[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10269-10288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#531032213c3f7d14323f3f32343b3621133d21307d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="236042514c4f0d64424f4f42444b4651634d51400d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
    E-mail comments to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d5f786168606c6664636a234e6260606863797e4d637f6e236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ac8eff6fff7fbf1f3f4fdb4d9f5f7f7fff4eee9daf4e8f9b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>. 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fb889e89928f9ad5889a959f9e8988bb958998d59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c6f796e75687d326f7d7278796e6f5c726e7f327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>.

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, http://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove 
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against 
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be 
publicly disclosed. The NRC requests that any party soliciting or 
aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the 
NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to 
remove any identifying or contact information, and, therefore, they 
should not include any information in their comments that they do not 
want publicly disclosed.
    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 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain 
entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR 
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e4b4a0b6cab681978b91968781a48a9687ca838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f5f4b5d215d6a7c607a7d6c6a4f617d6c21686079">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and supporting 
materials related to this proposed rule can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2010-0131.
    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:
    <bullet> Removal of Human Factors Engineering (HFE) Design 
Acceptance Criteria (DAC) from the DCD
    <bullet> Change to Instrumentation and Control (I&C) DAC and 
Inspection, Test, Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
    <bullet> Minimization of Contamination
    <bullet> Extension of Seismic Spectra to Soil Sites and Changes to 
Stability and Uniformity of Subsurface Materials and Foundations
    <bullet> Long-Term Cooling
    <bullet> Control Room Emergency Habitability System
    <bullet> Changes to the Component Cooling Water System (CCWS)
    <bullet> Changes to I&C Systems
    <bullet> Changes to the Passive Core Cooling System (PCCS)--Gas 
Intrusion
    <bullet> Integrated Head Package (IHP)--Use of the QuickLoc 
Mechanism
    <bullet> Reactor Coolant Pump Design
    <bullet> Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Support System
    <bullet> Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Decay Heat Analysis and Associated 
Design Changes
    <bullet> Spent Fuel Rack Design and Criticality Analysis
    <bullet> 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 http://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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="750700191018141e1c1b125b161a1818101b0106351b07165b121a03">[email protected]</a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c3e253838293e3f290c3b293f3825222b2423393f29622f2321"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2b0abb6b6a7b0b1a782b5a7b1b6abaca5aaadb7b1a7eca1adaf">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 contact the NRC's Office of Administration 
at 301-492-3524.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d1b322f302e730f382e32282f3e381d332f3e733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="397f564b544a176b5c4a564c4b5a5c79574b5a175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>. 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This fee is subject to change pursuant to the OPM's 
adjustable billing rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) If the requester or any individual who will have access to SGI 
believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals 
relieved from the criminal history records check and background check 
requirements, as stated in 10 CFR 73.59, the requester should also 
provide a statement specifically stating which relief the requester is 
invoking, and explaining the requester's basis (including supporting 
documentation) for believing that the relief is applicable. While 
processing the request, the NRC's Office of Administration, Personnel 
Security Branch, will make a final determination whether the stated 
relief applies. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Office of 
Administration for an evaluation of their status prior to submitting 
the request. Persons who are not subject to the background check are 
not required to complete the 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.

[[Page 10279]]

    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 toll-free 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1d534f52425c7171787a7c697472736e5d736f7e337a726b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9f7ebf6e6f8d5d5dcded8cdd0d6d7caf9d7cbda97ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>, 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.
    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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#145a465b4b557878717375607d7b7a67547a66773a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1afb3aebea08d8d84868095888e8f92a18f9382cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 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

[[Page 10280]]

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 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 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: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html 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

[[Page 10281]]

Services Branch (T5-F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6bfb8b0b9b5b9babab3b5a2a5d8a4b3a5b9a3a4b5b3b6b8a4b5d8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e676068616d6162626b6d7a7d007c6b7d617b7c6d6b6e607c6d00696178">[email protected]</span></a>; and to the Desk Officer, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0151), Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments on the proposed 
information collections may also be submitted via the Federal 
rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID NRC-2010-
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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83c0ebf1eaf0f7eaede6dcc9addcc8faeeedc3eceee1ade6ecf3ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a8ebc0dac1dbdcc1c6cdf7e286f7e3d1c5c6e8c7c5ca86cdc7d886cfc7de">[email protected]</span></a> or comment by telephone at 202-395-
4638.

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 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 Westinghouse-requested 
changes to the AP1000 to 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,

[[Page 10282]]

previously accepted by the NRC, are contained in Revision 18 to the 
DCD.
    A September 22, 2008, Westinghouse letter provides a similar set of 
cross-references 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 cross-reference 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 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 Sec.  
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 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 microprocessor-based 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 10283]]

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 plant-specific 
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 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 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 currently-approved hard rock sites. Therefore, 
the change increases standardization and

[[Page 10284]]

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 long-term recirculation cooling 
following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The COL information item 
related to verification of water sources for long-term recirculation 
cooling following a LOCA was closed based on Westinghouse TR-26, 
``AP1000 Verification of Water Sources for Long-Term 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 long-term 
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 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, 
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

[[Page 10285]]

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 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 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

[[Page 10286]]

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 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.
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:

[[Page 10287]]

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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7ebeee5f5e6f5fe89f5e2f4e8f2f5e4e2e7e9f5e489e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbf7f2f9e9fae9e295e9fee8f4eee9f8fefbf5e9f895fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>. The DCD can also be viewed on the Federal 
rulemaking Web site http://www.regulations.gov by searching for 
documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2010-0131 or in the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at http://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 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.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.
* * * * *

IV. Additional Requirements and Restrictions

    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.
* * * * *

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.
* * * * *

VI. Issue Resolution

* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *

VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures

* * * * *
    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:
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    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. * * *

[[Page 10288]]

    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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>