[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10269-10288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3989]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 52
[NRC-2010-0131]
RIN 3150-AI81
AP1000 Design Certification Amendment
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)
proposes to amend its regulations to certify an amendment to the AP1000
standard plant design. The purpose of the amendment is to replace the
combined license (COL) information items and design acceptance criteria
(DAC) with specific design information, address the effects of the
impact of a large commercial aircraft, incorporate design improvements,
and increase standardization of the design. Upon NRC rulemaking
approval of its amendment to the AP1000 design, an
[[Page 10270]]
applicant seeking an NRC license to construct and operate a nuclear
power reactor using the AP1000 design need not demonstrate in its
application the safety of the certified design. The applicant for this
amendment to the AP1000 certified design is Westinghouse Electric
Company, LLC (Westinghouse). The public is invited to submit comments
on this proposed design certification rule (DCR), the revised generic
design control document (DCD) that would be incorporated by reference
into the DCR, and the environmental assessment (EA) for this amendment
to the AP1000 design.
DATES: Submit comments on the DCR, the revised DCD and/or the EA for
this amendment by May 10, 2011. Submit comments specific to the
information collections aspects of this rule by March 28, 2011.
Comments received after the above dates will be considered if it is
practical to do so, but assurance of consideration of comments received
after these dates cannot be given.
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2010-0131 in the subject line
of your comments. For instructions on submitting comments and accessing
documents related to this action, see Section I, ``Submitting Comments
and Accessing Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. You may submit comments by any one of the following
methods.
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2010-0131. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-492-
3668; e-mail: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If you do not
receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments,
contact us directly at 301-415-1677.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. during Federal workdays
(telephone: 301-415-1677).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
301-415-1101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serita Sanders, Office of New
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-2956; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
II. Background
III. Discussion
A. Technical Evaluation of Westinghouse Amendment to the AP1000
Design
B. Changes to Appendix D
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Introduction (Section I)
B. Scope and Contents (Section III)
C. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
D. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
E. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
F. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
G. Records and Reporting (Section X)
V. Agreement State Compatibility
VI. Availability of Documents
VII. Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (Including Proprietary Information) and Safeguards
Information for Preparation of Comments on the Proposed Amendment to
the AP1000 Design Certification
VIII. Plain Language
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
X. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XII. Regulatory Analysis
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XIV. Backfitting
I. Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted
on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed. The NRC requests that any party soliciting or
aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the
NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to
remove any identifying or contact information, and, therefore, they
should not include any information in their comments that they do not
want publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Room
O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
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].
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and supporting
materials related to this proposed rule can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2010-0131.
Documents that are not publicly available because they are
considered to be either SUNSI (including SUNSI constituting proprietary
information (PI)) or SGI may be available to interested persons who may
wish to comment on the proposed design certification amendment.
Interested persons shall follow the procedures described in the
Supplementary Information section of this document, Section VII,
``Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Safeguards Information for Preparation of Comments on
the Proposed Amendment to the AP1000 Design Certification.''
II. Background
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 52,
``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,''
subpart B, presents the process for obtaining standard design
certifications. Section 52.63, ``Finality of standard design
certifications,'' provides criteria for determining when the Commission
may amend the certification information for a previously certified
standard design in response to a request for amendment from any person.
During its initial certification of the AP1000 design, the NRC
issued a final safety evaluation report (FSER) for the AP1000 as NUREG-
1793, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Certification of the
AP1000 Standard Design,'' in September 2004. From March 2006 through
May 2007, NuStart Energy Development, LLC (NuStart) \1\ and
Westinghouse provided the NRC with a number of technical reports (TRs)
for pre-application review in an effort to: (1) Close specific,
generically
[[Page 10271]]
applicable COL information items (information to be supplied by COL
applicants/holders) in the AP1000 certified standard design; (2)
identify standard design changes resulting from the AP1000 detailed
design efforts; and (3) provide specific standard design information in
areas or for topics where the AP1000 DCD was focused on the design
process and acceptance criteria. TRs typically addressed a topical area
(e.g., redesign of a component, structure or process) and included the
technical details of a proposed change, design standards, analyses and
justifications as needed, proposed changes to the DCD, and
Westinghouse's assessment of the applicable regulatory criteria (e.g.
the assessment of the criteria in 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section
VIII, ``Processes for Changes and Departures''). The NRC identified
issues associated with the TRs and engaged Westinghouse in requests for
additional information and meetings during the pre-application phase to
resolve them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NuStart member companies are: Constellation Generation
Group, LLC, Duke Energy Corporation, EDF-International North
America, Inc., Entergy Nuclear, Inc., Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, Florida Power and Light Company, Progress Energy, and Southern
Company Services, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 26, 2007, Westinghouse submitted Revision 16 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML071580939) of its application via transmittal letter
(ADAMS Accession No. ML071580757) to amend the AP1000 design
certification. This application was supplemented by letters dated
October 26, November 2, and December 12, 2007, and January 11 and
January 14, 2008. The application noted, in part:
(1) Generic amendments to the design certification, including
additional design information to resolve DAC and design-related COL
information items, as well as design information to make corrections
and changes, would result in further standardization and improved
licensing efficiency for the multiple COL applications referencing
the AP1000 DCR that were planned for submittal in late 2007 and
early 2008.
(2) Westinghouse, in conjunction with NuStart, has been
preparing TRs since late 2005. These TRs were developed with input,
review, comment, and other technical oversight provided by NuStart
members, including the prospective AP1000 COL applicants. Submittal
of these TRs to the NRC was initiated in March 2006. The TRs contain
discussion of the technical changes and supplemental information
that is used to support the detailed information contained in the
DCD.
In Attachment 2 to the May 26, 2007, application, Westinghouse
identified the criteria of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) that apply to the changes
described in each TR and associated COL information items, if
applicable.
On January 18, 2008, the NRC notified Westinghouse that it accepted
the May 26, 2007, application, as supplemented, for docketing (Docket
No. 52-006) and published a notice of acceptance (ADAMS Accession No.
ML073600743) in the Federal Register (73 FR 4926, January 28, 2008). On
September 22, 2008, Westinghouse submitted Revision 17 to the AP1000
DCD. Revision 17 contains changes to the DCD that have been previously
accepted by the NRC in the course of its review of Revision 16 of the
DCD. In addition, Revision 17 proposes changes to DAC in the areas of
piping design (Chapter 3), instrumentation and control (I&C) systems
(Chapter 7) and human factors engineering (HFE) (Chapter 18). Revision
17 also includes a number of design changes not previously discussed
with the NRC.
The NRC issued guidance on the finalization of design changes in
Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DC/COL-ISG-011, ``Finalizing Licensing-
basis Information,'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML092890623), which describes
various categories of design changes that should not be deferred and
those that should be included in the DCR.
By letter dated January 20, 2010, Westinghouse submitted a list of
design change packages that would be included in Revision 18 of the
AP1000 DCD (ADAMS Accession No. ML100250888). A number of subsequent
submittals were made by Westinghouse to narrow the focus to those
design changes to the categories of changes that should not be
deferred, as recommended by DC/COL-ISG-011.
Revision 18 to the AP1000 DCD (ADAMS Accession No. ML103480572) was
submitted on December 1, 2010, and contains both proposed changes
previously described in the design change packages and changes already
accepted by the NRC in the review process of Revision 17 to the AP1000
DCD. In the course of the review of both design change packages, the
NRC determined that DCD changes were needed. In response to NRC
questions, Westinghouse proposed such changes. Once the NRC was
satisfied with these DCD markups, they were documented in the safety
evaluation report (SER) as confirmatory items (CIs). The CIs were first
identified during the NRC's review of Revision 17 of the AP1000 DCD.
With the review of Revision 18, the NRC will confirm that Westinghouse
has made those changes to the DCD accepted by the NRC that were not
addressed in Revision 17 to the AP1000 DCD. The use of CIs is
restricted to cases where the NRC has reviewed and approved specific
design control document proposals. For the final rule, the NRC will
complete the review of the CIs and prepare a FSER reflecting that
action. The CIs are closed based upon an acceptable comparison between
the revised DCD text and the text required by the CI. No technical
review of Revision 18 by the NRC is necessary, because only CIs and
design changes pursuant to DC/COL-ISG-011 previously accepted by the
NRC are contained in Revision 18 to the DCD.
In order to simplify the NRC's review of the design change
documentation, and to simplify subsequent review by the NRC's Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), the design changes pursuant to
DC/COL-ISG-011 are reviewed in a separate chapter (Chapter 23) of the
FSER. This chapter indicates which areas of the DCD are affected by
each design change and the letters from Westinghouse that submitted
them. In some cases, NRC's review of the design changes reviewed in
Chapter 23 may be incorporated into the chapters of the FSER where this
material would normally be addressed because of the relationship
between individual design changes and the review of prior DCD changes
from Revisions 16 and 17 of the DCD.
The Westinghouse Revision 18 letter includes an enclosure providing
a cross-reference to the DCD changes and the applicable 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1) criteria. Revision 17 provides a similar cross-reference in
the September 22, 2008, Westinghouse letter for those changes
associated with the revised DCD. Revision 16 on the other hand, uses
TRs to identify the DCD changes and lists the corresponding applicable
10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) criteria via Westinghouse memorandum, dated May 26,
2007 (Table 1).
As of the date of this document, the application for amendment of
the AP1000 design certification has been referenced in the following
COL applications:
Vogtle, Units 3 and 4, Docket No. 05200025/6, 73 FR 33118;
Bellefonte Nuclear Station, Units 3 and 4, Docket Nos. 05200014/5,
73 FR 4923;
Levy County, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 05200029/30, 73 FR 60726;
Shearon Harris, Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 05200022/3, 73 FR 21995;
Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7, Docket Nos. 05200040/1, 74 FR 51621;
Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 05200027/8, 73 FR
45793;
William States Lee III, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 05200018/9, 73
FR 11156.
III. Discussion
A. Technical Evaluation of Westinghouse Amendment to the AP1000 Design
Westinghouse's request to amend the AP1000 design contained several
classes
[[Page 10272]]
of changes. Each class is discussed below:
Editorial Changes
Westinghouse requested changes to the AP1000 DCD to correct
spelling, punctuation, grammar, designations, and references. None of
these changes is intended to make any substantive changes to the
certified design, and NUREG-1793, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report
Related to Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design,'' Supplement 2
(SER) does not address these changes.
Changes To Address Consistency and Uniformity
Westinghouse requested changes to the AP1000 DCD to achieve
consistency and uniformity in the description of the certified design
throughout the DCD. For example, a change to the type of reactor
coolant pump (RCP) motor is evaluated in Chapter 5 of the SER on the
application for the AP1000 amendment; Westinghouse requested that
wherever this RCP motor is described in the DCD, the new description of
the changed motor be used. The NRC reviewed the proposed change (to be
used consistently throughout the DCD) to ensure that the proposed
changes needed for uniformity and consistency are technically
acceptable and do not adversely affect the previously approved design
description. The NRC's bases for approval of these changes are set
forth in the SER for the AP1000 amendment.
Substantive Technical Changes to the AP1000 Design (Other Than Those
Needed for Compliance With the AIA Rule)
Among the many technical changes that are proposed by Westinghouse
for inclusion in Revision 18 of the AP1000 DCD, the NRC selected 15
substantive changes for specific discussion in this proposed rule
document, based on their safety significance:
Removal of Human Factors Engineering (HFE) Design
Acceptance Criteria (DAC) from the DCD
Change to Instrumentation and Control (I&C) DAC and
Inspection, Test, Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
Minimization of Contamination
Extension of Seismic Spectra to Soil Sites and Changes to
Stability and Uniformity of Subsurface Materials and Foundations
Long-Term Cooling
Control Room Emergency Habitability System
Changes to the Component Cooling Water System (CCWS)
Changes to I&C Systems
Changes to the Passive Core Cooling System (PCCS)--Gas
Intrusion
Integrated Head Package (IHP)--Use of the QuickLoc
Mechanism
Reactor Coolant Pump Design
Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Support System
Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Decay Heat Analysis and Associated
Design Changes
Spent Fuel Rack Design and Criticality Analysis
Vacuum Relief System
The NRC evaluated each of the proposed changes and concluded that
they are acceptable. The NRC's bases for approval of these changes are
set forth in the SER for the AP1000 amendment. Further information
about how each of these changes is provided in Section XIV,
``Backfitting,'' of this document.
Changes To Address Compliance With the AIA Rule
Westinghouse requested changes to the AP1000 design in order to
comply with the requirements of the AIA rule, 10 CFR 50.150. The NRC
confirmed that Westinghouse has adequately described key AIA design
features and functional capabilities in accordance with the AIA rule
and 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. In addition, the NRC determined that there will be no
adverse impacts from complying with the requirements for consideration
of aircraft impacts on conclusions reached by the NRC in its review of
the original U.S. AP1000 design certification. The NRC's bases for
approval of these changes are set forth in the SER for the AP1000
amendment. As a result of these changes, the AP1000 design will achieve
the Commission's objectives of enhanced public health and safety and
enhanced common defense and security through improvement of the
facility's inherent robustness to the impact of a large commercial
aircraft at the design stage.
B. Changes to Appendix D
1. Scope and Contents (Section III)
The purpose of Section III is to describe and define the scope and
contents of this design certification and to present how documentation
discrepancies or inconsistencies are to be resolved. Paragraph A is the
required statement of the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for
approval of the incorporation by reference of Tier 1, Tier 2, and the
generic technical specifications (TSs) into this appendix. The NRC is
proposing to update the revision number of the DCD that would be
incorporated by reference to the revision Westinghouse provided to the
NRC in its application for amendment to this DCR.
The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the
incorporated material has the same legal status as if it were published
in the Code of Federal Regulations. This material, like any other
properly issued regulation, has the force and effect of law. The AP1000
DCD was prepared to meet the technical information contents of
application requirements for design certifications under 10 CFR
52.47(a) and the requirements of the OFR for incorporation by reference
under 10 CFR part 51. One requirement of the OFR for incorporation by
reference is that the applicant for the design certification (or
amendment to the design certification) makes the generic DCD available
upon request after the final rule becomes effective. Therefore,
paragraph A would identify a Westinghouse representative to be
contacted to obtain a copy of the AP1000 DCD. The NRC is proposing to
update the Westinghouse representative's contact information in this
DCR.
The AP1000 DCD is electronically accessible under ADAMS Accession
No. ML103480572, at the OFR, and at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching under Docket ID NRC-2010-0131. Copies of the generic DCD
would also be available at the NRC's PDR. Questions concerning the
accuracy of information in an application that references this appendix
will be resolved by checking the master copy of the generic DCD in
ADAMS. If the design certification amendment applicant makes a generic
change (through NRC rulemaking) to the DCD under 10 CFR 52.63 and the
change process provided in Section VIII, then at the completion of the
rulemaking the NRC would request approval of the Director, OFR, for the
revised master DCD. The NRC would require that the design certification
amendment applicant maintain an up-to-date copy of the master DCD under
paragraph A.1 in Section X and that it include any generic changes
made.
The NRC is also proposing a change to paragraph D. Paragraph D
establishes the generic DCD as the controlling document in the event of
an inconsistency between the DCD and the design certification
application or the FSER for the certified standard design. The proposed
revision would renumber paragraph D as paragraph D.1, clarify this
requirement as applying to the initial design certification, and add a
similar paragraph D.2 to indicate that this is also the case for an
inconsistency
[[Page 10273]]
between the generic DCD and the amendment application and the NRC's
associated FSER for the amendment.
2. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
Section IV presents additional requirements and restrictions
imposed upon an applicant who references Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52.
Paragraph A presents the information requirements for these applicants.
Paragraph A.3 currently requires the applicant to include, not simply
reference, the PI and SGI referenced in the AP1000 DCD, or its
equivalent, to ensure that the applicant has actual notice of these
requirements. The NRC is proposing to revise paragraph A.3 to indicate
that a COL applicant must include, in the plant-specific DCD, the SUNSI
(including PI) and SGI referenced in the AP1000 DCD. This revision
would address a wider class of information (SUNSI) to be included in
the plant-specific DCD, rather than limiting the required information
to PI. The requirement to include SGI in the plant-specific DCD would
not change.
The NRC is also proposing to add a new paragraph A.4 to indicate
requirements that must be met in cases where the COL applicant is not
using the entity that was the original applicant for the design
certification (or amendment) to supply the design for the applicant's
use. Proposed paragraph A.4 would require that a COL applicant
referencing Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 include, as part of its
application, a demonstration that an entity other than Westinghouse is
qualified to supply the AP1000 certified design unless Westinghouse
supplies the design for the applicant's use. In cases where a COL
applicant is not using Westinghouse to supply the AP1000 certified
design, this information is necessary to support any NRC finding under
10 CFR 52.73(a) that the entity is qualified to supply the certified
design.
3. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
The purpose of Section V is to specify the regulations applicable
and in effect when the design certification is approved (i.e., as of
the date specified in paragraph A, which will be the date that the
proposed revisions to Appendix D are approved by the Commission and the
final rule is signed by the Secretary of the Commission). The NRC is
proposing to redesignate paragraph A as paragraph A.1 to indicate that
this paragraph applies to that portion of the design that was certified
under the initial design certification. The NRC is further proposing to
add new paragraph A.2, similar to that of paragraph A.1, to indicate
the regulations that would apply to that portion of the design within
the scope of this amendment, as would be approved by the Commission and
signed by the Secretary of the Commission.
4. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
The purpose of Section VI is to identify the scope of issues that
were resolved by the Commission in the original certification
rulemaking, and, therefore, are ``matters resolved'' within the meaning
and intent of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). Paragraph B presents the scope of
issues that may not be challenged as a matter of right in subsequent
proceedings and describes the categories of information for which there
is issue resolution. Paragraph B.1 provides that all nuclear safety
issues arising from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the Act), as
amended, that are associated with the information in the NRC's final
safety evaluation report related to certification of the AP1000
standard design (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072) and the Tier 1 and
Tier 2 information and the rulemaking record for Appendix D to 10 CFR
part 52, are resolved within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). These
issues include the information referenced in the DCD that are
requirements (i.e., ``secondary references''), as well as all issues
arising from PI and SGI, which are intended to be requirements.
Paragraph B.2 provides for issue preclusion of PI and SGI.
The NRC is proposing to revise paragraph B.1 to extend issue
resolution to the information contained in the NRC's FSER (Supplement
No. 2) and the rulemaking record for this amendment. In addition, the
NRC is proposing to revise paragraph B.2 to extend issue resolution to
the broader category of SUNSI, including PI, referenced in the generic
DCD.
The NRC is also proposing to revise paragraph B.7, which identifies
as resolved all environmental issues concerning severe accident
mitigation design alternatives (SAMDA) arising under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) associated with the information
in the NRC's final EA for the AP1000 design and Appendix 1B of the
generic DCD (Revision 15) for plants referencing Appendix D to 10 CFR
part 52 whose site parameters are within those specified in the SAMDA
evaluation. The NRC is proposing to revise this paragraph to identify
as also resolved all environmental issues concerning SAMDA associated
with the information in the NRC's final EA for this amendment and
Appendix 1B of Revision 18 of the generic DCD for plants referencing
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 whose site parameters are within those
specified in the SAMDA evaluation.
Finally, the NRC is proposing to revise paragraph E, which provides
the procedure for an interested member of the public to obtain access
to SUNSI (including PI) and SGI for the AP1000 design in order to
request and participate in proceedings, as identified in paragraph B,
involving licenses and applications that reference Appendix D to 10 CFR
part 52. The NRC is proposing to replace the current information in
this paragraph with a statement that the NRC will specify at an
appropriate time the procedure for interested persons to review SGI or
SUNSI (including PI) for the purpose of participating in the hearing
required by 10 CFR 52.85, the hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103, or
in any other proceeding relating to Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 in
which interested persons have a right to request an adjudicatory
hearing. The NRC expects to follow its current practice of establishing
the procedures by order when the notice of hearing is published in the
Federal Register. (See, e.g., Florida Power and Light Co, Combined
License Application for the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Notice of
Hearing, Opportunity To Petition for Leave To Intervene and Associated
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information for Contention
Preparation (75 FR 34777; June 18, 2010); Notice of Receipt of
Application for License; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
License; Notice of Hearing and Commission Order and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation; In
the Matter of AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC (Eagle Rock Enrichment
Facility) (74 FR 38052; July 30, 2009).
In the four currently approved design certifications (10 CFR part
52, Appendices A through D), paragraph E presents specific directions
on how to obtain access to PI and SGI on the design certification in
connection with a license application proceeding referencing that DCR.
The NRC is proposing this change because these provisions were
developed before the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. After
September 11, 2001, Congress changed the statutory requirements
governing access to SGI, and the NRC revised its rules, procedures, and
practices governing control and access to SUNSI and SGI. The NRC now
believes that generic direction on
[[Page 10274]]
obtaining access to SUNSI and SGI is no longer appropriate for newly
approved DCRs. Accordingly, the specific requirements governing access
to SUNSI and SGI contained in paragraph E of the four currently
approved DCRs should not be included in the DCR for the AP1000.
Instead, the NRC should specify the procedures to be used for obtaining
access at an appropriate time in the COL proceeding referencing the
AP1000 DCR. The NRC intends to include the new rule language in any
future amendments or renewals of the currently existing DCRs, as well
as in new (i.e., initial) DCRs. However, the NRC is not planning to
initiate rulemaking to change paragraph E of the existing DCRs, to
minimize unnecessary resource expenditures by both the original DCR
applicant and the NRC.
5. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
The purpose of Section VIII is to present the processes for generic
changes to, or plant-specific departures (including exemptions) from,
the DCD. The Commission adopted this restrictive change process to
achieve a more stable licensing process for applicants and licensees
that reference this DCR. The change processes for the three different
categories of Tier 2 information, namely, Tier 2, Tier 2*, and Tier 2*
with a time of expiration, are presented in paragraph B.
Departures from Tier 2 that a licensee may make without prior NRC
approval are addressed under paragraph B.5 (similar to the process in
10 CFR 50.59). The NRC is proposing changes to Section VIII to address
the change control process specific to departures from the information
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address the NRC's AIA requirements
in 10 CFR 50.150. Specifically, the NRC is proposing to revise
paragraph B.5.b to indicate that the criteria in this paragraph for
determining if a proposed departure from Tier 2 requires a license
amendment do not apply to a proposed departure affecting information
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address 10 CFR 50.150. In addition,
the NRC is proposing to redesignate paragraphs B.5.d, B.5.e, and B.5.f
as paragraphs B.5.e, B.5.f, and B.5.g, respectively, and to add a new
paragraph B.5.d. Proposed paragraph B.5.d would require an applicant or
licensee who proposed to depart from the information required by 10 CFR
52.47(a)(28) to be included in the final safety analysis report (FSAR)
for the standard design certification to consider the effect of the
changed feature or capability on the original assessment required by 10
CFR 50.150(a). The FSAR information required by the AIA rule which is
subject to this change control requirement includes 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). The objective of the
change controls is 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 AIA rule does not require an
applicant or a licensee implementing a design change to redo the
complete AIA 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.
Consistent with the NRC's intent when it issued the AIA rule, under
the proposed revision to this section, plant-specific departures from
the AIA information in the FSAR would not require a license amendment,
but may be made by the licensee upon compliance with the substantive
requirements of the AIA rule (i.e., the AIA rule acceptance criteria).
The applicant or licensee would also be required to document, in the
plant-specific departure, how the modified design features and
functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment requirements in
10 CFR 50.150(a)(1), in accordance with Section X of Appendix D to 10
CFR part 52. Applicants and 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). The proposed addition of these provisions to Appendix D
to 10 CFR part 52 is consistent with the NRC's intent when it issued
the AIA rule in 2009, as noted in the statements of consideration for
that rule (74 FR 28112; June 12, 2009, at page 28122, third column).
Paragraph B.6 of Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 provides a process
for departing from Tier 2* information. The creation of, and
restrictions on changing, Tier 2* information resulted from the
development of the Tier 1 information for the ABWR design certification
(Appendix A to 10 CFR part 52) and the ABB-CE [ASEA Brown Boveri--
Combustion Engineering] System 80+ design certification (Appendix B to
10 CFR part 52). During this development process, these applicants
requested that the amount of information in Tier 1 be minimized to
provide additional flexibility for an applicant or licensee who
references these appendices. Also, many codes, standards, and design
processes that would not be specified in Tier 1, but were acceptable
for meeting ITAAC, were specified in Tier 2. The result of these
actions was that certain significant information only exists in Tier 2
and the Commission did not want this significant information to be
changed without prior NRC approval. This Tier 2* information was
identified in the generic DCD with italicized text and brackets (See
Table 1-1 of the AP1000 DCD Introduction for a list of the Tier 2*
items). Although the Tier 2* designation was originally intended to
last for the lifetime of the facility, like Tier 1 information, the NRC
determined that some of the Tier 2* information could expire when the
plant first achieves full power (100 percent), after the finding
required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), while other Tier 2* information must
remain in effect throughout the life of the facility. The factors
determining whether Tier 2* information could expire after the first
full-power was achieved were whether the Tier 1 information would
govern these areas after first full-power and the NRC's determination
that prior approval was required before implementation of the change
due to the significance of the information. Therefore, certain Tier 2*
information listed in paragraph B.6.c would cease to retain its Tier 2*
designation after full-power operation is first achieved following the
Commission finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Thereafter, that information
would be deemed to be Tier 2 information that would be subject to the
departure requirements in paragraph B.5. By contrast, the Tier 2*
information identified in paragraph B.6.b would retain its Tier 2*
designation throughout the duration of the license, including any
period of license renewal.
The NRC is proposing to revise certain items designated as Tier 2*.
The item on HFE would be moved from paragraph B.5.b to paragraph B.5.c,
with the effect that the Tier 2* designation on that information would
expire after full-power operation is achieved rather than never
expiring. In addition, a new item
[[Page 10275]]
would be added to paragraph B.5.b for RCP type. The NRC determined that
certain specific characteristics of the RCP were significant to the
safety review and that prior approval of changes affecting those
characteristics would be required. This Tier 2* designation does not
expire.
Finally, the NRC also concluded that the Tier 2* designation was
not necessary for the specific Code edition and addenda for the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (ASME Code), as listed in item VIII.B.6.c.(2). At the time of the
initial certification, the NRC determined that this information should
be Tier 2*. Subsequently, 10 CFR part 50 was modified to include
provisions in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) to provide restrictions in the
use of certain editions/addenda to the ASME Code, Section III, that the
NRC found unacceptable. In addition, 10 CFR 50.55a(c)(3), (d)(2) and
(e)(2), for reactor coolant pressure boundary, Quality Group B
Components, and Quality Group C Components, respectively, provide
regulatory controls on the use of later edition/addenda to the ASME
Code, Section III, through the conditions NRC established on use of
paragraph NCA-1140 of the Code. As a result, these rule requirements
adequately control the ability of a licensee to use a later edition of
the ASME Code and addenda such that Tier 2* designation is not
necessary. Thus, the Tier 2* item in paragraph B.6.c.(2) for ASME Code
was modified to be limited to ASME Code piping design restrictions as
identified in Section 5.2.1.1 of the AP1000 DCD and to include certain
Code cases, including Code Case N-284-1, as discussed in Section
3.8.2.2 and other Code cases as designated in Table 5.2-3 of the DCD
(Code Case N-284-1 is the only case currently specified in Appendix D
to 10 CFR part 52). The NRC retained the Tier 2* designation for
applying ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NE to containment design,
by moving this provision to the end of item VIII.B.6.c.(14). Section
3.8.2.2 of the DCD identifies the specific edition and addenda for
containment design (2001 Edition of ASME Code, Section III, including
2002 Addenda) with the Tier 2* markings.
6. Records and Reporting (Section X)
The purpose of Section X is to present the requirements that apply
to maintaining records of changes to and departures from the generic
DCD, which would be reflected in the plant-specific DCD. Section X also
presents the requirements for submitting reports (including updates to
the plant-specific DCD) to the NRC. Paragraph A.1 requires that a
generic DCD and the PI and SGI referenced in the generic DCD be
maintained by the applicant for this rule. The NRC is proposing to
revise paragraph A.1 to replace the term ``proprietary information,''
or PI, with the broader term ``sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information,'' or SUNSI. Information categorized as SUNSI is
information that is generally not publicly available and encompasses a
wide variety of categories. These categories include information about
a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and
accounting program for special nuclear material not otherwise
designated as SGI or classified as National Security Information or
Restricted Data (security-related information), which is required by 10
CFR 2.390 to be protected in the same manner as commercial or financial
information (i.e., they are exempt from public disclosure). This change
is necessary because the NRC is proposing to approve PI and security-
related information. This change would also ensure that Westinghouse
(as well as any future applicants for amendments to the AP1000 DCR who
intend to supply the certified design) are required to maintain a copy
of the applicable generic DCD, and maintain the applicable SUNSI
(including PI) and SGI--developed by that applicant--that were approved
as part of the relevant design certification rulemakings.
The NRC notes that the generic DCD concept was developed, in part,
to meet OFR requirements for incorporation by reference, including
public availability of documents incorporated by reference. However,
the PI and SGI were not included in the public version of the DCD. Only
the public version of the generic DCD would be identified and
incorporated by reference into this rule. Nonetheless, the SUNSI for
this amendment was reviewed by the NRC and, as stated in paragraph B.2,
the NRC would consider the information to be resolved within the
meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). Because this information is in the non-
public version of the DCD, this SUNSI (including PI) and SGI, or its
equivalent, is required to be provided by an applicant for a license
referencing this DCR.
In addition, the NRC is proposing to add a new paragraph A.4.a that
would require the applicant for the AP1000 design to maintain a copy of
the AIA performed to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a)
for the term of the certification (including any period of renewal).
The NRC is also proposing a new paragraph A.4.b that would require an
applicant or licensee who references this appendix to maintain a copy
of the AIA performed to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.150(a) throughout the pendency of the application and for the term
of the license (including any period of renewal). The addition of
paragraphs A.4.a and A.4.b is consistent with the NRC's intent when it
issued the AIA rule in 2009 (74 FR 28112; June 12, 2009, at page 28121,
second column).
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion sets forth each proposed amendment to the
AP1000 DCR. All section and paragraph references are to the provisions
in the proposed amendment to Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52, unless
otherwise noted.
A. Introduction (Section I)
The NRC is proposing to amend Section I, Introduction, to change
the DCD revision number from 15 to 18.
B. Scope and Contents (Section III)
The NRC is proposing to amend Section III, Scope and Contents, to
revise paragraph A to update the revision number of the DCD, from
Revision 15 to Revision 18, approved for incorporation by reference;
update the contact information of the Westinghouse representative to be
contacted should a member of the public request a copy of the generic
DCD; and update other locations (e.g., the NRC's PDR) where a member of
the public could request a copy of or otherwise view the generic DCD.
The NRC is proposing to revise paragraph D to set forth the way
potential conflicts are to be resolved. Paragraph D would establish the
generic DCD as the controlling document in the event of an
inconsistency between the DCD and either the application or the FSER
for the certified standard design. This clarification would further
distinguish between the conflict scenarios presented in paragraphs D.1
(for the initial certification of the design) and D.2 (for Amendment 1
to the design).
C. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
The NRC is proposing to amend Section IV, Additional Requirements
and Restrictions, to set forth additional requirements and restrictions
imposed upon an applicant who references Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52.
Paragraph A would set forth the information requirements for these
applicants. The NRC is proposing to revise paragraph A.3 to replace the
term ``proprietary information'' with the
[[Page 10276]]
broader term ``sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information.''
The NRC is also proposing to add a new paragraph A.4 to indicate
requirements that must be met in cases where the COL applicant is not
using the entity that was the original applicant for the design
certification (or amendment) to supply the design for the applicant's
use. Proposed paragraph A.4 would require a COL applicant referencing
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 to include, as part of its application, a
demonstration that an entity other than Westinghouse is qualified to
supply the AP1000 certified design, unless Westinghouse supplies the
design for the applicant's use. In cases where a COL applicant is not
using Westinghouse to supply the AP1000 certified design, the required
information would be used to support any NRC finding under 10 CFR
52.73(a) that an entity other than the one originally sponsoring the
design certification or design certification amendment is qualified to
supply the certified design.
D. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
The NRC proposes to revise paragraph A to distinguish between the
regulations that are applicable and in effect at the time the initial
design certification was approved (paragraph A.1) and the regulations
that would be applicable and in effect at the time that Amendment 1 is
approved (paragraph A.2).
E. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
The NRC proposes to amend Section VI, Issue Resolution, by revising
paragraph B.1 to provide that all nuclear safety issues arising from
the Act that are associated with the information in the NRC's FSER
(NUREG-1793), the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information (including the
availability controls in Section 16.3 of the generic DCD), and the
rulemaking record for Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 are resolved within
the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). These issues include the information
referenced in the DCD that are requirements (i.e., secondary
references), as well as all issues arising from SUNSI (including PI)
and SGI, which are intended to be requirements. This paragraph would be
revised to extend issue resolution beyond that of the previously
certified design to also include the information in Supplement No. 2 of
the FSER and the rulemaking record associated with Amendment 1 to the
AP1000 design.
The NRC is proposing to revise paragraph B.2 to replace the term
``proprietary information'' with the broader term ``sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information.''
Paragraph B.7 would be revised to extend environmental issue
resolution beyond that of the previously certified design to also
include the information in Amendment 1 to the AP1000 design and
Appendix 1B of Revision 18 of the generic DCD.
New paragraph VI.E would provide that the NRC will specify at an
appropriate time the procedures for interested persons to obtain access
to PI, SUNSI, and SGI for the AP1000 DCR. Access to such information
would be for the sole purpose of requesting or participating in certain
specified hearings, such as (1) The hearing required by 10 CFR 52.85
where the underlying application references Appendix D to 10 CFR part
52; (2) any hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103 where the underlying
COL references Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52; and (3) any other hearing
relating to Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 in which interested persons
have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing.
F. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
The NRC is proposing changes to Section VIII to address the change
control process specific to departures from the information required by
10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address the NRC's AIA requirements in 10 CFR
50.150. Specifically, the NRC is proposing to revise the introductory
text of paragraph B.5.b to indicate that the criteria in this paragraph
for determining if a proposed departure from Tier 2 requires a license
amendment do not apply to a proposed departure affecting information
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address aircraft impacts.
In addition, the NRC is proposing to redesignate paragraphs B.5.d,
B.5.e, and B.5.f as paragraphs B.5.e, B.5.f, and B.5.g, respectively,
and to add a new paragraph B.5.d. Proposed paragraph B.5.d would
require an applicant referencing the AP1000 DCR, who proposed to depart
from the information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in
the FSAR for the standard design certification, to consider the effect
of the changed feature or capability on the original 10 CFR 50.150(a)
assessment.
The NRC is proposing to revise certain items designated as Tier 2*.
The item on HFE would be moved from paragraph B.6.b to paragraph B.6.c,
with the effect that the Tier 2* designation on that information would
expire after full-power operation is achieved rather than never. In
addition, a new item would be added to paragraph B.6.b for RCP type.
The NRC determined that certain specific characteristics of the RCP
were significant to the safety review and that prior approval of
changes affecting those characteristics would be required. This Tier 2*
designation does not expire.
The NRC also concluded that the Tier 2* designation was not
necessary for the specific Code edition and addenda for the ASME code
as listed in paragraph B.6.c(2). Thus, the item in paragraph B.6.c(2)
for the ASME Code would be modified to be more limited in scope. The
NRC would retain the Tier 2* designation for the Code edition
applicable to containment in paragraph B.6.c(14) and added paragraph
B.6.c(16) on ASME Code cases, which are specified in Table 5.2-3 of the
generic DCD.
G. Records and Reporting (Section X)
The NRC is proposing to amend Section X, Records and Reporting, to
revise paragraph A.1 to replace the term ``proprietary information''
with the broader term ``sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information.'' Paragraph A.1 would also be revised to require the
design certification amendment applicant to maintain the SUNSI, which
it developed and used to support its design certification amendment
application. This would ensure that the referencing applicant has
direct access to this information from the design certification
amendment applicant, if it has contracted with the applicant to provide
the SUNSI to support its license application. The AP1000 generic DCD
and the NRC-approved version of the SUNSI would be required to be
maintained for the period that Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 may be
referenced.
The NRC is also proposing to add a new paragraph A.4.a, which would
require Westinghouse to maintain a copy of the AIA performed to comply
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) for the term of the
certification (including any period of renewal). This proposed
provision, which is consistent with 10 CFR 50.150(c)(3), would
facilitate any NRC inspections of the assessment that the NRC decides
to conduct.
Similarly, the NRC is proposing new paragraph A.4.b, which would
require an applicant or licensee who references Appendix D to 10 CFR
part 52 to maintain a copy of the AIA performed to comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) throughout the pendency of the
application and for the term of the license (including any period of
renewal). This provision is consistent with 10 CFR 50.150(c)(4). For
all applicants and licensees, the supporting
[[Page 10277]]
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) would be met.
V. 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 Act or the provisions of this
section. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements
reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain
requirements by a mechanism that is consistent with the particular
State's administrative procedure laws. Category ``NRC'' regulations do
not confer regulatory authority on the State.
VI. Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the documents identified below available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated. To access documents related to this action, see Section I,
``Submitting Comments and Accessing Information'' of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The regulatory history of the NRC's design certification
reviews is a package of documents that is available in NRC's PDR and
ADAMS. This history spans the period during which the NRC
simultaneously developed the regulatory standards for reviewing
these designs and the form and content of the rules that certified
the designs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document PDR Web ADAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECY-11-0002, ``Proposed Rule--AP1000 Design X X ML103000397
Certification Amendment''..............................
AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) Revision 18, X X ML103480059
Transmittal Letter.....................................
Westinghouse AP1000 DCD Revision 18 (public version).... X ................. ML103480572
Advanced Final Safety Evaluation Report for Revision 18 X ................. ML103260072
to the AP1000 Standard Design Certification (publicly
available).............................................
AP1000 Environmental Assessment......................... X X ML103000415
Interim Staff Guidance DC/COL-ISG-011, ``Finalizing X X ML092890623
Licensing-basis Information''..........................
Design Changes Submitted by Westinghouse, Revision 18... X X ML100250873
AP1000 Technical Reports (Appendix)..................... X ................. ML103350501
TR-26, ``AP1000 Verification of Water Sources for Long- X X ML102170123
Term Recirculation Cooling Following a LOCA,'' Revision
8......................................................
TR-54, ``Spent Fuel Storage Racks Structure and Seismic X X ML101580475
Analysis,'' Revision 4.................................
TR-65, ``Spent Fuel Storage Racks Criticality X X ML100082093
Analysis,'' Revision 2.................................
TR-103, ``Fluid System Changes,'' Revision 2............ X X ML072830060
``Evaluation of the Effect of the AP1000 Enhanced Shield X X ML102220579
Building on the Containment Response and Safety
Analysis,'' Revision 1.................................
AP1000 DCD Transmittal Letter, Revision 17.............. X X ML083220482
AP1000 DCD, Revision 17................................. X X ML083230868
AP1000 DCD Transmittal Letter, Revision 16.............. X X ML071580757
AP1000 DCD, Revision 16................................. X X ML071580939
NRC Notice of Acceptance, Revision 16................... X X ML073600743
December 13, 2010 ACRS Letter to Chairman (Report on X X ML103410351
FSER to AP1000 DCD)....................................
December 20, 2010 ACRS Letter to Chairman (Long-Term X X ML103410348
Core Cooling)..........................................
Regulatory History of Design Certification \2\.......... X ................. ML003761550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (Including Proprietary Information) and Safeguards
Information for Preparation of Comments on the Proposed Amendment to
the AP1000 Design Certification
This section contains instructions regarding how interested persons
who wish to comment on the proposed design certification may request
access to documents containing SUNSI (including PI \3\), and SGI, to
prepare their comments. Requirements for access to SGI are primarily
set forth in 10 CFR parts 2 and 73. This document provides information
specific to this proposed rulemaking; however, nothing in this document
is intended to conflict with the SGI regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For purposes of this discussion, ``proprietary information''
constitutes trade secrets or commercial or financial information
that are privileged or confidential, as those terms are used under
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the NRC's
implementing regulation at 10 CFR part 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested persons who desire access to SUNSI information on the
AP1000 design constituting PI should first request access to that
information from the design certification applicant. A request for
access should be submitted to the NRC if the applicant does not either
grant or deny access by the 10-day deadline described below.
Submitting a Request to the NRC
Within 10 days after publication of this document, an individual or
entity (thereinafter, the ``requester'') may request access to such
information. Requests for access to SUNSI or SGI submitted more than 10
days after publication of this document will not be considered absent a
showing of good cause for the late filing explaining why the request
could not have been filed earlier.
The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access
SUNSI and/or SGI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,
Washington DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail
address is: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for the
Office of the Secretary is [email protected]. The requester
must send a copy of the request to the design certification applicant
at the same time as the original transmission to the NRC using the same
method of transmission. Copies of the request to the applicant must be
sent to Stanley E. Ritterbusch, Manager, AP1000 Design Certification,
Westinghouse Electric Company, 1000 Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry
[[Page 10278]]
Township, PA 16066, or by e-mail to [email protected]. For
purposes of complying with this requirement, a ``request'' includes all
the information required to be submitted to the NRC as presented in
this section.
The request must include the following information:
1. The name of this design certification amendment (AP1000 Design
Certification Amendment), the rulemaking identification number RIN
3150-AI81, the rulemaking Docket ID NRC-2010-0131, and a citation to
this document at the top of the first page of the request;
2. The name, address, e-mail, or fax number of the requester. If
the requester is an entity, the name of the individual(s) to whom
access is to be provided, then the address and e-mail or fax number for
each individual, and a statement of the authority granted by the entity
to each individual to review the information and to prepare comments on
behalf of the entity must be provided. If the requester is relying upon
another individual to evaluate the requested SUNSI and/or SGI and
prepare comments, then the name, affiliation, address, and e-mail or
fax number for that individual must be provided.
3.(a) If the request is for SUNSI, then the requester's need for
the information to prepare meaningful comments on the proposed design
certification must be demonstrated. Each of the following areas must be
addressed with specificity.
(i) The specific issue or subject matter on which the requester
wishes to comment;
(ii) An explanation why information which is publicly available,
including the publicly available versions of the application and DCD,
and information on the NRC's docket for the design certification
application is insufficient to provide the basis for developing
meaningful comment on the proposed design certification with respect to
the issue or subject matter described previously in paragraph 3.(a)(i);
and
(iii) Information demonstrating that the individual to whom access
is to be provided has the technical competence (demonstrable knowledge,
skill, experience, education, training, or certification) to understand
and use (or evaluate) the requested information for a meaningful
comment on the proposed design certification with respect to the issue
or subject matter described in paragraph 3.(a)(i) above.
(b) If the request is for SUNSI constituting PI, then a chronology
and discussion of the requester's attempts to obtain the information
from the design certification applicant, and the final communication
from the requester to the applicant and the applicant's response with
respect to the request for access to PI must be submitted.
4.(a) If the request is for SGI, then the requester's ``need to
know'' the SGI must be demonstrated as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10
CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent with the definition of ``need to know'' as
stated in 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), each of the following
areas must be addressed with specificity:
(i) The specific issue or subject matter on which the requester
wishes to comment;
(ii) An explanation why information which is publicly available,
including the publicly available versions of the application and DCD,
and information on the NRC's docket for the design certification
application is insufficient to provide the basis for developing
meaningful comment on the proposed design certification with respect to
the issue or subject matter described in paragraph 4.(a)(i) above, and
that the SGI requested is indispensible in order to develop meaningful
comments; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are unlikely to
meet the standard for need to know. Furthermore, NRC staff redaction
of information from requested documents before their release may be
appropriate to comport with this requirement. The procedures in this
document of proposed rulemaking do not authorize unrestricted
disclosure or less scrutiny of a requester's need to know than
ordinarily would be applied in connection with either adjudicatory
or non-adjudicatory access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Information demonstrating that the individual to whom access
is to be provided has the technical competence (demonstrable knowledge,
skill, experience, education, training, or certification) to understand
and use (or evaluate) the requested SGI, for meaningful comment on the
proposed design certification with respect to the issue or subject
matter described in paragraph 4.(a)(i) above.
(b) A completed Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive
Positions,'' must be submitted for each individual who would have
access to SGI. The completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of
Administration to conduct the background check required for access to
SGI, as required by 10 CFR part 2, Subpart G, and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2),
to determine the requester's trustworthiness and reliability. For
security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically
through the electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) Web site, a secure Web site that is owned and operated by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). To obtain online access to the
form, the requester should contact the NRC's Office of Administration
at 301-492-3524.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The requester will be asked to provide his or her full name,
Social Security number, date and place of birth, telephone number,
and e-mail address. After providing this information, the requester
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within 1
business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original
ink, and submitted under 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form FD-258 may be
obtained by writing the Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; by calling 301-415-
5877 or 301-492-7311; or by e-mail to [email protected]. The
fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR
Part 2, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the Act, which mandates
that all persons with access to SGI must be fingerprinted for a Federal
Bureau of Investigation identification and criminal history records
check;
(d) A check or money order in the amount of $200.00 \6\ payable to
the NRC for each individual for whom the request for access has been
submitted; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This fee is subject to change pursuant to the OPM's
adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) If the requester or any individual who will have access to SGI
believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals
relieved from the criminal history records check and background check
requirements, as stated in 10 CFR 73.59, the requester should also
provide a statement specifically stating which relief the requester is
invoking, and explaining the requester's basis (including supporting
documentation) for believing that the relief is applicable. While
processing the request, the NRC's Office of Administration, Personnel
Security Branch, will make a final determination whether the stated
relief applies. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Office of
Administration for an evaluation of their status prior to submitting
the request. Persons who are not subject to the background check are
not required to complete the Form SF-85 or Form FD-258; however, all
other requirements for access to SGI, including the need to know, are
still applicable.
Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs 4(b), (c),
(d), and (e), as applicable, of this section of this document must be
sent to the following address: Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Personnel Security Branch, Mail Stop: TWB-05
B32M, Washington, DC 20555-0012.
[[Page 10279]]
These documents and materials should not be included with the
request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter
should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as required
above.
5. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all
forms should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including
legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The NRC will return
incomplete or illegible packages to the sender without processing.
6. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraphs 3(a) and (b), or 4(a), (b), (c), and (e) of this section, as
applicable, the NRC will determine within 10 days of receipt of the
written access request whether the requester has established a
legitimate need for the SUNSI access or ``need to know'' the SGI
requested.
7. For SUNSI access requests, if the NRC determines that the
requester has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI, the
NRC will notify the requester in writing that access to SUNSI has been
granted, provided however, that if the SUNSI consists of PI (i.e.,
trade secrets or confidential or financial information), the NRC must
first notify the applicant of the NRC's determination to grant access
to the requester not less than 10 days before informing the requester
of the NRC's decision. If the applicant wishes to challenge the NRC's
determination, it must follow the procedures in paragraph 12 of this
section. The NRC will not provide the requester access to disputed PI
until the procedures in paragraph 12 of this section are completed.
The written notification to the requester will contain instructions
on how the requester may obtain copies of the requested documents, and
any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These
conditions will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the
signing of a protective order presenting terms and conditions to
prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each
individual who will be granted access to SUNSI. Claims that the
provisions of such a protective order have not been complied with may
be filed by calling NRC's toll-free safety hotline at 800-695-7403.
Please note that calls to this number are not recorded between the
hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. However, calls received outside
these hours are answered by the NRC's Incident Response Operations
Center on a recorded line. Claims may also be filed via e-mail sent to
[email protected], or may be sent in writing to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: N. Rivera-Feliciano, Mail Stop: T-7D24,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
8. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC determines that the
requester has established a need to know the SGI, the NRC's Office of
Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the
background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and
reliable, as required for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the
NRC's Office of Administration determines that the individual or
individuals are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify
the requester in writing. The notification will provide the names of
approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will
be provided. Those conditions will include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the signing of a protective order by each individual who
will be granted access to SGI. Claims that the provisions of such a
protective order have not been complied with may be filed by calling
NRC's toll-free safety hotline at 1-800-695-7403. Please note that
calls to this number are not recorded between the hours of 7 a.m. to 5
p.m. Eastern Time. However, calls received outside these hours are
answered by the NRC's Incident Response Operations Center on a recorded
line. Claims may also be filed via e-mail sent to [email protected], or may be sent in writing to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: N. Rivera-Feliciano, Mail Stop: T-7D24,
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Because SGI requires special handling,
initial filings with the NRC should be free from such specific
information. If necessary, the NRC will arrange an appropriate setting
for transmitting SGI to the NRC.
9. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the
requester, the NRC will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm
that the recipient's information protection system is sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively, recipients may
choose to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location rather than
establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI protection
requirements.
10. Filing of Comments on the Proposed Design Certification. Any
comments in this rulemaking proceeding that are based upon the
disclosed SUNSI or SGI must be filed by the requester no later than 25
days after receipt of (or access to) that information, or the close of
the public comment period, whichever is later. The commenter must
comply with the NRC requirements regarding the submission of SUNSI and
SGI to the NRC when submitting comments to the NRC (including marking
and transmission requirements).
11. Review of Denials of Access.
(a) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC,
the staff shall promptly notify the requester in writing, briefly
stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(b) Before the NRC's Office of Administration makes an adverse
determination regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of the
proposed recipient(s) of SGI, the NRC's Office of Administration, under
10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iii), must provide the proposed recipient(s) any
records that were considered in the trustworthiness and reliability
determination, including those required to be provided under 10 CFR
73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient is provided an opportunity
to correct or explain information.
(c) Appeals from a denial of access must be made to the NRC's
Executive Director for Operations (EDO) under 10 CFR 9.29. The decision
of the EDO constitutes final agency action, as provided in 10 CFR
9.29(d).
12. Predisclosure Procedures for SUNSI Constituting Trade Secrets
or Confidential Commercial or Financial Information. The NRC will
follow the procedures in 10 CFR 9.28 if the NRC determines, under
paragraph 7 of this section, that access to SUNSI constituting trade
secrets or confidential commercial or financial information will be
provided to the requester. However, any objection filed by the
applicant under 10 CFR 9.28(b) must be filed within 15 days of the NRC
notice in paragraph 7 of this section rather than the 30-day period
provided for under that paragraph. In applying the provisions of 10 CFR
9.28, the applicant for the DCR will be treated as the ``submitter.''
VIII. Plain Language
The Presidential memorandum ``Plain Language in Government
Writing'' published on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883), directed that the
Government's documents be in clear and accessible language. The NRC
requests comments on the proposed rule specifically with respect to the
clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent
to the NRC as explained in the ADDRESSES heading of this document.
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology and Transfer Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
[[Page 10280]]
standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the
NRC proposes to approve Amendment 1 to the AP1000 standard plant design
for use in nuclear power plant licensing under 10 CFR part 50 or 52.
Design certifications (and amendments thereto) are not generic
rulemakings establishing a generally applicable standard with which all
10 CFR parts 50 and 52 nuclear power plant licensees must comply.
Design certifications (and amendments thereto) are Commission approvals
of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking. Furthermore,
design certifications (and amendments thereto) are initiated by an
applicant for rulemaking, rather than by the NRC. For these reasons,
the NRC concludes that the National Technology and Transfer Act of 1995
does not apply to this proposed rule.
X. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The Commission has determined under NEPA, and the Commission's
regulations in Subpart A, ``National Environmental Policy Act;
Regulations Implementing Section 102(2),'' of 10 CFR part 51,
``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions,'' that this proposed DCR, if adopted,
would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is not required. The basis for this determination, as
documented in the EA, is that the Commission has made a generic
determination under 10 CFR 51.32(b)(2) that there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the issuance of an amendment to a
design certification. This amendment to 10 CFR part 52 would not
authorize the siting, construction, or operation of a facility using
the amended AP1000 design; it would only codify the amendment to the
AP1000 design in a rule. The NRC will evaluate the environmental
impacts and issue an EIS as appropriate under NEPA as part of the
application for the construction and operation of a facility
referencing this amendment to the AP1000 DCR. In addition, as part of
the draft EA for the amendment to the AP1000 design, the NRC reviewed
Westinghouse's evaluation of various design alternatives to prevent and
mitigate severe accidents in Appendix 1B of the AP1000 DCD Tier 2.
According to 10 CFR 51.30(d), an EA for a design certification
amendment is limited to the consideration of whether the design change,
which is the subject of the proposed amendment renders a SAMDA
previously rejected in the earlier EA to become cost beneficial, or
results in the identification of new SAMDAs, in which case the costs
and benefits of new SAMDAs and the bases for not incorporating new
SAMDAs in the design certification must be addressed. Based upon review
of Westinghouse's evaluation, the Commission concludes that the
proposed design changes: (1) Do not cause a SAMDA previously rejected
in the EA for the initial AP1000 design certification to become cost
beneficial; and (2) do not result in the identification of any new
SAMDAs that could become cost beneficial.
The Commission is requesting comment on the draft EA. As provided
in 10 CFR 51.31(b), comments on the draft EA will be limited to the
consideration of SAMDAs as required by 10 CFR 51.30(d). The Commission
will prepare a final EA following the close of the comment period for
the proposed standard design certification. If a final rule is issued,
all environmental issues concerning SAMDAs associated with the
information in the final EA and Appendix 1B of the AP1000 DCD Tier 2
will be considered resolved for plants referencing Amendment 1 to the
AP1000 design whose site parameters are within those specified in SAMDA
evaluation. The existing site parameters specified in the SAMDA
evaluation are not affected by this design certification amendment.
The draft EA, upon which the Commission's finding of no significant
impact is based, and Revision 18 of the AP1000 DCD are available for
examination and copying at the NRC's PDR, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule contains new or amended information collection
requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). This rule has been submitted to OMB for
review and approval of the information collection requirements.
Type of submission, new or revision: Revision.
The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 52, AP1000
Design Certification Amendment.
The form number if applicable: N/A.
How often the collection is required: On occasion. Reports required
under 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, paragraph IV.A.4, are collected and
evaluated once if licensing action is sought on a COL application
referencing the AP1000 design and the COL applicant is not using the
entity that was the original applicant for the design certification, or
amendment, to supply the design for the license applicant's use. In
addition, COL applicants and the applicant for a design certification
must keep records of the aircraft impact assessment performed to comply
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a).
Who will be required or asked to report: COL applicants and one
applicant for a design certification.
An estimate of the number of annual responses: 8 (0 annual
responses plus 8 recordkeepers).
The estimated number of annual respondents: 8.
An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to
complete the requirement or request: 24 hours (0 hours reporting and 24
hours recordkeeping).
Abstract: The NRC proposes to amend its regulations to certify an
amendment to the AP1000 standard plant design to bring the design into
compliance with NRC's regulations and to increase standardization of
the design. This action is necessary so that applicants or licensees
intending to construct and operate an AP1000 design may do so by
referencing this DCR as amended.
The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the
information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the
following issues:
1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the
information will have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated collection techniques?
A copy of the OMB clearance package may be viewed free of charge at
the NRC's PDR, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1-
F21, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance package and rule are
available at the NRC Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html for 60 days after the signature date of this
document.
Send comments on any aspect of these proposed information
collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the
above issues, by March 28, 2011 to the Information
[[Page 10281]]
Services Branch (T5-F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to
[email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0151), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments on the proposed
information collections may also be submitted via the Federal
rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID NRC-2010-
0131. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is
practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to
comments received after this date. You may also e-mail comments to
[email protected] or comment by telephone at 202-395-
4638.
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.
XII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this proposed
rule. The NRC prepares regulatory analyses for rulemakings that
establish generic regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees.
Design certifications (and amendments thereto) are not generic
rulemakings in the sense that design certifications (and amendments
thereto) do not establish standards or requirements with which all
licensees must comply. Rather, design certifications (and amendments
thereto) are Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant
designs by rulemaking, which then may be voluntarily referenced by
applicants for COLs. Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are
initiated by an applicant for a design certification (or amendments
thereto), rather than the NRC. Preparation of a regulatory analysis in
this circumstance would not be useful because the design to be
certified is proposed by the applicant rather than the NRC. For these
reasons, the Commission concludes that preparation of a regulatory
analysis is neither required nor appropriate.
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the
Commission certifies that this rule would not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule provides for certification of an amendment to a
nuclear power plant design. Neither the design certification amendment
applicant, nor prospective nuclear power plant licensees who reference
this DCR, fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities''
presented in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the size standards
established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). Thus, this rule does not fall
within the purview of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
XIV. Backfitting
The NRC has determined that this proposed rule meets the
requirements of the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, and the requirements
governing changes to DCRs in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1).
The proposed rule does not constitute backfitting as defined in the
backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) with respect to operating licenses under
10 CFR part 50 because there are no operating licenses referencing this
DCR.
Westinghouse requested many changes to the AP1000 DCD to correct
spelling, punctuation, or similar errors, which result in text that has
the same essential meaning. The NRC concludes that these Westinghouse-
requested changes, which are editorial in nature, neither constitute
backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), nor are these changes
inconsistent with the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 or 10
CFR 52.83. The backfitting and issue finality provisions were not meant
to apply to such editorial changes inasmuch as such changes would have
insubstantial impact on licensees with respect to their design and
operation, and are not the kind of changes falling within the policy
considerations that underlie the backfit rule and the issue finality
provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 and 52.83.
Westinghouse also requested changes to the AP1000 DCD, which the
NRC understands were the result of requests to Westinghouse from COL
applicants referencing the AP1000 design, to achieve consistency in
description and approach in different portions of the DCD. In the
absence of a generic change to the AP1000, the referencing COL
applicants stated to Westinghouse and the NRC that each would likely
take plant-specific departures to address the inconsistency. While this
could result in more consistency within any given COL application, it
would result in inconsistencies among the different referencing COLs,
which is inconsistent with the overall standardization goal of 10 CFR
part 52. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the Westinghouse-requested
changes to the AP1000 to address consistency do not constitute
backfitting under the backfit rule (in as much as they are voluntary)
and are not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions
of 10 CFR 52.63 and 52.83.
Westinghouse also proposed numerous substantive changes to the
AP1000 design, including, but not limited to, minor component design
details, replacement of a design feature with another having similar
performance (e.g., turbine manufacturer, power for the auxiliary
boiler), and changes allowing additional capability for operational
flexibility (e.g., liquid waste holdup tanks, unit reserve
transformer). Westinghouse included within its application a detailed
list of each DCD content change and the basis under 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)
that supports including that change in this amendment.
With respect to DCD Revision 18, the bases under 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)
for the various changes to the DCD are documented in an enclosure,
entitled Revision Change Roadmap, to a December 1, 2010, Westinghouse
letter sent to the NRC. This Revision Change Roadmap cross-references
the DCD changes in DCD Revision 18, as compared to DCD Revision 17, and
applicable 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) criteria. Revision 18 contains both
proposed changes previously described in the design change packages and
changes already accepted by the NRC in the review process of Revision
17 to the AP1000 DCD. In the course of the review of both design change
packages, the NRC determined that DCD changes were needed. In response
to NRC questions, Westinghouse proposed such changes. Once the NRC was
satisfied with these DCD markups, they were documented in the safety
evaluation report (SER) as ``confirmatory items'' (CIs). The CIs were
first identified during the NRC's review of Revision 17 of the AP1000
DCD. With the review of Revision 18, the NRC will confirm that
Westinghouse has made those changes to the DCD accepted by the NRC that
were not addressed in Revision 17 to the AP1000 DCD. The use of CIs is
restricted to cases where the NRC has reviewed and approved specific
design control document proposals. For the final rule, the NRC will
complete the review of the CIs and prepare an FSER reflecting that
action. The CIs are closed based upon an acceptable comparison between
the revised DCD text and the text required by the CI. No technical
review of Revision 18 by the NRC is necessary, because only CIs and
design changes pursuant to DC/COL-ISG-011,
[[Page 10282]]
previously accepted by the NRC, are contained in Revision 18 to the
DCD.
A September 22, 2008, Westinghouse letter provides a similar set of
cross-references for those changes associated with DCD Revision 17, as
compared to DCD Revision 16. For Revision 16, in contrast, Westinghouse
used TRs to identify the DCD changes in DCD Revision 16, as compared to
DCD Revision 15, and listed the corresponding applicable 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1) criteria in an enclosure to a Westinghouse letter dated May
26, 2007 (Table 1). These tables include the editorial and consistency
changes described above as well as design changes. In the course of the
NRC review of the technical changes proposed by Westinghouse, the NRC
considered the basis offered by Westinghouse and made conclusions about
whether the criteria of 10 CFR 52.63(a) were satisfied. These
conclusions are included in the chapters of the Advanced Final Safety
Evaluation Report. The NRC concluded that all of these changes met at
least one of the criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a) and are not otherwise
inconsistent with the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 and
52.83. Fifteen of the most significant changes are discussed below, to
show that each of the 15 substantive changes to the AP1000 certified
design meet at least one of the criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(i)
through (a)(1)(vii) and, therefore, do not constitute a violation of
the finality provisions in that section.
Revision 17 provides a similar cross-reference in the DCD as
submitted by a September 22, 2008, Westinghouse letter for those
changes associated with Revision 17. Revision 16 on the other hand,
uses TRs to identify the DCD changes and lists the corresponding
applicable 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) criteria in an enclosure to a
Westinghouse letter, dated May 26, 2007 (Table 1). These tables include
the editorial and consistency changes described above as well as design
changes. In the course of the NRC review of the technical changes
proposed by Westinghouse, the NRC considered the basis offered by
Westinghouse and made conclusions about whether the criteria of 10 CFR
52.63(a) were satisfied. These conclusions are included in the chapters
of the Advanced Final Safety Evaluation Report. The NRC concluded that
all of these changes met at least one of the criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a) and are not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality
provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 and 52.83. Fifteen of the most significant
changes are discussed below, to show that each of the 15 substantive
changes to the AP1000 certified design meet at least one of the
criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vii) and, therefore,
do not constitute a violation of the finality provisions in that
section.
I. 10 CFR 52.63 Criterion (a)(1)(iv): Provides the Detailed Design
Information to be Verified under those ITAAC, which are Directed at
Certification Information (i.e., DAC).
Title: Removal of Human Factors Engineering Design Acceptance
Criteria from the Design Control Document.
Item: 1 of 15.
Significant Change: The ITAAC Design Commitments for Human Factor
Engineering (HFE) is in Tier 1, Table 3.2-1. In Revision 17 of the
AP1000 DCD, Westinghouse proposed deletion of the Human Factors DAC
(Design Commitments 1 through 4) and provided sufficient supporting
documentation to meet the requirements of these ITAAC. Design
Commitment 1 pertains to the integration of human reliability analysis
with HFE design. Design Commitment 2 pertains to the HFE task analysis.
Design Commitment 3 pertains to the human-system interface. Design
Commitment 4 pertains to the HFE program verification and validation
implementation. The information developed by Westinghouse to satisfy
these ITAAC is included in Chapter 18 of the DCD.
Location within the Safety Evaluation (SER) where the changes are
principally described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with the HFE DAC are in Sections 18.7.6 (design
commitment 1), 18.5.9 (design commitment 2), 18.2.8 (design commitment
3), and 18.11 (design commitment 4) of the SER (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
The additional information included in Tier 2 provides detailed
design information on human factors design that would otherwise have to
be addressed through verification of implementation of the human
factors DAC. Therefore, the changes to the DCD eliminate the need for
DAC on human factors and meet the finality criteria in Sec.
52.63(a)(1)(iv).
Title: Change to Instrumentation and Control DAC and Associated
ITAAC.
Item: 2 of 15.
Significant Change: In the proposed revision to DCD Chapter 7,
Westinghouse chose the Common Q platform to implement the Protection
and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) and removed all references to the
Eagle 21 platform. This design change, coupled with the development of
other information about the PMS system definition design phase, was the
basis for Westinghouse's proposed removal of its Tier 1, Chapter 2,
Section 2.5.2, Design Commitment 11(a) Design Requirements phase from
Table 2.5.2-8, ``Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance
Criteria,'' for the PMS.
In its proposed revision to the DCD in Chapter 7, Westinghouse
altered its design for the Diverse Actuation System (DAS) by
implementing it with Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) technology
instead of microprocessor-based technology. Additional information
about the design process for the DAS was added as the basis for
Westinghouse's proposed completion of its Tier 1, Chapter 2, Section
2.5.1, Design Commitment 4a) and 4b) Design Requirements and System
Definition phases from Table 2.5.1-4 ``Inspections, Tests, Analyses,
and Acceptance Criteria'' for the DAS.
Location within the Safety Evaluation (SER) where the changes are
principally described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with I&C DAC and ITAAC are in Sections 7.2.2.3.14,
7.2.5, 7.8.2, 7.9.2, and 7.9.3 of the SER (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Westinghouse provided additional information that incorporates the
results of the design process implementation for the PMS and DAS (which
both support completion of Design Commitments 11a from Table 2.5.2-8
and 4a and 4b from Table 2.5.1-4, respectively) into the DCD. The
additional information included in Tier 2 provides detailed design
information on I&C design that would otherwise have to be addressed
through verification of implementation of the I&C DAC. Therefore, the
changes to the DCD eliminate the need for DAC on I&Cs and meet the
finality criteria in Sec. 52.63(a)(1)(iv).
II. 10 CFR 52.63 CRITERION (a)(1)(vii): Contributes to Increased
Standardization of the Certification Information
The changes being proposed for the AP1000 amendment generally fall
into one of two categories: (1) Changes which provide additional
information or a greater level of detail not previously available in
the currently-approved version of the AP1000 DCD (Revision 15); or (2)
changes requested by COL applicants referencing the AP1000 who would
plan to include these changes in their application as departures if
they were not approved in the AP1000 DCR amendment. The Commission
concludes that both categories of
[[Page 10283]]
changes meet the 10 CFR 52.63 criterion of ``contributes to increased
standardization.'' The bases for the Commission's conclusions,
including each category of change, are discussed below.
Additional and more detailed information:
Westinghouse proposes that the DCD be changed by adding new, more
detailed design information that expands upon the design information
already included in the DCD. This information would be used by every
COL referencing the AP1000 DCR. Incorporating these proposed changes
into the AP1000 DCR as part of this amendment contributes to the
increased standardization of the certification information by
eliminating the possibility of multiple departures. Therefore, these
changes enhance standardization, and meet the finality criterion for
changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Changes for which COL applicants would otherwise request
departures:
Westinghouse proposes several changes to its DCD with the stated
purpose of contributing to increased standardization. Westinghouse
represents that these changes were requested by the lead COL applicants
currently referencing the AP1000. The NRC, in meetings with these
applicants as part of the ``Design-Centered Working Group'' process for
jointly resolving licensing issues, confirmed that these applicants
requested these changes and committed to pursuance of plant-specific
departures from the AP1000 if Westinghouse did not initiate such
changes to the AP1000 DCR. Such departures may be pursued by individual
COL applicants (and licensees) as described in Part VIII, ``Processes
for Changes and Departures'' of the AP1000 DCR (Appendix D to 10 CFR
Part 52). Incorporating these proposed changes into the AP1000 DCR as
part of this amendment contributes to the increased standardization of
the certification information by eliminating the possibility of
multiple departures. Therefore, all Westinghouse-initiated changes for
the purpose of eliminating plant-specific departures enhance
standardization, and meet the finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Minimization of Contamination (10 CFR 20.1406 (b)).
Item: 3 of 15.
Significant Change: In DCD Section 12.1.2.4, Westinghouse discussed
features incorporated into the amended design certification to
demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 52.47(a)(6), which requires that a
design certification application include the information required by 10
CFR 20.1406 (b), which was adopted in 2007 as part of the general
revisions to 10 CFR part 52. This regulation requires design
certification applicants whose applications are submitted after August
20, 1997, to describe how the design will minimize, to the extent
practicable, contamination of the facility and the environment,
facilitate decommissioning and minimize the generation of radioactive
waste. The DCD changes are documented in Westinghouse Technical Report
98, ``Compliance with 10 CFR 20.1406'' (APP-GW-GLN-098), Revision 0
(ADAMS Accession No. ML071010536). Westinghouse evaluated contaminated
piping, the spent fuel pool (SFP) air handling systems, and the
radioactive waste drain system to show that piping and components
utilize design features that will prevent or mitigate the spread of
contamination within the facility or the environment. Westinghouse has
incorporated modifications and features such as elimination of
underground radioactive tanks, RCPs without mechanical seals, fewer
embedded pipes, less radioactive piping in the auxiliary building and
containment vessel, and monitoring the radwaste discharge pipeline to
demonstrate that the AP1000 design certification, as amended, will be
in compliance with the subject regulation and Regulatory Guidance (RG)
4.21, ``Minimization of Contamination and Radioactive Waste Generation:
Life-Cycle Planning,'' (June 2008).
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features are in Section 12.2 of the SER (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii):
Inclusion in the DCD of the more detailed information about the
features for minimization of contamination provides additional
information to be included in the DCD for the AP1000 that increases
standardization of the AP1000 design. Thus, the changes meet the
finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Extension of Seismic Spectra to Soil Sites and Changes to
Stability and Uniformity of Subsurface Materials and Foundations.
Item: 4 of 15.
Significant Change: In AP1000 DCD Tier 2, Sections 2.5.2 and 3.7,
Westinghouse extended the AP1000 design to five soil profiles,
including firmrock through soft soil sites, for Category I structures,
systems, and components. The certified design included only hard rock
conditions. To support the technical basis for the extension,
Westinghouse provided: seismic analysis methods, procedures for
analytical modeling, soil-structure interaction analysis with three
components of earthquake motion, and interaction of non-seismic
Category I structures with seismic Category I structures. Also, in DCD
Section 2.5.4, Westinghouse extended the AP1000 design with ``Stability
and Uniformity of Subsurface Materials and Foundations,'' where the DCD
presents the requirements related to subsurface materials and
foundations for COL applicants referencing AP1000 standard design. The
site-specific information includes excavation, bearing capacity,
settlement, and liquefaction potential. On April 21, 2010, Westinghouse
submitted Revision 5 to TR-03, ``Extension of Nuclear Island Seismic
Analysis to Soil Sites,'' Revision 0, and summarized the report in DCD
Appendix 3G, to provide more detail about its analyses.
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with extension of seismic spectra to soil sites are
in Section 3.7 of the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072). The
details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design features
associated with stability and uniformity of subsurface materials and
foundations are in Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.4 of the SER (ADAMS Accession
No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Westinghouse submitted a change to the DCD that would provide the
seismic design and supporting analysis for a range of soil conditions
representative of expected applicants for a COL referencing the AP1000
design. As a result, the certified design can be used at more sites
without the need for departures to provide site-specific analyses or
design changes, thus leading to a more uniform analysis and seismic
design for all the AP1000 plants. Including in the DCD the information
demonstrating adequacy of the design for seismic events for a wider
range of soil conditions is a change that provides additional
information leading to increased standardization of this aspect of the
design. In addition, the change reduces the need for COL applicants to
seek departures from the current AP1000 design in as much as most sites
do not conform to the currently-approved hard rock sites. Therefore,
the change increases standardization and
[[Page 10284]]
meets the finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Long-Term Cooling.
Item: 5 of 15.
Significant Change: DCD Tier 2, Section 6.3.8 describes the changes
to COL information items related to containment cleanliness and
verification of water sources for long-term recirculation cooling
following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The COL information item
related to verification of water sources for long-term recirculation
cooling following a LOCA was closed based on Westinghouse TR-26,
``AP1000 Verification of Water Sources for Long-Term Recirculation
Cooling Following a LOCA,'' APP-GW-GLR-079 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML102170123) and other information contained in DCD Chapter 6. Section
6.3.2.2.7 describes the evaluation of the water sources for long-term
recirculation cooling following a LOCA, including the design and
operation of the AP1000 PCCS debris screens. DCD Tier 1, Section 2.2.3,
includes the associated design descriptions and ITAAC. The COL
information item requires a cleanliness program to limit the amount of
latent debris in containment consistent with the analysis and testing
assumptions.
Location within the SE where the changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with long-term cooling in the presence of LOCA-
generated and latent debris and General Design Criteria 35 and 38 are
in Subsection 6.2.1.8 of the SE (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the design and analysis information that
demonstrates adequacy of long-term core cooling provides additional
information leading to increased standardization of this aspect of the
design. Therefore, the change meets the finality criterion for changes
in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Control Room Emergency Habitability System.
Item: 6 of 15.
Significant Change: DCD Tier 2, Section 6.4 has undergone
significant revision. Westinghouse re-designed its main control room
emergency habitability system to meet control room radiation dose
requirements using the standard assumed in-leakage of 5 cubic feet per
minute in the event of a release of radiation. The changes include the
addition of a single-failure proof passive filter train. The flow
through the filter train is provided by an eductor downstream of a
bottled air supply. These changes were prompted by Westinghouse's
proposal to revise the atmospheric dispersion factors from those
certified in Revision 15 to larger values to better accommodate COL
sites. As a result, other design changes were needed to maintain doses
in the control room within acceptable limits.
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with radiation dose to personnel under accident
conditions are in Section 6.4 of the SER (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Incorporation of design changes to the main control room
ventilation systems would contribute to increased standardization of
this aspect of the design. Therefore, the change meets the finality
criterion for changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Changes to the Component Cooling Water System.
Item: 7 of 15.
Significant Change: In Revision 18 to AP1000 DCD Tier 2,
Westinghouse proposed changes to the design of the component cooling
water system (CCWS) to modify the closure logic for system motor-
operated containment isolation valves and install safety-class relief
valves on system supply and return lines. The closure logic would close
the isolation valves upon a high reactor coolant pump (RCP) bearing
water temperature signal, which might be indicative of a large leak in
the heat exchanger tube. This change would automatically isolate this
potential leak to eliminate the possibility of reactor coolant from a
faulted heat exchanger discharging to portions of the CCWS outside
containment.
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with the CCWS are in Chapter 23, Section V, of the
SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Westinghouse included changes to the component cooling water in the
DCD. These changes will contribute to increased standardization of this
aspect of the design. Therefore, the change meets the finality
criterion for changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Changes to Instrumentation and Control Systems.
Item: 8 of 15.
Significant Change: In AP1000 DCD Tier 2 Sections 7.1 through 7.3,
Westinghouse completed planning activities related to the architecture
of its safety related I&C protection system, referred to as the PMS.
Westinghouse also proposed changes to the DCD to reflect resolution of
PMS interdivisional data communications protocols and methods utilized
to ensure a secure development and operational environment. A secure
development and operational environment in this context refers to a set
of protective actions taken against a predictable set of non-malicious
acts (e.g., inadvertent operator actions, undesirable behavior of
connected systems) that could challenge the integrity, reliability, or
functionality of a digital safety system. The establishment of a secure
development and operational environment for digital safety systems
involves: (i) measures and controls taken to establish a secure
environment for development of the digital safety system against
undocumented, unneeded and unwanted modifications and (ii) protective
actions taken against a predictable set of undesirable acts (e.g.,
inadvertent operator actions or the undesirable behavior of connected
systems) that could challenge the integrity, reliability, or
functionality of a digital safety system during operations.
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with I&C systems are in Sections 7.1 through 7.3,
and 7.9 of NRC's Chapter 7 SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the more detailed information about the I&C
architecture and communications provides additional information leading
to increased standardization of this aspect of the design. Therefore,
the change meets the finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Changes to the Passive Core Cooling System--Gas Intrusion.
Item: 9 of 15.
Significant Change: In AP1000 DCD Tier 1 and Tier 2, Westinghouse
proposed changes to the design of the PCCS to add manual maintenance
vent valves and manual maintenance drain valves, and to re-route
accumulator discharge line connections in order to address concerns
related to gas intrusion. In addition, Westinghouse provided
descriptions of surveillance and venting procedures to verify gas void
elimination during plant startup and operations. These proposed changes
are responsive to the actions requested
[[Page 10285]]
by Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency
Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems.''
The passive core cooling system (PCCS) provides rapid injection of
borated water, which provides negative reactivity to reduce reactor
power to residual levels and ensures sufficient core cooling flow. Non-
condensible gas accumulation in the PCCS has the potential to delay
injection of borated water, which would impact the moderating and heat
removal capabilities, thus providing a challenge to the primary fission
product barrier and maintenance of a coolable core geometry. As part of
its review, the NRC determined that the proposed changes in the design
of the PCCS were acceptable for providing protection for design basis
events, such as LOCAs.
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The NRC's evaluation of proposed changes to the DCD associated with
changes to the PCCS is in Chapter 23, Section L, of the SER (ADAMS
Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the design and analysis information that
provides for venting of non-condensible gases provides additional
information leading to increased standardization of this aspect of the
design. Therefore, the change meets the finality criterion for changes
in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Integrated Head Package--Use of the QuickLoc Mechanism.
Item: 10 of 15.
Significant Change: In DCD Tier 2, Section 5.3.1.2, Westinghouse
describes a revised integrated head package (IHP) design. The new
design includes eight QuickLoc penetrations in lieu of the forty-two
individual in-core instrument thimble-tube-assembly penetrations on the
reactor vessel head, which is a significant decrease in the number of
RPV closure head penetrations for access to in-core and core exit
instrumentation. The QuickLoc mechanism allows the removal of the RPV
closure head without removal of in-core and core exit instrumentation
and, thus, decreases refueling outage time and overall occupational
exposure. This head package design has been installed on a number of
operating plants and, as noted, has several operational and safety
advantages.
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with the (1) IHP and QuickLoc mechanism are in
Section 5.2.3 of the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072) and (2)
radiation protection pertaining to the addition of the integrated
reactor head package and QuickLoc connectors are in Subsection 12.4.2.3
of the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the changes to the IHP would contribute to
the increased standardization of this aspect of the design. Therefore,
the change meets the finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Reactor Coolant Pump Design.
Item: 11 of 15.
Significant Change: In AP1000 DCD Tier 2 Subsection 5.4.1,
Westinghouse proposed changes related to the RCP design. These changes
include: change to a single-stage, hermetically sealed, high inertia,
centrifugal sealless RCP of canned motor design; use of an externally
mounted heat exchanger; and change of the RCP flywheel to bimetallic
construction. These DCD changes are documented in: TR-34, ``AP1000
Licensing Design Change Document for Generic Reactor Coolant Pump,''
APP-GW-GLN-016, November 2006 and in other documentation in response to
NRC inquiries. The supporting documentation includes an analysis
demonstrating that failure of the flywheel would not generate a missile
capable of penetrating the surrounding casing, and, therefore, that
such failure would not damage the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with the RCP design are in Section 5.4.1 of the
NRC's Chapter 5 SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the changes to the RCP would reduce the
possibility of plant-specific departure requests by COL applicants
referencing the AP1000 DCR. Therefore, the change meets the finality
criterion for changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Support System.
Item: 12 of 15.
Significant Change: The RPV structural support system of the AP1000
standard design is designed to provide the necessary support for the
heavy RPV in the AP1000 standard design. The original anchorage design
was bolting into embedded plates of the CA04 structural module.
Subsection 3.8.3.1.1 of the AP1000 DCD Tier 2 would be changed to
reflect modifications to the RPV support design. In the revised design,
there are four support ``boxes'' or ``legs'' located at the bottom of
RPV's cold leg nozzles. The support boxes are anchored directly to the
primary shield wall concrete base via steel embedment plates. This CA04
structural module is no longer used in the new design. The four RV
support boxes are safety-related and the design of the RPV associated
support structures is consistent with the safe shutdown earthquake
design of Seismic Category I equipment. Subsections 3.8.3.5.1 and
5.4.10.2.1 would also be modified.
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with RPV supports are in Chapter 23, Section R, of
the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the changes to the RPV supports contributes
to the increased standardization of this aspect of the design.
Therefore, the change meets the finality criterion for changes in 10
CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Spent Fuel Pool Decay Heat Analysis and Associated Design
Changes.
Item: 13 of 15.
Significant Change: In AP1000 DCD Tier 2 Section 9.1.3,
Westinghouse proposed changes to the SFP cooling system. Westinghouse
proposed to increase the number of spent fuel storage locations from
619 to 889 fuel assemblies and implement the following associated
design changes: (1) Increase in component cooling system (CCS) pump
design capacity, (2) increase in the CCS supply temperature to plant
components, and (3) changes in the CCS parameters related to the RCPs.
The increase in the number of assemblies affects the decay heat
removal/SFP heatup analyses. The supporting bases for DCD changes are
documented in: TR-111, ``Component Cooling System and Service Water
System Changes Required for Increased Heat Loads,'' APP-GW-GLN-111,
Revision 0, dated May 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071500563); TR-103,
``Fluid System Changes,'' APP-GW-GLN-019, Revision 2, dated October
2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072830060); TR-108, ``AP1000 Site Interface
Temperature Limits,'' APP-GW-GLN-108, Revision 2, dated September 2007
(ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072), and TR-APP-GW-GLR-097, ``Evaluation
of the Effect of the AP1000 Enhanced Shield Building on the Containment
Response and Safety Analysis,'' Revision 1, dated
[[Page 10286]]
August 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102220579).
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with the SFP decay heat analysis are in Section
9.2.2 of the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the changes to the SFP decay heat analysis
would contribute to the increased standardization of this aspect of the
design. Therefore, the change meets the finality criterion for changes
in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Spent Fuel Rack Design and Criticality Analysis.
Item: 14 of 15.
Significant Change: In DCD Tier 2 Section 9.1.2, Westinghouse
proposed changes to the spent fuel racks: (1) to increase the storage
capacity by 270 additional fuel assemblies, and (2) to integrate a new
neutron poison into the rack design. These changes included a different
rack design and associated structural analysis and a revised
criticality analysis. These DCD changes are documented in TR-54,
``Spent Fuel Storage Racks Structure and Seismic Analysis,'' APP-GW-
GLR-033, Revision 4, dated June 2, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML101580475); and TR-65, ``Spent Fuel Storage Racks Criticality
Analysis,'' APP-GW-GLR-029, Revision 2, date January 5, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML100082093).
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with the spent fuel rack design and criticality
analysis are in Section 9.1.2 of the SER (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the changes to the spent fuel rack design
and criticality analysis would contribute to the increased
standardization of this aspect of the design. Therefore, the change
meets the finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Vacuum Relief System.
Item: 15 of 15.
Significant Change: In Revision 18 to AP1000 DCD Tier 2, Chapters
3, 6, 7, 9, and 16, Westinghouse proposed changes to the design of the
containment which add a vacuum relief system to the existing
containment air filtration system vent line penetration. The proposed
vacuum relief system consists of redundant vacuum relief devices inside
and outside containment sized to prevent differential pressure between
containment and the shield building from exceeding the design value of
1.7 psig, which could occur under extreme temperature conditions.
Each relief flow path consists of a check valve inside containment
and a motor operated butterfly valve outside of containment. The
redundant relief devices outside containment share a common inlet line
with redundant outside air flow entry points. The outlet lines
downstream of the outside containment relief devices are routed to a
common header connected to the vent line penetration. The redundant
relief devices inside containment share a common inlet line from the
vent line penetration and have independent discharge lines into
containment.
Location within the SER where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC's evaluation of Westinghouse's design
features associated with the addition of the vacuum relief system are
in Chapter 23, Section W, of the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the introduction of a containment vacuum
relief system would contribute to the increased standardization of this
aspect of the design. Therefore, the change meets the finality
criterion for changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Changes Addressing Compliance With Aircraft Impact Assessment Rule (10
CFR 50.150)
The proposed rule would amend the existing AP1000 DCR, in part, to
address the requirements of the AIA rule. The AIA rule itself mandated
that a DCR be revised, if not during the DCR's current term, then no
later than its renewal to address the requirements of the AIA rule. In
addition, the AIA rule provided that any COL issued after the effective
date of the final AIA rule must reference a DCR complying with the AIA
rule, or itself demonstrate compliance with the AIA rule. The AIA rule
may therefore be regarded as inconsistent with the finality provisions
in 10 CFR 52.63(a) and Section VI of the AP1000 DCR. However, the NRC
provided an administrative exemption from these finality requirements
when the final AIA rule was issued. See Federal Register notice, 74 FR
28112; June 12, 2009, at 28143-28145. Accordingly, the NRC has already
addressed the backfitting implications of applying the AIA rule to the
AP1000 with respect to the AP1000 and referencing COL applicants.
Conclusion
The proposed amendment to the AP1000 DCR does not constitute
backfitting and is not otherwise inconsistent with finality provisions
in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC has not prepared a backfit
analysis or documented evaluation for this rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 52
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting,
Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees,
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, Incorporation by
reference.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Act, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended;
and 5 U.S.C. 552; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following
amendments to 10 CFR part 52.
PART 52--LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS FOR NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS
1. The authority citation for 10 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs.
201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note);
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005),
secs. 147 and 149 of the Atomic Energy Act.
2. In Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52:
a. In Section III, revise paragraphs A and D;
b. In Section IV, revise paragraph A.3 and add paragraph A.4;
c. In Section V, redesignate paragraph A as paragraph A.1 and add a
new paragraph A.2;
d. In Section VI, revise paragraphs B.1, B.2, B.7, and E;
e. In Section VIII, revise the introductory text of paragraph
B.5.b, redesignate paragraphs B.5.d, B.5.e, and B.5.f as paragraphs
B.5.e, B.5.f, and B.5.g, respectively, and add a new paragraph B.5.d,
and revise paragraphs B.6.b and B.6.c; and
f. In Section X, revise paragraph A.1 and add a new paragraph A.4.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
[[Page 10287]]
Appendix D to Part 52--Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design
* * * * *
III. Scope and Contents
A. Tier 1, Tier 2 (including the investment protection short-
term availability controls in Section 16.3), and the generic TSs in
the AP1000 DCD (Revision 18, dated December 1, 2010) are approved
for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Office of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of
the generic DCD may be obtained from Stanley E. Ritterbusch,
Manager, AP1000 Design Certification, Westinghouse Electric Company,
1000 Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry Township, PA 16066. A copy of the
generic DCD is also available for examination and copying at the
NRC's PDR, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. Copies are available for examination at
the NRC Library, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, telephone 301-415-5610, e-mail
[email protected]. The DCD can also be viewed on the Federal
rulemaking Web site http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2010-0131 or in the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
by searching under ADAMS Accession No. ML103480059. All approved
material is available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
D.1. If there is a conflict between the generic DCD and either
the application for the initial design certification of the AP1000
design or NUREG-1793, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to
Certification of the Westinghouse Standard Design,'' and Supplement
No. 1, then the generic DCD controls.
2. If there is a conflict between the generic DCD and either the
application for Amendment 1 to the design certification of the
AP1000 design or NUREG-1793, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report
Related to Certification of the Westinghouse Standard Design,''
Supplement No. 2, then the generic DCD controls.
* * * * *
IV. Additional Requirements and Restrictions
A. * * *
3. Include, in the plant-specific DCD, the SUNSI (including PI)
and SGI referenced in the AP1000 DCD.
4. Include, as part of its application, a demonstration that an
entity other than Westinghouse is qualified to supply the AP1000
design, unless Westinghouse supplies the design for the applicant's
use.
* * * * *
V. Applicable Regulations
A.* * *.
2. The regulations that apply to those portions of the AP1000
design approved by Amendment 1 [FINAL RULE FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION] are in 10 CFR parts 20, 50, 73, and 100, codified as of
[DATE THE FINAL RULE IS SIGNED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION],
that are applicable and technically relevant, as described in the
Supplement No. 2 of the FSER.
* * * * *
VI. Issue Resolution
* * * * *
B. * * *
1. All nuclear safety issues, except for the generic TS and
other operational requirements, associated with the information in
the FSER and Supplement Nos. 1 and 2, Tier 1, Tier 2 (including
referenced information, which the context indicates is intended as
requirements, and the investment protection short-term availability
controls in Section 16.3 of the DCD), and the rulemaking records for
initial certification and Amendment 1 of the AP1000 design;
2. All nuclear safety and safeguards issues associated with the
referenced SUNSI (including PI) and SGI which, in context, are
intended as requirements in the generic DCD for the AP1000 design;
* * * * *
7. All environmental issues concerning severe accident
mitigation design alternatives associated with the information in
the NRC's EA for the AP1000 design, Appendix 1B of Revision 15 of
the generic DCD, the NRC's final EA for Amendment 1 to the AP1000
design, and Appendix 1B of Revision 18 of the generic DCD, for
plants referencing this appendix whose site parameters are within
those specified in the severe accident mitigation design
alternatives evaluation.
* * * * *
E. The NRC will specify at an appropriate time the procedures to
be used by an interested person who wishes to review SUNSI
(including PI, such as trade secrets or financial information
obtained from a person that are privileged or confidential (10 CFR
2.390 and 10 CFR Part 9)) or SGI for the AP1000 certified design,
for the purpose of participating in the hearing required by 10 CFR
52.85, the hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103, or in any other
proceeding relating to this appendix in which interested persons
have a right to request an adjudicatory hearing.
* * * * *
VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures
* * * * *
B. * * *
5. * * *
b. A proposed departure from Tier 2, other than one affecting
resolution of a severe accident issue identified in the plant-
specific DCD or one affecting information required by 10 CFR
52.47(a)(28) to address 10 CFR 50.150, requires a license amendment
if it would:
* * * * *
d. If an applicant or licensee proposes to depart from 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 document how the modified design
features and functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment
requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) in accordance with Section X of
this appendix.
* * * * *
6. * * *
b. A licensee who references this appendix may not depart from
the following Tier 2* matters without prior NRC approval. A request
for a departure will be treated as a request for a license amendment
under 10 CFR 50.90.
(1) Maximum fuel rod average burn-up.
(2) Fuel principal design requirements.
(3) Fuel criteria evaluation process.
(4) Fire areas.
(5) Reactor coolant pump type.
(6) Small-break LOCA analysis methodology.
c. A licensee who references this appendix may not, before the
plant first achieves full power following the finding required by 10
CFR 52.103(g), depart from the following Tier 2* matters except
under paragraph B.6.b of this section. After the plant first
achieves full-power, the following Tier 2* matters revert to Tier 2
status and are subject to the departure provisions in paragraph B.5
of this section.
(1) Nuclear Island structural dimensions.
(2) ASME Code piping design restrictions, and ASME Code Cases.
(3) Design Summary of Critical Sections.
(4) American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318, ACI 349, American
National Standards Institute/American Institute of Steel
Construction (ANSI/AISC)-690, and American Iron and Steel Institute,
``Specification for the Design of Cold Formed Steel Structural
Members, Part 1 and 2,'' 1996 Edition and 2000 Supplement.
(5) Definition of critical locations and thicknesses.
(6) Seismic qualification methods and standards.
(7) Nuclear design of fuel and reactivity control system, except
burn-up limit.
(8) Motor-operated and power-operated valves.
(9) I&C system design processes, methods, and standards.
(10) Passive residual heat removal natural circulation test
(first plant only).
(11) Automatic depressurization system and core make-up tank
verification tests (first three plants only).
(12) Polar crane parked orientation.
(13) Piping DAC.
(14) Containment vessel design parameters, including ASME Code,
Section III, Subsection NE.
(15) Human factors engineering.
* * * * *
X. Records and Reporting
A. * * *
[[Page 10288]]
1. The applicant for this appendix shall maintain a copy of the
generic DCD that includes all generic changes it makes to Tier 1 and
Tier 2, and the generic TS and other operational requirements. The
applicant shall maintain SUNSI (including PI) and SGI referenced in
the generic DCD for the period that this appendix may be referenced,
as specified in Section VII of this appendix.
* * * * *
4.a. The applicant for the AP1000 design shall maintain a copy
of the AIA performed to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.150(a) for the term of the certification (including any period of
renewal).
b. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
maintain a copy of the AIA performed to comply with the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.150(a) throughout the pendency of the application and
for the term of the license (including any period of renewal).
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of February 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-3989 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P