AP1000 Design Certification Amendment, 10269-10288 [2011-3989]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
National Environmental Policy Act
To provide the public with
documentation of APHIS’ review and
analysis of any potential environmental
impacts associated with allowing the
importation of ovine meat from Uruguay
into the United States, we have
prepared an environmental assessment.
The environmental assessment was
prepared in accordance with: (1) The
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality for
implementing the procedural provisions
of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)
USDA regulations implementing NEPA
(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part
372).
The environmental assessment may
be viewed on the Internet on the
Regulations.gov Web site and is
available for public inspection in our
reading room. (Instructions for accessing
Regulations.gov and information on the
location and hours of the reading room
are provided under the heading
ADDRESSES at the beginning of this
proposed rule.) In addition, copies may
be obtained by calling or writing to the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,
Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry
and poultry products, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are proposing to
amend 9 CFR Part 94 as follows:
PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, EXOTIC
NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN
SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE
FEVER, SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE,
AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM
ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED
AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 94
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and
8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Section 94.1 is amended by revising
paragraph (b)(4) and the introductory
text of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 94.1 Regions where rinderpest or footand-mouth disease exists; importations
prohibited.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Except as provided in § 94.22 for
fresh (chilled or frozen) beef and ovine
meat from Uruguay.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
(d) Except as otherwise provided in
this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) meat
of ruminants or swine raised and
slaughtered in a region free of foot-andmouth disease and rinderpest, as
designated in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, and fresh (chilled or frozen)
beef and ovine meat exported from
Uruguay in accordance with § 94.22,
which during shipment to the United
States enters a port or otherwise transits
a region where rinderpest or foot-andmouth disease exists, may be imported
provided that all of the following
conditions are met:
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 94.22 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 94.22 Restrictions on importation of beef
and ovine meat from Uruguay.
Notwithstanding any other provisions
of this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) beef
and ovine meat from Uruguay may be
exported to the United States under the
following conditions:
(a) The meat is beef and ovine meat
from animals that have been born,
raised, and slaughtered in Uruguay.
(b) If foot-and-mouth disease is
detected anywhere in Uruguay, the
export of beef and ovine meat from all
of Uruguay to the United States is
prohibited until at least 12 months have
elapsed since the depopulation,
cleaning, and disinfection of the last
infected premises.
(c) The meat comes from bovines and
sheep that originate from premises
where foot-and-mouth disease has not
been present during the lifetime of any
bovines and sheep slaughtered for the
export of beef and ovine meat to the
United States.
(d) The meat comes from bovines and
sheep that were moved directly from the
premises of origin to the slaughtering
establishment without any contact with
other animals.
(e) The meat comes from bovines and
sheep that received ante-mortem and
post-mortem veterinary inspections,
paying particular attention to the head
and feet, at the slaughtering
establishment, with no evidence found
of vesicular disease.
(f) The meat consists only of bovine
parts and ovine parts that are, by
standard practice, part of the animal’s
carcass that is placed in a chiller for
maturation after slaughter. The bovine
and ovine parts that may not be
imported include all parts of the head,
feet, hump, hooves, and internal organs.
(g) All bone and visually identifiable
blood clots and lymphoid tissue have
been removed from the meat.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10269
(h) The meat has not been in contact
with meat from regions other than those
listed in § 94.1(a)(2).
(i) The meat comes from carcasses
that were allowed to maturate at 40 to
50 °F (4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 36
hours after slaughter and that reached a
pH of 5.8 or less in the loin muscle at
the end of the maturation period.
Measurements for pH must be taken at
the middle of both longissimus dorsi
muscles. Any carcass in which the pH
does not reach 5.8 or less may be
allowed to maturate an additional 24
hours and be retested, and, if the carcass
still has not reached a pH of 5.8 or less
after 60 hours, the meat from the carcass
may not be exported to the United
States.
(j) An authorized veterinary official of
the Government of Uruguay certifies on
the foreign meat inspection certificate
that the above conditions have been
met.
(k) The establishment in which the
bovines and sheep are slaughtered
allows periodic on-site evaluation and
subsequent inspection of its facilities,
records, and operations by an APHIS
representative.
Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of
February 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–4138 Filed 2–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 52
[NRC–2010–0131]
RIN 3150–AI81
AP1000 Design Certification
Amendment
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission)
proposes to amend its regulations to
certify an amendment to the AP1000
standard plant design. The purpose of
the amendment is to replace the
combined license (COL) information
items and design acceptance criteria
(DAC) with specific design information,
address the effects of the impact of a
large commercial aircraft, incorporate
design improvements, and increase
standardization of the design. Upon
NRC rulemaking approval of its
amendment to the AP1000 design, an
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10270
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
applicant seeking an NRC license to
construct and operate a nuclear power
reactor using the AP1000 design need
not demonstrate in its application the
safety of the certified design. The
applicant for this amendment to the
AP1000 certified design is
Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC
(Westinghouse). The public is invited to
submit comments on this proposed
design certification rule (DCR), the
revised generic design control document
(DCD) that would be incorporated by
reference into the DCR, and the
environmental assessment (EA) for this
amendment to the AP1000 design.
DATES: Submit comments on the DCR,
the revised DCD and/or the EA for this
amendment by May 10, 2011. Submit
comments specific to the information
collections aspects of this rule by March
28, 2011. Comments received after the
above dates will be considered if it is
practical to do so, but assurance of
consideration of comments received
after these dates cannot be given.
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID
NRC–2010–0131 in the subject line of
your comments. For instructions on
submitting comments and accessing
documents related to this action, see
Section I, ‘‘Submitting Comments and
Accessing Information’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. You may submit
comments by any one of the following
methods.
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2010–0131. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: 301–492–3668; e-mail:
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive a reply e-mail confirming
that we have received your comments,
contact us directly at 301–415–1677.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
during Federal workdays (telephone:
301–415–1677).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Serita Sanders, Office of New Reactors,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–2956; e-mail:
serita.sanders@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
Table of Contents
I. Submitting Comments and Accessing
Information
II. Background
III. Discussion
A. Technical Evaluation of Westinghouse
Amendment to the AP1000 Design
B. Changes to Appendix D
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Introduction (Section I)
B. Scope and Contents (Section III)
C. Additional Requirements and
Restrictions (Section IV)
D. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
E. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
F. Processes for Changes and Departures
(Section VIII)
G. Records and Reporting (Section X)
V. Agreement State Compatibility
VI. Availability of Documents
VII. Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
(Including Proprietary Information) and
Safeguards Information for Preparation
of Comments on the Proposed
Amendment to the AP1000 Design
Certification
VIII. Plain Language
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
X. Finding of No Significant Environmental
Impact: Availability
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XII. Regulatory Analysis
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XIV. Backfitting
I. Submitting Comments and Accessing
Information
Comments submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be posted on the
NRC Web site and on the Federal
rulemaking Web site, https://
www.regulations.gov. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed. The NRC requests that any
party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and, therefore, they
should not include any information in
their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available
documents related to this document
using the following methods:
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR):
The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–
F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are available
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. From this page,
the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of
NRC’s public documents. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s
PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209,
301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public
comments and supporting materials
related to this proposed rule can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching on Docket ID NRC–2010–
0131.
Documents that are not publicly
available because they are considered to
be either SUNSI (including SUNSI
constituting proprietary information
(PI)) or SGI may be available to
interested persons who may wish to
comment on the proposed design
certification amendment. Interested
persons shall follow the procedures
described in the Supplementary
Information section of this document,
Section VII, ‘‘Procedures for Access to
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Safeguards Information
for Preparation of Comments on the
Proposed Amendment to the AP1000
Design Certification.’’
II. Background
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), part 52, ‘‘Licenses,
Certifications, and Approvals for
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ subpart B,
presents the process for obtaining
standard design certifications. Section
52.63, ‘‘Finality of standard design
certifications,’’ provides criteria for
determining when the Commission may
amend the certification information for
a previously certified standard design in
response to a request for amendment
from any person.
During its initial certification of the
AP1000 design, the NRC issued a final
safety evaluation report (FSER) for the
AP1000 as NUREG–1793, ‘‘Final Safety
Evaluation Report Related to
Certification of the AP1000 Standard
Design,’’ in September 2004. From
March 2006 through May 2007, NuStart
Energy Development, LLC (NuStart) 1
and Westinghouse provided the NRC
with a number of technical reports (TRs)
for pre-application review in an effort
to: (1) Close specific, generically
1 The NuStart member companies are:
Constellation Generation Group, LLC, Duke Energy
Corporation, EDF-International North America, Inc.,
Entergy Nuclear, Inc., Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, Florida Power and Light Company, Progress
Energy, and Southern Company Services, Inc.
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
applicable COL information items
(information to be supplied by COL
applicants/holders) in the AP1000
certified standard design; (2) identify
standard design changes resulting from
the AP1000 detailed design efforts; and
(3) provide specific standard design
information in areas or for topics where
the AP1000 DCD was focused on the
design process and acceptance criteria.
TRs typically addressed a topical area
(e.g., redesign of a component, structure
or process) and included the technical
details of a proposed change, design
standards, analyses and justifications as
needed, proposed changes to the DCD,
and Westinghouse’s assessment of the
applicable regulatory criteria (e.g. the
assessment of the criteria in 10 CFR part
52, Appendix D, Section VIII, ‘‘Processes
for Changes and Departures’’). The NRC
identified issues associated with the
TRs and engaged Westinghouse in
requests for additional information and
meetings during the pre-application
phase to resolve them.
On May 26, 2007, Westinghouse
submitted Revision 16 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML071580939) of its
application via transmittal letter
(ADAMS Accession No. ML071580757)
to amend the AP1000 design
certification. This application was
supplemented by letters dated October
26, November 2, and December 12,
2007, and January 11 and January 14,
2008. The application noted, in part:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
(1) Generic amendments to the design
certification, including additional design
information to resolve DAC and designrelated COL information items, as well as
design information to make corrections and
changes, would result in further
standardization and improved licensing
efficiency for the multiple COL applications
referencing the AP1000 DCR that were
planned for submittal in late 2007 and early
2008.
(2) Westinghouse, in conjunction with
NuStart, has been preparing TRs since late
2005. These TRs were developed with input,
review, comment, and other technical
oversight provided by NuStart members,
including the prospective AP1000 COL
applicants. Submittal of these TRs to the NRC
was initiated in March 2006. The TRs contain
discussion of the technical changes and
supplemental information that is used to
support the detailed information contained
in the DCD.
In Attachment 2 to the May 26, 2007,
application, Westinghouse identified
the criteria of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) that
apply to the changes described in each
TR and associated COL information
items, if applicable.
On January 18, 2008, the NRC notified
Westinghouse that it accepted the May
26, 2007, application, as supplemented,
for docketing (Docket No. 52–006) and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
published a notice of acceptance
(ADAMS Accession No. ML073600743)
in the Federal Register (73 FR 4926,
January 28, 2008). On September 22,
2008, Westinghouse submitted Revision
17 to the AP1000 DCD. Revision 17
contains changes to the DCD that have
been previously accepted by the NRC in
the course of its review of Revision 16
of the DCD. In addition, Revision 17
proposes changes to DAC in the areas of
piping design (Chapter 3),
instrumentation and control (I&C)
systems (Chapter 7) and human factors
engineering (HFE) (Chapter 18).
Revision 17 also includes a number of
design changes not previously discussed
with the NRC.
The NRC issued guidance on the
finalization of design changes in Interim
Staff Guidance (ISG) DC/COL–ISG–011,
‘‘Finalizing Licensing-basis
Information,’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092890623), which describes various
categories of design changes that should
not be deferred and those that should be
included in the DCR.
By letter dated January 20, 2010,
Westinghouse submitted a list of design
change packages that would be included
in Revision 18 of the AP1000 DCD
(ADAMS Accession No. ML100250888).
A number of subsequent submittals
were made by Westinghouse to narrow
the focus to those design changes to the
categories of changes that should not be
deferred, as recommended by DC/COL–
ISG–011.
Revision 18 to the AP1000 DCD
(ADAMS Accession No. ML103480572)
was submitted on December 1, 2010,
and contains both proposed changes
previously described in the design
change packages and changes already
accepted by the NRC in the review
process of Revision 17 to the AP1000
DCD. In the course of the review of both
design change packages, the NRC
determined that DCD changes were
needed. In response to NRC questions,
Westinghouse proposed such changes.
Once the NRC was satisfied with these
DCD markups, they were documented in
the safety evaluation report (SER) as
confirmatory items (CIs). The CIs were
first identified during the NRC’s review
of Revision 17 of the AP1000 DCD. With
the review of Revision 18, the NRC will
confirm that Westinghouse has made
those changes to the DCD accepted by
the NRC that were not addressed in
Revision 17 to the AP1000 DCD. The
use of CIs is restricted to cases where
the NRC has reviewed and approved
specific design control document
proposals. For the final rule, the NRC
will complete the review of the CIs and
prepare a FSER reflecting that action.
The CIs are closed based upon an
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10271
acceptable comparison between the
revised DCD text and the text required
by the CI. No technical review of
Revision 18 by the NRC is necessary,
because only CIs and design changes
pursuant to DC/COL–ISG–011
previously accepted by the NRC are
contained in Revision 18 to the DCD.
In order to simplify the NRC’s review
of the design change documentation,
and to simplify subsequent review by
the NRC’s Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), the design
changes pursuant to DC/COL–ISG–011
are reviewed in a separate chapter
(Chapter 23) of the FSER. This chapter
indicates which areas of the DCD are
affected by each design change and the
letters from Westinghouse that
submitted them. In some cases, NRC’s
review of the design changes reviewed
in Chapter 23 may be incorporated into
the chapters of the FSER where this
material would normally be addressed
because of the relationship between
individual design changes and the
review of prior DCD changes from
Revisions 16 and 17 of the DCD.
The Westinghouse Revision 18 letter
includes an enclosure providing a crossreference to the DCD changes and the
applicable 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) criteria.
Revision 17 provides a similar crossreference in the September 22, 2008,
Westinghouse letter for those changes
associated with the revised DCD.
Revision 16 on the other hand, uses TRs
to identify the DCD changes and lists
the corresponding applicable 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1) criteria via Westinghouse
memorandum, dated May 26, 2007
(Table 1).
As of the date of this document, the
application for amendment of the
AP1000 design certification has been
referenced in the following COL
applications:
Vogtle, Units 3 and 4, Docket No.
05200025/6, 73 FR 33118;
Bellefonte Nuclear Station, Units 3
and 4, Docket Nos. 05200014/5, 73 FR
4923;
Levy County, Units 1 and 2, Docket
Nos. 05200029/30, 73 FR 60726;
Shearon Harris, Units 2 and 3, Docket
Nos. 05200022/3, 73 FR 21995;
Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7, Docket
Nos. 05200040/1, 74 FR 51621;
Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 and 3,
Docket Nos. 05200027/8, 73 FR 45793;
William States Lee III, Units 1 and 2,
Docket Nos. 05200018/9, 73 FR 11156.
III. Discussion
A. Technical Evaluation of
Westinghouse Amendment to the
AP1000 Design
Westinghouse’s request to amend the
AP1000 design contained several classes
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
10272
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
of changes. Each class is discussed
below:
Editorial Changes
Westinghouse requested changes to
the AP1000 DCD to correct spelling,
punctuation, grammar, designations,
and references. None of these changes is
intended to make any substantive
changes to the certified design, and
NUREG–1793, ‘‘Final Safety Evaluation
Report Related to Certification of the
AP1000 Standard Design,’’ Supplement
2 (SER) does not address these changes.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Changes To Address Consistency and
Uniformity
Westinghouse requested changes to
the AP1000 DCD to achieve consistency
and uniformity in the description of the
certified design throughout the DCD.
For example, a change to the type of
reactor coolant pump (RCP) motor is
evaluated in Chapter 5 of the SER on the
application for the AP1000 amendment;
Westinghouse requested that wherever
this RCP motor is described in the DCD,
the new description of the changed
motor be used. The NRC reviewed the
proposed change (to be used
consistently throughout the DCD) to
ensure that the proposed changes
needed for uniformity and consistency
are technically acceptable and do not
adversely affect the previously approved
design description. The NRC’s bases for
approval of these changes are set forth
in the SER for the AP1000 amendment.
Substantive Technical Changes to the
AP1000 Design (Other Than Those
Needed for Compliance With the AIA
Rule)
Among the many technical changes
that are proposed by Westinghouse for
inclusion in Revision 18 of the AP1000
DCD, the NRC selected 15 substantive
changes for specific discussion in this
proposed rule document, based on their
safety significance:
• Removal of Human Factors
Engineering (HFE) Design Acceptance
Criteria (DAC) from the DCD
• Change to Instrumentation and
Control (I&C) DAC and Inspection, Test,
Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria
(ITAAC)
• Minimization of Contamination
• Extension of Seismic Spectra to Soil
Sites and Changes to Stability and
Uniformity of Subsurface Materials and
Foundations
• Long-Term Cooling
• Control Room Emergency
Habitability System
• Changes to the Component Cooling
Water System (CCWS)
• Changes to I&C Systems
• Changes to the Passive Core Cooling
System (PCCS)—Gas Intrusion
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
• Integrated Head Package (IHP)—Use
of the QuickLoc Mechanism
• Reactor Coolant Pump Design
• Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV)
Support System
• Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Decay Heat
Analysis and Associated Design
Changes
• Spent Fuel Rack Design and
Criticality Analysis
• Vacuum Relief System
The NRC evaluated each of the
proposed changes and concluded that
they are acceptable. The NRC’s bases for
approval of these changes are set forth
in the SER for the AP1000 amendment.
Further information about how each of
these changes is provided in Section
XIV, ‘‘Backfitting,’’ of this document.
Changes To Address Compliance With
the AIA Rule
Westinghouse requested changes to
the AP1000 design in order to comply
with the requirements of the AIA rule,
10 CFR 50.150. The NRC confirmed that
Westinghouse has adequately described
key AIA design features and functional
capabilities in accordance with the AIA
rule and conducted an assessment
reasonably formulated to identify design
features and functional capabilities to
show, with reduced use of operator
action, that the facility can withstand
the effects of an aircraft impact. In
addition, the NRC determined that there
will be no adverse impacts from
complying with the requirements for
consideration of aircraft impacts on
conclusions reached by the NRC in its
review of the original U.S. AP1000
design certification. The NRC’s bases for
approval of these changes are set forth
in the SER for the AP1000 amendment.
As a result of these changes, the AP1000
design will achieve the Commission’s
objectives of enhanced public health
and safety and enhanced common
defense and security through
improvement of the facility’s inherent
robustness to the impact of a large
commercial aircraft at the design stage.
B. Changes to Appendix D
1. Scope and Contents (Section III)
The purpose of Section III is to
describe and define the scope and
contents of this design certification and
to present how documentation
discrepancies or inconsistencies are to
be resolved. Paragraph A is the required
statement of the Office of the Federal
Register (OFR) for approval of the
incorporation by reference of Tier 1,
Tier 2, and the generic technical
specifications (TSs) into this appendix.
The NRC is proposing to update the
revision number of the DCD that would
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
be incorporated by reference to the
revision Westinghouse provided to the
NRC in its application for amendment to
this DCR.
The legal effect of incorporation by
reference is that the incorporated
material has the same legal status as if
it were published in the Code of Federal
Regulations. This material, like any
other properly issued regulation, has the
force and effect of law. The AP1000
DCD was prepared to meet the technical
information contents of application
requirements for design certifications
under 10 CFR 52.47(a) and the
requirements of the OFR for
incorporation by reference under 10
CFR part 51. One requirement of the
OFR for incorporation by reference is
that the applicant for the design
certification (or amendment to the
design certification) makes the generic
DCD available upon request after the
final rule becomes effective. Therefore,
paragraph A would identify a
Westinghouse representative to be
contacted to obtain a copy of the
AP1000 DCD. The NRC is proposing to
update the Westinghouse
representative’s contact information in
this DCR.
The AP1000 DCD is electronically
accessible under ADAMS Accession No.
ML103480572, at the OFR, and at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
under Docket ID NRC–2010–0131.
Copies of the generic DCD would also be
available at the NRC’s PDR. Questions
concerning the accuracy of information
in an application that references this
appendix will be resolved by checking
the master copy of the generic DCD in
ADAMS. If the design certification
amendment applicant makes a generic
change (through NRC rulemaking) to the
DCD under 10 CFR 52.63 and the
change process provided in Section VIII,
then at the completion of the
rulemaking the NRC would request
approval of the Director, OFR, for the
revised master DCD. The NRC would
require that the design certification
amendment applicant maintain an upto-date copy of the master DCD under
paragraph A.1 in Section X and that it
include any generic changes made.
The NRC is also proposing a change
to paragraph D. Paragraph D establishes
the generic DCD as the controlling
document in the event of an
inconsistency between the DCD and the
design certification application or the
FSER for the certified standard design.
The proposed revision would renumber
paragraph D as paragraph D.1, clarify
this requirement as applying to the
initial design certification, and add a
similar paragraph D.2 to indicate that
this is also the case for an inconsistency
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
between the generic DCD and the
amendment application and the NRC’s
associated FSER for the amendment.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Additional Requirements and
Restrictions (Section IV)
Section IV presents additional
requirements and restrictions imposed
upon an applicant who references
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52.
Paragraph A presents the information
requirements for these applicants.
Paragraph A.3 currently requires the
applicant to include, not simply
reference, the PI and SGI referenced in
the AP1000 DCD, or its equivalent, to
ensure that the applicant has actual
notice of these requirements. The NRC
is proposing to revise paragraph A.3 to
indicate that a COL applicant must
include, in the plant-specific DCD, the
SUNSI (including PI) and SGI
referenced in the AP1000 DCD. This
revision would address a wider class of
information (SUNSI) to be included in
the plant-specific DCD, rather than
limiting the required information to PI.
The requirement to include SGI in the
plant-specific DCD would not change.
The NRC is also proposing to add a
new paragraph A.4 to indicate
requirements that must be met in cases
where the COL applicant is not using
the entity that was the original applicant
for the design certification (or
amendment) to supply the design for the
applicant’s use. Proposed paragraph A.4
would require that a COL applicant
referencing Appendix D to 10 CFR part
52 include, as part of its application, a
demonstration that an entity other than
Westinghouse is qualified to supply the
AP1000 certified design unless
Westinghouse supplies the design for
the applicant’s use. In cases where a
COL applicant is not using
Westinghouse to supply the AP1000
certified design, this information is
necessary to support any NRC finding
under 10 CFR 52.73(a) that the entity is
qualified to supply the certified design.
3. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
The purpose of Section V is to specify
the regulations applicable and in effect
when the design certification is
approved (i.e., as of the date specified
in paragraph A, which will be the date
that the proposed revisions to Appendix
D are approved by the Commission and
the final rule is signed by the Secretary
of the Commission). The NRC is
proposing to redesignate paragraph A as
paragraph A.1 to indicate that this
paragraph applies to that portion of the
design that was certified under the
initial design certification. The NRC is
further proposing to add new paragraph
A.2, similar to that of paragraph A.1, to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
indicate the regulations that would
apply to that portion of the design
within the scope of this amendment, as
would be approved by the Commission
and signed by the Secretary of the
Commission.
4. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
The purpose of Section VI is to
identify the scope of issues that were
resolved by the Commission in the
original certification rulemaking, and,
therefore, are ‘‘matters resolved’’ within
the meaning and intent of 10 CFR
52.63(a)(5). Paragraph B presents the
scope of issues that may not be
challenged as a matter of right in
subsequent proceedings and describes
the categories of information for which
there is issue resolution. Paragraph B.1
provides that all nuclear safety issues
arising from the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (the Act), as amended, that are
associated with the information in the
NRC’s final safety evaluation report
related to certification of the AP1000
standard design (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072) and the Tier 1 and Tier
2 information and the rulemaking
record for Appendix D to 10 CFR part
52, are resolved within the meaning of
10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). These issues include
the information referenced in the DCD
that are requirements (i.e., ‘‘secondary
references’’), as well as all issues arising
from PI and SGI, which are intended to
be requirements. Paragraph B.2 provides
for issue preclusion of PI and SGI.
The NRC is proposing to revise
paragraph B.1 to extend issue resolution
to the information contained in the
NRC’s FSER (Supplement No. 2) and the
rulemaking record for this amendment.
In addition, the NRC is proposing to
revise paragraph B.2 to extend issue
resolution to the broader category of
SUNSI, including PI, referenced in the
generic DCD.
The NRC is also proposing to revise
paragraph B.7, which identifies as
resolved all environmental issues
concerning severe accident mitigation
design alternatives (SAMDA) arising
under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) associated
with the information in the NRC’s final
EA for the AP1000 design and
Appendix 1B of the generic DCD
(Revision 15) for plants referencing
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 whose
site parameters are within those
specified in the SAMDA evaluation. The
NRC is proposing to revise this
paragraph to identify as also resolved all
environmental issues concerning
SAMDA associated with the information
in the NRC’s final EA for this
amendment and Appendix 1B of
Revision 18 of the generic DCD for
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10273
plants referencing Appendix D to 10
CFR part 52 whose site parameters are
within those specified in the SAMDA
evaluation.
Finally, the NRC is proposing to
revise paragraph E, which provides the
procedure for an interested member of
the public to obtain access to SUNSI
(including PI) and SGI for the AP1000
design in order to request and
participate in proceedings, as identified
in paragraph B, involving licenses and
applications that reference Appendix D
to 10 CFR part 52. The NRC is proposing
to replace the current information in
this paragraph with a statement that the
NRC will specify at an appropriate time
the procedure for interested persons to
review SGI or SUNSI (including PI) for
the purpose of participating in the
hearing required by 10 CFR 52.85, the
hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103,
or in any other proceeding relating to
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 in which
interested persons have a right to
request an adjudicatory hearing. The
NRC expects to follow its current
practice of establishing the procedures
by order when the notice of hearing is
published in the Federal Register. (See,
e.g., Florida Power and Light Co,
Combined License Application for the
Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Notice of
Hearing, Opportunity To Petition for
Leave To Intervene and Associated
Order Imposing Procedures for Access
to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information and Safeguards
Information for Contention Preparation
(75 FR 34777; June 18, 2010); Notice of
Receipt of Application for License;
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
License; Notice of Hearing and
Commission Order and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Safeguards Information
for Contention Preparation; In the
Matter of AREVA Enrichment Services,
LLC (Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility)
(74 FR 38052; July 30, 2009).
In the four currently approved design
certifications (10 CFR part 52,
Appendices A through D), paragraph E
presents specific directions on how to
obtain access to PI and SGI on the
design certification in connection with
a license application proceeding
referencing that DCR. The NRC is
proposing this change because these
provisions were developed before the
terrorist events of September 11, 2001.
After September 11, 2001, Congress
changed the statutory requirements
governing access to SGI, and the NRC
revised its rules, procedures, and
practices governing control and access
to SUNSI and SGI. The NRC now
believes that generic direction on
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
10274
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
obtaining access to SUNSI and SGI is no
longer appropriate for newly approved
DCRs. Accordingly, the specific
requirements governing access to SUNSI
and SGI contained in paragraph E of the
four currently approved DCRs should
not be included in the DCR for the
AP1000. Instead, the NRC should
specify the procedures to be used for
obtaining access at an appropriate time
in the COL proceeding referencing the
AP1000 DCR. The NRC intends to
include the new rule language in any
future amendments or renewals of the
currently existing DCRs, as well as in
new (i.e., initial) DCRs. However, the
NRC is not planning to initiate
rulemaking to change paragraph E of the
existing DCRs, to minimize unnecessary
resource expenditures by both the
original DCR applicant and the NRC.
5. Processes for Changes and Departures
(Section VIII)
The purpose of Section VIII is to
present the processes for generic
changes to, or plant-specific departures
(including exemptions) from, the DCD.
The Commission adopted this restrictive
change process to achieve a more stable
licensing process for applicants and
licensees that reference this DCR. The
change processes for the three different
categories of Tier 2 information, namely,
Tier 2, Tier 2*, and Tier 2* with a time
of expiration, are presented in
paragraph B.
Departures from Tier 2 that a licensee
may make without prior NRC approval
are addressed under paragraph B.5
(similar to the process in 10 CFR 50.59).
The NRC is proposing changes to
Section VIII to address the change
control process specific to departures
from the information required by 10
CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address the NRC’s
AIA requirements in 10 CFR 50.150.
Specifically, the NRC is proposing to
revise paragraph B.5.b to indicate that
the criteria in this paragraph for
determining if a proposed departure
from Tier 2 requires a license
amendment do not apply to a proposed
departure affecting information required
by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address 10
CFR 50.150. In addition, the NRC is
proposing to redesignate paragraphs
B.5.d, B.5.e, and B.5.f as paragraphs
B.5.e, B.5.f, and B.5.g, respectively, and
to add a new paragraph B.5.d. Proposed
paragraph B.5.d would require an
applicant or licensee who proposed to
depart from the information required by
10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in
the final safety analysis report (FSAR)
for the standard design certification to
consider the effect of the changed
feature or capability on the original
assessment required by 10 CFR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
50.150(a). The FSAR information
required by the AIA rule which is
subject to this change control
requirement includes the descriptions of
the design features and functional
capabilities incorporated into the final
design of the nuclear power facility and
the description of how the identified
design features and functional
capabilities meet the assessment
requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).
The objective of the change controls is
to determine whether the design of the
facility, as changed or modified, is
shown to withstand the effects of the
aircraft impact with reduced use of
operator actions. In other words, the
applicant or licensee must continue to
show, with the modified design, that the
acceptance criteria in 10 CFR
50.150(a)(1) are met with reduced use of
operator actions. The AIA rule does not
require an applicant or a licensee
implementing a design change to redo
the complete AIA to evaluate the effects
of the change. The NRC believes it may
be possible to demonstrate that a design
change is bounded by the original
design or that the change provides an
equivalent level of protection, without
redoing the original assessment.
Consistent with the NRC’s intent
when it issued the AIA rule, under the
proposed revision to this section, plantspecific departures from the AIA
information in the FSAR would not
require a license amendment, but may
be made by the licensee upon
compliance with the substantive
requirements of the AIA rule (i.e., the
AIA rule acceptance criteria). The
applicant or licensee would also be
required to document, in the plantspecific departure, how the modified
design features and functional
capabilities continue to meet the
assessment requirements in 10 CFR
50.150(a)(1), in accordance with Section
X of Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52.
Applicants and licensees making
changes to design features or
capabilities included in the certified
design may also need to develop
alternate means to cope with the loss of
large areas of the plant from explosions
or fires to comply with the requirements
in 10 CFR 50.54(hh). The proposed
addition of these provisions to
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 is
consistent with the NRC’s intent when
it issued the AIA rule in 2009, as noted
in the statements of consideration for
that rule (74 FR 28112; June 12, 2009,
at page 28122, third column).
Paragraph B.6 of Appendix D to 10
CFR part 52 provides a process for
departing from Tier 2* information. The
creation of, and restrictions on
changing, Tier 2* information resulted
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
from the development of the Tier 1
information for the ABWR design
certification (Appendix A to 10 CFR
part 52) and the ABB–CE [ASEA Brown
Boveri—Combustion Engineering]
System 80+ design certification
(Appendix B to 10 CFR part 52). During
this development process, these
applicants requested that the amount of
information in Tier 1 be minimized to
provide additional flexibility for an
applicant or licensee who references
these appendices. Also, many codes,
standards, and design processes that
would not be specified in Tier 1, but
were acceptable for meeting ITAAC,
were specified in Tier 2. The result of
these actions was that certain significant
information only exists in Tier 2 and the
Commission did not want this
significant information to be changed
without prior NRC approval. This Tier
2* information was identified in the
generic DCD with italicized text and
brackets (See Table 1–1 of the AP1000
DCD Introduction for a list of the Tier
2* items). Although the Tier 2*
designation was originally intended to
last for the lifetime of the facility, like
Tier 1 information, the NRC determined
that some of the Tier 2* information
could expire when the plant first
achieves full power (100 percent), after
the finding required by 10 CFR
52.103(g), while other Tier 2*
information must remain in effect
throughout the life of the facility. The
factors determining whether Tier 2*
information could expire after the first
full-power was achieved were whether
the Tier 1 information would govern
these areas after first full-power and the
NRC’s determination that prior approval
was required before implementation of
the change due to the significance of the
information. Therefore, certain Tier 2*
information listed in paragraph B.6.c
would cease to retain its Tier 2*
designation after full-power operation is
first achieved following the Commission
finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g).
Thereafter, that information would be
deemed to be Tier 2 information that
would be subject to the departure
requirements in paragraph B.5. By
contrast, the Tier 2* information
identified in paragraph B.6.b would
retain its Tier 2* designation throughout
the duration of the license, including
any period of license renewal.
The NRC is proposing to revise
certain items designated as Tier 2*. The
item on HFE would be moved from
paragraph B.5.b to paragraph B.5.c, with
the effect that the Tier 2* designation on
that information would expire after fullpower operation is achieved rather than
never expiring. In addition, a new item
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
would be added to paragraph B.5.b for
RCP type. The NRC determined that
certain specific characteristics of the
RCP were significant to the safety
review and that prior approval of
changes affecting those characteristics
would be required. This Tier 2*
designation does not expire.
Finally, the NRC also concluded that
the Tier 2* designation was not
necessary for the specific Code edition
and addenda for the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), as
listed in item VIII.B.6.c.(2). At the time
of the initial certification, the NRC
determined that this information should
be Tier 2*. Subsequently, 10 CFR part
50 was modified to include provisions
in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) to provide
restrictions in the use of certain
editions/addenda to the ASME Code,
Section III, that the NRC found
unacceptable. In addition, 10 CFR
50.55a(c)(3), (d)(2) and (e)(2), for reactor
coolant pressure boundary, Quality
Group B Components, and Quality
Group C Components, respectively,
provide regulatory controls on the use of
later edition/addenda to the ASME
Code, Section III, through the conditions
NRC established on use of paragraph
NCA–1140 of the Code. As a result,
these rule requirements adequately
control the ability of a licensee to use
a later edition of the ASME Code and
addenda such that Tier 2* designation
is not necessary. Thus, the Tier 2* item
in paragraph B.6.c.(2) for ASME Code
was modified to be limited to ASME
Code piping design restrictions as
identified in Section 5.2.1.1 of the
AP1000 DCD and to include certain
Code cases, including Code Case N–
284–1, as discussed in Section 3.8.2.2
and other Code cases as designated in
Table 5.2–3 of the DCD (Code Case N–
284–1 is the only case currently
specified in Appendix D to 10 CFR part
52). The NRC retained the Tier 2*
designation for applying ASME Code,
Section III, Subsection NE to
containment design, by moving this
provision to the end of item
VIII.B.6.c.(14). Section 3.8.2.2 of the
DCD identifies the specific edition and
addenda for containment design (2001
Edition of ASME Code, Section III,
including 2002 Addenda) with the Tier
2* markings.
6. Records and Reporting (Section X)
The purpose of Section X is to present
the requirements that apply to
maintaining records of changes to and
departures from the generic DCD, which
would be reflected in the plant-specific
DCD. Section X also presents the
requirements for submitting reports
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
(including updates to the plant-specific
DCD) to the NRC. Paragraph A.1
requires that a generic DCD and the PI
and SGI referenced in the generic DCD
be maintained by the applicant for this
rule. The NRC is proposing to revise
paragraph A.1 to replace the term
‘‘proprietary information,’’ or PI, with
the broader term ‘‘sensitive unclassified
non-safeguards information,’’ or SUNSI.
Information categorized as SUNSI is
information that is generally not
publicly available and encompasses a
wide variety of categories. These
categories include information about a
licensee’s or applicant’s physical
protection or material control and
accounting program for special nuclear
material not otherwise designated as
SGI or classified as National Security
Information or Restricted Data (securityrelated information), which is required
by 10 CFR 2.390 to be protected in the
same manner as commercial or financial
information (i.e., they are exempt from
public disclosure). This change is
necessary because the NRC is proposing
to approve PI and security-related
information. This change would also
ensure that Westinghouse (as well as
any future applicants for amendments to
the AP1000 DCR who intend to supply
the certified design) are required to
maintain a copy of the applicable
generic DCD, and maintain the
applicable SUNSI (including PI) and
SGI—developed by that applicant—that
were approved as part of the relevant
design certification rulemakings.
The NRC notes that the generic DCD
concept was developed, in part, to meet
OFR requirements for incorporation by
reference, including public availability
of documents incorporated by reference.
However, the PI and SGI were not
included in the public version of the
DCD. Only the public version of the
generic DCD would be identified and
incorporated by reference into this rule.
Nonetheless, the SUNSI for this
amendment was reviewed by the NRC
and, as stated in paragraph B.2, the NRC
would consider the information to be
resolved within the meaning of 10 CFR
52.63(a)(5). Because this information is
in the non-public version of the DCD,
this SUNSI (including PI) and SGI, or its
equivalent, is required to be provided by
an applicant for a license referencing
this DCR.
In addition, the NRC is proposing to
add a new paragraph A.4.a that would
require the applicant for the AP1000
design to maintain a copy of the AIA
performed to comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) for the
term of the certification (including any
period of renewal). The NRC is also
proposing a new paragraph A.4.b that
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10275
would require an applicant or licensee
who references this appendix to
maintain a copy of the AIA performed
to comply with the requirements of 10
CFR 50.150(a) throughout the pendency
of the application and for the term of the
license (including any period of
renewal). The addition of paragraphs
A.4.a and A.4.b is consistent with the
NRC’s intent when it issued the AIA
rule in 2009 (74 FR 28112; June 12,
2009, at page 28121, second column).
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion sets forth
each proposed amendment to the
AP1000 DCR. All section and paragraph
references are to the provisions in the
proposed amendment to Appendix D to
10 CFR part 52, unless otherwise noted.
A. Introduction (Section I)
The NRC is proposing to amend
Section I, Introduction, to change the
DCD revision number from 15 to 18.
B. Scope and Contents (Section III)
The NRC is proposing to amend
Section III, Scope and Contents, to
revise paragraph A to update the
revision number of the DCD, from
Revision 15 to Revision 18, approved for
incorporation by reference; update the
contact information of the Westinghouse
representative to be contacted should a
member of the public request a copy of
the generic DCD; and update other
locations (e.g., the NRC’s PDR) where a
member of the public could request a
copy of or otherwise view the generic
DCD.
The NRC is proposing to revise
paragraph D to set forth the way
potential conflicts are to be resolved.
Paragraph D would establish the generic
DCD as the controlling document in the
event of an inconsistency between the
DCD and either the application or the
FSER for the certified standard design.
This clarification would further
distinguish between the conflict
scenarios presented in paragraphs D.1
(for the initial certification of the
design) and D.2 (for Amendment 1 to
the design).
C. Additional Requirements and
Restrictions (Section IV)
The NRC is proposing to amend
Section IV, Additional Requirements
and Restrictions, to set forth additional
requirements and restrictions imposed
upon an applicant who references
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52.
Paragraph A would set forth the
information requirements for these
applicants. The NRC is proposing to
revise paragraph A.3 to replace the term
‘‘proprietary information’’ with the
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
10276
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
broader term ‘‘sensitive unclassified
non-safeguards information.’’
The NRC is also proposing to add a
new paragraph A.4 to indicate
requirements that must be met in cases
where the COL applicant is not using
the entity that was the original applicant
for the design certification (or
amendment) to supply the design for the
applicant’s use. Proposed paragraph A.4
would require a COL applicant
referencing Appendix D to 10 CFR part
52 to include, as part of its application,
a demonstration that an entity other
than Westinghouse is qualified to
supply the AP1000 certified design,
unless Westinghouse supplies the
design for the applicant’s use. In cases
where a COL applicant is not using
Westinghouse to supply the AP1000
certified design, the required
information would be used to support
any NRC finding under 10 CFR 52.73(a)
that an entity other than the one
originally sponsoring the design
certification or design certification
amendment is qualified to supply the
certified design.
D. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
The NRC proposes to revise paragraph
A to distinguish between the regulations
that are applicable and in effect at the
time the initial design certification was
approved (paragraph A.1) and the
regulations that would be applicable
and in effect at the time that
Amendment 1 is approved (paragraph
A.2).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
The NRC proposes to amend Section
VI, Issue Resolution, by revising
paragraph B.1 to provide that all nuclear
safety issues arising from the Act that
are associated with the information in
the NRC’s FSER (NUREG–1793), the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 information (including
the availability controls in Section 16.3
of the generic DCD), and the rulemaking
record for Appendix D to 10 CFR part
52 are resolved within the meaning of
10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). These issues include
the information referenced in the DCD
that are requirements (i.e., secondary
references), as well as all issues arising
from SUNSI (including PI) and SGI,
which are intended to be requirements.
This paragraph would be revised to
extend issue resolution beyond that of
the previously certified design to also
include the information in Supplement
No. 2 of the FSER and the rulemaking
record associated with Amendment 1 to
the AP1000 design.
The NRC is proposing to revise
paragraph B.2 to replace the term
‘‘proprietary information’’ with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
broader term ‘‘sensitive unclassified
non-safeguards information.’’
Paragraph B.7 would be revised to
extend environmental issue resolution
beyond that of the previously certified
design to also include the information
in Amendment 1 to the AP1000 design
and Appendix 1B of Revision 18 of the
generic DCD.
New paragraph VI.E would provide
that the NRC will specify at an
appropriate time the procedures for
interested persons to obtain access to PI,
SUNSI, and SGI for the AP1000 DCR.
Access to such information would be for
the sole purpose of requesting or
participating in certain specified
hearings, such as (1) The hearing
required by 10 CFR 52.85 where the
underlying application references
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52; (2) any
hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103
where the underlying COL references
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52; and (3)
any other hearing relating to Appendix
D to 10 CFR part 52 in which interested
persons have the right to request an
adjudicatory hearing.
F. Processes for Changes and Departures
(Section VIII)
The NRC is proposing changes to
Section VIII to address the change
control process specific to departures
from the information required by 10
CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address the NRC’s
AIA requirements in 10 CFR 50.150.
Specifically, the NRC is proposing to
revise the introductory text of paragraph
B.5.b to indicate that the criteria in this
paragraph for determining if a proposed
departure from Tier 2 requires a license
amendment do not apply to a proposed
departure affecting information required
by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address
aircraft impacts.
In addition, the NRC is proposing to
redesignate paragraphs B.5.d, B.5.e, and
B.5.f as paragraphs B.5.e, B.5.f, and
B.5.g, respectively, and to add a new
paragraph B.5.d. Proposed paragraph
B.5.d would require an applicant
referencing the AP1000 DCR, who
proposed to depart from the information
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be
included in the FSAR for the standard
design certification, to consider the
effect of the changed feature or
capability on the original 10 CFR
50.150(a) assessment.
The NRC is proposing to revise
certain items designated as Tier 2*. The
item on HFE would be moved from
paragraph B.6.b to paragraph B.6.c, with
the effect that the Tier 2* designation on
that information would expire after fullpower operation is achieved rather than
never. In addition, a new item would be
added to paragraph B.6.b for RCP type.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The NRC determined that certain
specific characteristics of the RCP were
significant to the safety review and that
prior approval of changes affecting those
characteristics would be required. This
Tier 2* designation does not expire.
The NRC also concluded that the Tier
2* designation was not necessary for the
specific Code edition and addenda for
the ASME code as listed in paragraph
B.6.c(2). Thus, the item in paragraph
B.6.c(2) for the ASME Code would be
modified to be more limited in scope.
The NRC would retain the Tier 2*
designation for the Code edition
applicable to containment in paragraph
B.6.c(14) and added paragraph B.6.c(16)
on ASME Code cases, which are
specified in Table 5.2–3 of the generic
DCD.
G. Records and Reporting (Section X)
The NRC is proposing to amend
Section X, Records and Reporting, to
revise paragraph A.1 to replace the term
‘‘proprietary information’’ with the
broader term ‘‘sensitive unclassified
non-safeguards information.’’ Paragraph
A.1 would also be revised to require the
design certification amendment
applicant to maintain the SUNSI, which
it developed and used to support its
design certification amendment
application. This would ensure that the
referencing applicant has direct access
to this information from the design
certification amendment applicant, if it
has contracted with the applicant to
provide the SUNSI to support its license
application. The AP1000 generic DCD
and the NRC-approved version of the
SUNSI would be required to be
maintained for the period that
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 may be
referenced.
The NRC is also proposing to add a
new paragraph A.4.a, which would
require Westinghouse to maintain a
copy of the AIA performed to comply
with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.150(a) for the term of the certification
(including any period of renewal). This
proposed provision, which is consistent
with 10 CFR 50.150(c)(3), would
facilitate any NRC inspections of the
assessment that the NRC decides to
conduct.
Similarly, the NRC is proposing new
paragraph A.4.b, which would require
an applicant or licensee who references
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 to
maintain a copy of the AIA performed
to comply with the requirements of 10
CFR 50.150(a) throughout the pendency
of the application and for the term of the
license (including any period of
renewal). This provision is consistent
with 10 CFR 50.150(c)(4). For all
applicants and licensees, the supporting
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
10277
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
documentation retained onsite should
describe the methodology used in
performing the assessment, including
the identification of potential design
features and functional capabilities to
show that the acceptance criteria in 10
CFR 50.150(a)(1) would be met.
V. Agreement State Compatibility
Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on
Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement States Programs,’’ approved
by the Commission on June 20, 1997,
and published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997), this
rule is classified as compatibility ‘‘NRC.’’
Compatibility is not required for
Category ‘‘NRC’’ regulations. The NRC
program elements in this category are
those that relate directly to areas of
regulation reserved to the NRC by the
Act or the provisions of this section.
Although an Agreement State may not
adopt program elements reserved to the
NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees
of certain requirements by a mechanism
that is consistent with the particular
State’s administrative procedure laws.
Category ‘‘NRC’’ regulations do not
confer regulatory authority on the State.
VI. Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the documents
identified below available to interested
persons through one or more of the
following methods, as indicated. To
access documents related to this action,
see Section I, ‘‘Submitting Comments
and Accessing Information’’ of this
notice.
Document
PDR
Web
ADAMS
SECY–11–0002, ‘‘Proposed Rule—AP1000 Design Certification Amendment’’ .............
AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) Revision 18, Transmittal Letter ...................
Westinghouse AP1000 DCD Revision 18 (public version) .............................................
Advanced Final Safety Evaluation Report for Revision 18 to the AP1000 Standard
Design Certification (publicly available) .......................................................................
AP1000 Environmental Assessment ...............................................................................
Interim Staff Guidance DC/COL–ISG–011, ‘‘Finalizing Licensing-basis Information’’ ....
Design Changes Submitted by Westinghouse, Revision 18 ...........................................
AP1000 Technical Reports (Appendix) ...........................................................................
TR–26, ‘‘AP1000 Verification of Water Sources for Long-Term Recirculation Cooling
Following a LOCA,’’ Revision 8 ...................................................................................
TR–54, ‘‘Spent Fuel Storage Racks Structure and Seismic Analysis,’’ Revision 4 ........
TR–65, ‘‘Spent Fuel Storage Racks Criticality Analysis,’’ Revision 2 .............................
TR–103, ‘‘Fluid System Changes,’’ Revision 2 ...............................................................
‘‘Evaluation of the Effect of the AP1000 Enhanced Shield Building on the Containment Response and Safety Analysis,’’ Revision 1 ......................................................
AP1000 DCD Transmittal Letter, Revision 17 .................................................................
AP1000 DCD, Revision 17 ..............................................................................................
AP1000 DCD Transmittal Letter, Revision 16 .................................................................
AP1000 DCD, Revision 16 ..............................................................................................
NRC Notice of Acceptance, Revision 16 ........................................................................
December 13, 2010 ACRS Letter to Chairman (Report on FSER to AP1000 DCD) .....
December 20, 2010 ACRS Letter to Chairman (Long-Term Core Cooling) ...................
Regulatory History of Design Certification 2 ....................................................................
X
X
X
X
X
............................
ML103000397
ML103480059
ML103480572
X
X
X
X
X
............................
X
X
X
............................
ML103260072
ML103000415
ML092890623
ML100250873
ML103350501
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ML102170123
ML101580475
ML100082093
ML072830060
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
............................
ML102220579
ML083220482
ML083230868
ML071580757
ML071580939
ML073600743
ML103410351
ML103410348
ML003761550
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
VII. Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (Including Proprietary
Information) and Safeguards
Information for Preparation of
Comments on the Proposed Amendment
to the AP1000 Design Certification
design constituting PI should first
request access to that information from
the design certification applicant. A
request for access should be submitted
to the NRC if the applicant does not
either grant or deny access by the
10-day deadline described below.
This section contains instructions
regarding how interested persons who
wish to comment on the proposed
design certification may request access
to documents containing SUNSI
(including PI 3), and SGI, to prepare
their comments. Requirements for
access to SGI are primarily set forth in
10 CFR parts 2 and 73. This document
provides information specific to this
proposed rulemaking; however, nothing
in this document is intended to conflict
with the SGI regulations.
Interested persons who desire access
to SUNSI information on the AP1000
Submitting a Request to the NRC
Within 10 days after publication of
this document, an individual or entity
(thereinafter, the ‘‘requester’’) may
request access to such information.
Requests for access to SUNSI or SGI
submitted more than 10 days after
publication of this document will not be
considered absent a showing of good
cause for the late filing explaining why
the request could not have been filed
earlier.
The requester shall submit a letter
requesting permission to access SUNSI
and/or SGI to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Washington DC
20555–0001. The expedited delivery or
courier mail address is: Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Attention: Rulemakings
and Adjudications Staff, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852. The e-mail address for the Office
of the Secretary is
rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov. The
requester must send a copy of the
request to the design certification
applicant at the same time as the
original transmission to the NRC using
the same method of transmission.
Copies of the request to the applicant
must be sent to Stanley E. Ritterbusch,
Manager, AP1000 Design Certification,
Westinghouse Electric Company, 1000
Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry
2 The regulatory history of the NRC’s design
certification reviews is a package of documents that
is available in NRC’s PDR and ADAMS. This history
spans the period during which the NRC
simultaneously developed the regulatory standards
for reviewing these designs and the form and
content of the rules that certified the designs.
3 For purposes of this discussion, ‘‘proprietary
information’’ constitutes trade secrets or commercial
or financial information that are privileged or
confidential, as those terms are used under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the
NRC’s implementing regulation at 10 CFR part 9.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10278
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Township, PA 16066, or by e-mail to
ritterse@westinghouse.com. For
purposes of complying with this
requirement, a ‘‘request’’ includes all the
information required to be submitted to
the NRC as presented in this section.
The request must include the
following information:
1. The name of this design
certification amendment (AP1000
Design Certification Amendment), the
rulemaking identification number RIN
3150–AI81, the rulemaking Docket ID
NRC–2010–0131, and a citation to this
document at the top of the first page of
the request;
2. The name, address, e-mail, or fax
number of the requester. If the requester
is an entity, the name of the
individual(s) to whom access is to be
provided, then the address and e-mail or
fax number for each individual, and a
statement of the authority granted by the
entity to each individual to review the
information and to prepare comments
on behalf of the entity must be
provided. If the requester is relying
upon another individual to evaluate the
requested SUNSI and/or SGI and
prepare comments, then the name,
affiliation, address, and e-mail or fax
number for that individual must be
provided.
3.(a) If the request is for SUNSI, then
the requester’s need for the information
to prepare meaningful comments on the
proposed design certification must be
demonstrated. Each of the following
areas must be addressed with
specificity.
(i) The specific issue or subject matter
on which the requester wishes to
comment;
(ii) An explanation why information
which is publicly available, including
the publicly available versions of the
application and DCD, and information
on the NRC’s docket for the design
certification application is insufficient
to provide the basis for developing
meaningful comment on the proposed
design certification with respect to the
issue or subject matter described
previously in paragraph 3.(a)(i); and
(iii) Information demonstrating that
the individual to whom access is to be
provided has the technical competence
(demonstrable knowledge, skill,
experience, education, training, or
certification) to understand and use (or
evaluate) the requested information for
a meaningful comment on the proposed
design certification with respect to the
issue or subject matter described in
paragraph 3.(a)(i) above.
(b) If the request is for SUNSI
constituting PI, then a chronology and
discussion of the requester’s attempts to
obtain the information from the design
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
certification applicant, and the final
communication from the requester to
the applicant and the applicant’s
response with respect to the request for
access to PI must be submitted.
4.(a) If the request is for SGI, then the
requester’s ‘‘need to know’’ the SGI must
be demonstrated as required by 10 CFR
73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent
with the definition of ‘‘need to know’’ as
stated in 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR
73.22(b)(1), each of the following areas
must be addressed with specificity:
(i) The specific issue or subject matter
on which the requester wishes to
comment;
(ii) An explanation why information
which is publicly available, including
the publicly available versions of the
application and DCD, and information
on the NRC’s docket for the design
certification application is insufficient
to provide the basis for developing
meaningful comment on the proposed
design certification with respect to the
issue or subject matter described in
paragraph 4.(a)(i) above, and that the
SGI requested is indispensible in order
to develop meaningful comments; 4
(iii) Information demonstrating that
the individual to whom access is to be
provided has the technical competence
(demonstrable knowledge, skill,
experience, education, training, or
certification) to understand and use (or
evaluate) the requested SGI, for
meaningful comment on the proposed
design certification with respect to the
issue or subject matter described in
paragraph 4.(a)(i) above.
(b) A completed Form SF–85,
‘‘Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive
Positions,’’ must be submitted for each
individual who would have access to
SGI. The completed Form SF–85 will be
used by the Office of Administration to
conduct the background check required
for access to SGI, as required by 10 CFR
part 2, Subpart G, and 10 CFR
73.22(b)(2), to determine the requester’s
trustworthiness and reliability. For
security reasons, Form SF–85 can only
be submitted electronically through the
electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) Web
site, a secure Web site that is owned and
operated by the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM). To obtain online
access to the form, the requester should
4 Broad SGI requests under these procedures are
unlikely to meet the standard for need to know.
Furthermore, NRC staff redaction of information
from requested documents before their release may
be appropriate to comport with this requirement.
The procedures in this document of proposed
rulemaking do not authorize unrestricted disclosure
or less scrutiny of a requester’s need to know than
ordinarily would be applied in connection with
either adjudicatory or non-adjudicatory access to
SGI.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
contact the NRC’s Office of
Administration at 301–492–3524.5
(c) A completed Form FD–258
(fingerprint card), signed in original ink,
and submitted under 10 CFR 73.57(d).
Copies of Form FD–258 may be obtained
by writing the Office of Information
Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; by calling 301–415–5877 or 301–
492–7311; or by e-mail to
Forms.Resource@nrc.gov. The
fingerprint card will be used to satisfy
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, 10
CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the
Act, which mandates that all persons
with access to SGI must be fingerprinted
for a Federal Bureau of Investigation
identification and criminal history
records check;
(d) A check or money order in the
amount of $200.00 6 payable to the NRC
for each individual for whom the
request for access has been submitted;
and
(e) If the requester or any individual
who will have access to SGI believes
they belong to one or more of the
categories of individuals relieved from
the criminal history records check and
background check requirements, as
stated in 10 CFR 73.59, the requester
should also provide a statement
specifically stating which relief the
requester is invoking, and explaining
the requester’s basis (including
supporting documentation) for believing
that the relief is applicable. While
processing the request, the NRC’s Office
of Administration, Personnel Security
Branch, will make a final determination
whether the stated relief applies.
Alternatively, the requester may contact
the Office of Administration for an
evaluation of their status prior to
submitting the request. Persons who are
not subject to the background check are
not required to complete the Form SF–
85 or Form FD–258; however, all other
requirements for access to SGI,
including the need to know, are still
applicable.
Copies of documents and materials
required by paragraphs 4(b), (c), (d), and
(e), as applicable, of this section of this
document must be sent to the following
address: Office of Administration, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Personnel Security Branch, Mail Stop:
TWB–05 B32M, Washington, DC 20555–
0012.
5 The requester will be asked to provide his or her
full name, Social Security number, date and place
of birth, telephone number, and e-mail address.
After providing this information, the requester
usually should be able to obtain access to the online
form within 1 business day.
6 This fee is subject to change pursuant to the
OPM’s adjustable billing rates.
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
These documents and materials
should not be included with the request
letter to the Office of the Secretary, but
the request letter should state that the
forms and fees have been submitted as
required above.
5. To avoid delays in processing
requests for access to SGI, all forms
should be reviewed for completeness
and accuracy (including legibility)
before submitting them to the NRC. The
NRC will return incomplete or illegible
packages to the sender without
processing.
6. Based on an evaluation of the
information submitted under paragraphs
3(a) and (b), or 4(a), (b), (c), and (e) of
this section, as applicable, the NRC will
determine within 10 days of receipt of
the written access request whether the
requester has established a legitimate
need for the SUNSI access or ‘‘need to
know’’ the SGI requested.
7. For SUNSI access requests, if the
NRC determines that the requester has
established a legitimate need for access
to SUNSI, the NRC will notify the
requester in writing that access to
SUNSI has been granted, provided
however, that if the SUNSI consists of
PI (i.e., trade secrets or confidential or
financial information), the NRC must
first notify the applicant of the NRC’s
determination to grant access to the
requester not less than 10 days before
informing the requester of the NRC’s
decision. If the applicant wishes to
challenge the NRC’s determination, it
must follow the procedures in
paragraph 12 of this section. The NRC
will not provide the requester access to
disputed PI until the procedures in
paragraph 12 of this section are
completed.
The written notification to the
requester will contain instructions on
how the requester may obtain copies of
the requested documents, and any other
conditions that may apply to access to
those documents. These conditions will
include, but are not necessarily limited
to, the signing of a protective order
presenting terms and conditions to
prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent
disclosure of SUNSI by each individual
who will be granted access to SUNSI.
Claims that the provisions of such a
protective order have not been complied
with may be filed by calling NRC’s tollfree safety hotline at 800–695–7403.
Please note that calls to this number are
not recorded between the hours of 7
a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. However,
calls received outside these hours are
answered by the NRC’s Incident
Response Operations Center on a
recorded line. Claims may also be filed
via e-mail sent to
NRO_Allegations@nrc.gov, or may be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
sent in writing to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: N.
Rivera-Feliciano, Mail Stop: T–7D24,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
8. For requests for access to SGI, if the
NRC determines that the requester has
established a need to know the SGI, the
NRC’s Office of Administration will
then determine, based upon completion
of the background check, whether the
proposed recipient is trustworthy and
reliable, as required for access to SGI by
10 CFR 73.22(b). If the NRC’s Office of
Administration determines that the
individual or individuals are
trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will
promptly notify the requester in writing.
The notification will provide the names
of approved individuals as well as the
conditions under which the SGI will be
provided. Those conditions will
include, but are not necessarily limited
to, the signing of a protective order by
each individual who will be granted
access to SGI. Claims that the provisions
of such a protective order have not been
complied with may be filed by calling
NRC’s toll-free safety hotline at 1–800–
695–7403. Please note that calls to this
number are not recorded between the
hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
However, calls received outside these
hours are answered by the NRC’s
Incident Response Operations Center on
a recorded line. Claims may also be filed
via e-mail sent to
NRO_Allegations@nrc.gov, or may be
sent in writing to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: N.
Rivera-Feliciano, Mail Stop: T–7D24,
Washington, DC 20555–0001. Because
SGI requires special handling, initial
filings with the NRC should be free from
such specific information. If necessary,
the NRC will arrange an appropriate
setting for transmitting SGI to the NRC.
9. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to
providing SGI to the requester, the NRC
will conduct (as necessary) an
inspection to confirm that the
recipient’s information protection
system is sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of 10 CFR 73.22.
Alternatively, recipients may choose to
view SGI at an approved SGI storage
location rather than establish their own
SGI protection program to meet SGI
protection requirements.
10. Filing of Comments on the
Proposed Design Certification. Any
comments in this rulemaking
proceeding that are based upon the
disclosed SUNSI or SGI must be filed by
the requester no later than 25 days after
receipt of (or access to) that information,
or the close of the public comment
period, whichever is later. The
commenter must comply with the NRC
requirements regarding the submission
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10279
of SUNSI and SGI to the NRC when
submitting comments to the NRC
(including marking and transmission
requirements).
11. Review of Denials of Access.
(a) If the request for access to SUNSI
or SGI is denied by the NRC, the staff
shall promptly notify the requester in
writing, briefly stating the reason or
reasons for the denial.
(b) Before the NRC’s Office of
Administration makes an adverse
determination regarding the
trustworthiness and reliability of the
proposed recipient(s) of SGI, the NRC’s
Office of Administration, under 10 CFR
2.705(c)(3)(iii), must provide the
proposed recipient(s) any records that
were considered in the trustworthiness
and reliability determination, including
those required to be provided under 10
CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed
recipient is provided an opportunity to
correct or explain information.
(c) Appeals from a denial of access
must be made to the NRC’s Executive
Director for Operations (EDO) under 10
CFR 9.29. The decision of the EDO
constitutes final agency action, as
provided in 10 CFR 9.29(d).
12. Predisclosure Procedures for
SUNSI Constituting Trade Secrets or
Confidential Commercial or Financial
Information. The NRC will follow the
procedures in 10 CFR 9.28 if the NRC
determines, under paragraph 7 of this
section, that access to SUNSI
constituting trade secrets or confidential
commercial or financial information
will be provided to the requester.
However, any objection filed by the
applicant under 10 CFR 9.28(b) must be
filed within 15 days of the NRC notice
in paragraph 7 of this section rather
than the 30-day period provided for
under that paragraph. In applying the
provisions of 10 CFR 9.28, the applicant
for the DCR will be treated as the
‘‘submitter.’’
VIII. Plain Language
The Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain
Language in Government Writing’’
published on June 10, 1998 (63 FR
31883), directed that the Government’s
documents be in clear and accessible
language. The NRC requests comments
on the proposed rule specifically with
respect to the clarity and effectiveness
of the language used. Comments should
be sent to the NRC as explained in the
ADDRESSES heading of this document.
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology and
Transfer Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
113, requires that Federal agencies use
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
10280
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
standards bodies unless using such a
standard is inconsistent with applicable
law or is otherwise impractical. In this
proposed rule, the NRC proposes to
approve Amendment 1 to the AP1000
standard plant design for use in nuclear
power plant licensing under 10 CFR
part 50 or 52. Design certifications (and
amendments thereto) are not generic
rulemakings establishing a generally
applicable standard with which all 10
CFR parts 50 and 52 nuclear power
plant licensees must comply. Design
certifications (and amendments thereto)
are Commission approvals of specific
nuclear power plant designs by
rulemaking. Furthermore, design
certifications (and amendments thereto)
are initiated by an applicant for
rulemaking, rather than by the NRC. For
these reasons, the NRC concludes that
the National Technology and Transfer
Act of 1995 does not apply to this
proposed rule.
X. Finding of No Significant
Environmental Impact: Availability
The Commission has determined
under NEPA, and the Commission’s
regulations in Subpart A, ‘‘National
Environmental Policy Act; Regulations
Implementing Section 102(2),’’ of 10
CFR part 51, ‘‘Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions,’’ that this
proposed DCR, if adopted, would not be
a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment and, therefore, an
environmental impact statement (EIS) is
not required. The basis for this
determination, as documented in the
EA, is that the Commission has made a
generic determination under 10 CFR
51.32(b)(2) that there is no significant
environmental impact associated with
the issuance of an amendment to a
design certification. This amendment to
10 CFR part 52 would not authorize the
siting, construction, or operation of a
facility using the amended AP1000
design; it would only codify the
amendment to the AP1000 design in a
rule. The NRC will evaluate the
environmental impacts and issue an EIS
as appropriate under NEPA as part of
the application for the construction and
operation of a facility referencing this
amendment to the AP1000 DCR. In
addition, as part of the draft EA for the
amendment to the AP1000 design, the
NRC reviewed Westinghouse’s
evaluation of various design alternatives
to prevent and mitigate severe accidents
in Appendix 1B of the AP1000 DCD Tier
2. According to 10 CFR 51.30(d), an EA
for a design certification amendment is
limited to the consideration of whether
the design change, which is the subject
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
of the proposed amendment renders a
SAMDA previously rejected in the
earlier EA to become cost beneficial, or
results in the identification of new
SAMDAs, in which case the costs and
benefits of new SAMDAs and the bases
for not incorporating new SAMDAs in
the design certification must be
addressed. Based upon review of
Westinghouse’s evaluation, the
Commission concludes that the
proposed design changes: (1) Do not
cause a SAMDA previously rejected in
the EA for the initial AP1000 design
certification to become cost beneficial;
and (2) do not result in the
identification of any new SAMDAs that
could become cost beneficial.
The Commission is requesting
comment on the draft EA. As provided
in 10 CFR 51.31(b), comments on the
draft EA will be limited to the
consideration of SAMDAs as required
by 10 CFR 51.30(d). The Commission
will prepare a final EA following the
close of the comment period for the
proposed standard design certification.
If a final rule is issued, all
environmental issues concerning
SAMDAs associated with the
information in the final EA and
Appendix 1B of the AP1000 DCD Tier
2 will be considered resolved for plants
referencing Amendment 1 to the
AP1000 design whose site parameters
are within those specified in SAMDA
evaluation. The existing site parameters
specified in the SAMDA evaluation are
not affected by this design certification
amendment.
The draft EA, upon which the
Commission’s finding of no significant
impact is based, and Revision 18 of the
AP1000 DCD are available for
examination and copying at the NRC’s
PDR, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Room O–1 F21,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
Statement
This proposed rule contains new or
amended information collection
requirements that are subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). This rule has been
submitted to OMB for review and
approval of the information collection
requirements.
Type of submission, new or revision:
Revision.
The title of the information collection:
10 CFR part 52, AP1000 Design
Certification Amendment.
The form number if applicable: N/A.
How often the collection is required:
On occasion. Reports required under 10
CFR part 52, Appendix D, paragraph
IV.A.4, are collected and evaluated once
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
if licensing action is sought on a COL
application referencing the AP1000
design and the COL applicant is not
using the entity that was the original
applicant for the design certification, or
amendment, to supply the design for the
license applicant’s use. In addition, COL
applicants and the applicant for a
design certification must keep records of
the aircraft impact assessment
performed to comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a).
Who will be required or asked to
report: COL applicants and one
applicant for a design certification.
An estimate of the number of annual
responses: 8 (0 annual responses plus 8
recordkeepers).
The estimated number of annual
respondents: 8.
An estimate of the total number of
hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: 24 hours (0
hours reporting and 24 hours
recordkeeping).
Abstract: The NRC proposes to amend
its regulations to certify an amendment
to the AP1000 standard plant design to
bring the design into compliance with
NRC’s regulations and to increase
standardization of the design. This
action is necessary so that applicants or
licensees intending to construct and
operate an AP1000 design may do so by
referencing this DCR as amended.
The NRC is seeking public comment
on the potential impact of the
information collections contained in
this proposed rule and on the following
issues:
1. Is the proposed information
collection necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
NRC, including whether the information
will have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the
information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated
collection techniques?
A copy of the OMB clearance package
may be viewed free of charge at the
NRC’s PDR, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1–F21,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB
clearance package and rule are available
at the NRC Web site: https://
www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doccomment/omb/ for 60 days
after the signature date of this
document.
Send comments on any aspect of
these proposed information collections,
including suggestions for reducing the
burden and on the above issues, by
March 28, 2011 to the Information
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Services Branch (T5–F52), U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, or by e-mail to
INFOCOLLECTS.RESOURCE@
NRC.GOV; 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, https://www.
regulations.gov, Docket ID NRC–2010–
0131. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but assurance of consideration
cannot be given to comments received
after this date. You may also e-mail
comments to Christine_J._Kymn@
omb.eop.gov or comment by telephone
at 202–395–4638.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a request for information or an
information collection requirement
unless the requesting document
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
XII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has not prepared a
regulatory analysis for this proposed
rule. The NRC prepares regulatory
analyses for rulemakings that establish
generic regulatory requirements
applicable to all licensees. Design
certifications (and amendments thereto)
are not generic rulemakings in the sense
that design certifications (and
amendments thereto) do not establish
standards or requirements with which
all licensees must comply. Rather,
design certifications (and amendments
thereto) are Commission approvals of
specific nuclear power plant designs by
rulemaking, which then may be
voluntarily referenced by applicants for
COLs. Furthermore, design certification
rulemakings are initiated by an
applicant for a design certification (or
amendments thereto), rather than the
NRC. Preparation of a regulatory
analysis in this circumstance would not
be useful because the design to be
certified is proposed by the applicant
rather than the NRC. For these reasons,
the Commission concludes that
preparation of a regulatory analysis is
neither required nor appropriate.
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility
Certification
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission
certifies that this rule would not, if
promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
number of small entities. This proposed
rule provides for certification of an
amendment to a nuclear power plant
design. Neither the design certification
amendment applicant, nor prospective
nuclear power plant licensees who
reference this DCR, fall within the scope
of the definition of ‘‘small entities’’
presented in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, or the size standards established by
the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). Thus, this rule
does not fall within the purview of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
XIV. Backfitting
The NRC has determined that this
proposed rule meets the requirements of
the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, and the
requirements governing changes to
DCRs in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1).
The proposed rule does not constitute
backfitting as defined in the backfit rule
(10 CFR 50.109) with respect to
operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50
because there are no operating licenses
referencing this DCR.
Westinghouse requested many
changes to the AP1000 DCD to correct
spelling, punctuation, or similar errors,
which result in text that has the same
essential meaning. The NRC concludes
that these Westinghouse-requested
changes, which are editorial in nature,
neither constitute backfitting as defined
in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), nor are these
changes inconsistent with the issue
finality provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 or 10
CFR 52.83. The backfitting and issue
finality provisions were not meant to
apply to such editorial changes
inasmuch as such changes would have
insubstantial impact on licensees with
respect to their design and operation,
and are not the kind of changes falling
within the policy considerations that
underlie the backfit rule and the issue
finality provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 and
52.83.
Westinghouse also requested changes
to the AP1000 DCD, which the NRC
understands were the result of requests
to Westinghouse from COL applicants
referencing the AP1000 design, to
achieve consistency in description and
approach in different portions of the
DCD. In the absence of a generic change
to the AP1000, the referencing COL
applicants stated to Westinghouse and
the NRC that each would likely take
plant-specific departures to address the
inconsistency. While this could result in
more consistency within any given COL
application, it would result in
inconsistencies among the different
referencing COLs, which is inconsistent
with the overall standardization goal of
10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC
concludes that the Westinghouserequested changes to the AP1000 to
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10281
address consistency do not constitute
backfitting under the backfit rule (in as
much as they are voluntary) and are not
otherwise inconsistent with the issue
finality provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 and
52.83.
Westinghouse also proposed
numerous substantive changes to the
AP1000 design, including, but not
limited to, minor component design
details, replacement of a design feature
with another having similar
performance (e.g., turbine manufacturer,
power for the auxiliary boiler), and
changes allowing additional capability
for operational flexibility (e.g., liquid
waste holdup tanks, unit reserve
transformer). Westinghouse included
within its application a detailed list of
each DCD content change and the basis
under 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) that supports
including that change in this
amendment.
With respect to DCD Revision 18, the
bases under 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) for the
various changes to the DCD are
documented in an enclosure, entitled
Revision Change Roadmap, to a
December 1, 2010, Westinghouse letter
sent to the NRC. This Revision Change
Roadmap cross-references the DCD
changes in DCD Revision 18, as
compared to DCD Revision 17, and
applicable 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) criteria.
Revision 18 contains both proposed
changes previously described in the
design change packages and changes
already accepted by the NRC in the
review process of Revision 17 to the
AP1000 DCD. In the course of the
review of both design change packages,
the NRC determined that DCD changes
were needed. In response to NRC
questions, Westinghouse proposed such
changes. Once the NRC was satisfied
with these DCD markups, they were
documented in the safety evaluation
report (SER) as ‘‘confirmatory items’’
(CIs). The CIs were first identified
during the NRC’s review of Revision 17
of the AP1000 DCD. With the review of
Revision 18, the NRC will confirm that
Westinghouse has made those changes
to the DCD accepted by the NRC that
were not addressed in Revision 17 to the
AP1000 DCD. The use of CIs is
restricted to cases where the NRC has
reviewed and approved specific design
control document proposals. For the
final rule, the NRC will complete the
review of the CIs and prepare an FSER
reflecting that action. The CIs are closed
based upon an acceptable comparison
between the revised DCD text and the
text required by the CI. No technical
review of Revision 18 by the NRC is
necessary, because only CIs and design
changes pursuant to DC/COL–ISG–011,
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10282
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
previously accepted by the NRC, are
contained in Revision 18 to the DCD.
A September 22, 2008, Westinghouse
letter provides a similar set of crossreferences for those changes associated
with DCD Revision 17, as compared to
DCD Revision 16. For Revision 16, in
contrast, Westinghouse used TRs to
identify the DCD changes in DCD
Revision 16, as compared to DCD
Revision 15, and listed the
corresponding applicable 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1) criteria in an enclosure to a
Westinghouse letter dated May 26, 2007
(Table 1). These tables include the
editorial and consistency changes
described above as well as design
changes. In the course of the NRC
review of the technical changes
proposed by Westinghouse, the NRC
considered the basis offered by
Westinghouse and made conclusions
about whether the criteria of 10 CFR
52.63(a) were satisfied. These
conclusions are included in the chapters
of the Advanced Final Safety Evaluation
Report. The NRC concluded that all of
these changes met at least one of the
criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a) and are not
otherwise inconsistent with the issue
finality provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 and
52.83. Fifteen of the most significant
changes are discussed below, to show
that each of the 15 substantive changes
to the AP1000 certified design meet at
least one of the criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vii) and,
therefore, do not constitute a violation
of the finality provisions in that section.
Revision 17 provides a similar crossreference in the DCD as submitted by a
September 22, 2008, Westinghouse
letter for those changes associated with
Revision 17. Revision 16 on the other
hand, uses TRs to identify the DCD
changes and lists the corresponding
applicable 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) criteria in
an enclosure to a Westinghouse letter,
dated May 26, 2007 (Table 1). These
tables include the editorial and
consistency changes described above as
well as design changes. In the course of
the NRC review of the technical changes
proposed by Westinghouse, the NRC
considered the basis offered by
Westinghouse and made conclusions
about whether the criteria of 10 CFR
52.63(a) were satisfied. These
conclusions are included in the chapters
of the Advanced Final Safety Evaluation
Report. The NRC concluded that all of
these changes met at least one of the
criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a) and are not
otherwise inconsistent with the issue
finality provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 and
52.83. Fifteen of the most significant
changes are discussed below, to show
that each of the 15 substantive changes
to the AP1000 certified design meet at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
least one of the criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vii) and,
therefore, do not constitute a violation
of the finality provisions in that section.
I. 10 CFR 52.63 Criterion (a)(1)(iv):
Provides the Detailed Design
Information to be Verified under those
ITAAC, which are Directed at
Certification Information (i.e., DAC).
Title: Removal of Human Factors
Engineering Design Acceptance Criteria
from the Design Control Document.
Item: 1 of 15.
Significant Change: The ITAAC
Design Commitments for Human Factor
Engineering (HFE) is in Tier 1, Table
3.2–1. In Revision 17 of the AP1000
DCD, Westinghouse proposed deletion
of the Human Factors DAC (Design
Commitments 1 through 4) and
provided sufficient supporting
documentation to meet the requirements
of these ITAAC. Design Commitment 1
pertains to the integration of human
reliability analysis with HFE design.
Design Commitment 2 pertains to the
HFE task analysis. Design Commitment
3 pertains to the human-system
interface. Design Commitment 4
pertains to the HFE program verification
and validation implementation. The
information developed by Westinghouse
to satisfy these ITAAC is included in
Chapter 18 of the DCD.
Location within the Safety Evaluation
(SER) where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with the HFE DAC are in
Sections 18.7.6 (design commitment 1),
18.5.9 (design commitment 2), 18.2.8
(design commitment 3), and 18.11
(design commitment 4) of the SER
(ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
The additional information included
in Tier 2 provides detailed design
information on human factors design
that would otherwise have to be
addressed through verification of
implementation of the human factors
DAC. Therefore, the changes to the DCD
eliminate the need for DAC on human
factors and meet the finality criteria in
§ 52.63(a)(1)(iv).
Title: Change to Instrumentation and
Control DAC and Associated ITAAC.
Item: 2 of 15.
Significant Change: In the proposed
revision to DCD Chapter 7,
Westinghouse chose the Common Q
platform to implement the Protection
and Safety Monitoring System (PMS)
and removed all references to the Eagle
21 platform. This design change,
coupled with the development of other
information about the PMS system
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
definition design phase, was the basis
for Westinghouse’s proposed removal of
its Tier 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2,
Design Commitment 11(a) Design
Requirements phase from Table 2.5.2–8,
‘‘Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and
Acceptance Criteria,’’ for the PMS.
In its proposed revision to the DCD in
Chapter 7, Westinghouse altered its
design for the Diverse Actuation System
(DAS) by implementing it with Field
Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)
technology instead of microprocessorbased technology. Additional
information about the design process for
the DAS was added as the basis for
Westinghouse’s proposed completion of
its Tier 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.5.1,
Design Commitment 4a) and 4b) Design
Requirements and System Definition
phases from Table 2.5.1–4 ‘‘Inspections,
Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance
Criteria’’ for the DAS.
Location within the Safety Evaluation
(SER) where the changes are principally
described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with I&C DAC and ITAAC are
in Sections 7.2.2.3.14, 7.2.5, 7.8.2, 7.9.2,
and 7.9.3 of the SER (ADAMS Accession
No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Westinghouse provided additional
information that incorporates the results
of the design process implementation
for the PMS and DAS (which both
support completion of Design
Commitments 11a from Table 2.5.2–8
and 4a and 4b from Table 2.5.1–4,
respectively) into the DCD. The
additional information included in Tier
2 provides detailed design information
on I&C design that would otherwise
have to be addressed through
verification of implementation of the
I&C DAC. Therefore, the changes to the
DCD eliminate the need for DAC on
I&Cs and meet the finality criteria in
§ 52.63(a)(1)(iv).
II. 10 CFR 52.63 CRITERION
(a)(1)(vii): Contributes to Increased
Standardization of the Certification
Information
The changes being proposed for the
AP1000 amendment generally fall into
one of two categories: (1) Changes
which provide additional information or
a greater level of detail not previously
available in the currently-approved
version of the AP1000 DCD (Revision
15); or (2) changes requested by COL
applicants referencing the AP1000 who
would plan to include these changes in
their application as departures if they
were not approved in the AP1000 DCR
amendment. The Commission
concludes that both categories of
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
changes meet the 10 CFR 52.63 criterion
of ‘‘contributes to increased
standardization.’’ The bases for the
Commission’s conclusions, including
each category of change, are discussed
below.
Additional and more detailed
information:
Westinghouse proposes that the DCD
be changed by adding new, more
detailed design information that
expands upon the design information
already included in the DCD. This
information would be used by every
COL referencing the AP1000 DCR.
Incorporating these proposed changes
into the AP1000 DCR as part of this
amendment contributes to the increased
standardization of the certification
information by eliminating the
possibility of multiple departures.
Therefore, these changes enhance
standardization, and meet the finality
criterion for changes in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Changes for which COL applicants
would otherwise request departures:
Westinghouse proposes several
changes to its DCD with the stated
purpose of contributing to increased
standardization. Westinghouse
represents that these changes were
requested by the lead COL applicants
currently referencing the AP1000. The
NRC, in meetings with these applicants
as part of the ‘‘Design-Centered Working
Group’’ process for jointly resolving
licensing issues, confirmed that these
applicants requested these changes and
committed to pursuance of plantspecific departures from the AP1000 if
Westinghouse did not initiate such
changes to the AP1000 DCR. Such
departures may be pursued by
individual COL applicants (and
licensees) as described in Part VIII,
‘‘Processes for Changes and Departures’’
of the AP1000 DCR (Appendix D to 10
CFR Part 52). Incorporating these
proposed changes into the AP1000 DCR
as part of this amendment contributes to
the increased standardization of the
certification information by eliminating
the possibility of multiple departures.
Therefore, all Westinghouse-initiated
changes for the purpose of eliminating
plant-specific departures enhance
standardization, and meet the finality
criterion for changes in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Minimization of Contamination
(10 CFR 20.1406 (b)).
Item: 3 of 15.
Significant Change: In DCD Section
12.1.2.4, Westinghouse discussed
features incorporated into the amended
design certification to demonstrate
compliance with 10 CFR 52.47(a)(6),
which requires that a design
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
certification application include the
information required by 10 CFR 20.1406
(b), which was adopted in 2007 as part
of the general revisions to 10 CFR part
52. This regulation requires design
certification applicants whose
applications are submitted after August
20, 1997, to describe how the design
will minimize, to the extent practicable,
contamination of the facility and the
environment, facilitate
decommissioning and minimize the
generation of radioactive waste. The
DCD changes are documented in
Westinghouse Technical Report 98,
‘‘Compliance with 10 CFR 20.1406’’
(APP–GW–GLN–098), Revision 0
(ADAMS Accession No. ML071010536).
Westinghouse evaluated contaminated
piping, the spent fuel pool (SFP) air
handling systems, and the radioactive
waste drain system to show that piping
and components utilize design features
that will prevent or mitigate the spread
of contamination within the facility or
the environment. Westinghouse has
incorporated modifications and features
such as elimination of underground
radioactive tanks, RCPs without
mechanical seals, fewer embedded
pipes, less radioactive piping in the
auxiliary building and containment
vessel, and monitoring the radwaste
discharge pipeline to demonstrate that
the AP1000 design certification, as
amended, will be in compliance with
the subject regulation and Regulatory
Guidance (RG) 4.21, ‘‘Minimization of
Contamination and Radioactive Waste
Generation: Life-Cycle Planning,’’ (June
2008).
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features are in
Section 12.2 of the SER (ADAMS
Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii):
Inclusion in the DCD of the more
detailed information about the features
for minimization of contamination
provides additional information to be
included in the DCD for the AP1000 that
increases standardization of the AP1000
design. Thus, the changes meet the
finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Extension of Seismic Spectra to
Soil Sites and Changes to Stability and
Uniformity of Subsurface Materials and
Foundations.
Item: 4 of 15.
Significant Change: In AP1000 DCD
Tier 2, Sections 2.5.2 and 3.7,
Westinghouse extended the AP1000
design to five soil profiles, including
firmrock through soft soil sites, for
Category I structures, systems, and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10283
components. The certified design
included only hard rock conditions. To
support the technical basis for the
extension, Westinghouse provided:
seismic analysis methods, procedures
for analytical modeling, soil-structure
interaction analysis with three
components of earthquake motion, and
interaction of non-seismic Category I
structures with seismic Category I
structures. Also, in DCD Section 2.5.4,
Westinghouse extended the AP1000
design with ‘‘Stability and Uniformity of
Subsurface Materials and Foundations,’’
where the DCD presents the
requirements related to subsurface
materials and foundations for COL
applicants referencing AP1000 standard
design. The site-specific information
includes excavation, bearing capacity,
settlement, and liquefaction potential.
On April 21, 2010, Westinghouse
submitted Revision 5 to TR–03,
‘‘Extension of Nuclear Island Seismic
Analysis to Soil Sites,’’ Revision 0, and
summarized the report in DCD
Appendix 3G, to provide more detail
about its analyses.
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with extension of seismic
spectra to soil sites are in Section 3.7 of
the SER (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072). The details of the NRC’s
evaluation of Westinghouse’s design
features associated with stability and
uniformity of subsurface materials and
foundations are in Sections 2.5.2 and
2.5.4 of the SER (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Westinghouse submitted a change to
the DCD that would provide the seismic
design and supporting analysis for a
range of soil conditions representative
of expected applicants for a COL
referencing the AP1000 design. As a
result, the certified design can be used
at more sites without the need for
departures to provide site-specific
analyses or design changes, thus leading
to a more uniform analysis and seismic
design for all the AP1000 plants.
Including in the DCD the information
demonstrating adequacy of the design
for seismic events for a wider range of
soil conditions is a change that provides
additional information leading to
increased standardization of this aspect
of the design. In addition, the change
reduces the need for COL applicants to
seek departures from the current
AP1000 design in as much as most sites
do not conform to the currentlyapproved hard rock sites. Therefore, the
change increases standardization and
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10284
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
meets the finality criterion for changes
in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Long-Term Cooling.
Item: 5 of 15.
Significant Change: DCD Tier 2,
Section 6.3.8 describes the changes to
COL information items related to
containment cleanliness and
verification of water sources for longterm recirculation cooling following a
loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The
COL information item related to
verification of water sources for longterm recirculation cooling following a
LOCA was closed based on
Westinghouse TR–26, ‘‘AP1000
Verification of Water Sources for LongTerm Recirculation Cooling Following a
LOCA,’’ APP–GW–GLR–079 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML102170123) and other
information contained in DCD Chapter
6. Section 6.3.2.2.7 describes the
evaluation of the water sources for longterm recirculation cooling following a
LOCA, including the design and
operation of the AP1000 PCCS debris
screens. DCD Tier 1, Section 2.2.3,
includes the associated design
descriptions and ITAAC. The COL
information item requires a cleanliness
program to limit the amount of latent
debris in containment consistent with
the analysis and testing assumptions.
Location within the SE where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with long-term cooling in the
presence of LOCA-generated and latent
debris and General Design Criteria 35
and 38 are in Subsection 6.2.1.8 of the
SE (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the design
and analysis information that
demonstrates adequacy of long-term
core cooling provides additional
information leading to increased
standardization of this aspect of the
design. Therefore, the change meets the
finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Control Room Emergency
Habitability System.
Item: 6 of 15.
Significant Change: DCD Tier 2,
Section 6.4 has undergone significant
revision. Westinghouse re-designed its
main control room emergency
habitability system to meet control room
radiation dose requirements using the
standard assumed in-leakage of 5 cubic
feet per minute in the event of a release
of radiation. The changes include the
addition of a single-failure proof passive
filter train. The flow through the filter
train is provided by an eductor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
downstream of a bottled air supply.
These changes were prompted by
Westinghouse’s proposal to revise the
atmospheric dispersion factors from
those certified in Revision 15 to larger
values to better accommodate COL sites.
As a result, other design changes were
needed to maintain doses in the control
room within acceptable limits.
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with radiation dose to
personnel under accident conditions are
in Section 6.4 of the SER (ADAMS
Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Incorporation of design changes to the
main control room ventilation systems
would contribute to increased
standardization of this aspect of the
design. Therefore, the change meets the
finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Changes to the Component
Cooling Water System.
Item: 7 of 15.
Significant Change: In Revision 18 to
AP1000 DCD Tier 2, Westinghouse
proposed changes to the design of the
component cooling water system
(CCWS) to modify the closure logic for
system motor-operated containment
isolation valves and install safety-class
relief valves on system supply and
return lines. The closure logic would
close the isolation valves upon a high
reactor coolant pump (RCP) bearing
water temperature signal, which might
be indicative of a large leak in the heat
exchanger tube. This change would
automatically isolate this potential leak
to eliminate the possibility of reactor
coolant from a faulted heat exchanger
discharging to portions of the CCWS
outside containment.
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with the CCWS are in
Chapter 23, Section V, of the SER
(ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Westinghouse included changes to the
component cooling water in the DCD.
These changes will contribute to
increased standardization of this aspect
of the design. Therefore, the change
meets the finality criterion for changes
in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Changes to Instrumentation and
Control Systems.
Item: 8 of 15.
Significant Change: In AP1000 DCD
Tier 2 Sections 7.1 through 7.3,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Westinghouse completed planning
activities related to the architecture of
its safety related I&C protection system,
referred to as the PMS. Westinghouse
also proposed changes to the DCD to
reflect resolution of PMS interdivisional
data communications protocols and
methods utilized to ensure a secure
development and operational
environment. A secure development
and operational environment in this
context refers to a set of protective
actions taken against a predictable set of
non-malicious acts (e.g., inadvertent
operator actions, undesirable behavior
of connected systems) that could
challenge the integrity, reliability, or
functionality of a digital safety system.
The establishment of a secure
development and operational
environment for digital safety systems
involves: (i) measures and controls
taken to establish a secure environment
for development of the digital safety
system against undocumented,
unneeded and unwanted modifications
and (ii) protective actions taken against
a predictable set of undesirable acts
(e.g., inadvertent operator actions or the
undesirable behavior of connected
systems) that could challenge the
integrity, reliability, or functionality of
a digital safety system during
operations.
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with I&C systems are in
Sections 7.1 through 7.3, and 7.9 of
NRC’s Chapter 7 SER (ADAMS
Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the more
detailed information about the I&C
architecture and communications
provides additional information leading
to increased standardization of this
aspect of the design. Therefore, the
change meets the finality criterion for
changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Changes to the Passive Core
Cooling System—Gas Intrusion.
Item: 9 of 15.
Significant Change: In AP1000 DCD
Tier 1 and Tier 2, Westinghouse
proposed changes to the design of the
PCCS to add manual maintenance vent
valves and manual maintenance drain
valves, and to re-route accumulator
discharge line connections in order to
address concerns related to gas
intrusion. In addition, Westinghouse
provided descriptions of surveillance
and venting procedures to verify gas
void elimination during plant startup
and operations. These proposed changes
are responsive to the actions requested
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
by Generic Letter 2008–01, ‘‘Managing
Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core
Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and
Containment Spray Systems.’’
The passive core cooling system
(PCCS) provides rapid injection of
borated water, which provides negative
reactivity to reduce reactor power to
residual levels and ensures sufficient
core cooling flow. Non-condensible gas
accumulation in the PCCS has the
potential to delay injection of borated
water, which would impact the
moderating and heat removal
capabilities, thus providing a challenge
to the primary fission product barrier
and maintenance of a coolable core
geometry. As part of its review, the NRC
determined that the proposed changes
in the design of the PCCS were
acceptable for providing protection for
design basis events, such as LOCAs.
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The NRC’s evaluation of proposed
changes to the DCD associated with
changes to the PCCS is in Chapter 23,
Section L, of the SER (ADAMS
Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the design
and analysis information that provides
for venting of non-condensible gases
provides additional information leading
to increased standardization of this
aspect of the design. Therefore, the
change meets the finality criterion for
changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Integrated Head Package—Use
of the QuickLoc Mechanism.
Item: 10 of 15.
Significant Change: In DCD Tier 2,
Section 5.3.1.2, Westinghouse describes
a revised integrated head package (IHP)
design. The new design includes eight
QuickLoc penetrations in lieu of the
forty-two individual in-core instrument
thimble-tube-assembly penetrations on
the reactor vessel head, which is a
significant decrease in the number of
RPV closure head penetrations for
access to in-core and core exit
instrumentation. The QuickLoc
mechanism allows the removal of the
RPV closure head without removal of
in-core and core exit instrumentation
and, thus, decreases refueling outage
time and overall occupational exposure.
This head package design has been
installed on a number of operating
plants and, as noted, has several
operational and safety advantages.
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with the (1) IHP and
QuickLoc mechanism are in Section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
5.2.3 of the SER (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072) and (2) radiation
protection pertaining to the addition of
the integrated reactor head package and
QuickLoc connectors are in Subsection
12.4.2.3 of the SER (ADAMS Accession
No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the changes
to the IHP would contribute to the
increased standardization of this aspect
of the design. Therefore, the change
meets the finality criterion for changes
in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Reactor Coolant Pump Design.
Item: 11 of 15.
Significant Change: In AP1000 DCD
Tier 2 Subsection 5.4.1, Westinghouse
proposed changes related to the RCP
design. These changes include: change
to a single-stage, hermetically sealed,
high inertia, centrifugal sealless RCP of
canned motor design; use of an
externally mounted heat exchanger; and
change of the RCP flywheel to bimetallic
construction. These DCD changes are
documented in: TR–34, ‘‘AP1000
Licensing Design Change Document for
Generic Reactor Coolant Pump,’’ APP–
GW–GLN–016, November 2006 and in
other documentation in response to
NRC inquiries. The supporting
documentation includes an analysis
demonstrating that failure of the
flywheel would not generate a missile
capable of penetrating the surrounding
casing, and, therefore, that such failure
would not damage the reactor coolant
pressure boundary.
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with the RCP design are in
Section 5.4.1 of the NRC’s Chapter 5
SER (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the changes
to the RCP would reduce the possibility
of plant-specific departure requests by
COL applicants referencing the AP1000
DCR. Therefore, the change meets the
finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV)
Support System.
Item: 12 of 15.
Significant Change: The RPV
structural support system of the AP1000
standard design is designed to provide
the necessary support for the heavy RPV
in the AP1000 standard design. The
original anchorage design was bolting
into embedded plates of the CA04
structural module. Subsection 3.8.3.1.1
of the AP1000 DCD Tier 2 would be
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10285
changed to reflect modifications to the
RPV support design. In the revised
design, there are four support ‘‘boxes’’ or
‘‘legs’’ located at the bottom of RPV’s
cold leg nozzles. The support boxes are
anchored directly to the primary shield
wall concrete base via steel embedment
plates. This CA04 structural module is
no longer used in the new design. The
four RV support boxes are safety-related
and the design of the RPV associated
support structures is consistent with the
safe shutdown earthquake design of
Seismic Category I equipment.
Subsections 3.8.3.5.1 and 5.4.10.2.1
would also be modified.
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with RPV supports are in
Chapter 23, Section R, of the SER
(ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the changes
to the RPV supports contributes to the
increased standardization of this aspect
of the design. Therefore, the change
meets the finality criterion for changes
in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Spent Fuel Pool Decay Heat
Analysis and Associated Design
Changes.
Item: 13 of 15.
Significant Change: In AP1000 DCD
Tier 2 Section 9.1.3, Westinghouse
proposed changes to the SFP cooling
system. Westinghouse proposed to
increase the number of spent fuel
storage locations from 619 to 889 fuel
assemblies and implement the following
associated design changes: (1) Increase
in component cooling system (CCS)
pump design capacity, (2) increase in
the CCS supply temperature to plant
components, and (3) changes in the CCS
parameters related to the RCPs. The
increase in the number of assemblies
affects the decay heat removal/SFP
heatup analyses. The supporting bases
for DCD changes are documented in:
TR–111, ‘‘Component Cooling System
and Service Water System Changes
Required for Increased Heat Loads,’’
APP–GW–GLN–111, Revision 0, dated
May 2007 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML071500563); TR–103, ‘‘Fluid System
Changes,’’ APP–GW–GLN–019, Revision
2, dated October 2007 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML072830060); TR–108,
‘‘AP1000 Site Interface Temperature
Limits,’’ APP–GW–GLN–108, Revision
2, dated September 2007 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML103260072), and TR–
APP–GW–GLR–097, ‘‘Evaluation of the
Effect of the AP1000 Enhanced Shield
Building on the Containment Response
and Safety Analysis,’’ Revision 1, dated
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10286
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
August 2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML102220579).
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with the SFP decay heat
analysis are in Section 9.2.2 of the SER
(ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the changes
to the SFP decay heat analysis would
contribute to the increased
standardization of this aspect of the
design. Therefore, the change meets the
finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Spent Fuel Rack Design and
Criticality Analysis.
Item: 14 of 15.
Significant Change: In DCD Tier 2
Section 9.1.2, Westinghouse proposed
changes to the spent fuel racks: (1) to
increase the storage capacity by 270
additional fuel assemblies, and (2) to
integrate a new neutron poison into the
rack design. These changes included a
different rack design and associated
structural analysis and a revised
criticality analysis. These DCD changes
are documented in TR–54, ‘‘Spent Fuel
Storage Racks Structure and Seismic
Analysis,’’ APP–GW–GLR–033, Revision
4, dated June 2, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML101580475); and TR–
65, ‘‘Spent Fuel Storage Racks Criticality
Analysis,’’ APP–GW–GLR–029, Revision
2, date January 5, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML100082093).
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with the spent fuel rack
design and criticality analysis are in
Section 9.1.2 of the SER (ADAMS
Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the changes
to the spent fuel rack design and
criticality analysis would contribute to
the increased standardization of this
aspect of the design. Therefore, the
change meets the finality criterion for
changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Title: Vacuum Relief System.
Item: 15 of 15.
Significant Change: In Revision 18 to
AP1000 DCD Tier 2, Chapters 3, 6, 7, 9,
and 16, Westinghouse proposed changes
to the design of the containment which
add a vacuum relief system to the
existing containment air filtration
system vent line penetration. The
proposed vacuum relief system consists
of redundant vacuum relief devices
inside and outside containment sized to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
prevent differential pressure between
containment and the shield building
from exceeding the design value of 1.7
psig, which could occur under extreme
temperature conditions.
Each relief flow path consists of a
check valve inside containment and a
motor operated butterfly valve outside
of containment. The redundant relief
devices outside containment share a
common inlet line with redundant
outside air flow entry points. The outlet
lines downstream of the outside
containment relief devices are routed to
a common header connected to the vent
line penetration. The redundant relief
devices inside containment share a
common inlet line from the vent line
penetration and have independent
discharge lines into containment.
Location within the SER where the
changes are principally described:
The details of the NRC’s evaluation of
Westinghouse’s design features
associated with the addition of the
vacuum relief system are in Chapter 23,
Section W, of the SER (ADAMS
Accession No. ML103260072).
Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1):
Inclusion in the DCD of the
introduction of a containment vacuum
relief system would contribute to the
increased standardization of this aspect
of the design. Therefore, the change
meets the finality criterion for changes
in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii).
Changes Addressing Compliance With
Aircraft Impact Assessment Rule (10
CFR 50.150)
The proposed rule would amend the
existing AP1000 DCR, in part, to address
the requirements of the AIA rule. The
AIA rule itself mandated that a DCR be
revised, if not during the DCR’s current
term, then no later than its renewal to
address the requirements of the AIA
rule. In addition, the AIA rule provided
that any COL issued after the effective
date of the final AIA rule must reference
a DCR complying with the AIA rule, or
itself demonstrate compliance with the
AIA rule. The AIA rule may therefore be
regarded as inconsistent with the
finality provisions in 10 CFR 52.63(a)
and Section VI of the AP1000 DCR.
However, the NRC provided an
administrative exemption from these
finality requirements when the final
AIA rule was issued. See Federal
Register notice, 74 FR 28112; June 12,
2009, at 28143–28145. Accordingly, the
NRC has already addressed the
backfitting implications of applying the
AIA rule to the AP1000 with respect to
the AP1000 and referencing COL
applicants.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Conclusion
The proposed amendment to the
AP1000 DCR does not constitute
backfitting and is not otherwise
inconsistent with finality provisions in
10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC
has not prepared a backfit analysis or
documented evaluation for this rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 52
Administrative practice and
procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting,
Combined license, Early site permit,
Emergency planning, Fees, Inspection,
Limited work authorization, Nuclear
power plants and reactors, Probabilistic
risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor
siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Standard design, Standard design
certification, Incorporation by reference.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble and under the authority of the
Act, as amended; the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552; the NRC is
proposing to adopt the following
amendments to 10 CFR part 52.
PART 52—LICENSES,
CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS
FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
1. The authority citation for 10 CFR
part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183,
186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 948, 953, 954, 955,
956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233,
2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750
(44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of
2005, Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005),
secs. 147 and 149 of the Atomic Energy Act.
2. In Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52:
a. In Section III, revise paragraphs A
and D;
b. In Section IV, revise paragraph A.3
and add paragraph A.4;
c. In Section V, redesignate paragraph
A as paragraph A.1 and add a new
paragraph A.2;
d. In Section VI, revise paragraphs
B.1, B.2, B.7, and E;
e. In Section VIII, revise the
introductory text of paragraph B.5.b,
redesignate paragraphs B.5.d, B.5.e, and
B.5.f as paragraphs B.5.e, B.5.f, and
B.5.g, respectively, and add a new
paragraph B.5.d, and revise paragraphs
B.6.b and B.6.c; and
f. In Section X, revise paragraph A.1
and add a new paragraph A.4.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Appendix D to Part 52—Design
Certification Rule for the AP1000
Design
*
*
*
*
*
III. Scope and Contents
A. Tier 1, Tier 2 (including the investment
protection short-term availability controls in
Section 16.3), and the generic TSs in the
AP1000 DCD (Revision 18, dated December
1, 2010) are approved for incorporation by
reference by the Director of the Office of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. Copies of the generic DCD may
be obtained from Stanley E. Ritterbusch,
Manager, AP1000 Design Certification,
Westinghouse Electric Company, 1000
Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry Township,
PA 16066. A copy of the generic DCD is also
available for examination and copying at the
NRC’s PDR, Room O–1F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Copies are available for
examination at the NRC Library, Two White
Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, telephone 301–415–5610,
e-mail LIBRARY.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV. The
DCD can also be viewed on the Federal
rulemaking Web site https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
documents filed under Docket ID NRC–2010–
0131 or in the NRC’s Electronic Reading
Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html by searching under ADAMS
Accession No. ML103480059. All approved
material is available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030 or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
*
*
*
*
*
D.1. If there is a conflict between the
generic DCD and either the application for
the initial design certification of the AP1000
design or NUREG–1793, ‘‘Final Safety
Evaluation Report Related to Certification of
the Westinghouse Standard Design,’’ and
Supplement No. 1, then the generic DCD
controls.
2. If there is a conflict between the generic
DCD and either the application for
Amendment 1 to the design certification of
the AP1000 design or NUREG–1793, ‘‘Final
Safety Evaluation Report Related to
Certification of the Westinghouse Standard
Design,’’ Supplement No. 2, then the generic
DCD controls.
*
*
*
*
*
V. Applicable Regulations
A.* * *.
2. The regulations that apply to those
portions of the AP1000 design approved by
Amendment 1 [FINAL RULE FEDERAL
REGISTER CITATION] are in 10 CFR parts
20, 50, 73, and 100, codified as of [DATE
THE FINAL RULE IS SIGNED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION], that
are applicable and technically relevant, as
described in the Supplement No. 2 of the
FSER.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
B. * * *
1. All nuclear safety issues, except for the
generic TS and other operational
requirements, associated with the
information in the FSER and Supplement
Nos. 1 and 2, Tier 1, Tier 2 (including
referenced information, which the context
indicates is intended as requirements, and
the investment protection short-term
availability controls in Section 16.3 of the
DCD), and the rulemaking records for initial
certification and Amendment 1 of the
AP1000 design;
2. All nuclear safety and safeguards issues
associated with the referenced SUNSI
(including PI) and SGI which, in context, are
intended as requirements in the generic DCD
for the AP1000 design;
*
*
*
*
*
7. All environmental issues concerning
severe accident mitigation design alternatives
associated with the information in the NRC’s
EA for the AP1000 design, Appendix 1B of
Revision 15 of the generic DCD, the NRC’s
final EA for Amendment 1 to the AP1000
design, and Appendix 1B of Revision 18 of
the generic DCD, for plants referencing this
appendix whose site parameters are within
those specified in the severe accident
mitigation design alternatives evaluation.
*
*
*
*
*
E. The NRC will specify at an appropriate
time the procedures to be used by an
interested person who wishes to review
SUNSI (including PI, such as trade secrets or
financial information obtained from a person
that are privileged or confidential (10 CFR
2.390 and 10 CFR Part 9)) or SGI for the
AP1000 certified design, for the purpose of
participating in the hearing required by 10
CFR 52.85, the hearing provided under 10
CFR 52.103, or in any other proceeding
relating to this appendix in which interested
persons have a right to request an
adjudicatory hearing.
*
*
*
*
*
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Additional Requirements and
Restrictions
VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures
A. * * *
3. Include, in the plant-specific DCD, the
SUNSI (including PI) and SGI referenced in
the AP1000 DCD.
4. Include, as part of its application, a
demonstration that an entity other than
Westinghouse is qualified to supply the
AP1000 design, unless Westinghouse
supplies the design for the applicant’s use.
B. * * *
5. * * *
b. A proposed departure from Tier 2, other
than one affecting resolution of a severe
accident issue identified in the plant-specific
DCD or one affecting information required by
10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address 10 CFR
50.150, requires a license amendment if it
would:
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
*
*
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
*
*
*
*
Frm 00022
*
*
Fmt 4702
d. If an applicant or licensee proposes to
depart from the information required by 10
CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR
for the standard design certification, then the
applicant or licensee shall consider the effect
of the changed feature or capability on the
original assessment required by 10 CFR
50.150(a). The applicant or licensee must
also document how the modified design
features and functional capabilities continue
to meet the assessment requirements in 10
CFR 50.150(a)(1) in accordance with Section
X of this appendix.
*
VI. Issue Resolution
*
*
Sfmt 4702
10287
*
*
*
*
6. * * *
b. A licensee who references this appendix
may not depart from the following Tier 2*
matters without prior NRC approval. A
request for a departure will be treated as a
request for a license amendment under 10
CFR 50.90.
(1) Maximum fuel rod average burn-up.
(2) Fuel principal design requirements.
(3) Fuel criteria evaluation process.
(4) Fire areas.
(5) Reactor coolant pump type.
(6) Small-break LOCA analysis
methodology.
c. A licensee who references this appendix
may not, before the plant first achieves full
power following the finding required by 10
CFR 52.103(g), depart from the following Tier
2* matters except under paragraph B.6.b of
this section. After the plant first achieves
full-power, the following Tier 2* matters
revert to Tier 2 status and are subject to the
departure provisions in paragraph B.5 of this
section.
(1) Nuclear Island structural dimensions.
(2) ASME Code piping design restrictions,
and ASME Code Cases.
(3) Design Summary of Critical Sections.
(4) American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318,
ACI 349, American National Standards
Institute/American Institute of Steel
Construction (ANSI/AISC)–690, and
American Iron and Steel Institute,
‘‘Specification for the Design of Cold Formed
Steel Structural Members, Part 1 and 2,’’ 1996
Edition and 2000 Supplement.
(5) Definition of critical locations and
thicknesses.
(6) Seismic qualification methods and
standards.
(7) Nuclear design of fuel and reactivity
control system, except burn-up limit.
(8) Motor-operated and power-operated
valves.
(9) I&C system design processes, methods,
and standards.
(10) Passive residual heat removal natural
circulation test (first plant only).
(11) Automatic depressurization system
and core make-up tank verification tests (first
three plants only).
(12) Polar crane parked orientation.
(13) Piping DAC.
(14) Containment vessel design parameters,
including ASME Code, Section III,
Subsection NE.
(15) Human factors engineering.
*
*
*
*
*
X. Records and Reporting
A. * * *
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
10288
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
1. The applicant for this appendix shall
maintain a copy of the generic DCD that
includes all generic changes it makes to Tier
1 and Tier 2, and the generic TS and other
operational requirements. The applicant shall
maintain SUNSI (including PI) and SGI
referenced in the generic DCD for the period
that this appendix may be referenced, as
specified in Section VII of this appendix.
*
*
*
*
*
4.a. The applicant for the AP1000 design
shall maintain a copy of the AIA performed
to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.150(a) for the term of the certification
(including any period of renewal).
b. An applicant or licensee who references
this appendix shall maintain a copy of the
AIA performed to comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) throughout
the pendency of the application and for the
term of the license (including any period of
renewal).
*
*
*
*
*
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day
of February 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–3989 Filed 2–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2011–0044; Directorate
Identifier 2010–NM–059–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Model 767–200, –300, –300F,
and –400ER Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to supersede an
existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to The Boeing Company
Model 767–200, –300, and –300F series
airplanes. The existing AD currently
requires inspections to detect cracking
or corrosion of the fail-safe straps
between the side fitting of the rear spar
bulkhead at body station 955 and the
skin; and follow-on and corrective
actions. Since we issued that AD, we
have received additional reports of
cracks in 51 fail-safe straps on 41
airplanes; we have also received a report
of a crack found in the ‘‘T’’ fitting that
connects the fail-safe strap to the
outboard edge of the pressure deck. This
proposed AD would expand the
applicability, and would add an
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Feb 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
inspection for cracking in the fail-safe
strap, and repair or replacement if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking or
corrosion of the fail-safe straps and the
‘‘T’’ fittings, which could result in
cracking of adjacent structure and
consequent reduced structural integrity
of the fuselage.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by April 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65,
Seattle, Washington 98124–2207;
telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1;
fax 206–766–5680; e-mail
me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 425–227–
1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–
917–6577; fax: 425–917–6590; e-mail:
berhane.alazar@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2011–0044; Directorate Identifier
2010–NM–059–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
On September 26, 2005, we issued AD
2004–19–06 R1, amendment 39–14313
(70 FR 58000, October 5, 2005), for
certain Model 767–200, –300, and
–300F series airplanes. That AD requires
inspections to detect cracking or
corrosion of the fail-safe straps between
the side fitting of the rear spar bulkhead
at body station (BS) 955 and the skin;
and follow-on/corrective actions. That
AD resulted from reports of cracked
and/or corroded fail-safe straps at BS
955 on Model 767–200 series airplanes.
We issued that AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking or corrosion of the failsafe straps, which could result in
cracking of adjacent structure and
consequent reduced structural integrity
of the fuselage.
Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued
Since we issued AD 2004–19–06 R1,
we have received additional reports of
cracks in 51 fail-safe straps on 41
airplanes. There were 42 fail-safe straps
repaired, and 9 were not repairable and
were replaced. Fail-safe straps were
repaired on 33 airplanes with total
accumulated flight cycles ranging from
39,886 to 89,236. Fail-safe straps were
replaced on 9 airplanes with flight
cycles ranging from 12,565 to 31,809,
and flight hours ranging from 48,704 to
93,212. In addition, 4 fail-safe straps on
4 airplanes with total accumulated flight
cycles ranging from 12,540 to 23,987
and flight hours ranging from 37,634 to
74,823 were replaced due to corrosion
damage.
One report was received of a crack
found in the ‘‘T’’ fitting that connects the
fail-safe strap and the pressure deck.
The cracked ‘‘T’’ fitting was found at
E:\FR\FM\24FEP1.SGM
24FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10269-10288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3989]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 52
[NRC-2010-0131]
RIN 3150-AI81
AP1000 Design Certification Amendment
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)
proposes to amend its regulations to certify an amendment to the AP1000
standard plant design. The purpose of the amendment is to replace the
combined license (COL) information items and design acceptance criteria
(DAC) with specific design information, address the effects of the
impact of a large commercial aircraft, incorporate design improvements,
and increase standardization of the design. Upon NRC rulemaking
approval of its amendment to the AP1000 design, an
[[Page 10270]]
applicant seeking an NRC license to construct and operate a nuclear
power reactor using the AP1000 design need not demonstrate in its
application the safety of the certified design. The applicant for this
amendment to the AP1000 certified design is Westinghouse Electric
Company, LLC (Westinghouse). The public is invited to submit comments
on this proposed design certification rule (DCR), the revised generic
design control document (DCD) that would be incorporated by reference
into the DCR, and the environmental assessment (EA) for this amendment
to the AP1000 design.
DATES: Submit comments on the DCR, the revised DCD and/or the EA for
this amendment by May 10, 2011. Submit comments specific to the
information collections aspects of this rule by March 28, 2011.
Comments received after the above dates will be considered if it is
practical to do so, but assurance of consideration of comments received
after these dates cannot be given.
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2010-0131 in the subject line
of your comments. For instructions on submitting comments and accessing
documents related to this action, see Section I, ``Submitting Comments
and Accessing Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. You may submit comments by any one of the following
methods.
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2010-0131. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-492-
3668; e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not
receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments,
contact us directly at 301-415-1677.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. during Federal workdays
(telephone: 301-415-1677).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
301-415-1101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serita Sanders, Office of New
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-2956; e-mail: serita.sanders@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
II. Background
III. Discussion
A. Technical Evaluation of Westinghouse Amendment to the AP1000
Design
B. Changes to Appendix D
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Introduction (Section I)
B. Scope and Contents (Section III)
C. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
D. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
E. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
F. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
G. Records and Reporting (Section X)
V. Agreement State Compatibility
VI. Availability of Documents
VII. Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (Including Proprietary Information) and Safeguards
Information for Preparation of Comments on the Proposed Amendment to
the AP1000 Design Certification
VIII. Plain Language
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
X. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XII. Regulatory Analysis
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XIV. Backfitting
I. Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted
on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site, https://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed. The NRC requests that any party soliciting or
aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the
NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to
remove any identifying or contact information, and, therefore, they
should not include any information in their comments that they do not
want publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Room
O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain
entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and supporting
materials related to this proposed rule can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2010-0131.
Documents that are not publicly available because they are
considered to be either SUNSI (including SUNSI constituting proprietary
information (PI)) or SGI may be available to interested persons who may
wish to comment on the proposed design certification amendment.
Interested persons shall follow the procedures described in the
Supplementary Information section of this document, Section VII,
``Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Safeguards Information for Preparation of Comments on
the Proposed Amendment to the AP1000 Design Certification.''
II. Background
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 52,
``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,''
subpart B, presents the process for obtaining standard design
certifications. Section 52.63, ``Finality of standard design
certifications,'' provides criteria for determining when the Commission
may amend the certification information for a previously certified
standard design in response to a request for amendment from any person.
During its initial certification of the AP1000 design, the NRC
issued a final safety evaluation report (FSER) for the AP1000 as NUREG-
1793, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Certification of the
AP1000 Standard Design,'' in September 2004. From March 2006 through
May 2007, NuStart Energy Development, LLC (NuStart) \1\ and
Westinghouse provided the NRC with a number of technical reports (TRs)
for pre-application review in an effort to: (1) Close specific,
generically
[[Page 10271]]
applicable COL information items (information to be supplied by COL
applicants/holders) in the AP1000 certified standard design; (2)
identify standard design changes resulting from the AP1000 detailed
design efforts; and (3) provide specific standard design information in
areas or for topics where the AP1000 DCD was focused on the design
process and acceptance criteria. TRs typically addressed a topical area
(e.g., redesign of a component, structure or process) and included the
technical details of a proposed change, design standards, analyses and
justifications as needed, proposed changes to the DCD, and
Westinghouse's assessment of the applicable regulatory criteria (e.g.
the assessment of the criteria in 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section
VIII, ``Processes for Changes and Departures''). The NRC identified
issues associated with the TRs and engaged Westinghouse in requests for
additional information and meetings during the pre-application phase to
resolve them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NuStart member companies are: Constellation Generation
Group, LLC, Duke Energy Corporation, EDF-International North
America, Inc., Entergy Nuclear, Inc., Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, Florida Power and Light Company, Progress Energy, and Southern
Company Services, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 26, 2007, Westinghouse submitted Revision 16 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML071580939) of its application via transmittal letter
(ADAMS Accession No. ML071580757) to amend the AP1000 design
certification. This application was supplemented by letters dated
October 26, November 2, and December 12, 2007, and January 11 and
January 14, 2008. The application noted, in part:
(1) Generic amendments to the design certification, including
additional design information to resolve DAC and design-related COL
information items, as well as design information to make corrections
and changes, would result in further standardization and improved
licensing efficiency for the multiple COL applications referencing
the AP1000 DCR that were planned for submittal in late 2007 and
early 2008.
(2) Westinghouse, in conjunction with NuStart, has been
preparing TRs since late 2005. These TRs were developed with input,
review, comment, and other technical oversight provided by NuStart
members, including the prospective AP1000 COL applicants. Submittal
of these TRs to the NRC was initiated in March 2006. The TRs contain
discussion of the technical changes and supplemental information
that is used to support the detailed information contained in the
DCD.
In Attachment 2 to the May 26, 2007, application, Westinghouse
identified the criteria of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) that apply to the changes
described in each TR and associated COL information items, if
applicable.
On January 18, 2008, the NRC notified Westinghouse that it accepted
the May 26, 2007, application, as supplemented, for docketing (Docket
No. 52-006) and published a notice of acceptance (ADAMS Accession No.
ML073600743) in the Federal Register (73 FR 4926, January 28, 2008). On
September 22, 2008, Westinghouse submitted Revision 17 to the AP1000
DCD. Revision 17 contains changes to the DCD that have been previously
accepted by the NRC in the course of its review of Revision 16 of the
DCD. In addition, Revision 17 proposes changes to DAC in the areas of
piping design (Chapter 3), instrumentation and control (I&C) systems
(Chapter 7) and human factors engineering (HFE) (Chapter 18). Revision
17 also includes a number of design changes not previously discussed
with the NRC.
The NRC issued guidance on the finalization of design changes in
Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DC/COL-ISG-011, ``Finalizing Licensing-
basis Information,'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML092890623), which describes
various categories of design changes that should not be deferred and
those that should be included in the DCR.
By letter dated January 20, 2010, Westinghouse submitted a list of
design change packages that would be included in Revision 18 of the
AP1000 DCD (ADAMS Accession No. ML100250888). A number of subsequent
submittals were made by Westinghouse to narrow the focus to those
design changes to the categories of changes that should not be
deferred, as recommended by DC/COL-ISG-011.
Revision 18 to the AP1000 DCD (ADAMS Accession No. ML103480572) was
submitted on December 1, 2010, and contains both proposed changes
previously described in the design change packages and changes already
accepted by the NRC in the review process of Revision 17 to the AP1000
DCD. In the course of the review of both design change packages, the
NRC determined that DCD changes were needed. In response to NRC
questions, Westinghouse proposed such changes. Once the NRC was
satisfied with these DCD markups, they were documented in the safety
evaluation report (SER) as confirmatory items (CIs). The CIs were first
identified during the NRC's review of Revision 17 of the AP1000 DCD.
With the review of Revision 18, the NRC will confirm that Westinghouse
has made those changes to the DCD accepted by the NRC that were not
addressed in Revision 17 to the AP1000 DCD. The use of CIs is
restricted to cases where the NRC has reviewed and approved specific
design control document proposals. For the final rule, the NRC will
complete the review of the CIs and prepare a FSER reflecting that
action. The CIs are closed based upon an acceptable comparison between
the revised DCD text and the text required by the CI. No technical
review of Revision 18 by the NRC is necessary, because only CIs and
design changes pursuant to DC/COL-ISG-011 previously accepted by the
NRC are contained in Revision 18 to the DCD.
In order to simplify the NRC's review of the design change
documentation, and to simplify subsequent review by the NRC's Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), the design changes pursuant to
DC/COL-ISG-011 are reviewed in a separate chapter (Chapter 23) of the
FSER. This chapter indicates which areas of the DCD are affected by
each design change and the letters from Westinghouse that submitted
them. In some cases, NRC's review of the design changes reviewed in
Chapter 23 may be incorporated into the chapters of the FSER where this
material would normally be addressed because of the relationship
between individual design changes and the review of prior DCD changes
from Revisions 16 and 17 of the DCD.
The Westinghouse Revision 18 letter includes an enclosure providing
a cross-reference to the DCD changes and the applicable 10 CFR
52.63(a)(1) criteria. Revision 17 provides a similar cross-reference in
the September 22, 2008, Westinghouse letter for those changes
associated with the revised DCD. Revision 16 on the other hand, uses
TRs to identify the DCD changes and lists the corresponding applicable
10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) criteria via Westinghouse memorandum, dated May 26,
2007 (Table 1).
As of the date of this document, the application for amendment of
the AP1000 design certification has been referenced in the following
COL applications:
Vogtle, Units 3 and 4, Docket No. 05200025/6, 73 FR 33118;
Bellefonte Nuclear Station, Units 3 and 4, Docket Nos. 05200014/5,
73 FR 4923;
Levy County, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 05200029/30, 73 FR 60726;
Shearon Harris, Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 05200022/3, 73 FR 21995;
Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7, Docket Nos. 05200040/1, 74 FR 51621;
Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 05200027/8, 73 FR
45793;
William States Lee III, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 05200018/9, 73
FR 11156.
III. Discussion
A. Technical Evaluation of Westinghouse Amendment to the AP1000 Design
Westinghouse's request to amend the AP1000 design contained several
classes
[[Page 10272]]
of changes. Each class is discussed below:
Editorial Changes
Westinghouse requested changes to the AP1000 DCD to correct
spelling, punctuation, grammar, designations, and references. None of
these changes is intended to make any substantive changes to the
certified design, and NUREG-1793, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report
Related to Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design,'' Supplement 2
(SER) does not address these changes.
Changes To Address Consistency and Uniformity
Westinghouse requested changes to the AP1000 DCD to achieve
consistency and uniformity in the description of the certified design
throughout the DCD. For example, a change to the type of reactor
coolant pump (RCP) motor is evaluated in Chapter 5 of the SER on the
application for the AP1000 amendment; Westinghouse requested that
wherever this RCP motor is described in the DCD, the new description of
the changed motor be used. The NRC reviewed the proposed change (to be
used consistently throughout the DCD) to ensure that the proposed
changes needed for uniformity and consistency are technically
acceptable and do not adversely affect the previously approved design
description. The NRC's bases for approval of these changes are set
forth in the SER for the AP1000 amendment.
Substantive Technical Changes to the AP1000 Design (Other Than Those
Needed for Compliance With the AIA Rule)
Among the many technical changes that are proposed by Westinghouse
for inclusion in Revision 18 of the AP1000 DCD, the NRC selected 15
substantive changes for specific discussion in this proposed rule
document, based on their safety significance:
Removal of Human Factors Engineering (HFE) Design
Acceptance Criteria (DAC) from the DCD
Change to Instrumentation and Control (I&C) DAC and
Inspection, Test, Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
Minimization of Contamination
Extension of Seismic Spectra to Soil Sites and Changes to
Stability and Uniformity of Subsurface Materials and Foundations
Long-Term Cooling
Control Room Emergency Habitability System
Changes to the Component Cooling Water System (CCWS)
Changes to I&C Systems
Changes to the Passive Core Cooling System (PCCS)--Gas
Intrusion
Integrated Head Package (IHP)--Use of the QuickLoc
Mechanism
Reactor Coolant Pump Design
Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Support System
Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Decay Heat Analysis and Associated
Design Changes
Spent Fuel Rack Design and Criticality Analysis
Vacuum Relief System
The NRC evaluated each of the proposed changes and concluded that
they are acceptable. The NRC's bases for approval of these changes are
set forth in the SER for the AP1000 amendment. Further information
about how each of these changes is provided in Section XIV,
``Backfitting,'' of this document.
Changes To Address Compliance With the AIA Rule
Westinghouse requested changes to the AP1000 design in order to
comply with the requirements of the AIA rule, 10 CFR 50.150. The NRC
confirmed that Westinghouse has adequately described key AIA design
features and functional capabilities in accordance with the AIA rule
and conducted an assessment reasonably formulated to identify design
features and functional capabilities to show, with reduced use of
operator action, that the facility can withstand the effects of an
aircraft impact. In addition, the NRC determined that there will be no
adverse impacts from complying with the requirements for consideration
of aircraft impacts on conclusions reached by the NRC in its review of
the original U.S. AP1000 design certification. The NRC's bases for
approval of these changes are set forth in the SER for the AP1000
amendment. As a result of these changes, the AP1000 design will achieve
the Commission's objectives of enhanced public health and safety and
enhanced common defense and security through improvement of the
facility's inherent robustness to the impact of a large commercial
aircraft at the design stage.
B. Changes to Appendix D
1. Scope and Contents (Section III)
The purpose of Section III is to describe and define the scope and
contents of this design certification and to present how documentation
discrepancies or inconsistencies are to be resolved. Paragraph A is the
required statement of the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for
approval of the incorporation by reference of Tier 1, Tier 2, and the
generic technical specifications (TSs) into this appendix. The NRC is
proposing to update the revision number of the DCD that would be
incorporated by reference to the revision Westinghouse provided to the
NRC in its application for amendment to this DCR.
The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the
incorporated material has the same legal status as if it were published
in the Code of Federal Regulations. This material, like any other
properly issued regulation, has the force and effect of law. The AP1000
DCD was prepared to meet the technical information contents of
application requirements for design certifications under 10 CFR
52.47(a) and the requirements of the OFR for incorporation by reference
under 10 CFR part 51. One requirement of the OFR for incorporation by
reference is that the applicant for the design certification (or
amendment to the design certification) makes the generic DCD available
upon request after the final rule becomes effective. Therefore,
paragraph A would identify a Westinghouse representative to be
contacted to obtain a copy of the AP1000 DCD. The NRC is proposing to
update the Westinghouse representative's contact information in this
DCR.
The AP1000 DCD is electronically accessible under ADAMS Accession
No. ML103480572, at the OFR, and at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching under Docket ID NRC-2010-0131. Copies of the generic DCD
would also be available at the NRC's PDR. Questions concerning the
accuracy of information in an application that references this appendix
will be resolved by checking the master copy of the generic DCD in
ADAMS. If the design certification amendment applicant makes a generic
change (through NRC rulemaking) to the DCD under 10 CFR 52.63 and the
change process provided in Section VIII, then at the completion of the
rulemaking the NRC would request approval of the Director, OFR, for the
revised master DCD. The NRC would require that the design certification
amendment applicant maintain an up-to-date copy of the master DCD under
paragraph A.1 in Section X and that it include any generic changes
made.
The NRC is also proposing a change to paragraph D. Paragraph D
establishes the generic DCD as the controlling document in the event of
an inconsistency between the DCD and the design certification
application or the FSER for the certified standard design. The proposed
revision would renumber paragraph D as paragraph D.1, clarify this
requirement as applying to the initial design certification, and add a
similar paragraph D.2 to indicate that this is also the case for an
inconsistency
[[Page 10273]]
between the generic DCD and the amendment application and the NRC's
associated FSER for the amendment.
2. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
Section IV presents additional requirements and restrictions
imposed upon an applicant who references Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52.
Paragraph A presents the information requirements for these applicants.
Paragraph A.3 currently requires the applicant to include, not simply
reference, the PI and SGI referenced in the AP1000 DCD, or its
equivalent, to ensure that the applicant has actual notice of these
requirements. The NRC is proposing to revise paragraph A.3 to indicate
that a COL applicant must include, in the plant-specific DCD, the SUNSI
(including PI) and SGI referenced in the AP1000 DCD. This revision
would address a wider class of information (SUNSI) to be included in
the plant-specific DCD, rather than limiting the required information
to PI. The requirement to include SGI in the plant-specific DCD would
not change.
The NRC is also proposing to add a new paragraph A.4 to indicate
requirements that must be met in cases where the COL applicant is not
using the entity that was the original applicant for the design
certification (or amendment) to supply the design for the applicant's
use. Proposed paragraph A.4 would require that a COL applicant
referencing Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 include, as part of its
application, a demonstration that an entity other than Westinghouse is
qualified to supply the AP1000 certified design unless Westinghouse
supplies the design for the applicant's use. In cases where a COL
applicant is not using Westinghouse to supply the AP1000 certified
design, this information is necessary to support any NRC finding under
10 CFR 52.73(a) that the entity is qualified to supply the certified
design.
3. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
The purpose of Section V is to specify the regulations applicable
and in effect when the design certification is approved (i.e., as of
the date specified in paragraph A, which will be the date that the
proposed revisions to Appendix D are approved by the Commission and the
final rule is signed by the Secretary of the Commission). The NRC is
proposing to redesignate paragraph A as paragraph A.1 to indicate that
this paragraph applies to that portion of the design that was certified
under the initial design certification. The NRC is further proposing to
add new paragraph A.2, similar to that of paragraph A.1, to indicate
the regulations that would apply to that portion of the design within
the scope of this amendment, as would be approved by the Commission and
signed by the Secretary of the Commission.
4. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
The purpose of Section VI is to identify the scope of issues that
were resolved by the Commission in the original certification
rulemaking, and, therefore, are ``matters resolved'' within the meaning
and intent of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). Paragraph B presents the scope of
issues that may not be challenged as a matter of right in subsequent
proceedings and describes the categories of information for which there
is issue resolution. Paragraph B.1 provides that all nuclear safety
issues arising from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the Act), as
amended, that are associated with the information in the NRC's final
safety evaluation report related to certification of the AP1000
standard design (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072) and the Tier 1 and
Tier 2 information and the rulemaking record for Appendix D to 10 CFR
part 52, are resolved within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). These
issues include the information referenced in the DCD that are
requirements (i.e., ``secondary references''), as well as all issues
arising from PI and SGI, which are intended to be requirements.
Paragraph B.2 provides for issue preclusion of PI and SGI.
The NRC is proposing to revise paragraph B.1 to extend issue
resolution to the information contained in the NRC's FSER (Supplement
No. 2) and the rulemaking record for this amendment. In addition, the
NRC is proposing to revise paragraph B.2 to extend issue resolution to
the broader category of SUNSI, including PI, referenced in the generic
DCD.
The NRC is also proposing to revise paragraph B.7, which identifies
as resolved all environmental issues concerning severe accident
mitigation design alternatives (SAMDA) arising under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) associated with the information
in the NRC's final EA for the AP1000 design and Appendix 1B of the
generic DCD (Revision 15) for plants referencing Appendix D to 10 CFR
part 52 whose site parameters are within those specified in the SAMDA
evaluation. The NRC is proposing to revise this paragraph to identify
as also resolved all environmental issues concerning SAMDA associated
with the information in the NRC's final EA for this amendment and
Appendix 1B of Revision 18 of the generic DCD for plants referencing
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 whose site parameters are within those
specified in the SAMDA evaluation.
Finally, the NRC is proposing to revise paragraph E, which provides
the procedure for an interested member of the public to obtain access
to SUNSI (including PI) and SGI for the AP1000 design in order to
request and participate in proceedings, as identified in paragraph B,
involving licenses and applications that reference Appendix D to 10 CFR
part 52. The NRC is proposing to replace the current information in
this paragraph with a statement that the NRC will specify at an
appropriate time the procedure for interested persons to review SGI or
SUNSI (including PI) for the purpose of participating in the hearing
required by 10 CFR 52.85, the hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103, or
in any other proceeding relating to Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 in
which interested persons have a right to request an adjudicatory
hearing. The NRC expects to follow its current practice of establishing
the procedures by order when the notice of hearing is published in the
Federal Register. (See, e.g., Florida Power and Light Co, Combined
License Application for the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Notice of
Hearing, Opportunity To Petition for Leave To Intervene and Associated
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-
Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information for Contention
Preparation (75 FR 34777; June 18, 2010); Notice of Receipt of
Application for License; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
License; Notice of Hearing and Commission Order and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation; In
the Matter of AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC (Eagle Rock Enrichment
Facility) (74 FR 38052; July 30, 2009).
In the four currently approved design certifications (10 CFR part
52, Appendices A through D), paragraph E presents specific directions
on how to obtain access to PI and SGI on the design certification in
connection with a license application proceeding referencing that DCR.
The NRC is proposing this change because these provisions were
developed before the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. After
September 11, 2001, Congress changed the statutory requirements
governing access to SGI, and the NRC revised its rules, procedures, and
practices governing control and access to SUNSI and SGI. The NRC now
believes that generic direction on
[[Page 10274]]
obtaining access to SUNSI and SGI is no longer appropriate for newly
approved DCRs. Accordingly, the specific requirements governing access
to SUNSI and SGI contained in paragraph E of the four currently
approved DCRs should not be included in the DCR for the AP1000.
Instead, the NRC should specify the procedures to be used for obtaining
access at an appropriate time in the COL proceeding referencing the
AP1000 DCR. The NRC intends to include the new rule language in any
future amendments or renewals of the currently existing DCRs, as well
as in new (i.e., initial) DCRs. However, the NRC is not planning to
initiate rulemaking to change paragraph E of the existing DCRs, to
minimize unnecessary resource expenditures by both the original DCR
applicant and the NRC.
5. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
The purpose of Section VIII is to present the processes for generic
changes to, or plant-specific departures (including exemptions) from,
the DCD. The Commission adopted this restrictive change process to
achieve a more stable licensing process for applicants and licensees
that reference this DCR. The change processes for the three different
categories of Tier 2 information, namely, Tier 2, Tier 2*, and Tier 2*
with a time of expiration, are presented in paragraph B.
Departures from Tier 2 that a licensee may make without prior NRC
approval are addressed under paragraph B.5 (similar to the process in
10 CFR 50.59). The NRC is proposing changes to Section VIII to address
the change control process specific to departures from the information
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address the NRC's AIA requirements
in 10 CFR 50.150. Specifically, the NRC is proposing to revise
paragraph B.5.b to indicate that the criteria in this paragraph for
determining if a proposed departure from Tier 2 requires a license
amendment do not apply to a proposed departure affecting information
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address 10 CFR 50.150. In addition,
the NRC is proposing to redesignate paragraphs B.5.d, B.5.e, and B.5.f
as paragraphs B.5.e, B.5.f, and B.5.g, respectively, and to add a new
paragraph B.5.d. Proposed paragraph B.5.d would require an applicant or
licensee who proposed to depart from the information required by 10 CFR
52.47(a)(28) to be included in the final safety analysis report (FSAR)
for the standard design certification to consider the effect of the
changed feature or capability on the original assessment required by 10
CFR 50.150(a). The FSAR information required by the AIA rule which is
subject to this change control requirement includes the descriptions of
the design features and functional capabilities incorporated into the
final design of the nuclear power facility and the description of how
the identified design features and functional capabilities meet the
assessment requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1). The objective of the
change controls is to determine whether the design of the facility, as
changed or modified, is shown to withstand the effects of the aircraft
impact with reduced use of operator actions. In other words, the
applicant or licensee must continue to show, with the modified design,
that the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) are met with
reduced use of operator actions. The AIA rule does not require an
applicant or a licensee implementing a design change to redo the
complete AIA to evaluate the effects of the change. The NRC believes it
may be possible to demonstrate that a design change is bounded by the
original design or that the change provides an equivalent level of
protection, without redoing the original assessment.
Consistent with the NRC's intent when it issued the AIA rule, under
the proposed revision to this section, plant-specific departures from
the AIA information in the FSAR would not require a license amendment,
but may be made by the licensee upon compliance with the substantive
requirements of the AIA rule (i.e., the AIA rule acceptance criteria).
The applicant or licensee would also be required to document, in the
plant-specific departure, how the modified design features and
functional capabilities continue to meet the assessment requirements in
10 CFR 50.150(a)(1), in accordance with Section X of Appendix D to 10
CFR part 52. Applicants and licensees making changes to design features
or capabilities included in the certified design may also need to
develop alternate means to cope with the loss of large areas of the
plant from explosions or fires to comply with the requirements in 10
CFR 50.54(hh). The proposed addition of these provisions to Appendix D
to 10 CFR part 52 is consistent with the NRC's intent when it issued
the AIA rule in 2009, as noted in the statements of consideration for
that rule (74 FR 28112; June 12, 2009, at page 28122, third column).
Paragraph B.6 of Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 provides a process
for departing from Tier 2* information. The creation of, and
restrictions on changing, Tier 2* information resulted from the
development of the Tier 1 information for the ABWR design certification
(Appendix A to 10 CFR part 52) and the ABB-CE [ASEA Brown Boveri--
Combustion Engineering] System 80+ design certification (Appendix B to
10 CFR part 52). During this development process, these applicants
requested that the amount of information in Tier 1 be minimized to
provide additional flexibility for an applicant or licensee who
references these appendices. Also, many codes, standards, and design
processes that would not be specified in Tier 1, but were acceptable
for meeting ITAAC, were specified in Tier 2. The result of these
actions was that certain significant information only exists in Tier 2
and the Commission did not want this significant information to be
changed without prior NRC approval. This Tier 2* information was
identified in the generic DCD with italicized text and brackets (See
Table 1-1 of the AP1000 DCD Introduction for a list of the Tier 2*
items). Although the Tier 2* designation was originally intended to
last for the lifetime of the facility, like Tier 1 information, the NRC
determined that some of the Tier 2* information could expire when the
plant first achieves full power (100 percent), after the finding
required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), while other Tier 2* information must
remain in effect throughout the life of the facility. The factors
determining whether Tier 2* information could expire after the first
full-power was achieved were whether the Tier 1 information would
govern these areas after first full-power and the NRC's determination
that prior approval was required before implementation of the change
due to the significance of the information. Therefore, certain Tier 2*
information listed in paragraph B.6.c would cease to retain its Tier 2*
designation after full-power operation is first achieved following the
Commission finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Thereafter, that information
would be deemed to be Tier 2 information that would be subject to the
departure requirements in paragraph B.5. By contrast, the Tier 2*
information identified in paragraph B.6.b would retain its Tier 2*
designation throughout the duration of the license, including any
period of license renewal.
The NRC is proposing to revise certain items designated as Tier 2*.
The item on HFE would be moved from paragraph B.5.b to paragraph B.5.c,
with the effect that the Tier 2* designation on that information would
expire after full-power operation is achieved rather than never
expiring. In addition, a new item
[[Page 10275]]
would be added to paragraph B.5.b for RCP type. The NRC determined that
certain specific characteristics of the RCP were significant to the
safety review and that prior approval of changes affecting those
characteristics would be required. This Tier 2* designation does not
expire.
Finally, the NRC also concluded that the Tier 2* designation was
not necessary for the specific Code edition and addenda for the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (ASME Code), as listed in item VIII.B.6.c.(2). At the time of the
initial certification, the NRC determined that this information should
be Tier 2*. Subsequently, 10 CFR part 50 was modified to include
provisions in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(iii) to provide restrictions in the
use of certain editions/addenda to the ASME Code, Section III, that the
NRC found unacceptable. In addition, 10 CFR 50.55a(c)(3), (d)(2) and
(e)(2), for reactor coolant pressure boundary, Quality Group B
Components, and Quality Group C Components, respectively, provide
regulatory controls on the use of later edition/addenda to the ASME
Code, Section III, through the conditions NRC established on use of
paragraph NCA-1140 of the Code. As a result, these rule requirements
adequately control the ability of a licensee to use a later edition of
the ASME Code and addenda such that Tier 2* designation is not
necessary. Thus, the Tier 2* item in paragraph B.6.c.(2) for ASME Code
was modified to be limited to ASME Code piping design restrictions as
identified in Section 5.2.1.1 of the AP1000 DCD and to include certain
Code cases, including Code Case N-284-1, as discussed in Section
3.8.2.2 and other Code cases as designated in Table 5.2-3 of the DCD
(Code Case N-284-1 is the only case currently specified in Appendix D
to 10 CFR part 52). The NRC retained the Tier 2* designation for
applying ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NE to containment design,
by moving this provision to the end of item VIII.B.6.c.(14). Section
3.8.2.2 of the DCD identifies the specific edition and addenda for
containment design (2001 Edition of ASME Code, Section III, including
2002 Addenda) with the Tier 2* markings.
6. Records and Reporting (Section X)
The purpose of Section X is to present the requirements that apply
to maintaining records of changes to and departures from the generic
DCD, which would be reflected in the plant-specific DCD. Section X also
presents the requirements for submitting reports (including updates to
the plant-specific DCD) to the NRC. Paragraph A.1 requires that a
generic DCD and the PI and SGI referenced in the generic DCD be
maintained by the applicant for this rule. The NRC is proposing to
revise paragraph A.1 to replace the term ``proprietary information,''
or PI, with the broader term ``sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information,'' or SUNSI. Information categorized as SUNSI is
information that is generally not publicly available and encompasses a
wide variety of categories. These categories include information about
a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and
accounting program for special nuclear material not otherwise
designated as SGI or classified as National Security Information or
Restricted Data (security-related information), which is required by 10
CFR 2.390 to be protected in the same manner as commercial or financial
information (i.e., they are exempt from public disclosure). This change
is necessary because the NRC is proposing to approve PI and security-
related information. This change would also ensure that Westinghouse
(as well as any future applicants for amendments to the AP1000 DCR who
intend to supply the certified design) are required to maintain a copy
of the applicable generic DCD, and maintain the applicable SUNSI
(including PI) and SGI--developed by that applicant--that were approved
as part of the relevant design certification rulemakings.
The NRC notes that the generic DCD concept was developed, in part,
to meet OFR requirements for incorporation by reference, including
public availability of documents incorporated by reference. However,
the PI and SGI were not included in the public version of the DCD. Only
the public version of the generic DCD would be identified and
incorporated by reference into this rule. Nonetheless, the SUNSI for
this amendment was reviewed by the NRC and, as stated in paragraph B.2,
the NRC would consider the information to be resolved within the
meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). Because this information is in the non-
public version of the DCD, this SUNSI (including PI) and SGI, or its
equivalent, is required to be provided by an applicant for a license
referencing this DCR.
In addition, the NRC is proposing to add a new paragraph A.4.a that
would require the applicant for the AP1000 design to maintain a copy of
the AIA performed to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a)
for the term of the certification (including any period of renewal).
The NRC is also proposing a new paragraph A.4.b that would require an
applicant or licensee who references this appendix to maintain a copy
of the AIA performed to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.150(a) throughout the pendency of the application and for the term
of the license (including any period of renewal). The addition of
paragraphs A.4.a and A.4.b is consistent with the NRC's intent when it
issued the AIA rule in 2009 (74 FR 28112; June 12, 2009, at page 28121,
second column).
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion sets forth each proposed amendment to the
AP1000 DCR. All section and paragraph references are to the provisions
in the proposed amendment to Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52, unless
otherwise noted.
A. Introduction (Section I)
The NRC is proposing to amend Section I, Introduction, to change
the DCD revision number from 15 to 18.
B. Scope and Contents (Section III)
The NRC is proposing to amend Section III, Scope and Contents, to
revise paragraph A to update the revision number of the DCD, from
Revision 15 to Revision 18, approved for incorporation by reference;
update the contact information of the Westinghouse representative to be
contacted should a member of the public request a copy of the generic
DCD; and update other locations (e.g., the NRC's PDR) where a member of
the public could request a copy of or otherwise view the generic DCD.
The NRC is proposing to revise paragraph D to set forth the way
potential conflicts are to be resolved. Paragraph D would establish the
generic DCD as the controlling document in the event of an
inconsistency between the DCD and either the application or the FSER
for the certified standard design. This clarification would further
distinguish between the conflict scenarios presented in paragraphs D.1
(for the initial certification of the design) and D.2 (for Amendment 1
to the design).
C. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
The NRC is proposing to amend Section IV, Additional Requirements
and Restrictions, to set forth additional requirements and restrictions
imposed upon an applicant who references Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52.
Paragraph A would set forth the information requirements for these
applicants. The NRC is proposing to revise paragraph A.3 to replace the
term ``proprietary information'' with the
[[Page 10276]]
broader term ``sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information.''
The NRC is also proposing to add a new paragraph A.4 to indicate
requirements that must be met in cases where the COL applicant is not
using the entity that was the original applicant for the design
certification (or amendment) to supply the design for the applicant's
use. Proposed paragraph A.4 would require a COL applicant referencing
Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 to include, as part of its application, a
demonstration that an entity other than Westinghouse is qualified to
supply the AP1000 certified design, unless Westinghouse supplies the
design for the applicant's use. In cases where a COL applicant is not
using Westinghouse to supply the AP1000 certified design, the required
information would be used to support any NRC finding under 10 CFR
52.73(a) that an entity other than the one originally sponsoring the
design certification or design certification amendment is qualified to
supply the certified design.
D. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
The NRC proposes to revise paragraph A to distinguish between the
regulations that are applicable and in effect at the time the initial
design certification was approved (paragraph A.1) and the regulations
that would be applicable and in effect at the time that Amendment 1 is
approved (paragraph A.2).
E. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
The NRC proposes to amend Section VI, Issue Resolution, by revising
paragraph B.1 to provide that all nuclear safety issues arising from
the Act that are associated with the information in the NRC's FSER
(NUREG-1793), the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information (including the
availability controls in Section 16.3 of the generic DCD), and the
rulemaking record for Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 are resolved within
the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). These issues include the information
referenced in the DCD that are requirements (i.e., secondary
references), as well as all issues arising from SUNSI (including PI)
and SGI, which are intended to be requirements. This paragraph would be
revised to extend issue resolution beyond that of the previously
certified design to also include the information in Supplement No. 2 of
the FSER and the rulemaking record associated with Amendment 1 to the
AP1000 design.
The NRC is proposing to revise paragraph B.2 to replace the term
``proprietary information'' with the broader term ``sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information.''
Paragraph B.7 would be revised to extend environmental issue
resolution beyond that of the previously certified design to also
include the information in Amendment 1 to the AP1000 design and
Appendix 1B of Revision 18 of the generic DCD.
New paragraph VI.E would provide that the NRC will specify at an
appropriate time the procedures for interested persons to obtain access
to PI, SUNSI, and SGI for the AP1000 DCR. Access to such information
would be for the sole purpose of requesting or participating in certain
specified hearings, such as (1) The hearing required by 10 CFR 52.85
where the underlying application references Appendix D to 10 CFR part
52; (2) any hearing provided under 10 CFR 52.103 where the underlying
COL references Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52; and (3) any other hearing
relating to Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 in which interested persons
have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing.
F. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
The NRC is proposing changes to Section VIII to address the change
control process specific to departures from the information required by
10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address the NRC's AIA requirements in 10 CFR
50.150. Specifically, the NRC is proposing to revise the introductory
text of paragraph B.5.b to indicate that the criteria in this paragraph
for determining if a proposed departure from Tier 2 requires a license
amendment do not apply to a proposed departure affecting information
required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to address aircraft impacts.
In addition, the NRC is proposing to redesignate paragraphs B.5.d,
B.5.e, and B.5.f as paragraphs B.5.e, B.5.f, and B.5.g, respectively,
and to add a new paragraph B.5.d. Proposed paragraph B.5.d would
require an applicant referencing the AP1000 DCR, who proposed to depart
from the information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in
the FSAR for the standard design certification, to consider the effect
of the changed feature or capability on the original 10 CFR 50.150(a)
assessment.
The NRC is proposing to revise certain items designated as Tier 2*.
The item on HFE would be moved from paragraph B.6.b to paragraph B.6.c,
with the effect that the Tier 2* designation on that information would
expire after full-power operation is achieved rather than never. In
addition, a new item would be added to paragraph B.6.b for RCP type.
The NRC determined that certain specific characteristics of the RCP
were significant to the safety review and that prior approval of
changes affecting those characteristics would be required. This Tier 2*
designation does not expire.
The NRC also concluded that the Tier 2* designation was not
necessary for the specific Code edition and addenda for the ASME code
as listed in paragraph B.6.c(2). Thus, the item in paragraph B.6.c(2)
for the ASME Code would be modified to be more limited in scope. The
NRC would retain the Tier 2* designation for the Code edition
applicable to containment in paragraph B.6.c(14) and added paragraph
B.6.c(16) on ASME Code cases, which are specified in Table 5.2-3 of the
generic DCD.
G. Records and Reporting (Section X)
The NRC is proposing to amend Section X, Records and Reporting, to
revise paragraph A.1 to replace the term ``proprietary information''
with the broader term ``sensitive unclassified non-safeguards
information.'' Paragraph A.1 would also be revised to require the
design certification amendment applicant to maintain the SUNSI, which
it developed and used to support its design certification amendment
application. This would ensure that the referencing applicant has
direct access to this information from the design certification
amendment applicant, if it has contracted with the applicant to provide
the SUNSI to support its license application. The AP1000 generic DCD
and the NRC-approved version of the SUNSI would be required to be
maintained for the period that Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 may be
referenced.
The NRC is also proposing to add a new paragraph A.4.a, which would
require Westinghouse to maintain a copy of the AIA performed to comply
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) for the term of the
certification (including any period of renewal). This proposed
provision, which is consistent with 10 CFR 50.150(c)(3), would
facilitate any NRC inspections of the assessment that the NRC decides
to conduct.
Similarly, the NRC is proposing new paragraph A.4.b, which would
require an applicant or licensee who references Appendix D to 10 CFR
part 52 to maintain a copy of the AIA performed to comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) throughout the pendency of the
application and for the term of the license (including any period of
renewal). This provision is consistent with 10 CFR 50.150(c)(4). For
all applicants and licensees, the supporting
[[Page 10277]]
documentation retained onsite should describe the methodology used in
performing the assessment, including the identification of potential
design features and functional capabilities to show that the acceptance
criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) would be met.
V. Agreement State Compatibility
Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement States Programs,'' approved by the Commission on June 20,
1997, and published in the Federal Register (62 FR 46517; September 3,
1997), this rule is classified as compatibility ``NRC.'' Compatibility
is not required for Category ``NRC'' regulations. The NRC program
elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of
regulation reserved to the NRC by the Act or the provisions of this
section. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements
reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain
requirements by a mechanism that is consistent with the particular
State's administrative procedure laws. Category ``NRC'' regulations do
not confer regulatory authority on the State.
VI. Availability of Documents
The NRC is making the documents identified below available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated. To access documents related to this action, see Section I,
``Submitting Comments and Accessing Information'' of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The regulatory history of the NRC's design certification
reviews is a package of documents that is available in NRC's PDR and
ADAMS. This history spans the period during which the NRC
simultaneously developed the regulatory standards for reviewing
these designs and the form and content of the rules that certified
the designs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document PDR Web ADAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECY-11-0002, ``Proposed Rule--AP1000 Design X X ML103000397
Certification Amendment''..............................
AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) Revision 18, X X ML103480059
Transmittal Letter.....................................
Westinghouse AP1000 DCD Revision 18 (public version).... X ................. ML103480572
Advanced Final Safety Evaluation Report for Revision 18 X ................. ML103260072
to the AP1000 Standard Design Certification (publicly
available).............................................
AP1000 Environmental Assessment......................... X X ML103000415
Interim Staff Guidance DC/COL-ISG-011, ``Finalizing X X ML092890623
Licensing-basis Information''..........................
Design Changes Submitted by Westinghouse, Revision 18... X X ML100250873
AP1000 Technical Reports (Appendix)..................... X ................. ML103350501
TR-26, ``AP1000 Verification of Water Sources for Long- X X ML102170123
Term Recirculation Cooling Following a LOCA,'' Revision
8......................................................
TR-54, ``Spent Fuel Storage Racks Structure and Seismic X X ML101580475
Analysis,'' Revision 4.................................
TR-65, ``Spent Fuel Storage Racks Criticality X X ML100082093
Analysis,'' Revision 2.................................
TR-103, ``Fluid System Changes,'' Revision 2............ X X ML072830060
``Evaluation of the Effect of the AP1000 Enhanced Shield X X ML102220579
Building on the Containment Response and Safety
Analysis,'' Revision 1.................................
AP1000 DCD Transmittal Letter, Revision 17.............. X X ML083220482
AP1000 DCD, Revision 17................................. X X ML083230868
AP1000 DCD Transmittal Letter, Revision 16.............. X X ML071580757
AP1000 DCD, Revision 16................................. X X ML071580939
NRC Notice of Acceptance, Revision 16................... X X ML073600743
December 13, 2010 ACRS Letter to Chairman (Report on X X ML103410351
FSER to AP1000 DCD)....................................
December 20, 2010 ACRS Letter to Chairman (Long-Term X X ML103410348
Core Cooling)..........................................
Regulatory History of Design Certification \2\.......... X ................. ML003761550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information (Including Proprietary Information) and Safeguards
Information for Preparation of Comments on the Proposed Amendment to
the AP1000 Design Certification
This section contains instructions regarding how interested persons
who wish to comment on the proposed design certification may request
access to documents containing SUNSI (including PI \3\), and SGI, to
prepare their comments. Requirements for access to SGI are primarily
set forth in 10 CFR parts 2 and 73. This document provides information
specific to this proposed rulemaking; however, nothing in this document
is intended to conflict with the SGI regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For purposes of this discussion, ``proprietary information''
constitutes trade secrets or commercial or financial information
that are privileged or confidential, as those terms are used under
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the NRC's
implementing regulation at 10 CFR part 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested persons who desire access to SUNSI information on the
AP1000 design constituting PI should first request access to that
information from the design certification applicant. A request for
access should be submitted to the NRC if the applicant does not either
grant or deny access by the 10-day deadline described below.
Submitting a Request to the NRC
Within 10 days after publication of this document, an individual or
entity (thereinafter, the ``requester'') may request access to such
information. Requests for access to SUNSI or SGI submitted more than 10
days after publication of this document will not be considered absent a
showing of good cause for the late filing explaining why the request
could not have been filed earlier.
The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access
SUNSI and/or SGI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,
Washington DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail
address is: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The e-mail address for the
Office of the Secretary is rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov. The requester
must send a copy of the request to the design certification applicant
at the same time as the original transmission to the NRC using the same
method of transmission. Copies of the request to the applicant must be
sent to Stanley E. Ritterbusch, Manager, AP1000 Design Certification,
Westinghouse Electric Company, 1000 Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry
[[Page 10278]]
Township, PA 16066, or by e-mail to ritterse@westinghouse.com. For
purposes of complying with this requirement, a ``request'' includes all
the information required to be submitted to the NRC as presented in
this section.
The request must include the following information:
1. The name of this design certification amendment (AP1000 Design
Certification Amendment), the rulemaking identification number RIN
3150-AI81, the rulemaking Docket ID NRC-2010-0131, and a citation to
this document at the top of the first page of the request;
2. The name, address, e-mail, or fax number of the requester. If
the requester is an entity, the name of the individual(s) to whom
access is to be provided, then the address and e-mail or fax number for
each individual, and a statement of the authority granted by the entity
to each individual to review the information and to prepare comments on
behalf of the entity must be provided. If the requester is relying upon
another individual to evaluate the requested SUNSI and/or SGI and
prepare comments, then the name, affiliation, address, and e-mail or
fax number for that individual must be provided.
3.(a) If the request is for SUNSI, then the requester's need for
the information to prepare meaningful comments on the proposed design
certification must be demonstrated. Each of the following areas must be
addressed with specificity.
(i) The specific issue or subject matter on which the requester
wishes to comment;
(ii) An explanation why information which is publicly available,
including the publicly available versions of the application and DCD,
and information on the NRC's docket for the design certification
application is insufficient to provide the basis for developing
meaningful comment on the proposed design certification with respect to
the issue or subject matter described previously in paragraph 3.(a)(i);
and
(iii) Information demonstrating that the individual to whom access
is to be provided has the technical competence (demonstrable knowledge,
skill, experience, education, training, or certification) to understand
and use (or evaluate) the requested information for a meaningful
comment on the proposed design certification with respect to the issue
or subject matter described in paragraph 3.(a)(i) above.
(b) If the request is for SUNSI constituting PI, then a chronology
and discussion of the requester's attempts to obtain the information
from the design certification applicant, and the final communication
from the requester to the applicant and the applicant's response with
respect to the request for access to PI must be submitted.
4.(a) If the request is for SGI, then the requester's ``need to
know'' the SGI must be demonstrated as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10
CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent with the definition of ``need to know'' as
stated in 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), each of the following
areas must be addressed with specificity:
(i) The specific issue or subject matter on which the requester
wishes to comment;
(ii) An explanation why information which is publicly available,
including the publicly available versions of the application and DCD,
and information on the NRC's docket for the desig
