the impact assessment performed
for that design certification is inadequate could submit a petition for
rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802, ``Petition for rulemaking,'' and 10 CFR
2.803, ``Determination of petition,'' seeking to amend the standard
design certification. A person who seeks agency enforcement-related
action on a combined license or manufacturing license on the basis of
an inadequate impact assessment could file a petition under 10 CFR
2.206, ``Requests for action under this subpart.''
Applicants are only required to submit a description of the
identified design features and functional capabilities identified as a
result of the assessment in their PSAR or FSAR, together with a
description of how the identified design features and functional
capabilities comply with the rule's requirements. Applicants subject to
the aircraft impact rule must make the complete aircraft impact
assessment available for NRC inspection at the applicants' offices or
their contractors' offices, upon NRC request in accordance with 10 CFR
50.70, 10 CFR 50.71, and Section 161.c of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended. The NRC expects that, generally, the information that
it needs to perform its review of the application to assess the
applicant's compliance with 10 CFR 50.150 will be that information
contained in the applicant's FSAR. However, if the NRC believes, during
the course of its review of the application, that the application
contains incomplete or insufficient descriptions of the design features
and functional capabilities included in the design, or insufficient
discussions of how those features and capabilities show, with reduced
use of operator action, that the facility can withstand the effects of
an aircraft impact, then the NRC may request additional information or
may review the assessment prior to issuance of the design
certification, approval, or license, as applicable.
The NRC will confirm that the impact assessment was performed
consistent with the regulatory requirements, but, consistent with the
previous discussion, the NRC's confirmation will proceed independently
of the NRC's licensing or approval action on the relevant application.
The NRC may take appropriate enforcement action for any violations of
applicable NRC requirements, including, but not limited to, 10 CFR
50.150, ``Aircraft impact assessment;'' 10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 52.4,
``Deliberate misconduct;'' and 10 CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR 52.6,
``Completeness and accuracy of information.'' A failure to perform the
assessment will be a violation of the rule. The NRC expects the
assessment to be rigorous. Any assessment that is inadequate to
reasonably assess the aircraft impact or to identify design features or
functional capabilities could be considered a violation of the rule.
For design certifications, design approvals, and manufacturing
license which are subject to and/or have been determined by the NRC to
be in compliance with the aircraft impact rule, issue resolution (in
accordance with the applicable NRC regulations and law) will be
accorded to the aircraft impact assessment, the descriptions of the
design features and functional capabilities required to be included in
the application, and the description of how the identified design
features and functional capabilities meet the requirements of this
final rule. Furthermore, the NRC has concluded in this final rulemaking
that issue resolution also extends to the exclusion of design features
and functional capabilities which have not been included in the
facility design. This position represents a change from the NRC's
proposed position as presented in the proposed rule's statement of
consideration (see 72 FR 56292, third column (October 3, 2007)). The
NRC's changed position on this matter stems from a review of the issue
resolution provision in design certification rulemaking. Under the
``Issue Resolution'' section for each of the four current design
certifications, the NRC included the following statement: ``A
conclusion that a matter is resolved includes the finding that
additional or alternative structures, systems, and components, design
features, design criteria, testing, analyses, acceptance criteria or
justification are not necessary for the [design which is certified].''
10 CFR part 52, Appendices A through D,
[[Page 28121]]
paragraph IV.A. There is nothing exceptional about the technical
requirements in the aircraft impact rule which suggests that this
provision on issue resolution should not also apply to matters
addressed by the aircraft impact rule. Accordingly, as part of this
final rulemaking the NRC adopts a different position on the scope of
issue resolution with respect to excluded design features and
functional capabilities.
Once the applicant completes the impact assessment and identifies
in the FSAR the design features and functional capabilities that it has
incorporated into its design, the goal of this final rule has been
achieved. Accordingly, the final rule does not require the impact
assessment to be updated by either: (1) An operating license holder;
(2) a design certification applicant following the NRC's adoption of a
final standard design certification rule; (3) a design approval holder;
(4) a manufacturing license applicant or holder whose application
references a design certification or design approval; (5) a combined
license applicant or holder whose application references a design
certification, design approval, or manufactured reactor; or (6) a
combined license or manufacturing license holder who is required to
prepare its own assessment. However, if a permit holder, licensee,
approval holder, or design certification applicant makes a change to
the information required to be included in their PSAR or FSAR, then
they will be required to consider the effect of the change on the
original assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and amend the
information required to be included in the PSAR or FSAR. These
requirements are discussed in more detail later in this section. Also,
a construction permit holder will need to update its initial assessment
when it is preparing to submit its operating license application
because it is only at the operating license stage that the applicant
will be seeking NRC approval of its final design. No applicant or
licensee will be required to update the assessment in an application
for renewal under either 10 CFR 52.57, 10 CFR 52.107, 10 CFR 52.177 or
10 CFR part 54. An applicant for renewal of one of the currently
approved design certifications which has not been amended to comply
with the aircraft impact rule will have to perform an aircraft impact
assessment before submitting its renewal application.
Record Retention Requirements
The provisions of 10 CFR 50.71(c) require that records that are
required by the regulations in 10 CFR parts 50 or 52 must be retained
for the period specified by the appropriate regulation. If a retention
period is not otherwise specified, the licensee must retain these
records until the Commission terminates the facility license. Because
10 CFR 50.150(a) (proposed 10 CFR 52.500(b)) requires the performance
of the aircraft impact assessment, it falls under the category of
``records that are required by the regulations'' and therefore, the
licensee will be required to retain the assessment until the Commission
terminates the facility license. The NRC also expects to add specific
provisions to each standard design certification rule for a design
covered by 10 CFR 50.150 governing retention of the aircraft impact
assessment by both the applicant for the design certification
(including an applicant after the Commission has adopted a final
standard design certification rule) and a licensee who references that
design certification. The NRC will require applicants and licensees to
retain the assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) throughout the
pendency of the application and for the term of the certification or
license (including any period of renewal). For all applicants, the
supporting documentation retained onsite should describe the
methodology used in performing the assessment, including the
identification of potential design features and functional capabilities
to show that the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) will be
met.
Identification of Design Features and Functional Capabilities
The final rule requires designers of new facilities to describe how
the design features and functional capabilities identified in
performance of the aircraft impact assessment show, with reduced use of
operator action, that the facility can withstand the effects of an
aircraft impact (i.e., that the rule's acceptance criteria are met).
Plant structures critical to maintaining facility safety functions
should be designed such that an impact does not result in structural
failure, and aircraft parts and jet fuel do not enter the structures.
In circumstances in which an impact results in aircraft parts and jet
fuel entering structures or affecting equipment, plant structures and
layouts should be evaluated with respect to maintaining key safety
functions (core cooling, containment, spent fuel cooling, and spent
fuel pool integrity) by addressing equipment survivability following
the entry of aircraft parts and jet fuel. Key safety functions should
be accomplished notwithstanding the resulting internal damage from
structural loads, shock and vibration, and fire.
As discussed previously, the Commission has issued orders to
operating plants requiring mitigation of the effects of losing large
areas of the plant from fires and explosions. These requirements
include some reliance on operator actions, such as realigning systems
to ensure continued core cooling following the loss of a large area.
Because this final rule applies to newly designed facilities before
construction of the facility, the Commission expects that improvements
can be made in the plant's design that may be even more effective than
operator actions credited in operating plants. Thus, these designs
should have reduced reliance, relative to current operating plants, on
operator actions.
Nuclear power plants are inherently very robust, secure structures
designed to withstand tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and
other severe events. They have redundant and diverse safety equipment
so that if an active component becomes unavailable, another component
or system will satisfy its function. The results of the Commission's
evaluation of postulated aircraft impacts on operating reactors
reinforced the value of design features such as the following:
Reinforced concrete walls.
Redundancy and spatial separation of key systems,
structures and components.
Diversity of power supplies.
Compartmentalization of interior structures with pressure
resisting concrete walls and doors.
The NRC expects the required assessment to consider such design
features and functional capabilities and of possible improvements in
these and other features and capabilities for addressing aircraft
impacts.
Control of PSAR or FSAR Information
Design features or functional capabilities credited for showing
that the facility can withstand the effects of an aircraft impact
should be described in Chapter 19 of the FSAR, which addresses severe
accidents. The design features may include structures or features
unchanged from the plant design as it existed before the aircraft
impact assessment (e.g., an existing wall is found to be effective),
structures or features included in the plant design but enhanced to
improve the response to an aircraft impact (e.g., an existing wall is
made stronger), or new structures or features added solely to address
aircraft impacts (e.g., a new wall). The regulatory treatment of the
design
[[Page 28122]]
features (e.g., how changes to the features are controlled) depends on
which of the previously mentioned categories apply. For example, a
design feature added specifically to address the effects of an aircraft
impact will be controlled only by requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(c)
(proposed 10 CFR 52.502) added in this final rule or requirements that
the NRC expects to add to future design certifications that will be
subject to 10 CFR 50.150 (proposed 10 CFR 52.500). A safety-related
structure credited in the aircraft impact assessment as a design
feature will continue to be controlled by Appendix B to 10 CFR part 50,
``Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel
Reprocessing Plants,'' 10 CFR part 21, ``Reporting of Defects and
Noncompliance,'' and other regulations establishing technical and
administrative requirements on the non-aircraft impact functions, in
addition to the requirements for control of features to address
aircraft impacts.
For all applicants and licensees subject to 10 CFR 50.150, control
of changes to any design features or functional capabilities credited
for showing that the facility can withstand the effects of an aircraft
impact will be governed by the requirements in a new paragraph (c),
``Control of changes,'' of 10 CFR 50.150. For construction permits
which are subject to 10 CFR 50.150, paragraph (c)(1) requires that, if
the permit holder changes the information required by 10 CFR
50.34(a)(13) to be included in the PSAR, then the permit holder must
consider the effect of the changed feature or capability on the
original assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and amend the
information required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be included in the PSAR
to describe how the modified design features and functional
capabilities continue to meet the assessment requirements in the
aircraft impact rule. Because this final rule addresses a beyond-
design-basis event, the NRC has determined that it is appropriate to
apply the same standard to any licensee-proposed changes to features
and capabilities that were applied during the original evaluation of
those design features and functional capabilities.
Paragraph (c)(2) of 10 CFR 50.150 provides that, for operating
licenses which are subject to the aircraft impact rule (i.e., operating
licenses for which the underlying construction permits are issued after
July 13, 2009), if the licensee changes the information required by 10
CFR 50.34(b)(12) to be included in the FSAR, then the licensee shall
consider the effect of the changed feature or capability on the
original assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(b) and amend the
information required by 10 CFR 50.34(b)(12) to be included in FSAR to
describe how the modified design features and functional capabilities
continue to meet the assessment requirements in the aircraft impact
rule.
Paragraph (c)(3) of 10 CFR 50.150 governs changes to a design
feature or functional capability described in a standard design
certification. Such changes may not be made generically except by
notice and comment rulemaking (see 10 CFR 52.63, ``Finality of standard
design certifications,'' paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)) and such a
change must meet one of the criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). All
referencing combined licenses must implement any generic change to a
design certification rule, as required by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3). The NRC
acknowledges that the applicant for a standard design certification is
not directly responsible for maintaining the FSAR information once a
final design certification rule is adopted by the NRC. Nonetheless, the
NRC continues to believe, for the reasons set forth in the
Supplementary Information for the first design certification rulemaking
(see 62 FR 25800; May 19, 1997, at 25813-25814, 25826), that the
original standard design certification applicant should be required to
maintain the accuracy of the design certification information.
Therefore, in future standard design certification rulemakings, the NRC
expects to continue its practice of adopting a records management
requirement analogous to Section X.A of the four existing standard
design certification rules. In addition, any applicant for an amendment
to a design certification is also subject to the records management
requirement. In the case of amendment requests submitted by someone
other than the original applicant, the NRC may need to develop
appropriate rule language to reflect the record management
responsibilities for information (including SGI and proprietary
information) that was developed by applicants other than the original
applicant. For combined license holders subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a)
(i.e., a licensee whose application does not reference a standard
design certification, standard design approval, or manufactured
reactor, or that reference a standard design certification issued
before the effective date of the rule which has not been amended to
comply with the rule), 10 CFR 50.150(c)(4)(i) states that if the
licensee changes the information required by 10 CFR 52.79(a)(47) to be
included in the FSAR, then the licensee shall consider the effect of
the changed feature or capability on the original assessment required
by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and amend the information required by 10 CFR
52.79(a)(47) to be included in the FSAR to describe how the modified
design features and functional capabilities continue to meet the
acceptance criteria in the aircraft impact rule.
Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of 10 CFR 50.150 governs combined license
applicants or holders which are not subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a) and
states that proposed departures from the information required by 10 CFR
52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR for the referenced standard
design certification are governed by the change control requirements in
the applicable design certification rule. The NRC expects to add a new
change control provision to future design certification rules subject
to 10 CFR 50.150 (including amendments to any of the four existing
design certifications) to govern combined license applicants and
holders referencing the design certification that request a departure
from the design features or functional capabilities in the referenced
design certification. The new change control provision will require
that, if the applicant or licensee changes the information required by
10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR for the standard design
certification, then the applicant or licensee shall consider the effect
of the changed feature or capability on the original assessment
required by 10 CFR 50.150(a). The applicant or licensee must also
describe in a change to the FSAR (i.e., a plant-specific departure from
the generic design control document), how the modified design features
and functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment
requirements in the aircraft impact rule. An applicant or licensee's
submittal of this updated information to the NRC will be governed by
the reporting requirements in the applicable design certification rule.
The NRC expects to continue, in future standard design certification
rulemakings, its practice of adopting reporting requirements analogous
to Section X.B of the four existing standard design certification
rules. Licensees making changes to design features or capabilities
included in the certified design may also need to develop alternate
means to cope with the loss of large areas of the plant from explosions
or fires to comply with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(hh).
Paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of 10 CFR 50.150 governs combined license
applicants or
[[Page 28123]]
holders which are not subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a) but reference a
manufactured reactor which is subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a). For such
applicants and licensees, proposed departures from the information
required by 10 CFR 52.157(f)(32) to be included in the FSAR for the
manufacturing license are governed by the applicable requirements in 10
CFR 52.171(b)(2). Paragraph (b)(2) of 10 CFR 52.171 allows an applicant
or licensee who references or uses a nuclear power reactor manufactured
under a manufacturing license under this subpart to request a departure
from the design characteristics, site parameters, terms and conditions,
or approved design of the manufactured reactor. The Commission may
grant a request only if it determines that the departure will comply
with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.7 and that the special circumstances
outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in
standardization caused by the departure.
Generic changes for manufacturing licenses which are subject to 10
CFR 51.150(a) are addressed in 10 CFR 50.150(c)(5)(i), which states
that generic changes to the information required by 10 CFR
52.157(f)(32) to be included in the FSAR are governed by the applicable
requirements of 10 CFR 52.171. Under the provisions of 10 CFR 52.171,
``Finality of manufacturing licenses; Information requests,'' the
holder of a manufacturing license may not make changes to the design
features or functional capabilities described in the FSAR without prior
Commission approval. The request for a change to the design must be in
the form of an application for a license amendment, and must meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.90, ``Application for amendment of license,
construction permit, or early site permit,'' and 10 CFR 50.92,
``Issuance of amendment.''
Paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of 10 CFR 50.150 governs manufacturing
licenses which are not subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a). Similar to a
combined license application, in a manufacturing license application
referencing a design certification, departures from the information
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR for the
referenced standard design certification are governed by the change
control requirements in the applicable design certification rule.
There are no provisions in 10 CFR 50.150(c) governing changes to a
standard design approval because a design feature or functional
capability described in a standard design approval may not be changed
generically except under an application for a new design approval.
There are no provisions in 10 CFR part 52 for making generic changes to
a standard design approval. Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 52.145, ``Finality
of standard design approvals; information requests,'' states that an
approved design must be used by and relied upon by the NRC staff and
the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in their review of any
individual facility license application that incorporates by reference
a standard design approval unless there exists significant new
information that substantially affects the earlier determination or
other good cause. Therefore, any changes to a design feature or
functional capability described in a standard design approval will be
subject to review by the NRC in any application that references the
design approval. Note that 10 CFR 52.131, ``Scope of subpart,'' states
that an applicant may submit standard designs for a nuclear power
reactor or major portions thereof. To the extent that a standard design
approval is issued for only a portion of a nuclear power reactor, any
applicant referencing that design approval will have to separately
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150 for any portion of the
design not addressed in the design approval issued by the NRC.
VI. Responses to Public Comments
A. Overview of Public Comments
The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on December
17, 2007. The NRC received 32 comment letters on the proposed rule. Of
those comments, 31 commenters were in favor of requiring aircraft
impact assessments on nuclear power plants; one commenter was against
requiring an aircraft impact assessment. Several commenters also
endorsed other commenters' views, where some provided comments in
addition to those they endorsed. No commenters supported the rule
exactly as proposed.
Due to the large number of comments received and the length of the
responses provided, this section of the final rule only provides a
summary of the categories of comments with a general description of the
resolution of those comments. The detailed description of the comments
and the NRC responses are available electronically at the NRC's
electronic Reading Room, ADAMS Accession No. ML090610124.
The proposed aircraft impact rule was published in advance of
publication of draft NRC guidance for implementing the rule. The NRC
indicated in the proposed rule that commenters on the proposed rule
need not await the publication of the draft guidance to comment
meaningfully on the proposed rule (see 72 FR 56298; October 3, 2007).
The NRC only received one comment suggesting that either the proposed
rule language or information on the aircraft impact characteristics
which was provided in the Supplementary Information for the proposed
rule prevented or significantly impeded the commenter from
understanding the proposed rule or commenting on it. Moreover, as
described in the following discussion, the NRC received many comments
effectively (if not explicitly) directed at one or more aspects of the
aircraft impact characteristics. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
the NRC provided sufficient information on the proposed aircraft impact
rule to allow the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on the
proposed rule's requirements.
B. Responses to Specific Requests for Comments
In Section VIII of the Supplementary Information for the proposed
rule, the NRC posed eight questions for which it solicited stakeholder
comments. In the following paragraphs, these questions are restated,
comments received from stakeholders are summarized, and the NRC
resolution of the public comments is presented.
1. Inclusion of impact assessment in application. The proposed rule
does not require that the assessment of aircraft impacts that would be
mandated by proposed 10 CFR 52.500(b) be included in the FSAR or
otherwise submitted as part of the application for a standard design
certification, standard design approval, combined license, or
manufacturing license. However, the NRC is proposing that a description
of the design features, functional capabilities, and strategies
credited by the applicant to avoid or mitigate the effects of the
applicable, beyond-design-basis aircraft impact be included in the FSAR
submitted with the relevant application. In addition, the FSAR must
contain an evaluation of how such design features, functional
capabilities, and strategies to avoid or mitigate, to the extent
practicable, the effects of the applicable aircraft impact with reduced
reliance on operator actions. The NRC is seeking specific comments on
the desirability, or lack thereof, of requiring, in the final rule,
that applicants include the aircraft impact assessment required by
proposed 10 CFR 52.500(b) in the FSAR or another part of the
application.
Commenters' Response: The three industry commenters who addressed
this question (Nuclear Energy Institute
[[Page 28124]]
(NEI), Morgan Lewis, and AREVA Nuclear Power (AREVA NP)) indicated that
the impact assessment should not be included with the application. NEI
indicated that a description [of the assessment] and the evaluation
under 10 CFR 52.500(c) need to be included. In a separate comment, NEI
expressed its view that the submittal on aircraft impacts would be
classified as a safeguards information document.
NRC Response: The final rule does not require that the assessment
of aircraft impacts be included in the PSAR or FSAR or otherwise
submitted as part of the application for a construction permit,
operating license, standard design certification, standard design
approval, combined license, or manufacturing license. However, 10 CFR
50.150(b) does require that a description of the design features and
functional capabilities credited by the applicant to show that the
facility can withstand the effects of the aircraft impact be included
in the PSAR or FSAR submitted with the relevant application. In
addition, the PSAR or FSAR must contain a description of how such
design features and functional capabilities meet the acceptance
criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1). The aircraft impact assessment will be
subject to inspection by the NRC and, therefore, must be maintained by
the applicant along with the rest of the information that forms the
basis for the relevant application. The NRC expects that, generally,
the information that it needs to perform its review of the application
to assess the applicant's compliance with 10 CFR 50.150 will be that
information contained in the applicant's PSAR or FSAR. For these
reasons, the final rule does not require applicants to submit the
aircraft impact assessment to the NRC.
2. Acceptance criteria. The acceptance criterion contained in
proposed 10 CFR 52.500 by which the NRC may judge the required
assessment and evaluation is the practicability criterion addressed in
paragraph (c), that is, that the applicant must describe how the
``design features, functional capabilities, and strategies avoid or
mitigate, to the extent practicable, the effects of the applicable
aircraft impact with reduced reliance on operator actions.'' The NRC is
considering adding an additional acceptance criterion to proposed 10
CFR 52.500 for judging the acceptability of the applicant's aircraft
impact assessment and evaluation. The NRC is seeking specific comments
on the desirability, or lack thereof, of adding an additional
acceptance criterion in the final rule beyond the proposed rule's
practicability criterion. Such an additional acceptance criterion could
read, for example:
The application must also describe how such design features,
functional capabilities, and strategies will provide reasonable
assurance that any release of radioactive materials to the
environment will not produce public exposures exceeding 10 CFR part
100 guidelines.
Commenters' Response: Three industry commenters (NEI, Morgan Lewis,
and AREVA NP) opposed the use of 10 CFR part 100 dose limits as
acceptance criteria for the aircraft impact rule. NEI and Morgan Lewis
asserted that the use of 10 CFR part 100 dose limits would imply that
the aircraft impact is a design basis event, inasmuch as 10 CFR part
100 dose limits are used to evaluate the acceptability of design
features addressing design basis events. Use of 10 CFR part 100 dose
limits, therefore, could be misinterpreted and result in unnecessary
expenditure of industry and NRC resources. As an alternative, NEI
suggested that the NRC adopt the following functional acceptance
criteria: (1) Demonstrate that the reactor core remains cooled or the
containment remains intact; and (2) demonstrate that spent fuel cooling
or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters' recommendations
for alternative acceptance criteria and agrees that 10 CFR part 100
dose limits should not be used for the purpose of this rule. The NRC
decided not to adopt an additional acceptance criterion based on 10 CFR
part 100 dose limits in the final rule for the reasons outlined by the
commenters, namely, that the 10 CFR part 100 limits are limits that the
NRC uses to judge compliance with design basis requirements. The NRC is
revising the criteria necessary to comply with the final rule
consistent with one commenter's suggestion. In the final rule,
applicants continue to be required to perform a design-specific
assessment of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial
aircraft. In addition, the final rule requires applicants to use
realistic analyses to identify and incorporate into the design those
design features and functional capabilities to show that, with reduced
use of operator action: (1) The reactor core remains cooled or the
containment remains intact, and (2) spent fuel cooling or spent fuel
pool integrity is maintained. The final rule removes references to
considering the practicality of including the design features and
functional capabilities identified as a result of the assessment. The
acceptance criteria in the rule must be shown to be met to achieve
compliance with the rule's requirements.
3. Records retention. The proposed rule relies on the general
record retention requirements in 10 CFR 50.71(c) for retention of the
assessment required by proposed 10 CFR 52.500 for combined license and
manufacturing license applicants subject to proposed 10 CFR 52.500. The
NRC intends to similarly rely on a general design certification rule
provisions for retention of the assessment required by proposed 10 CFR
52.500 for design certification applicants and combined license and
manufacturing license holders that reference a design certification.
The NRC is requesting specific comments on whether, in lieu of the
specific design certification rule provisions or reliance on 10 CFR
50.71(c), the NRC should adopt as part of the final 10 CFR 52.500
rulemaking a specific provision that would explicitly mandate the
retention of the assessment. Such a provision would be included in an
additional paragraph of final 10 CFR 52.500, and would set forth the
proposed period of retention. Inclusion of a generic records retention
requirement in final 10 CFR 52.500 would preclude the need for the NRC
to include a specific records retention provision in each standard
design certification subject to final 10 CFR 52.500. The NRC requests
comments on whether such a provision should be included in final 10 CFR
52.500, together with specific reasons in support of the commenter's
position.
The NRC also requests comments on the appropriate period for
retention of the assessment, evaluation, and supporting documentation.
The NRC is considering the following alternatives:
For a standard design certification, combined license, and
manufacturing license the period of NRC review prior to NRC final
action on the application.
For a standard design certification and manufacturing
license, the duration of the design certification or manufacturing
license (i.e., the period during which the design certification or
manufactured reactor may be referenced, including any renewal).
For a standard design certification or manufacturing
license, until the licensee of the final referencing license has
submitted a certification under 10 CFR 50.82(a), or the final
referencing license has been terminated.
For a combined license, when the licensee has submitted a
certification under 10 CFR 50.82(a), or the combined license has been
terminated.
Commenters' Response: All the industry commenters (NEI, Morgan
Lewis, and AREVA NP) who
[[Page 28125]]
commented on this question stated that the existing NRC records
retention requirements are sufficient. AREVA NP also stated that the
records retention requirements should apply to design certification
holders for the time that the design certification is in effect.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters. No changes were
made to the proposed rule's record retention requirements in the final
rule. The final rule relies on the general record retention
requirements in 10 CFR 50.71(c) for retention of the assessment for
combined license and manufacturing license holders subject to 10 CFR
50.150. The NRC intends to similarly rely on general design
certification rule provisions for retention of the assessment required
by proposed 10 CFR 50.150 for design certification applicants and
combined license and manufacturing license holders that reference a
design certification.
4. Requests to amend existing standard design certifications to
address aircraft impacts. The NRC has concluded that it does not need
to apply the proposed rule to the four currently approved standard
design certifications, as discussed in detail in Section III of the
Supplementary Information of the proposed rule. Nonetheless, the
original applicant (or another qualified entity) may request an
amendment to the standard design certification to add design features,
functional capabilities, or strategies in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 52.500. The NRC encourages such requests for
amendment by the applicants for the four current standard design
certifications because it will further enhance the already high levels
of safety and security provided by these reactor designs. These design
modifications may be implemented in different ways as described in
Section III of the Supplementary Information of the proposed rule.
However, under the proposed rule, there are no standards, other than
those contained in 10 CFR 52.63(a), for judging changes to the design
to address the effects of an aircraft impact. The NRC requests specific
comments on whether it should use the same criterion to judge
amendments to an existing design certification as it would use on a new
design certification applicant under the proposed 10 CFR 52.500.
Commenters' Response: One industry commenter (NEI) stated that
voluntary requests to amend existing design certifications to address
aircraft impacts should be held to the same standard as new design
certification applications, because to do otherwise would introduce
inconsistency into the regulatory process. One industry commenter
(Morgan Lewis) agreed with the NEI position, adding that if the holder
of an existing design certification does not voluntarily comply with
the rule, then combined license applicants that reference that design
certification will still be required to comply with the proposed 10 CFR
73.55 amendment, and these applicants would not receive the benefits of
any design changes in response to the proposed rule on aircraft
impacts. As encouraged by the proposed rule, some commenters noted that
reactor vendors with existing design certifications may voluntarily
request the NRC to amend the design certifications to address aircraft
impacts. Some commenters stated that the NRC should use the same
criteria for evaluating such requests for amendments to existing design
certifications as it uses for evaluating new applications for design
certifications. Some commenters also stated that combined license
applicants that reference the amendment to a design certification that
voluntarily complies with the aircraft impact rule should be treated
the same as a combined license applicant that references a new design
certification that is required to comply with the aircraft impact rule.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters that the NRC
should use the same criteria for evaluating voluntary requests for
amendments to currently approved design certifications as it uses for
evaluating new applications for design certifications. To ensure
consistency among all new reactor designs, the NRC must apply the same
criteria to voluntary requests for amendments to existing design
certifications as it uses for evaluating new applications for design
certifications or applications for combined licenses that reference a
design certification that has not been amended to address the aircraft
impact rule.
The NRC has determined, consistent with the proposed aircraft
impact rule, that the four currently approved standard design
certifications in Appendices A through D to 10 CFR part 52 should not
be required to comply with the final aircraft impact rule during the
period of effectiveness of the initial certification period. However,
an applicant for renewal of one of the currently approved design
certifications that has not been previously amended to comply with the
aircraft impact rule must comply with the rule during renewal.
Therefore, the original applicants for the four existing design
certifications (or their successors in interest) are not required to
submit applications to recertify their designs as complying with the
final aircraft impact rule, except at renewal if the certifications
have not voluntarily been amended previously. However, based upon NRC's
consideration of public comments and its assessment of alternative
regulatory approaches for ensuring that all newly designed and
constructed nuclear power plants comply with the aircraft impact rule,
the NRC has decided that the best regulatory approach is to require any
combined license applicant referencing one of these four existing
design certifications to comply with the aircraft impact rule, unless
the referenced design certification has been amended to comply with the
aircraft impact rule.
The NRC's decision on the regulatory approach for achieving the
objective that all newly-designed and constructed nuclear power plants
comply with the aircraft impact rule stems from: (1) NRC's
acknowledgement of the view--expressed by a wide range of
stakeholders--that public confidence in future nuclear power reactors
will be enhanced by requiring all newly-constructed nuclear power
plants, including those based upon one of the four currently approved
design certifications, to meet the requirements of the aircraft impact
rule; and (2) NRC's assessment that there appears to be little or no
commercial interest at this time by domestic U.S. entities in using
certain design certifications. The NRC agrees with the view, expressed
by many stakeholders across a wide spectrum of interests and
background, that the underlying objectives of the aircraft impact rule
would not be fully achieved if a subset of future nuclear power plant
applicants--namely, those applicants who reference one of the four
existing design certifications--are not required to comply with the
aircraft impact rule. Thus, the NRC has decided that all future nuclear
power plants to be constructed and operated in the U.S. should use
designs which comply with the final aircraft impact rule. However,
given that objective, the NRC believes that it should adopt a
regulatory approach for achieving that objective in a manner that does
not unduly affect the resource planning of potential combined license
applicants considering referencing one of the currently approved design
certifications. To adopt a regulatory approach which mandates a delay
in NRC action on a combined license application referencing one of the
four currently approved until that design certification is amended to
comply with the aircraft impact rule
[[Page 28126]]
seems unduly restrictive, especially where the combined license
applicant is ready and willing to comply with the aircraft impact rule.
Accordingly, the NRC determined that it would adopt the regulatory
approach reflected in the final rule.
5. Applicability to future 10 CFR part 50 license applicants. The
NRC is proposing to apply the requirements in proposed 10 CFR 52.500 to
10 CFR part 52 applicants only, specifically, to applicants for
standard design certifications issued after the effective date of the
final rule that do not reference a standard design approval; standard
design approvals issued after the effective date of the final rule;
combined licenses issued after the effective date of the final rule
that do not reference a standard design certification, standard design
approval, or manufactured reactor; and manufacturing licenses issued
after the effective date of the final rule that do not reference a
standard design certification or standard design approval. However, the
NRC is considering extending the applicability of the proposed 10 CFR
52.500 requirements to future applicants for construction permits under
10 CFR part 50. The NRC requests specific comments on the desirability,
or lack thereof, of extending, to future 10 CFR part 50 construction
permit applicants, the applicability of the proposed requirements to
perform an aircraft impact assessment and to evaluate the design
features, functional capabilities, and strategies to avoid or mitigate,
to the extent practicable, the effects of the applicable, beyond-
design-basis aircraft impact.
Commenters' Response: One industry commenter (NEI) recommended that
future applicants for new construction permits under 10 CFR part 50
should be required to meet the rule, but that current holders of
construction permits, including those whose plants are essentially
complete, should not be required to comply with the rule. The commenter
suggested that plants with an existing construction permit and plants
where construction is essentially complete should be subject to the
same requirements as operating plants, which are required to have
mitigation actions for large area fires and explosions. To require
otherwise would be impractical and result in a financial burden in
changing a design that is essentially built.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that future
applicants for new construction permits under 10 CFR part 50 should be
required to meet the rule, but that current holders of construction
permits should not be required to comply with the rule. The NRC is
making the final rule applicable to 10 CFR part 50 license applicants
as well as applicants under 10 CFR part 52 to maintain consistency in
the technical requirements that are applied to new applicants under 10
CFR parts 50 and 52. The final rule requires both new power reactor
construction permit applicants and operating license applicants to
perform the required assessment and include the description of the
identified design features and functional capabilities in their
applications. The final rule is being applied to applicants at both
construction permit and operating license stage because it is not until
the operating license stage that the applicant is required to provide
the NRC with its final design. The NRC can issue a construction permit
based on preliminary design information. Therefore, the NRC believes it
is necessary to require applicants to perform the aircraft impact
assessment at both stages and to include the required information in
both applications based on the level of design information available at
the time of each application.
In making these additions, the NRC is making it clear that the
requirements are not meant to apply to operating license applications
for which construction permits were issued before the effective date of
this final rule. This is because existing construction permits are
likely to involve designs which are essentially complete and may
involve sites where construction has already taken place. Applying the
final rule to operating license applications for which there are
existing construction permits could result in an undue financial burden
to change a design for a plant that is partially constructed. Such a
financial burden is not justifiable in light of the fact that the NRC
considers the events to which the aircraft impact rule is directed to
be beyond-design-basis events and compliance with the rule is not
needed for adequate protection to public health and safety or common
defense and security. Moreover, such operating license applicants will
be required to comply with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(hh) to
identify actions to mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions,
including those caused by aircraft impacts. For these reasons, the NRC
is not requiring operating license applicants with an existing
construction permit to comply with the final rule.
6. Addition of technical requirements to 10 CFR part 52. In the
recent revision to 10 CFR part 52, the NRC took a comprehensive
approach to reorganizing 10 CFR part 52 and making conforming changes
throughout 10 CFR Chapter I, ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'' to
reflect the licensing and approval processes in 10 CFR part 52. In that
rulemaking, the NRC reviewed the existing regulations in 10 CFR Chapter
I to determine if the existing regulations needed to be modified to
reflect the licensing and approval processes in 10 CFR part 52. In
making conforming changes involving 10 CFR part 50 provisions, the NRC
adopted the general principle of keeping the technical requirements in
10 CFR part 50 and maintaining all applicable procedural requirements
in 10 CFR part 52. This proposed aircraft impact rule represents a
departure from that general principle in that it proposes to include
specific technical requirements in 10 CFR part 52 and would create a
separate subpart for inclusion of future, similar, technical
requirements. The NRC is considering relocating the proposed aircraft
impact requirements from 10 CFR 52.500 to a new section in 10 CFR part
50 to maintain the general principle it established in the
comprehensive 10 CFR part 52 rulemaking. The NRC requests specific
comments on the desirability, or lack thereof, of relocating the
proposed aircraft impact requirements from 10 CFR 52.500 to a new
section in 10 CFR part 50.
Commenters' Response: One industry commenter (NEI) stated that the
requirements should be placed in 10 CFR part 52 because the assessment
relates to a beyond-design-basis event and is intended to apply to
design certifications. One industry commenter (Morgan Lewis) generally
agreed with NEI, but stated if the aircraft impact rule's requirements
are to be imposed on future 10 CFR part 50 construction permit
applicants, then the requirements should be included in 10 CFR part 50,
consistent with the general principle established in the recent 10 CFR
part 52 rulemaking (72 FR 49352; August 28, 2007).
NRC Response: The NRC is relocating the aircraft impact
requirements from 10 CFR 52.500 as proposed to new section 10 CFR
50.150. Similarly, requirements for the control of changes to FSAR
information is relocated from 10 CFR 52.502 as proposed to 10 CFR
50.150(c). These sections were relocated to maintain the general
principle that the NRC established in the comprehensive 10 CFR part 52
rulemaking, that is, to maintain the technical requirements in 10 CFR
part 50 for plants licensed under 10 CFR part 52. Furthermore, because
the final rule is also applicable to applicants for new construction
permits
[[Page 28127]]
and operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50, the relocation of the
aircraft impact assessment requirements to 10 CFR part 50 is necessary.
7. Applicability to design approvals and manufacturing licenses.
The proposed rule would apply to future design approvals or
manufacturing licenses. In the recent comprehensive rulemaking on 10
CFR part 52, the NRC strived for a high level of consistency in the
requirements for design certifications, design approvals, and
manufacturing licenses, given the similarity in the regulatory
functions of these three processes. However, it is not clear that there
will be future design approval applications, in light of the NRC's
recent determination to remove the design approval as a prerequisite
for obtaining a design certification. Similarly, there does not appear
to be any near-term interest in obtaining a manufacturing license for
the manufacture of a nuclear power plant. Therefore, the NRC is
considering eliminating the applicability of the proposed 10 CFR 52.500
requirements to future applicants for design approvals and
manufacturing licenses. The NRC requests specific comments on the
desirability, or lack thereof, of eliminating the applicability of the
proposed 10 CFR 52.500 requirements to future applicants for design
approvals and manufacturing licenses.
Commenters' Response: One industry commenter (NEI) stated that the
proposed rule's requirements should not be applied to future applicants
for design approvals and manufacturing licenses, but provided no
rationale for its recommendation. One industry commenter (Morgan Lewis)
indicated that this issue is difficult to evaluate at this time, and it
would be better to defer consideration of this issue, inasmuch as the
NRC could later amend the rule as necessary.
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenters because the
scope of and reviews for design approvals and manufacturing licenses
are essentially the same as for design certifications. The NRC sees no
benefit in deferring the decision on applicability to design approvals
and manufacturing licenses to a later time. Therefore, the final rule
applies to future design approval or manufacturing license applicants.
8. Scope of design evaluated. The proposed 10 CFR 52.500 would be
applicable to all standard design certifications, standard design
approvals, and manufacturing licenses issued after the effective date
of the final rule and to all combined licenses issued after the
effective date of the final rule that do not reference a standard
design certification, standard design approval, or manufacturing
license. However, the proposed rule does not address the difference in
the scope of the facility design that would be considered by an
applicant for a standard design certification, standard design
approval, or manufacturing license and the scope of the design that
would be considered by a combined license applicant. For a standard
design certification, standard design approval, or manufacturing
license, the applicant is required to address only a subset of the
facility design that a combined license applicant is required to
address. In general, a design certification, design approval, or
manufacturing license applicant is required to address such items as
the reactor core, reactor coolant system, instrumentation and control
systems, electrical systems, containment system, other engineered
safety features, auxiliary and emergency systems, power conversion
systems, radioactive waste handling systems, and fuel handling systems.
In contrast, a combined license applicant also must address site-
specific design features, such as the ultimate heat sink. Combined
license applicants that do not reference a design certification, design
approval, or manufactured reactor could address such site-specific
design features in their evaluation of design features, functional
capabilities, and strategies to avoid or mitigate, to the extent
practicable, the effects of the applicable aircraft impact with reduced
reliance on operator actions. However, the proposed rule does not
impose any requirements on a combined license applicant that references
a design certification, design approval, or manufactured reactor with
regard to addressing the potential effects of an aircraft impact on
such site-specific portions of the design. The proposed rule could,
therefore, introduce an inconsistency in the treatment of combined
license applicants that reference a design certification, design
approval, or manufactured reactor and combined license applicants that
submit a custom design. Therefore, to ensure consistent treatment of
all combined license applicants, the NRC is considering an alternative
approach in the final rule. One approach that the NRC is considering is
to adopt additional requirements for combined license applicants that
reference a design certification, design approval, or manufactured
reactor that would require such applicants to evaluate that portion of
the design excluded from the design certification, design approval, or
manufactured reactor for additional design features, functional
capabilities, or strategies to avoid or mitigate, to the extent
practicable, the effects of the applicable aircraft impact with reduced
reliance on operator actions. Alternatively, the NRC is considering
limiting the scope of the evaluation for combined license applicants
not referencing a design certification, design approval, or
manufactured reactor to that portion of the design that would otherwise
be covered in a design certification, design approval, or manufacturing
license application, which would include the majority of the facility
considered most vulnerable to an aircraft impact. The NRC requests
specific comments on the desirability, or lack thereof, of adopting one
of these alternative approaches in the final rule.
Commenters' Response: Two industry commenters (NEI and Morgan
Lewis) argued that the scope of the aircraft impact assessment for
combined license applicants should be the same scope as the assessment
required for a new design certification. This would ensure consistency
among all combined license applicants regardless of whether they
reference or not reference a design certification, and would cover the
majority of the portion of the plant design which is considered most
vulnerable to an aircraft impact.
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenters. The NRC
believes that the greatest benefit from implementation of this final
rule will be achieved by having each applicant consider as much of the
facility design as possible when it is performing the aircraft impact
assessment. Design certification, design approval, and manufactured
reactor applicants will only logically be able to consider that part of
the facility design within the scope of the certification, approval, or
license. However, combined license applicants that do not reference a
design certification, design approval, or manufactured reactor, or
reference one of the four currently approved design certifications
which has not been previously amended to comply with the aircraft
impact rule, will have the entire facility design available for
consideration. This means, as a practical matter, that the scope of the
overall plant design which is subject to the aircraft impact rule's
requirements may be greater for a ``custom'' combined license applicant
who does not reference a design certification, design approval, or
manufactured reactor. The NRC believes it is preferable to benefit from
this broader review for those combined license applicants that must
perform the aircraft impact assessment than it is to limit their review
to the
[[Page 28128]]
scope of the design that would otherwise be considered by, for example,
a design certification applicant. The NRC believes its approach is
preferable to that suggested by the commenters even though it results
in combined license applicants that reference a certified design,
design approval, or manufactured reactor assessing a different scope of
the facility design than a ``custom'' combined license applicant. The
NRC believes that, as a result of such an approach, combined license
holders that reference a certified design, design approval, or
manufactured reactor will likely need to do more work to comply with
the proposed requirements for licensees to develop and adopt mitigative
strategies to cope with large fires and explosions in 10 CFR 50.54(hh)
than will a ``custom'' combined license holder that has assessed the
entire facility at the design stage in accordance with this final rule.
For these reasons, the NRC has not made any changes to the assessment
requirements for combined license applicants in the final rule.
C. Responses to Remaining Comments
The comments were separated into 11 categories based on their
relevance to particular topics. The comments and responses contained in
the first category are summarized in Section VI.B of the Supplementary
Information of this document. The comments and responses contained in
the second through the eleventh category are summarized in the
following paragraphs.
The second category addresses the overall need to address aircraft
impacts. Some commenters supported, while others opposed, requiring an
aircraft impact assessment. No changes were made to the proposed rule
as a result of these comments. The NRC believes that requiring new
plant designers or combined license applicants to perform this
assessment will result in new plants having additional inherent
protection against the effects of an aircraft impact.
The third category addresses the scope of applicants and licensees
that the rule is applicable to. Some commenters suggested that the rule
should also apply to all currently operating nuclear power reactors,
reactors with spent fuel in onsite pool storage structures, combined
license applicants (regardless of the design being referenced), and
currently approved design certifications. Other commenters suggested
not applying the rule to currently operating reactors. The final rule
does not apply to currently operating reactors but does apply to all
applicants for new nuclear power reactors. It also applies to the four
currently approved design certifications, but only at renewal if they
have not been voluntarily amended to comply with the aircraft impact
rule.
The fourth category addresses adequate protection and consideration
of aircraft impacts as a beyond-design-basis event. Some commenters
agreed that aircraft impacts should be treated as a beyond-design-basis
event, while others opposed the treatment of aircraft impacts as a
beyond-design-basis event. Others suggested that NRC does not have the
statutory authority to require consideration of the effects of an
action in the nature of an attack by an enemy of the U.S. The NRC did
not make any change to the proposed rule's treatment of these issues.
The final rule continues to identify an aircraft impact as a beyond-
design-basis event.
The fifth category addresses the Commission's specified aircraft
characteristics. Some commenters suggested that the general description
of aircraft characteristics is adequate, whereas others suggested that
the proposed aircraft characteristics are not adequate. The description
of the aircraft characteristics has not changed in the final rule.
The sixth category addresses the aircraft impact assessment. Some
commenters suggested that the assessment needs to consider all real
consequences of the aircraft impact, while other commenters suggested
that the assessment should use standardized and validated models and be
based on practical and realistic criteria, assumptions, and
methodologies. The assessment requirements are not changed from the
proposed rule. The final rule requires the assessment to be rigorous
and performed using realistic assumptions.
The seventh category addresses the evaluation of design features,
functional capabilities, and strategies as described in the proposed
rule. Some commenters suggested providing acceptance criteria in the
rule, clarifying the NRC's intent in using the term ``avoid,''
requiring features which would prevent the impact from occurring,
preventing the applicant from implementing design tradeoffs which would
negatively impact safety, and providing additional guidance on the
intent of the terms ``to the extent practical'' and ``reduced reliance
on operator actions.'' The final rule does provide explicit acceptance
criteria to judge the results of the assessment and eliminates the use
of the phrases ``avoid or mitigate'' and ``to the extent practical.''
In addition, the final rule provides additional clarification on the
intent of the term ``reduced use of operator actions.''
The eighth category addresses issue resolution and regulatory
implementation issues. Some commenters suggested that the final rule
should clarify that the assessment and evaluation are part of the
design certification rulemaking and provide issue resolution for
subsequent combined license applicants, and that contentions on their
adequacy will not be entertained in individual combined license
proceedings. Other commenters suggested that the aircraft impact
assessment need not be updated as part of a license renewal
application, and others suggested that the design features incorporated
into the design under a design certification are not part of the
plant's physical security requirements and, therefore, not subject to
review at the combined license stage. The final rule reflects that the
NRC will review the information required to be submitted under 10 CFR
50.150(b) and will accord issue resolution. The NRC agreed, in general,
with the comment that the aircraft impact assessment need not be
updated as part of a license renewal application, with one exception.
The NRC has added provisions in the final rule that have the effect of
requiring each of the four currently approved design certifications to
comply with the aircraft impact rule at the time of renewal, if that
design has not been previously amended to comply with the aircraft
impact rule. The NRC agrees that the design features selected by the
designer and incorporated into a design certification are not subject
to review at the combined license stage from the standpoint of
compliance with the aircraft impact rule. However, the NRC disagrees
with the view that design features incorporated into a design
certification as a result of the aircraft impact rule would not be
subject to a physical security review under 10 CFR part 73 during a
combined license application proceeding where the design certification
is referenced.
The ninth category addresses protection of safeguards and other
sensitive information. Some commenters suggested that the aircraft
characteristics should not be provided in the rule nor should details
of the design features that protect against aircraft impacts be
described in licensing applications. One commenter suggested that the
proposed rule's failure to provide detailed aircraft parameters
prevents meaningful involvement from the public and experts in industry
and academia, and that the relevant September 11, 2001 aircraft
parameters have been previously
[[Page 28129]]
published in publicly available government documents. The NRC maintains
the position from the proposed rule that the general information on
aircraft characteristics provided in the rule is sufficient for the
purposes of public comment, and no changes were made to the final rule
as a result of these comments.
The tenth category addresses compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. Some commenters suggested that the NRC should
prepare an environmental impact statement because the rule is a major
federal action significantly affecting the environment and should
consider alternatives to the proposed rule. The final rule did not
change as a result of these comments because the rulemaking does not
constitute a ``major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.''
The eleventh category addresses other comments that did not
logically fit into the other categories. Commenters suggested
considering other threats, not permitting siting of new reactors within
5 miles of an airport, and that the aircraft impact assessment is an
aging-related matter. The final rule did not change as a result of
these comments.
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 50.8 Information Collection Requirements: OMB Approval
This section, which lists all information collections in 10 CFR
part 50 which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), is revised by adding a reference to 10 CFR 50.150, the aircraft
impact rule. As discussed below, under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Statement, the OMB has approved the information collection and
reporting requirements in the final aircraft impact rule. No specific
requirement or prohibition is imposed on applicants or licensees in
this section.
Section 50.34 Contents of Construction Permit and Operating License
Applications; Technical Information
This section describes the technical information which must be
provided in applications for construction permits and operating
licenses subject to 10 CFR 50.150. New paragraphs (a)(13) and (b)(12)
require each application for a construction permit and operating
license subject to the aircraft impact rule to include the information
required to be submitted to the NRC by 10 CFR 50.150.
Section 50.150 Aircraft Impact Assessment
The aircraft impact rule, Sec. 50.150, is a new requirement
applicable at the design stage for new nuclear power facilities. The
aircraft impact rule requires a design-specific assessment of the
effects on the facility of the impact of a large commercial aircraft,
and incorporation of design features and functional capabilities to
show (using realistic analyses), with reduced use of operator actions,
that: (1) The reactor core remains cooled or the containment remains
intact; and (2) spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is
maintained. The aircraft impact rule was included in 10 CFR part 52 and
designated as 10 CFR 52.500 at the proposed rule stage, but is now
included in 10 CFR part 50 and redesignated as 10 CFR 50.150. This is
consistent with the NRC's intention that this technical requirement
applies to licenses under part 50 as well as licenses and regulatory
approvals under part 52.
Paragraph (a) Assessment Requirements
Paragraph (a) sets forth the requirements for an assessment of
aircraft impact to be applied to the design of new nuclear power
facilities. Paragraph (a) also contains the key provisions relating to
the nature of the aircraft impact characteristics to be utilized when
performing the assessment. The requirements relating to the assessment
are separated into two paragraphs, (a)(1) and (a)(2), to help readers
distinguish between the assessment of aircraft impact, and the
characteristics of the aircraft impact that must be used by the
facility designer in performing the assessment. Finally, paragraph
(a)(3) lists the licenses, certifications, and regulatory approvals
involving nuclear power reactor design to which the assessment
requirements in paragraph (a) apply.
Paragraph (a)(1) Assessment
Paragraph (a)(1) requires a design-specific assessment of the
effects of an impact of a large commercial aircraft on a nuclear power
reactor facility. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis for
paragraph (a)(3), every new nuclear power plant will meet the aircraft
impact rule, which is one of the NRC's key objectives.
Conceptually, the assessment required by the aircraft impact rule
has two aspects. The first is consideration of the effects on the
facility of the impact of a large commercial aircraft. The second
aspect is a showing that design features and functional capabilities
incorporated into the design meet, with reduced use of operator
actions, the acceptance criteria in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii). The
designer may perform both aspects of the assessment using realistic
analyses (discussed in greater detail below). The aircraft impact
characteristics that must be used by the designer in performing the
assessment are defined in paragraph (a)(2) of the rule. In showing that
the design features and functional capabilities incorporated into the
design meet the requirements of paragraph (a), the designer should use
a structured process requiring consideration of the insights gained
when assessing the effects on the facility of the aircraft impact. The
NRC recognizes that a designer's approach for implementing the rule may
differ, depending upon the stage of completion of the facility design
when this final rule is adopted or the design process that the designer
chooses to employ. For example, if a facility design is largely or
entirely completed when this rule becomes effective--as in the case of
the current design applications under review by the NRC--the designer
may focus on features and capabilities already included in the design
or on potential enhancements of such features and capabilities, and
then identify any additional features and capabilities. By contrast, a
designer who has not yet commenced detailed design activities may
decide to use an iterative screening process for identifying features
and capabilities. By setting forth performance-based objectives, the
aircraft impact rule does not require the designer to use a specific
methodology, process or approach for identifying design features and
functional capabilities that meet the acceptance criteria in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) and (ii) with reduced use of operator actions. The designer
may choose any number of ways to meet these performance requirements.
By a ``design-specific'' assessment, the NRC means that the impact
assessment must address the specific design of the facility which is
either the subject of a construction permit, operating license,
standard design certification, standard design approval, combined
license, or manufacturing license application. The aircraft impact rule
uses the term ``facility,'' for convenience, although the NRC
recognizes that the scope of design addressed in a design approval,
design certification, and manufactured reactor may be less than the
complete facility and will be limited to non-site-specific portions of
the facility.
In performing the assessment, the aircraft rule specifies that
``realistic analyses'' be used. Analyses include
[[Page 28130]]
both quantitative methods and approaches, either deterministic or
probabilistic, and qualitative methods and approaches, including the
use of expert panels. An assessment may use quantitative and/or
qualitative analyses. Regardless of the method or combination of
methods employed by the designer, it must be reasonable and technically
acceptable. This can be shown by demonstrating that the analytical
techniques being used are generally accepted by the relevant
professional/technical practitioners for performing best-estimate
analysis for the given application. An analysis may not be rejected by
the NRC in a licensing or rulemaking (design certification) proceeding
(or otherwise challenged by an interested person in a hearing
contention) on the basis that a more accurate analysis (i.e., one that
more closely reflects actual data or more accurately models a known
physical phenomenon) is possible. In this context, ``realistic'' is a
relative term and is simply intended to avoid requiring the designer to
utilize conservative or bounding assumptions in recognition of the
NRC's determination that the impact of a large commercial aircraft is a
beyond-design-basis event. However, the designer is free to utilize
bounding or more conservative approaches in order to account for
uncertainties, or to reduce the cost of analysis at its option. The NRC
may not require, and an interested person in a hearing contention or in
a design certification rulemaking comment may not argue, that the
designer must use a conservative, as opposed to a realistic, analysis,
or vice versa. Rather, the NRC's review should be focused on (and any
interested person in a hearing contention may only raise an issue with
respect to) whether the designer's analyses are within the bounds of
known data, known physical phenomena, and use professionally-accepted
approaches.
``Design features and functional capabilities'' represent design
alternatives that could be included in the design of a facility. Design
features are structures, systems, and components (SSCs), including the
physical arrangement of such SSCs. Examples of design features are
major structures such as reinforced concrete walls and slabs;
redundancy and spatial separation of key SSCs; and diversity of power
supplies. Functional capabilities are key characteristics of such SSCs
that result in their contribution to withstanding the effects of the
aircraft impact. Examples of such functional capabilities are the flow
capacity of a pump, the load carrying capacity of a wall, and the
electrical capacity of power supplies. When identifying potential
design features and functional capabilities for inclusion in the
design, the designer is expected to consider whether these design
features and functional capabilities would facilitate the
implementation and/or enhance the effectiveness of practical responsive
and mitigation actions that the nuclear power plant licensee could
implement. For example, if the designer determines that a fire load due
to the aircraft impact in a specific area could be extinguished or
controlled through the placement of a standpipe and hose near the area,
or that a fire affecting critical components with a limited time-
temperature rating could be more quickly controlled with a larger
amount of water delivered through a larger than normally-specified
pipe, then the designer should consider the design feature of a new
standpipe and hose, or the functional capability of a greater capacity
(larger diameter) pipe.
The aircraft impact rule establishes two sets of acceptance
criteria in paragraph (a)(1), each containing two sub-criteria:
(i) The reactor core remains cooled, or the containment remains
intact; and
(ii) Spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained.
The acceptance criteria in both paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) must
be met in order for the NRC to find that the requirements of the
aircraft impact rule have been satisfied; it is not sufficient, for
example, to satisfy the criterion of paragraph (a)(1)(i) but to fail
the criterion of paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
Each criterion is expressed in the form of an alternative: within
each criterion, only one of the sub-criteria needs to be satisfied in
order to show compliance with the aircraft impact rule. The order of
the sub-criteria does not reflect any requirement with respect to the
logical order in which the NRC expects a designer to determine if each
criterion is satisfied. For the first criterion in paragraph (a)(1)(i),
the NRC prefers that designers identify design features and functional
capabilities to demonstrate that, with reduced use of operator actions,
the reactor core remains cooled. If core cooling can be maintained with
the identified design features and functional capabilities (and with
reduced use of operator action), then the designer need not identify
and incorporate design features and functional capabilities to show
that the containment remains intact. Otherwise, the designer must
identify design features and functional capabilities that show that the
containment remains intact. Likewise, a designer is afforded the
flexibility under the aircraft impact rule of truncating the analysis
and simply demonstrating that the containment remains intact.
For the second criterion in paragraph (a)(1)(ii), the NRC prefers
that designers identify and incorporate design features and functional
capabilities to demonstrate that, with reduced use of operator action,
spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. If the applicant can show that
spent fuel pool integrity can be maintained with the applicant's
identified design features and functional capabilities, then no further
consideration of design features and functional capabilities to
maintain spent fuel cooling is necessary. However, if spent fuel pool
integrity cannot be shown to be maintained, then spent fuel cooling
must be maintained. Likewise, the aircraft impact rule affords the
designer the flexibility of simply showing that spent fuel cooling can
be maintained without first considering spent fuel pool integrity. The
NRC reiterates, however, that the aircraft impact assessment must
consider the effects of the aircraft impact on all four key safety
functions--core cooling, containment, spent fuel cooling, and spent
fuel pool integrity.
There are only two bases for either an NRC determination or an
interested person's contention that the acceptance criteria in
paragraph (a)(1) have not been met. One is that the analyses utilized
by the designer in showing that the acceptance criteria have been met
are not technically acceptable. The other basis is that the design
features and functional capabilities overall do not involve any reduced
use of operator actions. The NRC does not expect each design feature
and functional capability incorporated into the design to involve
reduced use of operator actions; the overall reduction in use of
operator actions must be judged for the complete set of design features
and functional capabilities relied upon in the assessment to show that
both acceptance criteria in paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii) have been met.
However, as discussed below, the NRC does not intend that the use of
operator actions be reduced without consideration of countervailing
considerations. In addition, the NRC does not intend to require
consideration--much less inclusion in its design--of a design feature
or functional capability that could have adverse safety or security
consequences under a different operational or accident scenario.
The acceptance criteria in paragraph (a)(1) focus on the functions
of core cooling capability, containment, spent fuel cooling capability,
and spent fuel
[[Page 28131]]
pool integrity following the aircraft impact. These four functions are
applicable to light water reactors (LWRs), and each may not be
applicable to non-LWR reactor designs, or may have to be supplemented
by other key functions. When reviewing non-LWR designs, the NRC will
evaluate the applicability of the acceptance criteria set forth in the
aircraft impact rule and the possible need for other criteria. If
necessary, the NRC will issue exemptions and impose supplemental
criteria to be used in the aircraft impact assessment for such non-LWR
designs. The NRC believes this regulatory approach is preferable to
excluding non-LWRs from the applicability of the aircraft rule, because
such an exclusion could be interpreted in an erroneous manner as
reflecting the NRC's belief that non-LWRs need not be designed against
large, commercial aircraft impacts.
The design features and functional capabilities selected by the
designer must show that the acceptance criteria in the aircraft impact
rule can be met with ``reduced use of operator action.'' In this
context, ``operator action'' includes actions of operators in the
control room or at alternative control panels or control areas to
control the reactor and the nuclear facility. This means that active
operator intervention and initiation of responsive action to maintain
core cooling or an intact containment, and spent fuel cooling or spent
fuel pool integrity should be reduced. The designer need not strive to
achieve the absolute minimum in operator action. The NRC recognizes
that there may be countervailing considerations that weigh against
reducing to the absolute minimum the use of operator action to show
that the acceptance criteria in the aircraft impact rule are met. The
NRC expects the designer to identify and consider in a reasonable
process the goal of incorporating design features and functional
capabilities which achieve the acceptance criteria in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) and (ii) with reduced use of operator action.
Paragraph (a)(2) Aircraft Impact Characteristics
The assessment required by paragraph (a) of the aircraft impact
rule must be based on the aircraft impact characteristics specified in
paragraph (a)(2). The characteristics of the aircraft impact must be
that of a large, commercial aircraft used for long distance flights in
the United States, with aviation fuel loading typically used for such
flights. The rule refers to long distance flights ``in the United
States,'' which means those which originate and terminate in the United
States (i.e., domestic flights).
The NRC's guidance on the aircraft impact characteristics will be
contained in guidance documents. The guidance will include the time-
force curve, or loading function, that is derived from the aircraft
impact characteristics for use in applicants' assessment of the
aircraft impact. In the case of a combined license applicant that is
required to perform an aircraft impact assessment, the applicant could
take credit for site-specific topographic features (e.g., mountains)
and siting features (e.g., the existence of non-plant structures) to
limit the directions from which the plant could experience an impact.
Footnote 1 to paragraph (a)(2) states that changes to the detailed
parameters on aircraft impact characteristics set forth in guidance
shall be approved by the Commission. This footnote ensures that changes
to the guidance on the aircraft characteristics will not be made
without Commission consideration and approval.
Paragraph (a)(3) Applicability
As set forth in paragraph (a)(3), the assessment requirement for
the aircraft impact rule applies to: (1) Construction permits under 10
CFR part 50 issued after July 13, 2009; (2) operating licenses for
which the underlying construction permits were issued after July 13,
2009; (3) design certifications issued after July 13, 2009; (4) the
four currently approved design certifications in 10 CFR part 52,
appendices A through D at the time of renewal, but only if they have
not been amended to comply with the aircraft impact rule by that time;
(5) standard design approvals issued after July 13, 2009; (6) combined
licenses issued under 10 CFR part 52 which either do not reference a
standard design certification, standard design approval, or
manufactured reactor, or reference one of the four currently approved
design certifications if the referenced design has not been amended to
comply with the aircraft impact rule; and (7) manufacturing licenses
that do not reference a standard design approval or standard design
certification meeting the requirements of this section.
Applicants for operating licenses under part 50 whose underlying
construction permits were issued before the aircraft impact rule need
not (but may voluntarily choose to) comply with the aircraft impact
rule. The NRC notes that the applicability of the aircraft impact rule
is dependent upon the date of the NRC's final action on an application,
and not the date of filing of the application. Thus, a combined license
issued after the effective date of the final 10 CFR 50.150 rule will be
subject to the requirements of the rule, even if its application was
filed before the effective date of the final 10 CFR 50.150 rule.
Combined licenses and manufacturing licenses which do not reference
a standard design certification meeting the requirements of this rule
are subject to the assessment requirement in paragraph (a)(1). However,
combined license applicants that choose to reference a design for which
a design certification application has been docketed but not granted
need not perform the assessment required by paragraph (a), assuming
that the combined license which is issued references a final design
certification rule which complies with the aircraft impact rule. This
is an acknowledgement that, under 10 CFR 52.55(c), an applicant for a
combined license may, at its own risk, reference in its application a
design for which a design certification application has been docketed
but not granted.
Certain combined license applicants need not perform a plant-
specific assessment to comply with the aircraft impact rule. If the
combined license application references a design certification, design
approval, or manufactured reactor which complies (or will comply, upon
amendment of the design certification by the time of issuance of the
combined license) with the assessment requirements of the aircraft
impact rule, then the combined license applicant need not perform an
assessment to comply with the aircraft impact rule. This means, as a
practical matter, that the scope of the overall plant design which is
subject to the aircraft impact rule's requirements may be greater for a
``custom'' combined license applicant who does not reference a design
certification, design approval, or manufactured reactor which complies
(or will comply) with the aircraft impact rule.
Analogous to the combined license applicant, a manufacturing
license applicant who does not reference a standard design
certification or standard design approval which has complied with the
aircraft impact rule, must comply with the aircraft impact rule by
performing the assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(a). The scope of
the assessment is limited to the scope of the design of the reactor to
be approved for manufacture.
The four currently approved design certifications are not required
to comply with the aircraft impact rule except upon renewal if the
design certification
[[Page 28132]]
has not already been amended to comply with the aircraft impact rule.
The original design certification applicant may, at any time,
voluntarily request an amendment to the design certification rule to
recertify the design certification as complying with the aircraft
impact rule. The NRC notes that persons or entities other than the
original design certification applicant may also request such an
amendment of one of the four currently approved design certifications.
However, such an application must provide the full set of information
required by the aircraft impact rule, including, as necessary,
information which substitutes for the proprietary and safeguards
information provided in the original design certification proceeding,
but which is not available for use in the design certification
amendment proceeding. The amendment of the design certification to
reflect compliance with the aircraft impact rule will be accomplished
through rulemaking.
As a result of these provisions, every newly constructed nuclear
power plant will meet the aircraft impact rule, which is the NRC's key
objective in adopting this final aircraft impact rule.
Paragraph (b) Content of Application
Paragraph (b) requires the PSAR or FSAR for each license,
certification, and regulatory approval application which is subject to
10 CFR 50.150(a) to include certain specified information related to
compliance with the rule. This information consists of: (1) A
description of the design features and functional capabilities which
the applicant has selected (identified) for inclusion in the design to
show that the facility can withstand the effects of the aircraft
impact; and (2) a concise description of how the identified design
features and functional capabilities meet the assessment requirements
in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1). The application should summarize the bases for
the applicant's determination that the selected features and
capabilities incorporated into the facility design show, with reduced
use of operator actions, that the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR
50.150(a)(1) are met. The 10 CFR 50.150(b) information must be included
in the PSAR or FSAR in accordance with 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13), 10 CFR
50.34(b)(12), 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28), 10 CFR 52.79(a)(47), 10 CFR
52.137(a)(26), or 10 CFR 52.157(f)(32) and should address only those
features and capabilities selected by the applicant for inclusion in
the plant design to address aircraft impacts.
The description of the features and capabilities should be
equivalent in detail to descriptions of other design features and
functional capabilities addressing beyond-design-basis events or severe
accidents which are required to be described in the license,
certification, or approval application.
Inclusion of any SGI in the information submitted in the FSAR as
part of a relevant application must be in accordance with applicable
requirements in 10 CFR part 73. The NRC will process and address
requests for access to this information from the general public in
accordance with the NRC's existing regulations and procedures.
The NRC reiterates that aircraft impact is not a design basis
event. Therefore, the design and construction of features and
capabilities designated by the designer as meeting the aircraft impact
rule's requirements need not meet the ``special treatment''
requirements applicable to safety-related and important to safety
structures, systems, and components.
Paragraph (c) Control of Changes
Paragraph (c) clarifies the requirements governing changes to
information in the PSAR or FSAR which reflects the results of
compliance with the aircraft impact rule for each of the licensing or
certification processes subject to the aircraft impact rule. In the
proposed aircraft impact rule, the provisions governing changes to such
information were in proposed 10 CFR 52.502.
The PSAR or FSAR information required by the aircraft impact rule
which is subject to the change control requirement in paragraph (c) are
the descriptions of the design features and functional capabilities
incorporated into the final design of the nuclear power facility and
the description of how the identified design features and functional
capabilities meet the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
Not all of the actual change controls are presented in paragraph (c).
Instead, most of the sections in paragraph (c) cite to an existing
regulation presenting the FSAR change controls for that type of license
or certification. Thus, in many cases, paragraph (c) is simply a
``pointer'' to the already-existing change controls. However, in all
cases, the objective of the change controls remains the same: To
determine whether the design of the facility, as changed or modified,
is shown to withstand the effects of the aircraft impact with reduced
use of operator actions. In other words, the applicant or licensee must
continue to show, with the modified design, that the acceptance
criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) are met with reduced use of operator
actions. The rule does not require an applicant or a licensee
implementing a design change to redo the complete aircraft impact
assessment to evaluate the effects of the change. The NRC believes it
may be possible to demonstrate that a design change is bounded by the
original design or that the change provides an equivalent level of
protection, without redoing the original assessment.
Paragraph (c)(1) provides that, for construction permits which are
subject to the aircraft impact rule, if the permit holder changes the
information required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be included in the PSAR,
then the permit holder shall consider the effect of the changed feature
or capability on the original assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(a)
and amend the information required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be
included in PSAR to describe how the modified design features and
functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment requirements in
10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
Paragraph (c)(2) provides that, for operating licenses which are
subject to the aircraft impact rule (i.e., operating licenses for which
the underlying construction permits are issued after July 13, 2009), if
the licensee changes the information required by 10 CFR 50.34(b)(12) to
be included in the FSAR, then the licensee shall consider the effect of
the changed feature or capability on the original assessment required
by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and amend the information required by 10 CFR
50.34(b)(12) to be included in the FSAR to describe how the modified
design features and functional capabilities continue to meet the
assessment requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
Paragraph (c)(3) provides that, for design certifications which are
subject to the aircraft impact rule, generic changes to the information
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR are governed
by the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 52.63. A design feature or
functional capability described in a standard design certification may
not be changed in the design certification except by notice and comment
rulemaking (see 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) and (2)), and such a change must
meet one of the criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). Any generic change to a
design certification rule must be implemented by all referencing
combined licenses, as required by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3).
Paragraph (c)(4)(i) provides that, for combined licenses which are
subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a) (i.e., combined licenses that do not
reference a design certification, design approval, or
[[Page 28133]]
manufactured reactor that complies with the rule), if the licensee
changes the information required by 10 CFR 52.79(a)(47) to be included
in the FSAR, then the licensee shall consider the effect of the changed
feature or capability on the original assessment required by 10 CFR
50.150 and amend the information required by 10 CFR 52.79(a)(47) to be
included in the FSAR to describe how the modified design features and
functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment requirements in
10 CFR 50.150(a)(1). The NRC believes that, because this rule addresses
a beyond-design-basis event, it is appropriate to apply the same
standard that was applied during the original assessment of design
features and functional capabilities to any licensee-proposed changes
to such features and capabilities.
Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) provides that, for combined license applicants
or holders which are not subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a), but reference a
standard design certification which is subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a),
proposed departures from the information required by 10 CFR
52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR for the referenced standard
design certification are governed by the change control requirements in
the applicable design certification rule. The NRC expects to add a new
change control provision to future design certification rules subject
to 10 CFR 50.150(a) (including amendments to any of the four existing
design certifications) to govern combined license applicants and
holders referencing the design certification that request a departure
from the design features or functional capabilities in the referenced
design certification. The new change control provision will require
that, if the applicant or licensee changes the information required by
10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR for the standard design
certification, then the applicant or licensee shall consider the effect
of the changed feature or capability on the original assessment
required by 10 CFR 50.150(a). The applicant or licensee must also
describe in a change to the FSAR (i.e., a plant-specific departure from
the generic design control document), how the modified design features
and functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment
requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
Paragraph (c)(4)(iii) provides that, for combined license
applicants or holders which are not subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a) but
reference a manufactured reactor which is subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a),
proposed departures from the information required by 10 CFR
52.157(f)(32) to be included in the FSAR for the manufacturing license
are governed by the applicable requirements in 10 CFR 52.171(b)(2).
Paragraph (b)(2) of 10 CFR 52.171 allows an applicant or licensee who
references or uses a nuclear power reactor manufactured under a
manufacturing license under this subpart to request a departure from
the design characteristics, site parameters, terms and conditions, or
approved design of the manufactured reactor. The Commission may grant a
request only if it determines that the departure will comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 52.7 and that the special circumstances outweigh
any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in
standardization caused by the departure.
Paragraph (c)(5)(i) provides that, for manufacturing licenses which
are subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a), generic changes to the information
required by 10 CFR 52.157(f)(32) to be included in the FSAR are
governed by the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 52.171. Paragraph
(b)(1) of 10 CFR 52.171 does not allow the holder of a manufacturing
license to make changes to the design of the nuclear power reactor
authorized to be manufactured without prior Commission approval. Any
request for a change to the design must be in the form of an
application for a license amendment, and must meet the requirements of
10 CFR 50.90 and 10 CFR 50.92.
Paragraph (c)(5)(ii) provides that, for manufacturing license
applicants or holders which are subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a), proposed
departures from the information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be
included in the FSAR for the referenced standard design certification
are governed by the change control requirements in the applicable
design certification rule.
Section 52.47 Contents of Applications; Technical Information
Section 52.47 identifies the required technical information to be
included in an application for a standard design certification. The
final rule revises this section by adding a new paragraph (a)(28)
requiring that the FSAR contain the information required by 10 CFR
50.150, ``Aircraft impact assessment.'' This information, as contained
in paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 50.150, is:
1. A description of the design features and functional capabilities
identified in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1); and
2. A description of how such design features and functional
capabilities meet the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
The 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) requirement applies only to those standard
design certification applications which are subject to 10 CFR 50.150,
that is, those design certifications issued after the effective date of
the final rule (see 10 CFR 50.150(a)). Thus, any standard design
certification application that is docketed and under review by the NRC
but has not yet been issued in final form as of the effective date of
10 CFR 50.150 must amend its application to include the information
required by 10 CFR 50.150.
Section 52.59 Criteria for Renewal
Section 52.59 establishes the criteria which must be met in order
for the NRC to renew a standard design certification. The final rule
revises paragraph (a) by adding a requirement that the Commission
shall, the first time one of the four existing design certifications is
to be renewed, find that the renewed design complies with the
applicable requirements of the aircraft impact rule if the design
certification has not already been amended to comply with the aircraft
impact rule. This finding would be in addition to the (implicit)
findings which the Commission must make under paragraph (a). The
findings need only be made the first time the design certification is
renewed. Once the design certification has been amended or renewed to
reflect compliance with the aircraft impact rule, there is no need for
the NRC to remake the finding of compliance with the aircraft impact
rule nor does the design or the assessment have to be upgraded for
purposes of aircraft impact rule compliance in any subsequent amendment
or renewal.
Section 52.79 Contents of Applications; Technical Information in Final
Safety Analysis Report
Section 52.79 identifies the required technical information to be
included in an FSAR submitted in a combined license application under
10 CFR part 52, subpart C, Combined Licenses. The final rule revises
this section by adding a new paragraph (a)(47) requiring that the FSAR
contain the information required by 10 CFR 50.150. This is the same
type of information that an applicant for a standard design
certification will need to submit, namely, the following:
1. A description of the design features and functional capabilities
identified in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1); and
2. A description of how such design features and functional
capabilities meet the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
[[Page 28134]]
Only those combined licenses issued after the effective date of the
final rule that do not reference a standard design certification,
standard design approval, or manufactured reactor, or that reference a
standard design certification issued before the effective date of the
final rule which has not been amended to address the requirements of 10
CFR 50.150, are subject to 10 CFR 52.79(a)(47). Thus, a combined
license application filed after the effective date of 10 CFR 50.150 and
referencing a standard design certification, standard design approval,
or manufactured reactor subject to the proposed rule, or referencing
one of the four current standard design certifications (ABWR, System
80+, AP600, and AP1000) which has been amended to address the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.150 will not have to separately include the
information required by 10 CFR 50.150 because it will be incorporated
by reference to the standard design or manufactured reactor. This is
consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.79(c), (d), and (e) which
state that, if the combined license application references a standard
design certification, standard design approval, or manufactured
reactor, then the FSAR need not contain information or analyses
submitted to the Commission in connection with the design
certification, design approval, or manufacturing license, as
applicable. By contrast, a combined license applicant not referencing a
standard design certification, standard design approval, or
manufactured reactor whose application is docketed and under review by
the NRC but for which a license has not yet been issued as of the
effective date of 10 CFR 50.150, must amend its application to include
the information required by 10 CFR 50.150.
Section 52.137 Contents of Applications; Technical Information
Section 52.137 identifies the required technical information to be
included in an application for a standard design approval. The final
rule revises this section by adding a new paragraph (a)(26) requiring
that the FSAR contain the information required by 10 CFR 50.150. This
information, as currently presented in paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 50.150
is:
1. A description of the design features and functional capabilities
identified in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1); and
2. A description of how such design features and functional
capabilities meet the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
The 10 CFR 52.137(a)(26) requirement applies only to those standard
design approval applications which are subject to 10 CFR 50.150, that
is, those design approvals issued after the effective date of the final
rule (see 10 CFR 50.150(a)). Thus, any standard design approval
application that is docketed and under review by the NRC but has not
yet been issued in final form as of the effective date of 10 CFR 50.150
must amend its application to include the information required by final
10 CFR 50.150.
Section 52.157 Contents of Applications; Technical Information in Final
Safety Analysis Report
Section 52.157 identifies the required technical information to be
included in an application for a manufacturing license. The final rule
revises this section by adding a new paragraph (f)(32) requiring that
the FSAR contain the information required by 10 CFR 50.150. This
information, as currently presented in paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 50.150,
is limited to the following:
1. A description of the design features and functional capabilities
identified in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1); and
2. A description of how such design features and functional
capabilities meet the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
The 10 CFR 52.157(f)(32) requirement applies only to those
manufacturing license applications which are subject to 10 CFR
50.150(a)(1), that is, those manufacturing licenses that do not
reference a design certification or design approval complying with 10
CFR 50.150. Thus, any manufacturing license application that is
docketed and under review by the NRC but has not yet been issued in
final form as of the effective date of 10 CFR 50.150 must amend its
application to include the information required by 10 CFR 50.150.
VIII. Guidance
The NRC staff expects to issue new regulatory guidance on the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.150 that will endorse guidance being prepared
by NEI. This guidance is intended to provide an acceptable method by
which relevant applicants can perform the assessment of aircraft
impacts to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150. The final rule
requires that the design-specific impact assessment use the aircraft
impact characteristics specified in the rule. A more detailed
description of the aircraft impact parameters that are considered
appropriate for use in the assessment will be presented in the NRC's
regulatory guidance. Any future changes to the detailed parameters on
aircraft impact characteristics set forth in the guidance will be
approved by the Commission. Because the portion of this regulatory
guidance describing the detailed aircraft impact characteristics is
likely to contain SGI, that portion of the document will only be made
available to those individuals with a need-to-know, and who are
otherwise qualified to have access to SGI. A version of the document
without the SGI will be made publicly available. Publication of the
draft regulatory guidance is planned to coincide with publication of
the final rule.
IX. Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the following documents available to interested
persons through one or more of the following methods as indicated.
Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC PDR is located at 11555
Rockville Pike, Public File Area O1 F21, Rockville, Maryland 20852, e-
mail [email protected].
Regulations.gov (Web). These documents may be viewed and downloaded
electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number NRC-2007-0009.
NRC's Electronic Reading Room (ERR). The NRC's public electronic
reading room is located at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document PDR Web ERR (ADAMS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECY-06-0204, ``Proposed Rulemaking--Security Assessment X X ML062300068
Requirements for New Nuclear Power Reactor Designs (RIN
3150-AH92)'' (September 28, 2006).
Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-06-0204 (April 24, X X ML071140119
2007).
Regulatory History Index for the October 3, 2007 proposed X X ML073511644
rule.
Federal Register Notice.................................. X X ML090220527
Environmental Assessment................................. X X ML090610123
Response to Public Comments.............................. X X ML090610124
SECY-08-0152, ``Final Rule--Consideration of Aircraft X X ML082670873
Impacts for New Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AI19)''
(October 15, 2008).
[[Page 28135]]
Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-08-0152 (February X X ML090480610
17, 2009).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X. Agreement State Compatibility
Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement States Programs,'' approved by the Commission on June 20,
1997, and published in the Federal Register (62 FR 46517; September 3,
1997), this rule is classified as compatibility ``NRC.'' Compatibility
is not required for Category ``NRC'' regulations. The NRC program
elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of
regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act or the
provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program
elements reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of
certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the
particular State's administrative procedure laws. Category ``NRC''
regulations do not confer regulatory authority on the State.
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC
is amending its regulations to require applicants for new nuclear power
reactors to perform a design-specific assessment of the effects of the
impact of a large, commercial aircraft. The applicant is required to
use realistic analyses to identify and incorporate design features and
functional capabilities to show, with reduced use of operator actions,
that either the reactor core remains cooled or the containment remains
intact, and either spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is
maintained. These requirements apply to applicants for new construction
permits; new operating licenses that reference a new construction
permit; new standard design certifications, renewal of any of the four
existing design certifications if the design has not previously been
amended to comply with the final rule; new standard design approvals;
manufacturing licenses that do not reference a standard design
certification or standard design approval, or that reference a standard
design certification issued before the effective date of the rule which
has not been amended to comply with the rule; and combined licenses
that do not reference a standard design certification, standard design
approval, or manufactured reactor, or that reference a standard design
certification issued before the effective date of the rule which has
not been amended to comply with the rule. In addition, these amendments
contain requirements for control of changes to any design features or
functional capabilities credited for showing that the facility can
withstand the effects of an aircraft impact. This regulatory action
does not establish standards with which all applicants must comply. For
these reasons, the Commission concludes that this action does not
constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally
applicable requirements.
XII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in
subpart A to 10 CFR part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
and, therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not
required. As presented in the final environmental assessment, this
action will not have a significant environmental impact because it
applies only to applicants for new nuclear power reactors and requires
them to use realistic analyses to identify and incorporate design
features and functional capabilities to show, with reduced use of
operator actions, that either the reactor core remains cooled or the
containment remains intact, and either spent fuel cooling or spent fuel
pool integrity is maintained, and because the standards and
requirements applicable to radiological releases and effluents are not
affected by this rulemaking.
The NRC requested public comments on any aspect of the
environmental assessment. Three public comments were received that
discussed the need for the preparation of an EIS for the aircraft
impact rulemaking. The NRC responded that because the adoption of this
rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting
the environment, an EIS was not prepared for this rulemaking. The NRC
also requested the views of the States on the environmental assessment
for this rule. No State comments were received. Availability of the
final environmental assessment is provided in Section IX of this
document.
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The final rule contains new or amended information collection
requirements contained in 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 that are subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These
requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget,
approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0151.
The burden to the public for these information collections is
estimated to average 2,186.7 hours per response. This includes the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
information collection. Send comments on any aspect of these
information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden,
to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet
electronic mail to [email protected]; and to the Desk
Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202,
(3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
XIV. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final rule and
has included it in this Federal Register document. The analysis
examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the
NRC. No public comments were received on the proposed regulatory
analysis.
1. Statement of the Problem and Objective
This final rule amends 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 52 to require
applicants for new nuclear power reactors to
[[Page 28136]]
perform a design-specific assessment of the effects of the impact of a
large, commercial aircraft. The applicant is required to use realistic
analyses to identify and incorporate design features and functional
capabilities to show, with reduced use of operator actions, that either
the reactor core remains cooled or the containment remains intact, and
either spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained.
These requirements apply to applicants for new construction permits;
new operating licenses that reference a new construction permit; new
standard design certifications; renewal of any of the four existing
design certifications if the design has not previously been amended to
comply with the final rule; new standard design approvals;
manufacturing licenses that do not reference a standard design
certification or standard design approval, or that reference a standard
design certification issued before the effective date of the rule which
has not been amended to comply with the rule; and combined licenses
that don't reference a standard design certification, standard design
approval, or manufactured reactor, or that reference a standard design
certification issued before the effective date of the rule which has
not been amended to comply with the rule. In addition, these amendments
contain requirements for control of changes to any design features or
functional capabilities credited for showing that the facility can
withstand the effects of an aircraft impact. The objective of this rule
is to require nuclear power plant designers to perform a rigorous
assessment of the design to identify design features and functional
capabilities that could provide additional inherent protection to show,
with reduced use of operator actions, that either the reactor core
remains cooled or the containment remains intact, and either spent fuel
cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained.
2. Identification of Regulatory Alternatives
The only alternative considered was to conduct a rulemaking to
require applicants to perform an aircraft impact assessment on new
nuclear power reactors because the Commission directed the NRC staff in
a staff requirements memorandum dated April 24, 2007, to revise the
regulations. However, the NRC considers the no-action alternative as
the baseline from which to measure the costs and benefits of the final
rule.
The regulations in 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 52 are being
amended for applicants for new nuclear power reactors to require these
applicants to perform a design-specific assessment of the effects of
the impact of a large, commercial aircraft. Applicants for new nuclear
power reactors are required to use realistic analyses to identify and
incorporate design features and functional capabilities to show, with
reduced use of operator actions, that either the reactor core remains
cooled or the containment remains intact, and either spent fuel cooling
or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. This rule should result in
new nuclear power reactor facilities being more inherently robust with
regard to an aircraft impact than if they were designed in the absence
of this final rule.
3. Analysis of Values and Impacts of Final Rulemaking
3.1 Identification of Affected Attributes
The NRC identified the attributes that the regulatory action could
affect by using the list of potential attributes provided in Chapter 5
of NUREG/BR-0184, ``Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation
Handbook,'' issued January 1997. Affected attributes include the
following:
Public Health (Accident). The regulatory action will reduce the
risk that public health will be affected by the release of radioactive
materials to the environment from the impact of a large, commercial
aircraft on a nuclear power plant.
Occupational Health (Accident). The regulatory action will reduce
the risk that occupational health will be affected by the release of
radioactive materials to the environment from the impact of a large,
commercial aircraft on a nuclear power plant.
Offsite Property. The regulatory action will reduce the risk that
offsite property will be affected by the release of radioactive
materials to the environment from the impact of a large, commercial
aircraft on a nuclear power plant.
Onsite Property. The regulatory action will reduce the risk that
onsite property will be affected by the release of radioactive
materials to the environment from the impact of a large, commercial
aircraft on a nuclear power plant.
Industry Implementation. The regulatory action will require
applicants for new nuclear power reactors to perform a design-specific
assessment of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial
aircraft. Applicants for new nuclear power reactors are required to use
realistic analyses to identify and incorporate design features and
functional capabilities to show, with reduced use of operator actions,
that either the reactor core remains cooled or the containment remains
intact, and either spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is
maintained. Applicants will incur costs to develop an SGI program,
perform the assessment, and incorporate the results into the design.
Industry Operation. The regulatory action will require applicants
and licensees for new nuclear power reactors to retain the aircraft
impact assessment throughout the pendency of the application and for
the term of the certification or license (including any period of
renewal). Applicants and licensees will incur costs to retain the
assessment and supporting documentation.
NRC Implementation. Under the regulatory action, the NRC will incur
costs to develop guidance on performing an aircraft impact assessment
and to review the actions taken by the applicant to comply with the
aircraft impact rule.
Improvements in Knowledge. The regulatory action will improve
knowledge with regard to an aircraft impact by ensuring that nuclear
power plant designers perform a rigorous assessment of the design to
identify design features and functional capabilities that could provide
additional inherent protection to withstand the effects of an aircraft
impact.
Safeguards and Security Considerations. The regulatory action to
address the capability of new nuclear power reactors relative to an
aircraft impact is based both on enhanced public health and safety and
enhanced common defense and security, but is not necessary for adequate
protection. Rather, this rule's goal is to enhance the facility's
inherent robustness at the design stage.
3.2 Methodology
This section describes the process used to evaluate benefits and
costs associated with the regulatory action. The benefits (values) come
from any desirable changes in the affected attributes which are solely
qualitative for the regulatory action; the costs (impacts or burdens)
come from any undesirable changes in the affected attributes (e.g.,
monetary costs, increased exposures). As described in Section 3.1 of
this regulatory analysis, the attributes expected to be affected
include public health (accident), occupational health (accident),
offsite property, onsite property, industry implementation, industry
operation, NRC implementation, improvements in knowledge, and
safeguards and security considerations.
[[Page 28137]]
When possible, a cost-benefit analysis quantifies the overall costs
and benefits of the regulatory options relative to each of these
attributes. This analysis relies on a qualitative evaluation of several
of the affected attributes (public health, occupational health, offsite
property, onsite property, improvements in knowledge, and safeguards
and security considerations) because of the difficulty in quantifying
the impact of this rulemaking. The regulatory action will affect these
attributes through the associated reduction in the risks of aircraft
impact damage to the plant resulting in the inability to maintain
either reactor core cooling or an intact containment, and either spent
fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity.
The remaining attributes (industry implementation, industry
operation, and NRC implementation) are evaluated quantitatively.
Quantitative analysis requires a characterization of the universe,
including factors such as the number of applicants and the scope of the
aircraft impact assessment being performed. The NRC analyzed
incremental costs and benefits of the regulatory action relative to the
baseline (i.e., the no-action alternative described in Section 2 of
this regulatory analysis).
Under OMB guidance and NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, ``Regulatory
Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'' issued
September 2004, the results of the cost analysis are presented as
discounted flows of funds using 3- and 7-percent real discount rates.
3.3 Data
The NRC derived information from industry announcements on the
estimated number of applications submitted for a new standard design
certification, renewal of an existing design certification, and a
combined license that references a currently approved standard design
certification. Data used was obtained during September 2008. The NRC
staff applied its professional judgment in this analysis given the
uncertainty in the number of applications for a new construction
permit; new operating license; new standard design approval;
manufacturing license that does not reference a standard design
certification or standard design approval, or that references a
standard design certification issued before the effective date of the
rule which has not been amended to comply with the rule; and combined
license that does not reference a standard design certification,
standard design approval, or manufactured reactor, or that references a
standard design certification issued before the effective date of the
rule which has not been amended to comply with the rule.
3.4 Assumptions
The regulatory action will apply only to applicants for new
construction permits; new operating licenses that reference a new
construction permit; new standard design certifications, renewal of any
of the four existing design certifications if the design has not
previously been amended to comply with the final rule; new standard
design approvals; manufacturing licenses that don't reference a
standard design certification or standard design approval, or that
reference a standard design certification issued before the effective
date of the rule which has not been amended to comply with the rule;
and combined licenses that don't reference a standard design
certification, standard design approval, or manufactured reactor, or
that reference a standard design certification issued before the
effective date of the rule which has not been amended to comply with
the rule. It will not apply to a construction permit, operating
license, standard design approval, or standard design certification
(except at renewal) issued before the effective date of the final rule.
3.5 Analysis
For Sections 3.5.1 through 3.5.10, the cost-benefit analysis of the
regulatory action is based on the assumed number of applicants in each
category. In each case, industry will incur both implementation and
operation costs. Furthermore, because all of the benefits are measured
qualitatively in this analysis, only costs are included in these
subsections.
This analysis uses $100 and $105 per hour for NRC and industry
staff rates, respectively. In the analysis done for the proposed rule,
an NRC hourly staff rate of $105 was used. This value was recently
revised to account for the changing composition of the NRC staff and
re-baselining of estimates of hours for training, annual leave, etc. In
addition, the NRC has reassessed the cost to purchase an appropriate
SGI container and lock. This analysis uses $1,200, rather than the
$2,500 used for the proposed rule analysis.
The annual results are derived as present values using the 3- and
7-percent discount rates as described in Appendix B to NUREG/BR-0184.
3.5.1 Construction Permit Applications
Under the regulatory action, an applicant for a new construction
permit will need to comply with the requirements for an aircraft impact
assessment in 10 CFR 50.150. However, the NRC staff concludes that it
is unlikely that a request for a new construction permit will be
submitted to the NRC for approval during the next 20 years. Therefore,
no cost-benefit analysis is needed for a construction permit.
3.5.2 Operating License Applications
Under the regulatory action, an applicant for a new operating
license will need to comply with the requirements for an aircraft
impact assessment in 10 CFR 50.150. However, the NRC staff concludes
that it is unlikely that a request for a new operating license will be
submitted to the NRC for approval during the next 20 years. Therefore,
no cost-benefit analysis is needed for an operating license.
3.5.3 Standard Design Certification Applications
In implementing the regulatory action, standard design
certification applicants will incur one-time costs to develop an SGI
program; purchase an appropriate SGI storage container and lock;
perform the aircraft impact assessment; and identify and incorporate
into the design those design features and functional capabilities that
show, with reduced use of operator action, that the facility can
withstand the effects of an aircraft impact. The NRC estimates that
each applicant will spend 120 hours to develop the SGI program. Using
the assumed staff rate of $105 per hour, the one-time cost of
developing the SGI program will be $13,000 per applicant (120 hours x
$105/hour). The NRC also estimates it will cost $1,200 to purchase an
appropriate SGI storage container and lock. Finally, the NRC estimates
it will take an applicant 24 staff-months for a one-time cost of
$400,000 (24 staff-months x 4 weeks/month x 40 hours/week x $105/hour)
per application to complete the assessment and incorporate the results
into the design. Thus, the one-time cost for an applicant to implement
the regulatory action is estimated to be $415,000.
For the standard design certification process, this analysis
assumes that three applications will be affected by the final rule in
the year that the rule is promulgated (i.e., year 0), and thereafter,
one application will be submitted every 4 years at years 4, 8, 12, 16,
and 20. Table 1 shows the discounted flow of funds (using 3- and 7-
percent discount rates) of the total industry implementation costs for
[[Page 28138]]
standard design certification applications over a 20-year period.
With respect to industry operational costs, there will be
recordkeeping costs for retention of the assessment and supporting
documentation. The NRC will require standard design certification
applicants to retain these records throughout the pendency of the
application and for the term of the certification (including any period
of renewal). For this analysis, it is assumed that it takes 4 years for
the Commission to adopt the application as a final standard design
certification rule, after which the records are retained by the
applicant for 15 years as required by the standard design certification
rule. No renewal of the standard design certification rule is
considered for this analysis. Thus, the records are retained for a
total of 19 years. In addition, it is assumed that an applicant spends
3 hours per year to maintain the records. The estimated annual cost for
recordkeeping is $315 per applicant (3 hours x $105/hour). Table 2
shows the discounted flow of funds of the recordkeeping costs (using 3-
and 7-percent discount rates) for applications submitted over a 20-year
period, using the schedule discussed previously.
After a standard design certification is adopted by the NRC, any
change to a design feature or functional capability credited for
complying with the aircraft impact rule will require that the applicant
or licensee consider the effect of the changed feature or capability on
the original assessment. The applicant or licensee must amend the
information included in the FSAR to describe how the modified design
feature or functional capability continues to meet the assessment
requirements in the aircraft impact rule. However, the NRC staff
concludes that after a standard design certification is adopted, it is
unlikely that any changes will be made to design features or functional
capabilities credited for complying with the aircraft impact rule.
Therefore, no industry cost analysis is needed for this portion of the
regulatory action.
Under the final rule, any combined license applicant referencing a
design certification that complies with the requirements of this final
rule will not have to perform an aircraft impact assessment.
Table 1--Summary of Industry Implementation Costs for Standard Design Certification Applicants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation costs
Number of -------------------------------------
Year standard design Using 7-percent Using 3-percent
certification discount rate discount rate
applications ($1,000) ($1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................................................... 3 1,200 1,200
4...................................................... 1 320 370
8...................................................... 1 240 330
12..................................................... 1 180 290
16..................................................... 1 140 260
20..................................................... 1 110 230
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 8 2,190 2,680
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Summary of Industry Operating Costs for Standard Design Certification Applicants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating costs
Number of ---------------------------------------
Year* standard design Using 7-percent Using 3-percent
certification discount rate discount rate
applications ($1,000) ($1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................................................... 3 9.8 14
4.................................................... 1 2.5 4
8.................................................... 1 1.9 3.6
12................................................... 1 1.4 3.2
16................................................... 1 1.1 2.8
20................................................... 1 0.84 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 8 17.54 30.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Analysis assumes that it takes 4 years for the Commission to adopt the application as a final standard design
certification rule, after which the records are retained by the applicant for 15 years.
3.5.4 Applications for Renewal of Any of the Four Existing Design
Certifications if the Design Has Not Previously Been Amended To Comply
With the Final Rule
Under the regulatory action, an applicant for renewal of any of the
four existing design certifications which has not previously been
amended to comply with the final aircraft impact rule will need to
comply with the requirements of an aircraft assessment in 10 CFR
50.150. The NRC is expecting one application for renewal of one of the
four existing design certifications that will be required to comply
with the final rule to be submitted in the year after the rule is
promulgated (i.e., year 1).
This analysis assumes that the applicant for renewal has an
existing SGI program and an appropriate SGI storage container and lock;
resulting in no related costs to implement the regulatory action.
However, in implementing the regulatory action, the applicant will
incur one-time costs to perform the aircraft impact assessment and
identify and incorporate into the design those design features and
functional capabilities to show, with reduced use of operator action,
that the facility can withstand the effects of an aircraft impact. The
NRC estimates it will take this applicant 24 staff-months for a one-
time cost of $400,000 (24 staff-months x 4 weeks/month x 40 hours/week
x $105/hour) to complete the assessment and incorporate the results
[[Page 28139]]
into the design. No other costs associated with the application are
considered for this analysis (i.e., overall costs to do the
administrative work to prepare and submit other portions of the
application). Thus the one-time cost for this applicant to implement
the regulatory action is estimated to be $400,000. For one application
submitted in the year after the rule is promulgated, the discounted
flow of funds of the implementation costs are $390,000 and $370,000
using 3- and 7-percent discount rates respectively.
With respect to industry operational costs, there will be
recordkeeping costs for retention of the assessment and supporting
documentation. The NRC will require applicants for renewal of an
existing design certification to retain these records throughout the
pendency of the application and for the term of the certification. For
this analysis, it is assumed that it takes 3 years for the Commission
to adopt the application for renewal as a final design certification
rule, after which the records are retained by the applicant for 15
years as will be required by the standard design certification rule. No
subsequent renewal of the standard design certification rule is
considered for this analysis. Thus, the records are retained for a
total of 18 years. In addition, it is assumed that an applicant spends
3 hours per year to maintain the records. The estimated annual cost for
recordkeeping is $315 per applicant (3 hours x $105/hour). Thus, the
discounted flow of funds of the recordkeeping costs for one application
is $4,200 and $3,000 using 3- and 7-percent discount rates
respectively.
After a renewal of an existing design certification is adopted by
the NRC, any change to a design feature or functional capability
credited for complying with the aircraft impact rule will require that
the applicant or licensee consider the effect of the changed feature or
capability on the original assessment. The applicant must describe how
the modified design feature or functional capability continues to meet
the assessment requirements in the aircraft impact rule. However, the
NRC staff concludes that after the renewal is adopted, it is unlikely
that any changes will be made to design features or functional
capabilities credited for complying with the aircraft impact rule.
Therefore, no industry cost analysis is needed for this portion of the
regulatory action.
The total industry cost is the sum of the implementation and
operation costs. The implementation cost is the present value of the
assumed one application ($400,000) which when discounted is $390,000
(using a 3-percent discount rate) and $370,000 (using a 7-percent
discount rate). The operating costs are $4,200 and $3,000 using the 3-
and 7-percent discount rates as shown above. Therefore, the total
discounted industry costs are $394,200 and $373,200 using 3- and 7-
percent discount rates, respectively.
3.5.5 Standard Design Approval Applications
Under the regulatory action, an applicant for a new standard design
approval will need to comply with the requirements for an aircraft
impact assessment in 10 CFR 50.150. However, the NRC staff concludes
that it is unlikely that a request for a new standard design will be
submitted to the NRC for approval during the next 20 years. Therefore,
no cost-benefit analysis is needed for a standard design approval.
3.5.6 Combined License Applications Not Referencing a Standard Design
Certification, Standard Design Approval, or Manufactured Reactor
Although the NRC concludes that there is a low probability of a
combined license applicant not referencing a standard design
certification, standard design approval, or manufactured reactor, this
analysis assumes that one application will be submitted to the NRC in
year 10 following promulgation of the rule.
In implementing the regulatory action, combined license applicants
will incur one-time costs to develop an SGI program; purchase an
appropriate SGI storage container and lock; perform the aircraft impact
assessment; and identify and incorporate into the design those design
features and functional capabilities to show, with reduced use of
operator action, that the facility can withstand the effects of an
aircraft impact. The NRC estimates that each applicant will spend 120
hours to develop the SGI program. Assuming a staff rate of $105 per
hour, the one-time cost of developing the SGI program will be $13,000
per applicant (120 hours x $105/hour). The NRC also estimates it will
cost $1,200 to purchase an appropriate SGI storage container and lock.
Finally, the NRC estimates it will take an applicant 24 staff-months
for a one-time cost of $400,000 (24 staff-months x 4 weeks/month x 40
hours/week x $105/hour) per application to complete the assessment and
incorporate the results into the design. Thus, the one-time cost for an
applicant to implement the regulatory action is estimated to be
$415,000. For one application submitted in year 10, following
promulgation of the rule, the discounted flow of funds of the
implementation costs are $310,000 and $210,000 using 3- and 7-percent
discount rates, respectively.
With respect to industry operational costs, there will be
recordkeeping costs for retention of the assessment and supporting
documentation. The NRC will require that these records be retained
throughout the pendency of the application and for the term of the
license (including any period of renewal). For this analysis, it is
assumed that it takes 4 years for the Commission to approve the
application, after which the records are retained by the licensee for
60 years (initial 40-year license period plus a 20-year renewal
period), at which time the Commission terminates the facility license.
The records are retained for a total of 64 years. In addition, it is
assumed that an applicant spends 3 hours per year to maintain the
records. The estimated annual cost for recordkeeping is $315 per
applicant (3 hours x $105/hour). Thus, the discounted flow of funds of
the recordkeeping costs for one application is $6,000 and $2,200 using
3- and 7-percent discount rates, respectively.
After a combined license application is approved by the NRC, any
change to a design feature or functional capability credited for
complying with the aircraft impact rule will require that the licensee
consider the effect of the changed feature or capability on the
original assessment. The applicant must describe how the modified
design feature or functional capability continues to meet the
assessment requirements in the aircraft impact rule. However, the NRC
staff concludes that after a combined license is issued, it is unlikely
that a licensee will make any changes to design features or functional
capabilities credited at the application stage. Therefore, no industry
cost analysis is needed for this portion of the regulatory action.
The total industry cost is the sum of the implementation and
operation costs. The implementation cost is the present value of the
assumed one application ($415,000) which when discounted is $310,000
(using a 3-percent discount rate) and $210,000 (using a 7-percent
discount rate). The operating costs are $6,000 and $2,200 using the 3-
and 7-percent discount rates as shown above. Therefore, the total
discounted industry costs are $316,000 and $212,200 using 3- and 7-
percent discount rates, respectively.
[[Page 28140]]
3.5.7 Combined License Applications Referencing a Standard Design
Certification Issued Before the Effective Date of the Rule Which Has
Not Been Amended To Comply With the Rule
Under the regulatory action, an applicant for a combined license
that references one of the four currently approved design
certifications must comply with the rule. At present, the NRC is aware
of only two of the currently approved designs that are planned to be
referenced in combined license applications. For one of these certified
designs, the AP1000, the original applicant has voluntarily submitted
to the NRC an amendment that it believes will comply with the
requirements of the aircraft impact rule. If the NRC approves the
amendment as meeting the aircraft impact rule, then any combined
license applicants referencing the recertified design will not be
required to perform an aircraft impact assessment. Furthermore, this
analysis assumes that after the combined license application is
approved, the licensee makes no changes to a design feature or
functional capability credited by the design certification for
complying with the aircraft impact rule. Therefore, no cost-benefit
analysis is needed for combined license applications that reference the
recertified AP1000 design.
Regarding the other currently approved design certification that is
being referenced in at least one combined license application, the NRC
is not aware of any plans by the original applicant to submit an
application to amend the certification to comply with the requirements
of the aircraft impact rule, prior to the renewal of the certification.
The NRC has received one combined license application referencing this
certified design, and it is expected that this final rule will be
effective before the NRC makes a decision on the combined license
application. Therefore, the combined license applicant will be required
to amend their application to comply with the requirements of the
aircraft impact rule if the referenced design certification is not
amended to comply with the rule during the pendency of the combined
license application.
In implementing the regulatory action, the NRC is assuming that the
combined license applicant will submit an amendment to their
application to comply with the aircraft impact rule. In doing so, this
combined license applicant will incur one-time costs to develop an SGI
program; purchase an appropriate SGI storage container and lock;
perform the aircraft impact assessment; and identify and incorporate
into the design those design features and functional capabilities to
show, with reduced use of operator action, that the facility can
withstand the effects of an aircraft impact. The NRC estimates that
this applicant will spend 120 hours to develop the SGI program.
Assuming a staff rate of $105 per hour, the one-time cost of developing
the SGI program will be $13,000 (120 hours x $105/hour). The NRC also
estimates it will cost $1,200 to purchase an appropriate SGI storage
container and lock. Finally, the NRC estimates it will take this
applicant 24 staff-months for a one-time cost of $400,000 (24 staff-
months x 4 weeks/month x 40 hours/week x $105/hour) to complete the
assessment and incorporate the results into the design. Thus, the one-
time cost for this applicant to implement the regulatory action is
estimated to be $415,000. This analysis assumes that the application
will be affected by the final rule in the year that the rule is
promulgated (i.e., year 0), and therefore, the discounted flow of funds
of the implementation costs is $415,000 using either 3- or 7-percent
discount rates.
With respect to industry operational costs, there will be
recordkeeping costs for retention of the assessment and supporting
documentation. The NRC will require that these records be retained
throughout the pendency of the application and for the term of the
license (including any period of renewal). For this analysis, it is
assumed that it takes 4 years for the Commission to approve the
application, after which the records are retained by the licensee for
60 years (initial 40-year license period plus a 20-year renewal
period), at which time the Commission terminates the facility license.
The records are retained for a total of 64 years. In addition, it is
assumed that an applicant spends 3 hours per year to maintain the
records. The estimated annual cost for recordkeeping is $315 per
applicant (3 hours x $105/hour). Thus, the discounted flow of funds of
the recordkeeping costs for one application is $8,100 and $4,300 using
3- and 7-percent discount rates, respectively.
After a combined license application is approved by the NRC, any
change to a design feature or functional capability credited for
complying with the aircraft impact rule will require that the licensee
consider the effect of the changed feature or capability on the
original assessment. The applicant must describe how the modified
design feature or functional capability continues to meet the
assessment requirements in the aircraft impact rule. However, the NRC
concludes that after a combined license is approved, it is unlikely
that a licensee will make any changes to design features or functional
capabilities credited in the design at the application stage.
Therefore, no industry cost analysis is needed for this portion of the
regulatory action.
The total industry cost is the sum of the implementation and
operation costs. The implementation cost is the present value of the
assumed one application ($415,000) which when discounted is $415,000
(using either 3-or 7-percent discount rates). The operating costs are
$8,100 and $4,300 using the 3- and 7-percent discount rates as shown
above. Therefore, the total discounted industry costs are $423,100 and
$419,300 using 3- and 7-percent discount rates, respectively.
3.5.8 Manufacturing License Applications Not Referencing a Standard
Design Certification or Standard Design Approval
Although the NRC concludes that there is a low probability of a
manufacturing license application not referencing a standard design
certification or standard design approval, this analysis assumes that
one application will be submitted to the NRC in year 10 following
promulgation of the rule.
In implementing the regulatory action, manufacturing license
applicants will incur one-time costs to develop an SGI program;
purchase an appropriate SGI storage container and lock; perform the
aircraft impact assessment; and identify and incorporate into the
design those design features and functional capabilities to show, with
reduced use of operator action, that the facility can withstand the
effects of an aircraft impact. The NRC estimates that each applicant
will spend 120 hours to develop the SGI program. Assuming a staff rate
of $105 per hour, the one-time cost of developing the SGI program will
be $13,000 per applicant (120 hours x $105/hour). The NRC also
estimates it will cost $1,200 to purchase an appropriate SGI storage
container and lock. Finally, the NRC estimates it will take an
applicant 24 staff-months for a one-time cost of $400,000 (24 staff-
months x 4 weeks/month x 40 hours/week x $105/hour) per application to
complete the assessment and incorporate the results into the design.
Thus, the one-time cost for an applicant to implement the regulatory
action is estimated to be $415,000. For one application submitted in
year 10, following promulgation of the rule, the discounted flow of
funds of the implementation costs are $310,000 and
[[Page 28141]]
$210,000 using 3- and 7-percent discount rates, respectively.
With respect to industry operational costs, there will be
recordkeeping costs for retention of the assessment and supporting
documentation. The NRC will require that these records be retained
throughout the pendency of the application and for the term of the
license (including any period of renewal). For this analysis, it is
assumed that it takes 4 years for the Commission to approve the
application, after which the records are retained by the licensee for
15 years, at which time the Commission terminates the facility license.
The records are retained for a total of 19 years. In addition, it is
assumed that an applicant spends 3 hours per year to maintain the
records. The estimated annual cost for recordkeeping is $315 per
applicant (3 hours x $105/hour). Thus, the discounted flow of funds of
the recordkeeping costs for one application is $3,400 and $1,700 using
3- and 7-percent discount rates, respectively.
After a manufacturing license application is approved by the NRC,
any change to a design feature or functional capability credited for
avoiding or mitigating the effects of an aircraft impact will require
that the licensee consider the effect of the changed feature or
capability on the original assessment. The applicant must describe how
the modified design feature or functional capability continues to meet
the assessment requirements in the aircraft impact rule. However, the
NRC staff concludes that after a manufacturing license is approved, it
is unlikely that a licensee will make any changes to design features or
functional capabilities credited in the design at the application
stage. Therefore, no industry cost analysis is needed for this portion
of the regulatory action.
The total industry cost is the sum of the implementation and
operation costs. The implementation cost is the present value of the
assumed one application ($415,000) which when discounted is $310,000
(using a 3-percent discount rate) and $210,000 (using a 7-percent
discount rate). The operating costs are $3,400 and $1,700 using the 3-
and 7-percent discount rates as shown previously. Therefore, the total
discounted industry costs are $313,400 and $211,700 using 3- and 7-
percent discount rates, respectively.
3.5.9 Manufacturing License Applications Referencing a Standard Design
Certification Issued Before the Effective Date of the Rule Which Has
Not Been Amended To Comply With the Rule
Under the regulatory action, an applicant for a manufacturing
license who references one of the four currently approved design
certifications will need to comply with the requirements for an
aircraft impact assessment in 10 CFR 50.150. However, the NRC staff
concludes that it is unlikely that a request for a manufacturing
license referencing one of these four design certifications will be
submitted to the NRC for approval during the next 20 years. Therefore,
no cost-benefit analysis is needed for this type of manufacturing
license application.
3.5.10 NRC Implementation
Cost to Review the Applicant's Results. The NRC will incur costs to
review the actions taken by the applicant to comply with the aircraft
impact rule. The one-time cost for NRC verification of compliance with
the rule, consisting of reviewing the information submitted by each
applicant and onsite inspection of the assessment, is estimated to be
$125,000 (7.8 staff-months x 4 weeks/month x 40 hours/week x $100/
hour). As an example, the total NRC cost in the year that the rule is
promulgated (i.e., year 0), is the present value of the costs to review
the actions taken and assessments for three applications for a standard
design certification. The NRC staff estimates the cost to be $375,000
for the three applications. Table 3 shows the discounted flow of funds
(using 3- and 7-percent discount rates) of the NRC implementation costs
over 20 years to review the applications for a standard design
certification; renewal of an existing standard design certification;
combined license that does not reference a standard design
certification, standard design approval, or manufactured reactor;
combined license that references a standard design certification issued
before the effective date of the rule which has not been amended to
comply with the rule; and manufacturing license that does not reference
a standard design certification.
Cost to Renew an Existing Design Certification. The costs to the
NRC to conduct a rulemaking to adopt the renewal of an existing design
certification are not included in this analysis because they are not an
impact of this rule.
Cost to Develop Guidance. The NRC assumes that it will take about
3.0 full-time staff years to develop guidance to support implementation
of the regulatory action. The cost to develop guidance is estimated to
be $500,000.
Cost to Provide Training. The NRC will incur costs to develop a
training course to instruct NRC staff on the changes to 10 CFR parts 50
and 52. Assuming that it will take 20 staff-hours to develop the
training course, the cost is estimated to be $2,000 (20 staff-hours x
$100/hour). The cost to train 20 people for 2 hours, plus the
instructor's time of 2 hours is estimated to be $4,200 (21 people x 2
hours x $100/hour). The total cost to the NRC to provide training for
the regulatory action is estimated to be $6,000.
Table 3 shows the discounted flow of funds of the total NRC
implementation costs for the regulatory action over 20 years.
Table 3--Summary of NRC Implementation Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Implementation costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Using 7-percent Using 3-percent
Number reviewed Category * discount rate discount rate
($1,000) ($1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0................................ 3 DC.................. 375 375
0................................ 1 COL................. 125 125
1................................ 1 DC (renewal)........ 115 120
4................................ 1 DC.................. 95 110
8................................ 1 DC.................. 75 100
10............................... 1 COL................. 65 95
10............................... 1 ML.................. 65 95
12............................... 1 DC.................. 55 90
16............................... 1 DC.................. 40 80
[[Page 28142]]
20............................... 1 DC.................. 30 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to Review All Applications........................................... 1,040 1,260
Cost to Develop Guidance.................................................. 500 500
Cost to Provide Training.................................................. 6 6
���������������������������������������������������������������������������
Total (rounded)....................................................... 1,500 1,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DC = design certification. COL = combined license application. ML = manufacturing license application.
3.5.11 Impacts to Other Stakeholders
The NRC staff has not identified any impacts to other stakeholders
or the Agreement States. However, the action is expected to lead to an
increase in public confidence because nuclear power plant designers
will perform a rigorous assessment of design features and functional
capabilities that could provide additional inherent protection to
withstand the effects of an aircraft impact.
3.5.12 Qualitative Benefits of the Action
The benefits of the final rule can be evaluated only on a
qualitative basis. The analysis estimates that the action will result
in qualitative benefits in public health (accidental), occupational
health (accidental), offsite property, onsite property, improvements in
knowledge, and safeguards and security considerations.
Specifically, the benefits will include improvements in knowledge
because applicants for new nuclear power reactors will need to perform
a design-specific assessment of the effects of the impact of a large,
commercial aircraft. If the effects of an aircraft impact are not
assessed by nuclear power plant designers at the design stage, it will
be more difficult at a later time to enhance the facility's inherent
robustness to show that it can withstand the effects of an aircraft
impact. Furthermore, applicants will need to use realistic analyses to
identify and incorporate design features and functional capabilities to
show, with reduced use of operator actions, that either the reactor
core remains cooled or the containment remains intact, and either spent
fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. In this
manner, this rule should result in new nuclear power reactor facilities
being more inherently robust with regard to an aircraft impact than if
they were designed in the absence of this rule.
In addition, because the impact of a large, commercial aircraft is
a beyond-design-basis event, this rule provides an enhanced level of
protection beyond that which is provided by the existing adequate
protection requirements, which all operating power reactors are
required to meet.
4. Presentation of Results
Table 4 summarizes the results of the cost analysis for industry.
Table 4--Summary of Total Industry Costs for Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using 7-percent Using 3-percent
Category of application* discount rate discount rate
($1,000) ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation costs
-------------------------------------
DC................................ 2,190 2,680
DC (renewal)...................... 370 390
COL............................... 625 725
ML................................ 210 310
-------------------------------------
Operating costs
-------------------------------------
DC................................ 17.54 30.1
DC (renewal)...................... 3.0 4.2
COL............................... 6.5 14.1
ML................................ 1.7 3.4
-------------------------------------
Total (rounded)............... 3,400 4,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DC = design certification. COL = combined license application. ML =
manufacturing license application.
Table 5 shows the total costs of the regulatory action.
[[Page 28143]]
Table 5--Summary of Industry and NRC Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using 7-percent Using 3-percent
discount rate discount rate
($1,000) ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... 3,400 4,200
NRC............................... 1,500 1,800
-------------------------------------
Total (rounded)............... 4,900 6,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Decision Rationale
The total present-valued costs of this action are $6.0 million and
$4.9 million for 3- and 7-percent discount rates, respectively. The
benefits are expressed only qualitatively and are discussed in Section
3.5.11 of this regulatory analysis. As noted previously, the key
benefit is improvement in knowledge because the final rule requires
applicants for new nuclear power reactors to perform a design-specific
assessment of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial
aircraft. The applicant is required to use realistic analyses to
identify and incorporate design features and functional capabilities to
show, with reduced use of operator actions, that either the reactor
core remains cooled or the containment remains intact, and either spent
fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained.
6. Implementation Schedule
The final rule will become effective 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register.
XV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule affects only the licensing of nuclear power plants. The
companies that will apply for an approval, certification, permit, or
license in accordance with the regulations affected by this rule do not
fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by
the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
XVI. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that, except in one respect, the backfit
rule, 10 CFR 50.109, and comparable provisions in 10 CFR part 52, do
not apply to this final rule and, therefore, a backfit analysis is not
required, because the final rule--with one exception--does not contain
any provisions which either impose backfitting as defined in the
backfit rule or is otherwise inconsistent with any of the comparable
backfitting and finality provisions in part 52. The aircraft impact
assessment requirements apply to new construction permits; new
operating licenses that reference a new construction permit; new
standard design certifications; new standard design approvals;
manufacturing licenses that don't reference a standard design
certification or standard design approval, or that reference a design
certification issued before the effective date of the rule which has
not been amended to comply with the rule; and combined licenses that
don't reference a standard design certification, standard design
approval, or manufactured reactor, or that reference a standard design
certification issued before the effective date of the rule which has
not been amended to comply with the rule. They also apply to renewal of
the four existing design certifications in 10 CFR part 52, appendices A
through D, if the design has not previously been amended to comply with
the aircraft impact rule. However, combined license applicants
referencing one of the four currently approved design certifications
must comply with the rule. The backfitting issues for each of these
licenses, certifications, and regulatory approvals are discussed below.
Construction Permits and Operating Licenses
The aircraft impact rule applies to construction permits issued
after July 13, 2009, the effective date of the rule. To the extent that
the aircraft impact rule revises the requirements for future
construction permits, the requirements do not constitute backfitting,
because the requirements in the final aircraft impact rule are
prospective in nature and effect. The backfit rule was not intended to
apply to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations
of future applicants under 10 CFR part 50. The final rule also does not
apply to current holders of construction permits. Hence, there is no
backfitting of current holders of construction permits. The final
aircraft impact rule also does not apply to applicants for operating
licenses whose underlying construction permits are issued before July
13, 2009. Inasmuch as the aircraft impact rule is not imposed as a
requirement on operating license applicants whose underlying
construction permits were issued before July 13, 2009, there is no
backfitting associated with such existing operating licenses. However,
future applicants for operating licenses whose underlying construction
permits were also issued after July 13, 2009 are required to comply
with the aircraft impact rule. To the extent that the rule revises the
requirements for future operating license applicants whose construction
permits are issued after July 13, 2009, the requirements do not
constitute backfitting, because the requirements in the final aircraft
impact rule are prospective in nature and effect. The backfit rule was
not intended to apply to every NRC action which substantially changes
the expectations of future applicants under 10 CFR part 50.
New Design Certifications and New Design Approvals
The aircraft impact rule applies to new standard design
certifications and new standard design approvals. To the extent that
the aircraft impact rule revises the requirements for future design
certifications and design approvals issued after July 13, 2009, the
requirements do not constitute backfitting, because the requirements in
the aircraft impact rule are prospective in nature and effect. The
backfit rule was not intended to apply to every NRC action which
substantially changes the expectations of future applicants under 10
CFR part 52.
Four Currently-Approved Design Certifications
The aircraft impact rule does not directly change any of the four
currently approved design certifications in 10 CFR part 52, appendices
A through D, because the rule does not require that the aircraft impact
assessment be performed for those four design certifications during
their current terms, nor does the rule require that they be modified to
include any design features
[[Page 28144]]
or functional capabilities that meet the criteria in the rule. However,
the aircraft impact rule requires a combined license applicant
referencing one of the four currently approved design certifications to
perform the assessment required by the aircraft impact rule. In
addition, the rule requires that if any of the four design
certifications are renewed, then the renewed design must meet the
requirements of the rule. Both situations raise backfitting concerns,
which are addressed separately below.
1. Effect During Current Term of Design Certification
The aircraft impact rule requires a combined license applicant
referencing one of the four currently approved design certifications to
perform the assessment required by the rule. As such, the aircraft
impact rule changes the circumstances under which an applicant for
combined license may reference one of the four currently approved
design certifications. In addition, by requiring the combined license
applicant to perform the assessment, and describe plant design features
and functional capabilities that are within the scope of the certified
design, the aircraft impact rule may be viewed as effectively
constituting a change to the design certification. Each of the four
currently approved design certification rules contains several
provisions generally addressing the referencing of the design
certification. None of these provisions require a referencing combined
license applicant to, in effect, modify the referenced design to
address aircraft impacts. Moreover, Section VI, ``Issue Resolution,''
of each currently approved design certification states that the NRC's
safety finding on the design ``includes the finding that additional or
alternative structures, systems, components, design features, * * *
acceptance criteria, or justifications are not necessary * * *.'' In
light of these provisions, the NRC believes that the final aircraft
impact rule requirements effectively constitute a change to these
design certifications, and the applicable criteria of Section VI of
each design certification rule and 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) must be met by
the aircraft impact rule.
However, the NRC does not believe that these criteria can be
satisfied. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to administratively
exempt the aircraft impact rule from these finality and issue
resolution provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The Commission's decision is
grounded on the following considerations. First, the Commission
believes that performance of the assessment required by the rule and
incorporation of design features and functional capabilities identified
by the assessment constitutes a substantial increase in overall
protection of public health and safety and common defense and security
of the design and operation of a nuclear power plant constructed in
accordance with the referenced design certification, and that direct
and indirect implementation costs of compliance with the aircraft
impact rule are justified in view of the increased safety and security.
Performing the assessment itself provides a substantial safety benefit
in reducing licensee and regulatory uncertainty regarding the
capability (and vulnerability) of the design to the impact of a large,
commercial aircraft. Although it is difficult to quantify the safety
enhancement gained through implementation of the aircraft impact rule,
the NRC nevertheless believes that the cost of performing the
assessment and incorporating the results into the design, as outlined
in Section XIV, ``Regulatory Analysis,'' of the Supplementary
Information of this document, is justified in view of the increased
safety provided by implementation of the aircraft impact rule.
Second, all of the four currently approved certified designs
contain one or more advanced reactor attributes described in the
Commission's ``Policy Statement on Regulation of Advanced Reactors,''
(73 FR 60612; October 14, 2008). These attributes include the use of
highly reliable and less complex shutdown and decay heat removal
systems, longer time constants and sufficient instrumentation to allow
for more diagnosis and management before reaching safety system
challenge and/or exposure of vital equipment to adverse conditions, and
designs that minimize the potential for severe accidents and their
consequences by providing sufficient inherent safety, reliability,
redundancy, diversity and independence in safety systems. Incorporation
of design features and functional capabilities identified as part of
the assessment required by the aircraft impact rule will serve to
further enhance the availability, capability and effectiveness of those
advanced reactor attributes included in each of the currently approved
certified designs.
It also appears that a broad range of stakeholders supported the
overarching concept that all newly-constructed nuclear power plants
should be required to meet the aircraft impact rule. All of the
commenters representing non-governmental organizations unaffiliated
with the nuclear industry supported the application of the aircraft
impact rule to all newly-constructed reactors--including those
referencing currently approved design certifications--and to all of the
currently approved design certifications regardless of whether they
have been referenced in a combined license application. NEI--the
industry organization representing, in part, the companies who are most
likely to be combined license applicants and, therefore, most likely to
be adversely affected by a NRC decision to impose the aircraft impact
rule on such applicants--supported the extension of the aircraft impact
rule to all future combined license applicants. The original applicants
for three of the four existing design certifications supported
application of the aircraft impact rule to combined license
applications referencing one of the four currently approved designs.
The NRC is aware that Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, which was the
original applicant for the AP1000 design certification, is seeking an
amendment to the design certification to address the (anticipated
final) aircraft impact rule. The NRC notes that any adverse backfitting
impact is limited inasmuch as: (i) No combined license referencing any
of the four existing design certifications has been issued, (ii)
combined license applications referencing one of the four existing
design certifications are still in the early stages of NRC review, and
(iii) the detailed aircraft impact parameters were made available to
design certification applicants and affected combined license
applicants in early 2008.
Finally, the Commission emphasizes that this is a highly
exceptional action limited to the specific circumstances of this
rulemaking. The Commission has only once before taken action to
administratively exempt a rulemaking from applicable backfitting or
issue finality provisions, and in that one instance (involving
revisions to 10 CFR part 26, fitness for duty requirements) the NRC
ultimately withdrew the rulemaking, see SRM on SECY-99-141 (June 24,
1999). Although the Commission cannot, as a categorical matter, rule
out the possibility of its taking administrative exemptions in the
future, the Commission emphasizes that administrative exemptions will
continue to be an extremely rare action to be taken only if regulatory
considerations strongly favor taking such administrative exemption.
2. Effect at Renewal
The aircraft impact rule requires that if any of the four design
certifications be renewed, then the renewed design meet the
requirements of the rule. The NRC
[[Page 28145]]
evaluated whether 10 CFR 50.150(a)(3)(iii)(B) and the conforming
revision to 10 CFR 52.59(a), which implement this requirement governing
the renewal of these four design certifications, together represent a
violation of the finality protection provided by 10 CFR 52.59(b). The
NRC concludes that these requirements do not violate the finality
protection accorded by those regulatory provisions. The finality
protections accorded by 10 CFR 52.59(b) requirements do not absolutely
preclude the NRC from applying new or modified requirements to the
design certification at the renewal stage. To impose a new or modified
requirement at renewal, the NRC need only find that the requirement is
either necessary for adequate protection, necessary for compliance with
requirements in effect at the time of initial certification, or
provides a substantial increase in protection to public health and
safety or common defense and security that justifies the cost of
implementing the new requirements.
As part of this rulemaking, the NRC makes the finding that the
aircraft impact rule, when imposed upon any one of the four design
certifications at the time of renewal, constitutes a substantial
increase in protection to public health and safety. The reasons for the
NRC's finding are set forth in the discussion above in ``Effect during
current term of design certification'' and in the overall discussion in
this statement of considerations of the reasons underlying the adoption
of this rule. Accordingly, the NRC has decided to impose by rule a
requirement that each of the four currently approved design
certification, if renewed, meet the requirements of the aircraft impact
rule if they have not been previously amended to comply with the rule.
Inasmuch as the NRC has made a generic finding that the rule
constitutes a substantial increase in protection to public health and
safety and thereby meets the criteria for design certification renewal
in 10 CFR 52.59(b), the NRC does not intend to make an additional
finding on the same subject in any renewal proceeding for one of the
currently approved design certifications.
Combined Licenses
The final aircraft impact rule applies to all combined licenses
which do not reference a standard design certification, standard design
approval or manufactured reactor. There are no existing combined
licenses protected by the backfitting restrictions in 10 CFR 50.109 or
the finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. To the extent that the final
rule revises the requirements for future combined licenses, including
combined license applications which are currently pending before the
NRC, the requirements do not constitute backfitting nor are they
otherwise inconsistent with the finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52,
because the requirements in the final aircraft impact rule are
prospective in nature and effect. Neither the backfit rule nor the
finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 were intended to apply to every
NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of future
applicants under 10 CFR part 52.
Manufacturing Licenses
The final aircraft impact rule applies to all manufacturing
licenses which do not reference a standard design certification or
standard design approval. There are no existing manufacturing licenses
protected by the backfitting restrictions in 10 CFR 50.109 or the
finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. To the extent that the final
rule revises the requirements for future manufacturing licenses, the
requirements do not constitute backfitting nor are they otherwise
inconsistent with the finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52, because
the requirements in the final aircraft impact rule are prospective in
nature and effect. Neither the backfit rule nor the finality provisions
in 10 CFR part 52 were intended to apply to every NRC action which
substantially changes the expectations of future applicants under 10
CFR part 52.
XVII. Congressional Review Act
Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined
that this action is not a major rule and has verified this
determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of
the Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 52
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting,
Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees,
Inspection, Limited work authorization, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting
criteria, Redress of site, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Standard design, Standard design certification.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of
1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the
following amendments to 10 CFR parts 50 and 52.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234,
83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201,
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846);
sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub.
L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-810 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5841). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101,
185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub.
L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd),
and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2138).
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.
185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and
Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853
(42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec.
204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and
50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C.
2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42
U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68
Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under
sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
0
2. In Sec. 50.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
* * * * *
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in
this part appear in Sec. Sec. 50.30, 50.33, 50.34, 50.34a, 50.35,
50.36, 50.36a, 50.36b, 50.44, 50.46, 50.47, 50.48, 50.49, 50.54, 50.55,
50.55a, 50.59, 50.60, 50.61, 50.62, 50.63, 50.64, 50.65, 50.66, 50.68,
50.69, 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.74, 50.75, 50.80, 50.82, 50.90, 50.91,
50.120, 50.150, and appendices A, B, E, G, H, I, J, K, M, N,O, Q, R,
and S to this part.
* * * * *
[[Page 28146]]
0
3. In Sec. 50.34, paragraphs (a)(13) and (b)(12) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 50.34 Contents of applications; technical information.
(a) * * *
(13) On or after July 13, 2009, stationary power reactor applicants
who apply for a construction permit shall submit the information
required by 10 CFR 50.150(b) as a part of their preliminary safety
analysis report.
(b) * * *
(12) On or after July 13, 2009, stationary power reactor applicants
who apply for an operating license which is subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a)
shall submit the information required by 10 CFR 50.150(b) as a part of
their final safety analysis report.
* * * * *
0
4. A new undesignated center heading is added before Sec. 50.120 to
read as follows:
Additional Standards for Licenses, Certifications, and Regulatory
Approvals
0
5. A new Sec. 50.150 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 50.150 Aircraft impact assessment.
(a) Assessment requirements. (1) Assessment. Each applicant listed
in paragraph (a)(3) shall perform a design-specific assessment of the
effects on the facility of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft.
Using realistic analyses, the applicant shall identify and incorporate
into the design those design features and functional capabilities to
show that, with reduced use of operator actions:
(i) The reactor core remains cooled, or the containment remains
intact; and
(ii) spent fuel cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained.
(2) Aircraft impact characteristics.\1\ The assessment must be
based on the beyond-design-basis impact of a large, commercial aircraft
used for long distance flights in the United States, with aviation fuel
loading typically used in such flights, and an impact speed and angle
of impact considering the ability of both experienced and inexperienced
pilots to control large, commercial aircraft at the low altitude
representative of a nuclear power plant's low profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Changes to the detailed parameters on aircraft impact
characteristics set forth in guidance shall be approved by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Applicability. The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
of this section apply to applicants for:
(i) Construction permits for nuclear power reactors issued under
this part after July 13, 2009;
(ii) Operating licenses for nuclear power reactors issued under
this part for which a construction permit was issued after July 13,
2009;
(iii)(A) Standard design certifications issued under part 52 of
this chapter after July 13, 2009;
(B) Renewal of standard design certifications in effect on July 13,
2009 which have not been amended to comply with the requirements of
this section by the time of application for renewal;
(iv) Standard design approvals issued under part 52 of this chapter
after July 13, 2009;
(v) Combined licenses issued under part 52 of this chapter that:
(A) Do not reference a standard design certification, standard
design approval, or manufactured reactor; or
(B) Reference a standard design certification issued before July
13, 2009 which has not been amended to address the requirements of this
section; and
(vi) Manufacturing licenses issued under part 52 of this chapter
that:
(A) Do not reference a standard design certification or standard
design approval; or
(B) Reference a standard design certification issued before July
13, 2009 which has not been amended to address the requirements of this
section.
(b) Content of application. For applicants identified in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, the preliminary or final safety analysis
report, as applicable, must include a description of:
(1) The design features and functional capabilities identified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and
(2) How the design features and functional capabilities identified
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section meet the assessment requirements in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(c) Control of changes. (1) For construction permits which are
subject to paragraph (a) of this section, if the permit holder changes
the information required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be included in the
preliminary safety analysis report, then the permit holder shall
consider the effect of the changed feature or capability on the
original assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and amend the
information required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) to be included in the
preliminary safety analysis report to describe how the modified design
features and functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) For operating licenses which are subject to paragraph (a) of
this section, if the licensee changes the information required by 10
CFR 50.34(b)(12) to be included in the final safety analysis report,
then the licensee shall consider the effect of the changed feature or
capability on the original assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and
amend the information required by 10 CFR 50.34(b)(12) to be included in
the final safety analysis report to describe how the modified design
features and functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(3) For standard design certifications which are subject to
paragraph (a) of this section, generic changes to the information
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the final safety
analysis report are governed by the applicable requirements of 10 CFR
52.63.
(4)(i) For combined licenses which are subject to paragraph (a) of
this section, if the licensee changes the information required by 10
CFR 52.79(a)(47) to be included in the final safety analysis report,
then the licensee shall consider the effect of the changed feature or
capability on the original assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(a) and
amend the information required by 10 CFR 52.79(a)(47) to be included in
the final safety analysis report to describe how the modified design
features and functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(ii) For combined licenses which are not subject to paragraph (a)
of this section but reference a standard design certification which is
subject to paragraph (a) of this section, proposed departures from the
information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the final
safety analysis report for the referenced standard design certification
are governed by the change control requirements in the applicable
design certification rule.
(iii) For combined licenses which are not subject to paragraph (a)
of this section but reference a manufactured reactor which is subject
to paragraph (a) of this section, proposed departures from the
information required by 10 CFR 52.157(f)(32) to be included in the
final safety analysis report for the manufacturing license are governed
by the applicable requirements in 10 CFR 52.171(b)(2).
(5)(i) For manufacturing licenses which are subject to paragraph
(a) of this section, generic changes to the information required by 10
CFR 52.157(f)(32) to be included in the final safety analysis report
are governed by
[[Page 28147]]
the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 52.171.
(ii) For manufacturing licenses which are not subject to paragraph
(a) of this section but reference a standard design certification which
is subject to paragraph (a) of this section, proposed departures from
the information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the
final safety analysis report for the referenced standard design
certification are governed by the change control requirements in the
applicable design certification rule.
PART 52--LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS FOR NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS
0
6. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as
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).
0
7. In Sec. 52.47, paragraph (a)(28) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.47 Contents of applications; technical information.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(28) For applications for standard design certifications which are
subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a), the information required by 10 CFR
50.150(b).
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 52.59, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 52.59 Criteria for renewal.
(a) The Commission shall issue a rule granting the renewal if the
design, either as originally certified or as modified during the
rulemaking on the renewal, complies with the Atomic Energy Act and the
Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time the
certification was issued, provided, however, that the first time the
Commission issues a rule granting the renewal for a standard design
certification in effect on July 13, 2009, the Commission shall, in
addition, find that the renewed design complies with the applicable
requirements of 10 CFR 50.150.
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 52.79, paragraph (a)(47) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.79 Contents of applications; technical information in final
safety analysis report.
(a) * * *
(47) For applications for combined licenses which are subject to 10
CFR 50.150(a), the information required by 10 CFR 50.150(b).
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 52.137, paragraph (a)(26) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.137 Contents of applications; technical information.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(26) For applications for standard design approvals which are
subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a), the information required by 10 CFR
50.150(b).
* * * * *
0
11. In Sec. 52.157, paragraph (f)(32) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.157 Contents of applications; technical information in final
safety analysis report.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(32) For applications for manufacturing licenses which are subject
to 10 CFR 50.150(a), the information required by 10 CFR 50.150(b).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of June 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-13582 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P