Proposed Revision to Treatment of Non-Safety Systems for Passive Advanced Light Water Reactors, 41436-41438 [2013-16586]

Download as PDF TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 41436 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Notices 2. Backfitting and issue finality—with certain exceptions discussed below—do not protect current or future applicants. Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. This is because neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions discussed below— were intended to apply to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants. The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (e.g., an early site permit) and/ or NRC regulatory approval (e.g., a design certification rule) with specified issue finality provisions. The staff does not, at this time, intend to impose the positions represented in the draft SRP section (if finalized) in a manner that is inconsistent with any issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a position in the draft SRP section (if finalized) in a manner which does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision. 3. The staff has no intention to impose the draft SRP positions on existing nuclear power plant licenses or regulatory approvals either now or in the future (absent a voluntary request for change from the licensee, holder of a regulatory approval, or a design certification applicant). The staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions described in the draft SRP section to existing (already issued) licenses (e.g., operating licenses and combined licenses) and regulatory approvals—in this case, design certifications. Hence, the draft SRP— even if considered guidance which is within the purview of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52—need not be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a position in the draft SRP (if finalized) on holders of already issued licenses in a manner which does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must make the showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule, or address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described applicable issue finality provision, as applicable. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of June 2013. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:42 Jul 09, 2013 Jkt 229001 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Joseph Colaccino, Chief, Policy Branch, Division of Advanced Reactors and Rulemaking, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. 2013–16585 Filed 7–9–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2013–0150] Proposed Revision to Treatment of Non-Safety Systems for Passive Advanced Light Water Reactors Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Standard review plan-draft section revision; request for comment and use; re-notice. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is re-noticing the solicitation for public comment published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2012 (77 FR 62270), on the NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,’’ on a proposed new section to its Standard Review Plan (SRP), Section 19.3, ‘‘Regulatory Treatment of NonSafety Systems (RTNSS) for Passive Advanced Light Water Reactors.’’ The NRC seeks public comment on a narrow area of focus related to a revised position on the treatment of the high winds external hazard for certain RTNSS structures, systems, and components. DATES: Submit comments by August 9, 2013. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC–2013–0150. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2013–0150. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN 6–A56 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Accessing Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jonathan DeGange, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001; telephone: 301–415–6992, email: mailto:Jonathan.DeGange@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013– 0150 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2013–XXX. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The SRP Section 19.3 is re-noticed in its entirety under ADAMS Accession ML13081A756. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2013– 0150 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The will NRC posts all comment submissions at http:// E:\FR\FM\10JYN1.SGM 10JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Notices TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. II. Further Information This re-notice includes a revised position on treatment of the high winds external hazard for certain RTNSS structures, systems and components (SSCs). This position differs from the one described in the previously issued draft Section 19.3 of NUREG–0800 (ADAMS Accession No: ML12128A405) and from the alternative proposed from public comments (ML12319A465) on the previously issued draft Section 19.3 of NUREG–0800, which, during a public meeting held on January 22, 2013, the staff agreed to consider. Consequently, public stakeholders have not had an opportunity to comment on this approach to treatment of the high winds hazard for certain RTNSS SSCs. The staff’s original position on treatment of the high winds external hazard is documented in a memorandum from L. Joseph Callan, US NRC Executive Director for Operations to Chairman Jackson, US NRC dated June 23, 1997 (ML003708229) and entitled: ‘‘Implementation of Staff Position in SECY–96–128, ‘Policy and Key Technical Issues Pertaining to the Westinghouse AP600 Standard Pressurized Reactor Design’, Related to Post-72 Hour Actions’’. At that time, the NRC was concerned with the ability of a severe hurricane to cause an extended loss of reliable offsite AC power for a period longer than 72 hours. Consequently, the NRC took the position that it was reasonable and practical to design post-72 hour SSCs (most notably non-safety related diesel generators and their enclosure) to withstand a Category 5 hurricane and associated wind-borne missiles; but, these SSCs should not be required to withstand tornado loads and tornado missiles. Also at the time, tornado loads and missiles were considered generally to lead to more restrictive design requirements. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:42 Jul 09, 2013 Jkt 229001 Since this position was established in the mid-1990s, Regulatory Guide 1.76 has been revised using the Enhanced Fujita Scale, resulting in a significant decrease to the maximum design basis tornado wind speeds, and new guidance (Regulatory Guide 1.221) has been issued for addressing hurricanes and associated hurricane missiles. In addition, recent operating experience shows that tornado wind events can also cause an extended loss of reliable offsite AC power for more than 72 hours. Lastly, application of the guidance described in the memorandum referenced above could, in some cases, result in a level of treatment for nonsafety related SSCs which meet Criterion B for RTNSS that is higher than the level for safety-related SSCs. Therefore, the RTNSS missile protection guidance described in the memorandum is no longer appropriate. The NRC’s position now is that RTNSS ‘‘B’’ SSCs should be protected from both tornadoes and hurricanes and the missiles they might create, and that applicants should choose the design basis wind speeds for RTNSS ‘‘B’’ SSCs using the guidance in Regulatory Guides 1.76 and 1.221. Standard Review Plan 19.3 has been revised to reflect this position. The NRC seeks public comment on a narrow area of focus in the reissuance of the SRP Section 19.3, ‘‘Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems (RTNSS) for Passive Advanced Light Water Reactors.’’ This area includes a revised position on treatment of the high winds external hazard for certain RTNSS SSCs that is described above and elsewhere (ML13081A756) under section ‘‘SRP Acceptance Criteria’’ and in ‘‘Area of Review—Augmented Design Standards’’ shown as item 4 in the guidance document page 19.3–8. Following NRC staff evaluation of public comments, the NRC intends to incorporate the final approved guidance into the next revision of NUREG–0800. Backfitting and Issue Finality This draft SRP, if finalized, would provide guidance to the staff for reviewing applications for a construction permit and an operating license under part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) with respect to the regulatory treatment of non-safety systems. The draft SRP would also provide guidance for reviewing an application for a standard design approval, a standard design certification, a combined license, and a manufacturing license under part 52 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) with respect to these same subject matters. PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 41437 Issuance of this draft SRP, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109, or otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The staff’s position is based upon the following considerations. 1. The draft SRP positions, if finalized, do not constitute backfitting, inasmuch as the SRP is internal guidance to NRC staff. The SRP provides interim guidance to the staff on how to review an application for NRC regulatory approval in the form of licensing. Changes in internal staff guidance are not matters for which applicants or licensees are protected under 10 CFR 50.109 or issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52. 2. Backfitting and issue finality—with certain exceptions discussed below—do not protect current or future applicants. Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. This is because neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions discussed below— were intended to apply to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants. The exceptions to this general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR Part 52 license (e.g., an early site permit) and/ or NRC regulatory approval (e.g., a design certification rule) with specified issue finality provisions. The staff does not, at this time, intend to impose the positions represented in the draft SRP section (if finalized) in a manner that is inconsistent with any issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a position in the draft SRP section (if finalized) in a manner which does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision. 3. The staff has no intention to impose the draft SRP positions on existing nuclear power plant licenses or regulatory approvals either now or in the future (absent a voluntary request for change from the licensee, holder of a regulatory approval, or a design certification applicant). The staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions described in the draft SRP section to existing (already issued) licenses (e.g., operating licenses and combined licenses) and regulatory approvals—in this case, design certifications. Hence, the draft SRP— E:\FR\FM\10JYN1.SGM 10JYN1 41438 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Notices even if considered guidance which is within the purview of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52—need not be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a position in the draft SRP (if finalized) on holders of already issued licenses in a manner which does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must make the showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule, or address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described applicable issue finality provision, as applicable. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of June 2013. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Joseph Colaccino, Chief, Policy Branch, Division of Advanced Reactors and Rulemaking, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. 2013–16586 Filed 7–9–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 30589; File No. 813–00383] Citadel LLC (Formerly Citadel Investment Group, L.L.C.) and CEIF LLC; Notice of Application July 3, 2013. Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’). ACTION: Notice of application for an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Act’’) granting an exemption from all provisions of the Act, except section 9 and sections 36 through 53 and the rules and regulations under those sections. With respect to sections 17 and 30 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, and rule 38a-1 under the Act, the exemption is limited as set forth in the application. AGENCY: Applicants request an order to amend and supersede a prior order (‘‘Prior Order’’) 1 to exempt certain limited liability companies, limited partnerships, companies and other investment vehicles formed for the benefit of eligible employees of Citadel LLC and its affiliates (‘‘ESC Funds’’) from certain provisions of the Act. Each ESC Fund will be an ‘‘employees’ securities company’’ within the meaning of TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: 1 Citadel LLC and CEIF LLC, Investment Company Release Nos. IC–29851 (Oct. 27, 2011) (notice) and IC–29869 (Nov. 22, 2011) (order). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:42 Jul 09, 2013 Jkt 229001 section 2(a)(13) of the Act. The requested order would reflect the amendment of certain mandatory redemption terms of the ESC Funds to allow voluntary deferral of redemption of Vested Membership Interests beyond the relevant Determination Date (as these terms are defined below). The terms and conditions of the application are otherwise identical to the terms and conditions of the Prior Order. APPLICANTS: Citadel LLC and CEIF LLC (‘‘CEIF’’). DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on January 31, 2013, and amended on April 30, 2013. HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission’s Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 29, 2013, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer’s interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission’s Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090; Applicants, Citadel LLC and CEIF, 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emerson S. Davis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6868, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Division of Investment Management, Exemptive Applications Office). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission’s Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company’s name box, at http:// www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling (202) 551–8090. Applicants’ Representations 1. Citadel is a global financial institution with a diverse business platform which includes alternative asset management, strategic advisory services and capital markets businesses and services. Citadel LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and its ‘‘Affiliates,’’ as defined in rule 12b–2 under the Securities Exchange Act of PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) other than an ESC Fund are referred to collectively as ‘‘Citadel’’ or ‘‘Citadel Entities.’’ 2. Citadel has established CEIF, a Delaware limited liability company and will in the future establish any other ESC Funds (collectively with CEIF, the ‘‘ESC Funds’’ and each, an ‘‘ESC Fund’’) for the benefit of Eligible Employees (defined below) as part of a program to create capital building opportunities that are competitive with those at other financial services firms and to facilitate the recruitment and retention of high caliber professionals. Each of the ESC Funds will be structured as a limited liability company, limited partnership, corporation, business trust or other entity organized under the laws of the state of Delaware or another U.S. jurisdiction. Each ESC Fund will be identical in all material respects (other than investment objectives and strategies, vesting terms, form of organization and related structural and operative provisions contained in the constitutive documents of such funds). Each ESC Fund will be an ‘‘employees’ security company’’ within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act and will operate as a diversified or nondiversified management investment company. Citadel will control the ESC Funds within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. 3. Each managing member of an ESC Fund or person acting in a similar capacity will be an Affiliate of Citadel LLC (a ‘‘Managing Member’’). Any member or partner of, or otherwise investor in, an ESC Fund is a ‘‘Member.’’ The Managing Member of each ESC Fund will manage, operate and control such ESC Fund and will have the authority to delegate investment management responsibility with respect to the acquisition, management and disposition of Portfolio Investments, as defined below, to a Citadel Entity. Any Citadel Entity that is delegated the responsibility of making investment decisions for an ESC Fund will be registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Advisers Act’’), if required under applicable law. 4. The Managing Member, a Member, Citadel, Citadel Entity or any employees of the Managing Member or Citadel may be entitled to receive a performancebased fee or profits allocation (a ‘‘carried interest’’).2 All ESC Fund 2 A ‘‘carried interest’’ is a fee paid or an allocation made to the Managing Member, a Member or the Citadel Entity acting as the investment adviser to an ESC Fund based on net gains in addition to the amount allocable to such entity in proportion to its invested capital. A Managing Member, Member or Citadel Entity that is registered as an investment E:\FR\FM\10JYN1.SGM 10JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41436-41438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16586]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2013-0150]


Proposed Revision to Treatment of Non-Safety Systems for Passive 
Advanced Light Water Reactors

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Standard review plan-draft section revision; request for 
comment and use; re-notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is re-noticing 
the solicitation for public comment published in the Federal Register 
on October 12, 2012 (77 FR 62270), on the NUREG-0800, ``Standard Review 
Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power 
Plants: LWR Edition,'' on a proposed new section to its Standard Review 
Plan (SRP), Section 19.3, ``Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems 
(RTNSS) for Passive Advanced Light Water Reactors.'' The NRC seeks 
public comment on a narrow area of focus related to a revised position 
on the treatment of the high winds external hazard for certain RTNSS 
structures, systems, and components.

DATES: Submit comments by August 9, 2013. Comments received after this 
date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the 
Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received 
on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, 
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2013-
0150. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0150. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN 6-A56 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
     For additional direction on accessing information and 
submitting comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting 
Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jonathan DeGange, Office of New 
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-6992, email: mailto:Jonathan.DeGange@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0150 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-XXX.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced. The SRP Section 19.3 is re-noticed in its entirety under 
ADAMS Accession ML13081A756.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0150 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The will NRC posts all comment submissions at 
http://

[[Page 41437]]

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Further Information

    This re-notice includes a revised position on treatment of the high 
winds external hazard for certain RTNSS structures, systems and 
components (SSCs). This position differs from the one described in the 
previously issued draft Section 19.3 of NUREG-0800 (ADAMS Accession No: 
ML12128A405) and from the alternative proposed from public comments 
(ML12319A465) on the previously issued draft Section 19.3 of NUREG-
0800, which, during a public meeting held on January 22, 2013, the 
staff agreed to consider. Consequently, public stakeholders have not 
had an opportunity to comment on this approach to treatment of the high 
winds hazard for certain RTNSS SSCs.
    The staff's original position on treatment of the high winds 
external hazard is documented in a memorandum from L. Joseph Callan, US 
NRC Executive Director for Operations to Chairman Jackson, US NRC dated 
June 23, 1997 (ML003708229) and entitled: ``Implementation of Staff 
Position in SECY-96-128, `Policy and Key Technical Issues Pertaining to 
the Westinghouse AP600 Standard Pressurized Reactor Design', Related to 
Post-72 Hour Actions''. At that time, the NRC was concerned with the 
ability of a severe hurricane to cause an extended loss of reliable 
offsite AC power for a period longer than 72 hours. Consequently, the 
NRC took the position that it was reasonable and practical to design 
post-72 hour SSCs (most notably non-safety related diesel generators 
and their enclosure) to withstand a Category 5 hurricane and associated 
wind-borne missiles; but, these SSCs should not be required to 
withstand tornado loads and tornado missiles. Also at the time, tornado 
loads and missiles were considered generally to lead to more 
restrictive design requirements.
    Since this position was established in the mid-1990s, Regulatory 
Guide 1.76 has been revised using the Enhanced Fujita Scale, resulting 
in a significant decrease to the maximum design basis tornado wind 
speeds, and new guidance (Regulatory Guide 1.221) has been issued for 
addressing hurricanes and associated hurricane missiles. In addition, 
recent operating experience shows that tornado wind events can also 
cause an extended loss of reliable offsite AC power for more than 72 
hours. Lastly, application of the guidance described in the memorandum 
referenced above could, in some cases, result in a level of treatment 
for non-safety related SSCs which meet Criterion B for RTNSS that is 
higher than the level for safety-related SSCs. Therefore, the RTNSS 
missile protection guidance described in the memorandum is no longer 
appropriate. The NRC's position now is that RTNSS ``B'' SSCs should be 
protected from both tornadoes and hurricanes and the missiles they 
might create, and that applicants should choose the design basis wind 
speeds for RTNSS ``B'' SSCs using the guidance in Regulatory Guides 
1.76 and 1.221. Standard Review Plan 19.3 has been revised to reflect 
this position.
    The NRC seeks public comment on a narrow area of focus in the 
reissuance of the SRP Section 19.3, ``Regulatory Treatment of Non-
Safety Systems (RTNSS) for Passive Advanced Light Water Reactors.'' 
This area includes a revised position on treatment of the high winds 
external hazard for certain RTNSS SSCs that is described above and 
elsewhere (ML13081A756) under section ``SRP Acceptance Criteria'' and 
in ``Area of Review--Augmented Design Standards'' shown as item 4 in 
the guidance document page 19.3-8.
    Following NRC staff evaluation of public comments, the NRC intends 
to incorporate the final approved guidance into the next revision of 
NUREG-0800.

Backfitting and Issue Finality

    This draft SRP, if finalized, would provide guidance to the staff 
for reviewing applications for a construction permit and an operating 
license under part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) with respect to the regulatory treatment of non-safety 
systems. The draft SRP would also provide guidance for reviewing an 
application for a standard design approval, a standard design 
certification, a combined license, and a manufacturing license under 
part 52 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) with 
respect to these same subject matters.
    Issuance of this draft SRP, if finalized, would not constitute 
backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109, or otherwise be inconsistent 
with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The staff's 
position is based upon the following considerations.
    1. The draft SRP positions, if finalized, do not constitute 
backfitting, inasmuch as the SRP is internal guidance to NRC staff.
    The SRP provides interim guidance to the staff on how to review an 
application for NRC regulatory approval in the form of licensing. 
Changes in internal staff guidance are not matters for which applicants 
or licensees are protected under 10 CFR 50.109 or issue finality 
provisions in 10 CFR Part 52.
    2. Backfitting and issue finality--with certain exceptions 
discussed below--do not protect current or future applicants.
    Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain 
exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality 
provisions under 10 CFR part 52. This is because neither the Backfit 
Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52--with 
certain exclusions discussed below--were intended to apply to every NRC 
action which substantially changes the expectations of current and 
future applicants.
    The exceptions to this general principle are applicable whenever an 
applicant references a 10 CFR Part 52 license (e.g., an early site 
permit) and/or NRC regulatory approval (e.g., a design certification 
rule) with specified issue finality provisions. The staff does not, at 
this time, intend to impose the positions represented in the draft SRP 
section (if finalized) in a manner that is inconsistent with any issue 
finality provisions. If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a 
position in the draft SRP section (if finalized) in a manner which does 
not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue 
finality provision, then the staff must address the criteria for 
avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality 
provision.
    3. The staff has no intention to impose the draft SRP positions on 
existing nuclear power plant licenses or regulatory approvals either 
now or in the future (absent a voluntary request for change from the 
licensee, holder of a regulatory approval, or a design certification 
applicant).
    The staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions 
described in the draft SRP section to existing (already issued) 
licenses (e.g., operating licenses and combined licenses) and 
regulatory approvals--in this case, design certifications. Hence, the 
draft SRP--

[[Page 41438]]

even if considered guidance which is within the purview of the issue 
finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52--need not be evaluated as if it 
were a backfit or as being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. 
If, in the future, the staff seeks to impose a position in the draft 
SRP (if finalized) on holders of already issued licenses in a manner 
which does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable 
issue finality provision, then the staff must make the showing as set 
forth in the Backfit Rule, or address the criteria for avoiding issue 
finality as described applicable issue finality provision, as 
applicable.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of June 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph Colaccino,
Chief, Policy Branch, Division of Advanced Reactors and Rulemaking, 
Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2013-16586 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P