[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72002-72019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33142]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 52
RIN 3150-AG23
AP600 Design Certification
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is
amending its regulations to certify the AP600 standard plant design
under Subpart B of 10 CFR part 52. This action is necessary so that
applicants or licensees intending to construct and operate an AP600
design may do so by referencing this regulation [AP600 design
certification rule (DCR)]. The applicant for certification of the AP600
design was Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (hereinafter referred to
as Westinghouse).
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this rule is January 24, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this
regulation is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register as of January 24, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry N. Wilson, Mail Stop O-12 G15,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or telephone (301) 415-3145, or
e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background.
II. Public comment.
III. Section-by-section discussion.
A. Introduction.
B. Definitions.
C. Scope and contents.
D. Additional requirements and restrictions.
E. Applicable regulations.
F. Issue resolution.
G. Duration of this appendix.
H. Processes for changes and departures.
I. Inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria.
J. Records and Reporting.
IV. Finding of no significant environmental impact: availability.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act statement.
VI. Regulatory analysis.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act certification.
VIII. Backfit analysis.
IX. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
X. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
[[Page 72003]]
I. Background
The NRC added 10 CFR part 52 to its regulations to provide for the
issuance of early site permits, standard design certifications, and
combined licenses for nuclear power reactors. Subpart B of 10 CFR part
52 established the process for obtaining design certifications. On June
26, 1992, Westinghouse tendered its application for certification of
the AP600 design with the NRC. Westinghouse submitted this application
in accordance with Subpart B and Appendix O of 10 CFR part 52. The NRC
formally accepted the application as a docketed application for design
certification (Docket No. 52-003) on December 31, 1992 (58 FR 3982,
January 12, 1993). Information submitted before that date can be found
under Project No. 676.
The NRC staff issued a final safety evaluation report (FSER)
related to certification of the AP600 standard plant design in
September 1998 (NUREG-1512, 63 FR 48772). The FSER documents the
results of the staff's safety review of the AP600 design against the
requirements of 10 CFR part 52, subpart B, and delineates the scope of
the technical details considered in evaluating the design. The final
design approval for the AP600 design was issued on September 3, 1998,
and published in the Federal Register on September 11, 1998 (63 FR
48772). Subsequently, Westinghouse submitted the AP600 Design Control
Document (DCD) on November 30, 1998, and four revisions to the DCD. The
NRC staff reviewed these revisions and determined that they did not
affect the findings in the FSER. The NRC's evaluation of the DCD is
discussed in Supplement No. 1 to the FSER. A notice of availability for
Supplement No. 1 will be published in the Federal Register. The FSER
and Supplement No. 1 provide the bases for the Commission's approval of
the AP600 standard plant design through design certification. A copy of
the FSER may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328
or the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161-
0002.
II. Public Comment
Subpart B of 10 CFR part 52 provides for Commission approval of
standard designs for nuclear power facilities (e.g., design
certification) through rulemaking. In accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Part 52 provides the opportunity
for the public to submit written comments on the proposed design
certification rule. However, Part 52 goes beyond the requirements of
the APA by providing the public with an opportunity to request a
hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel in a design
certification rulemaking. Therefore, on May 20, 1999, the NRC published
a proposed rule in the Federal Register (64 FR 27626) that invited
public comment and provided the public with the opportunity to request
an informal hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
The period for requesting an informal hearing or submitting
comments on the proposed DCR, AP600 DCD, or draft environmental
assessment expired on August 3, 1999. The NRC did not receive any
requests for an informal hearing during this period, but it did receive
a comment from a member of the public. This individual did not comment
on the AP600 DCD, draft environmental assessment, or proposed DCR.
Rather, the commenter expressed views on new nuclear power plants and
nuclear waste. Therefore, the Commission did not change the proposed
DCR, AP600 DCD, or draft environmental assessment [except for editorial
revisions and updates to the supplementary information on applicable
regulations] and has adopted this rule [Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 52]
as final.
III. Section-by-Section Discussion of Design Certification Rule
The final rule for the AP600 standard plant design is nearly
identical to the two design certification rules (DCRs) for the U.S.
ABWR and the System 80+ designs, which the NRC previously adopted.
These DCRs are set forth in 10 CFR part 52, appendix A (U.S. ABWR, 62
FR 25800, May 12, 1997) and appendix B (System 80+, 62 FR 27840, May
21, 1997). The AP600 DCR emulates the U.S. ABWR and System 80+ DCRs,
inasmuch as the three designs were reviewed contemporaneously against
the same technical requirements. Furthermore, many of the procedural
issues and their resolutions for the ABWR and the System 80+ DCRs
(e.g., the two-tier structure, Tier 2*, the scope of issue resolution)
were developed after extensive discussions with nuclear industry
representatives, and Westinghouse participated in those discussions. It
was the NRC's intent and Westinghouse's expectation that the
resolutions for these issues in the ABWR and System 80+ rulemakings
would also be applied to the AP600 design certification. Accordingly,
the NRC has modeled the AP600 DCR on the existing DCRs for the ABWR and
System 80+ designs, with certain departures. These departures were
necessary to acknowledge that Westinghouse is the applicant for the
AP600 DCR, and to account for differences in the AP600 design
documentation (including Tier 2* information), design features, and
environmental assessment (including severe accident mitigation design
alternatives). The only significant change was the inclusion of the
investment protection short-term availability controls in Sections II,
III, and VI of the AP600 DCR.
The following discussion sets forth the purpose and key aspects of
each portion of the final AP600 design certification rule. All section,
paragraph, and subparagraph references are to the provisions in
Appendix C to 10 CFR part 52.
A. Introduction
The purpose of Section I of appendix C to 10 CFR part 52 (``this
appendix'') is to identify the standard plant design that is approved
by this design certification rule and the applicant for certification
of the standard design. Identification of the design certification
applicant is necessary to implement this appendix, for two reasons.
First, the implementation of 10 CFR 52.63(c) depends on whether an
applicant for a combined license (COL) contracts with the design
certification applicant to provide the generic DCD and supporting
design information. If the COL applicant does not use the design
certification applicant to provide this information, then the COL
applicant must meet the requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(c). Also,
subparagraph X.A.1 of this appendix imposes a requirement on the design
certification applicant to maintain the generic DCD throughout the time
period in which this appendix may be referenced.
B. Definitions
The terms Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2*, and COL action items (license
information) are defined in this appendix because these concepts were
not envisioned when 10 CFR part 52 was developed. The design
certification applicants and the NRC staff used these terms in
implementing the two-tiered rule structure that was proposed by
representatives of the nuclear industry after issuance of 10 CFR part
52. During consideration of the comments received on Appendices A and B
to Part 52, the Commission determined that it would be useful to
distinguish between the ``plant-specific DCD'' and the ``generic DCD,''
the latter of which is incorporated by reference into this
[[Page 72004]]
appendix and remains unaffected by plant-specific departures. This
distinction is necessary in order to clarify the obligations of
applicants and licensees that reference this appendix. Also, the
technical specifications that are located in Section 16.1 of the
generic DCD are designated as ``generic technical specifications'' in
order to facilitate the special treatment of this information under
this appendix. Therefore, appropriate definitions for these additional
terms are included in this appendix.
The Tier 1 portion of the design-related information contained in
the DCD is certified by this appendix and, therefore, subject to the
special backfit provisions in paragraph VIII.A of this appendix. An
applicant who references this appendix is required to incorporate by
reference and comply with Tier 1, under paragraph III.B and
subparagraph IV.A.1 of this appendix. This information consists of an
introduction to Tier 1, the system based and non-system based design
descriptions and corresponding inspections, tests, analyses, and
acceptance criteria (ITAAC), significant interface requirements, and
significant site parameters for the design. The design descriptions,
interface requirements, and site parameters in Tier 1 were derived
entirely from Tier 2, but may be more general than the Tier 2
information. The NRC staff's evaluation of the Tier 1 information is
provided in Section 14.3 of the FSER. Changes to or departures from the
Tier 1 information must comply with paragraph VIII.A of this appendix.
The Tier 1 design descriptions serve as design commitments for the
lifetime of a facility referencing the design certification. The ITAAC
verify that the as-built facility conforms with the approved design and
applicable regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.103(g), the
Commission must find that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC are met
before operation. After the Commission has made the finding required by
10 CFR 52.103(g), the ITAAC do not constitute regulatory requirements
for licensees or for renewal of the COL. However, subsequent
modifications to the facility must comply with the design descriptions
in the plant-specific DCD unless changes are made in accordance with
the change process in Section VIII of this appendix. The Tier 1
interface requirements are the most significant of the interface
requirements for systems that are wholly or partially outside the scope
of the standard design, which were submitted in response to 10 CFR
52.47(a)(1)(vii) and must be met by the site-specific design features
of a facility that references this appendix. The Tier 1 site parameters
are the most significant site parameters, which were submitted in
response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(iii). An application that references
this appendix must demonstrate that the site parameters (both Tier 1
and Tier 2) are met at the proposed site (refer to III.D of this SOC).
Tier 2 is the portion of the design-related information contained
in the DCD that is approved by this appendix but is not certified. Tier
2 information is subject to the backfit provisions in paragraph VIII.B
of this appendix. Tier 2 includes the information required by 10 CFR
52.47 (with the exception of generic technical specifications,
conceptual design information, and the evaluation of severe accident
mitigation design alternatives) and the supporting information on
inspections, tests, and analyses that will be performed to demonstrate
that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC have been met. As with Tier
1, paragraph III.B and subparagraph IV.A.1 of this appendix require an
applicant who references this appendix to incorporate Tier 2 by
reference and to comply with Tier 2, except for the COL action items,
including the investment protection short-term availability controls in
Section 16.3 of the generic DCD. The definition of Tier 2 makes clear
that Tier 2 information has been determined by the Commission, by
virtue of its inclusion in this appendix and its designation as Tier 2
information, to be an approved (``sufficient'') method for meeting Tier
1 requirements. However, there may be other acceptable ways of
complying with Tier 1. The appropriate criteria for departing from Tier
2 information are specified in paragraph VIII.B of this appendix.
Departures from Tier 2 do not negate the requirement in paragraph III.B
to reference Tier 2.
A definition of ``combined license (COL) action items'' (combined
license information), which is part of the Tier 2 information, has been
added to clarify that COL applicants, who reference this appendix, are
required to address these matters in their license application, but the
COL action items are not the only acceptable set of information. An
applicant may depart from or omit these items, provided that the
departure or omission is identified and justified in the FSAR. After
issuance of a construction permit or combined license, these items are
not requirements for the licensee unless such items are restated in its
FSAR.
The investment protection short-term availability controls, which
are set forth in Section 16.3 of the generic DCD, were added to the
list of information that is part of Tier 2. This set of requirements
was added to Tier 2 to make it clear that the availability controls are
not operational requirements for the purposes of paragraph VIII.C of
this appendix. Rather, the availability controls are associated with
specific design features, and the availability controls may be changed
in the same manner as other Tier 2 information.
Certain Tier 2 information has been designated in the generic DCD
with brackets and italicized text as ``Tier 2*'' information and, as
discussed in greater detail in the section-by-section explanation for
paragraph VIII.B, a plant-specific departure from Tier 2* information
requires prior NRC approval. However, the Tier 2* designation expires
for some of this information when the facility first achieves full
power after the finding required by 10 CFR 52.103(g). The process for
changing Tier 2* information and the time at which its status as Tier
2* expires is set forth in subparagraph VIII.B.6 of this appendix. Some
Tier 2* requirements, concerning special preoperational tests, are
designated to be performed only for the first plant or first three
plants referencing the AP600 DCR. The Tier 2* designation for these
selected tests will expire after the first plant or first three plants
complete the specified tests. However, a COL action item requires that
subsequent plants shall also perform the tests or justify that the
results of the first-plant-only or first-three-plants-only tests are
applicable to the subsequent plant. The Commission is interested in
comments addressing whether the first-plant-only or first-three-plants-
only limitations should be part of the Tier 2* information for these
specified tests.
During development of Appendices A and B to Part 52, the Commission
decided that there would be both generic (master) DCDs maintained by
the NRC and the design certification applicant, as well as individual
plant-specific DCDs, maintained by each applicant and licensee who
references this appendix.The generic DCDs (identical to each other)
would reflect generic changes to the version of the DCD approved in
this design certification rulemaking. The generic changes would occur
as the result of generic rulemaking by the Commission (subject to the
change criteria in Section VIII of this appendix). In addition, the
Commission understood that each applicant and licensee referencing this
appendix would be required to submit and maintain a plant-specific DCD.
This plant-specific DCD would contain (not
[[Page 72005]]
just incorporate by reference) the information in the generic DCD. The
plant-specific DCD would be updated as necessary to reflect the generic
changes to the DCD that the Commission may adopt through rulemaking,
any plant-specific departures from the generic DCD that the Commission
imposed on the licensee by order, and any plant-specific departures
that the licensee chose to make in accordance with the relevant
processes in Section VIII of this appendix. Thus, the plant-specific
DCD would function akin to an updated Final Safety Analysis Report, in
the sense that it would provide the most complete and accurate
information on a plant's licensing basis for that part of the plant
within the scope of this appendix. Therefore, this appendix defines
both a generic DCD and plant-specific DCD. Also, the Commission decided
to treat the technical specifications in Section 16.1 of the generic
DCD as a special category of information and to designate them as
generic technical specifications. A COL applicant must submit plant-
specific technical specifications that consist of the generic technical
specifications, which may be modified under paragraph VIII.C of this
appendix, and the remaining plant-specific information needed to
complete the technical specifications, including bracketed values. The
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) that is required by Sec. 52.79(b)
will consist of the plant-specific DCD, the site-specific portion of
the FSAR, and the plant-specific technical specifications.
C. Scope and Contents
The purpose of Section III of this appendix is to describe and
define the scope and contents of this design certification and to set
forth how documentation discrepancies or inconsistencies are to be
resolved. Paragraph A of this section is the required statement of the
Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for approval of the incorporation
by reference of Tier 1, Tier 2, and the generic technical
specifications into this appendix and paragraph B requires COL
applicants and licensees to comply with the requirements of this
appendix. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the
material is treated as if it were published in the Federal Register.
This material, like any other properly-issued regulation, has the force
and effect of law. Tier 1 and Tier 2 information, as well as the
generic technical specifications, have been combined into a single
document called the generic design control document, in order to
effectively control this information and facilitate its incorporation
by reference into the rule. The generic DCD was prepared to meet the
requirements of the OFR for incorporation by reference (1 CFR Part 51).
One of the requirements of OFR for incorporation by reference is that
the design certification applicant must make the generic DCD available
upon request after the final rule becomes effective. Therefore,
paragraph III.A of this appendix identifies a representative of
Westinghouse who can be contacted to obtain a copy of the generic DCD.
Paragraphs A and B of Section III also identify the investment
protection short-term availability controls in Section 16.3 of the
generic DCD as part of the Tier 2 information. During its review of the
AP600 design, the NRC determined that residual uncertainties associated
with passive safety system performance increased the importance of non-
safety-related active systems in providing defense-in-depth functions
that back-up the passive systems. As a result, Westinghouse developed
some administrative controls to provide a high level of confidence that
active systems having a significant safety role are available when
challenged. Westinghouse named these additional controls ``investment
protection short-term availability controls,'' and the Commission
included this statement in Section III to ensure that these
availability controls are binding on applicants and licensees that
reference this appendix and will be enforceable by the NRC. The NRC's
evaluation of the availability controls is provided in Chapter 22 of
the FSER.
The generic DCD (master copy) for this design certification will be
archived at NRC's central file with a matching copy at OFR. Copies of
the up-to-date generic DCD will also be available at the NRC's Public
Document Room. Questions concerning the accuracy of information in an
application that references this appendix will be resolved by checking
the master copy of the generic DCD in NRC's central file. If a generic
change (rulemaking) is made to the DCD pursuant to the change process
in Section VIII of this appendix, then at the completion of the
rulemaking the NRC will request approval of the Director, OFR for the
changed incorporation by reference and change its copies of the generic
DCD and notify the OFR and the design certification applicant to change
their copies. The Commission is requiring that the design certification
applicant maintain an up-to-date copy under subparagraph X.A.1 of this
appendix because it is likely that most applicants intending to
reference the standard design will obtain the generic DCD from the
design certification applicant. Plant-specific changes to and
departures from the generic DCD will be maintained by the applicant or
licensee that references this appendix in a plant-specific DCD, under
subparagraph X.A.2.
In addition to requiring compliance with this appendix, paragraph B
clarifies that the conceptual design information and Westinghouse's
evaluation of severe accident mitigation design alternatives are not
considered to be part of this appendix. The conceptual design
information is for those portions of the plant that are outside the
scope of the standard design and are intermingled throughout Tier 2. As
provided by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(ix), these conceptual designs are not
part of this appendix and, therefore, are not applicable to an
application that references this appendix. Therefore, the applicant
does not need to conform with the conceptual design information that
was provided by the design certification applicant. The conceptual
design information, which consists of site-specific design features,
was required to facilitate the design certification review. Conceptual
design information is neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2. Section 1.8 of Tier 2
identifies the location of the conceptual design information.
Westinghouse's evaluation of various design alternatives to prevent and
mitigate severe accidents does not constitute design requirements. The
Commission's assessment of this information is discussed in Section IV
of this SOC on environmental impacts. The detailed methodology and
quantitative portions of the design-specific probabilistic risk
assessment (PRA), as required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(v), were not
included in the generic DCD, as requested by NEI and the applicant for
design certification. The NRC agreed with the request to delete this
information because conformance with the deleted portions of the PRA is
not necessary. Also, the NRC's position is predicated in part upon
NEI's acceptance, in conceptual form, of a future generic rulemaking
that will require a COL applicant or licensee to have a plant-specific
PRA that updates and supersedes the design-specific PRA supporting this
rulemaking and maintain it throughout the operational life of the
facility.
Paragraphs C and D of section III set forth the manner in which
potential conflicts are to be resolved. Paragraph C establishes the
Tier 1 description in the DCD as controlling in the event of an
inconsistency between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information in the DCD.
Paragraph D establishes the generic DCD as the controlling document in
the event
[[Page 72006]]
of an inconsistency between the DCD and either the application for
certification of the AP600 design (AP600 Standard Safety Analysis
Report) or the final safety evaluation report for the certified
standard design.
Paragraph E makes it clear that design activities that are wholly
outside the scope of this design certification may be performed using
site-specific design parameters, provided the design activities do not
affect Tier 1 or Tier 2, or conflict with the interface requirements in
the DCD. This provision applies to site-specific portions of the plant,
such as the administration building. Because this statement is not a
definition, the Commission decided that the appropriate location is in
Section III of this appendix.
D. Additional Requirements and Restrictions
Section IV of this appendix sets forth additional requirements and
restrictions imposed upon an applicant who references this appendix.
Paragraph IV.A sets forth the information requirements for these
applicants. This appendix distinguishes between information and/or
documents which must actually be included in the application or the
DCD, versus those which may be incorporated by reference (i.e.,
referenced in the application as if the information or documents were
actually included in the application), thereby reducing the physical
bulk of the application. Any incorporation by reference in the
application should be clear and should specify the title, date,
edition, or version of a document, and the page number(s) and table(s)
containing the relevant information to be incorporated by reference.
Subparagraph A.1 requires an applicant who references this appendix
to incorporate by reference this appendix in its application. The legal
effect of such incorporation by reference is that this appendix is
legally binding on the applicant or licensee. Subparagraph A.2.a is
intended to make clear that the initial application must include a
plant-specific DCD. This assures, among other things, that the
applicant commits to complying with the DCD. This paragraph also
requires the plant-specific DCD to use the same format as the generic
DCD and to reflect the applicant's proposed departures and exemptions
from the generic DCD as of the time of submission of the application.
The Commission expects that the plant-specific DCD will become the
plant's final safety analysis report (FSAR), by including within its
pages, at the appropriate points, information such as site-specific
information for the portions of the plant outside the scope of the
referenced design, including related ITAAC, and other matters required
to be included in an FSAR by 10 CFR 50.34 and 52.79. Integration of the
plant-specific DCD and remaining site-specific information into the
plant's FSAR, will result in an application that is easier to use and
should minimize ``duplicate documentation'' and the attendant
possibility for confusion. Subparagraph A.2.a is also intended to make
clear that the initial application must include the reports on
departures and exemptions as of the time of submission of the
application.
Subparagraph A.2.b requires that the application include the
reports required by paragraph X.B of this appendix for exemptions and
departures proposed by the applicant as of the date of submission of
its application. Subparagraph A.2.c requires submission of plant-
specific technical specifications for the plant that consists of the
generic technical specifications from Section 16.1 of the DCD, with any
changes made under paragraph VIII.C of this appendix, and the technical
specifications for the site-specific portions of the plant that are
either partially or wholly outside the scope of this design
certification. The applicant must also provide the plant-specific
information designated in the generic technical specifications, such as
bracketed values.
Subparagraph A.2.d makes it clear that the applicant must provide
information demonstrating that the proposed site falls within the site
parameters for this appendix and that the plant-specific design
complies with the interface requirements, as required by 10 CFR
52.79(b). If the proposed site has a characteristic that exceeds one or
more of the site parameters in the DCD, then the proposed site is
unacceptable for this design unless the applicant seeks an exemption
under Section VIII of this appendix and justifies why the certified
design should be found acceptable on the proposed site. Subparagraph
A.2.e requires submission of information addressing COL Action Items,
which are identified in the generic DCD as Combined License
Information, in the application. The Combined License Information
identifies matters that need to be addressed by an applicant that
references this appendix, as required by Subpart C of 10 CFR part 52.
An applicant may depart from or omit these items, provided that the
departure or omission is identified and justified in its application
(FSAR). Subparagraph A.2.f requires that the application include the
information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a) that is not within the scope of
this rule, such as generic issues that must be addressed, in whole or
in part, by an applicant that references this rule. Subparagraph IV.A.3
requires the applicant to physically include, not simply reference, the
proprietary and safeguards information referenced in the DCD, or its
equivalent, to assure that the applicant has actual notice of these
requirements.
Paragraph IV.B reserves to the Commission the right to determine in
what manner this design certification may be referenced by an applicant
for a construction permit or operating license under 10 CFR Part 50.
This determination may occur in the context of a subsequent rulemaking
modifying 10 CFR part 52 or this design certification rule, or on a
case-by-case basis in the context of a specific application for a 10
CFR part 50 construction permit or operating license. This provision is
necessary because the previous design certifications were not
implemented in the manner that was originally envisioned at the time
that 10 CFR part 52 was created. The Commission's concern is with the
manner in which ITAAC were developed and the lack of experience with
design certifications in license proceedings. Therefore, it is
appropriate to have some uncertainty regarding the manner in which this
appendix could be referenced in a 10 CFR part 50 licensing proceeding.
E. Applicable Regulations
The purpose of Section V of this appendix is to specify the
regulations that were applicable and in effect at the time that this
design certification was approved. These regulations consist of the
technically relevant regulations identified in paragraph V.A, except
for the regulations in paragraph V.B that are not applicable to this
certified design (exempt).
Paragraph V.A identifies the regulations in 10 CFR parts 20, 50,
73, and 100 that are applicable to the AP600 design. After the NRC
staff issued its FSER for the AP600 design (NUREG-1512, September
1998), the Commission amended several existing regulations and adopted
new regulations. The Commission has reviewed these regulations to
determine if they are applicable to this design and, if so, to
determine if the design meets these regulations. The Commission finds
that the AP600 design either meets the requirements of these
regulations or that these regulations are not applicable to the design,
as discussed below. The Commission's determination of the applicable
regulations was made as of the date specified in paragraph V.A of
[[Page 72007]]
this appendix. The specified date is the date that this appendix was
approved by the Commission and signed by the Secretary of the
Commission.
10 CFR 20, Transfer for Disposal and Manifests; Minor Technical
Conforming Amendment (63 FR 50127; September 21, 1998)
This amendment to Part 20 removed expired provisions from the
regulations on low-level waste shipment manifest information. The
previous regulation included dual implementation procedures that allow
use of one of two manifesting procedures. This is a procedural
requirement that applies to licensees and, therefore, is not applicable
to either NRC issuance of design certification or applicants for design
certification.
10 CFR 30 and 50, Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommissioning
Nuclear Power Reactors (63 FR 50465; September 22, 1998)
This amendment to the regulations requires power reactor licensees
to report periodically on the status of their decommissioning funds,
and on changes in their external trust agreements and other financial
assurance mechanisms. This regulation applies to licensees and,
therefore, is not applicable to either NRC issuance of design
certification or applicants for design certification.
10 CFR 50 and 70, Criticality Accident Requirements (63 FR 63127;
November 12, 1998)
This amendment to the regulations provides licensees of light-water
nuclear reactors with greater flexibility in meeting the requirement to
maintain a criticality monitoring system in each area in which special
nuclear material is handled, used, or stored. The criticality
monitoring system is not considered to be part of the plant design and,
therefore, is not applicable to either NRC issuance of design
certification or applicants for design certification.
10 CFR 50, Changes to Quality Assurance Programs (64 FR 9030; February
23, 1999)
This amendment to 10 CFR 50.54(a) allows licensees to make routine
or administrative quality assurance (QA) program changes, which do not
have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of their QA program,
without obtaining NRC approval in advance. This is a procedural
requirement that can be utilized after issuance of a license and,
therefore, is not applicable to either NRC issuance of design
certification or applicants for design certification.
10 CFR 50 and 73, Frequency of Reviews and Audits for Emergency
Preparedness Programs, Safeguards Contingency Plans, and Security
Programs for Nuclear Power Reactors (64 FR 14814; March 29, 1999)
This amendment to the regulations allows licensees to change the
frequency of independent reviews and audits of their emergency
preparedness programs, safeguards contingency plans, and security
programs. This is a procedural requirement that can be utilized after
issuance of a license and, therefore, is not applicable to either NRC
issuance of design certification or applicants for design
certification.
10 CFR 50, Codes and Standards: IEEE National Consensus Standard (64 FR
17944; April 13, 1999)
This amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a(h) incorporates IEEE Std. 603-1991
by reference, a national consensus standard for power, instrumentation,
and control portions of safety systems in nuclear power plants. The NRC
staff reviewed the AP600 design against this IEEE standard, as
described in the FSER, and the Commission has determined that the AP600
design meets the applicable portions of this new requirement [10 CFR
50.55a(h)].
10 CFR 50, Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements (64 FR
51370; September 22, 1999)
This amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a incorporates by reference more
recent editions and addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
(ASME Code) and the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear
Power Plants. The amended requirements in 10 CFR 50.55a apply to both
design and operation of nuclear plants.
The requirements that apply to the AP600 design [10 CFR
50.55a(a)(2)] are addressed in the exemption discussion below. The
other amended requirements in 10 CFR 50.55a, e.g. inservice inspection
and testing, are not applicable to either NRC issuance of design
certification or applicants for design certification.
In paragraph V.B of this appendix, the Commission identified the
regulations that do not apply to the AP600 design. The Commission has
determined that the AP600 design should be exempt from portions of 10
CFR 50.34, 50.55a, 50.62, and Appendix A to Part 50, as described in
the FSER (NUREG-1512) and/or summarized below:
(1) Paragraph (a)(1) of 10 CFR 50.34--Whole Body Dose Criterion
This regulation sets forth dose criteria to be used in siting
determinations. The NRC staff performed its evaluation of the
radiological consequences of postulated design basis accidents for the
AP600 design against the dose criterion specified in 10 CFR
50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D) because it was the Commission's intent that the new
dose criterion be used for future nuclear power plants. However, when
the NRC codified the new reactor site criteria for nuclear power plants
(61 FR 65157; December 11, 1996), it made an error in the assignment of
applicants that could use the new dose criterion [25 rem TEDE], versus
those that must use the whole body criterion. The assignment of
applicants in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), who must use the whole body
criterion, should not have included applicants for a design
certification or combined license who applied prior to January 10, 1997
(refer to 61 FR 65158). The Commission adopted 25 rem TEDE as the new
dose criterion for future plant evaluation purposes, because this value
is essentially the same level of risk as the current criterion (61 FR
65160). Therefore, the Commission has determined that the special
circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in that
application of the 25 rem whole body criterion is not necessary to
achieve the underlying purpose of the rule because 25 rem TEDE is
essentially the same level of risk. On this basis, the Commission
concludes that the AP600 design review can be performed pursuant to the
new dose criterion [25 rem TEDE] and an exemption from the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) is authorized by law, will not present an undue
risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the common
defense and security.
(2) Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34--Plant Safety Parameter
Display Console
10 CFR 50.34(f)(2)(iv) requires that an application provide a plant
safety parameter display console that will display to operators a
minimum set of parameters defining the safety status of the plant, be
capable of displaying a full range of important plant parameters and
data trends on demand, and be capable of indicating when process limits
are being approached or exceeded. Westinghouse answered this
requirement, in Section 18.8.2 of the DCD, with an integrated design
rather than a stand-alone, add-on system, as is used at most current
operating plants. Specifically, Westinghouse integrated the SPDS
requirements into the design requirements for the alarm and display
systems. In NUREG-0800, the NRC staff indicated that, for applicants
who are in the early stages of the control room
[[Page 72008]]
design, the ``function of a separate SPDS may be integrated into the
overall control room design'' (p. 18.0-1). Therefore, the Commission
has determined that the special circumstances described in 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in that the requirement for an SPDS console need
not be applied in this particular circumstance to achieve the
underlying purpose because Westinghouse has provided an acceptable
alternative that accomplishes the intent of the regulation. On this
basis, the Commission concludes that an exemption from the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.34(f)(2)(iv) is authorized by law, will not present an
undue risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the
common defense and security.
(3) Paragraphs (f)(2)(vii), (viii), (xxvi), and (xxviii) of 10 CFR
50.34--Accident Source Terms in TID 14844
Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(ii), an applicant for design
certification must demonstrate compliance with any technically relevant
TMI requirements in 10 CFR 50.34(f). The TMI requirements in 10 CFR
50.34(f)(2)(vii), (viii), (xxvi), and (xxviii) refer to the accident
source term in TID 14844. Specifically, 10 CFR 50.34(f)(2)(xxviii)
requires the evaluation of pathways that may lead to control room
habitability problems ``under accident conditions resulting in a TID
14844 source term release.'' Similar wording appears in requirements
(vii), (viii), and (xxvi). Westinghouse has adopted the new source term
technology summarized in NUREG-1465, ``Accident Source Terms for Light-
Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' dated February 1995, not the old TID
14844 source term cited in 10 CFR part 50.34(f). The new source term is
a more realistic representation of the source term resulting from
postulated design basis accidents, therefore, the Commission has
determined that the special circumstances described in 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in that these regulations need not be applied in
this particular circumstance to achieve the underlying purpose because
Westinghouse has adopted acceptable alternatives that accomplish the
underlying intent of the regulations that specify TID 14844. On this
basis, the Commission concludes that a partial exemption from the
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(vii), (viii), (xxvi), and (xxviii) of
10 CFR 50.34 is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to
public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and
security.
(4) Paragraph (a)(2) of 10 CFR 50.55a--ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code
This regulation mandates that the AP600 design meet the addenda and
edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code)
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 10 CFR 50.55a. The NRC recently
amended the version of the ASME Code that is incorporated by reference
in paragraph (b)(1), as discussed above.
For the AP600 standard plant, Westinghouse designed the ASME Code
Class 1, 2, and 3 components to the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code,
Section III (including the 1989 Addenda with certain limitations), as
discussed in Section 5.2.1.1 of the AP600 Design Control Document
(DCD). However, the amended design requirements incorporate by
reference the 1995 Edition up to and including the 1996 Addenda to the
ASME Code, Section III. The NRC concluded in its FSER (NUREG-1512) that
the use of the 1989 Edition (including the 1989 Addenda with certain
limitations as discussed in Section 5.2.1.1 of the DCD) for the design
of the ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components in the AP600 plant meets
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a. The Commission has determined that
the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) exist in
that the 1989 Edition provides an acceptable level of safety that
ensures adequate protection to public health and safety, and that the
benefits of redesigning the AP600 standard plant to meet the 1995
Edition and 1996 Addenda of the ASME Code, Section III, are outweighed
by the substantial costs and delays that redesign would entail at this
late date. On this basis, the Commission concludes that an exemption
from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(2) is authorized by law, will
not present an undue risk to public health and safety, and is
consistent with the common defense and security.
(5) Paragraph (c)(1) of 10 CFR 50.62--Auxiliary Feedwater System
The AP600 design relies on the passive residual heat removal system
(PRHR) in lieu of an auxiliary or emergency feedwater system as its
safety-related method of removing decay heat. Westinghouse requested an
exemption from a portion of 10 CFR 50.62(c)(1), which requires
auxiliary or emergency feedwater as an alternate system for decay heat
removal during an ATWS event. The NRC staff concluded that Westinghouse
met the intent of the rule by relying on the PRHR system to remove the
decay heat and, thereby, met the underlying purpose of the rule.
Therefore, the Commission has determined that the special circumstances
described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in that the requirement for
an auxiliary or emergency feedwater system is not necessary to achieve
the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.62(c)(1), because Westinghouse has
adopted acceptable alternatives that accomplish the intent of this
regulation, and the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an
undue risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the
common defense and security.
(6) Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, GDC 17--Offsite Power Sources
Westinghouse requested a partial exemption from the requirement in
GDC 17 for a second offsite power supply circuit. The AP600 plant
design relies on safety-related ``passive'' systems. Unlike operating
plants with active safety-related systems, the AP600 safety-related
systems only require a small amount of electric power for valves and
related instrumentation. The onsite Class 1E batteries and associated
dc and ac distribution systems can provide the power for these valves
and instrumentation. In addition, if no offsite power is available, it
is expected that the non-safety-related onsite diesel generators would
be available for important plant functions; however, this non-safety-
related ac power is not relied on to maintain core cooling or
containment integrity. Therefore, the Commission has determined that
the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist in
that the requirement need not be applied in this particular
circumstance to achieve the underlying purpose of having two offsite
power sources because the AP600 design includes an acceptable
alternative approach to accomplish safety functions that does not rely
on power from the offsite system and, therefore, accomplishes the
intent of the regulation. On this basis, the Commission concludes that
a partial exemption from the requirements of GDC 17 is authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to public health and safety, and is
consistent with the common defense and security.
(7) Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, GDC 19--Whole Body Dose Criterion
The NRC staff used a criterion of 5 rem TEDE for evaluating the
radiological consequences of design basis accidents in the control room
of the AP600 design. The NRC staff used the 5 rem TEDE criterion to be
consistent with the new reactor site criteria in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) [61
FR
[[Page 72009]]
65157], although GDC 19 specifies * * * ``5 rem whole body, or its
equivalent to any part of the body''* * * The Commission has determined
that the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)
exist in that application of the 5 rem whole body criterion is not
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule because a TEDE
dose provides essentially the same level of risk as a whole body dose
(see 61 FR 65160). On this basis, the Commission concludes that a
partial exemption from GDC 19 is authorized by law, will not present an
undue risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the
common defense and security.
F. Issue Resolution
The purpose of Section VI of this appendix is to identify the scope
of issues that are resolved by the Commission in this rulemaking and;
therefore, are ``matters resolved'' within the meaning and intent of 10
CFR 52.63(a)(4). The section is divided into five parts: (A) the
Commission's safety findings in adopting this appendix, (B) the scope
and nature of issues which are resolved by this rulemaking, (C) issues
which are not resolved by this rulemaking, (D) the backfit restrictions
applicable to the Commission with respect to this appendix, and (E) the
availability of secondary references.
Paragraph A describes in general terms the nature of the
Commission's findings, and makes the finding required by 10 CFR 52.54
for the Commission's approval of this design certification rule.
Furthermore, paragraph A explicitly states the Commission's
determination that this design provides adequate protection of the
public health and safety.
Paragraph B sets forth the scope of issues which may not be
challenged as a matter of right in subsequent proceedings. The
introductory phrase of paragraph B clarifies that issue resolution as
described in the remainder of the paragraph extends to the delineated
NRC proceedings referencing this appendix. The remainder of paragraph B
describes the categories of information for which there is issue
resolution. Specifically, subparagraph B.1 provides that all nuclear
safety issues arising from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
that are associated with the information in the NRC staff's FSER
(NUREG-1512) and Supplement No. 1, the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information
(including the availability controls in Section 16.3 of the generic
DCD), and the rulemaking record for this appendix are resolved within
the meaning of Sec. 52.63(a)(4). These issues include the information
referenced in the DCD that are requirements (i.e., ``secondary
references''), as well as all issues arising from proprietary and
safeguards information which are intended to be requirements.
Subparagraph B.2 provides for issue preclusion of proprietary and
safeguards information. Subparagraphs B.3, B.4, B.5, and B.6 clarify
that approved changes to and departures from the DCD which are
accomplished in compliance with the relevant procedures and criteria in
Section VIII of this appendix continue to be matters resolved in
connection with this rulemaking. Subparagraph B.7 provides that, for
those plants located on sites whose site parameters do not exceed those
assumed in Westinghouse's evaluation of severe accident mitigation
design alternatives (SAMDAs), all issues with respect to SAMDAs arising
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 associated with the
information in the Environmental Assessment for this design and the
information regarding SAMDAs in Appendix 1B of the generic DCD are also
resolved within the meaning and intent of Sec. 52.63(a)(4). In the
event an exemption from a site parameter is granted, the exemption
applicant has the initial burden of demonstrating that the original
SAMDA analysis still applies to the actual site parameters but, if the
exemption is approved, requests for litigation at the COL stage must
meet the requirements of Sec. 2.714 and present sufficient information
to create a genuine controversy in order to obtain a hearing on the
site parameter exemption.
Paragraph C reserves the right of the Commission to impose
operational requirements on applicants that reference this appendix.
This provision reflects the fact that operational requirements,
including generic technical specifications in Section 16.1 of the DCD,
were not completely or comprehensively reviewed at the design
certification stage. Therefore, the special backfit provisions of
Sec. 52.63 do not apply to operational requirements. However, all
design changes will be controlled by the appropriate provision in
Section VIII of this appendix. Although the information in the DCD that
is related to operational requirements was necessary to support the NRC
staff's safety review of this design, the review of this information
was not sufficient to conclude that the operational requirements are
fully resolved and ready to be assigned finality under Sec. 52.63. As a
result, if the NRC wanted to change a temperature limit and that
operational change required a consequential change to a design feature,
then the temperature limit backfit would be controlled by Section VIII
(paragraph A or B) of this appendix. However, changes to other
operational issues, such as in-service testing and in-service
inspection programs, post-fuel load verification activities, and
shutdown risk that do not require a design change would not be
restricted by Sec. 52.63 (see paragraph VIII.C of this appendix).
Paragraph VI.C does allow the NRC to impose future operational
requirements (distinct from design matters) on applicants who reference
this design certification. Also, license conditions for portions of the
plant within the scope of this design certification, e.g. start-up and
power ascension testing, are not restricted by Sec. 52.63. The
requirement to perform these testing programs is contained in Tier 1
information. However, ITAAC cannot be specified for these subjects
because the matters to be addressed in these license conditions cannot
be verified prior to fuel load and operation, when the ITAAC are
satisfied. Therefore, another regulatory vehicle is necessary to ensure
that licensees comply with the matters contained in the license
conditions. License conditions for these areas cannot be developed now
because this requires the type of detailed design information that will
be developed after design certification. In the absence of detailed
design information to evaluate the need for and develop specific post-
fuel load verifications for these matters, the Commission is reserving
the right to impose license conditions by rule for post-fuel load
verification activities for portions of the plant within the scope of
this design certification.
Paragraph D reiterates the restrictions (contained in Section VIII
of this appendix) placed upon the Commission when ordering generic or
plant-specific modifications, changes or additions to structures,
systems or components, design features, design criteria, and ITAAC
(subparagraph VI.D.3 addresses ITAAC) within the scope of the certified
design.
Paragraph E provides the procedure for an interested member of the
public to obtain access to proprietary or safeguards information for
the AP600 design, in order to request and participate in proceedings
identified in paragraph VI.B of this appendix, viz., proceedings
involving licenses and applications which reference this appendix. As
set forth in paragraph VI.E, access must first be sought from the
design certification applicant. If Westinghouse refuses to provide the
information, the person seeking access
[[Page 72010]]
shall request access from the Commission or the presiding officer, as
applicable. Access to the proprietary or safeguards information may be
ordered by the Commission, but must be subject to an appropriate non-
disclosure agreement.
G. Duration of This Appendix
The purpose of Section VII of this appendix is in part to specify
the time period during which this design certification may be
referenced by an applicant for a combined license, under 10 CFR 52.55.
This section also states that the design certification remains valid
for an applicant or licensee that references the design certification
until the application is withdrawn or the license expires. Therefore,
if an application references this design certification during the 15-
year period, then the design certification continues in effect until
the application is withdrawn or the license issued on that application
expires. Also, the design certification continues in effect for the
referencing license if the license is renewed. The Commission intends
for this appendix to remain valid for the life of the plant that
references the design certification to achieve the benefits of
standardization and licensing stability. This means that changes to or
plant-specific departures from information in the plant-specific DCD
must be made pursuant to the change processes in Section VIII of this
appendix for the life of the plant.
H. Processes for Changes and Departures
The purpose of Section VIII of this appendix is to set forth the
processes for generic changes to or plant-specific departures
(including exemptions) from the DCD. The Commission adopted this
restrictive change process in order to achieve a more stable licensing
process for applicants and licensees that reference this design
certification rule. Section VIII is divided into three paragraphs,
which correspond to Tier 1, Tier 2, and Operational requirements. The
language of Section VIII distinguishes between generic changes to the
DCD versus plant-specific departures from the DCD. Generic changes must
be accomplished by rulemaking because the intended subject of the
change is the design certification rule itself, as is contemplated by
10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). Consistent with 10 CFR 52.63(a)(2), any generic
rulemaking changes are applicable to all plants, absent circumstances
which render the change [``modification'' in the language of
Sec. 52.63(a)(2)] ``technically irrelevant.'' By contrast, plant-
specific departures could be either a Commission-issued order to one or
more applicants or licensees; or an applicant or licensee-initiated
departure applicable only to that applicant's or licensee's plant(s),
similar to a Sec. 50.59 departure or an exemption. Because these plant-
specific departures will result in a DCD that is unique for that plant,
Section X of this appendix requires an applicant or licensee to
maintain a plant-specific DCD. For purposes of brevity, this discussion
refers to both generic changes and plant-specific departures as
``change processes.''
Both Section VIII of this appendix and this SOC refer to an
``exemption'' from one or more requirements of this appendix and the
criteria for granting an exemption. The Commission cautions that where
the exemption involves an underlying substantive requirement
(applicable regulation), then the applicant or licensee requesting the
exemption must also show that an exemption from the underlying
applicable requirement meets the criteria of 10 CFR 50.12.
Tier 1 Information
The change processes for Tier 1 information are covered in
paragraph VIII.A. Generic changes to Tier 1 are accomplished by
rulemaking that amends the generic DCD and are governed by the
standards in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). This provision provides that the
Commission may not modify, change, rescind, or impose new requirements
by rulemaking except where necessary either to bring the certification
into compliance with the Commission's regulations applicable and in
effect at the time of approval of the design certification or to ensure
adequate protection of the public health and safety or common defense
and security. The rulemakings must include an opportunity for hearing
with respect to the proposed change, as required by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1),
and the Commission expects such hearings to be conducted in accordance
with 10 CFR part 2, Subpart H. Departures from Tier 1 may occur in two
ways: (1) the Commission may order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, as
provided in subparagraph A.3; or (2) an applicant or licensee may
request an exemption from Tier 1, as provided in subparagraph A.4. If
the Commission seeks to order a licensee to depart from Tier 1,
subparagraph A.3 requires that the Commission find both that the
departure is necessary for adequate protection or for compliance, and
that special circumstances are present. Subparagraph A.4 provides that
exemptions from Tier 1 requested by an applicant or licensee are
governed by the requirements of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1) and 52.97(b), which
provide an opportunity for a hearing. In addition, the Commission will
not grant requests for exemptions that may result in a significant
decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
Tier 2 Information
The change processes for the three different categories of Tier 2
information (Tier 2, Tier 2*, and Tier 2* with a time of expiration)
are set forth in paragraph VIII.B. The change processes for Tier 2 have
the same elements as the Tier 1 change processes, but some of the
standards for plant-specific orders and exemptions are different. The
Commission adopted a ``50.59-like'' change process (similar to 10 CFR
50.59) in accordance with its SRMs on SECY-90-377 and SECY-92-287A.
However, the Commission plans to revise the change process in 10 CFR
50.59 (64 FR 53582). As a result, the Commission will determine whether
similar revisions should be made to the ``50.59-like'' change process
in subparagraph VIII.B.5, as part of an upcoming 10 CFR part 52
rulemaking (refer to SECY-98-282), of the design certification rules
(Appendices A, B, and C to Part 52). Any backfitting implications for
future revisions to subparagraph VIII.B.5 of the design certification
rules were covered in the 10 CFR 50.59 rulemaking (64 FR 53612).
The process for generic Tier 2 changes (including changes to Tier
2* and Tier 2* with a time of expiration) tracks the process for
generic Tier 1 changes. As set forth in subparagraph B.1, generic Tier
2 changes are accomplished by rulemaking amending the generic DCD, and
are governed by the standards in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). This provision
provides that the Commission may not modify, change, rescind or impose
new requirements by rulemaking except where necessary either to bring
the certification into compliance with the Commission's regulations
applicable and in effect at the time of approval of the design
certification or to assure adequate protection of the public health and
safety or common defense and security. If a generic change is made to
Tier 2* information, then the category and expiration, if necessary, of
the new information would also be determined in the rulemaking and the
appropriate change process for that new information would apply.
Departures from Tier 2 may occur in five ways: (1) The Commission
may order a plant-specific departure, as set forth in subparagraph B.3;
(2) an applicant or licensee may request an
[[Page 72011]]
exemption from a Tier 2 requirement as set forth in subparagraph B.4;
(3) a licensee may make a departure without prior NRC approval in
accordance with subparagraph B.5 [the ``50.59-like'' process]; (4) the
licensee may request NRC approval for proposed departures which do not
meet the requirements in subparagraph B.5 as provided in subparagraph
B.5.d; and (5) the licensee may request NRC approval for a departure
from Tier 2* information under subparagraph B.6.
Similar to Commission-ordered Tier 1 departures and generic Tier 2
changes, Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures cannot be imposed except
where necessary either to bring the certification into compliance with
the Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time of
approval of the design certification or to ensure adequate protection
of the public health and safety or common defense and security, as set
forth in subparagraph B.3. However, the special circumstances for the
Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures do not have to outweigh any
decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in
standardization caused by the plant-specific order, as required by 10
CFR 52.63(a)(3). The Commission determined that it was not necessary to
impose an additional limitation similar to that imposed on Tier 1
departures by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3) and (b)(1). This type of additional
limitation for standardization would unnecessarily restrict the
flexibility of applicants and licensees with respect to Tier 2, which
by its nature is not as safety significant as Tier 1.
An applicant or licensee may request an exemption from Tier 2
information as set forth in subparagraph B.4. The applicant or licensee
must demonstrate that the exemption complies with one of the special
circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a). In addition, the Commission will not
grant requests for exemptions that may result in a significant decrease
in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design. However, the
special circumstances for the exemption do not have to outweigh any
decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in
standardization caused by the exemption. If the exemption is requested
by an applicant for a license, the exemption is subject to litigation
in the same manner as other issues in the license hearing, consistent
with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). If the exemption is requested by a licensee,
then the exemption is subject to litigation in the same manner as a
license amendment.
Subparagraph B.5 allows an applicant or licensee to depart from
Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, if the proposed
departure does not involve a change to or departure from Tier 1 or Tier
2* information, technical specifications, or involves an unreviewed
safety question (USQ) as defined in B.5.b and B.5.c of this paragraph.
The technical specifications referred to in B.5.a and B.5.b of this
paragraph are the technical specifications in Section 16.1 of the
generic DCD, including bases, for departures made prior to issuance of
the COL. After issuance of the COL, the plant-specific technical
specifications are controlling under subparagraph B.5. The bases for
the plant-specific technical specifications will be controlled by the
bases control procedures for the plant-specific technical
specifications (analogous to the bases control provision in the
Improved Standard Technical Specifications). The definition of a USQ in
B.5.b of this paragraph is similar to the definition in 10 CFR 50.59
and it applies to all information in Tier 2 except for the information
that resolves the severe accident issues. The process for evaluating
proposed tests or experiments not described in Tier 2 will be
incorporated into the change process for the portion of the design that
is outside the scope of this design certification. Although
subparagraph B.5 does not specifically state, the Commission has
determined that departures must also comply with all applicable
regulations unless an exemption or other relief is obtained.
The Commission believes that it is important to preserve and
maintain the resolution of severe accident issues just like all other
safety issues that were resolved during the design certification review
(refer to SRM on SECY-90-377). However, because of the increased
uncertainty in severe accident issue resolutions, the Commission has
adopted separate criteria in B.5.c for determining whether a departure
from information that resolves severe accident issues constitutes a
USQ. For purposes of applying the special criteria in B.5.c, severe
accident resolutions are limited to design features when the intended
function of the design feature is relied upon to resolve postulated
accidents where the reactor core has melted and exited the reactor
vessel and the containment is being challenged (severe accidents).
These design features are identified in Section 1.9.5 of the DCD, with
other issues, and are described in other sections of the DCD.
Therefore, the location of design information in the DCD is not
important to the application of this special procedure for severe
accident issues. However, the special procedure in B.5.c does not apply
to design features that resolve so-called beyond design basis accidents
or other low probability events. The important aspect of this special
procedure is that it is limited solely to severe accident design
features, as defined above. Some design features may have intended
functions to meet ``design basis'' requirements and to resolve ``severe
accidents.'' If these design features are reviewed under subparagraph
VIII.B.5, then the appropriate criteria from either B.5.b or B.5.c are
selected depending upon the function being changed.
An applicant or licensee that plans to depart from Tier 2
information, under subparagraph VIII.B.5, must prepare a safety
evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the
proposed change does not involve an unreviewed safety question, a
change to Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, or a change to the technical
specifications, as explained above. In order to achieve the
Commission's goals for design certification, the evaluation needs to
consider all of the matters that were resolved in the DCD, such as
generic issue resolutions that are relevant to the proposed departure.
The benefits of the early resolution of safety issues would be lost if
departures from the DCD were made that violated these resolutions
without appropriate review. The evaluation of the relevant matters
needs to consider the proposed departure over the full range of power
operation from startup to shutdown, as it relates to anticipated
operational occurrences, transients, design basis accidents, and severe
accidents. The evaluation must also include a review of all relevant
secondary references from the DCD because Tier 2 information intended
to be treated as requirements is contained in the secondary references.
The evaluation should consider Tables 14.3-1 through 14.3-8 and 19.59-
29 of the generic DCD to ensure that the proposed change does not
impact Tier 1. These tables contain various cross-references from the
safety analyses and probabilistic risk assessment in Tier 2 to the
important parameters that were included in Tier 1. Although many issues
and analyses could have been cross-referenced, the listings in these
tables were developed only for key analyses for the AP600 design.
Westinghouse provided more detailed cross-references for important
analysis assumptions that are included in Tier 1 in its revised
response to RAI 640.60 (DCP/NRC 1440--September 15, 1998).
If a proposed departure from Tier 2 involves a change to or
departure from Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, technical
[[Page 72012]]
specifications, or otherwise constitutes a USQ, then the applicant or
licensee must obtain NRC approval through the appropriate process set
forth in this appendix before implementing the proposed departure. The
NRC does not endorse NSAC-125, ``Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety
Evaluations,'' for performing safety evaluations required by
subparagraph VIII.B.5 of this appendix. However, the NRC will work with
industry, if it is desired, to develop an appropriate guidance document
for processing proposed changes under paragraph VIII.B of this
appendix.
A party to an adjudicatory proceeding (e.g., for issuance of a
combined license) who believes that an applicant or licensee has not
complied with subparagraph VIII.B.5 when departing from Tier 2
information, may petition to admit such a contention into the
proceeding under B.5.f. This provision was included because an
incorrect departure from the requirements of this appendix essentially
places the departure outside of the scope of the Commission's safety
finding in the design certification rulemaking. Therefore, it follows
that properly-founded contentions alleging such incorrectly-implemented
departures cannot be considered ``resolved'' by this rulemaking. As set
forth in B.5.f of paragraph VIII.B, the petition must comply with the
requirements of Sec. 2.714(b)(2) and show that the departure does not
comply with subparagraph B.5. Any other party may file a response to
the petition. If on the basis of the petition and any responses, the
presiding officer in the proceeding determines that the required
showing has been made, the matter shall be certified to the Commission
for its final determination. In the absence of a proceeding, petitions
alleging non-conformance with subparagraph B.5 requirements applicable
to Tier 2 departures will be treated as petitions for enforcement
action under 10 CFR 2.206.
Subparagraph B.6 provides a process for departing from Tier 2*
information. The creation of and restrictions on changing Tier 2*
information resulted from the development of the Tier 1 information for
the ABWR design. During this development process, the applicants for
design certification requested that the amount of information in Tier 1
be minimized to provide additional flexibility for an applicant or
licensee who references this appendix. Also, many codes, standards, and
design processes, which were not specified in Tier 1, that are
acceptable for meeting ITAAC were specified in Tier 2. The result of
these actions is that certain significant information only exists in
Tier 2 and the Commission does not want this significant information to
be changed without prior NRC approval. This Tier 2* information is
identified in the generic DCD with italicized text and brackets.
Although the Tier 2* designation was originally intended to last
for the lifetime of the facility, like Tier 1 information, the NRC
determined that some of the Tier 2* information could expire when the
plant first achieves full (100%) power, after the finding required by
10 CFR 52.103(g), while other Tier 2* information must remain in effect
throughout the life of the facility. The determining factors were the
Tier 1 information that would govern these areas after first full power
and the NRC's judgement on whether prior approval was required before
implementation of the change due to the significance of the
information. Therefore, certain Tier 2* information listed in B.6.c of
paragraph VIII.B ceases to retain its Tier 2* designation after full
power operation is first achieved following the Commission finding in
10 CFR 52.103(g). Thereafter, that information is deemed to be Tier 2
information that is subject to the departure requirements in
subparagraph B.5. By contrast, the Tier 2* information identified in
B.6.b of paragraph VIII.B retains its Tier 2* designation throughout
the duration of the license, including any period of renewal.
Certain preoperational tests in B.6.c of paragraph VIII.B are
designated to be performed only for the first plant or first three
plants that reference this appendix. Westinghouse's basis for
performing these ``first-plant-only'' and ``first-three-plants-only''
preoperational tests is provided in Section 14.2.5 of the DCD. The NRC
staff found Westinghouse's basis for performing these tests and its
justification for only performing the tests on the first-plant or
first-three-plants acceptable. The NRC staff's decision was based on
the need to verify that plant-specific manufacturing and/or
construction variations do not adversely impact the predicted
performance of certain passive safety systems, while recognizing that
these special tests will result in significant thermal transients being
applied to critical plant components. The NRC staff believes that the
range of manufacturing or construction variations that could adversely
affect the relevant passive safety systems will be adequately disclosed
after performing the designated tests on the first plant, or the first
three plants, as applicable. The COL action item in Section 14.4.6 of
the DCD states that subsequent plants shall either perform these
preoperational tests or justify that the results of the first-plant-
only or first-three-plant-only tests are applicable to the subsequent
plant. The Tier 2* designation for these tests will expire after the
first plant or first three plants complete these tests, as indicated in
B.6.c of paragraph VIII.B.
If Tier 2* information is changed in a generic rulemaking, the
designation of the new information (Tier 1, 2*, or 2) would also be
determined in the rulemaking and the appropriate process for future
changes would apply. If a plant-specific departure is made from Tier 2*
information, then the new designation would apply only to that plant.
If an applicant who references this design certification makes a
departure from Tier 2* information, the new information is subject to
litigation in the same manner as other plant-specific issues in the
licensing hearing. If a licensee makes a departure, it will be treated
as a license amendment under 10 CFR 50.90 and the finality is in
accordance with VI.B.5 of this appendix. Any requests for departures
from Tier 2* information that affect Tier 1 must also comply with the
requirements in paragraph VIII.A of this appendix.
Operational Requirements
The change process for technical specifications and other
operational requirements in the DCD is set forth in paragraph VIII.C of
this appendix. This change process has elements similar to the Tier 1
and Tier 2 change process in paragraphs VIII.A and VIII.B, but with
significantly different change standards. Because of the different
finality status for technical specifications and other operational
requirements (refer to III.F of this SOC), the Commission decided to
designate a special category of information, consisting of the
technical specifications and other operational requirements, with its
own change process in paragraph VIII.C. The key to using the change
processes in Section VIII is to determine if the proposed change or
departure requires a change to a design feature described in the
generic DCD. If a design change is required, then the appropriate
change process in paragraph VIII.A or VIII.B applies. However, if a
proposed change to the technical specifications or other operational
requirements does not require a change to a design feature in the
generic DCD, then paragraph VIII.C applies. The language in paragraph
VIII.C also distinguishes between generic (Section 16.1 of DCD) and
plant-specific technical specifications to account for the different
treatment and
[[Page 72013]]
finality accorded technical specifications before and after a license
is issued.
The process in subparagraph VIII.C.1 for making generic changes to
the generic technical specifications in Section 16.1 of the DCD or
other operational requirements in the generic DCD is accomplished by
rulemaking and governed by the backfit standards in 10 CFR 50.109. The
determination of whether the generic technical specifications and other
operational requirements were completely reviewed and approved in the
design certification rulemaking is based upon the extent to which an
NRC safety conclusion in the FSER is being modified or changed. If it
cannot be determined that the technical specification or operational
requirement was comprehensively reviewed and finalized in the design
certification rulemaking, then there is no backfit restriction under 10
CFR 50.109 because no prior position was taken on this safety matter.
Some generic technical specifications contain bracketed values, which
clearly indicate that the NRC staff's review was not complete. Generic
changes made under subparagraph VIII.C.1 are applicable to all
applicants or licensees (refer to subparagraph VIII.C.2), unless the
change is irrelevant because of a plant-specific departure.
Plant-specific departures may occur by either a Commission order
under subparagraph VIII.C.3 or an applicant's exemption request under
subparagraph VIII.C.4. The basis for determining if the technical
specification or operational requirement was completely reviewed and
approved for these processes is the same as for subparagraph VIII.C.1.
If the technical specification or operational requirement was
comprehensively reviewed and finalized in the design certification
rulemaking, then the Commission must demonstrate that special
circumstances are present before ordering a plant-specific departure.
If not, there is no restriction on plant-specific changes to the
technical specifications or operational requirements, prior to issuance
of a license, provided a design change is not required. Although the
generic technical specifications were reviewed by the NRC staff to
facilitate the design certification review, the Commission intends to
consider the lessons learned from subsequent operating experience
during its licensing review of the plant-specific technical
specifications. The process for petitioning to intervene on a technical
specification or operational requirement is similar to other issues in
a licensing hearing, except that the petitioner must also demonstrate
why special circumstances are present (subparagraph VIII.C.5).
Finally, the generic technical specifications will have no further
effect on the plant-specific technical specifications after the
issuance of a license that references this appendix. The bases for the
generic technical specifications will be controlled by the change
process in paragraph VIII.C of this appendix. After a license is
issued, the bases will be controlled by the bases change provision set
forth in the administrative controls section of the plant-specific
technical specifications.
I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
The purpose of Section IX of this appendix is to set forth how the
ITAAC in Tier 1 of this design certification rule are to be treated in
a license proceeding. Paragraph A restates the responsibilities of an
applicant or licensee for performing and successfully completing ITAAC,
and notifying the NRC of such completion. Subparagraph A.1 makes it
clear that an applicant may proceed at its own risk with design and
procurement activities subject to ITAAC, and that a licensee may
proceed at its own risk with design, procurement, construction, and
preoperational testing activities subject to an ITAAC, even though the
NRC may not have found that any particular ITAAC has been successfully
completed. Subparagraph A.2 requires the licensee to notify the NRC
that the required inspections, tests, and analyses in the ITAAC have
been completed and that the acceptance criteria have been met.
Subparagraphs B.1 and B.2 essentially reiterate the NRC's
responsibilities with respect to ITAAC as set forth in 10 CFR 52.99 and
52.103(g). Finally, subparagraph B.3 states that ITAAC do not, by
virtue of their inclusion in the DCD, constitute regulatory
requirements after the licensee has received authorization to load fuel
or for renewal of the license. However, subsequent modifications must
comply with the design descriptions in the DCD unless the applicable
requirements in 10 CFR 52.97 and Section VIII of this appendix have
been complied with. As discussed in paragraph III.D of this SOC, the
Commission will defer a determination of the applicability of ITAAC and
their effect in terms of issue resolution in 10 CFR Part 50 licensing
proceedings to such time that a Part 50 applicant decides to reference
this appendix.
J. Records and Reporting
The purpose of Section X of this appendix is to set forth the
requirements for maintaining records of changes to and departures from
the generic DCD, which are to be reflected in the plant-specific DCD.
Section X also sets forth the requirements for submitting reports
(including updates to the plant-specific DCD) to the NRC. This section
of the appendix is similar to the requirements for records and reports
in 10 CFR part 50, except for minor differences in information
collection and reporting requirements, as discussed in V of this SOC.
Subparagraph X.A.1 of this appendix requires that a generic DCD and the
proprietary and safeguards information referenced in the generic DCD be
maintained by the applicant for this rule. The generic DCD was
developed, in part, to meet the requirements for incorporation by
reference, including availability requirements. Therefore, the
proprietary and safeguards information could not be included in the
generic DCD because it is not publicly available. However, the
proprietary and safeguards information was reviewed by the NRC and, as
stated in subparagraph VI.B.2 of this appendix, the Commission
considers the information to be resolved within the meaning of 10 CFR
52.63(a)(4). Because this information is not in the generic DCD, the
proprietary and safeguards information, or its equivalent, is required
to be provided by an applicant for a license. Therefore, to ensure that
this information will be available, a requirement for the design
certification applicant to maintain the proprietary and safeguards
information was added to subparagraph X.A.1 of this appendix. The
acceptable version of the proprietary and safeguards information is
identified (referenced) in the version of the DCD that is incorporated
into this rule. The generic DCD and the acceptable version of the
proprietary and safeguards information must be maintained for the
period of time that this appendix may be referenced.
Subparagraphs A.2 and A.3 place record-keeping requirements on the
applicant or licensee that references this design certification to
maintain its plant-specific DCD to accurately reflect both generic
changes to the generic DCD and plant-specific departures made pursuant
to Section VIII of this appendix. The term ``plant-specific'' was added
to paragraph A.2 and other Sections of this appendix to distinguish
between the generic DCD that is incorporated by reference into this
appendix, and the plant-specific DCD that the applicant is required to
submit under paragraph IV.A of this appendix. The requirement to
maintain the generic changes to the generic DCD is explicitly
[[Page 72014]]
stated to ensure that these changes are not only reflected in the
generic DCD, which will be maintained by the applicant for design
certification, but that the changes are also reflected in the plant-
specific DCD. Therefore, records of generic changes to the DCD will be
required to be maintained by both entities to ensure that both entities
have up-to-date DCDs.
Paragraph X.A of this appendix does not place record-keeping
requirements on site-specific information that is outside the scope of
this rule. As discussed in III.D of this SOC, the final safety analysis
report required by 10 CFR 52.79 will contain the plant-specific DCD and
the site-specific information for a facility that references this rule.
The phrase ``site-specific portion of the final safety analysis
report'' in X.B.3.d of this appendix refers to the information that is
contained in the final safety analysis report for a facility (required
by 10 CFR 52.79) but is not part of the plant-specific DCD (required by
paragraph IV.A of this appendix). Therefore, this rule does not require
that duplicate documentation be maintained by an applicant or licensee
that references this rule, because the plant-specific DCD is part of
the final safety analysis report for the facility.
Subparagraphs B.1 and B.2 of this appendix establish reporting
requirements for applicants or licensees that reference this rule that
are similar to the reporting requirements in 10 CFR part 50. For
currently operating plants, a licensee is required to maintain records
of the basis for any design changes to the facility made under 10 CFR
50.59. Section 50.59(b)(2) requires a licensee to provide a summary
report of these changes to the NRC annually, or along with updates to
the facility final safety analysis report under 10 CFR 50.71(e).
Section 50.71(e)(4) requires that these updates be submitted annually,
or 6 months after each refueling outage if the interval between
successive updates does not exceed 24 months.
The reporting requirements in subparagraph B.3 of this appendix
vary according to four different time periods during a facilities'
lifetime. Under B.3.a of paragraph X.B, if an applicant that references
this rule decides to make departures from the generic DCD, then the
departures and any updates to the plant-specific DCD must be submitted
with the initial application for a license. Under B.3.b of paragraph
X.B, the applicant may submit any subsequent reports and updates along
with its amendments to the application provided that the submittals are
made at least once per year. Because amendments to an application are
typically made more frequently than once a year, this should not be an
excessive burden on the applicant. Under B.3.c of paragraph X.B,
summary reports must be submitted quarterly during the period of
facility construction. This increase in frequency of summary reports of
departures from the plant-specific DCD is in response to the
Commission's guidance on reporting frequency in its SRM on SECY-90-377,
dated February 15, 1991.
Quarterly reporting of design changes during the period of
construction is necessary to closely monitor the status and progress of
the construction of the plant. To make its finding under 10 CFR 52.99,
the NRC must monitor the design changes made in accordance with Section
VIII of this appendix. The ITAAC verify that the as-built facility
conforms with the approved design and emphasizes design reconciliation
and design verification. Quarterly reporting of design changes is
particularly important in times where the number of design changes
could be significant, such as during the procurement of components and
equipment, detailed design of the plant at the start of construction,
and during preoperational testing. The frequency of updates to the
plant-specific DCD is not increased during facility construction. After
the facility begins operation, the frequency of reporting reverts to
the requirement in X.B.3.d of paragraph X.B, which is consistent with
the requirement for plants licensed under 10 CFR part 50.
IV. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Commission's regulations
in 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, that this design certification rule is
not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required. The basis for this determination, as documented
in the final environmental assessment, is that this amendment to 10 CFR
part 52 does not authorize the siting, construction, or operation of a
facility using the AP600 design; it only codifies the AP600 design in a
rule. The NRC will evaluate the environmental impacts and issue an EIS,
as appropriate, in accordance with NEPA as part of the application(s)
for the construction and operation of a facility.
In addition, as part of the final environmental assessment for the
AP600 design, the NRC reviewed Westinghouse's evaluation of various
design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents in
Appendix 1B of the AP600 Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR). The
Commission finds that Westinghouse's evaluation provides a reasonable
assurance that certifying the AP600 design will not exclude severe
accident mitigation design alternatives for a future facility that
would prove cost beneficial had they been considered as part of the
original design certification application. These issues are considered
resolved for the AP600 design.
The final environmental assessment (EA), upon which the
Commission's finding of no significant impact is based, and the AP600
SSAR are available for examination and copying at the NRC Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single
copies of the EA are also available from Jerry N. Wilson, Mailstop O-12
G15, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule amends information collection requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on August 10, 1999 (OMB #3150-0151). If an application is
submitted, the additional public reporting burden for this information
collection is estimated to average 8 person-hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the information collection.
Send comments on any aspect of this information collection,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Records
Management Branch (T-6 E6), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at
[email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0151), Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification
If a means used to impose an information collection does not
display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information
collection.
[[Page 72015]]
VI. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this final rule.
The NRC prepares regulatory analyses for rulemakings that establish
generic regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees. Design
certifications are not generic rulemakings in the sense that design
certifications do not establish standards or requirements with which
all licensees must comply. Rather, design certifications are Commission
approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking.
Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are initiated by an
applicant for a design certification, rather than the NRC. Preparation
of a regulatory analysis in this circumstance would not be useful
because the design to be certified is proposed by the applicant rather
than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that
preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required nor
appropriate.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities. The final rule provides for certification of a nuclear power
plant design. Neither the design certification applicant, nor
prospective nuclear power plant licensees who reference this design
certification rule, fall within the scope of the definition of ``small
entities'' set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small
Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small
Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.
VIII. Backfit Analysis
The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109,
does not apply to this amendment because it does not impose new or
changed requirements on existing 10 CFR Part 50 licensees. Therefore, a
backfit analysis was not prepared for this rule.
IX. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
As required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major
rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.
X. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
The National Technology and Transfer Act of 1995 (Act), Pub. L.
104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless
the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. This rule provides for certification of a
nuclear power plant design. Design certifications are not generic
rulemakings in the sense that design certifications do not establish
standards or requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather,
design certifications are Commission approvals of specific nuclear
power plant designs by rulemaking. Furthermore, design certification
rulemakings are initiated by an applicant for a design certification,
rather than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that
the Act does not apply to this rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 52
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting,
Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees,
Incorporation by reference, Inspection, Limited work authorization,
Nuclear power plants and reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment,
Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design
certification.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting
the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 52.
PART 52--EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS; AND
COMBINED LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
1. The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 52 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282);
secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1243, 1244, 1246, 1246, as amended (42
U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
2. In Sec. 52.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 52.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
* * * * *
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in
this part appear in Secs. 52.15, 52.17, 52.29, 52.35, 52.45, 52.47,
52.51, 52.57, 52.63, 52.75, 52.77, 52.78, 52.79, 52.89, 52.91, 52.99,
and appendices A, B, and C.
3. A new Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 52 is added to read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 52--Design Certification Rule for the AP600
Design
I. Introduction
Appendix C constitutes the standard design certification for the
AP600 1 design, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52,
Subpart B. The applicant for certification of the AP600 design is
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AP600 is a trademark of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Definitions
A. Generic design control document (generic DCD) means the
document containing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information and generic
technical specifications that is incorporated by reference into this
appendix.
B. Generic technical specifications means the information,
required by 10 CFR 50.36 and 50.36a, for the portion of the plant
that is within the scope of this appendix.
C. Plant-specific DCD means the document, maintained by an
applicant or licensee who references this appendix, consisting of
the information in the generic DCD, as modified and supplemented by
the plant-specific departures and exemptions made under Section VIII
of this appendix.
D. Tier 1 means the portion of the design-related information
contained in the generic DCD that is approved and certified by this
appendix (hereinafter Tier 1 information). The design descriptions,
interface requirements, and site parameters are derived from Tier 2
information. Tier 1 information includes:
1. Definitions and general provisions;
2. Design descriptions;
3. Inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria
(ITAAC);
4. Significant site parameters; and
5. Significant interface requirements.
E. Tier 2 means the portion of the design-related information
contained in the generic DCD that is approved but not certified by
this appendix (hereinafter Tier 2 information). Compliance with Tier
2 is required, but generic changes to and plant-specific departures
from Tier 2 are governed by Section VIII of this appendix.
Compliance with Tier 2 provides a sufficient, but not the only
acceptable, method for complying with Tier 1. Compliance methods
differing from Tier 2 must satisfy the change process in Section
VIII of this appendix. Regardless of these differences, an applicant
or licensee must meet the requirement in Section III.B to reference
Tier 2 when referencing Tier 1. Tier 2 information includes:
1. Information required by 10 CFR 52.47, with the exception of
generic technical specifications and conceptual design information;
[[Page 72016]]
2. Information required for a final safety analysis report under
10 CFR 50.34;
3. Supporting information on the inspections, tests, and
analyses that will be performed to demonstrate that the acceptance
criteria in the ITAAC have been met; and
4. Combined license (COL) action items (combined license
information), which identify certain matters that shall be addressed
in the site-specific portion of the final safety analysis report
(FSAR) by an applicant who references this appendix. These items
constitute information requirements but are not the only acceptable
set of information in the FSAR. An applicant may depart from or omit
these items, provided that the departure or omission is identified
and justified in the FSAR. After issuance of a construction permit
or COL, these items are not requirements for the licensee unless
such items are restated in the FSAR.
5. The investment protection short-term availability controls in
Section 16.3 of the DCD.
F. Tier 2* means the portion of the Tier 2 information,
designated as such in the generic DCD, which is subject to the
change process in VIII.B.6 of this appendix. This designation
expires for some Tier 2* information under VIII.B.6.
G. All other terms in this appendix have the meaning set out in
10 CFR 50.2, 10 CFR 52.3, or Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, as applicable.
III. Scope and Contents
A. Tier 1, Tier 2 (including the investment protection short-
term availability controls in Section 16.3), and the generic
technical specifications in the AP600 DCD (12/99 revision) are
approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the
Office of the Federal Register on January 24, 2000 in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of the generic DCD
may be obtained from Mr. Brian A. McIntyre, Manager, Advanced Plant
Safety and Licensing, Westinghouse Electric Company, P.O. Box 355,
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355. A copy of the generic DCD is available
for examination and copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L
Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies are also
available for examination at the NRC Library, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20582; and the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
B. An applicant or licensee referencing this appendix, in
accordance with Section IV of this appendix, shall incorporate by
reference and comply with the requirements of this appendix,
including Tier 1, Tier 2 (including the investment protection short-
term availability controls in Section 16.3), and the generic
technical specifications except as otherwise provided in this
appendix. Conceptual design information in the generic DCD and the
evaluation of severe accident mitigation design alternatives in
Appendix 1B of the generic DCD are not part of this appendix.
C. If there is a conflict between Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the DCD,
then Tier 1 controls.
D. If there is a conflict between the generic DCD and either the
application for design certification of the AP600 design or NUREG-
1512, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Certification of
the AP600 Standard Design,'' (FSER), then the generic DCD controls.
E. Design activities for structures, systems, and components
that are wholly outside the scope of this appendix may be performed
using site-specific design parameters, provided the design
activities do not affect the DCD or conflict with the interface
requirements.
IV. Additional Requirements and Restrictions
A. An applicant for a license that wishes to reference this
appendix shall, in addition to complying with the requirements of 10
CFR 52.77, 52.78, and 52.79, comply with the following requirements:
1. Incorporate by reference, as part of its application, this
appendix.
2. Include, as part of its application:
a. A plant-specific DCD containing the same information and
utilizing the same organization and numbering as the AP600 DCD, as
modified and supplemented by the applicant's exemptions and
departures;
b. The reports on departures from and updates to the plant-
specific DCD required by X.B of this appendix;
c. Plant-specific technical specifications, consisting of the
generic and site-specific technical specifications, that are
required by 10 CFR 50.36 and 50.36a;
d. Information demonstrating compliance with the site parameters
and interface requirements;
e. Information that addresses the COL action items; and
f. Information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a) that is not within
the scope of this appendix.
3. Physically include, in the plant-specific DCD, the
proprietary and safeguards information referenced in the AP600 DCD.
B. The Commission reserves the right to determine in what manner
this appendix may be referenced by an applicant for a construction
permit or operating license under Part 50.
V. Applicable Regulations
A. Except as indicated in paragraph B of this section, the
regulations that apply to the AP600 design are in 10 CFR Parts 20,
50, 73, and 100, codified as of December 16, 1999, that are
applicable and technically relevant, as described in the FSER
(NUREG-1512) and the supplementary information for this section.
B. The AP600 design is exempt from portions of the following
regulations:
1. Paragraph (a)(1) of 10 CFR 50.34--whole body dose criterion;
2. Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34--Plant Safety Parameter
Display Console;
3. Paragraphs (f)(2)(vii), (viii), (xxvi), and (xxviii) of 10
CFR 50.34--Accident Source Term in TID 14844;
4. Paragraph (a)(2) of 10 CFR 50.55a--ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code;
5. Paragraph (c)(1) of 10 CFR 50.62--Auxiliary (or emergency)
feedwater system;
6. Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, GDC 17--Offsite Power Sources;
and
7. Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, GDC 19--whole body dose
criterion.
VI. Issue Resolution
A. The Commission has determined that the structures, systems,
components, and design features of the AP600 design comply with the
provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
applicable regulations identified in Section V of this appendix; and
therefore, provide adequate protection to the health and safety of
the public. A conclusion that a matter is resolved includes the
finding that additional or alternative structures, systems,
components, design features, design criteria, testing, analyses,
acceptance criteria, or justifications are not necessary for the
AP600 design.
B. The Commission considers the following matters resolved
within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4) in subsequent proceedings
for issuance of a combined license, amendment of a combined license,
or renewal of a combined license, proceedings held pursuant to 10
CFR 52.103, and enforcement proceedings involving plants referencing
this appendix:
1. All nuclear safety issues, except for the generic technical
specifications and other operational requirements, associated with
the information in the FSER, Tier 1, Tier 2 (including referenced
information, which the context indicates is intended as
requirements, and the investment protection short-term availability
controls in Section 16.3), and the rulemaking record for
certification of the AP600 design;
2. All nuclear safety and safeguards issues associated with the
information in proprietary and safeguards documents, referenced and
in context, are intended as requirements in the generic DCD for the
AP600 design;
3. All generic changes to the DCD pursuant to and in compliance
with the change processes in Sections VIII.A.1 and VIII.B.1 of this
appendix;
4. All exemptions from the DCD pursuant to and in compliance
with the change processes in Sections VIII.A.4 and VIII.B.4 of this
appendix, but only for that proceeding;
5. All departures from the DCD that are approved by license
amendment, but only for that proceeding;
6. Except as provided in VIII.B.5.f of this appendix, all
departures from Tier 2 pursuant to and in compliance with the change
processes in VIII.B.5 of this appendix that do not require prior NRC
approval;
7. All environmental issues concerning severe accident
mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs) associated with the
information in the NRC's environmental assessment for the AP600
design and Appendix 1B of the generic DCD, for plants referencing
this appendix whose site parameters are within those specified in
the SAMDA evaluation.
C. The Commission does not consider operational requirements for
an applicant or licensee who references this appendix to be matters
resolved within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4). The Commission
reserves the right to require operational requirements for an
applicant or licensee who references this appendix by rule,
regulation, order, or license condition.
D. Except in accordance with the change processes in Section
VIII of this appendix, the Commission may not require an applicant
or licensee who references this appendix to:
[[Page 72017]]
1. Modify structures, systems, components, or design features as
described in the generic DCD;
2. Provide additional or alternative structures, systems,
components, or design features not discussed in the generic DCD; or
3. Provide additional or alternative design criteria, testing,
analyses, acceptance criteria, or justification for structures,
systems, components, or design features discussed in the generic
DCD.
E.1. Persons who wish to review proprietary and safeguards
information or other secondary references in the AP600 DCD, in order
to request or participate in the hearing required by 10 CFR 52.85 or
the hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103, or to request or
participate in any other hearing relating to this appendix in which
interested persons have adjudicatory hearing rights, shall first
request access to such information from Westinghouse. The request
must state with particularity:
a. The nature of the proprietary or other information sought;
b. The reason why the information currently available to the
public at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, and/or at the NRC's
Public Document Room, is insufficient;
c. The relevance of the requested information to the hearing
issue(s) which the person proposes to raise; and
d. A showing that the requesting person has the capability to
understand and utilize the requested information.
2. If a person claims that the information is necessary to
prepare a request for hearing, the request must be filed no later
than 15 days after publication in the Federal Register of the notice
required either by 10 CFR 52.85 or 10 CFR 52.103. If Westinghouse
declines to provide the information sought, Westinghouse shall send
a written response within ten (10) days of receiving the request to
the requesting person setting forth with particularity the reasons
for its refusal. The person may then request the Commission (or
presiding officer, if a proceeding has been established) to order
disclosure. The person shall include copies of the original request
(and any subsequent clarifying information provided by the
requesting party to the applicant) and the applicant's response. The
Commission and presiding officer shall base their decisions solely
on the person's original request (including any clarifying
information provided by the requesting person to Westinghouse), and
Westinghouse's response. The Commission and presiding officer may
order Westinghouse to provide access to some or all of the requested
information, subject to an appropriate non-disclosure agreement.
VII. Duration of This Appendix
This appendix may be referenced for a period of 15 years from
January 24, 2000, except as provided for in 10 CFR 52.55(b) and
52.57(b). This appendix remains valid for an applicant or licensee
who references this appendix until the application is withdrawn or
the license expires, including any period of extended operation
under a renewed license.
VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures
A. Tier 1 information.
1. Generic changes to Tier 1 information are governed by the
requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1).
2. Generic changes to Tier 1 information are applicable to all
applicants or licensees who reference this appendix, except those
for which the change has been rendered technically irrelevant by
action taken under paragraphs A.3 or A.4 of this section.
3. Departures from Tier 1 information that are required by the
Commission through plant-specific orders are governed by the
requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3).
4. Exemptions from Tier 1 information are governed by the
requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1) and Sec. 52.97(b). The Commission
will deny a request for an exemption from Tier 1, if it finds that
the design change will result in a significant decrease in the level
of safety otherwise provided by the design.
B. Tier 2 information.
1. Generic changes to Tier 2 information are governed by the
requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1).
2. Generic changes to Tier 2 information are applicable to all
applicants or licensees who reference this appendix, except those
for which the change has been rendered technically irrelevant by
action taken under paragraphs B.3, B.4, B.5, or B.6 of this section.
3. The Commission may not require new requirements on Tier 2
information by plant-specific order while this appendix is in effect
under Secs. 52.55 or 52.61, unless:
a. A modification is necessary to secure compliance with the
Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time this
appendix was approved, as set forth in Section V of this appendix,
or to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety or
the common defense and security; and
b. Special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a) are
present.
4. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix may
request an exemption from Tier 2 information. The Commission may
grant such a request only if it determines that the exemption will
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a). The Commission will
deny a request for an exemption from Tier 2, if it finds that the
design change will result in a significant decrease in the level of
safety otherwise provided by the design. The grant of an exemption
to an applicant must be subject to litigation in the same manner as
other issues material to the license hearing. The grant of an
exemption to a licensee must be subject to an opportunity for a
hearing in the same manner as license amendments.
5.a. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix may
depart from Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, unless
the proposed departure involves a change to or departure from Tier 1
information, Tier 2* information, or the technical specifications,
or involves an unreviewed safety question as defined in paragraphs
B.5.b and B.5.c of this section. When evaluating the proposed
departure, an applicant or licensee shall consider all matters
described in the plant-specific DCD.
b. A proposed departure from Tier 2, other than one affecting
resolution of a severe accident issue identified in the plant-
specific DCD, involves an unreviewed safety question if--
(1) The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an
accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously
evaluated in the plant-specific DCD may be increased;
(2) A possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different
type than any evaluated previously in the plant-specific DCD may be
created; or
(3) The margin of safety as defined in the basis for any
technical specification is reduced.
c. A proposed departure from Tier 2 affecting resolution of a
severe accident issue identified in the plant-specific DCD, involves
an unreviewed safety question if--
(1) There is a substantial increase in the probability of a
severe accident such that a particular severe accident previously
reviewed and determined to be not credible could become credible; or
(2) There is a substantial increase in the consequences to the
public of a particular severe accident previously reviewed.
d. If a departure involves an unreviewed safety question as
defined in paragraph B.5 of this section, it is governed by 10 CFR
50.90.
e. A departure from Tier 2 information that is made under
paragraph B.5 of this section does not require an exemption from
this appendix.
f. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding for either the
issuance, amendment, or renewal of a license or for operation under
10 CFR 52.103(a), who believes that an applicant or licensee who
references this appendix has not complied with VIII.B.5 of this
appendix when departing from Tier 2 information, may petition to
admit into the proceeding such a contention. In addition to
compliance with the general requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b)(2), the
petition must demonstrate that the departure does not comply with
VIII.B.5 of this appendix. Further, the petition must demonstrate
that the change bears on an asserted noncompliance with an ITAAC
acceptance criterion in the case of a 10 CFR 52.103 preoperational
hearing, or that the change bears directly on the amendment request
in the case of a hearing on a license amendment. Any other party may
file a response. If, on the basis of the petition and any response,
the presiding officer determines that a sufficient showing has been
made, the presiding officer shall certify the matter directly to the
Commission for determination of the admissibility of the contention.
The Commission may admit such a contention if it determines the
petition raises a genuine issue of fact regarding compliance with
VIII.B.5 of this appendix.
6.a. An applicant who references this appendix may not depart
from Tier 2* information, which is designated with italicized text
or brackets and an asterisk in the generic DCD, without NRC
approval. The departure will not be considered a resolved issue,
within the meaning of Section VI of this appendix and 10 CFR
52.63(a)(4).
b. A licensee who references this appendix may not depart from
the following Tier 2*
[[Page 72018]]
matters without prior NRC approval. A request for a departure will
be treated as a request for a license amendment under 10 CFR 50.90.
(1) Maximum fuel rod average burn-up.
(2) Fuel principal design requirements.
(3) Fuel criteria evaluation process.
(4) Fire areas.
(5) Human factors engineering.
c. A licensee who references this appendix may not, before the
plant first achieves full power following the finding required by 10
CFR 52.103(g), depart from the following Tier 2* matters except in
accordance with paragraph B.6.b of this section. After the plant
first achieves full power, the following Tier 2* matters revert to
Tier 2 status and are thereafter subject to the departure provisions
in paragraph B.5 of this section.
(1) Nuclear Island structural dimensions.
(2) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, and Code
Case N-284.
(3) Design Summary of Critical Sections.
(4) ACI 318, ACI 349, and ANSI/AISC--690.
(5) Definition of critical locations and thicknesses.
(6) Seismic qualification methods and standards.
(7) Nuclear design of fuel and reactivity control system, except
burn-up limit.
(8) Motor-operated and power-operated valves.
(9) Instrumentation and control system design processes,
methods, and standards.
(10) PRHR natural circulation test (first plant only).
(11) ADS and CMT verification tests (first three plants only).
d. Departures from Tier 2* information that are made under
paragraph B.6 of this section do not require an exemption from this
appendix.
C. Operational requirements.
1. Generic changes to generic technical specifications and other
operational requirements that were completely reviewed and approved
in the design certification rulemaking and do not require a change
to a design feature in the generic DCD are governed by the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.109. Generic changes that do require a
change to a design feature in the generic DCD are governed by the
requirements in paragraphs A or B of this section.
2. Generic changes to generic technical specifications and other
operational requirements are applicable to all applicants or
licensees who reference this appendix, except those for which the
change has been rendered technically irrelevant by action taken
under paragraphs C.3 or C.4 of this section.
3. The Commission may require plant-specific departures on
generic technical specifications and other operational requirements
that were completely reviewed and approved, provided a change to a
design feature in the generic DCD is not required and special
circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 2.758(b) are present. The
Commission may modify or supplement generic technical specifications
and other operational requirements that were not completely reviewed
and approved or require additional technical specifications and
other operational requirements on a plant-specific basis, provided a
change to a design feature in the generic DCD is not required.
4. An applicant who references this appendix may request an
exemption from the generic technical specifications or other
operational requirements. The Commission may grant such a request
only if it determines that the exemption will comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a). The grant of an exemption must be
subject to litigation in the same manner as other issues material to
the license hearing.
5. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding for either the
issuance, amendment, or renewal of a license or for operation under
10 CFR 52.103(a), who believes that an operational requirement
approved in the DCD or a technical specification derived from the
generic technical specifications must be changed may petition to
admit into the proceeding such a contention. Such petition must
comply with the general requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b)(2) and must
demonstrate why special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 2.758(b)
are present, or for compliance with the Commission's regulations in
effect at the time this appendix was approved, as set forth in
Section V of this appendix. Any other party may file a response
thereto. If, on the basis of the petition and any response, the
presiding officer determines that a sufficient showing has been
made, the presiding officer shall certify the matter directly to the
Commission for determination of the admissibility of the contention.
All other issues with respect to the plant-specific technical
specifications or other operational requirements are subject to a
hearing as part of the license proceeding.
6. After issuance of a license, the generic technical
specifications have no further effect on the plant-specific
technical specifications and changes to the plant-specific technical
specifications will be treated as license amendments under 10 CFR
50.90.
IX. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
A.1 An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
perform and demonstrate conformance with the ITAAC before fuel load.
With respect to activities subject to an ITAAC, an applicant for a
license may proceed at its own risk with design and procurement
activities, and a licensee may proceed at its own risk with design,
procurement, construction, and preoperational activities, even
though the NRC may not have found that any particular ITAAC has been
satisfied.
2. The licensee who references this appendix shall notify the
NRC that the required inspections, tests, and analyses in the ITAAC
have been successfully completed and that the corresponding
acceptance criteria have been met.
3. In the event that an activity is subject to an ITAAC, and the
applicant or licensee who references this appendix has not
demonstrated that the ITAAC has been satisfied, the applicant or
licensee may either take corrective actions to successfully complete
that ITAAC, request an exemption from the ITAAC in accordance with
Section VIII of this appendix and 10 CFR 52.97(b), or petition for
rulemaking to amend this appendix by changing the requirements of
the ITAAC, under 10 CFR 2.802 and 52.97(b). Such rulemaking changes
to the ITAAC must meet the requirements of paragraph VIII.A.1 of
this appendix.
B.1 The NRC shall ensure that the required inspections, tests,
and analyses in the ITAAC are performed. The NRC shall verify that
the inspections, tests, and analyses referenced by the licensee have
been successfully completed and, based solely thereon, find the
prescribed acceptance criteria have been met. At appropriate
intervals during construction, the NRC shall publish notices of the
successful completion of ITAAC in the Federal Register.
2. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.99 and 52.103(g), the Commission
shall find that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC for the license
are met before fuel load.
3. After the Commission has made the finding required by 10 CFR
52.103(g), the ITAAC do not, by virtue of their inclusion within the
DCD, constitute regulatory requirements either for licensees or for
renewal of the license; except for specific ITAAC, which are the
subject of a Section 103(a) hearing, their expiration will occur
upon final Commission action in such proceeding. However, subsequent
modifications must comply with the Tier 1 and Tier 2 design
descriptions in the plant-specific DCD unless the licensee has
complied with the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 52.97 and
Section VIII of this appendix.
X. Records and Reporting
A. Records
1. The applicant for this appendix shall maintain a copy of the
generic DCD that includes all generic changes to Tier 1 and Tier 2.
The applicant shall maintain the proprietary and safeguards
information referenced in the generic DCD for the period that this
appendix may be referenced, as specified in Section VII of this
appendix.
2. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
maintain the plant-specific DCD to accurately reflect both generic
changes to the generic DCD and plant-specific departures made
pursuant to Section VIII of this appendix throughout the period of
application and for the term of the license (including any period of
renewal).
3. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
prepare and maintain written safety evaluations which provide the
bases for the determinations required by Section VIII of this
appendix. These evaluations must be retained throughout the period
of application and for the term of the license (including any period
of renewal).
B. Reporting
1. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
submit a report to the NRC containing a brief description of any
departures from the plant-specific DCD, including a summary of the
safety evaluation of each. This report must be filed in accordance
with the filing requirements applicable to reports in 10 CFR 50.4.
2. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
submit updates to its
[[Page 72019]]
plant-specific DCD, which reflect the generic changes to the generic
DCD and the plant-specific departures made pursuant to Section VIII
of this appendix. These updates shall be filed in accordance with
the filing requirements applicable to final safety analysis report
updates in 10 CFR 50.4 and 50.71(e).
3. The reports and updates required by paragraphs B.1 and B.2 of
this section must be submitted as follows:
a. On the date that an application for a license referencing
this appendix is submitted, the application shall include the report
and any updates to the plant-specific DCD.
b. During the interval from the date of application to the date
of issuance of a license, the report and any updates to the plant-
specific DCD must be submitted annually and may be submitted along
with amendments to the application.
c. During the interval from the date of issuance of a license to
the date the Commission makes its findings under 10 CFR 52.103(g),
the report must be submitted quarterly. Updates to the plant-
specific DCD must be submitted annually.
d. After the Commission has made its finding under 10 CFR
52.103(g), reports and updates to the plant-specific DCD may be
submitted annually or along with updates to the site-specific
portion of the final safety analysis report for the facility at the
intervals required by 10 CFR 50.71(e), or at shorter intervals as
specified in the license.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of December, 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-33142 Filed 12-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P