Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, 49352-49566 [07-3861]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 28, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49352-49566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3861]



[[Page 49351]]

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

Part II





Nuclear Regulatory Commission





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



10 CFR Parts 1, 2, 10, et al.



Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants; Final 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 28, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 49352]]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 1, 2, 10, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 72, 
73, 75, 95, 140, 170, and 171

RIN 3150-AG24


Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
regulations by revising the provisions applicable to the licensing and 
approval processes for nuclear power plants (i.e., early site permit, 
standard design approval, standard design certification, combined 
license, and manufacturing license). These amendments clarify the 
applicability of various requirements to each of the licensing 
processes by making necessary conforming amendments throughout the 
NRC's regulations to enhance the NRC's regulatory effectiveness and 
efficiency in implementing its licensing and approval processes. The 
NRC has considered and resolved the public comments.

DATES: The effective date is September 27, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nanette V. Gilles, Office of New 
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone 301-415-1180, e-mail nvg@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
I. Background
    A. Development of Proposed Rule
    B. Publication of Revised Proposed Rule
II. Overview of Public Comments
III. Reorganization of Part 52 and Conforming Changes in the NRC's 
Regulations
IV. Responses to Specific Requests for Comments
V. Discussion of Substantive Changes and Responses to Significant 
Comments
    A. Introduction
    B. Testing Requirements for Advanced Reactors
    C. Changes to 10 CFR Part 52
    D. Changes to 10 CFR Part 50
    E. Change to 10 CFR Part 1
    F. Changes to 10 CFR Part 2
    G. Changes to 10 CFR Part 10
    H. Changes to 10 CFR Part 19
    I. Changes to 10 CFR Part 20
    J. Changes to 10 CFR Part 21
    K. Change to 10 CFR Part 25
    L. Changes to 10 CFR Part 26
    M. Changes to 10 CFR Part 51
    N. Changes to 10 CFR Part 54
    O. Changes to 10 CFR Part 55
    P. Changes to 10 CFR Part 72
    Q. Changes to 10 CFR Part 73
    R. Change to 10 CFR Part 75
    S. Changes to 10 CFR Part 95
    T. Changes to 10 CFR Part 140
    U. Changes to 10 CFR Part 170
    V. Changes to 10 CFR Part 171
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
VII. Availability of Documents
VIII. Agreement State Compatibility
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
X. Environmental Impact--Categorical Exclusion
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XII. Regulatory Analysis
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XIV. Backfit Analysis
XV. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Development of Proposed Rule

    On July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40026), the NRC published a proposed 
rulemaking that would clarify and/or correct miscellaneous parts of the 
NRC's regulations; update 10 CFR part 52 in its entirety; and 
incorporate stakeholder comments. On March 13, 2006 (71 FR 12781), the 
NRC issued a revised proposed rule that would rewrite part 52, make 
changes throughout the Commission's regulations to ensure that all 
licensing processes in part 52 are addressed, and clarify the 
applicability of various requirements to each of the processes in part 
52 (i.e., early site permit, standard design approval, standard design 
certification, combined license, and manufacturing license). This 
proposed rule superseded the July 3, 2003, proposed rule.
    The NRC issued 10 CFR part 52 on April 18, 1989 (54 FR 15372), to 
reform the NRC's licensing process for future nuclear power plants. The 
rule added alternative licensing processes in 10 CFR part 52 for early 
site permits, standard design certifications, and combined licenses. 
These were additions to the two-step licensing process that already 
existed in 10 CFR part 50. The processes in 10 CFR part 52 allow for 
resolving safety and environmental issues early in licensing 
proceedings and were intended to enhance the safety and reliability of 
nuclear power plants through standardization. Subsequently, the NRC 
certified four nuclear power plant designs under subpart B of 10 CFR 
part 52--the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) (62 FR 25800; 
May 12, 1997), the System 80+ (62 FR 27840; May 21, 1997), the AP600 
(64 FR 72002; December 23, 1999), and the AP1000 (71 FR 4464; January 
27, 2006). These design certifications are codified in appendices A, B, 
C, and D of 10 CFR part 52, respectively.
    The NRC planned to update 10 CFR part 52 after using the standard 
design certification process. The proposed rulemaking action began with 
the issuance of SECY-98-282, ``Part 52 Rulemaking Plan,'' on December 
4, 1998. The Commission issued a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) on 
January 14, 1999 (SRM on SECY-98-282), approving the NRC staff's plan 
for revising 10 CFR part 52. Subsequently, the NRC obtained 
considerable stakeholder comment on its planned action, conducted three 
public meetings on the proposed rulemaking, and twice posted draft rule 
language on the NRC's rulemaking Web site before issuance of the July 
2003 proposed rule. \

B. Publication of Revised Proposed Rule

    A number of factors led the NRC to question whether the July 2003 
proposed rule would meet the NRC's objective of improving the 
effectiveness of its processes for licensing future nuclear power 
plants. First, public comments identified several concerns about 
whether the proposed rule adequately addressed the relationship between 
part 50 and part 52, and whether it clearly specified the applicable 
regulatory requirements for each of the licensing and approval 
processes in part 52. In addition, as a result of the NRC staff's 
review of the first three early site permit applications, the staff 
gained additional insights into the early site permit process. The NRC 
also had the benefit of public meetings with external stakeholders on 
NRC staff guidance for the early site permit and combined license 
processes. As a result, the NRC decided that a substantial rewrite and 
expansion of the July 2003 proposed rulemaking was desirable so that 
the agency may more effectively and efficiently implement the licensing 
and approval processes for future nuclear power plants under part 52.
    Accordingly, the Commission decided to revise the July 2003 
proposed rule and published a revised proposed rule for public comment 
on March 13, 2006. This revised proposed rule contained a rewrite of 
part 52, as well as changes throughout the NRC's regulations, to ensure 
that all licensing and approval processes in part 52 are addressed, and 
to clarify the applicability of various requirements to each of the 
processes in part 52. In light of the substantial rewrite of the July 
2003 proposed rule, the expansion of the scope of the rulemaking, and 
the NRC's decision to publish the revised proposed rule for public 
comment, the NRC decided that developing responses to comments received 
on the July 2003 proposed rule would not be an effective use of agency 
resources. The NRC requested that commenters on the July 2003 proposed 
rule who believed that their earlier

[[Page 49353]]

comments were not adequately addressed in the March 2006 proposed rule 
resubmit their comments.

II. Overview of Public Comments

    The public comment period for the March 2006 revised proposed rule 
expired on May 30, 2006. The NRC received 19 comment letters from 
industry stakeholders, other Federal agencies, and individuals during 
the public comment period. The NRC has considered and resolved all of 
the public comments received during the comment period and has made 
modifications to the rule language, as appropriate. The NRC has 
prepared a separate report, entitled Comment Summary Report: 10 CFR 
Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power 
Plants, in which it summarizes the public comments received and 
discusses the agency's disposition of each comment. This report is 
available to the public as discussed in Section VII of the 
Supplementary Information of this document. The resolution of 
significant public comments is also discussed in Section IV, Responses 
to Specific Requests for Comments and, Section V, Discussion of 
Substantive Changes and Responses to Significant Comments in this 
document.

III. Reorganization of Part 52 and Conforming Changes in the NRC's 
Regulations

    Since the adoption of 10 CFR part 52 in 1989, the NRC and its 
external stakeholders identified a number of interrelated issues and 
concerns with the licensing process. One significant concern was that 
the overall regulatory relationship between part 50 and part 52 was not 
always clear. In the former rules, it was often difficult to tell 
whether general regulatory provisions in part 50 apply to part 52. One 
example is whether the absence of an exemption provision in part 52 
denotes the NRC's determination that exemptions from part 52 
requirements are not available, or that these exemptions are controlled 
by Sec.  50.12. A related problem is the current lack of specific 
delineation of the applicability of NRC requirements throughout 10 CFR 
Chapter I to the licensing and approval processes in part 52. For 
example, the indemnity and insurance provisions in part 140 were not 
revised to address their applicability to applicants for and holders of 
combined licenses under subpart C of part 52. Even where part 52 
provisions referenced specific requirements in part 50, it was not 
always clear from the language of the part 50 requirement how that 
requirement applied to the part 52 processes. For example, Sec.  
52.47(a)(1)(i) provides that a standard design certification 
application must contain the ``technical information which is required 
of applicants for construction permits and operating licenses by 10 
CFR* * *part 50* * *and which is technically relevant to the design and 
not site-specific.''
    The language did not explicitly identify the part 50 requirements 
that are ``technically relevant to the design.'' Even where a specific 
regulation in part 50 is identified as a requirement, the language of 
the referenced regulation itself was not changed to reflect the 
specific requirements as applied to the part 52 processes. For example, 
Sec.  52.79(b) provides that the application must contain the 
``technically relevant information required of applicants for an 
operating license required by 10 CFR 50.34.'' Other than the fact that 
this language shares the problem discussed earlier of what constitutes 
a ``technically relevant'' requirement, Sec.  50.34(b) is based upon 
the two-step licensing process whereby certain important information is 
submitted at the construction permit stage, and then supplemented with 
more detailed information at the operating license stage. Thus, it 
could be asserted that certain information that must be submitted in 
the construction permit application, e.g., the ``principal design 
criteria for the facility'' required by Sec.  50.34(a)(3)(i), may be 
regarded as not required to be submitted for a combined license 
application under the former version of part 52.
    Another potential source of confusion is that the different 
subparts of part 52 and the appendices on standard design approvals and 
manufacturing licenses are not organized using the same format of 
individual sections (e.g., ``Scope of subpart,'' followed by 
``Relationship to other subparts,'' followed by ``Filing of 
application''). Moreover, the organization and textual content of 
identically-titled sections differs among the subparts, and with 
appendices M, N, O, and Q, which establish additional licensing and 
approval processes. While these differences do not constitute an 
insurmountable problem to their use and application, it became apparent 
to the Commission that adoption of a common format, organization, and 
textual content would enhance usability and result in increased 
regulatory effectiveness and efficiency.
    In the 2003 proposed rule, the NRC proposed several changes that 
were intended to address some (but not all) of these issues. However, 
based upon comments received on the 2003 proposed rule, the NRC's 
experience to date with early site permit applications, interactions 
with external stakeholders concerning NRC guidance for combined license 
applications, and NRC's screening of 10 CFR Chapter I requirements 
following the receipt of public comments on the 2003 proposed rule, the 
NRC concluded that the 2003 proposed rule would not adequately address 
and resolve these issues.
    Accordingly, in the March 13, 2006, proposed rule the NRC took a 
more comprehensive approach to addressing these issues by reorganizing 
part 52, implementing a uniform format and content for each of the 
subparts in part 52, using consistent wording and organization of 
sections in each of the subparts, and making conforming changes 
throughout 10 CFR Chapter I to reflect the licensing and approval 
processes in part 52. The NRC also coordinated and reconciled 
differences in wording among provisions in parts 2, 50, 51, and 52 to 
provide consistent terminology throughout all of the regulations 
affecting part 52. Under the NRC's reorganization of part 52, the 
existing appendices O and M on standard design approvals and 
manufacturing licenses, respectively, have been redesignated as new 
subparts in part 52. Redesignating these appendices as subparts in part 
52 has resulted in a consistent format and organization of the 
requirements applicable to each of the licensing and approval 
processes. In addition, the redesignation clarifies that each of the 
licensing and approval processes in these appendices are available to 
potential applicants as an alternative to the processes in part 50 
(construction permit and operating license) and the existing subparts A 
through C of part 52. The Commission does not, by virtue of this 
redesignation, either favor or disfavor the processes in the former 
appendices M and O of part 52. Rather, the Commission is standardizing 
the format and organization of part 52, and clarifying the full range 
of alternatives that are available under part 52 for use by potential 
applicants. Consistent with the broad scope of part 52, the NRC has 
retitled 10 CFR part 52 as ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals 
for Nuclear Power Plants.''
    The NRC has also reorganized and expanded the scope of the 
administrative and general regulatory provisions that precede the part 
52 subparts by adding new sections on written communications (analogous 
to Sec.  50.4), employee protection (analogous to Sec.  50.7), 
completeness and accuracy of information (analogous to Sec.  50.9), 
exemptions (analogous to Sec.  50.12), combining licenses (analogous to

[[Page 49354]]

Sec.  50.52), jurisdictional limits (analogous to Sec.  50.53), and 
attacks and destructive acts (analogous to Sec.  50.13). The NRC 
believes that adding the new sections to part 52 rather than revising 
the comparable sections in part 50 is more consistent with the general 
format and content of the Commission's regulations in each of the parts 
of Title 10. The NRC considered whether the numbering of the newly-
added sections to part 52--in particular, the provisions on deliberate 
misconduct, employee protection, and completeness and accuracy of 
information--should match the numbering of the comparable sections in 
part 50. While this may have some benefit, the NRC ultimately decided 
not to adopt such a course for several reasons. First, other parts of 
the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I do not maintain the same 
numbering scheme. Rather, it appears that the NRC attempted to maintain 
the order in which these sections are listed in each part. Second, 
there are other provisions in part 50 for which a comparable provision 
needed to be added to the general and administrative provisions in part 
52, but for which it would be impossible to maintain the same numbering 
(for example, Sec.  50.13 (attacks and destructive acts); Sec.  50.32 
(elimination of repetition); Sec.  50.52 (combining licenses)), unless 
the substantive provisions of part 52, beginning with Sec.  52.12, were 
changed.\1\ Maintaining in part 52 the numbering scheme for some, but 
not all, comparable sections from part 50 ultimately would be viewed as 
haphazard and arbitrary. Finally, the NRC does not believe that 
external stakeholders who must constantly refer to part 52 will be 
confused by any difference in numbering of the three sections, given 
that there are other comparable provisions for which the numbering is 
necessarily different between parts 50 and 52. For these reasons, the 
NRC did not attempt to match in the final part 52 rule the numbering of 
the comparable sections in part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The NRC notes, in this regard that nuclear industry 
stakeholders adversely commented on the revised numbering scheme as 
set forth in the 2003 proposed part 52 rule. They suggested that the 
NRC retain, to the greatest extent posible, the numbering of the 
then existing part 52. Inasmuch as Sec.  52.12 is the first 
substantive provision of the former party 52, this placed an upper 
bound on the number of sections available for general provisions--
that is Sec.  52.0 through 52.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix N, which addresses duplicate design licenses, has been 
retained in both part 52 and part 50 to afford future applicants 
flexibility and to retain the possibility of achieving regulatory 
efficiencies in part 52 combined license proceedings. Since the 
preparation of the March 2006 proposed rule, several industry groups 
have announced their intention to seek combined licenses utilizing the 
same design. In view of this industry development, the NRC believes 
that there is potential utility to keeping the option of appendix N 
open to potential combined license applicants. Accordingly, the NRC is 
retaining in part 52 the procedural alternative provided in appendix N, 
and revising its language to make its provisions applicable to combined 
licenses using identical designs. Appendix Q, which addresses early 
staff review of site suitability issues, is being removed from part 52 
but retained in part 50. Appendix Q provides for NRC staff issuance of 
a staff site report on site suitability issues with respect to a 
specific site for which a potential applicant seeks the NRC staff's 
views. The staff site report is issued after receiving and considering 
the comments of Federal, State, and local agencies and interested 
persons, as well as the views of the Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards (ACRS), but only if site safety issues are raised. The staff 
site report does not bind the Commission or a presiding officer in any 
hearing under part 2. This process is separate from the early site 
permit process in subpart A of part 52. The NRC recognizes the apparent 
redundancy between the early review of site suitability issues and the 
early site permit process. Accordingly, the NRC is removing appendix Q 
from part 52 and retaining it only in part 50.
    Inasmuch as the NRC may, in the future, adopt other regulatory 
processes for nuclear power plants, the NRC has reserved several 
subparts in part 52 to accommodate additional licensing processes that 
may be adopted by the NRC. The NRC used a standard format and content 
for revising the regulations in the existing subparts and developing 
the new subparts that address the former appendices M and O. The 
standard format and content was modeled on the existing organization 
and content of subparts A and C. Appendix N of part 52, however, has 
not been revised in that fashion because of time constraints in 
developing the final rule.
    Perhaps most importantly, the NRC has reviewed the existing 
regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I to determine if the existing 
regulations must be modified to reflect the licensing and approval 
processes in part 52. First, the NRC determined whether an existing 
regulatory provision must, by virtue of a statutory requirement or 
regulatory necessity, be extended to address a part 52 process, and, if 
so, how the regulatory provision should apply. Second, in situations 
where the NRC has some discretion, the NRC determined whether there 
were policy or regulatory reasons to extend the existing regulations to 
each of the part 52 processes. Most of the conforming changes in this 
final rule occur in 10 CFR part 50. In making conforming changes 
involving 10 CFR part 50 provisions, the NRC has adopted the general 
principle of keeping the technical requirements in 10 CFR part 50 and 
maintaining all applicable procedural requirements in part 52. However, 
due to the complexity of some provisions in 10 CFR part 50 (e.g., Sec.  
50.34), this principle could not be universally followed. A description 
of, and bases for, the substantive conforming changes for each affected 
part is provided in Section V of this document.
    To highlight the relationship between the requirements in part 52 
of this final rule and the requirements in existing part 52, the NRC is 
making two cross-reference tables available to the public. These tables 
can be found on NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS) at accession number ML062550U0246. Table 1 matches each part 52 
requirement in this final rule with its counterpart in the existing 
rule. Table 2 is a reverse cross-reference table which identifies the 
section of the existing part 52 requirements from which each part 52 
requirement in this final rule was derived.

IV. Responses to Specific Requests for Comments

    In Section V of the Statements of Consideration for the March 13, 
2006, proposed rule, the NRC posed 15 questions for which it solicited 
stakeholder comments. In the following paragraphs, these questions are 
restated, comments received from stakeholders are summarized, and the 
NRC resolution of the public comments is presented.
    Question 1: General Provisions. Create new subpart for part 50. In 
response to several commenters' concerns about the clarity of the 
applicability of part 50 provisions to part 52, the Commission has 
added provisions to part 52 (Sec. Sec.  52.0 through 52.11) that are 
analogues to comparable provisions in part 50. Another possible way of 
addressing the commenters' concerns would be to transfer all the 
provisions in part 52 to a new subpart (e.g., subpart M) of part 50, 
and retain the existing numbering sequence for the current part 52 with 
the addition of a prefix (e.g., proposed

[[Page 49355]]

50.1001 = current 52.1). The Commission is considering adopting this 
alternative proposal in the final rule and is interested in whether 
stakeholders regard this as a more desirable approach for minimizing 
the ambiguity of the relationship between part 50 and part 52.
    Commenters' Response: Some commenters stated the clarity of the 
regulations would not be enhanced by moving provisions from part 52 to 
a new subpart of part 50. The commenters argued that in addition to not 
eliminating existing confusion, such a content shift would create new 
confusion because current documents referencing part 52 would become 
``obsolete.''
    NRC Response: The NRC has decided not to transfer provisions from 
part 52 to a new subpart in part 50, inasmuch as: (1) no commenter 
favored transferring provisions from part 52 to a new subpart in part 
50, (2) the approaches are legally equivalent, and (3) nearly 17 years 
has passed since the Commission adopted the approach of establishing 
early site permits, standard design certifications, and combined 
licenses in a new part 52, and a reorganization of the regulations at 
this time may engender confusion without any compensating benefits in 
clarity, regulatory stability and predictability, or efficiency.
    Question 2: Currently, Sec. Sec.  52.17(b) of subpart A of 10 CFR 
part 52 requires that an early site permit application identify 
physical characteristics that could pose a significant impediment to 
the development of emergency plans. An early site permit application 
may also propose major features of the emergency plans or propose 
complete and integrated emergency plans in accordance with the 
applicable standards of Sec.  50.47 and the requirements of appendix E 
of 10 CFR part 50. The requirements in Sec.  52.17 do not further 
define major features of emergency plans. Section 52.18 of subpart A 
requires the Commission to determine, after consultation with the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, whether any major features of 
emergency plans submitted by the applicant under Sec.  52.17(b) are 
acceptable. Section 52.18 does not provide any further explanation of 
the Commission's criteria for judging the acceptability of major 
features of emergency plans.
    The Commission has concluded, after undergoing the review of the 
first three early site permit applications, that Commission review and 
acceptance of major features of emergency plans may not achieve the 
same level of finality for emergency preparedness issues at the early 
site permit stage as that associated with a reasonable assurance 
finding of complete and integrated plans. Therefore, the Commission is 
considering modifying in the final rule the early site permit process 
in proposed subpart A to remove the option for applicants to propose 
major features of emergency plans in early site permit applications and 
requests public comment on this alternative. The NRC believes that, if 
the option for early site permit applicants to include major features 
of emergency plans is to be retained, it would be useful to further 
define in the final rule what a major feature is and establish a 
clearer level of finality associated with the NRC's review and 
acceptance of major features of emergency plans. If the option to 
include major features of emergency plans is retained in the final 
rule, the NRC would define major features of emergency plans as 
follows:

    Major features of the emergency plans means the aspects of those 
plans necessary to: (1) address one or more of the sixteen standards 
in Sec.  50.47(b), and (2) describe the emergency planning zones as 
required in Sec. Sec.  50.33(g), 50.47(c)(2), and appendix E to 10 
CFR part 50.

    In addition, the NRC is considering adopting in the final rule the 
requirement that major features of emergency plans must include the 
proposed inspections, tests, and analyses that the holder of a combined 
license referencing the early site permit shall perform, and the 
acceptance criteria that are necessary and sufficient to provide 
reasonable assurance that, if the inspections, tests, and analyses are 
performed and the acceptance criteria met, the facility has been 
constructed and will operate in conformity with the license, the 
provisions of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), and the NRC's regulations, 
insofar as they relate to the major features under review.
    The NRC believes that, under this alternative, the level of 
finality associated with each major feature that the Commission found 
acceptable would be equivalent, for that individual major feature, to 
the level of finality associated with a reasonable assurance finding by 
the NRC for a complete and integrated plan, including inspections, 
tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC), at the early site 
permit stage.
    Commenters' Response: Several commenters suggested the current 
process for addressing major features of emergency plans (EP) in the 
early site permit (ESP) be retained without modification. Some 
commenters expressed a fear that the loss of this option would result 
in a loss of flexibility to achieve ``finality'' without producing a 
comprehensive EP. Some commenters identified a need to clarify the 
definition of ``major features'' of the EP to make it less restrictive. 
Some commenters believed that the approved major features were 
acceptable elements of a ``complete and integrated emergency plan that 
would be considered later.'' Some commenters believed the information 
should not be reviewed again during the COL process, which would 
instead focus on (1) the integration of these major features with 
information necessary to support the ``reasonable assurance finding,'' 
and (2) the updating of EP information required by Sec.  52.39(b).
    NRC Response: Based on the commenters' feedback, the NRC has 
decided to retain the current process for addressing major features of 
emergency plans in an ESP without modification. The NRC agrees that it 
should clarify the definition of ``major features'' and has done so by 
adding the definition suggested by the commenters to Sec.  52.1 in the 
final rule. For a detailed discussion of the basis for this change, see 
Section V.C.5.b of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document which discusses changes to Sec.  52.1, ``Definitions.''
    Question 3: As indicated in Section IV, Discussion of Substantive 
Changes (in the March 13, 2006, proposed rule), the NRC is proposing to 
remove appendix Q to part 52 entirely from part 52 and retain it in 
part 50. Currently, appendix Q to part 52 provides for NRC staff 
issuance of a staff site report on site suitability issues with respect 
to a specific site, for which a person (most likely a potential 
applicant for a construction permit or combined license) seeks the NRC 
staff's views. The NRC is also considering removing, in the final rule, 
the early site review process in appendix Q to part 52 in its entirety 
from the NRC's regulations and is interested in stakeholder feedback on 
this alternative. One possible reason for removing the early site 
review process in its entirety is that potential nuclear power plant 
applicants would use the early site permit process in subpart A of part 
52, rather than the early site review process as it currently exists in 
appendix Q to parts 50 and 52. Also, in cases where a combined license 
applicant was interested in seeking NRC staff review of selected site 
suitability issues (as appendix Q to part 52 was designed for), the 
applicant could request a pre-application review of these issues. The 
use of pre-application reviews for selected issues has been 
successfully used by applicants for design certification. The NRC is

[[Page 49356]]

especially interested in the views of potential applicants for nuclear 
power plant construction permits and combined licenses as to whether 
there is any value in retaining the early site review process.
    Commenters' Response: Some commenters expressed concern about the 
loss of flexibility to assess site suitability that would result from 
the deletion of appendix Q from parts 50 and 52. These commenters 
believed that appendix Q to parts 50 and 52 (in conjunction with 
subpart F of 10 CFR part 2) was important for allowing ``critical path 
issues'' to be reviewed prior to submission of a combined license (COL) 
application in instances where prior completion of an ESP was not 
feasible. Some commenters argued for the efficiency of appendix Q to 
parts 50 and 52 and subpart F of part 2 because only applicant-selected 
issues would be reviewed during these processes. Some commenters 
recommended changes be made to specifically allow ESP and COL 
applicants to reference an early site review conducted in accordance 
with appendix Q or subpart F. The commenters stated that the NRC should 
not delete the option for a part 52 applicant to reference a review 
performed under appendix Q to 10 CFR part 52.
    NRC Response: After considering these comments the NRC has decided 
to go forward with removal of appendix Q from part 52 in the final 
rule.
    However, the NRC agrees that Sec.  2.101(a-1) and subpart F of part 
2 should be modified to allow applicants for early site permits and 
combined licenses under part 52 to take advantage of those provisions. 
Both Sec.  2.101(a-1) and subpart F of part 2 have been revised in the 
final rule, albeit somewhat differently than the approach recommended 
by the commenter. Inasmuch as the revisions are to the Commission's 
rules of procedure and practice, the Commission may adopt them in final 
form without further notice and comment, under the rulemaking 
provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The Commission believes that 
sufficient flexibility will be retained for future combined license 
applicants with the preservation of the provisions in Sec.  2.101(a-1) 
and subpart F of part 2 and that there is little value in also 
retaining the provisions in appendix Q.
    Question 4: Under subpart F of part 52 of the proposed rule, the 
NRC proposes to require approval of, and extend finality to, the final 
design for a reactor to be manufactured under a manufacturing license. 
While the NRC will also review the acceptability of the manufacturing 
license applicant's organization responsible for design and 
manufacturing, as well as the quality assurance (QA) program for design 
and manufacturing, the proposed rule does not provide a regulatory 
structure for further extending the scope of NRC review and issue 
finality to the manufacturing process itself. The NRC is considering 
extending regulatory review approval, and consequently expand issue 
finality, to the manufacturing itself in the final rule. There are two 
models that the Commission is considering adopting if it were to move 
in this direction. The first would be an analogue to the subpart C of 
part 52 combined license process, whereby the NRC would review and 
approve manufacturing ITAAC to be included in the manufacturing 
license. During the manufacturing of each reactor, the NRC would verify 
at the manufacturing location whether the ITAAC have been conducted and 
the acceptance criteria met. A NRC finding of successful completion of 
all the ITAAC would preclude any further inspection of the 
acceptability of the manufacture of the reactor at the site where the 
manufactured reactor is to be permanently sited and operated. The NRC's 
inspections and findings for the combined license or operating license 
would be limited to whether the reactor had been emplaced in undamaged 
condition (or damage had been appropriately repaired) and all interface 
requirements specified in the manufacturing license had been met. The 
NRC believes that it has authority to issue a manufacturing license 
under Section 161.h of the AEA.
    The other model that the NRC could adopt would be a combination of 
the approval processes used by the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in approving the 
manufacture of electronic devices and airplanes. The NRC's 
manufacturing license would approve: (1) the design of the nuclear 
power reactor to be manufactured; (2) the specific manufacturing and 
quality assurance/quality control processes and procedures to be used 
during manufacture; and (3) tests and acceptance criteria for 
demonstrating that the reactor has been properly manufactured. To be 
completely consistent with the FCC and FAA models, the NRC would issue 
a manufacturing license only after a prototype of the reactor had been 
constructed and tested to demonstrate that all performance requirements 
(i.e., compliance with NRC requirements and manufacturer's 
specifications) can be met by the design to be approved for 
manufacture.
    The NRC requests public comment on whether the manufacturing 
license process in proposed subpart F of part 52 should be further 
extended in the final rule to provide an option for NRC approval of the 
manufacturing, and if so, which model of regulatory oversight, i.e., 
the combined license ITAAC model or the FCC/FAA approval model, should 
be used by the NRC. The NRC also seeks public comment on whether an 
opportunity for hearing is required by the AEA in connection with a NRC 
determination that the manufacturing ITAAC have been successfully 
completed.
    Commenters' Response: Some commenters requested that applicants for 
manufacturing licenses be allowed, but not required, to use ITAAC to 
ensure that an ``as-manufactured plant conforms to the important design 
characteristics specified in the application for the manufacturing 
license.'' Some commenters stated that a manufacturing license for 
evolutionary designs should be subject to proposed Sec.  50.43(e) and 
should not require a prototype. Some commenters stated that 
manufacturing licenses should not be subject to more stringent 
requirements than design certifications.
    NRC Response: The NRC has decided to defer consideration of this 
alternative on ITAAC, for several reasons. First, one commenter's 
proposal to allow ITAAC for assuring that the as-manufactured reactor 
``conforms to the important design characteristics specified in the 
application for the manufacturing license,'' raises questions about 
what those ``important design characteristics'' might be, and why the 
ITAAC would be so narrowly limited. The Commission did not receive any 
in-depth comments presenting arguments one way or the other on the 
feasibility of developing such ITAAC, and the potential legal 
implications of, and technical considerations with respect to, such a 
finding by the manufacturer. Moreover, it is clear that any regulatory 
process that the Commission may adopt in rulemaking would require 
further opportunity for public comment, and therefore could not be 
adopted in a final part 52 rulemaking without substantial delay. In 
light of the lack of any near-term interest by any entity in obtaining 
a manufacturing license, the Commission has decided not to adopt any 
provisions for ITAAC governing approval of manufacturing in the final 
part 52 rule. However, the Commission would address these issues in a 
timely fashion if raised in a rulemaking

[[Page 49357]]

petition which demonstrated near-term interest in an application for a 
manufacturing license.
    The Commission agrees with the commenters'' suggestions that 
manufacturing licenses for evolutionary designs should be subject to 
new Sec.  50.43(e), and that under those provisions a prototype would 
not be prerequisite to issuance of a manufacturing license for an 
evolutionary design. Further discussion is provided below in Testing 
Requirements for Advanced Reactors.
    Question 5: Currently, part 52 allows an applicant for a 
construction permit to reference either an early site permit under 
subpart A of part 52 or a design certification (DC) under subpart B of 
part 52. Specifically, Sec.  52.11 states that subpart A of part 52 
sets out the requirements and procedures applicable to NRC issuance of 
early site permits for approval of a site or sites for one or more 
nuclear power facilities separate from the filing of an application for 
a construction permit or combined license for such a facility. 
Similarly, Sec.  52.41 states that subpart B of part 52 sets out the 
requirements and procedures applicable to NRC issuance of regulations 
granting standard design certification for nuclear power facilities 
separate from the filing of an application for a construction permit or 
combined license for the facility. However, the current regulations in 
10 CFR part 50 that address the application for and granting of 
construction permits do not make any reference to a construction permit 
applicant's ability to reference either an early site permit or a 
design certification. Also, the NRC has not developed any guidance on 
how the construction permit process would incorporate an early site 
permit or design certification, nor has the nuclear power industry made 
any proposals for the development of industry guidance on this subject. 
The NRC has not received any information from potential applicants 
stating an intention to seek a construction permit for the construction 
of a future nuclear power plant. In addition, the NRC recommends that 
future applicants who want to construct and operate a commercial 
nuclear power facility use the combined license process in subpart C of 
part 52. Therefore, the NRC is considering removing from part 52, in 
the final rule, the provisions allowing a construction permit applicant 
to reference an early site permit or a design certification and is 
interested in stakeholder feedback on this alternative.
    Commenters' Response: Some commenters stated the deletion of 
provisions allowing a construction permit applicant to reference an ESP 
or DC was ill-advised given the untested nature of the COL process and 
the resulting need to retain ``regulatory flexibility'' to deal with 
unexpected issues. As a contingency plan to buffer against difficulties 
with COL process, the commenters proposed the addition of a provision 
in part 50 to specify that a construction permit applicant could 
reference a DC without the inclusion of ITAAC. The commenters suggested 
that in these instances, ``the operating license proceeding would need 
to find under 10 CFR 50.57(a)(1) that construction of the facility has 
been substantially completed, in conformity with the construction 
permit and the application as amended, the provisions of the Act, and 
the rules and regulations of the Commission.'' Commenters stated that 
standard design should be final and not open to review in the 
construction permit and operating licenses proceeding. Commenters 
requested a construction permit applicant be able to reference an ESP 
in the same way as would a COL applicant.
    NRC Response: Based on some of the commenters' responses to this 
question and further consideration of the issue, the NRC has decided 
not to make any changes in the final rule to delete provisions allowing 
a construction permit applicant to reference an early site permit or a 
design certification. The NRC has also decided not to add any 
additional provisions to part 50 or part 52 to address a construction 
permit applicant's ability to reference either a design certification 
or an early site permit. The NRC believes it is unlikely that such a 
construction permit application will be submitted, and the NRC will 
handle any such applications on a case-by-case basis. If such an 
application were submitted, there are many process issues that would 
need to be carefully considered and would need to be discussed with the 
applicant and other stakeholders. In particular, the previously 
certified designs all used design acceptance criteria in lieu of 
detailed design information. A process for completing that design 
information without using ITAAC would have to be developed.
    Question 6: The NRC is considering revising Sec.  52.103(a) in the 
final rule to require the combined license holder to notify the NRC of 
the licensee's scheduled date for loading of fuel into a plant no later 
than 270 days before the scheduled date, and to advise the NRC every 30 
days thereafter if the date has changed and if so, the revised 
scheduled date for loading of fuel. The initial notification would 
facilitate timely NRC publication of the notice required under Sec.  
52.103(a) and NRC staff scheduling of inspection and audit activities 
to support NRC staff determinations of the successful completion of 
ITAAC under Sec.  52.99. The proposed updating would also facilitate 
NRC staff scheduling of those inspection and audit activities, 
Commission completion of hearings within the time frame allotted under 
Sec.  52.103(e), and any Commission determinations on petitions as 
provided under Sec.  52.103(f). The NRC requests public comment on the 
benefits and impacts (including information collection and reporting 
burdens) that would occur if the proposed requirements were adopted.
    Commenters' Response: Some commenters agreed with this concept. 
However, they do not support a rule change because they believe a rule 
change is not necessary. Rather, they believe that the concept should 
be implemented via guidance rather than a rule change. Additionally, 
following the initial notification, a licensee should be required to 
submit a follow-up 30-day notification only if the schedule in the 
prior notification has changed. It would be unnecessarily burdensome to 
require a licensee to submit notifications every 30 days stating that 
the schedule has not changed.
    NRC Response: The NRC has decided to amend Sec.  52.103(a) in the 
final rule to ensure that the combined license holder will notify the 
NRC of its scheduled date for initial loading of fuel into a plant no 
later than 270 days before the scheduled date, and will notify the NRC 
of updates to its schedule every 30 days thereafter. The notification 
will facilitate timely NRC publication of the notice required under 
Sec.  52.103(a), completion of hearings within the time frame allotted 
under Sec.  52.103(e), and completion of any Commission determinations 
on petitions filed under Sec.  52.103(f). The NRC believes that the 
update notifications when the schedule has not changed will not be 
burdensome. Additional discussion on this issue is provided in Section 
V.C.8.b of the supplementary information in this final rule.
    Question 7: As discussed in Section IV.C.6.f of the March 13, 2006, 
proposed rule, the NRC is proposing to modify Sec.  52.79(a) to add 
requirements for descriptions of operational programs that need to be 
included in the final safety analysis report (FSAR) to allow a 
reasonable assurance finding of acceptability. This proposed amendment 
is in support of the Commission's direction to the staff in SRM-SECY-
02-0067 dated September 11, 2002, ``Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 
Acceptance Criteria for Operational

[[Page 49358]]

Programs (Programmatic ITAAC),'' that a combined license applicant was 
not required to have ITAAC for operational programs if the applicant 
fully described the operational program and its implementation in the 
combined license application. In this SRM, the Commission stated:

    [a]n ITAAC for a program should not be necessary if the program 
and its implementation are fully described in the application and 
found to be acceptable by the NRC at the COL stage. The burden is on 
the applicant to provide the necessary and sufficient programmatic 
information for approval of the COL without ITAAC.

    Accordingly, the NRC is proposing in the final part 52 rulemaking 
to add requirements to Sec.  52.79 that combined license applications 
contain descriptions of operational programs. In doing so, the 
Commission has taken into account NEI's proposal to address SRM-SECY-
04-0032 in its letter dated August 31, 2005 (ML052510037). However, the 
NRC is concerned that there may be operational program requirements 
that it has not captured in its proposed Sec.  52.79. Therefore, the 
NRC is requesting public comment on whether there are additional 
required operational programs that should be described in a combined 
license application that are not identified in proposed Sec.  52.79. If 
additional required operational programs are identified, the Commission 
is considering adding them to Sec.  52.79 in the final rule.
    Commenters' Response: Some commenters believed that requirements 
for operational programs were sufficient as proposed, and that no 
additional operational programs needed to be described in the COL 
application.
    NRC Response: The NRC does not agree that no additional operational 
programs need to be described in a COL application. During the 
preparation of the final rule, the NRC discovered that several of the 
operational programs listed in SECY-05-0197 (October 28, 2005) were not 
addressed in proposed Sec.  52.79. To ensure the list of requirements 
for the contents of applications is complete, the NRC is adding several 
new provisions to address operational programs in the final rule. 
Specifically, the NRC is adding requirements to Sec.  52.79 for COL 
applicants to include a description of: (1) the process and effluent 
monitoring and sampling program required by appendix I to 10 CFR part 
50 [Sec.  52.79(a)(16)(ii)]; (2) a training and qualification plan in 
accordance with the criteria set forth in appendix B to 10 CFR part 73 
[Sec.  52.79(a)(36)(ii)]; (3) a description of the radiation protection 
program required by Sec.  20.1101 [Sec.  52.79(a)(39)]; (4) a 
description of the fire protection program required by Sec.  50.48 
[Sec.  52.79(a)(40)]; and (5) a description of the fitness-for-duty 
program required by 10 CFR part 26 [Sec.  52.79(a)(44)]. During the 
preparation of the final rule, the NRC also noticed that it had not 
completely implemented the Commission's direction regarding the 
treatment of operational programs in a COL application because it had 
failed to add requirements to address program implementation in its 
revisions to Sec.  52.79(a). Therefore, in the final rule, the NRC has 
added requirements to address the implementation of all operational 
programs required to be described in a COL application. This is 
consistent with the Commission's direction to the staff in SRM-SECY-02-
0067 (September 11, 2002, ML022540755) that a combined license 
applicant was not required to have ITAAC for operational programs if 
the applicant fully described the operational program and its 
implementation in the combined license application.
    Question 8: Backfitting--reproduce backfitting requirements in part 
52. The NRC notes that the backfitting provisions applicable to various 
part 52 processes are contained in both part 50 and part 52 and, 
therefore, the proposed language for Sec.  50.109 cross-references to 
applicable provisions of part 52, which may be confusing. The NRC is 
considering adopting in the final rule an alternative which would 
remove from Sec.  50.109 the backfitting provisions applicable to the 
licensing and approval processes in part 52, and place them in part 52. 
There are two possible approaches for doing so: the first would be for 
the NRC to establish a general backfitting provision in part 52 
applicable exclusively to the licensing and approval processes in part 
52. Under this approach, each licensing and approval process in part 52 
would be the subject of a backfitting section in a new subpart of part 
52 (e.g., Sec.  52.201 for standard design approvals, etc.). The 
existing backfitting provisions applicable to early site permits and 
design certification would be transferred to the relevant sections in 
the new subpart. The second approach would be to ensure that each 
subpart of part 52 contains the backfitting provisions applicable to 
the licensing or approval process in that subpart. The NRC is 
considering adopting these alternative approaches in the final rule and 
requests public comment on whether either of these administrative 
approaches is preferable to the approach in the proposed rule.
    Commenters' Response: Some commenters stated that NRC's alternative 
approach to addressing backfitting was unnecessary to clarify the 
application of the backfit rule to part 52 actions. Commenters stated 
that the proposed rule included adequate references to Sec.  50.109 and 
in the various subparts of part 52, making replication of this language 
elsewhere unnecessary. If the NRC deemed the inclusion of such 
information necessary, several commenters suggested each subpart in 
part 52 include its own standards for backfitting to avoid confusion.
    NRC Response: The NRC has decided to revise Sec.  50.109 to include 
the conforming changes necessary to reflect part 52, rather than 
adopting a backfitting provision in part 52, because no commenter 
favored the alternative approach of adopting a backfitting provision in 
part 52, and both approaches are legally equivalent.
    Question 9: The Commission is considering adopting in the final 
part 52 rulemaking an alternative to the re-proposed rule's approach 
for addressing new and significant environmental information with 
respect to matters addressed in the ESP environmental impact statement 
(EIS) which require supplementation.\2\ As a separate matter, the 
Commission is also considering adopting in the final part 52 rulemaking 
an analogous requirement for addressing new information necessary to 
update and correct the emergency plan approved by the ESP, the ITAAC 
associated with EP, or the terms and conditions of the ESP with respect 
to emergency preparedness, or new information materially changing the 
Commission's determinations on emergency preparedness matters 
previously resolved in the ESP. To implement either or both of these 
alternatives, the Commission is also evaluating whether several 
additional concepts should be adopted in the final rulemaking. The two 
alternatives, as well as the additional implementing concepts, are 
described below. The Commission emphasizes that it may, with respect to 
the alternative addressing updating environmental information and 
emergency preparedness information, adopt either or both alternatives 
in the final part 52

[[Page 49359]]

rulemaking, in place of or in addition to the proposed rule's 
alternative of conducting the updating in each combined license 
proceeding. Under the option where multiple alternatives for updating 
environmental and emergency preparedness information would be allowed, 
the Commission proposes that the decision be left to the combined 
license applicant as to which alternative to pursue. Commenters are 
requested to address: (1) the advantages and disadvantages of adopting 
each alternative for updating environmental and emergency preparedness 
information in an ESP proceeding as opposed to the proposed rule's 
alternative of conducting the updating in each combined license 
proceeding; (2) whether the Commission should only allow updating of 
environmental and emergency preparedness information in an ESP 
proceeding or in a COL proceeding, but not both; and (3) if the 
Commission allows updating in either an ESP proceeding or in a COL 
proceeding, whether it should be an option for the COL applicant to 
decide which update process to pursue. The Commission believes it may 
allow COL applicants the option of deciding whether to update 
environmental and emergency preparedness information in either an ESP 
proceeding or in a COL proceeding in order to afford the COL applicant 
the determination which approach best satisfies their business and 
economic interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The scope of environmental information that must be 
supplemented is limited to the matters which were addressed in the 
original EIS for the ESP. Thus, for example, if the ESP applicant 
chose not to address need for power (as is allowed under Sec.  
52.18), the combined license applicant need not address need for 
power in its environmental report (ER) to update the ESP EIS, and 
the NRC need not determine whether there is new and significant 
information with respect to need for power as part of the updating 
of the ESP EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Matters Resolved in ESP

    The Commission is considering requiring a combined license 
applicant planning to reference an ESP to submit a supplemental 
environmental report for the ESP. The supplemental environmental report 
must address whether there is any new and significant environmental 
information with respect to the environmental matters addressed in the 
ESP EIS. Based upon this information, the NRC will prepare a draft 
supplemental environmental assessment (EA) or EIS setting forth the 
agency's proposed determinations with respect to any new and 
significant information. In accordance with existing practice and 
procedure, the draft supplemental EA or EIS will be issued for public 
comment. After considering comments received from the public and 
relevant Federal and State agencies, the NRC will issue a final 
supplemental EA or EIS. Once the final supplemental EA or EIS is 
issued, the ESP finality provisions in proposed Sec.  52.39 would apply 
to the matters addressed in the supplemental EA or EIS, and those 
matters need not be addressed in any combined license proceeding 
referencing the ESP. Thus, for example, if a new and significant 
environmental issue, for example, a newly-designated endangered 
species, is addressed in the supplemental ESP EIS, the matter would be 
resolved for all combined licenses referencing the ESP (unless, of 
course, there is new and significant information identified at the time 
of a subsequent referencing combined license with respect to that 
endangered species). There would be no updating of environmental 
information necessary in the combined license proceeding. The 
Commission considers this approach for updating the ESP as meeting the 
Agency's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), without imposing undue burden on the ESP holder and the NRC 
through continuous or periodic updating, and preserving the distinction 
between the ESP and any referencing combined license proceeding. Since 
an ESP may be referenced more than once, this approach would provide 
for issue finality of the updated information and preclude the need for 
reconsideration of the same environmental issue in successive combined 
license proceedings referencing the ESP. The Commission requests public 
comment on this proposal, which would likely involve changes to 
Sec. Sec.  52.39, 51.50(c), 51.75, and 51.107 (and possibly conforming 
changes in parts 2, 51, and 52).

Emergency Preparedness Information Resolved in ESP

    The Commission is separately considering requiring a combined 
license applicant referencing an ESP to provide to the NRC new EP 
information necessary to correct inaccurate information in the ESP 
emergency plan, EP ITAAC, or the terms and conditions of the ESP with 
respect to EP. Based upon the EP information submitted by the combined 
license applicant, the NRC will, as necessary, approve changes to the 
ESP emergency plan, the EP ITAAC, or the terms and conditions of the 
ESP with respect to EP. Once the Commission has resolved the EP 
updating matters, these matters would be accorded finality under Sec.  
52.39. There would be no separate updating necessary in the combined 
license proceeding. Thus, for example, if an EP ITAAC in an ESP were 
changed by virtue of this updating process, the changed ITAAC for EP 
would be applicable to any combined license referencing the ESP whose 
ITAAC have not yet been satisfied (i.e., the amended EP ITAAC would not 
be applicable to a combined license where the Commission has made the 
Sec.  52.103(g) finding with respect to that EP ITAAC). The NRC's 
consideration of such EP information would be considered to be part of 
the ESP proceeding, and any necessary changes with respect to EP would 
therefore be deemed to be changes within the scope of the ESP. The 
Commission considers this proposal as a means for updating the ESP with 
respect to EP information in a timely fashion, without imposing undue 
burden on the ESP holder and the NRC through continuous or periodic 
updating, while preserving the distinction between the ESP and any 
referencing combined license proceeding.
    Since an ESP may be referenced more than once, this approach would 
provide for issue finality of the updated information and preclude the 
need for reconsideration of the same issue in successive combined 
license proceedings referencing the ESP. The Commission requests 
comment whether this approach should be adopted by the Commission in 
the final rulemaking, which will likely involve changes to Sec.  52.39 
(and possible conforming changes in Sec.  50.47, 50.54, and 10 CFR part 
50, appendix E).

ESP Updating in Advance of Combined License Application Submission

    To minimize the possibility that the ESP updating process may 
adversely affect a combined license proceeding referencing that ESP, 
the Commission proposes to require the combined license applicant 
intending to reference an ESP to submit its application to update the 
ESP with respect to EP and/or environmental information no later than 
18 months before the submission of its combined license application. 
The Commission believes that the 18-month lead time is sufficient to 
complete the NRC's regulatory consideration of the updating, such that 
the combined license applicant will be able to prepare its application 
to reflect the updated ESP. The Commission also recognizes that there 
may be increased regulatory complexity under this approach, as well as 
the possibility that resources may be unnecessarily expended if the 
potential combined license applicant ultimately decides not to proceed 
with its application. The Commission requests public comment on whether 
the 18-month lead time is appropriate, whether the time should be 
decreased or increased, or whether the Commission should simply require 
that the ESP update application be filed no later than simultaneously 
with the filing of the combined license application. Based upon the 
public comments, the Commission will adopt one of these

[[Page 49360]]

alternatives, if it decides that updating of environmental and/or EP 
matters should be accomplished in an ESP proceeding, as opposed to the 
combined license proceeding in which the ESP is referenced.

Expanding the Scope of Resolved Issues After ESP Issuance

    The Commission is also considering whether the final rule should 
include provisions addressing how the ESP holder may request, at any 
time after the issuance of the ESP, that additional issues be resolved 
and given finality under Sec.  52.39. For example, the holder of the 
ESP which does not include an approved emergency plan, may wish to 
submit complete emergency plans for NRC review and approval. Such a 
request is not explicitly addressed in either the current or re-
proposed subpart A to part 52, although it would be reasonable to treat 
that request as an application to amend the ESP.
    The Commission requests public comment on whether the Commission 
should adopt in the final rule new provisions in subpart A to part 52 
that would explicitly address requests by the ESP holder to amend the 
early site permit to expand the scope of issues which are resolved and 
given issue finality under Sec.  52.39. The Commission is also 
considering whether, as part of the ESP updating process discussed 
previously, the ESP holder/combined license applicant should be allowed 
to request an expansion of issues which are resolved and given issue 
finality.
    If the Commission were to allow an ESP holder/combined license 
applicant to expand the scope of resolved issues in the ESP update 
proceeding, the Commission believes that the 18-month time period for 
filing the updating application in the ESP proceeding may be 
insufficient, and is considering adopting in the final rule a 24-month 
(2-year) period for filing the ESP updating application, where the ESP 
holder/combined license applicant seeks to expand the scope of resolved 
issues. The Commission seeks public comment on whether, in such cases, 
the Commission should require in the final rule an 18- or 24-month 
period, or some other period, for submitting its ESP updating 
application.

Approval in ESP of Process and Criteria for Updating ESP After Issuance

    The Commission requests public comment whether the Commission 
should adopt in the final rulemaking provisions affording the ESP 
applicant the option of requesting NRC approval of procedures and 
criteria for identifying and assessing new and significant 
environmental information, and/or new information necessary to update 
and correct the emergency plan approved by the ESP, the ITAAC 
associated with emergency preparedness (EP), or the terms and 
conditions of the ESP with respect to emergency preparedness, or 
otherwise materially changing the Commission's determinations on 
emergency preparedness matters previously resolved in the ESP. These 
procedures and criteria, if approved as part of the ESP issuance, could 
be used by any combined license applicant referencing the ESP to 
identify the need to update the ESP with respect to environmental and/
or emergency preparedness information. There wo