[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16549-16570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6839]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 16549]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 52
[NRC-2010-0135]
RIN 3150-AI85
ESBWR Design Certification
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)
proposes to amend its regulations to certify the Economic Simplified
Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) standard plant design. This action is
necessary so that applicants or licensees intending to construct and
operate an ESBWR design may do so by referencing this design
certification rule (DCR). The applicant for certification of the ESBWR
design is GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH). The public is invited to
submit comments on this proposed DCR, the generic design control
document (DCD) that would be incorporated by reference into the DCR,
and the environmental assessment (EA) for the ESBWR design.
DATES: Submit comments on the DCR, DCD and/or EA by June 7, 2011.
Submit comments specific to the information collections aspects of this
rule by April 25, 2011. Comments received after the above dates will be
considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration
cannot be given to comments received after these dates.
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2010-0135 in the subject line
of your comments. For instructions on submitting comments and accessing
documents related to this action, see Section I, ``Submitting Comments
and Accessing Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. You may submit comments by any one of the following
methods.
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2010-0135. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: 301-492-3668; e-mail: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If you do
not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your
comments, contact us directly at 301-415-1966.
Hand Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. during Federal workdays
(telephone: 301-415-1966).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at 301-415-1101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George M. Tartal, Office of New
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-0016; e-mail: [email protected]; or Bruce
M. Bavol, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6715; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
II. Background
III. Regulatory and Policy Issues
IV. Technical Evaluation of the ESBWR
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Introduction (Section I)
B. Definitions (Section II)
C. Scope and Contents (Section III)
D. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
E. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
F. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
G. Duration of This Appendix (Section VII)
H. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
(Section IX)
J. Records and Reporting (Section X)
VI. Agreement State Compatibility
VII. Availability of Documents
VIII. Procedures for Access to Proprietary Information, Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (Including Proprietary
Information) and Safeguards Information for Preparation of Comments
on the Proposed ESBWR Design Certification Rule
IX. Plain Language
X. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XI. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XIII. Regulatory Analysis
XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XV. Backfitting
I. Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted
on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed. The NRC requests that any party soliciting or
aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the
NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to
remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in their comments that they do not
want publicly disclosed.
Documents that are not publicly available because they are
considered to be either Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (SUNSI) (including SUNSI constituting ``proprietary
information'' \1\) or Safeguards Information (SGI) may be available to
interested persons who may wish to comment on the proposed design
certification. Such persons shall follow the procedures described in
the Supplementary Information section of this notice, under the
heading, ``VIII. Procedures for Access to SUNSI (Including Proprietary
information) and Safeguards Information for Preparation of Comments on
the Proposed ESBWR Design Certification Rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this discussion, ``proprietary information''
constitutes trade secrets or commercial or financial information
that are privileged or confidential, as those terms are used under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the NRC's implementing
regulation at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
part 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can access publicly available documents related to this
document, including the following documents, using the following
methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555
[[Page 16550]]
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public
can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's
PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and
supporting materials related to this proposed rule can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2010-0135.
II. Background
Subpart B to 10 CFR part 52 sets forth the process for obtaining
standard design certifications. On August 24, 2005 (70 FR 56745), GEH
tendered its application for certification of the ESBWR standard plant
design with the NRC. The GEH submitted this application in accordance
with Subpart B of 10 CFR part 52. The NRC formally accepted the
application as a docketed application for design certification (Docket
No. 52-010) on December 1, 2005 (70 FR 73311). The pre-application
information submitted before the NRC formally accepted the application
can be found in ADAMS under Docket No. PROJ0717 (Project No. 717).
The application for design certification of the ESBWR design has
been referenced in the following combined license (COL) application as
of the date of this document:
Detroit Edison Company, Fermi Unit 3, Docket No. 52-033 (73 FR
73350; December 2, 2008).
III. Regulatory and Policy Issues
Human Factors Operational Programs
The NRC is implementing existing Commission policy, that
operational programs should be excluded from finality except where
necessary to find design elements acceptable, in a manner different
from other existing design certification rules. This policy is
described in the December 6, 1996, staff requirements memorandum (SRM)
to SECY-96-077, ``Certification of Two Evolutionary Designs,'' dated
April 15, 1996. The NRC proposes to exclude the two Human Factors
Engineering (HFE) operational program elements in Chapter 18 of the
ESBWR DCD from the scope of the design approved in the rule. There are
12 elements in the HFE program. Two of the elements concern operational
programs (procedures and training) that are not used to assess the
adequacy of the HFE design. However, the GEH description of these two
HFE operational programs addresses existing NRC guidelines in NUREG-
0711, Revision 2, ``Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model,''
which are comprehensive, and go beyond the operational program
information needed as input to the HFE design. In addition, the
training and procedure elements included in the HFE program are
redundant to what is reviewed as part of the operational programs
described in Chapter 13 of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800).
Accordingly, the NRC is revising the HFE regulatory guidance in NUREG-
0711 to address this overlap, but the revised guidance is not expected
to be completed until late 2011. In keeping with the established
Commission policy of not approving operational program elements through
design certification except where necessary to find design elements
acceptable, the NRC proposes to exclude the two HFE operational program
elements in the ESBWR DCD from the scope of the design approved in the
rule. This would be done explicitly in Section VI, Issue Resolution, of
the rule, by excluding the two HFE operational program elements from
the finality accorded to the design. This exclusion would be unique to
the ESBWR design because all other DCDs for the previously certified
designs do not include operational program descriptions of HFE training
and procedures and the respective DCRs did not include specific
exclusions from finality for it.
Access to SUNSI and SGI in Connection With License Applications
In the four currently approved design certifications (10 CFR part
52, Appendices A through D), paragraph VI.E sets forth specific
directions on how to obtain access to proprietary information and SGI
on the design certification in connection with a license application
proceeding referencing that design certification rule. These provisions
were developed before the events of September 11, 2001. After September
11, 2001, Congress has changed the statutory requirements governing
access to SGI, and the NRC has revised its rules, procedures, and
practices governing control of and access to SUNSI and SGI. The NRC now
believes that generic direction on obtaining access to SUNSI and SGI is
no longer appropriate for newly approved DCRs. Accordingly, the
specific requirements governing access to SUNSI and SGI contained in
paragraph VI.E of the four currently approved DCRs should not be
included in the design certification rule for the ESBWR. Instead, the
NRC should specify the procedures to be used for obtaining access at an
appropriate time in the COL proceeding referencing the ESBWR DCR. The
NRC intends to include this change in any future amendment or renewal
of the existing DCRs. However, the NRC is not planning to initiate
rulemaking to change paragraph VI.E of the existing DCRs, in order to
minimize unnecessary resource expenditures by both the original DCR
applicant and the NRC.
IV. Technical Evaluation of the ESBWR
The NRC issued a final safety evaluation report (FSER) for the
ESBWR design in March 2011. The FSER provides the basis for issuance of
a design certification under Subpart B to 10 CFR part 52 and a final
design approval under Subpart E to 10 CFR part 52. The GEH has
requested the NRC provide its design approval for the ESBWR design
under Subpart E. The final design approval for the ESBWR design will be
issued before publication of a final rule.
The significant technical issues that were resolved during the
review of the ESBWR design are the regulatory treatment of non-safety
systems (RTNSS), containment performance, control room cooling, steam
dryer methodology, feedwater temperature (FWT) domain, aircraft impact
assessment and the use of Code Case N-782.
Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems
The ESBWR relies on passive systems to perform safety functions
credited in the design basis for 72 hours following an initiating
event. After 72 hours, non-safety systems, either passive or active,
replenish the passive systems in order to keep them operating or
perform post-accident recovery functions directly. The ESBWR design
also uses nonsafety-related active systems to provide defense-in-depth
capabilities for key safety functions provided by passive systems. The
challenge during the review was to identify the non-safety systems,
structures and components (SSCs) that should receive enhanced
regulatory treatment and to identify the appropriate regulatory
treatment to be applied to these SSCs. Such SSCs are denoted as ``RTNS
SSCs.'' As a result of
[[Page 16551]]
the NRC's review, the applicant added Appendix 19A to the DCD to
identify the nonsafety systems that perform these post-72 hour or
defense-in-depth functions and the basis for their selection. The
applicant's selection process was based on the guidance in SECY-94-084,
``Policy and Technical Issues Associated with the Regulatory Treatment
of Non-Safety Systems in Passive Plant Designs.''
To provide reasonable assurance that RTNSS SSCs will be available
if called upon to function, the applicant established availability
controls in DCD Tier 2, Appendix 19ACM, and Technical Specifications
(TS) in DCD Tier 2, Chapter 16, when required by 10 CFR 50.36. The
applicant also included all RTNSS SSCs in the reliability assurance
program described in Chapter 17 of DCD Tier 2 and applied augmented
design standards as described in DCD Tier 2, Section 19A.8.3. The NRC
finds the applicant's implementation of the RTNSS process described in
the DCD acceptable.
Containment Performance
The passive containment cooling system (PCCS) maintains the
containment within its design pressure and temperature limits for
design-basis accidents. The system is passive and does not rely upon
moving components or external power for initiation or operation for 72
hours following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The PCCS and its
design basis are described in detail in Section 6.2.2 of the DCD Tier
2. The NRC identified a concern regarding the PCCS long-term cooling
capability for the period from 72 hours to 30 days following a LOCA. To
address this concern, the applicant proposed additional design features
credited after 72 hours to reduce the long-term containment pressure.
The features are the PCCS vent fans and passive autocatalytic
recombiners as described in DCD Tier 2, Section 6.2.1. These SSCs have
been indentified in DCD Appendix 19A as RTNSS SSCs.
The applicant provided calculation results to demonstrate that the
long-term containment pressure would be acceptable and that the design
complies with general design criterion (GDC) 38. The NRC's independent
calculations confirmed the applicant's conclusion and the NRC accepts
the proposed design and licensing basis. The NRC also raised a concern
regarding the potential accumulation of high concentrations of hydrogen
and oxygen in the PCCS and isolation condenser system (ICS), which
could lead to combustion following a LOCA. The applicant modified the
design of the PCCS and ICS heat exchangers to withstand potential
hydrogen detonations. The NRC concludes that the design changes to the
PCCS and ICS are acceptable and meet the applicable requirements.
Control Room Cooling
The ESBWR primarily relies on the mass and structure of the control
building to maintain acceptable temperatures for human and equipment
performance for up to 72 hours on loss of normal cooling. The NRC had
not previously approved this approach for maintaining acceptable
temperatures in the control building. The applicant proposed acceptance
criteria for the evaluation of the control building structure's thermal
performance based on industry and NRC guidelines. The applicant
incorporates by reference an analysis of the control building
structure's thermal performance as described in Tier 2, Sections 3H,
6.4, and 9.4. The applicant also proposed ITAAC to confirm that an
updated analysis of the as-built structure continues to meet the
thermal performance acceptance criteria. The NRC finds that the
applicant's acceptance criteria are consistent with the advanced light-
water reactor control room envelope atmosphere temperature limits in
NUREG-1242, ``NRC Review of Electric Power Research Institute's
Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document,'' and the
use of the wet bulb globe temperature index in evaluation of heat
stress conditions as described in NUREG-0700, ``Human-System Interface
Design Review Guidelines.'' The NRC finds the control building
structure thermal performance analysis and ITAAC acceptable based on
the analysis using bounding environmental assumptions which will be
confirmed by the ITAAC. Accordingly, the NRC finds that the acceptance
criteria, control building structure thermal performance analysis, and
the ITAAC, provide reasonable assurance that acceptable temperatures
will be maintained in the control building for 72 hours. Therefore, the
NRC finds that the control building design in regard to thermal
performance conforms to the guidelines of Standard Review Plan Section
6.4 and complies with the requirements of the general design criteria
of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, GDC 19.
Feedwater Temperature Operating Domain
In operating boiling-water reactors the recirculation pumps are
used in combination with the control rods to control and maneuver
reactor power level during normal power operation. The ESBWR design is
unique in that the core is cooled by natural circulation during normal
operation, and there are no recirculation pumps. In Chapter 15 of the
DCD, GEH references the licensing topical report (LTR) NEDO-33338,
Revision 1, ``ESBWR Feedwater Temperature Operating Domain Transient
and Accident Analysis.'' This LTR describes a broadening of the ESBWR
operating domain, which allows for increased flexibility of operation
by adjusting the FWT. This increased flexibility accommodates the so-
called ``soft'' operating practices, which reduce the duty (mechanical
stress) to the fuel and minimize the probability of pellet-clad
interactions and associated fuel failures.
By adjusting the FWT, the operator can control the reactor power
level without control blade motion and with minimum impact on the fuel
duty. Control blade maneuvering can also be performed at lower power
levels.
To control the FWT, the ESBWR design includes a seventh feedwater
heater with high-pressure steam. FWT is controlled by either
manipulating the main steam flow to the No. 7 feedwater heater to
increase FWT above the temperature normally provided by the feedwater
heaters with turbine extraction steam (normal FWT) or by directing a
portion of the feedwater flow around the high-pressure feedwater
heaters to decrease FWT below the normal FWT. An increase in FWT
decreases reactor power, and a decrease in FWT increases reactor power.
The applicant provided analyses that demonstrated ample margin to
acceptance criteria. The NRC concludes that the applicant has
adequately accounted for the effects of the proposed FWT operating
domain extension on the nuclear design. Further, the applicant has
demonstrated that the fuel design limits will not be exceeded during
normal or anticipated operational transients and that the effects of
postulated transients and accidents will not impair the capability to
cool the core. Based on this evaluation, the NRC concludes that the
nuclear design of the fuel assemblies, control systems, and reactor
core will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements.
Steam Dryer Design Methodology
As a result of reactor pressure vessel (RPV) steam dryer issues at
operating BWRs, the NRC issued revised guidance concerning the
evaluation of steam dryers. The guidance requested analysis to show
that the dryer will maintain its structural integrity during plant
operation in spite of or in the face of
[[Page 16552]]
acoustic and hydrodynamic fluctuating pressure loads. This
demonstration of RPV steam dryer structural integrity consists of three
steps:
(1) Predict the fluctuating pressure loads on the dryer,
(2) Use these fluctuating pressure loads in a structural analysis
to qualify the steam dryer design, and
(3) Implement a startup test program for confirming the steam dryer
design analysis results during the initial plant power ascension
testing.
The Plant Based Load Evaluation (PBLE) methodology is an analytical
tool developed by GEH to predict fluctuating pressure loads on the
steam dryer. Section 3.9.5 of the DCD references the GEH LTR NEDE-
33313P, ``ESBWR Steam Dryer Structural Evaluation,'' which references
LTR NEDE-33312P, ``ESBWR Steam Dryer Acoustic Load Definition,'' which
references the PBLE load definition method. The PBLE method is
described in LTR NEDC-33408P, ``ESBWR Steam Dryer-Plant Base Load
Evaluation Methodology.'' This LTR provides the theoretical basis for
determining the fluctuating loads on the ESBWR steam dryer, describes
the PBLE analytical model, determines the biases and uncertainties of
the PBLE formulation, and describes the application of the PBLE method
to the evaluation of the ESBWR steam dryer.
The NRC's review of the PBLE methodology concludes that it is
technically sound and provides a conservative analytical approach for
definition of flow-induced acoustic pressure loading on the ESBWR steam
dryer. The application of the PBLE load definition process together
with the design criteria from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Code, Section III, Article NG-3000 in combination with
the proposed start up test program provide assurance of the structural
integrity of the steam dryer. Implementation of the analytical, design,
and testing methodology for the ESBWR steam dryer demonstrate
conformance with the general design criteria of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix A, GDCs 1, 2, and 4.
Aircraft Impact Assessment
Under 10 CFR 50.150, which became effective on July 13, 2009,
designers of new nuclear power reactors are required to perform an
assessment of the effects on the designed facility of the impact of a
large, commercial aircraft. An applicant for a new design certification
rule is required to submit a description of the design features and
functional capabilities identified as a result of the assessment (key
design features) in its DCD together with a description of how the
identified design features and functional capabilities show that the
acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) are met.
To address the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150, GEH completed an
assessment of the effects on the designed facility of the impact of a
large, commercial aircraft. The GEH also added Appendix 19D to DCD Tier
2 to describe the design features and functional capabilities of the
ESBWR identified as a result of the assessment that ensure the reactor
core remains cooled and the spent fuel pool integrity is maintained.
The NRC finds that the applicant has performed an aircraft impact
assessment using NRC-endorsed methodology that is reasonably formulated
to identify design features and functional capabilities to show, with
reduced use of operator action, that the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR
50.150(a)(1) are met. The NRC finds that the applicant adequately
describes the key design features and functional capabilities credited
to meet 10 CFR 50.150, including descriptions of how the key design
features and functional capabilities show that the acceptance criteria
in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) are met. Therefore, the NRC finds that the
applicant meets the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(b).
Code Case N-782
Under 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), GEH requested NRC approval for the use
of Code Case N-782 as a proposed alternative to the rules of Section
III Subsection NCA-1140 regarding applied Code Editions and Addenda
required by 10 CFR 50.55a(c), (d), and (e). Code Case N-782 provides
that the Code Edition and Addenda endorsed in a certified design or
licensed by the regulatory authority may be used for systems and
components subject to ASME Code, Section III requirements. These
alternative requirements are in lieu of the requirements that base the
Edition and Addenda on the date of the COL or manufacturing license, or
the application for a construction permit, standard design approval, or
standard design certification. Reference to Code Case N-782 will be
included in component and system design specifications and design
reports to permit certification of these specifications and reports to
the Code Edition and Addenda cited in the DCD. The NRC's bases for
approving the use of Code Case N-782 as a proposed alternative to the
requirements of Section III Subsection NCA-1140 under 10 CFR
50.55a(a)(3) for the ESBWR are described in Section 5.2.1.1.3 of the
FSER.
Exemptions
The NRC is proposing to approve an exemption from 10 CFR
50.34(f)(2)(iv) as it relates to the safety parameter display system.
This provision requires an applicant to provide a plant safety
parameter display console that will display to operators a minimum set
of parameters defining the safety status of the plant, capable of
displaying a full range of important plant parameters and data trends
on demand and indicating when process limits are being approached or
exceeded. The ESBWR design integrates the safety parameter display
system into the design of the non-safety related distribution control
and information system, rather than use a stand-alone console. The
NRC's bases for providing the exemption are described in Section
18.8.3.2 of the FSER.
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion sets forth the purpose and key aspects of
each section and paragraph of the proposed ESBWR DCR. All section and
paragraph references are to the provisions in the proposed Appendix E
to 10 CFR part 52 unless otherwise noted. The NRC has modeled the ESBWR
DCR on the existing DCRs, with certain modifications where necessary to
account for differences in the ESBWR design documentation, design
features, and EA (including severe accident mitigation design
alternatives (SAMDAs)). As a result, the DCRs are standardized to the
extent practical.
A. Introduction (Section I)
The purpose of Section I of proposed Appendix E to 10 CFR part 52
(this appendix) is to identify the standard plant design that would be
approved by this DCR and the applicant for certification of the
standard design. Identification of the design certification applicant
is necessary to implement this appendix for two reasons. First, the
implementation of 10 CFR 52.63(c) depends on whether an applicant for a
COL contracts with the design certification applicant to provide the
generic DCD and supporting design information. If the COL applicant
does not use the design certification applicant to provide the design
information and instead uses an alternate nuclear plant vendor, then
the COL applicant must meet the requirements in 10 CFR 52.73. The COL
applicant must demonstrate that the alternate supplier is qualified to
provide the standard plant design information.
[[Page 16553]]
Second, paragraph X.A.1 would require the design certification
applicant to maintain the generic DCD throughout the time this appendix
may be referenced. Thus, it is necessary to identify the entity to
which the requirement in paragraph X.A.1 applies.
B. Definitions (Section II)
During development of the first two DCRs, the Commission decided
that there would be both generic (master) DCDs maintained by the NRC
and the design certification applicant, as well as individual plant-
specific DCDs maintained by each applicant and licensee that reference
this appendix. This distinction is necessary in order to specify the
relevant plant-specific requirements to applicants and licensees
referencing the appendix. In order to facilitate the maintenance of the
master DCDs, the NRC proposes that each application for a standard
design certification be updated to include an electronic copy of the
final version of the DCD. The final version would be required to
incorporate all amendments to the DCD submitted since the original
application as well as any changes directed by the NRC as a result of
its review of the original DCD or as a result of public comments. This
final version would become the master DCD incorporated by reference in
the DCR. The master DCD would be revised as needed to include generic
changes to the version of the DCD approved in this design certification
rulemaking. These changes would occur as the result of generic
rulemaking by the Commission, under the change criteria in Section
VIII.
The Commission would also require each applicant and licensee
referencing this appendix to submit and maintain a plant-specific DCD
as part of the COL Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This plant-
specific DCD would include or 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, plant-specific departures from the
generic DCD that the Commission imposed on the licensee by order, and
any plant-specific departures that the licensee chooses to make in
accordance with the relevant processes in Section VIII. Thus, the
plant-specific DCD would function like an updated FSAR because it would
provide the most complete and accurate information on a plant's design
basis for that part of the plant within the scope of this appendix.
Therefore, this appendix would define both a generic DCD and a plant-
specific DCD.
Also, the Commission decided to treat the TS in Chapter 16 of the
generic DCD as a special category of information and to designate them
as generic TS in order to facilitate the special treatment of this
information under this appendix. A COL applicant must submit plant-
specific TS that consist of the generic TS, which may be modified under
paragraph VIII.C, and the remaining plant-specific information needed
to complete the TS. The FSAR that is required by 10 CFR 52.79 will
consist of the plant-specific DCD, the site-specific portion of the
FSAR, and the plant-specific TS.
The terms Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2*, and COL action items (license
information) are defined in this appendix because these concepts were
not envisioned when 10 CFR part 52 was developed. The design
certification applicants and the NRC used these terms in implementing
the two-tiered rule structure that was proposed by representatives of
the nuclear industry after issuance of 10 CFR part 52. Therefore,
appropriate definitions for these additional terms are included in this
appendix. The nuclear industry representatives requested a two-tiered
structure for the DCRs to achieve issue preclusion for a greater amount
of information than was originally planned for the DCRs, while
retaining flexibility for design implementation. The Commission
approved the use of a two-tiered rule structure in its SRM, dated
February 14, 1991, on SECY-90-377, ``Requirements for Design
Certification under 10 CFR Part 52,'' dated November 8, 1990. This
document and others are available in the Regulatory History of Design
Certification (see Section VII of this document).
The Tier 1 portion of the design-related information contained in
the DCD would be certified by this appendix and, therefore, subject to
the special backfit provisions in paragraph VIII.A. An applicant who
references this appendix would be required to include or incorporate by
reference and comply with Tier 1, under paragraphs III.B and IV.A.1.
This information consists of an introduction to Tier 1, the system
based and non-system based design descriptions and corresponding ITAAC,
significant interface requirements, and significant site parameters for
the design (refer to Section C.I.1.8 of Regulatory Guide 1.206 for
guidance on significant interface requirements and site parameters).
The design descriptions, interface requirements, and site parameters in
Tier 1 were derived from Tier 2, but may be more general than the Tier
2 information. The NRC staff's evaluation of the Tier 1 information is
provided in Section 14.3 of the FSER. Changes to or departures from the
Tier 1 information must comply with Section VIII.A.
The Tier 1 design descriptions serve as requirements for the
lifetime of a facility license referencing the design certification.
The inspection, test, analysis, and acceptance criterion/criteria
(ITAAC) verify that the as-built facility conforms to the approved
design and applicable regulations. Under 10 CFR 52.103(g), the
Commission must find that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC are met
before authorizing operation. After the Commission has made the finding
required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), the ITAAC do not constitute regulatory
requirements for licensees or for renewal of the COL. However,
subsequent modifications to the facility within the scope of the design
certification must comply with the design descriptions in the plant-
specific DCD unless changes are made under the change process in
Section VIII. The Tier 1 interface requirements are the most
significant of the interface requirements for systems that are wholly
or partially outside the scope of the standard design. Tier 1 interface
requirements must be met by the site-specific design features of a
facility that references this appendix. An application that references
this appendix must demonstrate that the site characteristics at the
proposed site fall within the site parameters (both Tier 1 and Tier 2)
(refer to paragraph IV.D of this document).
Tier 2 is the portion of the design-related information contained
in the DCD that would be approved by this appendix but not certified.
Tier 2 information would be subject to the backfit provisions in
paragraph VIII.B. Tier 2 includes the information required by 10 CFR
52.47(a) and 52.47(c) (with the exception of generic TS and conceptual
design information) and the supporting information on inspections,
tests, and analyses that will be performed to demonstrate that the
acceptance criteria in the ITAAC have been met. As with Tier 1,
paragraphs III.B and IV.A.1 would require an applicant who references
this appendix to include or incorporate by reference Tier 2 and to
comply with Tier 2, except for the COL action items, including the
availability controls in Appendix 19ACM 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,
[[Page 16554]]
there may be other acceptable ways of complying with Tier 1
requirements. The appropriate criteria for departing from Tier 2
information would be specified in paragraph VIII.B. Departures from
Tier 2 information would not negate the requirement in paragraph III.B
to incorporate by reference Tier 2 information.
A definition of ``combined license action items'' (COL
information), which is part of the Tier 2 information, would be added
to clarify that COL applicants who reference this appendix are required
to address COL action items in their license application. However, the
COL action items are not the only acceptable set of information. An
applicant may depart from or omit COL action items, provided that the
departure or omission is identified and justified in the FSAR. After
issuance of a construction permit or COL, these items would not be
requirements for the licensee unless they are restated in the FSAR. For
additional discussion, see Section IV.D of this document.
The availability controls, which are set forth in Appendix 19ACM of
the generic DCD, would be added to the information that is part of Tier
2 to clarify that the availability controls are not operational
requirements for the purposes of paragraph VIII.C. Rather, the
availability controls are associated with specific design features. The
availability controls may be changed if the associated design feature
is changed under paragraph VIII.B. For additional discussion, see
Section IV.C of this document.
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 analysis for
Section H, a plant-specific departure from Tier 2* information would
require prior NRC approval. However, the Tier 2* designation expires
for some of this information when the facility first achieves full
power after the finding required by 10 CFR 52.103(g). The process for
changing Tier 2* information and the time at which its status as Tier
2* expires is set forth in paragraph VIII.B.6. Some Tier 2*
requirements concerning special preoperational tests are designated to
be performed only for the first plant or first three plants referencing
the ESBWR DCR. The Tier 2* designation for these selected tests would
expire after the first plant or first three plants complete the
specified tests. However, a COL action item requires that subsequent
plants 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 regulations at 10 CFR 50.59 set forth thresholds for permitting
changes to a plant as described in the FSAR without NRC approval.
Inasmuch as 10 CFR 50.59 is the primary change mechanism for operating
nuclear plants, the Commission believes that future plants referencing
the ESBWR DCR should use thresholds as close to 10 CFR 50.59 as is
practicable and appropriate for new reactors. Because of some
differences in how the change control requirements are structured in
the DCRs, certain definitions contained in 10 CFR 50.59 are not
applicable to 10 CFR part 52 and are not being included in this
proposed rule. The Commission is including a definition for a
``departure from a method of evaluation'' (paragraph II.G), which is
appropriate to include in this rulemaking so that the eight criteria in
paragraph VIII.B.5.b will be implemented for new reactors as intended.
C. Scope and Contents (Section III)
The purpose of Section III is to describe and define the scope and
contents of this design certification and to set forth how
documentation discrepancies or inconsistencies are to be resolved.
Paragraph III.A is the required statement of the Office of the Federal
Register (OFR) for approval of the incorporation by reference of Tier
1, Tier 2, and the generic TS into this appendix. Paragraph III.B
requires COL applicants and licensees to comply with the requirements
of this appendix. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is
that the incorporated material has the same legal status as if it were
published in the Code of Federal Regulations. This material, like any
other properly-issued regulation, has the force and effect of law. Tier
1 and Tier 2 information, as well as the generic TS, have been combined
into a single document called the generic DCD, in order to effectively
control this information and facilitate its incorporation by reference
into the rule. The generic DCD was prepared to meet the technical
information contents of application requirements for design
certifications under 10 CFR 52.47(a) and the requirements of the OFR
for incorporation by reference under 1 CFR part 51. One of the
requirements of the OFR for incorporation by reference is that the
design certification applicant must make the generic DCD available upon
request after the final rule becomes effective. Therefore, paragraph
III.A would identify a GEH representative to be contacted in order to
obtain a copy of the generic DCD.
Paragraphs III.A and III.B would also identify the availability
controls in Appendix 19ACM of the generic DCD as part of the Tier 2
information. During its review of the ESBWR 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, GEH developed administrative controls to
provide a high level of confidence that active systems having a
significant safety role are available when challenged. The GEH named
these additional controls ``availability controls.'' The Commission
included this characterization in Section III to ensure that these
availability controls would be binding on applicants and licensees that
reference this appendix and would 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 is
electronically accessible under ADAMS Accession No. ML103440266; at the
OFR; and at http://www.regulations.gov by searching under Docket ID
NRC-2010-0135. Copies of the generic DCD would also be available at the
NRC's PDR. Questions concerning the accuracy of information in an
application that references this appendix will be resolved by checking
the master copy of the generic DCD in ADAMS. If the design
certification applicant makes a generic change (rulemaking) to the DCD
under 10 CFR 52.63 and the change process provided in Section VIII,
then at the completion of the rulemaking the NRC would request approval
of the Director, OFR, for the revised master DCD. The Commission would
require that the design certification applicant maintain an up-to-date
copy of the master DCD that includes any generic changes it has made
under paragraph X.A.1 because it is likely that most applicants
intending to reference the standard design would obtain the generic DCD
from the design certification applicant. Plant-specific changes to and
departures from the generic DCD would be maintained by the applicant or
licensee that references this appendix in a plant-specific DCD under
paragraph X.A.2.
In addition to requiring compliance with this appendix, paragraph
III.B would clarify that the conceptual design information and GEH's
evaluation of SAMDAs are not considered to be part of this appendix.
The conceptual design information is for those portions of the plant
that are outside the scope of the standard design and are contained in
[[Page 16555]]
Tier 2 information. As provided by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(24), these
conceptual designs are not part of this appendix and, therefore, are
not applicable to an application that references this appendix.
Therefore, the applicant would not be required to conform with the
conceptual design information that was provided by the design
certification applicant. The conceptual design information, which
consists of site-specific design features, was required to facilitate
the design certification review. Conceptual design information is
neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2. Section 1.8.2 of Tier 2 identifies the
location of the conceptual design information. The GEH'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 X of this document.
Paragraphs III.C and III.D would set forth the way potential
conflicts are to be resolved. Paragraph III.C would establish 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 III.D would establish the generic DCD as the controlling
document in the event of an inconsistency between the DCD and the FSER
for the certified standard design.
Paragraph III.E would clarify that design activities that are
wholly outside the scope of this design certification may be performed
using actual site characteristics, provided the design activities do
not affect Tier 1 or Tier 2, or conflict with the interface
requirements in the DCD. This provision would apply to site-specific
portions of the plant, such as the administration building. Because
this statement is not a definition, this provision has been located in
Section III.
D. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
Section IV would set forth additional requirements and restrictions
imposed upon an applicant who references this appendix. Paragraph IV.A
would set forth the information requirements for these applicants. This
paragraph would distinguish between information and/or documents which
must actually be included in the application or the DCD, versus those
which may be incorporated by reference (i.e., referenced in the
application as if the information or documents were included in the
application). Any incorporation by reference in the application should
be clear and should specify the title, date, edition, or version of a
document, the page number(s), and table(s) containing the relevant
information to be incorporated.
Paragraph IV.A.1 would require an applicant who references this
appendix to incorporate by reference this appendix in its application.
The legal effect of such an incorporation by reference is that this
appendix would be legally binding on the applicant or licensee.
Paragraph IV.A.2.a would require that a plant-specific DCD be included
in the initial application to ensure that the applicant commits to
complying with the DCD. This paragraph would also require the plant-
specific DCD to either include or incorporate by reference the generic
DCD information. Further, this paragraph would also require the plant-
specific DCD to use the same format as the generic DCD and reflect the
applicant's proposed exemptions and departures from the generic DCD as
of the time of submission of the application. The plant-specific DCD
would be part of the plant's FSAR, along with information for the
portions of the plant outside the scope of the referenced design.
Paragraph IV.A.2.a would also require that the initial application
include the reports on departures and exemptions as of the time of
submission of the application.
Paragraph IV.A.2.b would require that an application referencing
this appendix include the reports required by paragraph X.B for
exemptions and departures proposed by the applicant as of the date of
submission of its application. Paragraph IV.A.2.c would require
submission of plant-specific TS for the plant that consists of the
generic TS from Chapter 16 of the DCD, with any changes made under
paragraph VIII.C, and the TS for the site-specific portions of the
plant that are either partially or wholly outside the scope of this
design certification. The applicant must also provide the plant-
specific information designated in the generic TS, such as bracketed
values (refer to guidance provided in Interim Staff Guidance DC/COL-
ISG-8, ``Necessary Content of Plant-Specific Technical
Specifications'').
Paragraph IV.A.2.d would require the applicant referencing this
appendix to provide information demonstrating that the proposed site
characteristics fall within the site parameters for this appendix and
that the plant-specific interface requirements have been met as
required by 10 CFR 52.79(d). If the proposed site has a characteristic
that does not fall within one or more of the site parameters in the
DCD, then the proposed site would be unacceptable for this design
unless the applicant seeks an exemption under Section VIII and provides
adequate justification for locating the certified design on the
proposed site. Paragraph IV.A.2.e would require submission of
information addressing COL action items, identified in the generic DCD
as COL information in the application. The COL information identifies
matters that need to be addressed by an applicant who references this
appendix, as required by Subpart C of 10 CFR part 52. An applicant may
differ from or omit these items, provided that the difference or
omission is identified and justified in its application. Based on the
applicant's difference or omission, the NRC may impose additional
licensing requirement(s) on the COL applicant as appropriate. Paragraph
IV.A.2.f would require that the application include the information
specified by 10 CFR 52.47(a) that is not within the scope of this rule,
such as generic issues that must be addressed or operational issues not
addressed by a design certification, in whole or in part, by an
applicant that references this appendix. Paragraph IV.A.3 would require
the applicant to physically include, not simply reference, the SUNSI
(including proprietary information) and SGI referenced in the DCD, or
its equivalent, to ensure that the applicant has actual notice of these
requirements.
Paragraph IV.A.4 would indicate requirements that must be met in
cases where the COL applicant is not using the entity that was the
original applicant for the design certification (or amendment) to
supply the design for the applicant's use. Proposed paragraph IV.A.4
would require that a COL applicant referencing this appendix include,
as part of its application, a demonstration that an entity other than
GEH Nuclear Energy is qualified to supply the ESBWR certified design
unless GEH Nuclear Energy supplies the design for the applicant's use.
In cases where a COL applicant is not using GEH Nuclear Energy to
supply the ESBWR certified design, the required information would be
used to support any NRC finding under 10 CFR 52.73(a) that an entity
other than the one originally sponsoring the design certification or
design certification amendment is qualified to supply the certified
design.
Paragraph IV.B would reserve to the Commission the right to
determine in what manner this appendix 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
[[Page 16556]]
certification rule, or on a case-by-case basis in the context of a
specific application for a 10 CFR part 50 construction permit or
operating license. This provision is necessary because the previous
DCRs were not implemented in the manner that was originally envisioned
at the time that 10 CFR part 52 was promulgated. The Commission's
concern is with the way ITAAC were developed and the lack of experience
with design certifications in license proceedings. Therefore, it is
appropriate that the Commission retain some discretion regarding the
way this appendix could be referenced in a 10 CFR part 50 licensing
proceeding.
E. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
The purpose of Section V is to specify the regulations that would
be applicable and in effect at the time this proposed design
certification is approved (i.e., as of the date specified in paragraph
V.A, which would be the date that this appendix is approved by the
Commission and signed by the Secretary of the Commission). These
regulations would consist of the technically relevant regulations
identified in paragraph V.A, except for the regulations in paragraph
V.B that would not be applicable to this certified design.
In paragraph V.B, the Commission would identify the regulations
that do not apply to the ESBWR design. The Commission has determined
that the ESBWR design should be exempt from portions of 10 CFR 50.34 as
described in the FSER (NUREG-XXXX) and/or summarized below:
(1) Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34--Contents of Construction
Permit and Operating License Applications: Technical Information
This paragraph requires an applicant to provide a plant safety
parameter display console that will display to operators a minimum set
of parameters defining the safety status of the plant, capable of
displaying a full range of important plant parameters and data trends
on demand, and capable of indicating when process limits are being
approached or exceeded. The ESBWR design integrates the safety
parameter display system into the design of the non-safety related
distribution control and information system, rather than use a stand-
alone console. The safety parameter display system is described in
Section 7.1.5 of the DCD.
The Commission has also determined that the ESBWR design is
approved to use the following alternative. Under 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3),
GEH requested NRC approval for the use of Code Case N-782 as a proposed
alternative to the rules of Section III, Subsection NCA-1140, regarding
applied Code Editions and Addenda required by 10 CFR 50.55a(c), (d),
and (e). Code Case N-782 provides that the Code Edition and Addenda
endorsed in a certified design or licensed by the regulatory authority
may be used for systems and components constructed to ASME Code,
Section III requirements. These alternative requirements are in lieu of
the requirements that base the Edition and Addenda on the construction
permit date. Reference to Code Case N-782 will be included in component
and system design specifications and design reports to permit
certification of these specifications and reports to the Code Edition
and Addenda cited in the DCD. The NRC's bases for approving the use of
Code Case N-782 as a proposed alternative to the requirements of
Section III Subsection NCA-1140 under 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3) for ESBWR are
described in Section 5.2.1.1.3 of the FSER.
F. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
The purpose of Section VI is to identify the scope of issues that
would be resolved by the Commission in this rulemaking and, therefore,
are ``matters resolved'' within the meaning and intent of 10 CFR
52.63(a)(5). The section is divided into five parts: paragraph A
identifies the Commission's safety findings in adopting this appendix,
paragraph B identifies the scope and nature of issues which are
resolved by this rulemaking, paragraph C identifies issues which are
not resolved by this rulemaking, paragraph D identifies the backfit
restrictions applicable to the Commission with respect to this
appendix, and paragraph E identifies the availability of secondary
references.
Paragraph VI.A would describe the nature of the Commission's
findings in general terms and make the findings required by 10 CFR
52.54 for the Commission's approval of this DCR. Furthermore, paragraph
VI.A would explicitly state the Commission's determination that this
design provides adequate protection of the public health and safety.
Paragraph VI.B would set forth the scope of issues that may not be
challenged as a matter of right in subsequent proceedings. The
introductory phrase of paragraph VI.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 VI.B describes the categories of information for which there
is issue resolution. Specifically, paragraph VI.B.1 would provide that
all nuclear safety issues arising from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, that are associated with the information in the NRC staff's
FSER (NUREG-XXXX), the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information (including the
availability controls in Appendix 19ACM of the generic DCD), and the
rulemaking record for this appendix are resolved within the meaning of
10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). These resolved issues include the information
referenced in the DCD that are requirements (i.e., ``secondary
references''), as well as all issues arising from proprietary
information and SGI that are intended to be requirements, but does not
include the HFE processes for procedure development and training
program development identified in Sections 18.9 and 18.10 of the
generic DCD.
Paragraph VI.B.2 would provide for issue preclusion of SUNSI
(including proprietary information) and SGI. Paragraphs VI.B.3, VI.B.4,
VI.B.5, and VI.B.6 would clarify that approved changes to and
departures from the DCD, which are accomplished in compliance with the
relevant procedures and criteria in Section VIII, continue to be
matters resolved in connection with this rulemaking. Paragraphs VI.B.4,
VI.B.5, and VI.B.6, which would characterize the scope of issue
resolution in three situations, use the phrase ``but only for that
plant.'' Paragraph VI.B.4 would describe how issues associated with a
design certification rule are resolved when an exemption has been
granted for a plant referencing the design certification rule.
Paragraph VI.B.5 would describe how issues are resolved when a plant
referencing the DC rule obtains a license amendment for a departure
from Tier 2 information. Paragraph VI.B.6 would describe how issues are
resolved when the applicant or licensee departs from the Tier 2
information on the basis of paragraph VIII.B.5, which would waive the
requirement for NRC approval. In all three situations, after a matter
(e.g., an exemption in the case of paragraph VI.B.4) is addressed for a
specific plant referencing a design certification rule, the adequacy of
that matter for that plant is resolved and would constitute part of the
licensing basis for that plant. Therefore, that matter would not
ordinarily be subject to challenge in any subsequent proceeding or
action for that plant (e.g., an enforcement action) listed in the
introductory portion of paragraph IV.B. By contrast, there would be no
legally binding issue resolution on that subject matter for any other
plant, or in
[[Page 16557]]
a subsequent rulemaking amending the applicable design certification
rule. However, the NRC's consideration of the safety, regulatory or
policy issues necessary to the determination of the exemption or
license amendment may, in appropriate circumstances, be relied upon as
part of the basis for NRC action in other licensing proceedings or
rulemaking.
Paragraph VI.B.7 would provide that, for those plants located on
sites whose site characteristics fall within the site parameters
assumed in the GEH evaluation of SAMDAs, all issues with respect to
SAMDAs arising under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), associated with the information in the EA for this
design and the information regarding SAMDAs in NEDO-33306, Revision 4,
``ESBWR Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives'' are also
resolved within the meaning and intent of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). If a
deviation from a site parameter is granted, the deviation applicant has
the initial burden of demonstrating that the original SAMDA analysis
still applies to the actual site characteristics; but, if the deviation
is approved, requests for litigation at the COL stage must meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 2.309 and present sufficient information to
create a genuine controversy in order to obtain a hearing on the site
parameter deviation.
Paragraph VI.C would reserve the right of the Commission to impose
operational requirements on applicants that reference this appendix.
This provision would reflect the fact that only some operational
requirements, including portions of the generic TS in Chapter 16 of the
DCD, and no operational programs, such as operational QA, were
completely or comprehensively reviewed by the NRC in this design
certification rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, the special backfit and
finality provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 would apply only to those
operational requirements that either the NRC completely reviewed and
approved, or formed the basis for an NRC safety finding of the adequacy
of the ESBWR, as documented in the NRC's safety evaluation report for
the ESBWR. This is consistent with the currently approved design
certifications in 10 CFR part 52, Appendices A through D. Although
information on operational matters is included in the DCDs of each of
these currently approved designs, for the most part these design
certifications do not provide approval for operational information, and
none provide approval for operational ``programs'' (e.g., emergency
preparedness programs, operational quality assurance programs). Most
operational information in the DCD simply serves as ``contextual
information'' (i.e., information necessary to understand the design of
certain SSCs and how they would be used in the overall context of the
facility). The NRC did not use contextual information to support the
NRC's safety conclusions, and such information does not constitute the
underlying safety bases for the adequacy of those SSCs. Thus,
contextual operational information on any particular topic would not
constitute one of the ``matters resolved'' under paragraph VI.B.
The NRC notes that operational requirements may be imposed on
licensees referencing this design certification through the inclusion
of license conditions in the license, or inclusion of a description of
the operational requirement in the plant-specific FSAR.\2\ The NRC's
choice of the regulatory vehicle for imposing the operational
requirements will depend upon, among other things: (1) Whether the
development and/or implementation of these requirements must occur
prior to either the issuance of the COL or the Commission finding under
10 CFR 52.103(g), and (2) the nature of the change controls which the
NRC believes are appropriate given the regulatory, safety, and security
significance of each operational requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Certain activities, ordinarily conducted following fuel load
and therefore considered ``operational requirements'' but which may
be relied upon to support a Commission finding under 10 CFR
52.103(g), may themselves be the subject of ITAAC to ensure their
implementation prior to the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph VI.C would allow the NRC to impose future operational
requirements (distinct from design matters) on applicants who reference
this design certification. Also, license conditions for portions of the
plant within the scope of this design certification (e.g., start-up and
power ascension testing), are not restricted by 10 CFR 52.63. The
requirement to perform these testing programs is contained in Tier 1
information. However, ITAAC cannot be specified for these subjects
because the matters to be addressed in these license conditions cannot
be verified prior to fuel load and operation, when the ITAAC are
satisfied. Therefore, another regulatory vehicle is necessary to ensure
that licensees comply with the matters contained in the license
conditions. License conditions for these areas cannot be developed now
because this requires the type of detailed design information that will
be developed during a COL review. In the absence of detailed design
information to evaluate the need for and develop specific post-fuel
load verifications for these matters, the Commission is reserving in
this rule the right to impose, at the time of COL issuance, license
conditions addressing post-fuel load verification activities for
portions of the plant within the scope of this design certification.
Paragraph VI.D would reiterate the restrictions (contained in
Section VIII) 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
(paragraph VI.D.3 would address ITAAC) within the scope of the
certified design.
Paragraph VI.E would provide that the NRC will specify at an
appropriate time the procedures for interested persons to obtain access
to proprietary information, SUNSI, and SGI information for the ESBWR
design certification rule. Access to such information would be for the
sole purpose of requesting or participating in certain specified
hearings, such as (1) the hearing required by 10 CFR 52.85 where the
underlying application references this appendix; (2) any hearing
provided under 10 CFR 52.103 where the underlying COL references this
appendix; and (3) any other hearing relating to this appendix in which
interested persons have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing.
For proceedings where the notice of hearing was published before
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the Commission's order governing access
to SUNSI and SGI shall be used to govern access to proprietary
information, SUNSI, and SGI within the scope of the rulemaking. For
proceedings in which the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing
is published after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], paragraph VI.E
applies and governs access to proprietary information, SUNSI, and SGI.
For these proceedings, as stated in paragraph VI.E, the NRC will
specify the access procedures at an appropriate time.
For both a hearing required by 10 CFR 52.85 where the underlying
application references this appendix, and in any hearing on ITAAC
completion under 10 CFR 52.103, the NRC expects to follow its current
practice of establishing the procedures by order at the time that the
notice of hearing is published in the Federal Register. See, for
example, Florida Power and Light Co., Combined License Application for
the Turkey Point Units 6 & 7, Notice of Hearing, Opportunity To
Petition for Leave To Intervene and Associated Order
[[Page 16558]]
Imposing Procedures for Access to SUNSI and Safeguards Information for
Contention Preparation (75 FR 34777; June 18, 2010); Notice of Receipt
of Application for License; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
License; Notice of Hearing and Commission Order and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to SUNSI and Safeguards Information for
Contention Preparation; In the Matter of AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC
(Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility) (74 FR 38052; July 30, 2009).
G. Duration of This Appendix (Section VII)
The purpose of Section VII would be, in part, to specify the period
during which this design certification may be referenced by an
applicant for a COL, under 10 CFR 52.55. This section would also state
that the design certification would remain valid for an applicant or
licensee that references the design certification until the application
is withdrawn or the license expires. Therefore, if an application
references this design certification during the 15-year period, then
the design certification would be effective until the application is
withdrawn or the license issued on that application expires. Also, the
design certification would be effective for the referencing licensee if
the license is renewed. The Commission intends for this appendix to
remain valid for the life of the plant that references the design
certification to achieve the benefits of standardization and licensing
stability. This means that changes to, or plant-specific departures
from, information in the plant-specific DCD must be made under the
change processes in Section VIII for the life of the plant.
H. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
The purpose of Section VIII would be to set forth the processes for
generic changes to, or plant-specific departures (including exemptions)
from, the DCD. The Commission adopted this restrictive change process
in order to achieve a more stable licensing process for applicants and
licensees that reference this DCR. 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 this DCR itself, as is contemplated
by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). Consistent with 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3), any generic
rulemaking changes are applicable to all plants, absent circumstances
which render the change [``modification'' in the language of 10 CFR
52.63(a)(3)] ``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 10 CFR 50.59 departure or an exemption. Because these
plant-specific departures will result in a DCD that is unique for that
plant, Section X would require an applicant or licensee to maintain a
plant-specific DCD. For purposes of brevity, this discussion refers to
both generic changes and plant-specific departures as ``change
processes.''
Section VIII refers to an exemption from one or more requirements
of this appendix and the criteria for granting an exemption. The
Commission cautions that when the exemption involves an underlying
substantive requirement (applicable regulation), then the applicant or
licensee requesting the exemption must also show that an exemption from
the underlying applicable requirement meets the criteria of 10 CFR
52.7.
Tier 1 Information
The change processes for Tier 1 information would be covered in
paragraph VIII.A. Generic changes to Tier 1 are accomplished by
rulemakings that amend the generic DCD and are governed by the
standards in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) and 10 CFR 52.63(a)(2). No matter who
proposes it, a generic change under 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) will not be made
to a certified design while it is in effect unless the change: (1) Is
necessary for compliance with Commission regulations applicable and in
effect at the time the certification was issued; (2) is necessary to
provide adequate protection of the public health and safety or common
defense and security; (3) reduces unnecessary regulatory burden and
maintains protection to public health and safety and common defense and
security; (4) provides the detailed design information necessary to
resolve selected design acceptance criteria; (5) corrects material
errors in the certification information; (6) substantially increases
overall safety, reliability, or security of a facility and the costs of
the change are justified; or (7) contributes to increased
standardization of the certification information. The rulemakings must
provide for notice and opportunity for public comment on the proposed
change, as required by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(2). The Commission will give
consideration to whether the benefits justify the costs for plants that
are already licensed or for which an application for a permit or
license is under consideration.
Departures from Tier 1 may occur in two ways: (1) the Commission
may order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, as provided in paragraph
VIII.A.3; or (2) an applicant or licensee may request an exemption from
Tier 1, as provided in paragraph VIII.A.4. If the Commission seeks to
order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, paragraph VIII.A.3 would
require that the Commission find both that the departure is necessary
for adequate protection or for compliance and that special
circumstances are present. Paragraph VIII.A.4 would provide that
exemptions from Tier 1 requested by an applicant or licensee are
governed by the requirements of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1) and 52.98(f), which
provide an opportunity for a hearing. In addition, the Commission would
not grant requests for exemptions that may result in a significant
decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
Tier 2 Information
The change processes for the three different categories of Tier 2
information, namely, Tier 2, Tier 2*, and Tier 2* with a time of
expiration, would be set forth in paragraph VIII.B. The change process
for Tier 2 has the same elements as the Tier 1 change process, but some
of the standards for plant-specific orders and exemptions would be
different.
The process for generic Tier 2 changes (including changes to Tier
2* and Tier 2* with a time of expiration) tracks the process for
generic Tier 1 changes. As set forth in paragraph VIII.B.1, generic
Tier 2 changes would be accomplished by rulemaking amending the generic
DCD and would be governed by the standards in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). No
matter who proposes it, a generic change under 10 CFR 52 52.63(a)(1)
will not be made to a certified design while it is in effect unless the
change: (1) Is necessary for compliance with Commission regulations
applicable and in effect at the time the certification was issued; (2)
is necessary to provide adequate protection of the public health and
safety or common defense and security; (3) reduces unnecessary
regulatory burden and maintains protection to public health and safety
and common defense and security; (4) provides the detailed design
information necessary to resolve selected design acceptance criteria;
(5) corrects material errors in the certification information; (6)
substantially increases overall safety,
[[Page 16559]]
reliability, or security of a facility and the costs of the change are
justified; or (7) contributes to increased standardization of the
certification information. If a generic change is made to Tier 2*
information, then the category and expiration, if necessary, of the new
information would also be determined in the rulemaking and the
appropriate change process for that new information would apply.
Departures from Tier 2 would occur in five ways: (1) The Commission
may order a plant-specific departure, as set forth in paragraph
VIII.B.3; (2) an applicant or licensee may request an exemption from a
Tier 2 requirement as set forth in paragraph VIII.B.4; (3) a licensee
may make a departure without prior NRC approval under paragraph
VIII.B.5; (4) the licensee may request NRC approval for proposed
departures which do not meet the requirements in paragraph VIII.B.5 as
provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.d; and (5) the licensee may request NRC
approval for a departure from Tier 2* information under paragraph
VIII.B.6.
Similar to Commission-ordered Tier 1 departures and generic Tier 2
changes, Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures could not be imposed
except when necessary either to bring the certification into compliance
with the Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time
of approval of the design certification or to ensure adequate
protection of the public health and safety or common defense and
security, as set forth in paragraph VIII.B.3. However, the special
circumstances for the Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures would not
have to outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the
reduction in standardization caused by the plant-specific order, as
required by 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4). 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)(4) and (b)(1). This
type of additional limitation for standardization would unnecessarily
restrict the flexibility of applicants and licensees with respect to
Tier 2 information.
An applicant or licensee would be permitted to request an exemption
from Tier 2 information as set forth in paragraph VIII.B.4. The
applicant or licensee would have to demonstrate that the exemption
complies with one of the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a). In
addition, the Commission would not grant requests for exemptions that
may result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise
provided by the design. However, the special circumstances for the
exemption do not have to outweigh any decrease in safety that may
result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption.
If the exemption is requested by an applicant for a license, the
exemption would be subject to litigation in the same manner as other
issues in the license hearing, consistent with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). If
the exemption is requested by a licensee, then the exemption would be
subject to litigation in the same manner as a license amendment.
Paragraph VIII.B.5 would allow an applicant or licensee to depart
from Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, if the proposed
departure does not involve a change to, or departure from, Tier 1 or
Tier 2* information, TS, or does not require a license amendment under
paragraphs VIII.B.5.b or VIII.B.5.c. The TS referred to in VIII.B.5.a
of this paragraph are the TS in Chapter 16 of the generic DCD,
including bases, for departures made prior to issuance of the COL.
After issuance of the COL, the plant-specific TS would be controlling
under paragraph VIII.B.5. The bases for the plant-specific TS would be
controlled by the bases control program, which is specified in the
plant-specific TS administrative controls section. The requirement for
a license amendment in paragraph VIII.B.5.b would be similar to the
requirement in 10 CFR 50.59 and apply to all information in Tier 2
except for the information that resolves the severe accident issues.
The Commission believes that the resolution of ex-vessel severe
accident design features should be preserved and maintained in the same
fashion as all other safety issues that were resolved during the design
certification review (refer to SRM on SECY-90-377, ``Requirements for
Design Certification Under 10 CFR Part 52,'' dated February 15, 1991,
ADAMS Accession No. ML003707892). However, because of the increased
uncertainty in ex-vessel severe accident issue resolutions, the
Commission has proposed separate criteria in paragraph VIII.B.5.c for
determining if a departure from information that resolves ex-vessel
severe accident design features would require a license amendment. For
purposes of applying the special criteria in paragraph VIII.B.5.c, ex-
vessel severe accident resolutions would be limited to design features
where the intended function of the design feature is relied upon to
resolve postulated accidents when the reactor core has melted and
exited the reactor vessel, and the containment is being challenged.
These design features are identified in Sections 19.2.3, 19.3.2,
19.3.3, 19.3.4, and Appendices 19A and 19B of the DCD, with other
issues, and are described in other sections of the DCD. Therefore, the
location of design information in the DCD is not important to the
application of this special procedure for ex-vessel severe accident
design features. However, the special procedure in paragraph VIII.B.5.c
would not apply to design features that resolve so-called ``beyond
design-basis accidents'' or other low-probability events. The important
aspect of this special procedure is that it would be limited to ex-
vessel severe accident design features, as defined above. Some design
features may have intended functions to meet ``design basis''
requirements and to resolve ``severe accidents.'' If these design
features are reviewed under paragraph VIII.B.5, then the appropriate
criteria from either paragraphs VIII.B.5.b or VIII.B.5.c would be
selected depending upon the function being changed.
An applicant or licensee that plans to depart from Tier 2
information, under paragraph VIII.B.5, would be required to prepare an
evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the
proposed change does not require a license amendment or involve a
change to Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, or a change to the TS, as
explained above. In order to achieve the Commission's goals for design
certification, the evaluation would need to consider all of the matters
that were resolved in the DCD, such as generic issue resolutions that
are relevant to the proposed departure. The benefits of the early
resolution of safety issues would be lost if departures from the DCD
were made that violated these resolutions without appropriate review.
The evaluation of the relevant matters would need to consider the
proposed departure over the full range of power operation from startup
to shutdown, as it relates to anticipated operational occurrences,
transients, design-basis accidents, and severe accidents. The
evaluation would also have to include a review of all relevant
secondary references from the DCD because Tier 2 information, which is
intended to be treated as a requirement, would be contained in the
secondary references. The evaluation should consider Tables 14.3-1a
through 14.3-1c and 19.2-3 of the generic DCD to ensure that the
proposed change does not impact Tier 1 information. These tables
contain cross-references from the safety analyses and probabilistic
risk assessment in Tier 2 to the important parameters that were
included in Tier 1.
[[Page 16560]]
Paragraph VIII.B.5.d addresses information described in the DCD to
address aircraft impacts, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28). Under
10 CFR 52.47(a)(28), applicants are required to include the information
required by 10 CFR 50.150(b) in their DCD. Under 10 CFR 50.150(b),
applications for standard design certifications are required to
include:
1. A description of the design features and functional capabilities
identified as a result of the aircraft impact assessment required by 10
CFR 50.150(a)(1); and
2. A description of how such design features and functional
capabilities meet the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
An applicant or licensee who changes this information is required
to consider the effect of the changed design feature or functional
capability on the original aircraft impact assessment required by 10
CFR 50.150(a). The applicant or licensee is also required to describe
in the plant-specific DCD how the modified design features and
functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment requirements in
10 CFR 50.150(a)(1). Submittal of this updated information is governed
by the reporting requirements in Section X.B.
In an adjudicatory proceeding (e.g., for issuance of a COL) a
person who believes that an applicant or licensee has not complied with
paragraph VIII.B.5 when departing from Tier 2 information, would be
permitted to petition to admit such a contention into the proceeding
under paragraph VIII.B.5.f. This provision has been proposed because an
incorrect departure from the requirements of this appendix essentially
would place the departure outside of the scope of the Commission's
safety finding in the design certification rulemaking. Therefore, it
follows that properly founded contentions alleging such incorrectly
implemented departures cannot be considered ``resolved'' by this
rulemaking. As set forth in paragraph VIII.B.5.f, the petition would
have to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309 and show that the
departure does not comply with paragraph VIII.B.5. Other persons would
be allowed to file a response to the petition under 10 CFR 2.309. If on
the basis of the petition and any responses, the presiding officer in
the proceeding determines that the required showing has been made, the
matter would be certified to the Commission for its final
determination. In the absence of a proceeding, petitions alleging
nonconformance with paragraph VIII.B.5 requirements applicable to Tier
2 departures would be treated as petitions for enforcement action under
10 CFR 2.206.
Paragraph VIII.B.6 would provide a process for departing from Tier
2* information. The creation of and restrictions on changing Tier 2*
information resulted from the development of the Tier 1 information for
the ABWR design certification (Appendix A to 10 CFR part 52) and the
System 80+ design certification (Appendix B to 10 CFR part 52). During
this development process, these applicants requested that the amount of
information in Tier 1 be minimized to provide additional flexibility
for an applicant or licensee who references these appendices. Also,
many codes, standards, and design processes, which would not be
specified in Tier 1 that are acceptable for meeting ITAAC, were
specified in Tier 2. The result of these departures would be that
certain significant information only exists in Tier 2 and the
Commission would not want this significant information to be changed
without prior NRC approval. This Tier 2* information would be
identified in the generic DCD with italicized text and brackets (See
Table 1D-1 in Appendix 1D of the ESBWR DCD).
Although the Tier 2* designation was originally intended to last
for the lifetime of the facility, like Tier 1 information, the NRC
determined that some of the Tier 2* information could expire when the
plant first achieves full (100 percent) power, after the finding
required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), while other Tier 2* information must
remain in effect throughout the life of the facility. The factors
determining whether Tier 2* information could expire after full power
is first achieved (first full power) were whether the Tier 1
information would govern these areas after first full power and the
NRC's determination that prior approval was required before
implementation of the change due to the significance of the
information. Therefore, certain Tier 2* information listed in paragraph
VIII.B.6.c would cease to retain its Tier 2* designation after full-
power operation is first achieved following the Commission finding
under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Thereafter, that information would be deemed to
be Tier 2 information that would be subject to the departure
requirements in paragraph VIII.B.5. By contrast, the Tier 2*
information identified in paragraph VIII.B.6.b would retain its Tier 2*
designation throughout the duration of the license, including any
period of license renewal.
Certain preoperational tests in paragraph VIII.B.6.c would be
designated to be performed only for the first plant that references
this appendix. The GEH's basis for performing these ``first-plant-
only'' preoperational tests is provided in Section 14.2.8 of the DCD.
The NRC found GEH's basis for performing these tests and its
justification for only performing the tests on the first plant
acceptable. The NRC's decision was based on the need to verify that
plant-specific manufacturing and/or construction variations do not
adversely impact the predicted performance of certain passive safety
systems, while recognizing that these special tests would result in
significant thermal transients being applied to critical plant
components. The NRC believes that the range of manufacturing or
construction variations that could adversely affect the relevant
passive safety systems would be adequately disclosed after performing
the designated tests on the first plant. The Tier 2* designation for
these tests would expire after the first completes these tests, as
indicated in paragraph VIII.B.6.c.
If Tier 2* information is changed in a generic rulemaking, the
designation of the new information (Tier 1, 2*, or 2) would also be
determined in the rulemaking and the appropriate process for future
changes would apply. If a plant-specific departure is made from Tier 2*
information, then the new designation would apply only to that plant.
If an applicant who references this design certification makes a
departure from Tier 2* information, the new information would be
subject to litigation in the same manner as other plant-specific issues
in the licensing hearing. If a licensee makes a departure from Tier 2*
information, it would be treated as a license amendment under 10 CFR
50.90 and the finality would be determined under paragraph VI.B.5. Any
requests for departures from Tier 2* information that affects Tier 1
would also have to comply with the requirements in paragraph VIII.A.
Operational Requirements
The change process for TS and other operational requirements in the
DCD would be set forth in paragraph VIII.C. This change process has
elements similar to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 change processes in
paragraphs VIII.A and VIII.B, but with significantly different change
standards. Because of the different finality status for TS and other
operational requirements (refer to paragraph V.F of this document), the
Commission designated a special category of information, consisting of
the TS and other operational requirements, with its own change
[[Page 16561]]
process in proposed paragraph VIII.C. The key to using the change
processes proposed in Section VIII is to determine if the proposed
change or departure would require a change to a design feature
described in the generic DCD. If a design change is required, then the
appropriate change process in paragraph VIII.A or VIII.B would apply.
However, if a proposed change to the TS or other operational
requirements does not require a change to a design feature in the
generic DCD, then paragraph VIII.C would apply. The language in
paragraph VIII.C would also distinguish between generic (Chapter 16 of
the DCD) and plant-specific TS to account for the different treatment
and finality accorded TS before and after a license is issued.
The process in paragraph VIII.C.1 for making generic changes to the
generic TS in Chapter 16 of the DCD or other operational requirements
in the generic DCD would be accomplished by rulemaking and governed by
the backfit standards in 10 CFR 50.109. The determination of whether
the generic TS and other operational requirements were completely
reviewed and approved in the design certification rulemaking would be
based upon the extent to which the NRC reached a safety conclusion in
the FSER on this matter. If it cannot be determined, in the absence of
a specific statement, that the TS or operational requirement was
comprehensively reviewed and finalized in the design certification
rulemaking, then there would be no backfit restriction under 10 CFR
50.109 because no prior position, consistent with paragraph VI.B, was
taken on this safety matter. Generic changes made under paragraph
VIII.C.1 would be applicable to all applicants or licensees (refer to
paragraph VIII.C.2), unless the change is irrelevant because of a
plant-specific departure.
Some generic TS and availability controls contain values in
brackets [ ]. The brackets are placeholders indicating that the NRC's
review is not complete, and represent a requirement that the applicant
for a COL referencing the ESBWR DCR must replace the values in brackets
with final plant-specific values (refer to guidance provided in Interim
Staff Guidance DC/COL-ISG-8, ``Necessary Content of Plant-Specific
Technical Specifications''). The values in brackets are neither part of
the design certification rule nor are they binding. Therefore, the
replacement of bracketed values with final plant-specific values does
not require an exemption from the generic TS or availability controls.
Plant-specific departures may occur by either a Commission order
under paragraph VIII.C.3 or an applicant's exemption request under
paragraph VIII.C.4. The basis for determining if the TS or operational
requirement was completely reviewed and approved for these processes
would be the same as for paragraph VIII.C.1 above. If the TS or
operational requirement is comprehensively reviewed and finalized in
the design certification rulemaking, then the Commission must
demonstrate that special circumstances are present before ordering a
plant-specific departure. If not, there would be no restriction on
plant-specific changes to the TS or operational requirements, prior to
the issuance of a license, provided a design change is not required.
Although the generic TS were reviewed and approved by the NRC staff in
support of the DC review, the Commission intends to consider the
lessons learned from subsequent operating experience during its
licensing review of the plant-specific TS. The process for petitioning
to intervene on a TS or operational requirement contained in paragraph
VIII.C.5 would be similar to other issues in a licensing hearing,
except that the petitioner must also demonstrate why special
circumstances are present pursuant to 10 CFR 2.335.
Finally, the generic TS would have no further effect on the plant-
specific TS after the issuance of a license that references this
appendix. The bases for the generic TS would be controlled by the
change process in paragraph VIII.C. After a license is issued, the
bases would be controlled by the bases change provision set forth in
the administrative controls section of the plant-specific TS.
I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
(Section IX)
This section is reserved for future use.
J. Records and Reporting (Section X)
The purpose of Section X would be to set forth the requirements
that would apply to maintaining records of changes to and departures
from the generic DCD, which would be reflected in the plant-specific
DCD. Section X would also set forth the requirements for submitting
reports (including updates to the plant-specific DCD) to the NRC. This
section of the appendix would be similar to the requirements for
records and reports in 10 CFR part 50, except for minor differences in
information collection and reporting requirements.
Paragraph X.A.1 would require that a generic DCD and the SUNSI
(including proprietary information) and SGI referenced in the generic
DCD be maintained by the applicant for this rule. The generic DCD
concept was developed, in part, to meet the OFR requirements for
incorporation by reference, including public availability of documents
incorporated by reference. However, the SUNSI (including proprietary
information) and SGI could not be included in the generic DCD because
they are not publicly available. Nonetheless, the SUNSI (including
proprietary information) and SGI was reviewed by the NRC and, as stated
in paragraph VI.B.2, the NRC would consider the information to be
resolved within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). Because this
information is not in the generic DCD, this information, or its
equivalent, is required to be provided by an applicant for a license
referencing this design certification rule. Paragraph X.A.1 would
require the design certification applicant to maintain the SUNSI
(including proprietary information) and SGI, which it developed and
used to support its design certification application. This would ensure
that the referencing applicant has direct access to this information
from the design certification applicant, if it has contracted with the
applicant to provide the proprietary information and SGI to support its
license application. The NRC may also inspect this information if it
was not submitted to the NRC (e.g., the aircraft impact assessment
required by 10 CFR 50.150). Only the generic DCD would be identified
and incorporated by reference into this rule. The generic DCD and the
NRC-approved version of the SUNSI (including proprietary information)
and SGI would be maintained for the period of time that this appendix
may be referenced.
Paragraphs X.A.2 and X.A.3 would place recordkeeping requirements
on the applicant or licensee that references this design certification
so that its plant-specific DCD accurately reflects both generic changes
to the generic DCD and plant-specific departures made under Section
VIII. The term ``plant-specific'' would be used in paragraph X.A.2 and
other sections of this appendix to distinguish between the generic DCD
that would be incorporated by reference into this appendix, and the
plant-specific DCD that the applicant would be required to submit under
paragraph IV.A. The requirement to maintain changes to the generic DCD
would be explicitly stated to ensure that these changes are not only
reflected in the generic DCD, which would be maintained by the
applicant for design certification, but also in the plant-specific DCD.
Therefore, records of generic changes to the DCD would be required to
be maintained by both
[[Page 16562]]
entities to ensure that both entities have up-to-date DCDs.
Paragraph X.A.4.a would require the applicant to maintain a copy of
the aircraft impact assessment performed to comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) for the term of the certification
(including any period of renewal). This proposed provision, which is
consistent with 10 CFR 50.150(c)(3), will facilitate any NRC
inspections of the assessment that the NRC decides to conduct.
Similarly, the NRC is proposing new paragraph X.A.4.b that would
require an applicant or licensee who references this appendix to
maintain a copy of the aircraft impact assessment performed to comply
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) throughout the pendency of
the application and for the term of the license (including any period
of renewal). This provision is consistent with 10 CFR 50.150(c)(4). For
all applicants and licensees, the supporting documentation retained
onsite should describe the methodology used in performing the
assessment, including the identification of potential design features
and functional capabilities to show that the acceptance criteria in 10
CFR 50.150(a)(1) will be met.
Paragraph X.A would not place recordkeeping requirements on site-
specific information that is outside the scope of this rule. As
discussed in paragraph IV.D of this document, the FSAR required by 10
CFR 52.79 would contain the plant-specific DCD and the site-specific
information for a facility that references this rule. The phrase
``site-specific portion of the final safety analysis report'' in
paragraph X.B.3.c would refer to the information that is contained in
the FSAR for a facility (required by 10 CFR 52.79) but is not part of
the plant-specific DCD (required by paragraph IV.A). Therefore, this
rule would not require that duplicate documentation be maintained by an
applicant or licensee that references this rule, because the plant-
specific DCD would be part of the FSAR for the facility.
Paragraph X.B.1 would require applicants or licensees that
reference this rule to submit reports, which describe departures from
the DCD and include a summary of the written evaluations. The
requirement for the written evaluations would be set forth in paragraph
X.A.1. The frequency of the report submittals would be set forth in
paragraph X.B.3. The requirement for submitting a summary of the
evaluations would be similar to the requirement in 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2).
Paragraph X.B.2 would require applicants or licensees that
reference this rule to submit updates to the DCD, which include both
generic changes and plant-specific departures. The frequency for
submitting updates would be set forth in paragraph X.B.3. The
requirements in paragraph X.B.3 for submitting the reports and updates
would vary according to certain time periods during a facility's
lifetime. If a potential applicant for a COL who references this rule
decides to depart from the generic DCD prior to submission of the
application, then paragraph X.B.3.a would require that the updated DCD
be submitted as part of the initial application for a license. Under
paragraph X.B.3.b, the applicant may submit any subsequent updates to
its plant-specific DCD along with its amendments to the application
provided that the submittals are made at least once per year. Because
amendments to an application are typically made more frequently than
once a year, this should not be an excessive burden on the applicant.
Paragraph X.B.3.b would also require semi-annual submission of the
reports required by paragraph X.B.1 throughout the period of
application review and construction. The NRC would use the information
in the reports to help plan the NRC's inspection and oversight during
this phase, when the licensee is conducting detailed design,
procurement of components and equipment, construction, and
preoperational testing. In addition, the NRC would use the information
in making its finding on ITAAC under 10 CFR 52.103(g), as well as any
finding on interim operation under section 189.a.(1)(B)(iii) of the
AEA. Once a facility begins operation (for a COL under 10 CFR part 52,
after the Commission has made a finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g)), the
frequency of reporting would be governed by the requirements in
paragraph X.B.3.c.
VI. Agreement State Compatibility
Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement States Programs,'' approved by the Commission on June 20,
1997, and published in the Federal Register (62 FR 46517; September 3,
1997), this rule is classified as compatibility ``NRC.'' Compatibility
is not required for Category ``NRC'' regulations. The NRC program
elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of
regulation reserved to the NRC by the AEA or the provisions of this
chapter. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements
reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain
requirements by a mechanism that is consistent with the particular
State's administrative procedure laws. Category ``NRC'' regulations do
not confer regulatory authority on the State.
VII. Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the documents identified below available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC PDR is located at 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, e-mail:
[email protected].
Regulations.gov (Web). These documents may be viewed and downloaded
electronically through the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by searching under Docket ID NRC-2010-0135.
NRC's Electronic Reading Room (ERR). The NRC's public electronic
reading room is located at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document PDR Web ERR (ADAMS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECY-11-0006, ``Proposed Rule--ESBWR Design X X ML102220172
Certification''.
Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-11-0006, X X ML110670047
``Proposed Rule--ESBWR Design Certification''.
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Application for X X ML052450245
Design Certification of the ESBWR Design.
ESBWR Design Control Document, Revision 9...... X X ML103440266
ESBWR Final Safety Evaluation Report........... X ........ ML103470210
ESBWR Environmental Assessment................. X X ML102220247
NEDO-33306, Revision 4, ``ESBWR Severe Accident X ........ ML102990433
Mitigation Design Alternatives''.
NEDO-33338, Revision 1, ``ESBWR Feedwater X ........ ML091380173
Temperature Operating Domain Transient and
Accident Analysis''.
NEDC-33408P, Revision 1, ``ESBWR Steam Dryer-- X ........ ML102880132
Plant Based Load Evaluation Methodology``.
Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-96-077, X ........ ML003754873
``Certification of Two Evolutionary Designs''.
SECY-94-084, ``Policy and Technical Issues X ........ ML003708068
Associated with the Regulatory Treatment of
Non-Safety Systems in Passive Plant Designs''.
[[Page 16563]]
Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-90-377, X ........ ML003707892
``Requirements for Design Certification Under
10 CFR Part 52''.
NUREG-0700, Revision 2, ``Human-Systems X ........ ML021700337
Interface Design Review Guidelines'' (three ML021700342
volumes). ML021700371
NUREG-0711, Revision 2, ``Human Factors ........ ........ ML040770540
Engineering Program Review Model''.
NUREG-0800, Ch. 6.4, Revision 3, ``Control Room X ........ ML070550069
Habitability System''.
NUREG-0800, Ch. 13.5.2.1, Revision 2, X ........ ML070100635
``Operating and Emergency Operating
Procedures''.
NUREG-1242, ``NRC Review of Electric Power X ........ ML100610048
Research Institute's Advanced Light Water ML100430013
Reactor Utility Requirements Document, ML063620331
Evolutionary Plant Designs'' (five volumes). ML070600372
ML070600373
Regulatory Guide 1.206, Section C.I.1, X ........ ML070630005
``Standard Format and Content of Combined
License Applications--Introduction and General
Description of the Plant''.
Interim Staff Guidance DC/COL-ISG-8, X ........ ML083310237
``Necessary Content of Plant-Specific
Technical Specifications''.
Regulatory History of Design Certification \3\. X ........ ML003761550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Procedures for Access to SUNSI (Including Proprietary
Information) and SGI for Preparation of Comments on the Proposed ESBWR
Design Certification Rule
This section contains instructions regarding how interested persons
who wish to comment on the proposed design certification may request
access to documents containing SUNSI (including proprietary information
\4\), and SGI, in order to prepare their comments. Requirements for
access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR parts 2 and 73. This
notice of proposed rulemaking provides information specific to this
rulemaking; however, nothing in this notice is intended to conflict
with the SGI regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The regulatory history of the NRC's design certification
reviews is a package of documents that is available in NRC's PDR and
ERR. This history spans the period during which the NRC
simultaneously developed the regulatory standards for reviewing
these designs and the form and content of the rules that certified
the designs.
\4\ For purposes of this discussion, ``proprietary information''
constitutes trade secrets or commercial or financial information
that are privileged or confidential, as those terms are used under
the FOIA and the NRC's implementing regulation at 10 CFR part 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested persons who desire access to SUNSI information on the
ESBWR design constituting proprietary information should first request
access to that information from the design certification applicant. A
request for access should be submitted to the NRC if the applicant does
not either grant or deny access by the 10-day deadline described below.
Submitting a Request to the NRC for Access
Within 10 days after publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking, any individual or entity who, in order to submit comments
on the proposed design certification, believes access to information in
this rulemaking docket that the NRC has categorized as SUNSI or SGI is
necessary may request access to this information. Requests for access
to SUNSI or SGI submitted more than 10 days after publication of this
notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the
late filing explaining why the request could not have been filed
earlier.
The individual or entity requesting access to the information
(hereinafter, the ``requester'') shall submit a letter requesting
permission to access SUNSI and/or SGI to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery
or courier mail address is: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for
the Office of the Secretary is [email protected]. The
requester must send a copy of the request to the design certification
applicant at the same time as the original transmission to the NRC
using the same method of transmission. Requests to the applicant must
be sent to Rick E. Kingston, Vice President, ESBWR Licensing, GE-
Hitachi Nuclear Energy, 3901 Castle Hayne Road, MC A65, Wilmington, NC
28401, e-mail: [email protected]. For purposes of complying with
this requirement, a ``request'' includes all the information required
to be submitted to the NRC as set forth in this section.
The request must include the following information:
1. The name of this design certification--ESBWR Design
Certification, the rulemaking identification number RIN 3150-AI85, the
rulemaking docket number NRC-2010-0135, and a citation to this Federal
Register notice of proposed rulemaking at the top of the first page of
the request;
2. The name, address, e-mail or FAX number of the requester. If the
requester is an entity, the name of the individual(s) to whom access is
to be provided, then the address and e-mail or FAX number for each
individual, and a statement of the authority granted by the entity to
each individual to review the information and to prepare comments on
behalf of the entity must be provided. If the requester is relying upon
another individual to evaluate the requested SUNSI and/or SGI and
prepare comments, then the name, affiliation, address and e-mail or FAX
number for that individual must be provided.
3.(a) If the request is for SUNSI, then the requester's need for
the information in order to prepare meaningful comments on the proposed
design certification must be demonstrated. Each of the following areas
must be addressed with specificity:
(i) The specific issue or subject matter on which the requester
wishes to comment;
(ii) An explanation why information which is publicly available,
including the publicly available versions of the application and design
control document, and information on the NRC's docket for the design
certification application is insufficient to provide the basis for
developing meaningful comment on the proposed design certification with
respect to the issue or subject matter described in paragraph 3.(a)(i)
above; and
(iii) Information demonstrating that the individual to whom access
is to be provided has the technical competence
[[Page 16564]]
(demonstrable knowledge, skill, experience, education, training, or
certification) to understand and use (or evaluate) the requested
information for a meaningful comment on the proposed design
certification with respect to the issue or subject matter described in
paragraph 3.(a)(i) above.
(b) If the request is for SUNSI constituting proprietary
information, then a chronology and discussion of the requester's
attempts to obtain the information from the design certification
applicant, and the final communication from the requester to the
applicant and the applicant's response with respect to the request for
access to proprietary information must be submitted.
4.(a) If the request is for SGI, then the requester's ``need to
know'' the SGI as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1) must
be demonstrated. Consistent with the definition of ``need to know'' as
stated in 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), each of the following
areas must be addressed with specificity:
(i) The specific issue or subject matter on which the requester
wishes to comment;
(ii) An explanation why information which is publicly available,
including the publicly available versions of the application and design
control document, and information on the NRC's docket for the design
certification application is insufficient to provide the basis for
developing meaningful comment on the proposed design certification with
respect to the issue or subject matter described in paragraph 4.(a)(i)
above, and that the SGI requested is indispensible in order to develop
meaningful comments; \5\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are unlikely to
meet the standard for need to know. Furthermore, NRC staff redaction
of information from requested documents before their release may be
appropriate to comport with this requirement. The procedures in this
notice of proposed rulemaking do not authorize unrestricted
disclosure or less scrutiny of a requester's need to know than
ordinarily would be applied in connection with either adjudicatory
or non-adjudicatory access to SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Information demonstrating that the individual to whom access
is to be provided has the technical competence (demonstrable knowledge,
skill, experience, education, training, or certification) to understand
and use (or evaluate) the requested SGI, in order to develop meaningful
comments on the proposed design certification with respect to the issue
or subject matter described in Paragraph 4.(a)(i) above.
(b) A completed Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive
Positions,'' must be submitted for each individual who would have
access to SGI. The completed Form SF-85 will be used by the NRC's
Office of Administration to conduct the background check required for
access to SGI, as required by 10 CFR part 2, subpart G, and 10 CFR
73.22(b)(2), to determine the requester's trustworthiness and
reliability. For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted
electronically through the electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) Web site, a secure Web site that is owned and
operated by the Office of Personnel Management. To obtain online access
to the form, the requester should contact the NRC's Office of
Administration at 301-492-3524.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The requester will be asked to provide his or her full name,
social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number,
and e-mail address. After providing this information, the requester
usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within
one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original
ink, and submitted under 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form FD-258 may be
obtained by writing the Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; by calling 301-415-
7232 or 301-492-7311; or by e-mail: to [email protected]. The
fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR
part 2, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA) of 1954, as amended, which mandates that all persons with access
to SGI must be fingerprinted for an Federal Bureau of Investigation
identification and criminal history records check;
(d) A check or money order in the amount of $200.00 \7\ payable to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual for whom the
request for access has been submitted; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This fee is subject to change as specified by the NRC's
adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) If the requester or any individual who will have access to SGI
believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals
relieved from the criminal history records check and background check
requirements, as stated in 10 CFR 73.59, the requester should also
provide a statement specifically stating which relief the requester is
invoking, and explaining the requester's basis (including supporting
documentation) for believing that the relief is applicable. While
processing the request, the NRC's Office of Administration, Personnel
Security Branch, will make a final determination whether the stated
relief applies. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Office of
Administration for an evaluation of their status prior to submitting
the request. Persons who are not subject to the background check are
not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258; however, all other
requirements for access to SGI, including the need to know, are still
applicable.
Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs 4(b), (c),
(d), and (e), as applicable, of this section of this notice of proposed
rulemaking must be sent to the following address: Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Personnel Security
Branch, Mail Stop TWB-05 B32M, Washington, DC 20555-0012.
These documents and materials should not be included with the
request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter
should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as required
above.
5. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all
forms should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including
legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The NRC will return
incomplete or illegible packages to the sender without processing.
6. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraphs 3(a) and (b), or 4(a), (b), (c), and (e) above, as
applicable, the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of
the written access request whether the requester has established a
legitimate need for SUNSI access or need to know the SGI requested.
7. For SUNSI access requests, if the NRC staff determines that the
requester has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI, the
NRC staff will notify the requester in writing that access to SUNSI has
been granted; provided, however, that if the SUNSI consists of
proprietary information (i.e., trade secrets or confidential or
financial information), the NRC staff must first notify the applicant
of the staff's determination to grant access to the requester not less
than 10 days before informing the requester of the staff's decision. If
the applicant wishes to challenge the NRC staff's determination, it
must follow the procedures in paragraph 12 below. The NRC staff will
not provide the requester access to disputed proprietary information to
the requester until the procedures in paragraph 12 are completed.
The written notification to the requester will contain instructions
on how the requester may obtain copies of the requested documents, and
any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These
conditions will
[[Page 16565]]
include, but are not necessarily limited to, the signing of a
protective order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who
will be granted access to SUNSI. Claims that the provisions of such a
protective order have not been complied with may be filed by calling
NRC's toll-free safety hotline at 800-695-7403. Please note: Calls to
this number are not recorded between the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern Time. However, calls received outside these hours are answered
by the NRC's Incident Response Operations Center on a recorded line.
Claims may also be filed via e-mail sent to [email protected],
or may be sent in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
ATTN: N. Rivera-Feliciano, Mail Stop T7-D24, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
8. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that
the requester has established a need to know the SGI, the NRC's Office
of Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the
background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and
reliable, as required for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the
NRC's Office of Administration determines that the individual or
individuals are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify
the requester in writing. The notification will provide the names of
approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will
be provided. Those conditions will include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the signing of a protective order by each individual who
will be granted access to SGI. Claims that the provisions of such a
protective order have not been complied with may be filed by calling
NRC's toll-free safety hotline at 1-800-695-7403. Please note: Calls to
this number are not recorded between the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern Time. However, calls received outside these hours are answered
by the NRC's Incident Response Operations Center on a recorded line.
Claims may also be filed via e-mail sent to [email protected],
or may be sent in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
ATTN: N. Rivera-Feliciano, Mail Stop T7-D24, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Because SGI requires special handling, initial filings with the NRC
should be free from such specific information. If necessary, the NRC
will arrange an appropriate setting for transmitting SGI to the NRC.
9. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the
requester, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to
confirm that the recipient's information protection system is
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively,
recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location
rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI
protection requirements.
10. Filing of Comments on the Proposed Design Certification. Any
comments in this rulemaking proceeding that are based upon the
disclosed SUNSI or SGI information must be filed by the requester no
later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information, or
the close of the public comment period, whichever is later. The
commenter must comply with all NRC requirements regarding the
submission of SUNSI and SGI to the NRC when submitting comments to the
NRC (including marking and transmission requirements).
11. Review of Denials of Access.
(a) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC
staff, the NRC staff shall promptly notify the requester in writing,
briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(b) Before the NRC's Office of Administration makes an adverse
determination regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of the
proposed recipient(s) of SGI, the NRC's Office of Administration, as
specified by 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iii), must provide the proposed
recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness
and reliability determination, including those required to be provided
under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient is provided an
opportunity to correct or explain information.
(c) Appeals from a denial of access must be made to the NRC's
Executive Director for Operations (EDO) under 10 CFR 9.29. The decision
of the EDO constitutes final agency action under 10 CFR 9.29(d).
12. Predisclosure Procedures for SUNSI Constituting Trade Secrets
or Confidential Commercial or Financial Information. The NRC will
follow the procedures in 10 CFR 9.28 if the NRC staff determines, under
paragraph 7 above, that access to SUNSI constituting trade secrets or
confidential commercial or financial information will be provided to
the requester. However, any objection filed by the applicant under 10
CFR 9.28(b) must be filed within 15 days of the NRC staff notice in
paragraph 7 above rather than the 30-day period provided for under that
paragraph. In applying the provisions of 10 CFR 9.28, the applicant for
the DCR will be treated as the ``submitter.''
IX. Plain Language
The Presidential memorandum ``Plain Language in Government
Writing'' published on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883), directed that the
Government's documents be in clear and accessible language. The NRC
requests comments on the proposed rule specifically with respect to the
clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent
to the NRC as explained in the ADDRESSES heading of this document.
X. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology and Transfer Act of 1995 (Act), Public Law
104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless
using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is
otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC proposes to
approve the ESBWR standard plant design for use in nuclear power plant
licensing under 10 CFR part 50 or 52. Design certifications are not
generic rulemakings establishing a generally applicable standard with
which all 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 nuclear power plant licensees must
comply. Design certifications are Commission approvals of specific
nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking. Furthermore, design
certifications are initiated by an applicant for rulemaking, rather
than by the NRC. For these reasons, the NRC concludes that the Act does
not apply to this proposed rule.
XI. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
The NRC has determined under NEPA, and the NRC's regulations in
Subpart A, ``National Environmental Policy Act; Regulations
Implementing Section 102(2),'' of 10 CFR part 51, ``Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions,'' that a proposed design certification rule, if adopted,
would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is not required. The NRC's generic determination in
this regard is reflected in 10 CFR 51.32(b)(1). The basis for the NRC's
categorical exclusion in this regard, as discussed in the 2007 final
rule amending 10 CFR parts 51 and 52 (August 28, 2007; 72 FR 49352-
49566), is based upon the following considerations. A design
certification rule does not authorize the siting, construction, or
operation of a facility referencing any particular using design;
[[Page 16566]]
it would only codify the ESBWR design in a rule. The NRC will evaluate
the environmental impacts and issue an EIS as appropriate under NEPA as
part of the application for the construction and operation of a
facility referencing any particular design certification rule.
In addition, consistent with 10 CFR 51.30(d) and 10 CFR 51.32(b),
the NRC has prepared a draft EA for the ESBWR design addressing various
design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents. The EA is
based, in part, upon the NRC's review of GEH's evaluation of various
design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents in NEDO-
33306, Revision 4, ``ESBWR Severe Accident Mitigation Design
Alternatives.'' Based upon review of GEH's evaluation, the Commission
concludes that: (1) GEH identified a reasonably complete set of
potential design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents
for the ESBWR design; (2) none of the potential design alternatives are
justified on the basis of cost-benefit considerations; and (3) it is
unlikely that other design changes would be identified and justified
during the term of the design certification on the basis of cost-
benefit considerations, because the estimated core damage frequencies
for the ESBWR are very low on an absolute scale. These issues are
considered resolved for the ESBWR design.
The Commission is requesting comment on the draft EA. As provided
in 10 CFR 51.31(b), comments on the draft EA will be limited to the
consideration of SAMDAs as required by 10 CFR 51.30(d). The Commission
will prepare a final EA following the close of the comment period for
the proposed standard design certification. If a final rule is issued,
all environmental issues concerning SAMDAs associated with the
information in the final EA and NEDO-33306 will be considered resolved
for facility applications referencing the ESBWR design if the site
characteristics at the site proposed in the facility application fall
within the site parameters specified in NEDO-33306.
The draft EA, upon which the Commission's finding of no significant
impact is based, and the ESBWR DCD are available for examination and
copying at the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, Room
O-1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule contains new or amended information collection
requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of the information
collection requirements.
Type of submission, new or revision: Revision.
The title of the information collection: Appendix E to 10 CFR Part
52, ESBWR Design Certification, Proposed Rule.
Current OMB Approval Number: 3150-0151.
The form number if applicable: Not applicable.
How often the collection is required: Semi-annually.
Who will be required or asked to report: Applicant for a combined
license or a design certification amendment.
An estimate of the number of annual responses: 3 (1 response plus 2
recordkeepers).
The estimated number of annual respondents: 2.
An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to
complete the requirement or request: Approximately 45 additional burden
hours (5 hours reporting plus 40 hours recordkeeping).
Abstract: The NRC proposes to amend its regulations to certify the
ESBWR 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 ESBWR design may do so by referencing this
DCR. The applicant for certification of the ESBWR design is GE-Hitachi
Nuclear Energy.
The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the
information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the
following issues:
1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the
information will have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated collection techniques?
A copy of the OMB clearance package may be viewed free of charge at
the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. The OMB clearance package and
rule are available at the NRC Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html for 60 days after the signature date
of this notice.
Send comments on any aspect of these proposed information
collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the
above issues, by April 25, 2011 to the Records and FOIA/Privacy
Services Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to
[email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0151), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments on the proposed
information collections may also be submitted via the Federal
rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID NRC-2010-
0135. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is
practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to
comments received after this date.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
XIII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this proposed
rule. The NRC prepares regulatory analyses for rulemakings that
establish generic regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees.
Design certifications are not generic rulemakings in the sense that
design certifications do not establish standards or requirements with
which all licensees must comply. Rather, design certifications are
Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by
rulemaking, which then may be voluntarily referenced by applicants for
COLs. Furthermore, design certification rulemakings are initiated by an
applicant for a design certification, rather than the NRC. Preparation
of a regulatory analysis in this circumstance would not be useful
because the design to be certified is proposed by the applicant rather
than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that
preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required nor
appropriate.
XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the
Commission certifies that this rule would not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule provides for certification of a nuclear power plant
design. Neither the design certification applicant, nor
[[Page 16567]]
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 size
standards set established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). Thus, this rule
does not fall within the purview of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
XV. Backfitting
The Commission has determined that this proposed rule does not
constitute a backfit as defined in the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109)
because this design certification does not impose new or changed
requirements on existing 10 CFR part 50 licensees, nor does it impose
new or changed requirements on existing DCRs in Appendices A through D
to 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, a backfit analysis was not prepared for
this rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 52
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting,
Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees,
Inspection, Limited work authorization, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting
criteria, Redress of site, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Standard design, Standard design certification, Incorporation by
reference.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 52.
PART 52--LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS FOR NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS
1. The authority citation for 10 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs.
201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note);
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005),
secs. 147 and 149 of the Atomic Energy Act.
2. In 10 CFR 52.11, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 52.11 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
* * * * *
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in
this part appear in 10 CFR part 52, 52.7, 52.15, 52.16, 52.17, 52.29,
52.35, 52.39, 52.45, 52.46, 52.47, 52.57, 52.63, 52.75, 52.77, 52.79,
52.80, 52.93, 52.99, 52.110, 52.135, 52.136, 52.137, 52.155, 52.156,
52.157, 52.158, 52.171, 52.177, and appendices A, B, C, D, E, and N to
this part.
3. Appendix E to 10 CFR part 52 is added to read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 52--Design Certification Rule for the ESBWR Design
I. Introduction
Appendix E constitutes the standard design certification for the
Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) design, in
accordance with 10 CFR part 52, Subpart B. The applicant for
certification of the ESBWR design is GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy.
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 (generic TS) 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 that portion of the combined license
(COL) final safety analysis report (FSAR) that sets forth both the
generic DCD information and any plant-specific changes to generic
DCD information.
D. Tier 1 means the portion of the design-related information
contained in the generic DCD that is approved and certified by this
appendix (Tier 1 information). The design descriptions, interface
requirements, and site parameters are derived from Tier 2
information. Tier 1 information includes:
1. Definitions and general provisions;
2. Design descriptions;
3. Inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria
(ITAAC);
4. Significant site parameters; and
5. Significant interface requirements.
E. Tier 2 means the portion of the design-related information
contained in the generic DCD that is approved but not certified by
this appendix (Tier 2 information). Compliance with Tier 2 is
required, but generic changes to and plant-specific departures from
Tier 2 are governed by Section VIII of this appendix. Compliance
with Tier 2 provides a sufficient, but not the only acceptable,
method for complying with Tier 1. Compliance methods differing from
Tier 2 must satisfy the change process in Section VIII of this
appendix. Regardless of these differences, an applicant or licensee
must meet the requirement in paragraph III.B of this appendix to
reference Tier 2 when referencing Tier 1. Tier 2 information
includes:
1. Information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a) and 52.47(c), with
the exception of generic TS and conceptual design information;
2. Supporting information on the inspections, tests, and
analyses that will be performed to demonstrate that the acceptance
criteria in the ITAAC have been met;
3. COL action items (COL license information), which identify
certain matters that must be addressed in the site-specific portion
of the FSAR by an applicant who references this appendix. These
items constitute information requirements but are not the only
acceptable set of information in the FSAR. An applicant may depart
from or omit these items, provided that the departure or omission is
identified and justified in the FSAR. After issuance of a
construction permit or COL, these items are not requirements for the
licensee unless such items are restated in the FSAR; and
4. The availability controls in Appendix 19ACM of the DCD.
F. Tier 2* means the portion of the Tier 2 information,
designated as such in the generic DCD, which is subject to the
change process in paragraph VIII.B.6 of this appendix. This
designation expires for some Tier 2* information under paragraph
VIII.B.6 of this appendix.
G. Departure from a method of evaluation described in the plant-
specific DCD used in establishing the design bases or in the safety
analyses means:
1. Changing any of the elements of the method described in the
plant-specific DCD unless the results of the analysis are
conservative or essentially the same; or
2. Changing from a method described in the plant-specific DCD to
another method unless that method has been approved by the NRC for
the intended application.
H. All other terms in this appendix have the meaning set out in
10 CFR 50.2, 10 CFR 52.1, or Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, as applicable.
III. Scope and Contents
A. All Tier 1, Tier 2 (including the availability controls in
Appendix 19ACM), and the generic TS in the ESBWR DCD, Revision 9,
dated December 2010, are approved for incorporation by reference by
the Director of the Office of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain copies of the generic DCD
from Rick E. Kingston, Vice President, ESBWR Licensing, GE-Hitachi
Nuclear Energy, 3901 Castle Hayne Road, MC A65, Wilmington, NC
28401. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public
can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of
NRC's public documents. To view the generic DCD in ADAMS, search
under ADAMS Accession No. ML103440266. If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, then contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected]. A copy of the generic DCD is also available
for examination and copying at the NRC PDR, Room O-1F21, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Copies
are also available for examination at the NRC Library, Two White
Flint North, 11545 Rockville
[[Page 16568]]
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, telephone: 301-415-5610, e-mail:
[email protected]. All approved material is available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The generic DCD can also be viewed
at the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by
searching for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2010-0135.
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 availability controls in
Appendix 19ACM of the DCD), and the generic TS except as otherwise
provided in this appendix. Conceptual design information in the
generic DCD and the evaluation of severe accident mitigation design
alternatives in NEDO-33306, Revision 4, ``ESBWR Severe Accident
Mitigation Design Alternatives,'' 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 ESBWR design or NUREG-
XXXX, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Certification of
the ESBWR 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 characteristics, 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 COL that wishes to reference this appendix
shall, in addition to complying with the requirements of 10 CFR
52.77, 52.79, and 52.80, 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 type of information
and using the same organization and numbering as the generic DCD for
the ESBWR design, either by including or incorporating by reference
the generic DCD information, and as modified and supplemented by the
applicant's exemptions and departures;
b. The reports on departures from and updates to the plant-
specific DCD required by paragraph X.B of this appendix;
c. Plant-specific TS, consisting of the generic and site-
specific TS that are required by 10 CFR 50.36 and 50.36a;
d. Information demonstrating that the site characteristics fall
within the site parameters and that the interface requirements have
been met;
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. Include, in the plant-specific DCD, the sensitive,
unclassified, non-safeguards information (SUNSI) (including
proprietary information) and safeguards information (SGI) referenced
in the ESBWR generic DCD.
4. Include, as part of its application, a demonstration that an
entity other than GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy is qualified to supply
the ESBWR design unless GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy supplies the
design for the applicant's use.
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 10 CFR part 50.
V. Applicable Regulations
A. Except as indicated in paragraph B of this section, the
regulations that apply to the ESBWR design are in 10 CFR parts 20,
50, 73, and 100, codified as of [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS SIGNED BY
THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION], that are applicable and
technically relevant, as described in the FSER (NUREG-XXXX).
B. The ESBWR design is exempt from portions of the following
regulations:
1. Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34--Contents of
Applications: Technical Information.
VI. Issue Resolution
A. The Commission has determined that the structures, systems,
components, and design features of the ESBWR 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
ESBWR design.
B. The Commission considers the following matters resolved
within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5) in subsequent proceedings
for issuance of a COL, amendment of a COL, or renewal of a COL,
proceedings held under 10 CFR 52.103, and enforcement proceedings
involving plants referencing this appendix:
1. All nuclear safety issues, except for the generic TS and
other operational requirements such as human factors engineering
procedure development and training program development in Chapters
18.9 and 18.10 of the generic DCD, associated with the information
in the FSER, Tier 1, Tier 2 (including referenced information, which
the context indicates is intended as requirements, and the
availability controls in Appendix 19ACM of the DCD), and the
rulemaking record for certification of the ESBWR design;
2. All nuclear safety and safeguards issues associated with the
referenced information in SUNSI (including proprietary information)
and safeguards information which, in context, are intended as
requirements in the generic DCD for the ESBWR design, with the
exception of human factors engineering procedure development and
training program development in Chapters 18.9 and 18.10 of the
generic DCD;
3. All generic changes to the DCD under and in compliance with
the change processes in paragraphs VIII.A.1 and VIII.B.1 of this
appendix;
4. All exemptions from the DCD under and in compliance with the
change processes in paragraphs VIII.A.4 and VIII.B.4 of this
appendix, but only for that plant;
5. All departures from the DCD that are approved by license
amendment, but only for that plant;
6. Except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.f of this appendix,
all departures from Tier 2 under and in compliance with the change
processes in paragraph VIII.B.5 of this appendix that do not require
prior NRC approval, but only for that plant;
7. All environmental issues concerning severe accident
mitigation design alternatives associated with the information in
the NRC's EA for the ESBWR design (ADAMS Accession No. ML102220247)
and NEDO-33306, Revision 4, ``ESBWR Severe Accident Mitigation
Design Alternatives,'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML102990433) for plants
referencing this appendix whose site characteristics fall within
those site parameters specified in NEDO-33306.
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)(5). The Commission
reserves the right to require operational requirements for an
applicant or licensee who references this appendix by rule,
regulation, order, or license condition.
D. Except under the change processes in Section VIII of this
appendix, the Commission may not require an applicant or licensee
who references this appendix to:
1. Modify structures, systems, components, or design features as
described in the generic DCD;
2. Provide additional or alternative structures, systems,
components, or design features not discussed in the generic DCD; or
3. Provide additional or alternative design criteria, testing,
analyses, acceptance criteria, or justification for structures,
systems, components, or design features discussed in the generic
DCD.
E. The NRC will specify at an appropriate time the procedures to
be used by an interested person who wishes to review portions of the
design certification or references containing SGI or SUNSI
(including proprietary information \8\), for the purpose of
participating in the hearing required by 10 CFR 52.85, the hearing
provided under 10 CFR 52.103, or in any other proceeding relating to
this appendix in which interested persons have a right to request an
adjudicatory hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Proprietary information includes trade secrets and
commercial or financial information obtained from a person that are
privileged or confidential. 10 CFR 2.390 and 10 CFR part 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Duration of This Appendix
This appendix may be referenced for a period of 15 years from
[DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER],
[[Page 16569]]
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)(4).
4. Exemptions from Tier 1 information are governed by the
requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1) and 52.98(f). 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 10 CFR 52.55 or 52.61, unless:
a. A modification is necessary to secure compliance with the
Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time this
appendix was approved, as set forth in Section V of this appendix,
or to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety or
the common defense and security; and
b. Special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a) are
present.
4. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix may
request an exemption from Tier 2 information. The Commission may
grant such a request only if it determines that the exemption will
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a). The Commission will
deny a request for an exemption from Tier 2, if it finds that the
design change will result in a significant decrease in the level of
safety otherwise provided by the design. The grant of an exemption
to an applicant must be subject to litigation in the same manner as
other issues material to the license hearing. The grant of an
exemption to a licensee must be subject to an opportunity for a
hearing in the same manner as license amendments.
5.a. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix may
depart from Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, unless
the proposed departure involves a change to or departure from Tier 1
information, Tier 2* information, or the TS, or requires a license
amendment under paragraph B.5.b or B.5.c of this section. When
evaluating the proposed departure, an applicant or licensee shall
consider all matters described in the plant-specific DCD.
b. A proposed departure from Tier 2, other than one affecting
resolution of a severe accident issue identified in the plant-
specific DCD or one affecting information required by 10 CFR
52.47(a)(28) to address aircraft impacts, requires a license
amendment if it would:
(1) Result in more than a minimal increase in the frequency of
occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the plant-specific
DCD;
(2) Result in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of
occurrence of a malfunction of a structure, system, or component
(SSC) important to safety and previously evaluated in the plant-
specific DCD;
(3) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences
of an accident previously evaluated in the plant-specific DCD;
(4) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences
of a malfunction of an SSC important to safety previously evaluated
in the plant-specific DCD;
(5) Create a possibility for an accident of a different type
than any evaluated previously in the plant-specific DCD;
(6) Create a possibility for a malfunction of an SSC important
to safety with a different result than any evaluated previously in
the plant-specific DCD;
(7) Result in a design basis limit for a fission product barrier
as described in the plant-specific DCD being exceeded or altered; or
(8) Result in a departure from a method of evaluation described
in the plant-specific DCD used in establishing the design bases or
in the safety analyses.
c. A proposed departure from Tier 2 affecting resolution of an
ex-vessel severe accident design feature identified in the plant-
specific DCD, requires a license amendment if:
(1) There is a substantial increase in the probability of an ex-
vessel severe accident such that a particular ex-vessel 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 ex-vessel severe accident previously
reviewed.
d. A proposed departure from Tier 2 information required by 10
CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address aircraft impacts shall consider the
effect of the changed design feature or functional capability on the
original aircraft impact assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(a).
The applicant or licensee shall describe in the plant-specific DCD
how the modified design features and functional capabilities
continue to meet the aircraft impact assessment requirements in 10
CFR 50.150(a)(1).
e. If a departure requires a license amendment under paragraph
B.5.b or B.5.c of this section, it is governed by 10 CFR 50.90.
f. A departure from Tier 2 information that is made under
paragraph B.5 of this section does not require an exemption from
this appendix.
g. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding for either the
issuance, amendment, or renewal of a license or for operation under
10 CFR 52.103(a), who believes that an applicant or licensee who
references this appendix has not complied with paragraph VIII.B.5 of
this appendix when departing from Tier 2 information, may petition
to admit into the proceeding such a contention. In addition to
compliance with the general requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, the
petition must demonstrate that the departure does not comply with
paragraph VIII.B.5 of this appendix. Further, the petition must
demonstrate that the change bears on an asserted noncompliance with
an ITAAC acceptance criterion in the case of a 10 CFR 52.103
preoperational hearing, or that the change bears directly on the
amendment request in the case of a hearing on a license amendment.
Any other party may file a response. If, on the basis of the
petition and any response, the presiding officer determines that a
sufficient showing has been made, the presiding officer shall
certify the matter directly to the Commission for determination of
the admissibility of the contention. The Commission may admit such a
contention if it determines the petition raises a genuine issue of
material fact regarding compliance with paragraph VIII.B.5 of this
appendix.
6.a. An applicant who references this appendix may not depart
from Tier 2* information, which is designated with italicized text
or brackets and an asterisk in the generic DCD, without NRC
approval. The departure will not be considered a resolved issue,
within the meaning of Section VI of this appendix and 10 CFR
52.63(a)(5).
b. A licensee who references this appendix may not depart from
the following Tier 2* matters without prior NRC approval. A request
for a departure will be treated as a request for a license amendment
under 10 CFR 50.90.
(1) Fuel mechanical and thermal-mechanical design evaluation
reports, including fuel burnup limits.
(2) Control rod mechanical and nuclear design reports.
(3) Fuel nuclear design report.
(4) Critical power correlation.
(5) Fuel licensing acceptance criteria.
(6) Control rod licensing acceptance criteria.
(7) Mechanical and structural design of spent fuel storage
racks.
c. A licensee who references this appendix may not, before the
plant first achieves full power following the finding required by 10
CFR 52.103(g), depart from the following Tier 2* matters except
under paragraph B.6.b of this section. After the plant first
achieves full power, the following Tier 2* matters revert to Tier 2
status and are subject to the departure provisions in paragraph B.5
of this section.
(1) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III.
(2) American Concrete Institute 349 and American National
Standards Institute/
[[Page 16570]]
American Institute of Steel Construction-N690.
(3) Motor-operated valves.
(4) Equipment seismic qualification methods.
(5) Piping design acceptance criteria.
(6) Instrument setpoint methodology.
(7) Safety-Related Distribution Control and Information System
performance specification and architecture.
(8) Safety System Logic and Control hardware and software.
(9) Human factors engineering design and implementation.
(10) First of a kind testing for reactor stability (first plant
only).
(11) Reactor precritical heatup with reactor water cleanup/
shutdown cooling (first plant only).
(12) Isolation condenser system heatup and steady state
operation (first plant only).
(13) Power maneuvering in the feedwater temperature operating
domain (first plant only).
(14) Load maneuvering capability (first plant only).
(15) Defense-in-depth stability solution evaluation test (first
plant 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 TS and other operational
requirements that were completely reviewed and approved in the
design certification rulemaking and do not require a change to a
design feature in the generic DCD are governed by the requirements
in 10 CFR 50.109. Generic changes that require a change to a design
feature in the generic DCD are governed by the requirements in
paragraphs A or B of this section.
2. Generic changes to generic TS and other operational
requirements are applicable to all applicants who reference this
appendix, except those for which the change has been rendered
technically irrelevant by action taken under paragraphs C.3 or C.4
of this section.
3. The Commission may require plant-specific departures on
generic TS and other operational requirements that were completely
reviewed and approved, provided a change to a design feature in the
generic DCD is not required and special circumstances as defined in
10 CFR 2.335 are present. The Commission may modify or supplement
generic TS and other operational requirements that were not
completely reviewed and approved or require additional TS and other
operational requirements on a plant-specific basis, provided a
change to a design feature in the generic DCD is not required.
4. An applicant who references this appendix may request an
exemption from the generic TS or other operational requirements. The
Commission may grant such a request only if it determines that the
exemption will comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.7. 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 the issuance,
amendment, or renewal of a license, or for operation under 10 CFR
52.103(a), who believes that an operational requirement approved in
the DCD or a TS derived from the generic TS must be changed may
petition to admit such a contention into the proceeding. The
petition must comply with the general requirements of 10 CFR 2.309
and must demonstrate why special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR
2.335 are present, or demonstrate compliance with the Commission's
regulations in effect at the time this appendix was approved, as set
forth in Section V of this appendix. Any other party may file a
response to the petition. If, on the basis of the petition and any
response, the presiding officer determines that a sufficient showing
has been made, the presiding officer shall certify the matter
directly to the Commission for determination of the admissibility of
the contention. All other issues with respect to the plant-specific
TS or other operational requirements are subject to a hearing as
part of the license proceeding.
6. After issuance of a license, the generic TS have no further
effect on the plant-specific TS. Changes to the plant-specific TS
will be treated as license amendments under 10 CFR 50.90.
IX. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
[Reserved]
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 it makes to Tier 1 and
Tier 2, and the generic TS and other operational requirements. The
applicant shall maintain the SUNSI (including proprietary
information) and safeguards information referenced in the generic
DCD for the period that this appendix may be referenced, as
specified in Section VII of this appendix.
2. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
maintain the plant-specific DCD to accurately reflect both generic
changes to the generic DCD and plant-specific departures made under
Section VIII of this appendix throughout the period of application
and for the term of the license (including any period of renewal).
3. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
prepare and maintain written evaluations which provide the bases for
the determinations required by Section VIII of this appendix. These
evaluations must be retained throughout the period of application
and for the term of the license (including any period of renewal).
4.a. The applicant for the ESBWR design shall maintain a copy of
the aircraft impact assessment performed to comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) for the term of the certification
(including any period of renewal).
b. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
maintain a copy of the aircraft impact assessment performed to
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) throughout the
pendency of the application and for the term of the license
(including any period of renewal).
B. Reporting
1. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
submit a report to the NRC containing a brief description of any
plant-specific departures from the DCD, including a summary of the
evaluation of each. This report must be filed in accordance with the
filing requirements applicable to reports in 10 CFR 52.3.
2. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
submit updates to its DCD, which reflect the generic changes to and
plant-specific departures from the generic DCD made under Section
VIII of this appendix. These updates shall be filed under the filing
requirements applicable to final safety analysis report updates in
10 CFR 52.3 and 50.71(e).
3. The reports and updates required by paragraphs X.B.1 and
X.B.2 of this appendix must be submitted as follows:
a. On the date that an application for a license referencing
this appendix is submitted, the application must include the report
and any updates to the generic DCD.
b. During the interval from the date of application for a
license to the date the Commission makes its finding required by 10
CFR 52.103(g), the report must be submitted semi-annually. Updates
to the plant-specific DCD must be submitted annually and may be
submitted along with amendments to the application.
c. After the Commission makes the finding required by 10 CFR
52.103(g), the reports and updates to the plant-specific DCD must be
submitted, along with updates to the site-specific portion of the
final safety analysis report for the facility, at the intervals
required by 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2) and 50.71(e)(4), respectively, or at
shorter intervals as specified in the license.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-6839 Filed 3-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P