[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78096-78121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31906]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 52

RIN 3150-AI84
[NRC-2010-0134]


U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Aircraft Impact Design 
Certification Amendment

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) 
is amending its regulations to certify an amendment to the U.S. 
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (U.S. ABWR) standard plant design to 
comply with the NRC's aircraft impact assessment (AIA) regulations. 
This action allows applicants or licensees intending to construct and 
operate a U.S. ABWR to comply with the NRC's AIA regulations by 
referencing the amended design certification rule (DCR). The applicant 
for certification of the amendment to the U.S. ABWR design is STP 
Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC).

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of this rule is January 17, 
2012. The incorporation by reference of certain material specified in 
this regulation is approved by the Director of the Office of the 
Federal Register as of January 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: 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, 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 online in the NRC Library 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 the 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 email at 
[email protected].
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and 
supporting materials related to this final rule can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2010-0134. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher at (301) 492-3668, or by 
email at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. R. Frederick Schofer, Office of 
New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone: (301) 415-5682, email: [email protected]; or Stacy 
Joseph, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-2849, email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background
II. Summary and Analysis of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Technical Evaluation of the STPNOC Amendment to U.S. ABWR 
Design
    B. Regulatory and Policy Issues
    C. Changes to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 52--Design Certification 
Rule for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
    A. Introduction (Section I)
    B. Definitions (Section II)
    C. Scope and Contents (Section III)
    D. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
    E. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
    F. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
    G. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
    H. Records and Reporting (Section X)
V. Agreement State Compatibility
VI. Availability of Documents
VII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
VIII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
X. Regulatory Analysis
XI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
XII. Backfitting
XIII. Congressional Review Act

I. 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. 
On June 30, 2009, the STPNOC tendered its application with the NRC for 
amendment of the U.S. ABWR standard plant design certification to 
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150, ``Aircraft impact 
assessment'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML092040048). The STPNOC submitted 
this application in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63. The STPNOC proposed 
several changes to the certified U.S. ABWR design to comply with 10 CFR 
50.150, including the addition of an alternate feedwater injection 
system, the addition and upgrading of fire barriers and doors, and the 
strengthening of certain structural barriers. The NRC formally accepted 
the application as a docketed application for amendment to the U.S. 
ABWR design certification (Docket No. 52-001) on December 1, 2009 (74 
FR 62829).
    On June 12, 2009 (74 FR 28112), the NRC amended its regulations to 
require applicants for new nuclear power reactor designs to perform a 
design-specific assessment of the effects of the impact of a large 
commercial aircraft (the AIA rule). These new provisions in 10 CFR 
50.150 require applicants to use realistic analyses to identify and 
incorporate design features and functional capabilities to ensure, with 
reduced use of operator actions, that (1) the reactor core remains 
cooled or the containment remains intact, and (2) spent fuel cooling or 
spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. When it issued the AIA rule, 
the Commission stated that the requirements in existence at that time, 
in conjunction with the March 2009 revisions to 10 CFR 50.54 to address 
loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fires, would 
continue to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety 
and the common defense and security. Nevertheless, the Commission 
decided to also require applicants for new nuclear power reactors to 
incorporate into their design additional features to show that the 
facility can withstand the effects of an aircraft impact. The 
Commission stated that the AIA rule to address the capability of new 
nuclear

[[Page 78097]]

power reactors relative to an aircraft impact is based both on enhanced 
public health and safety and enhanced common defense and security, but 
is not necessary for adequate protection. Rather, the AIA rule's goal 
is to enhance the facility's inherent robustness at the design stage.
    The AIA rule requirements apply to various categories of 
applicants, including applicants for combined licenses (COLs) that 
reference a standard design certification issued before the effective 
date of the AIA rule, which has not been amended to comply with the 
rule. These COL applicants have two methods by which they can comply 
with 10 CFR 50.150. They can request an amendment to the certified 
design or they can address the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150 directly 
in their COL application. The STPNOC submitted an application for a COL 
on September 20, 2007. The STPNOC has requested this amendment to the 
U.S. ABWR-certified design to address the requirements of the AIA rule.

II. Summary and Analysis of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

    The NRC published the U.S. ABWR Aircraft Impact Design 
Certification Amendment proposed rule in the Federal Register on 
January 20, 2011 (76 FR 3540). The public comment period for the 
proposed rule closed on April 5, 2011. The NRC received three comment 
letters on the proposed rule. Of those comments, one commenter, Nuclear 
Innovation North America, LLC (NINA), was in favor of the proposed 
amendment to the U.S. ABWR; one commenter, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy 
(GEH), was against the proposed amendment to the U.S. ABWR, and one 
commenter, Thomas Shadis, addressed issues unrelated to the proposed 
amendment to the U.S. ABWR. The comments and responses are summarized 
in the following paragraphs.

NRC Use of ``Branches'' and ``Options''

    Comment: The NRC should suspend the STPNOC amendment and review the 
proposed changes to the ABWR design certification as departures in the 
STP Units 3 and 4 combined license application, as is allowed by the 
AIA Rule, 10 CFR 50.150(a)(3)(v)(B) and the associated provision in 10 
CFR 52.79(a)(47). The proposed rulemaking uses a regulatory approach 
solely for the purpose of supporting the combined license application 
for the STP Units 3 and 4. (GEH-1)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the commenter's understanding 
that the ``options'' approach is being used in this proposed amendment 
of the U.S. ABWR DCR solely to support the COL application for the 
South Texas Project (STP) Units 3 and 4. On the contrary, as stated in 
the statements of consideration (SOC) for the proposed U.S. ABWR 
amendment, the NRC is proposing to use the ``options'' approach after a 
comprehensive review of a set of considerations. To reiterate the NRC's 
bases (as stated in the SOC for the proposed U.S. ABWR amendment), 
there is no statute or NRC regulation prohibiting the use of the 
``branches'' approach, nor are there any statutory or NRC regulatory 
provisions which prohibit the use of the ``options'' approach. All of 
the NRC's safety and regulatory objectives are met under the 
``options'' approach. The STPNOC is providing sufficient information to 
determine its technical qualifications to supply the STPNOC-sponsored 
amendments addressing the AIA rule to third party users (i.e., users 
other than the STPNOC itself).
    In addition, the NRC believes that there are no insurmountable 
issues in requiring the user (in most cases, the COL applicant 
referencing the U.S. ABWR and the STPNOC option) to prepare a single 
Design Control Document (DCD) integrating information from both the DCD 
developed by GE Nuclear Energy (GE) and the DCD developed by the 
STPNOC. The ``options'' approach avoids or addresses all of the 
STPNOC's concerns with the use of the ``branches'' alternative for its 
request to amend the U.S. ABWR. There would be a limited period in 
which the STPNOC option could be referenced by a future COL applicant, 
that is, until the renewal of the U.S. ABWR design certification. 
Finally, the ``options'' approach fully protects the legitimate 
proprietary and commercial interests of GE in the original U.S. ABWR 
design certification. Upon consideration of the information presented 
by the STPNOC in light of the NRC's technical and regulatory concerns, 
the NRC developed the ``options'' approach to address the STPNOC 
amendment. As was stated in the SOC, if the NRC receives other limited-
scope design certification amendments (similar in scope to the STPNOC 
amendment request), it will consider whether the ``branches'' approach 
or the ``options'' approach offers the most effective and efficient 
regulatory option at that time based on the scope of the amendment and 
the specific circumstances associated with the particular application.
    Inasmuch as the basis for the commenter's proposal is incorrect, 
the NRC declines to adopt the commenter's proposed course of action. No 
change was made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: The NRC should suspend the STPNOC amendment and review the 
proposed changes to the ABWR design certification as departures in the 
STP Units 3 and 4 combined license application, as is allowed by the 
AIA Rule, 10 CFR 50.150(a)(3)(v)(B) and the associated provision in 10 
CFR 52.79(a)(47). The ``options'' and ``branches'' approaches introduce 
complexity and do not encourage standardization within a single design. 
(GEH-2)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that the adoption 
of both the ``option'' and ``branches'' approaches to amendment (and 
renewal) of a DCR will introduce complexity to the regulatory scheme. 
However, the commenter did not explain why the NRC's proposal to use 
the ``options'' approach was not the best alternative to address the 
circumstances raised by the STPNOC amendment, as discussed in the SOC 
of the proposed rule.
    Moreover, the solution proposed by the commenter, viz., to process 
the amendment as a plant-specific departure for the STPNOC plants, 
ignores the following considerations. First, the ``departure'' concept 
itself may be regarded as movement away from standardization. The GEH 
did not present any argument why ``departures'' are preferable to 
``options'' when considering the effect on standardization. Second, a 
departure, by its nature, represents a plant-specific dispensation from 
compliance with the standardized provisions of a design certification. 
A departure from the same design provision of a design certification 
could be different among different plants. By contrast, the option 
represents a single alternative to a provision of a design 
certification that would be used by every applicant/licensee 
referencing that option and is more in keeping with the standardization 
goal envisioned by the NRC under the design certification rulemaking 
process. Thus, the use of the ``option'' approach embodies the 
standardization concept more closely than the commenter's proposed use 
of departures. Third, the STPNOC wishes to be a supplier of the U.S. 
ABWR-certified design as is permitted by the current regulation. 
Processing the STPNOC amendment request as a ``departure'' would be 
inconsistent with the applicant's goals, and there appeared to be no 
significant issues or considerations which, considered individually or 
together, precluded the

[[Page 78098]]

use of the ``options'' approach as an acceptable approach for 
accommodating the STPNOC objectives. Finally, the ``options'' approach 
is limited in its ``lifetime.'' As discussed earlier, the STPNOC design 
changes, which are the subject of this U.S. ABWR amendment, are 
embodied in the proposed U.S. ABWR design certification renewal 
currently being pursued by the Toshiba Corporation. Upon renewal of the 
U.S. ABWR with the design changes requested by Toshiba Corporation in 
its renewal application, the STPNOC option cannot be referenced by any 
other applicant. These considerations were addressed in the SOC for the 
proposed U.S. ABWR rule, and the comment did not contain a critique of 
these considerations.
    For these reasons, the NRC declines to adopt the commenter's 
proposed course of action. No change was made to the final rule as the 
result of this comment.
    Comment: The ``options'' approach, as well as the ``branches'' 
approach, undermines the protection afforded by the Commission in its 
decision to use rulemaking to certify standard designs. (GEH-3)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment. The commenter 
provided no basis for the assertion that the ``branches'' approach 
undermines the protection afforded by the design certification 
rulemaking concept. The comment included no analysis of the discussion 
in the SOC for the proposed U.S. ABWR amendment, which explains the 
NRC's bases for its view that protection of the original design 
certification applicant's legitimate commercial interests is afforded 
by the ``branches'' approach. No change was made to the final rule as 
the result of this comment.
    Comment: If the NRC proceeds with the ABWR amendment, then the NRC 
should remove the SOC discussion regarding renewal of a design 
certification rule. The STPNOC is not an applicant for renewal, and the 
NRC need not make a decision at this time regarding how it will later 
treat multiple renewal applications for a single design certification. 
(GEH-4)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment. The NRC believes 
that the most effective regulatory approach for addressing the multiple 
supplier issue is to consider all relevant technical, regulatory, and 
legal issues associated with multiple suppliers of a design the first 
time that the multiple supplier issue must actually be resolved by the 
NRC. The NRC regards such early consideration, with the view of 
establishing (to the extent that it is practical) a consistent 
regulatory approach on multiple suppliers at both amendment and 
renewal, to be desirable. Stakeholders will have the benefit of the 
NRC's position and may conduct their business accordingly. By focusing 
on the multiple supplier issue at one time, the NRC believes that its 
determination of the issue will integrate all known issues and 
considerations, and be accomplished in the most resource-efficient 
manner. Public understanding of the NRC's regulatory consideration and 
determination ensures public confidence in the NRC's approach. In 
short, NRC resolution in a comprehensive fashion of the multiple 
supplier issue is intended to provide regulatory stability, 
predictability, transparency, and public confidence.
    The NRC concedes that the NRC is not legally required to make a 
decision, in the context of a DCR amendment raising the issue of 
multiple suppliers, to also address multiple suppliers at design 
certification renewal. However, the commenter did not assert that the 
NRC is legally prohibited from addressing the multiple supplier issues 
in a comprehensive fashion as part of the STPNOC amendment, and the NRC 
is not aware of any such prohibition.
    For these reasons, the NRC declines to adopt the course of action 
proposed in the comment. No change was made to either the SOCs for the 
final STPNOC amendment or the final rule language as the result of this 
comment.
    Comment: The NRC should remove all discussion regarding commercial 
value of a design certification, as the NRC has no direct knowledge 
regarding how potential customers would value a design certification. 
(GEH-5)
    NRC Response: The NRC notes that the commenter did not cite 
specific portions of the SOC for the proposed rule which are 
objectionable nor did it cite specific portions of the SOC that should 
be removed. The NRC does not believe that the SOC actually attempts to 
characterize or place a ``commercial value'' of a design certification. 
The NRC also agrees with the commenter's implicit assertion that the 
character and magnitude of any ``commercial value'' to any particular 
design certification has no relevance to the NRC's resolution of the 
multiple suppliers' issue.
    Thus, the NRC interprets this comment as requesting that the NRC 
remove references in the SOC with respect to the Commission's 
determination that the ``branches'' approach protects, inter alia, the 
``legitimate commercial interests [emphasis added]'' of the original 
design certification applicant. This discussion is set forth in the 
proposed rule's SOC. The NRC disagrees with the comment as understood. 
As discussed in the SOC, industry stakeholders in the original 10 CFR 
part 52 rulemaking opposed the use of rulemaking to approve (certify) 
designs because they felt that their legitimate commercial interests 
(including, but not limited to, protection of trade secrets and other 
proprietary information) would not be protected in rulemaking. Industry 
stakeholders repeated and amplified these concerns in the development 
of the U.S. ABWR and the System 80+, the first two DCRs. The NRC's 
response to industry stakeholder concerns were reflected in the 
regulatory approach adopted for the U.S. ABWR and System 80+, as 
discussed in the SOC for this amendment of the U.S. ABWR DCR. Hence, 
the NRC believes that it must address the protection of the 
(legitimate) commercial interests of the original design certification 
applicant where an entity intending to supply the certified design that 
is not the original applicant seeks either the amendment or the renewal 
of a DCR. Such NRC discussion simply recognizes the potential existence 
of the commercial interests of the original design certification 
applicant, as a reference for assuring that the proposed rulemaking 
does not significantly diminish or eliminate entirely those commercial 
interests without determining their actual existence or magnitude.
    For these reasons, the NRC declines to adopt the commenter's 
suggestion. No change was made to either the SOCs for the final STPNOC 
amendment or the final rule language as the result of this comment.
    Comment: Regardless of NRC regulatory provisions regarding use of 
an alternative vendor [a ``supplier'' under the NRC's proposed 
terminology] in a combined license proceeding, the NRC should treat an 
alternate entity's application as a new design certification under the 
provisions of 10 CFR 52.59(c). (GEH-6)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment. The NRC did not 
intend, when it adopted 10 CFR 52.59(c) as part of the 2007 revision of 
10 CFR part 52, for this provision to address the circumstance where 
multiple entities wish to supply the same certified design. Section 
52.59 was intended to address a different issue: At what point would 
the changes requested by the design certification renewal applicant be 
``so extensive that the NRC concludes that an essentially new standard 
design is being proposed,'' 72 FR 49352, 49444 (second column), August 
28, 2007. Thus, the NRC does not regard Sec.  52.59(c) as constituting 
the NRC's established approach for dealing with

[[Page 78099]]

multiple suppliers of the same certified design.
    The NRC acknowledges that it may be possible to interpret Sec.  
52.59(c) in the manner suggested by the commenter. However, the 
commenter's proposed approach was considered and rejected by the NRC 
during the development of the proposed STPNOC design certification 
amendment rulemaking. The reasons for the NRC's rejection of a separate 
rulemaking were set forth in the SOC for the proposed rule. No comments 
on the proposed rule have caused the NRC to reconsider its favored 
approach to address multiple suppliers, as described in the proposed 
rule. The NRC notes that such re-interpretation may require additional 
notice and comment. The NRC declines to seek additional public comment 
on the commenter's proposed rulemaking approach because that approach 
was considered and rejected by the NRC in the development of the 
proposed U.S. ABWR rule amendment and the comment presented no new 
information that would cause the NRC to seek additional public comment.
    For the reasons set forth above, the NRC declines to adopt the 
commenter's proposed course of action. No change was made to either the 
SOCs for the final STPNOC amendment or the final rule language as the 
result of this comment.
    Comment: The notice of proposed rulemaking discusses policy issues 
that arise from having multiple suppliers for a single certified 
design, concludes that the ``branches'' alternative should be adopted, 
provides the rationale for concluding that this alternative meets all 
of the NRC's regulatory objectives, and explains the factors which 
support approval of the options approach for the STPNOC amendment. For 
the reasons set forth in the notice, the options approach is the only 
feasible rulemaking approach that would support application of the 
proposed amendment to STP 3&4 without jeopardizing the schedule for COL 
issuance, and is consistent with the NRC regulations and meets all of 
the NRC's safety and regulatory objectives. Consequently, application 
of the options approach to the proposed STPNOC amendment is fully 
justified. (NINA-6)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment. No change was made 
to the SOC or the language of the final rule as the result of this 
comment.

Comments in Support of the Proposed Amendment to the U.S. ABWR

    Comment: Amendment of the certified ABWR design would have the 
advantage of constituting final NRC approval of the AIA matters, which 
then can be referenced by other COL applications. This would be a 
significant benefit to NINA if it decides to develop other ABWRs, in 
addition to STP 3&4. (NINA-1)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with this comment. Other COL 
applications referencing the amended U.S. ABWR and the STPNOC option 
would benefit from issue resolution with respect to AIA rule (10 CFR 
50.150) compliance, in accordance with paragraph VI of the U.S. ABWR 
DCR, 10 CFR part 52, Appendix A, and 10 CFR 52.83. No change was made 
to the SOC or the language of the final rule as the result of this 
comment.
    Comment: The STP 3&4 COLA references the application for amendment 
of the certified ABWR design. Without NRC adoption of the proposed 
rule, the STP 3 & 4 COLA would not meet the requirements of the AIA 
rule. Consequently, adoption of the proposed rule is of vital 
importance to the success of STP 3&4. (NINA-2)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment that without NRC 
adoption of the proposed rule, the STP Units 3 and 4 COL applications, 
as currently submitted, do not contain any direct information on 
compliance with the AIA rule. However, the STP Units 3 and 4 COL 
applicant may also comply with the AIA rule by submitting its plant-
specific information for complying with the AIA rule, as is required 
under 10 CFR 50.150(a)(3)(v). The NRC expresses no opinion on whether 
the adoption of the STPNOC option is of ``vital importance to the 
success of STP 3&4.'' No change was made to the SOC or the language of 
the final rule as the result of this comment.
    Comment: Adoption of the proposed rule also would be consistent 
with the standardization objective that underlies 10 CFR part 52. Its 
adoption obviously would increase standardization if other COL 
applicants that reference the certified ABWR design also reference the 
STPNOC amendment. (NINA-3)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment. Standardization with 
respect to design features and functional capabilities for complying 
with the AIA rule would be increased if COL applications referencing 
the U.S. ABWR also reference the STPNOC option. No change was made to 
the SOC or the language of the final rule as the result of this 
comment.
    Comment: COL applicants referencing the ABWR design certification 
rule would have the option of addressing the AIA rule in their COL 
applications, and would not be required to reference the STPNOC 
amendment. Providing this option does not further standardization, but 
it does provide assurance that adoption of the amendment will not 
disadvantage any supplier of the certified design. In fact, adoption of 
the proposed rule as an option will be a benefit to every potential 
supplier of the certified ABWR design because it will demonstrate to 
entities that may be considering selection of the certified ABWR design 
for a new facility that it is feasible to modify that design to meet 
the requirements of the AIA rule. (NINA-4)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter's assertion that 
COL applicants referencing the U.S. ABWR may elect to address the 
requirements of the AIA rule in their COL application, as opposed to 
referencing the STPNOC option. This is inherent in the existing U.S. 
ABWR design certification, which currently does not address the AIA 
rule's requirements.
    The NRC also agrees with the commenter's observation that the 
proposed amendment does not disadvantage any supplier of the U.S. ABWR-
certified design (including the original design certification 
applicant).
    However, the NRC disagrees with the comment to the extent that 
affording the option does not further standardization. It is not 
unreasonable for the NRC to conclude that COL applicants may favor a 
design certification that the NRC has determined meets the requirements 
of the AIA rule. Thus, by approving the option meeting the AIA rule, 
the NRC believes that, as a practical matter, standardization will be 
enhanced. The NRC takes no position on the assertion that the adoption 
of the proposed rule will be a benefit to other potential suppliers, 
because it demonstrates to entities that it is feasible to modify the 
design to meet the AIA rule. Thus, the NRC does not rely upon such an 
assertion as the basis for adopting the STPNOC amendment to the U.S. 
ABWR DCR. No change was made to the SOC or the language of the final 
rule as the result of this comment.
    Comment: Adoption of the proposed rule also would be consistent 
with the NRC's desire to provide the vendor whose design is certified 
with some assurance against ``arbitrary amendment'' of the 
certification rule. See 54 FR at 15375 (Apr. 18, 1989). In adopting the 
AIA rule, the NRC decided to require that certified designs be amended 
to comply with the AIA rule, either through rulemaking or departure 
from the certified design in any COL application that references that 
design. Thus, the proposed amendment would not be arbitrary, and since 
it would only provide an optional design alternative,

[[Page 78100]]

it would not impose a mandatory design change (amendment) to the 
overall certified design. (NINA-5)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment. This rationale is 
included in the SOC for the final rule.

Comments on Specific Proposed Rule Provisions

    Comment: The proposed revision to Paragraph I. ``Introduction,'' 
and in the 10th line of proposed revision to Paragraph III.A.2, should 
be revised by changing ``the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating 
Company'' to ``STP Nuclear Operating Company.'' The STP Nuclear 
Operating Company is the full official name of STPNOC, the applicant 
for the amendment. (NINA-7)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment. This change is 
included in the SOC and rule language for the final rule.
    Comment: Proposed new paragraph III.E should be deleted. This 
proposed new provision is unnecessary, and is not clear. It is 
unnecessary because, even without any such new provision, existing 
paragraph III.B will continue to state that the applicant is required 
to comply with the GE DCD, except to the limited extent otherwise 
provided in Appendix A to part 52. As a result, the only changes to the 
GE DCD that will be authorized by the proposed amendment are the 
changes described in the STPNOC DCD.
    The notice indicates that the purpose of proposed new III.E is to 
address the situation in which an applicant discovers unintended 
consequences or unaddressed issues resulting from STPNOC's amendment, 
and that in such a situation the applicant would be expected to notify 
the NRC if the situation is not reportable under 10 CFR 21 or sections 
52.6, 50.72 or 50.73. 76 FR at 3551, 3rd column. The notice does not 
explain, however, why there would be a regulatory need for the NRC to 
receive notice of information that does not meet any of these broad 
reporting requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 52.6 requires notice to the NRC of 
information that has ``a significant implication for public health and 
safety or common defense and security'').
    Proposed new paragraph III.E is not clear because it uses the 
undefined term ``a design matter which implements the STPNOC certified 
design option but is not specifically described in the STPNOC DCD.'' In 
particular, NINA is not aware of any definition of ``design matter'' or 
of any common understanding of this term. In addition, it is not clear 
how the proposed paragraph III.E could be interpreted as imposing the 
reporting requirement that the rulemaking notice describes as its 
purpose, when it does not even mention notice to the NRC. The purpose 
of the STPNOC DCD is to identify the necessary changes to the GE DCD to 
meet 10 CFR 50.150(a). Each such change represents a conflict between 
the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD. Uncertainties about the meaning of 
``design matter'' and the level of detail required for an item to be 
``described specifically'' have the potential to lead to compliance 
issues that are not reasonably related to safety. (NINA-8)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment that the proposed 
paragraph III.E is unnecessary. The NRC's intent in proposing the 
reporting requirement was to ensure that the NRC is made aware of 
conflicts between the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD, which may be 
identified by a referencing COL applicant or holder. Upon consideration 
of the comment, the NRC agrees that any material conflict identified by 
the COL applicant or holder would ultimately be brought to the 
attention of the NRC by virtue of the legally-binding need to comply 
with both DCDs. If there is a conflict, the referencing COL applicant 
or holder would seek resolution of the conflict, through: i) either 
taking or submitting a request for a departure (including a request for 
exemption as necessary); or ii) submitting a 10 CFR part 2, Subpart H 
rulemaking petition to amend the DCR in order to resolve the apparent 
conflict. In addition, reporting may also be required under 10 CFR 
50.55(e), 10 CFR 50.72, 10 CFR 50.73, or 10 CFR part 21.
    In addition, the NRC agrees with the commenter's discussion of the 
reporting obligation of the design certification applicants (both the 
original applicant, as well as the applicant for an amendment which 
leads to establishment of an option or ``branch''). Thus, proposed 
paragraph III.E does not appear to be needed to ensure necessary 
reporting of such conflicts identified by either the original applicant 
or the applicant for an amendment, which leads to establishment of an 
option or ``branch.'' For these reasons, the proposed paragraph III.E 
is not included in the final rule.
    Comment: Proposed new Paragraph IV.A.4 should be deleted. The 
proposed new paragraph would require an application to include 
information that already is required by 10 CFR Sec.  52.73(a), and does 
not appear to be necessary for NRC approval of STPNOC's proposed 
amendment. (NINA-9)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment. Section 52.73(a) 
does not clearly apply to the circumstance of a supplier of an 
``option'' to a design certification. In addition, the ``generic'' 
provision of Sec.  52.73(a) does not make clear, in the context of this 
specific design certification option, that both the STPNOC and Toshiba 
America Nuclear Energy (TANE) Corporation together are technically 
qualified to supply the STPNOC option addressing the AIA rule. Hence, 
the NRC believes that paragraph IV.A.4 is necessary for clarity and to 
ensure that there is no uncertainty with respect to the scope of the 
NRC's technical qualification finding with respect to the STPNOC 
option. For these reasons, the NRC declines to adopt the comment, and 
no change was made to the final rule.
    Comment: Paragraph VI.A. should be revised to read (proposed 
language in bold):

    The Commission has determined that the structures, systems, 
components, and design features of the U.S. ABWR design as contained 
in the GE DCD comply with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended, and the applicable regulations identified in 
Section V.A.1 of this appendix; and therefore, provide adequate 
protection to the health and safety of the public. The Commission 
has determined that the U.S. ABWR design as contained in the STPNOC 
DCD comply with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, and the applicable regulations identified in Section V.A.2 
of this appendix; and therefore, provide adequate protection to the 
health and safety of the public and 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 at the design stage. A conclusion that a matter is 
resolved includes the finding that additional or alternative 
structures, systems, components, design features, design criteria, 
testing, analyses, acceptance criteria, or justifications are not 
necessary for the U.S. ABWR design or the STPNOC design option.

    Existing paragraph VI.A contains a reference to Section V that is 
not consistent with the proposed revision of Section V, which would 
renumber paragraph V.A to V.A.1, and add a new paragraph V.A.2. New 
paragraph V.A.2 refers to the NRC regulations as they will exist on the 
date of adoption of the proposed amendment. Those regulations will 
apply to the STPNOC DCD, but not to the GE DCD. The regulations that 
apply to the GE DCD are those that existed on May 2, 1997. 
Additionally, since the findings stated in paragraph VI.A form the 
basis for the resolution of issues in paragraph VI.B, paragraph VI.A 
should include findings sufficient to form the basis for the proposed 
provision in paragraph VI.B related to the STPNOC design option. (NINA-
10)

[[Page 78101]]

    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter's observation that 
paragraph VI.A does not accurately reflect the scope of the issue 
resolution accorded the STPNOC option and also does not properly 
reference the ``applicable regulations'' under paragraph V. However, 
the NRC does not agree with the commenter's proposed resolution of the 
matter. The NRC believes that a more appropriate approach is to define, 
in separate paragraphs, the scope of issue resolution accorded the 
original GE DCD, the scope of issue resolution accorded the STPNOC 
option, and the scope of issue resolution accorded the combination of 
the GE DCD and the STPNOC option. Accordingly, the final rule includes 
new paragraphs VI.A.1, VI.A.2, and VI.A.3, which describe the issue 
finality provided for nuclear safety issues for the GE DCD, for the 
STPNOC DCD, and for the combination of the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD.
    Comment: Paragraph VI.B.1, as proposed to be revised, should be 
further revised to delete ``other'' and insert a comma after 
``requirements,'' so that these revised lines would read,

nuclear safety issues, except for operational requirements, 
associated with the

    The reason to delete ``other'' is that it has no antecedent in the 
revised sentence, and appears to have been inadvertently retained 
during drafting. The relevant portion of existing paragraph VI.B.1 is: 
``nuclear safety issues, except for the generic technical 
specifications and other operational requirements, associated.'' There, 
``the generic technical specifications'' is the antecedent of 
``other.'' Since there is no mention of the generic technical 
specifications in the proposed provision concerning the AIA amendment, 
there is nothing for the operational requirements to be ``other than.''
    The comma should be inserted after ``requirements,'' to indicate 
the end of the description of the exception. Without the comma, it 
would appear that the exception encompasses the information in the AIA 
FSER, Tier 1 or Tier 2. Inserting the comma will make it clearer that 
the matters that the Commission considers to be resolved include all 
nuclear safety issues, except for operational requirements, addressed 
in the AIA FSER and the other records mentioned in the revised 
paragraph. (NINA-11)
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the change proposed by the 
commenter, for the reasons stated in the comment. The final rule has 
been revised, consistent with the comment.
    Comment: Proposed new paragraph VIII.B.5.d should be revised to 
read as follows:

    An applicant or licensee may depart from the information 
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR [final 
safety analysis report] for the standard design certification only 
if the modified design features and functional capabilities continue 
to meet the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).

    These changes would delete the references to the requirements to 
consider the effect of the departures and to document how the modified 
design would continue to meet the relevant regulation. Eliminating 
these references would make Section VIII.B.5.d more consistent with 
Sections VIII.B.5.b and c, which specify the standards for determining 
whether a departure requires a license amendment, but do not explicitly 
impose a requirement for an evaluation or for documentation of its 
results. Since existing Section X.A.3 already requires an applicant or 
licensee to prepare and maintain written evaluations which provide the 
bases for determinations required by Section VIII, there is no need to 
duplicate these requirements in new Section VIII.B.5.d. Eliminating 
this duplication will prevent inconsistent interpretations of the 
requirements for evaluation and documentation associated with new 
Section VIII.B.5.d. (NINA-12)
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment. Making the change 
suggested by the commenter would conflict with the Commission's 
position on how departures from AIA design features and functional 
capabilities should be addressed in DCRs, as set forth in the SOC 
accompanying the AIA final rule (74 FR 28112, June 12, 2009, at 28122):

    Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of 10 CFR 50.150 governs combined license 
applicants or holders which are not subject to 10 CFR 50.150(a) and 
states that proposed departures from the information required by 10 
CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR for the referenced 
standard design certification are governed by the change control 
requirements in the applicable design certification rule. The NRC 
expects to add a new change control provision to future design 
certification rules subject to 10 CFR 50.150 (including amendments 
to any of the four existing design certifications) to govern 
combined license applicants and holders referencing the design 
certification that request a departure from the design features or 
functional capabilities in the referenced design certification. The 
new change control provision will require that, if the applicant or 
licensee changes the information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to 
be included in the FSAR for the standard design certification, then 
the applicant or licensee shall consider the effect of the changed 
feature or capability on the original assessment required by 10 CFR 
50.150(a). The applicant or licensee must also describe in a change 
to the FSAR (i.e., a plant-specific departure from the generic 
design control document), how the modified design features and 
functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment requirements 
in the aircraft impact rule. An applicant or licensee's submittal of 
this updated information to the NRC will be governed by the 
reporting requirements in the applicable design certification rule.

    Further, making the changes suggested by the commenter would 
effectively eliminate the requirement for the COL applicant or holder 
to consider the effect of proposed changes to AIA design features or 
functional capabilities on the original assessment required by 10 CFR 
50.150(a). It would also eliminate the requirement to document how the 
modified design continues to meet the AIA rule. Because the changes 
proposed by the commenter are in direct conflict with the Commission's 
policy on implementation of the AIA rule for design certifications and 
because the commenter did not provide any compelling reasons why the 
Commission should consider changing its policy, the NRC declines to 
adopt the proposed changes. No change was made to the SOC or the 
language of the final rule as the result of this comment.
    Comment: The proposed deletion of the current language of paragraph 
VIII.B.5.d and the substitution of language in the proposed rule should 
not be adopted. The deletion of the current language in paragraph 
VIII.B.5.d does not seem appropriate given the context of Paragraph 
VIII.B. Instead, the new language may be added as proposed, but 
existing paragraphs VIII.B.5.d and e should be redesignated as 
paragraphs VIII.B.5.e and f. (GEH-7)
    NRC Response: The commenter has misinterpreted the proposed changes 
to paragraph VIII.B.5 in the proposed rule. The NRC is not proposing to 
delete the rule text in current paragraph VIII.B.5.d. As stated in the 
amendatory language for Appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 (76 FR 3559, 
second column), section VIII, paragraph B.5.b is revised, paragraphs 
B.5.d. e, and f are redesignated as paragraphs B.5.e, f, and g, 
respectively, and new paragraph B.5.d is added. As this is what the 
commenter suggested, no further changes were made to the final rule as 
a result of this comment.

Comment Related to Recent Events in Japan

    Comment: In light of the recent events in Japan and the level of 
water repeatedly exposing the nuclear rods--isn't there a simpler 
solution to relying on pumps to supply the cooling water? If the plant 
was mandated to have a

[[Page 78102]]

reservoir of water that could gravity feed water via manual valves to 
keep the rods covered--diesel backups and battery backups would be a 
non issue. (Shadis-1)
    NRC Response: The NRC staff interprets this comment to be in 
reference to the certified U.S. ABWR design, which is being amended in 
the rulemaking. Changes to the U.S. ABWR design that are not directly 
related to compliance with the NRC's AIA rule, which is the subject of 
this amendment, are outside of the scope of this rulemaking. With 
regard to the recent events at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant in 
Japan, the NRC continues to believe that its regulatory framework and 
requirements provide for a rigorous and comprehensive license review 
process that examines the full extent of siting, system design, and 
operation of nuclear power plants. The recommendations of the NRC's 
task force that was established to examine lessons learned from the 
events in Japan will certainly be taken into account in the performance 
of the NRC's ongoing and future reviews of applications, as 
appropriate. Further, the NRC has the necessary regulatory tools to 
require changes to existing licenses or applications for certification 
should the NRC determine that changes are necessary. For example, any 
new requirements that may result from the task force's recommendations 
could be implemented in accordance with existing NRC policies that may 
involve rulemaking or backfitting. If the commenter believes that 
changes should be made to the U.S. ABWR-certified design, the proper 
vehicle for proposing such changes is to submit a petition for 
rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802, ``Petition for rulemaking.'' No change 
was made to the final rule as a result of this comment.

III. Discussion

A. Technical Evaluation of the STPNOC Amendment to U.S. ABWR Design

    STPNOC requested changes to the U.S. ABWR design in order to comply 
with the AIA rule, 10 CFR 50.150. This amendment takes credit for the 
design features and their functional capability(ies) to maintain core 
cooling and spent fuel integrity following a strike of a large 
commercial aircraft. These design features and their functional 
capability(ies) are summarized below:
     The primary containment structure protects the safety 
systems inside from impact.
     The location and design of the control building structure 
protects the north wall of the reactor building from impact.
     The location and design of the turbine building structure 
protects the north wall of the control building and reactor building 
from impact.
     The location and design of the reactor building structure 
protects the south wall of the control building and primary containment 
from impact.
     The location and design of the spent fuel pool and its 
supporting structure protect the spent fuel pool from impact.
     The physical separation of the Class 1E emergency diesel 
generators and an independent power supply prevent the loss of all 
electrical power to core cooling systems.
     The location and design of 3-hour fire barriers, including 
fire doors and watertight doors inside the reactor building and control 
building protect credited core cooling equipment from fire damage.
     The physical separation and design of the emergency core 
cooling system ensure core cooling.
     The design of the alternate feedwater injection system 
ensures core cooling.
     The design of the containment overpressure protection 
system ensures core cooling.
    The acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) are (1) The reactor 
core will remain cooled or the containment will remain intact, and (2) 
spent fuel pool cooling or spent fuel pool integrity is maintained. The 
applicant states that it has met 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) by maintaining 
both core cooling and spent fuel pool integrity.
    The applicant proposes to maintain core cooling using the safety-
related and non-safety-related systems, which are specifically designed 
to ensure that the reactor can be shutdown and decay heat can be 
removed adequately from the reactor core. Some of this equipment is 
located (1) inside of the primary containment, (2) inside the reactor 
building, and (3) well away from the power block. Locations inside the 
primary containment are protected from structural, shock and fire 
damage by the design of the primary containment structure as well as 
the reactor building structure that limits the penetration of a large, 
commercial aircraft so that the primary containment is not perforated. 
Equipment inside the reactor building is protected by structural design 
features of the reactor building itself and by structures adjacent to 
the reactor building, including the turbine building and the control 
building. In addition, fire barriers are designed and located in the 
reactor building and control building to limit the spread of fire 
inside the buildings.
    The applicant proposes to satisfy the spent fuel pool integrity 
acceptance criterion in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) due to the location and 
design of the spent fuel pool and its support structure. These key 
design features protect the structure from impact by a large commercial 
aircraft.
    The NRC's review of the applicant's proposed amendment to the U.S. 
ABWR design certification confirmed that the applicant has complied 
with 10 CFR 50.150. Specifically, the NRC confirmed that the applicant 
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. 
ABWR design certification. Finally, the NRC determined that the STPNOC 
and its contractors are technically qualified to perform the design 
work associated with the amended portion of the U.S. ABWR design 
represented by the STPNOC's application and to supply the amended 
portion of the U.S. ABWR design.
    The STPNOC's amendment to the U.S. ABWR design has achieved the 
Commission's objectives of enhanced public health and safety and 
enhanced common defense and security through improvement of the 
facility's inherent robustness at the design stage.

B. Regulatory and Policy Issues

Multiple Suppliers for a Single Certified Design
    In the 1989 10 CFR part 52 rulemaking, the Commission decided to 
approve standard reactor designs by rulemaking, as opposed to 
licensing, and stated that a DCR ``does not, strictly speaking, belong 
to the designer'' (54 FR 15327; April 18, 1989, at 15375, third 
column). Nonetheless, the Commission implicitly recognized the need to 
protect the commercial and proprietary interests of the original 
applicant who intends to supply the certified design, should there be 
another entity who intends to use the design in some fashion without 
approval or compensation to the original design certification 
applicant. Id. The protection was provided, in part, through the 
decision of the Commission

[[Page 78103]]

to protect ``proprietary information'' \1\ developed by the original 
design certification applicant, as well as by several other regulatory 
provisions in both 10 CFR part 52 and 10 CFR part 170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term, ``proprietary information,'' means trade secrets 
or commercial or financial information that are privileged or 
confidential, as those terms are used under the Freedom of 
Information Act and the NRC's implementing regulation at 10 CFR part 
9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon the licensing experience with operating nuclear power 
plants, the Commission understood that portions of proposed design 
certifications, primarily in the area of fuel design, would likely be 
regarded as proprietary information (trade secrets) by future design 
certification applicants. To ensure that design certification 
applicants would not be adversely affected in their capability to 
protect this proprietary information as a result of the NRC's decision 
to approve designs by rulemaking rather than licensing, the Commission 
adopted 10 CFR 52.51(c), which stated, in relevant part, that 
notwithstanding anything in 10 CFR 2.390 to the contrary, proprietary 
information will be protected in the same manner and to the same extent 
as proprietary information submitted in connection with applications 
for licenses, provided that the design certification shall be published 
in Chapter I of title 10. Reference: 10 CFR 52.51(c) (1990, as 
originally promulgated in the 1989 10 CFR part 52 rulemaking, see 54 FR 
15372, April 18, 1989, at 15390).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As originally adopted in 1989, 10 CFR 52.51(c) consisted of 
two sentences. The first sentence limited the bases for a decision 
in a hearing on a design certification to information on which all 
parties had an opportunity to comment. The second sentence is the 
language of the current regulation. The first sentence was removed 
in 2004 as a conforming change when the Commission removed the 
hearing requirements for design certification (69 FR 2182; January 
14, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having protected proprietary information developed by the design 
certification applicant, the Commission then adopted several additional 
rulemaking provisions in 10 CFR part 52 providing additional regulatory 
protection to the original design certification applicant against 
unfair use of the design certification by other suppliers. The 
Commission required the (original) design certification applicant, as 
well as the applicant for renewal of the design certification, to 
include in the application a level of design information sufficient to 
enable the Commission to judge the applicant's proposed means of 
assuring that construction conforms to the design and to reach a final 
conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design before 
the certification is granted. The information submitted for a design 
certification must include performance requirements and design 
information sufficiently detailed to permit the preparation of 
acceptance and inspection requirements by the NRC, and procurement 
specifications and construction and installation specifications by an 
applicant. Reference: 10 CFR 52.47(a)(2) (1990, as originally 
promulgated in the 1989 10 CFR part 52 rulemaking, see 54 FR 15372; 
April 18, 1989; at 15390); \3\ 10 CFR 52.57(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This language was moved to the introductory paragraph of the 
current 10 CFR 52.47 in the 2007 revision of 10 CFR part 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also adopted 10 CFR 52.63(c), requiring the 
applicant referencing the design certification to provide the 
information required to be developed by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(2) or its 
equivalent. It stated that the Commission will require, before granting 
a construction permit, combined license, operating license, or 
manufacturing license which references a design certification rule, 
that information normally contained in certain procurement 
specifications and construction and installation specifications be 
completed and available for audit if the information is necessary for 
the Commission to make its safety determinations, including the 
determination that the application is consistent with the certification 
information. This information may be acquired by appropriate 
arrangements with the design certification applicant. Reference: 10 CFR 
52.63(c) (1990). By requiring a level of detailed information 
supporting the certified design to be developed and available for NRC 
audit at renewal and when the design was referenced for use, the 
Commission ensured (among other things) that entities who were not the 
original design certification applicant would not have an inordinate 
financial advantage when either supplying the certified design to a 
referencing user, or referencing the certified design in an 
application.
    In adopting 10 CFR 52.73, the Commission also relied on its 
statutory authority under Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
(AEA), as amended, to make a technical qualifications finding. Section 
52.73 effectively prohibits a COL applicant from referencing a 
certified design unless the entity that actually supplies the design to 
the referencing applicant is technically qualified to supply the 
certified design. It stated that in the absence of a demonstration that 
an entity other than the one originally sponsoring and obtaining a 
design certification is qualified to supply such design, the Commission 
will entertain an application for a combined license which references a 
standard design certification issued under Subpart B only if the entity 
that sponsored and obtained the certification supplies the certified 
design for the applicant's use. Reference: 10 CFR 52.73 (1990, as 
originally promulgated in the 1989 10 CFR part 52 rulemaking, see 54 FR 
15372; April 18, 1989, at 15393).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This provision was slightly reworded in the 2007 rulemaking 
amending 10 CFR part 52 in a newly-designed paragraph (b) to 10 CFR 
52.73 (72 FR 49352; August 28, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Apart from the provisions discussed previously, the Commission also 
indicated in the SOC for the 1989 10 CFR part 52 rulemaking that the 
finality provisions in 10 CFR 52.63 provided some protection against 
arbitrary amendment or rescission of the design certification. Any 
proposed rescission or amendment of the design certification must be 
accomplished under notice and comment rulemaking procedures, as 
required by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). The original applicant would, 
accordingly, have the opportunity to comment on any proposed change to 
the design, including those changes initiated by other entities.
    Finally, the Commission adopted, as part of the 1989 rulemaking, 
conforming amendments to 10 CFR 170.12(d) and (e). Under these 
provisions, entities other than the original design certification 
applicant who provide either the renewed or original certified design 
to a referencing applicant for a construction permit, operating license 
or COL must pay the applicable installment of the deferred NRC fee \5\ 
for review of the original or renewed design certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the 1989 final 10 CFR part 52 rulemaking, the Commission 
decided that the payment of the fee imposed upon the design 
certification applicant to recover the NRC's costs for review and 
approval of the certified design via rulemaking, and renewal of the 
DCR, should be deferred and recovered in equal increments the first 
five times the DCR was referenced in an application. See 10 CFR 
107.12(d)(2) (renewal of DCR); 10 CFR 170.12(e)(2)(i) (initial 
certification) (1990), as originally promulgated in the 1989 10 CFR 
part 52 rulemaking (see 54 FR 15372; April 18, 1989, at 15399).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the 1989 rulemaking, in each of the four existing DCRs in 10 
CFR part 52, appendices A through D, the Commission adopted an 
additional provision serving to protect the proprietary information and 
safeguards information (SGI) developed by the original design 
certification applicant. Paragraph IV.A.3 of each rule required an 
applicant referencing the DCR to

[[Page 78104]]

``physically include in the plant-specific DCD proprietary information 
and safeguards information referenced in the DCD.'' The Commission's 
view was that by ``physically'' including the proprietary information 
and SGI developed by the original DCR applicant in the application, 
this would be demonstrative of the referencing applicant's rights to 
use that information; otherwise, the referencing applicant could 
provide the equivalent information (62 FR 25800; May 12, 1997, at 
25818, third column).
    In 2007, at the request of the Nuclear Energy Institute and other 
industry commenters, the word, ``physically'' was removed from 
paragraph IV of each of the four DCRs, to allow the DCR applicant more 
flexibility in how the proprietary information and SGI are included in 
the application referencing the DCR (72 FR 49352; August 28, 2007, at 
49363-49365). This change was not intended to represent a retreat from 
the Commission's position that the referencing applicant has the 
appropriate commercial rights to reference the proprietary and SGI 
information or its equivalent. However, the NRC acknowledges that under 
the current language of paragraph IV.A.3, the NRC must do more to 
verify that the referencing applicant has the appropriate commercial 
rights to the proprietary and SGI information developed by the 
originating applicant (unless, of course, the referencing applicant 
indicates that it is supplying ``equivalent'' information).
    The Commission did not describe in the 1989 rulemaking the 
particular regulatory approach and structure to be used for a DCR with 
two or more suppliers of the certified design. In the years after the 
1989 10 CFR part 52 rulemaking, the Commission did not need to address 
the circumstance of multiple suppliers of the same certified design 
(multiple suppliers) to an end user.\6\ However, with the filing of the 
U.S. ABWR design certification amendment request by the STPNOC, as well 
as Toshiba's March 3, 2010, letter to the NRC stating that it intends 
to seek renewal of the U.S. ABWR design certification (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML100710026), the NRC must now determine the regulatory approach 
and structure for the amendment (and, for completeness, the renewal) of 
a certified design where there will be multiple suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term, ``user,'' means an entity which references the 
standard DCR in its application, and the holder of a permit or 
license which incorporates the standard design certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the NRC was advised of the STPNOC's intent to submit an 
amendment of the U.S. ABWR design certification, it began a process of 
identifying and considering possible regulatory alternatives, with the 
goal of identifying a single regulatory approach and structure to be 
used for all design certifications with multiple suppliers. The NRC 
considered three alternatives which it could reasonably select:
    1. Separate rules: Develop separate DCRs for each supplier.
    2. Branches: Develop one DCR with multiple branches, with each 
branch describing a complete design to be supplied by each supplier.
    3. Options: Develop one DCR with options, with each option 
describing a portion of the certified design which may be selected by 
the user as an option to the original ``reference'' certified design.
    Table 1 presents the NRC's current views with respect to the 
differences between these three alternatives.
    In light of the Commission's past practice of protecting the 
proprietary information and legitimate commercial interests of the 
original design certification applicant wherever consistent with other 
applicable law, the NRC believes that it should consider that practice 
when evaluating possible alternatives for the approach and structure of 
a DCR with multiple suppliers. Upon consideration, the NRC concludes 
that the ``branches'' alternative should be adopted as the general 
approach for all renewals of design certifications and for major design 
certification amendments. The ``branches'' alternative: (1) Is 
consistent with all applicable law, (2) protects the proprietary 
information and legitimate commercial interests of the original design 
certification applicant (as well as the additional suppliers), and (3) 
meets the NRC's regulatory concerns. Each of these considerations is 
discussed separately below.

No Statutory or Other Legal Prohibition to the ``Branches'' Alternative

    There is no statutory or other legal prohibition, explicit or 
otherwise, against use of the ``branches'' alternative in the AEA, the 
Administrative Procedure Act, the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, or other statutes applicable to the NRC. Design 
certification rulemaking is not specifically addressed in the AEA. The 
AEA provisions do not appear to circumscribe or prohibit the NRC's use 
of a regulatory approach of approving multiple suppliers of a set of 
closely-related certified designs in a single codified rule.
    Moreover, nothing in 10 CFR part 52 compels the use of a particular 
alternative for addressing multiple suppliers. As discussed previously, 
the Commission contemplated that multiple suppliers could supply the 
same certified design from the time it first adopted the concept of 
design certification by rulemaking. However, the Commission did not 
mandate any specific regulatory approach for accommodating multiple 
suppliers of a certified design. Those provisions intended to protect 
proprietary information and the commercial interests of each supplier 
do not mandate any specific approach for accommodating multiple 
suppliers, and do not foreclose the use of the ``branches'' 
alternative.

Protection of Proprietary Information and Legitimate Commercial 
Interests of All Suppliers

    The ``branches'' alternative fully protects the proprietary 
information and legitimate commercial interests of all suppliers. Under 
the ``branches'' alternative, each supplier is responsible for creating 
and maintaining its own DCD (including the non-public version of the 
DCD containing sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information 
(SUNSI), i.e., proprietary information, and SGI developed by the 
supplier). Because each DCD is self-contained, the NRC does not foresee 
any circumstance that would require the NRC to provide the non-public 
DCD (or information supporting its DCD) prepared and supported by the 
original design certification applicant to the new supplier, or to 
provide the non-public DCD prepared and supported by the new supplier 
to the original applicant. Nor does the use of the ``branches'' 
alternative affect the legal issues associated with providing access to 
SUNSI (including proprietary information) and SGI to members of the 
public to facilitate public comment on a proposed design certification 
rulemaking adding a new supplier and branch.
    The ``branches'' alternative has no effect on the legal 
applicability, or on the NRC's implementation of the 10 CFR parts 52 
and 170 provisions discussed previously, which are directed at 
protecting the proprietary information and commercial interests of the 
original design applicant. These provisions, properly applied, should 
also protect the proprietary information and interests of all other 
suppliers of a subsequently-approved ``branch.'' Thus, the ``branches'' 
alternative provides all suppliers all of the protection of their 
proprietary information and commercial

[[Page 78105]]

interests, which the Commission intended to be afforded to these 
suppliers.
    A rulemaking adopting a new ``branch'' (a ```branch' rulemaking'') 
would not disturb the issue resolution and finality accorded to the 
original certified design (as amended in any subsequent rulemakings), 
or to the certified design of any other suppliers in any previously 
approved branches. Nor would a ``branch'' rulemaking necessarily 
require the Commission to consider and address, in the final rulemaking 
adding the new ``branch,'' comments on the existing certified design. 
The NRC believes that each ``branch'' rulemaking is limited to adding 
the new ``branch,'' together with requirements and conditions specific 
to the new ``branch.'' Therefore, the NRC asserts that: (1) The nuclear 
safety and other associated matters (severe accident mitigation design 
alternatives (SAMDAs)) resolved in the preceding design certification 
rulemaking(s) continue to be effective and are not being re-examined in 
the ``branch'' rulemaking; and (2) comments on the existing certified 
design(s) are out-of-scope and should not be considered in the 
``branch'' rulemaking.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If the out-of-scope comment seeking to modify the existing 
certified design was submitted by the original sponsor of that 
design, then the NRC believes that the original sponsor should seek 
an amendment of its certified design in accordance with the design 
certification amendment process as addressed in 10 CFR 52.57 and 
52.59, and 10 CFR 2.800(c) and 10 CFR 2.811-2.819 (as well as the 
procedures common to all petitions for rulemaking in 10 CFR 2.804-
2.810, as prescribed in 10 CFR 2.800(b)). By contrast, if the out-
of-scope comment seeking to modify the existing certified design was 
submitted by any other entity (e.g., an entity that is not the 
supplier of that certified design branch), then the staff believes 
that these comments should be regarded as petitions for rulemaking 
and processed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.800(c) 
and 10 CFR 2.802-2.803 (as well as the procedures common to all 
petitions for rulemaking in 10 CFR 2.804-2.810, as prescribed in 10 
CFR 2.800(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``branches'' alternative would not require the original 
supplier (or indeed any previously-approved supplier) of the certified 
design to modify their DCD or incur other costs as part of the 
``branch'' rulemaking. Hence, there is no financial impact upon the 
pre-existing suppliers. The NRC has not identified any credible 
argument that could be raised by the original design certification 
applicant that an NRC decision allowing a new supplier to supply the 
certified design could be the proximate cause of any diminution in the 
commercial value of the original applicant's certified design. The 
concept of multiple suppliers of a single certified design is inherent 
in the concept of design certification by rulemaking. The Commission 
anticipated multiple suppliers of a single design certification when it 
was considering the regulatory approach for certification (rulemaking 
versus licensing), and afforded protection to the original applicant by 
various provisions of 10 CFR part 52. This protection was embodied in 
provisions included in each of the DCRs issued to date, and these 
provisions would continue to be included in future DCRs. Hence, no 
supplier--including the original design certification applicant--may 
reasonably claim that the approval of a new ``branch'' constitutes an 
unwarranted diminution in the commercial value of the certified design 
which it sponsored.

NRC's Regulatory Concerns Are Met

    The NRC believes that any alternative and structure for a DCR with 
multiple suppliers must meet the following regulatory concerns. Any 
rule amendment (or renewal) which introduces a new supplier must 
minimize the possibility of re-opening the safety and regulatory 
conclusions reached by the NRC with respect to previously approved 
aspects of the design and supplier(s). In addition, if the new supplier 
is proposing changes to the actual certified design, then the 
substitute or new portions of the design,\8\ must to the maximum extent 
practical, be attributable solely to the ``sponsoring'' supplier, and 
therefore distinguishable from the ``common'' portions of the design 
which each supplier must support (the ``branches'' alternative adopting 
the premise that the supplier must be technically qualified to supply 
all of the certified design, including the ``common'' portions).\9\ The 
regulatory approach and structure must reflect a sound basis for 
allowing the NRC to make a technical qualifications finding with 
respect to the supplier. Finally, the approach and structure must allow 
for imposition of applicable NRC requirements on each supplier, and the 
legal ability of the NRC to undertake enforcement and regulatory action 
on each supplier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``substitute'' portion of the certified design sponsored 
by the new supplier serves to replace a discrete portion of a design 
as sponsored by the original design certification applicant (in 
other words, the basis for comparison of a new branch must always be 
the original certified design), but without augmenting or adding a 
completely new functional capability. By contrast, a ``new'' portion 
of the certified design sponsored by the new supplier serves to 
either: (1) Augment a discrete portion of the design as sponsored by 
the original design certification applicant or (2) add a completely 
new functional capability not previously considered and addressed in 
the original certified design. As an example, the amendment of the 
U.S. ABWR DCR sought by the STPNOC would add new functional 
capabilities--the ability to withstand aircraft impacts of the kind 
described in the AIA rule, 10 CFR 50.150. Hence, the ``changes'' 
sought by the STPNOC would be considered ``new'' portions of the 
certified design.
    \9\ The NRC believes a broad finding of technical qualifications 
is necessary because the original design certification applicant is 
under no legal or NRC regulatory obligation (consistent with the 
concept of providing protection to the proprietary information and 
legitimate commercial interests of the original supplier) to provide 
technical support on the ``common'' portions of the certified design 
to either the new supplier or a user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``branches'' alternative meets all of these regulatory 
concerns. This alternative creates a separate branch for the design to 
be supplied by the new supplier in the rule and requires the new 
certified design to be described in a separate DCD created and 
supported by the new supplier. Therefore there is a strong basis for 
arguing that the certified design(s) already approved by the NRC are 
not affected and that the issue finality accorded to those certified 
designs (as controlled by 10 CFR 52.63) continues. Hence, in any 
rulemaking approving a new branch, the NRC need not consider any 
comments seeking changes to the existing certified design.
    The use of a separate DCD to describe the new certified design, by 
its very nature, serves to (1) distinguish any substitute or new 
portions of the certified design sponsored only by the new supplier and 
(2) make clear that the substitute or new portions are being sponsored 
solely by the new supplier (because the other branches do not contain 
any reference to or mention of the substitute or new portions of the 
design sponsored by the new supplier). The use of a separate DCD 
describing the entire design is also consistent with the NRC's position 
that it must conduct a technical qualifications review of the new 
supplier and make a finding that the new supplier is technically 
qualified to provide the entire certified design. The NRC's 
recommendation to use a separate DCD, coupled with a structure of the 
DCR language (as codified in one of the appendices to 10 CFR part 52) 
that applies common regulatory requirements to all suppliers, allows 
for the NRC to take regulatory action against any supplier without 
regard to whether the supplier was the original design certification 
applicant.
    For these reasons, the NRC concluded that its regulatory concerns 
are met under the ``branches'' alternative. However, during discussions 
with the STPNOC about the processing of its request to amend the U.S. 
ABWR design certification, the STPNOC proposed that the NRC adopt a 
process similar to the ``options'' approach for the STPNOC U.S. ABWR 
amendment.

[[Page 78106]]

    The STPNOC request was based upon a number of factors that the NRC 
considered to be unique to the STPNOC's situation. First, under the 
``branches'' approach, the STPNOC would have to supply the U.S. ABWR 
proprietary information (or its equivalent) which was originally 
developed by GE and approved by the NRC in the original U.S. ABWR 
design certification rulemaking. While the STPNOC has contractual 
rights from GEH to use the GE-developed U.S. ABWR proprietary 
information for STP Units 3 and 4, it does not have the right to supply 
the GE-developed U.S. ABWR proprietary information to other companies 
in connection with any other application for a COL that references the 
certified U.S. ABWR. In addition, neither the STPNOC nor its 
contractors would be in a position to provide complete information to 
substitute for the GE-developed U.S. ABWR proprietary information in 
time to support the schedule for issuance of the COLs for STP Units 3 
and 4, should they be approved by the NRC. Second, the STPNOC indicated 
that some portion of the GE-developed U.S. ABWR proprietary information 
relates to fuel design, and the STPNOC does not intend to use the GE 
fuel design for initial operation of STP Units 3 and 4. Rather, the 
STPNOC intends to use another fuel design and obtain NRC approval via 
an application for a COL amendment (i.e., after the issuance of the 
COLs). The GE-developed fuel design also would not be used to operate 
any of the possible six U.S. ABWRs that could be developed under the 
agreement between Toshiba and NINA, which has the right to develop four 
U.S. ABWRs in addition to STP Units 3 and 4. Finally, the STPNOC 
indicated that the ``options'' approach would not be used at renewal; 
the renewal application Toshiba was developing would reflect the use of 
the ``branches'' alternative (i.e., Toshiba would be seeking approval 
of and supplying the entire U.S. ABWR design at renewal, including 
replacement proprietary information). Based on these factors, the 
STPNOC requested that it be considered the supplier for only that 
portion of the U.S. ABWR design certification necessary to comply with 
the AIA, and which is the subject of its amendment request.
    Upon consideration, the NRC has decided to use the ``options'' 
approach for the STPNOC amendment of the U.S. ABWR design 
certification, based on the following considerations. As with the 
``branches'' alternative, there is no statute or NRC regulation 
prohibiting the use of the ``options'' approach, nor is there any 
provision which prohibits the concurrent use of both alternatives--so 
long as the NRC is able to articulate a basis for doing so. Moreover, 
all of the NRC's safety and regulatory objectives are met. The STPNOC 
is providing sufficient information to determine its technical 
qualifications \10\ to supply the STPNOC-sponsored amendments 
addressing the AIA rule to third party users (i.e., users other than 
the STPNOC itself). In addition, the NRC believes that there are no 
insurmountable issues in requiring the user (in most cases, the COL 
applicant referencing the U.S. ABWR and the STPNOC option) to prepare a 
single DCD integrating information from both the DCD developed by GE 
and the DCD developed by the STPNOC. The ``options'' approach also 
avoids or addresses all of the STPNOC's concerns with the use of the 
``branches'' alternative for its request to amend the U.S. ABWR. The 
STPNOC does not have to develop and submit to the NRC information 
equivalent to the proprietary information developed by GE to support 
the STPNOC amendment application. Nor does the STPNOC have to 
demonstrate its technical qualifications to supply the entire U.S. 
ABWR-certified design; it has already demonstrated its technical 
qualifications to supply the STPNOC option. Toshiba has submitted an 
application for renewal of the U.S. ABWR design certification that is 
consistent with the ``branches'' approach. Thus, the STPNOC option will 
have a limited period in which it can be referenced by a future COL 
applicant, that is, until the renewal of the U.S. ABWR design 
certification. Finally, the ``options'' approach fully protects the 
legitimate proprietary and commercial interests of GE in the original 
U.S. ABWR design certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The NRC staff determined that the STPNOC and its 
contractors are technically qualified to perform the design work 
associated with the amended portion of the U.S. ABWR design 
represented by the STPNOC's application and to supply the amended 
portion of the U.S. ABWR design. However, the NRC staff determined 
that the STPNOC, by itself, is not technically qualified to supply 
the amended portion of the U.S. ABWR design certification 
represented in the STPNOC's DCD, Revision 1. The NRC is including a 
provision in the amended U.S. ABWR DCR to specify that if a COL 
applicant references the STPNOC option but does not show they are 
obtaining the design from the STPNOC and TANE, acting together, then 
the COL applicant must demonstrate that the entity supplying the 
STPNOC option to the applicant possesses the technical 
qualifications to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these considerations, the NRC is adopting the ``options'' 
alternative for the STPNOC amendment of the U.S. ABWR design 
certification, but will regard the ``branches'' alternative as the 
default for all renewals of design certifications and for major design 
certification amendments. Under the ``options'' approach, applicants 
seeking amendments to already certified designs must be found to be 
qualified to supply the limited scope of the revisions they seek. If 
the NRC receives other limited-scope design certification amendments 
(similar in scope to the STPNOC amendment request), it will consider 
whether the ``branches'' approach or the ``options'' approach offers 
the most effective and efficient regulatory option at that time based 
on the scope of the amendment and the specific circumstances associated 
with the particular application.
    By implementing the ``options'' approach for the STPNOC U.S. ABWR 
amendment, a COL applicant that references the U.S. ABWR standard 
design certification can meet the requirements of the AIA rule by 
referencing both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD or by referencing only 
the GE DCD and addressing the requirements of the AIA rule separately 
in its COL application.

[[Page 78107]]



                   Table 1--Differences in Regulatory Treatment of Alternatives for Addressing Multiple Design Certification Suppliers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Alternative 2: One rule with multiple
        Regulatory feature              Alternative 1: Separate rules                     branches                  Alternative 3: One rule with options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Description of             Each supplier's certified design would  Each supplier's certified design would  The original applicant's certified
 Alternative.                       be contained in a separate design       be contained in a single design         design would be contained in a
                                    certification rule (separate            certification rule (a single appendix   single design certification rule (a
                                    appendices to 10 CFR part 52). Thus,    to 10 CFR part 52).                     single appendix to 10 CFR part 52).
                                    there would be multiple rules for the  Each supplier's design is a complete     An ``option'' represents an
                                    same general design.                    design and presented as an              alternative to the specified
                                   Single DCD (see below).                  alternative or ``branch'' within the    portion(s) of the original
                                                                            rule.                                   applicant's certified design. The
                                                                                                                    supplier of the option would be
                                                                                                                    providing only the portion(s) of the
                                                                                                                    certified design contained within
                                                                                                                    the option.
                                   ......................................  ......................................  A COL referencing a design with
                                                                                                                    options would obtain the total
                                                                                                                    design from two (or more) suppliers:
                                                                                                                    (i) The main portion of the design
                                                                                                                    from the original applicant (unless
                                                                                                                    the COL applicant demonstrated that
                                                                                                                    another entity was qualified to
                                                                                                                    supply the design) and (ii) the
                                                                                                                    selected design option from the
                                                                                                                    applicable supplier of the option.
                                   ......................................  ......................................  Two choices for the DCDs (see below).
DCD..............................  One complete DCD for each rule. Rule    Two separate DCDs (one for each         Choice 1 (NRC preferred)
                                    language would incorporate by           supplier), each DCD describing design  Two separate DCDs: (i) Original
                                    reference a single DCD.                 for that supplier. Rule language        applicant's DCD (no change to
                                                                            would incorporate by reference two      document) and (ii) a limited-scope
                                                                            DCDs.                                   DCD describing only the information
                                                                                                                    in the option.
                                   ......................................  ......................................  Choice 2
                                                                                                                   Two separate DCDs: (i) Original
                                                                                                                    applicant's DCD (no change to
                                                                                                                    document) and (ii) new DCD, prepared
                                                                                                                    by supplier of option, integrating
                                                                                                                    the original certified design with
                                                                                                                    the substitute design description of
                                                                                                                    the option in the appropriate
                                                                                                                    locations.
Identification of Applicant in     Each supplier identified as original    The original applicant and the          Original applicant and applicant for
 Rule.                              applicant in its rule.                  applicant for each branch (each         each ``option'' (each entity
                                                                            entity constituting a supplier) are     constituting a supplier) are
                                                                            identified.                             identified.
                                   ......................................  Note: Original applicant would always
                                                                            be the first branch.
Technical Content of Application   Design information for amended portion  Design information for amended portion  Original supplier
 for Amendment.                     of design.                              of design branch.                      Design information for amended
                                                                                                                    portion of design.
                                                                                                                   Supplier of option-initial
                                                                                                                    application for option
                                                                                                                   Design information for amended
                                                                                                                    portion of design.
                                   ......................................  ......................................  Supplier of option-application for
                                                                                                                    amendment to option
                                                                                                                   Design information for amended
                                                                                                                    portion of option

[[Page 78108]]

 
Technical Content of Application   Design information for entire design,   Design information for entire design    Original supplier
 for Renewal.                       necessary to comply with renewal        branch, necessary to comply with       Design information for entire design
                                    updating in accordance with Sec.        renewal updating in accordance with     necessary to comply with renewal
                                    52.57.                                  Sec.   52.57.                           updating in accordance with Sec.
                                                                                                                    52.57.
                                                                                                                   Supplier of option
                                                                                                                   N/A (Supplier of option may not renew
                                                                                                                    the DCR option. If both the original
                                                                                                                    applicant and the applicant for the
                                                                                                                    option seek renewal, then renewal
                                                                                                                    will be implemented as ``branches''
                                                                                                                    under Alternative 2 with two named
                                                                                                                    applicants/suppliers. If the
                                                                                                                    original applicant or the applicant
                                                                                                                    for the option, alone, seeks
                                                                                                                    renewal, then renewal will be
                                                                                                                    implemented as a single rule with
                                                                                                                    one named applicant/supplier.)
Submission of SUNSI (including     Amendment                               Amendment                               Amendment
 proprietary information), and     Original supplier                       Original supplier                       Original supplier
 SGI (if applicable).              Submit publicly-available DCD without   Submit publicly-available DCD without   Submit publicly-available DCD without
                                    new SUNSI (including proprietary        new SUNSI (including proprietary        new SUNSI (including proprietary
                                    information) and SGI, and submit        information) and SGI, and submit        information) and SGI, and submit
                                    separate DCD with any new SUNSI         separate DCD with any new SUNSI         separate DCD with any new SUNSI
                                    (including proprietary information)     (including proprietary information)     (including proprietary information)
                                    and SGI.                                and SGI.                                and SGI.
                                   Additional supplier                     Supplier of branch                      Supplier of option
                                   Submit publicly-available DCD without   Submit publicly-available DCD without   Submit publicly-available DCD without
                                    SUNSI (including proprietary            SUNSI (including proprietary            SUNSI (including proprietary
                                    information) and SGI, and submit        information) and SGI, and separate      information) and SGI, and submit
                                    separate DCD with SUNSI (including      DCD with SUNSI (including proprietary   separate DCD with SUNSI (including
                                    proprietary information) and SGI that   information) and SGI that is            proprietary information) and SGI
                                    is equivalent to all SUNSI (including   equivalent to all SUNSI (including      that is equivalent to that SUNSI
                                    proprietary information) and SGI        proprietary information) and SGI        (including proprietary information)
                                    provided by original applicant.         provided by original applicant.         and SGI provided by original
                                   Renewal                                 Renewal                                  applicant which is within the scope
                                   Original supplier                       Original supplier                        of the amendment, plus any new SUNSI
                                   Submit publicly-available DCD without   Submit publicly-available DCD without    (including proprietary information)
                                    new SUNSI (including proprietary        new SUNSI (including proprietary        and SGI necessary to support the
                                    information) and SGI, and submit        information) and SGI, and submit        amendment.
                                    separate DCD with any new SUNSI         separate DCD with any new SUNSI        Renewal
                                    (including proprietary information)     (including proprietary information)    Original supplier
                                    and SGI.                                and SGI.                               Submit publicly-available DCD without
                                   Additional supplier                     Supplier of branch                       new SUNSI (including proprietary
                                   Submit publicly-available DCD without   Submit publicly-available DCD without    information) and SGI, and submit
                                    SUNSI (including proprietary            SUNSI (including proprietary            separate DCD with any new SUNSI
                                    information) and SGI, and submit        information) and SGI, and submit        (including proprietary information)
                                    separate DCD with SUNSI (including      separate DCD with SUNSI (including      and SGI.
                                    proprietary information) and SGI that   proprietary information) and SGI that
                                    is equivalent to all SUNSI (including   is equivalent to all SUNSI (including
                                    proprietary information) and SGI        proprietary information) and SGI
                                    provided by original applicant          provided by original applicant
                                    (unless previously provided by the      (unless previously provided by the
                                    non-original applicant in an earlier    non-original applicant in an earlier
                                    amendment proceeding).                  amendment proceeding).

[[Page 78109]]

 
Nature and Scope of NRC Safety     Findings that:                          Findings that: (i) Portion of design    Original supplier
 Review--Amendment.                (i) Portion of design being amended      being amended meets current            Findings that: (i) Portion of design
                                    meets current applicable NRC            applicable NRC requirements and (ii)    being amended meets current
                                    requirements and                        proposed change does not affect         applicable NRC requirements and (ii)
                                   (ii) proposed change does not affect     previous conclusions in other design    proposed change does not affect
                                    previous conclusions in other design    areas.                                  previous conclusions in other design
                                    areas.                                                                          areas.
                                                                                                                   Supplier of option
                                                                                                                   Findings that: (i) Design proposed to
                                                                                                                    be added as an option, or portion of
                                                                                                                    existing design being amended (as
                                                                                                                    applicable), meets current
                                                                                                                    applicable NRC requirements, (ii)
                                                                                                                    (if applicable) proposed change to
                                                                                                                    an option does not affect previous
                                                                                                                    conclusions in other design areas of
                                                                                                                    the option, and (iii) design
                                                                                                                    proposed to be added as an option,
                                                                                                                    or proposed change to existing
                                                                                                                    option (as applicable) does not
                                                                                                                    affect safety of design areas in the
                                                                                                                    portion of the design supplied by
                                                                                                                    the original supplier.
Nature and Scope of NRC Safety     Findings that:                          Findings that: (i) Design complies      Original supplier
 Review--Renewal.                  (i) Design complies with AIA Rule, 10    with AIA Rule, 10 CFR 50.150 (if not   Findings that: (i) Design complies
                                    CFR 50.150 (if not already amended);    already amended); (ii) design           with AIA Rule, 10 CFR 50.150 (if not
                                   (ii) design complies with all            complies with all regulations           already amended); (ii) design
                                    regulations applicable and in effect    applicable and in effect at time or     complies with all regulations
                                    at time or original certification;      original certification; (iii)           applicable and in effect at time or
                                    (iii) relevant findings for any         relevant findings for any changes to    original certification; (iii)
                                    changes to the design requested by      the design requested by the supplier,   relevant findings for any changes to
                                    the supplier, per 10 CFR 52.59(c);      per 10 CFR 52.59(c); and relevant       the design requested by the
                                    and (iv) the findings required by 10    findings for changes imposed by the     supplier, per 10 CFR 52.59(c); and
                                    CFR 52.59(b) for those changes          NRC per 10 CFR 52.59(b); and (iv) the   (iv) the findings required by 10 CFR
                                    imposed by the NRC under that           findings required by 10 CFR 52.59(b)    52.59(b) for those changes imposed
                                    section.                                for those changes imposed by the NRC    by the NRC under that section.
                                                                            under that section.                    Supplier of option
                                                                                                                   N/A (Supplier of option would not be
                                                                                                                    allowed to renew the option).
Nature and Scope of NRC Technical  Supplier is technically qualified to    Original supplier                       Original supplier
 Qualifications Review--Initial     provide entire design, including       Supplier is technically qualified to    Supplier is technically qualified to
 Supplier Approval.                 detailed design information.            provide entire design, including        provide entire design, including
                                                                            detailed design information.            detailed design information.
                                                                           Supplier of branch                      Supplier of option
                                                                           Supplier is technically qualified to    Supplier is technically qualified to
                                                                            provide entire design, including        provide detailed design information
                                                                            detailed design information and the     and the equivalent SUNSI (including
                                                                            equivalent SUNSI (including             proprietary information) and SGI, if
                                                                            proprietary information) and SGI.       any, which is within the scope of
                                                                                                                    the amendment.
Nature and Scope of NRC Technical  N/A                                     N/A                                     N/A (if amendment is in same area as
 Qualifications Review--Amendment.                                                                                  original option).
Nature and Scope of NRC Technical  None, unless significant change in      None, unless significant change in      None, unless significant change in
 Qualifications Review--Renewal.    organization or corporate structure/    organization or corporate structure/    organization or corporate structure/
                                    ownership or information showing a      ownership or information showing a      ownership, or information showing a
                                    change in circumstances so a supplier   change in circumstances so a supplier   change in circumstances so a
                                    no longer has technical                 no longer has technical                 supplier no longer has technical
                                    qualifications.                         qualifications.                         qualifications.
                                                                                                                   (supplier of option would not be
                                                                                                                    allowed to renew the option unless
                                                                                                                    it was incorporated into a wholesale
                                                                                                                    renewal of the design
                                                                                                                    certification).

[[Page 78110]]

 
Scope of Comments in Proposed      Comments on design for new rule (no     Original supplier                       Original supplier
 Rule FRN--New Rule or Initial      comment on original DCR).              N/A (comments on the original           N/A (comments on the original
 Approval of Branch or Option.                                              supplier's design would be out-of-      supplier's design would be out-of-
                                                                            scope of a rulemaking proposing to      scope of a rulemaking proposing to
                                                                            add a branch).                          add an option).
                                                                           Supplier of branch                      Supplier of option
                                                                           Same as scope of comments on initial    (i) Proposed option meets applicable
                                                                            approval of a new DCR.                  NRC requirements (ii) proposed
                                                                                                                    option does not affect safety of
                                                                                                                    design areas in the portion of the
                                                                                                                    design supplied by the original
                                                                                                                    supplier.
Scope of Comments in Proposed      Whether:                                Whether: (i) Changed portion of design  Original supplier
 Rule FRN--Amendment.              (i) Changed portion of design meets      branch meets current applicable NRC    Whether: (i) Changed portion of
                                    current applicable NRC requirements     requirements and (ii) changes           design meets current applicable NRC
                                    and (ii) changes adversely affect       adversely affect previous conclusions   requirements, (ii) changes adversely
                                    previous conclusions in other design    in other design areas.                  affect previous conclusions in other
                                    areas.                                                                          design areas, and (iii) changed
                                                                                                                    portion of design requires the NRC
                                                                                                                    to implement conforming changes in
                                                                                                                    the design option.
                                   ......................................  ......................................  Supplier of option
                                                                                                                   Whether: (i) Proposed change to the
                                                                                                                    option meets applicable NRC
                                                                                                                    requirements, (ii) proposed change
                                                                                                                    to the option affects previous
                                                                                                                    conclusions in unchanged portions of
                                                                                                                    the option, and (iii) proposed
                                                                                                                    change to the option affects safety
                                                                                                                    of design areas in the portion of
                                                                                                                    the design supplied by the original
                                                                                                                    supplier.
Scope of Comments in Proposed      Consistent with finding that NRC must   Consistent with finding that NRC must   N/A (Supplier of option would not be
 Rule FRN--Renewal.                 make at renewal.                        make at renewal.                        allowed to renew the option).
Part 21 Applicability............  Each supplier is responsible for 10     Each supplier is responsible for 10     Original supplier
                                    CFR part 21 compliance with respect     CFR part 21 compliance with respect    Responsible for 10 CFR part 21
                                    to its design.                          to its design branch.                   compliance with respect to the
                                                                           Note: NRC is responsible for advising    entire design with the exception of
                                                                            suppliers of branches of any defects    the option(s).
                                                                            in the portion of the design which     Supplier of option
                                                                            was sponsored by another supplier.     Responsible for 10 CFR part 21
                                                                                                                    compliance with respect to its
                                                                                                                    option.
                                                                                                                   Note: NRC is responsible for
                                                                                                                    advising: (i) Suppliers of options
                                                                                                                    of any defects in the design of the
                                                                                                                    original supplier; and (ii) original
                                                                                                                    supplier of any defects in any of
                                                                                                                    the options, for the purpose of
                                                                                                                    facilitating the original supplier's
                                                                                                                    consideration of the option's defect
                                                                                                                    on the original supplier's design.
Supplier Recordkeeping             Each supplier required to maintain its  Each supplier required to maintain the  Original supplier
 Responsibilities.                  DCD.                                    DCD representing the branch it         Maintain the DCD for the entire
                                                                            sponsored.                              design.
                                                                                                                   Supplier of option
                                                                                                                   Maintain the DCD for its option.
Mode of Referencing by COL         Reference the selected rule.            Reference one branch of the rule.       Reference the rule with
 applicant.                                                                                                         identification of option selected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. If there is only a single description in a table cell, then that means that the description applies to all suppliers.
2. For purposes of this table, ``supplier'' means an entity that: (1) Submits an application for a new design certification, an amendment to an existing
  design certification, or a renewal for a design certification; and (2) intends to, has offered, or is providing design and engineering services
  related to the certified design to a license applicant. The information in this table does not apply to petitions for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802
  submitted by entities who are not acting, do not intend to act, or the NRC believes are not reasonably capable of acting as a ``supplier.'' ``Original
  supplier'' means the supplier who was the original applicant for the design certification.


[[Page 78111]]

C. Changes to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 52--Design Certification Rule 
for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor.

1. Introduction (Section I)
    The NRC is amending Section I, ``Introduction,'' to identify the 
STPNOC as the applicant for the amendment of the U.S. ABWR DCR to 
address the AIA rule, 10 CFR 50.150. The portion of the certified 
design sponsored by the STPNOC in this amendment, and which this 
rulemaking finds the STPNOC (acting together with TANE) is technically 
qualified to supply, is termed the ``STPNOC-certified design option'' 
or ``STPNOC option.'' As discussed in greater detail in the section-by-
section analysis for Section III, ``Scope and Contents,'' an applicant 
or licensee referencing this appendix may use the GE-certified design 
(which was first certified by the NRC in a 1997 rulemaking (62 FR 
25800; May 12, 1997)), or both the GE-certified design together with 
the STPNOC option (the GE/STPNOC composite certified design).
    The overall purpose of paragraph I of this appendix is to identify 
the standard plant design that was approved and the applicant for 
certification of the standard design. Identification of both the 
original design certification applicant and the applicant for any 
amendment to the design is necessary to implement this appendix, for 
two reasons. First, the implementation of 10 CFR 52.63(c) depends on 
whether an applicant for a COL contracts with the design certification 
applicant to provide the generic DCD and supporting design information. 
If the COL applicant does not use the design certification applicant to 
provide the design information and instead uses an alternate nuclear 
plant supplier, then the COL applicant must meet the requirements in 
paragraph IV.A.4 of this appendix and 10 CFR 52.73. The COL applicant 
must demonstrate that the alternate supplier is qualified to provide 
the standard plant design information.
    Second, by identifying the STPNOC as the applicant for the 
amendment of the U.S. ABWR DCR, the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 will be 
given effect whenever a COL applicant references the certified design 
option sponsored by the STPNOC, but does not use the STPNOC to supply 
the design information for this option and instead uses an alternate 
supplier. In this circumstance, the COL applicant must meet the 
requirements in paragraph IV.A.4 of this appendix and 10 CFR 52.73 with 
respect to the STPNOC option (i.e., the COL applicant must demonstrate 
that the alternate supplier is qualified to provide the certified 
design information constituting the STPNOC option).
    In addition, by identifying the STPNOC as the applicant, the STPNOC 
must maintain the generic DCD for the STPNOC option throughout the time 
this appendix may be referenced by a COL, as required by paragraph 
X.A.1 of this appendix.
2. Definitions (Section II)
    The NRC is revising the definition of ``generic design control 
document'' (generic DCD) in paragraph A in Section II, ``Definitions,'' 
to indicate that there will now be two generic DCDs incorporated by 
reference into this appendix--the DCD for the original U.S. ABWR design 
certification submitted by GE Nuclear Energy (GE DCD) and the DCD for 
the amendment to the U.S. ABWR design submitted by the STPNOC (STPNOC 
DCD). The NRC is making this change to the definition of ``generic 
DCD'' to make it clear that all requirements in this appendix related 
to the ``generic DCD'' apply to both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD, 
unless otherwise specified.
    During development of the first two DCRs, the Commission decided 
that there would be both generic (master) DCDs maintained by the NRC 
and the design certification applicant, as well as individual plant-
specific DCDs maintained by each applicant and licensee that reference 
this appendix. This distinction is necessary to specify the relevant 
plant-specific requirements to applicants and licensees referencing the 
appendix. To facilitate the maintenance of the master DCDs, the NRC 
will require that each application for a standard design certification 
or amendment to a standard design certification be updated to include 
an electronic copy of the final version of the DCD. The final version 
will be required to incorporate all amendments to the DCD submitted 
since the original application as well as any changes directed by the 
NRC as a result of its review of the original DCD or as a result of 
public comments. This final version will become the master DCD 
incorporated by reference in the DCR. The master DCD will be revised as 
needed to include generic changes to the version of the DCD approved in 
this design certification rulemaking. These changes would occur as the 
result of generic rulemaking by the Commission, under the change 
criteria in Section VIII.
    The NRC is incorporating by reference a second DCD into Appendix A 
of 10 CFR part 52 (i.e., the DCD for the STPNOC option (STPNOC DCD)). 
Under the revised rule, a reference to a ``generic DCD'' means, in 
context, either or both: (i) The DCD for the original U.S. ABWR design 
certification submitted by GE (GE DCD) and (ii) the STPNOC DCD 
submitted by the STPNOC.
3. 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 III.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 into this appendix. The NRC is (i) 
redesignating a portion of the existing paragraph A regarding the OFR 
approval of the incorporation by reference of the design control 
documents as paragraph A.1; (ii) redesignating the remaining portion of 
the existing paragraph A regarding the GE DCD availability as paragraph 
A.2; and (iii) adding a new paragraph A.3 regarding STPNOC DCD 
availability. These changes were directed by OFR so that the 
incorporation by reference language is consistent with the guidance 
contained in the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, January 
2011 Revision.
    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 STPNOC 
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 1 CFR part 51. One of the requirements of the OFR for 
incorporation by reference is that the applicant for the design 
certification (or amendment to the design certification) must make the 
generic DCD available upon request after the final rule becomes 
effective. Therefore, paragraph III.A.3 identifies a STPNOC 
representative to be contacted to obtain a copy of the STPNOC DCD.
    The generic DCD (master copy) for the STPNOC DCD is electronically 
accessible in ADAMS under Accession No. ML102870017; at the OFR; and, 
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching under Docket ID NRC-2010-
0134. Copies of the STPNOC generic DCD will also be available at the 
NRC's PDR. Questions concerning the accuracy of information in an 
application that

[[Page 78112]]

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 of 
Appendix A, then at the completion of the rulemaking the NRC will 
request approval of the Director, OFR, for the revised master DCD. The 
NRC will require that the design certification amendment applicant 
maintain an up-to-date copy of the master DCD under paragraph X.A.1 
that includes any generic changes it has made because it is likely that 
most applicants intending to reference the standard design will obtain 
the generic DCD from the design certification amendment applicant.
    In addition, the NRC is revising paragraph III.B to add text 
indicating that an applicant or licensee referencing this appendix may 
reference either the GE DCD, or both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD. An 
applicant referencing this appendix will be required to indicate in its 
application and in all necessary supporting documentation which of 
these two alternatives it is implementing. This information is 
necessary to support the NRC's review and processing of the license 
application.
    A COL applicant that does not reference both the GE DCD and the 
STPNOC DCD will be required, in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.150(a)(3)(v)(B) to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150 as 
part of its COL application.
    The NRC is making a minor change to the wording of the last 
sentence in paragraph III.B in the final rule for clarity. In the 
proposed rule, this sentence read, ``An applicant referencing this 
appendix shall indicate in its application and in all necessary 
supporting documentation which of these two options it is 
implementing.'' This sentence is revised in the final rule to read, 
``An applicant referencing this appendix shall indicate in its 
application and in all necessary supporting documentation whether it is 
implementing the GE DCD, or both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD.'' This 
avoids the use of the word ``options'' which was used in a different 
context in this paragraph than it was in other sections of the rule.
    Paragraphs III.C and III.D set forth the way potential conflicts 
are to be resolved. Paragraph III.C establishes the Tier 1 description 
in the DCD as controlling in the event of an inconsistency between the 
Tier 1 and Tier 2 information in the DCD. The NRC is making a minor 
change to paragraph III.C, which currently states that, if there is a 
conflict between Tier 1 and Tier 2 of ``the'' DCD, then Tier 1 
controls. The revised paragraph states that, if there is a conflict 
between Tier 1 and Tier 2 of ``a'' DCD, then Tier 1 controls. This 
change of ``the'' to ``a'' is necessary to indicate that this 
requirement applies to both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD.
    The NRC is also making a change to paragraph III.D. Paragraph III.D 
establishes the generic DCD as the controlling document in the event of 
an inconsistency between the DCD and the final safety evaluation report 
(FSER) for the certified standard design. The revision indicates that 
this is also the case for an inconsistency between the STPNOC DCD and 
the NRC's associated FSER, referred to as the ``AIA FSER.''
    In the proposed rule, the NRC had proposed to redesignate current 
paragraph III.E as proposed paragraph III.F and to add a new paragraph, 
III.E, stating that, if there is a conflict between the design as 
described in the GE DCD and a design matter which implements the 
STPNOC-certified design option but is not specifically described in the 
STPNOC DCD, then the GE DCD controls. The NRC had proposed this 
paragraph to address the situation when, despite the best efforts of 
the STPNOC and the NRC, there were unintended consequences or 
unaddressed issues resulting from the STPNOC's amendment to the U.S. 
ABWR design. The NRC received a comment on this aspect of the proposed 
rule from NINA stating that proposed paragraph III.E should be deleted 
because it was unnecessary and not clear. For the reasons set forth in 
the NRC response to comment NINA-8 in Section II of this document, the 
NRC agrees that inclusion of this provision is not necessary and has 
decided to delete the proposed paragraph III.E in the final rule.
4. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
    Section IV presents additional requirements and restrictions 
imposed upon an applicant who references this appendix. Paragraph IV.A 
presents the information requirements for these applicants. Paragraph 
IV.A.3 currently requires the applicant to include, not simply 
reference, the proprietary information and SGI referenced in the U.S. 
ABWR DCD, or its equivalent, to ensure that the applicant has actual 
notice of these requirements. The NRC is revising paragraph IV.A.3 to 
indicate that a COL applicant must include, in the plant-specific DCD, 
the proprietary information and SGI referenced in both the GE DCD and 
the STPNOC DCD, as applicable.
    The NRC is also adding a new paragraph IV.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. Paragraph IV.A.4.a requires that a COL applicant referencing this 
appendix include, as part of its application, a demonstration that an 
entity other than GE Nuclear Energy is qualified to supply the U.S. 
ABWR-certified design unless GE Nuclear Energy supplies the design for 
the applicant's use. Paragraph IV.A.4.b requires that a COL applicant 
referencing the STPNOC-certified design option include, as part of its 
application, a demonstration that an entity other than the STPNOC and 
TANE acting together is qualified to supply the STPNOC-certified design 
option, unless the STPNOC and TANE acting together supply the design 
option for the applicant's use. In cases where a COL applicant is not 
using GE Nuclear Energy to supply the U.S. ABWR-certified design, or is 
not using the STPNOC and TANE acting together to supply the STPNOC-
certified design option, this information is necessary 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 or certified 
design option.
    Under 10 CFR 52.47(a)(7), a design certification applicant is 
required to include information in its application to demonstrate that 
it is technically qualified to engage in the proposed activities (e.g., 
supplying the certified design to license applicants). Based on the 
NRC's review of the STPNOC application to amend the U.S. ABWR-certified 
design, the NRC determined that the STPNOC and its contractors are 
technically qualified to perform the design work associated with the 
amended portion of the U.S. ABWR design represented by the STPNOC's 
application and to supply the amended portion of the U.S. ABWR design. 
However, the staff determined that the STPNOC, by itself, is not 
technically qualified to supply the amended portion of the U.S. ABWR 
design certification represented in the STPNOC's DCD. Rather, the staff 
determined that the STPNOC and TANE acting together are qualified to 
supply the amended portion of the U.S. ABWR design certification 
represented in the STPNOC's DCD. Therefore, the NRC is including

[[Page 78113]]

paragraph IV.A.4.b to ensure that the basis for the NRC finding of 
technical qualifications in support of this design certification 
amendment remains valid.
5. 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 V.A, which is the date that Appendix A 
was originally approved by the Commission and signed by the Secretary 
of the Commission). The NRC is revising paragraph V.A to indicate that 
the current text in this paragraph (new paragraph V.A.1) applies to the 
GE DCD and to add a new paragraph (V.A.2) indicating the regulations 
that apply to the STPNOC DCD, as approved by the Commission and signed 
by the Secretary of the Commission in approving this amendment to 
Appendix A.
    In the final rule, the NRC is making a change to the rule text in 
proposed paragraph V.A.2, which stated that the regulations that apply 
to the U.S. ABWR design as contained in the STPNOC DCD are in 10 CFR 
parts 50 and 52 that are applicable and technically relevant, as 
described in the FSER on the STPNOC amendment. The purpose of the 
change in the final rule is to more accurately reflect the issue 
resolution afforded to the STPNOC DCD. The NRC's review of the STPNOC's 
proposed amendment to the U.S. ABWR had three objectives. The first 
objective was to confirm that the applicant had complied with the AIA 
rule (10 CFR 50.150). The second objective was to determine that there 
would 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. ABWR design certification. The third 
objective was to determine if the applicant was technically qualified 
to perform the design work, to amend a portion of the U.S. ABWR design, 
and to supply the amended portion of the design. To more accurately 
reflect these objectives, the NRC modified paragraph V.A.2 to state 
that the regulations that apply to the U.S. ABWR design as contained in 
the STPNOC DCD are those described in paragraph V.A.1 (as applicable to 
the original GE DCD) and 10 CFR 50.150, as described in the FSER on the 
STPNOC amendment addressing the AIA rule (NUREG-1948).
6. 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). The NRC did not identify any changes 
to paragraph VI.A in the proposed rule. However, upon consideration of 
a public comment on the proposed rule suggesting that changes to 
paragraph VI.A were necessary, the NRC is making changes to paragraph 
VI.A in the final rule (see comment NINA-10 and associated NRC response 
in section II of this document).
    Paragraph VI.A describes in general terms the nature of the 
Commission's findings, and makes the finding required by 10 CFR 52.54 
for the Commission's approval of this final DCR. Furthermore, paragraph 
VI.A explicitly states the Commission's determination that this design 
provides adequate protection to the public health and safety. The NRC 
is revising paragraph VI.A in the final rule by redesignating current 
paragraph VI.A as new paragraph VI.A.1 and by adding new paragraphs 
VI.A.2 and VI.A.3. Paragraph VI.A.2 describes the scope of issue 
resolution accorded the STPNOC option and states that the Commission 
has determined that the structures, systems, components, and design 
features of the U.S. ABWR design, as contained in the STPNOC DCD, 
comply with the provisions of the AEA of 1954, as amended, and the 
applicable regulations identified in Section V.A.2, including 10 CFR 
50.150, and therefore, provide enhanced protection to the health and 
safety of the public afforded by compliance with 10 CFR 50.150. 
Paragraph VI.A.2 further states that a conclusion that a matter is 
resolved includes the finding that additional or alternative 
structures, systems, components, design features, design criteria, 
testing, analyses, acceptance criteria, or justifications to meet the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.150 are not necessary for the U.S. ABWR 
design.
    Paragraph VI.A.3 describes the scope of issue resolution accorded 
the combination of the GE DCD and the STPNOC option and states that the 
Commission has determined that the structures, systems, components, and 
design features of the U.S. ABWR, as contained in both the GE DCD and 
the STPNOC DCD, when referenced together, comply with the provisions of 
the AEA of 1954, as amended, and the applicable regulations identified 
in Section V.A., and, therefore, provide adequate protection to the 
health and safety of the public. Paragraph VI.A.3 further states that a 
conclusion that a matter is resolved includes the finding that 
additional or alternative structures, systems, components, design 
features, design criteria, testing, analyses, acceptance criteria, or 
justifications are not necessary for the U.S. ABWR design, when the GE 
DCD and the STPNOC DCD are referenced together.
    Paragraph VI.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 VI.B.1 provides that all nuclear safety issues arising from 
the AEA of 1954, as amended, that are associated with the information 
in the NRC staff's FSER (ADAMS Accession No. ML102710198), the Tier 1 
and Tier 2 information and the rulemaking record for this appendix 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 
proprietary information and SGI that are intended to be requirements. 
Paragraph VI.B.2 provides for issue preclusion of proprietary 
information and SGI.
    The NRC is revising paragraphs VI.B.1 and VI.B.2 to redesignate 
references to the ``FSER'' as references to the ``U.S. ABWR FSER,'' and 
references to the ``generic DCD'' as references to the ``GE DCD'' to 
distinguish the FSER and DCD for the original certified design from the 
FSER and DCD issued to support the STPNOC amendment to the U.S. ABWR 
design. In addition, this revision adds additional text to paragraph 
VI.B.1 to identify the information that is resolved by the Commission 
in this rulemaking to certify the STPNOC amendment to the U.S. ABWR 
design.
    The NRC is also revising paragraph VI.B.7, which identifies as 
resolved all environmental issues concerning severe accident mitigation 
design alternatives (SAMDAs) arising under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) associated with the information in the NRC's 
final environmental assessment (EA) for the U.S. ABWR design and 
Revision 1 of the technical support document for the U.S. ABWR, dated 
December 1994, for plants referencing this appendix whose site 
parameters are within those specified in the technical support 
document. The NRC is revising this paragraph to also identify as 
resolved all environmental issues concerning SAMDAs associated with the 
information in the NRC's final EA and Revision 0 of ABWR-LIC-09-621, 
``Applicant's Supplemental Environmental Report-Amendment to ABWR 
Standard Design Certification,'' for the AIA amendment to the U.S. ABWR 
design for plants referencing this appendix whose site parameters are

[[Page 78114]]

within those specified in the technical support document.
    Finally, the NRC is revising paragraph VI.E, which provides the 
procedure for an interested member of the public to obtain access to 
proprietary information and SGI for the U.S. ABWR design, in order to 
request and participate in proceedings identified in paragraph VI.B of 
this appendix, that is, proceedings involving licenses and applications 
which reference this appendix. The NRC is replacing 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 proprietary information) 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.
    Access to such information would be for the sole purpose of 
requesting or participating in certain specified hearings, viz., (i) 
the hearing required by 10 CFR 52.85 where the underlying application 
references this appendix, (ii) any hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103 
where the underlying COL references this appendix, and (iii) any other 
hearing relating to this appendix in which interested persons have the 
right to request an adjudicatory hearing.
    For proceedings where the notice of hearing was published before 
January 17, 2012, the Commission's order governing access to SUNSI and 
SGI shall be used to govern access to SUNSI (including proprietary 
information) and SGI on the STPNOC option. For proceedings in which the 
notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing is published after January 
17, 2012, paragraph VI.E. applies and governs access to SUNSI 
(including proprietary information) and SGI for both the original GE-
certified design and the STPNOC option; as stated in paragraph VI.E, 
the NRC will specify the access procedures at an appropriate time.
    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 & 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 VI.E presents specific 
directions on how to obtain access to proprietary information and SGI 
on the design certification in connection with a license application 
proceeding referencing that DCR. The NRC is making this change because 
these provisions were developed before the terrorist events of 
September 11, 2001. After September 11, 2001, the 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 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 VI.E of the four currently approved DCRs 
are not included in the amended DCR for the U.S. ABWR. Instead, the NRC 
will specify the procedures to be used for obtaining access at an 
appropriate time in any COL proceeding referencing the U.S. ABWR DCR. 
The NRC intends to include this change in any future amendment or 
renewal of the other existing DCRs. However, the NRC is not planning to 
initiate rulemaking to change paragraph VI.E of the existing DCRs, to 
minimize unnecessary resource expenditures by both the original DCR 
applicant and the NRC.
7. 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 VIII.B.
    Departures from Tier 2 that a licensee may make without prior NRC 
approval are addressed under paragraph VIII.B.5 (similar to the process 
in 10 CFR 50.59). The NRC is making 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 revising paragraph 
VIII.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 redesignating paragraphs VIII.B.5.d, B.5.e, and B.5.f as 
paragraphs VIII.B.5.e, B.5.f, and B.5.g, respectively, and adding a new 
paragraph VIII.B.5.d. Paragraph VIII.B.5.d requires an applicant or 
licensee 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 assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(a). The 
FSAR information required by the aircraft impact rule which is subject 
to this change control requirement consists of 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 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 revision to this section, plant-specific departures from the AIA 
information in the FSAR do 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 is

[[Page 78115]]

also 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 this appendix. 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 addition of these provisions to 
this appendix is consistent with the NRC's intent when it issued the 
AIA rule in 2009, as noted in the SOC for that rule (74 FR 28112; June 
12, 2009, at 28122, third column).
8. 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 X.A.1 requires that a 
generic DCD and the proprietary information and SGI referenced in the 
generic DCD be maintained by the applicant for this rule. The NRC is 
revising paragraph X.A.1 to indicate that there are two applicants for 
this appendix and that the requirements to maintain a copy of the 
applicable generic DCD applies to both the applicant for the original 
U.S. ABWR certification (GE) and the applicant for the AIA amendment to 
the U.S. ABWR design (STPNOC). Paragraph X.A.1 also requires the design 
certification applicant to maintain the proprietary information and SGI 
referenced in the generic DCD. The NRC is replacing the term 
``proprietary information'' with the broader term ``sensitive 
unclassified non-safeguards information (including proprietary 
information).'' Information categorized as SUNSI is information that is 
generally not publicly available and encompasses a wide variety of 
categories, including 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), but which the NRC may protect from public disclosure 
under 10 CFR 2.390.
    This change ensures that both GE and the STPNOC (as well as any 
future applicants for amendments to the U.S. ABWR 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 
proprietary information) and SGI--developed by that applicant--that 
were approved as part of the relevant design certification rulemakings. 
In the certification of the original U.S. ABWR design, the NRC approved 
both proprietary information and SGI as part of the design 
certification rulemaking. In this amendment to the U.S. ABWR design, 
the NRC is approving information designated as SUNSI as part of the 
amendment rulemaking.
    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 proprietary information and SGI were not included in the public 
version of the DCD prepared by GE, and the SUNSI was not included in 
the public version of the DCD prepared by the STPNOC. Only the public 
version of the generic STPNOC DCD is identified and incorporated by 
reference into this rule. Nonetheless, the SUNSI for the STPNOC option 
was reviewed by the NRC and, as stated in paragraph VI.B.2, the NRC 
considers the information to be resolved within the meaning of 10 CFR 
52.63(a)(5). Because this information is in the non-public versions of 
the GE and STPNOC DCDs, this SUNSI (including proprietary information) 
and SGI, or its equivalent, is required to be provided by an applicant 
for a license referencing this DCR.
    In addition, the NRC is adding a new paragraph X.A.4.a that 
requires the applicant for the amendment to the U.S. ABWR design to 
address the AIA requirements 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 adding 
new paragraph X.A.4.b that requires an applicant or licensee who 
references this appendix to include both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD 
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 X.A.4.a and X.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 
28121, second column).

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Introduction (Section I)

    The NRC is amending Section I, ``Introduction,'' to identify the 
STPNOC as the applicant for the amendment of the U.S. ABWR DCR to 
address the AIA rule, 10 CFR 50.150.

B. Definitions (Section II)

    The NRC is revising the definition of ``generic design control 
document (generic DCD)'' to indicate that there will be two generic 
DCDs incorporated by reference into this appendix--the DCD for the 
original U.S. ABWR design certification submitted by GE Nuclear Energy 
(GE DCD) and the DCD for the amendment to the U.S. ABWR design 
submitted by the STPNOC (STPNOC DCD). This will make it clear that all 
requirements in this appendix related to the ``generic DCD'' apply to 
both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD, unless otherwise specified.

C. Scope and Contents (Section III)

    The NRC is (i) redesignating a portion of the existing paragraph A 
regarding the OFR approval of the incorporation by reference of the 
design control documents as paragraph A.1; (ii) redesignating the 
remaining portion of the existing paragraph A regarding the GE DCD 
availability as paragraph A.2; and (iii) adding a new paragraph A.3 
regarding STPNOC DCD availability.
    The NRC is revising paragraph III.B to add text indicating that an 
applicant or licensee referencing this appendix may use either the GE 
DCD, or both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD. By doing so, the applicant 
or licensee effectively indicates which generic design it is using 
(i.e., the GE-certified design, or the GE/STPNOC composite certified 
design). An applicant referencing this appendix is required to indicate 
in its application and in all necessary supporting documentation which 
of these two alternatives it is implementing.
    The NRC is making a minor change to paragraph III.C, which 
currently states that, if there is a conflict between Tier 1 and Tier 2 
of ``the'' DCD, then Tier 1 controls. The revised paragraph states 
that, if there is a conflict between Tier 1 and Tier 2 of ``a'' DCD, 
then Tier 1 controls. This change of ``the'' to ``a'' was necessary 
because the requirement also applies to the STPNOC DCD.
    Paragraph III.D establishes the generic DCD as the controlling 
document in the event of an inconsistency between the DCD and the FSER 
for the certified standard design. The NRC is making a change to 
paragraph III.D which indicates that in the event of an

[[Page 78116]]

inconsistency between the STPNOC DCD and the AIA FSER, the STPNOC DCD 
controls.

D. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)

    The NRC is revising paragraph IV.A.3 to indicate that a COL 
applicant must include, in the plant-specific DCD, the proprietary 
information and SGI referenced in both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD, 
as applicable, or its equivalent.
    Section IV presents additional requirements and restrictions 
imposed upon an applicant who references this appendix. Paragraph IV.A 
presents the information requirements for these applicants. Paragraph 
IV.A.3 requires the applicant to include the proprietary information 
and SGI referenced in the DCD, or its equivalent, to ensure that the 
applicant has actual notice of these requirements. The NRC is revising 
paragraph IV.A.3 to indicate that a COL applicant must include, in the 
plant-specific DCD, the SUNSI (including proprietary information) and 
SGI referenced in both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD, as applicable, or 
the equivalent of this information. If the COL applicant is referencing 
only the GE DC, then the applicant must include the proprietary 
information and SGI developed by GE (as presented in the non-public 
version of the GE DCD), or the equivalent of this information. If the 
COL applicant is referencing both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD, then 
the applicant must include: (1) The proprietary information and SGI 
developed by GE (as presented in the non-public version of the GE DCD), 
or the equivalent of this information; and (2) the SUNSI developed by 
the STPNOC (as presented in the non public version of the STPNOC DCD), 
or the equivalent of this information.
    The NRC is also adding a new paragraph IV.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. Paragraph IV.A.4.a requires that a COL applicant referencing this 
appendix include, as part of its application, a demonstration that an 
entity other than GE is qualified to supply the U.S. ABWR-certified 
design unless GE supplies the design for the applicant's use. Paragraph 
IV.A.4.b requires that a COL applicant referencing the STPNOC-certified 
design option include, as part of its application, a demonstration that 
an entity other than the STPNOC and TANE acting together is qualified 
to supply the STPNOC-certified design option, unless the STPNOC and 
TANE acting together supply the design option for the applicant's use. 
In cases where a COL applicant is not using GE to supply the U.S. ABWR-
certified design, or is not using the STPNOC and TANE acting together 
to supply the STPNOC-certified design option, the required information 
will 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 or certified design option.

E. Applicable Regulations (Section V)

    Paragraph V.A is revised so that the paragraph V.A.1 identifies the 
applicable regulations for the GE-certified design, and paragraph V.A.2 
presents the applicable regulations for the STPNOC Option. In the final 
rule, the NRC is making a change to the rule text in proposed paragraph 
V.A.2, which stated that the regulations that apply to the U.S. ABWR 
design as contained in the STPNOC DCD are in 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 
that are applicable and technically relevant, as described in the FSER 
on the STPNOC amendment. The purpose of the change in the final rule is 
to more accurately reflect the issue resolution afforded to the STPNOC 
DCD, as reflected in the objectives of the NRC's review of the STPNOC's 
proposed amendment to the U.S. ABWR: (1) To confirm that the applicant 
had complied with the AIA rule (10 CFR 50.150); (2) to determine that 
there would be no adverse impacts from complying with the AIA rule on 
conclusions reached by the NRC in its review of the original U.S. ABWR 
design certification; and (3) to determine if the applicant was 
technically qualified to perform the design work to amend a portion of 
the U.S. ABWR design and to supply the amended portion of the design. 
To more accurately reflect these objectives, the NRC modified paragraph 
V.A.2 to state that the regulations that apply to the U.S. ABWR design 
as contained in the STPNOC DCD are those described in paragraph V.A.1 
(as applicable to the original GE DCD) and 10 CFR 50.150, as described 
in the FSER on the STPNOC amendment addressing the AIA rule (NUREG-
1948).

F. Issue Resolution (Section VI)

    The NRC is revising paragraph VI.A in the final rule by 
redesignating current paragraph VI.A as new paragraph VI.A.1 and by 
adding new paragraphs VI.A.2 and VI.A.3. Paragraph VI.A.1 describes the 
scope of issue resolution accorded the original GE DCD. Paragraph 
VI.A.2 describes the scope of issue resolution accorded the STPNOC 
option. Paragraph VI.A.3 describes the scope of issue resolution 
accorded the combination of the GE DCD and the STPNOC option.
    The NRC is revising paragraphs VI.B.1 and VI.B.2 to redesignate 
references to the ``FSER'' as references to the ``U.S. ABWR FSER'' and 
references to the ``generic DCD'' as references to the ``GE DCD.'' This 
was done to distinguish the FSER and DCD for the original certified 
design from the FSER and DCD issued to support the STPNOC amendment to 
the U.S. ABWR design. In addition, this revision adds text to paragraph 
VI.B.1 to identify the information resolved by the Commission in this 
rulemaking to certify the STPNOC AIA amendment to the U.S. ABWR design.
    The NRC is revising paragraph VI.B.7 to identify as resolved all 
environmental issues concerning SAMDAs associated with the information 
in the NRC's final EA and Revision 0 of ABWR-LIC-09-621, ``Applicant's 
Supplemental Environmental Report-Amendment to ABWR Standard Design 
Certification,'' for the AIA amendment to the U.S. ABWR design for 
plants referencing this appendix whose site parameters are within those 
specified in the technical support document. The existing site 
parameters specified in the technical support document are not affected 
by this design certification amendment.

G. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)

    The NRC is revising 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 revising paragraph VIII.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 redesignating paragraphs VIII.B.5.d, B.5.e, 
and B.5.f as paragraphs VIII.B.5.e, B.5.f, and B.5.g, respectively, and 
adding a new paragraph VIII.B.5.d. New paragraph VIII.B.5.d requires an 
applicant referencing the U.S. ABWR DCR, that 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

[[Page 78117]]

capability on the original 10 CFR 50.150(a) assessment.

H. Records and Reporting (Section X)

    The NRC is revising paragraph X.A.1 to refer to ``applicants'' for 
this appendix and to replace the term ``proprietary information'' with 
the broader term ``sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information.'' 
Paragraph X.A.1 is 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 ensures 
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 STPNOC generic DCD and the NRC-approved version of the 
SUNSI are required to be maintained for the period that this appendix 
may be referenced.
    The NRC is also adding a new paragraph X.A.4.a that requires the 
STPNOC 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 new provision, which is 
consistent with 10 CFR 50.150(c)(3), will facilitate any NRC 
inspections of the assessment that the NRC decides to conduct.
    Similarly, the NRC is adding new paragraph X.A.4.b that requires an 
applicant or licensee who references this appendix, to include both the 
GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD, 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 
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 AEA or the provisions of this 
chapter. 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 the 
ADDRESSES section of this document.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Document                            PDR     Web                   ADAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment Letter (1) of Thomas Shadis on Proposed Rule PR-       X       X   ML110760174
 52 Regarding U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
 Aircraft Impact Design Certification Amendment.
Comment Letter (2) of Jerald G. Head on Behalf of GE-          X       X   ML110950657
 Hitachi Opposing Proposed Rule PR 52 regarding U.S.
 Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Aircraft Impact Design
 Certification Amendment.
Comment Letter (3) of Mark McBurnett on Behalf of Nuclear      X       X   ML11103A032
 Innovation North America LLC on Proposed Rule PR 52
 regarding U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Aircraft
 Impact Design Certification Amendment.
SECY-10-0142, ``Proposed Rule--U.S. Advanced Boiling           X       X   ML102100129
 Water Reactor Aircraft Impact Design Certification
 Amendment''.
STPNOC Application to Amend the Design Certification Rule      X       X   ML092040048
 for the U.S. ABWR.
South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4, Combined License           X       X   ML072850066
 Application.
March 3, 2010, letter from Toshiba to NRC stating that         X   ......  ML100710026
 Toshiba intends to seek renewal of the U.S. ABWR design
 certification.
General Electric ABWR Design Control Document............      X   ......  ML11126A129
ABWR STP AIA Amendment Design Control Document, Revision       X       X   ML102870017
 3 (public version).
Applicant's Supplemental Environmental Report--Amendment       X       X   ML093170455
 to the ABWR Standard Design Certification.
Final Safety Evaluation Report for the STPNOC Amendment        X       X   ML102710198
 to the ABWR Design Certification.
NUREG-1948, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to    ......      X   ML11182A163
 the Aircraft Impact Amendment to the U.S. Advanced
 Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) Design Certification''.
NRC's Final Environmental Assessment Relating to the           X       X   ML003708129
 Certification of the U.S. ABWR (Attachment 2 of SECY 96-
 077).
Revision 1 of the Technical Support Document for the U.S.      X   ......  ML100210563
 ABWR, December 1994.
Environmental Assessment by the U.S. NRC Relating to the       X   ......  ML110970669
 Certification of the STPNOC Amendment to the U.S. ABWR
 Standard Plant Design.
NUREG-1503, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to        X       X   ML080670592
 the Certification of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
 Design''.
NUREG-1503, Supplement 1, ``Final Safety Evaluation            X       X   ML080710134
 Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced
 Boiling Water Reactor Design''.
Regulatory History of Design Certification \11\..........      X   ......  ML003761550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology and Transfer Act of 1995 (the Act), Public 
Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies 
unless using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is 
otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is approving the AIA 
amendment to the U.S. ABWR standard plant design for use in nuclear 
power plant licensing

[[Page 78118]]

under 10 CFR parts 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 
Act does not apply to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The regulatory history of the NRC's design certification 
reviews is a package of documents that is available in the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. 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 DCR amendment is not a major 
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is 
not required. The basis for this determination, as documented in the 
final 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 does not authorize the siting, 
construction, or operation of a facility using the AIA amendment to the 
U.S. ABWR design; it only codifies the AIA amendment to the U.S. ABWR 
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 the AIA 
amendment to the U.S. ABWR DCR.
    In addition, as part of the EA for the AIA amendment to the U.S. 
ABWR design, the NRC reviewed the STPNOC's evaluation of various design 
alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents in Revision 0 of 
ABWR-LIC-09-621, ``Applicant's Supplemental Environmental Report-
Amendment to ABWR Standard Design Certification.'' 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 
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 the STPNOC's evaluation, the Commission 
concludes that the design changes (1) do not cause a SAMDA previously 
rejected in the EA for the original U.S. ABWR 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 did not receive any comments on the draft EA and has 
prepared a final EA. All environmental issues concerning SAMDAs 
associated with the information in the final EA and Revision 0 of ABWR-
LIC-09-621, ``Applicant's Supplemental Environmental Report-Amendment 
to ABWR Standard Design Certification,'' are considered resolved for 
plants referencing the AIA amendment to the U.S. ABWR design whose site 
parameters are within those specified in Revision 1 of the technical 
support document for the U.S. ABWR, dated December 1994. The existing 
site parameters specified in the technical support document are not 
affected by this design certification amendment.
    The final EA, upon which the Commission's finding of no significant 
impact is based, and the STPNOC DCD are available for examination and 
copying at the NRC's PDR, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Room O1-F21, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final 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.). These requirements were approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Approval Numbers 3150-0151 and 
3150-0210.
    The burden to the public for these information collections is 
estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
information collection. Send comments on any aspect of these 
information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, 
to the Information Services Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail 
to [email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0151), Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. You may also email 
comments to Chad S [email protected] or comment by telephone at 
(202) 395-4718.

Public Protection Notification

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

X. Regulatory Analysis

    The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this 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.

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the 
Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final 
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.

[[Page 78119]]

XII. Backfitting

    The Commission has determined that this rule does not constitute a 
backfit as defined in the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) because this 
design certification amendment does not impose new or changed 
requirements on existing 10 CFR part 50 licensees, nor does it impose 
new or changed requirements on existing DCRs in Appendices A through D 
of 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, a backfit analysis was not prepared for 
this rule.
    The rule does not constitute backfitting as defined in the backfit 
rule (10 CFR 50.109) with respect to either operating licenses under 10 
CFR part 50 because there are no operating licenses referencing this 
DCR. The rule does not constitute backfitting as defined in the backfit 
rule or otherwise impose requirements inconsistent with the applicable 
finality requirements under 10 CFR part 52 (10 CFR 52.63, 52.83 and 
52.98) because: (i) There are no COLs issued by the NRC referencing 
this rule, and (ii) neither the backfit rule nor the finality 
provisions in 10 CFR part 52 protect COL applicants from changes in NRC 
requirements which may occur during the pendency of their application 
before the NRC.
    The rule is not inconsistent with the finality requirements in 10 
CFR 52.63 as applied to COLs. The rule establishes an option to the 
existing DCR which addresses the requirements of the AIA rule. A COL 
referencing the U.S. ABWR DCR may voluntarily choose to select the 
STPNOC option, or may choose to reference the U.S. ABWR design without 
selecting the STPNOC option.
    The AIA rule itself mandated that the U.S. ABWR DCR be revised 
(either during the DCR's current term or no later than its renewal) to 
address the requirements of the AIA rule. The AIA rule may therefore be 
regarded as inconsistent with applicable finality provisions in 10 CFR 
part 52 and section VI of the U.S. ABWR DCR. However, the NRC provided 
an administrative exemption from these finality requirements when the 
final AIA rule was issued. (See 74 FR 28112; June 12, 2009, at 28143-
45). Accordingly, the NRC has already addressed the backfitting 
implications of applying the AIA rule to the U.S. ABWR.
    Because the rule does not constitute backfitting and is not 
otherwise inconsistent with finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52, the 
NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis or documented evaluation for 
this rule.

XIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 52

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

PART 52--LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS FOR NUCLEAR POWER 
PLANTS

0
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.

0
2. Appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
0
a. Section I is revised.
0
b. In section II, paragraph A is revised.
0
c. In section III, paragraphs A, B, C, and D are revised.
0
d. In section IV, paragraph A.3 is revised, and new paragraph A.4 is 
added.
0
e. In section V, paragraph A is revised.
0
f. In section VI, paragraphs A, B, and E are revised.
0
g. In section VIII, paragraph B.5.b is revised, paragraphs B.5.d, 
B.5.e, and B.5.f are redesignated as paragraphs B.5.e, B.5.f, and 
B.5.g, respectively, and new paragraph B.5.d is added.
0
h. In section X, paragraph A.1 is revised and new paragraph A.4 is 
added.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 52--Design Certification Rule for the U.S. Advanced 
Boiling Water Reactor

I. Introduction

    A. Appendix A constitutes the standard design certification for 
the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (U.S. ABWR) design, in 
accordance with 10 CFR part 52, subpart B. The applicant for the 
original certification of the U.S. ABWR design was GE Nuclear Energy 
(GE).
    B. The applicant for the amendment to the U.S. ABWR design to 
address the requirements in 10 CFR 50.150, ``Aircraft impact 
assessment,'' (AIA rule) is the STP Nuclear Operating Company 
(STPNOC).

II. Definitions

    A. Generic design control document (generic DCD) means either or 
both of the documents containing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information 
and generic technical specifications that are incorporated by 
reference into this appendix.
* * * * *

III. Scope and Contents

A. Design Control Documents

    1. Incorporation by reference approval. Certain documents 
identified in paragraphs III.A.2 and III.A.3 of this section are 
approved for incorporation by reference into this appendix by the 
Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Documents approved for 
incorporation by reference and created or received at the NRC are 
available online in the NRC Library 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 the NRC's public documents. 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, then contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at (800) 397-4209, (301) 
415-3747, or by email at [email protected]. A copy of these DCDs 
approved for incorporation by reference are available for 
examination and copying at the NRC's PDR located at Room O-1F21, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 
Copies are also available for examination at the NRC Library located 
at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, telephone: (301) 415-5610, email: [email protected]. 
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.
    2. GE DCD: All Tier 1, Tier 2, and the generic technical 
specifications in the GE Nuclear Energy (GE) ``ABWR Design Control 
Document, Revision 4, March 1997'' (GE DCD). You may obtain copies 
of the GE DCD from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 605-6515. To 
view the GE DCD in ADAMS, search under ADAMS

[[Page 78120]]

Accession No. ML11126A129. The GE DCD can also be viewed at the 
Federal Rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by 
searching for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2010-0134.
    3. STPNOC DCD: All Tier 1 and Tier 2 information in the STP 
Nuclear Operating Company ``Design Control Document ABWR STP 
Aircraft Impact Assessment Amendment Revision 3, Copyright @ 2010'' 
(STPNOC DCD). You may obtain copies of the STPNOC DCD from the 
Regulatory Affairs Manager for STP Units 3 and 4, STP Nuclear 
Operating Company, P.O. Box 289, Wadsworth, Texas 77483, telephone: 
(361) 972-8440. To view the STPNOC DCD in ADAMS, search under ADAMS 
Accession No. ML102870017. The STPNOC DCD can also be viewed at the 
Federal Rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by 
searching for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2010-0134.
    B. 1. An applicant or licensee referencing this appendix, in 
accordance with section IV of this appendix, shall incorporate by 
reference and comply with the requirements of this appendix, 
including Tier 1, Tier 2, and the generic technical specifications 
except as otherwise provided in this appendix. An applicant or 
licensee referencing this appendix may reference either the GE DCD, 
or both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD. An applicant referencing this 
appendix shall indicate in its application and in all necessary 
supporting documentation whether it is implementing the GE DCD, or 
both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD.
    2. Conceptual design information, as set forth in the generic 
DCD, and the ``Technical Support Document for the ABWR'' are not 
part of this appendix. Tier 2 references to the probabilistic risk 
assessment (PRA) in the ABWR standard safety analysis report do not 
incorporate the PRA into Tier 2.
    C. If there is a conflict between Tier 1 and Tier 2 of a DCD, 
then Tier 1 controls.
    D. If there is a conflict between the generic DCD and the 
application for design certification of the U.S. ABWR design, NUREG-
1503, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report related to the Certification 
of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design'' (ABWR FSER), and 
Supplement No. 1, or NUREG-1948 ``Safety Evaluation Report--The STP 
Nuclear Operating Company Amendment to the Advanced Boiling Water 
Reactor (ABWR) Design Certification'' (AIA FSER), then the generic 
DCD controls.
* * * * *

IV. Additional Requirements and Restrictions

    A. * * *
    3. Include, in the plant-specific DCD, the sensitive 
unclassified non-safeguards information (including proprietary 
information) and safeguards information referenced in the GE DCD and 
the STPNOC DCD, as applicable.
    4.a. Include, as part of its application, a demonstration that 
an entity other than GE Nuclear Energy is qualified to supply the 
U.S. ABWR-certified design unless GE Nuclear Energy supplies the 
design for the applicant's use.
    b. For an applicant referencing the STPNOC-certified design 
option, include, as part of its application, a demonstration that an 
entity other than the STPNOC and Toshiba America Nuclear Energy 
(TANE) acting together is qualified to supply the STPNOC-certified 
design option, unless the STPNOC and TANE acting together supply the 
design option for the applicant's use.
* * * * *

V. Applicable Regulations

    A.1. Except as indicated in paragraph B of this section, the 
regulations that apply to the U.S. ABWR design as contained in the 
GE DCD are in 10 CFR parts 20, 50, 73, and 100, codified as of May 
2, 1997, that are applicable and technically relevant, as described 
in the FSER (NUREG-1503) and Supplement No. 1.
    2. Except as indicated in paragraph B of this section, the 
regulations that apply to the U.S. ABWR design as contained in the 
STPNOC DCD are those described in paragraph A.1 of this section and 
10 CFR 50.150, codified as of December 7, 2011, as described in the 
FSER on the STPNOC amendment addressing the AIA rule (NUREG-1948).
* * * * *

VI. Issue Resolution

    A. 1. GE DCD. The Commission has determined that the structures, 
systems, components, and design features of the U.S. ABWR design, as 
contained in the GE DCD, comply with the provisions of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the applicable regulations 
identified in section V.A.1 of this appendix; and, therefore, 
provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public. 
A conclusion that a matter is resolved includes the finding that 
additional or alternative structures, systems, components, design 
features, design criteria, testing, analyses, acceptance criteria, 
or justifications are not necessary for the U.S. ABWR design. This 
conclusion does not include a finding with respect to compliance 
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150.
    2. STPNOC DCD. The Commission has determined that the 
structures, systems, components, and design features of the STPNOC 
amendment to the U.S. ABWR design, as contained in the STPNOC DCD, 
comply with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, and the applicable regulations identified in section V.A.2 
of this appendix, including 10 CFR 50.150; and, therefore, provide 
enhanced protection to the health and safety of the public afforded 
by compliance with 10 CFR 50.150. A conclusion that a matter is 
resolved includes the finding that additional or alternative 
structures, systems, components, design features, design criteria, 
testing, analyses, acceptance criteria, or justifications to meet 
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150 are not necessary for the STPNOC 
amendment to the U.S. ABWR design.
    3. GE and STPNOC DCD referenced together. The Commission has 
determined that the structures, systems, components, and design 
features of the U.S. ABWR, as contained in both the GE DCD and the 
STPNOC DCD, when referenced together, comply with the provisions of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the applicable 
regulations identified in section V.A. of this appendix; and, 
therefore, provide adequate protection to the health and safety of 
the public. A conclusion that a matter is resolved includes the 
finding that additional or alternative structures, systems, 
components, design features, design criteria, testing, analyses, 
acceptance criteria, or justifications are not necessary for the 
U.S. ABWR design, when the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD are referenced 
together.
    B. The Commission considers the following matters resolved 
within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5) in subsequent proceedings 
for issuance of a combined license, amendment of a combined license, 
or renewal of a combined license, proceedings held under 10 CFR 
52.103, and enforcement proceedings involving plants referencing 
this appendix:
    1. All nuclear safety issues, except for the generic technical 
specifications and other operational requirements, associated with 
the information in the ABWR FSER and Supplement No. 1, Tier 1, Tier 
2 (including referenced information which the context indicates is 
intended as requirements), and the rulemaking record for the 
original certification of the U.S. ABWR design and all nuclear 
safety issues, except for operational requirements, associated with 
the information in the AIA FSER, Tier 1, Tier 2 (including 
referenced information which the context indicates is intended as 
requirements), and the rulemaking record for certification of the 
AIA amendment to the U.S. ABWR design;
    2. All nuclear safety and safeguards issues associated with the 
referenced sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information 
(including proprietary information) and safeguards information 
which, in context, are intended as requirements in the GE DCD and 
the STPNOC DCD;
    3. All generic changes to the DCD under and in compliance with 
the change processes in sections VIII.A.1 and VIII.B.1 of this 
appendix;
    4. All exemptions from the DCD under and in compliance with the 
change processes in sections VIII.A.4 and VIII.B.4 of this appendix, 
but only for that plant;
    5. All departures from the DCD that are approved by license 
amendment, but only for that plant;
    6. Except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.g of this appendix, 
all departures from Tier 2 pursuant to and in compliance with the 
change processes in paragraph VIII.B.5 of this appendix that do not 
require prior NRC approval, but only for that plant;
    7. All environmental issues concerning severe accident 
mitigation design alternatives associated with the information in 
the NRC's final environmental assessment for the U.S. ABWR design 
and Revision 1 of the technical support document for the U.S. ABWR, 
dated December 1994, and for the NRC's final environmental 
assessment and Revision 0 of ABWR-LIC-09-621, ``Applicant's 
Supplemental Environmental Report-Amendment to ABWR Standard Design 
Certification,'' for the AIA amendment to the U.S. ABWR design for 
plants referencing this

[[Page 78121]]

appendix whose site parameters are within those specified in the 
technical support document.
* * * * *
    E. The NRC will specify at an appropriate time the procedures to 
be used by an interested person who wishes to review portions of the 
design certification or references containing safeguards information 
or sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (including 
proprietary information, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information obtained from a person that are privileged or 
confidential (10 CFR 2.390 and 10 CFR part 9)), 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.
* * * * *

X. Records and Reporting

    A. * * *
    1. The applicants for this appendix shall maintain a copy of the 
applicable generic DCD that includes all generic changes to Tier 1, 
Tier 2, and the generic technical specifications and other 
operational requirements. The applicants shall maintain the 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (including 
proprietary information) and safeguards information referenced in 
the applicable 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 amendment to the U.S. ABWR design to 
address the requirements in 10 CFR 50.150, ``Aircraft impact 
assessment,'' shall maintain a copy of the aircraft impact 
assessment 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 to 
include both the GE DCD and the STPNOC DCD shall maintain a copy of 
the aircraft impact assessment 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 7th day of December 2011.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-31906 Filed 12-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P