Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10269 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with allowing the 

importation of ovine meat from Uruguay 

into the United States, we have 

prepared an environmental assessment. 

The environmental assessment was 

prepared in accordance with: (1) The 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The environmental assessment may 

be viewed on the Internet on the 

Regulations.gov Web site and is 

available for public inspection in our 

reading room. (Instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room 

are provided under the heading 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

proposed rule.) In addition, copies may 

be obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, 

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry 

and poultry products, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, we are proposing to 

amend 9 CFR Part 94 as follows: 

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, EXOTIC 

NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN 

SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE 

FEVER, SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE, 

AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM 

ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED 

AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 94 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 

8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

2. Section 94.1 is amended by revising 

paragraph (b)(4) and the introductory 

text of paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 94.1 Regions where rinderpest or footand-mouth disease exists; importations 

prohibited. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Except as provided in § 94.22 for 

fresh (chilled or frozen) beef and ovine 

meat from Uruguay. 

* * * * * 

(d) Except as otherwise provided in 

this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) meat 

of ruminants or swine raised and 

slaughtered in a region free of foot-andmouth disease and rinderpest, as 

designated in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, and fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef and ovine meat exported from 

Uruguay in accordance with § 94.22, 

which during shipment to the United 

States enters a port or otherwise transits 

a region where rinderpest or foot-andmouth disease exists, may be imported 

provided that all of the following 

conditions are met: 

* * * * * 

3. Section 94.22 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 94.22 Restrictions on importation of beef 

and ovine meat from Uruguay. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) beef 

and ovine meat from Uruguay may be 

exported to the United States under the 

following conditions: 

(a) The meat is beef and ovine meat 

from animals that have been born, 

raised, and slaughtered in Uruguay. 

(b) If foot-and-mouth disease is 

detected anywhere in Uruguay, the 

export of beef and ovine meat from all 

of Uruguay to the United States is 

prohibited until at least 12 months have 

elapsed since the depopulation, 

cleaning, and disinfection of the last 

infected premises. 

(c) The meat comes from bovines and 

sheep that originate from premises 

where foot-and-mouth disease has not 

been present during the lifetime of any 

bovines and sheep slaughtered for the 

export of beef and ovine meat to the 

United States. 

(d) The meat comes from bovines and 

sheep that were moved directly from the 

premises of origin to the slaughtering 

establishment without any contact with 

other animals. 

(e) The meat comes from bovines and 

sheep that received ante-mortem and 

post-mortem veterinary inspections, 

paying particular attention to the head 

and feet, at the slaughtering 

establishment, with no evidence found 

of vesicular disease. 

(f) The meat consists only of bovine 

parts and ovine parts that are, by 

standard practice, part of the animal’s 

carcass that is placed in a chiller for 

maturation after slaughter. The bovine 

and ovine parts that may not be 

imported include all parts of the head, 

feet, hump, hooves, and internal organs. 

(g) All bone and visually identifiable 

blood clots and lymphoid tissue have 

been removed from the meat. 

(h) The meat has not been in contact 

with meat from regions other than those 

listed in § 94.1(a)(2). 

(i) The meat comes from carcasses 

that were allowed to maturate at 40 to 

50 °F (4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 36 

hours after slaughter and that reached a 

pH of 5.8 or less in the loin muscle at 

the end of the maturation period. 

Measurements for pH must be taken at 

the middle of both longissimus dorsi 

muscles. Any carcass in which the pH 

does not reach 5.8 or less may be 

allowed to maturate an additional 24 

hours and be retested, and, if the carcass 

still has not reached a pH of 5.8 or less 

after 60 hours, the meat from the carcass 

may not be exported to the United 

States. 

(j) An authorized veterinary official of 

the Government of Uruguay certifies on 

the foreign meat inspection certificate 

that the above conditions have been 

met. 

(k) The establishment in which the 

bovines and sheep are slaughtered 

allows periodic on-site evaluation and 

subsequent inspection of its facilities, 

records, and operations by an APHIS 

representative. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

February 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4138 Filed 2–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 52 

[NRC–2010–0131] 

RIN 3150–AI81 

AP1000 Design Certification 

Amendment 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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. 

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: 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at 301–415–1677. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

during Federal workdays (telephone: 

301–415–1677). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Serita Sanders, Office of New Reactors, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–2956; e-mail: 

serita.sanders@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Submitting Comments and Accessing 

Information 

II. Background 

III. Discussion 

A. Technical Evaluation of Westinghouse 

Amendment to the AP1000 Design 

B. Changes to Appendix D 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

A. Introduction (Section I) 

B. Scope and Contents (Section III) 

C. Additional Requirements and 

Restrictions (Section IV) 

D. Applicable Regulations (Section V) 

E. Issue Resolution (Section VI) 

F. Processes for Changes and Departures 

(Section VIII) 

G. Records and Reporting (Section X) 

V. Agreement State Compatibility 

VI. Availability of Documents 

VII. Procedures for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information 

(Including Proprietary Information) and 

Safeguards Information for Preparation 

of Comments on the Proposed 

Amendment to the AP1000 Design 

Certification 

VIII. Plain Language 

IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

X. Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact: Availability 

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

XII. Regulatory Analysis 

XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

XIV. Backfitting 

I. Submitting Comments and Accessing 

Information 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be posted on the 

NRC Web site and on the Federal 

rulemaking Web site, 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 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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. 

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 designrelated COL information items, as well as 

design information to make corrections and 

changes, would result in further 

standardization and improved licensing 

efficiency for the multiple COL applications 

referencing the AP1000 DCR that were 

planned for submittal in late 2007 and early 

2008. 

(2) Westinghouse, in conjunction with 

NuStart, has been preparing TRs since late 

2005. These TRs were developed with input, 

review, comment, and other technical 

oversight provided by NuStart members, 

including the prospective AP1000 COL 

applicants. Submittal of these TRs to the NRC 

was initiated in March 2006. The TRs contain 

discussion of the technical changes and 

supplemental information that is used to 

support the detailed information contained 

in the DCD. 

In Attachment 2 to the May 26, 2007, 

application, Westinghouse identified 

the criteria of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) that 

apply to the changes described in each 

TR and associated COL information 

items, if applicable. 

On January 18, 2008, the NRC notified 

Westinghouse that it accepted the May 

26, 2007, application, as supplemented, 

for docketing (Docket No. 52–006) and 

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 crossreference to the DCD changes and the 

applicable 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) criteria. 

Revision 17 provides a similar crossreference in the September 22, 2008, 

Westinghouse letter for those changes 

associated with the revised DCD. 

Revision 16 on the other hand, uses TRs 

to identify the DCD changes and lists 

the corresponding applicable 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1) criteria via Westinghouse 

memorandum, dated May 26, 2007 

(Table 1). 

As of the date of this document, the 

application for amendment of the 

AP1000 design certification has been 

referenced in the following COL 

applications: 

Vogtle, Units 3 and 4, Docket No. 

05200025/6, 73 FR 33118; 

Bellefonte Nuclear Station, Units 3 

and 4, Docket Nos. 05200014/5, 73 FR 

4923; 

Levy County, Units 1 and 2, Docket 

Nos. 05200029/30, 73 FR 60726; 

Shearon Harris, Units 2 and 3, Docket 

Nos. 05200022/3, 73 FR 21995; 

Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7, Docket 

Nos. 05200040/1, 74 FR 51621; 

Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 and 3, 

Docket Nos. 05200027/8, 73 FR 45793; 

William States Lee III, Units 1 and 2, 

Docket Nos. 05200018/9, 73 FR 11156. 

III. Discussion 

A. Technical Evaluation of 

Westinghouse Amendment to the 

AP1000 Design 

Westinghouse’s request to amend the 

AP1000 design contained several classes 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10272 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

of changes. Each class is discussed 

below: 

Editorial Changes 

Westinghouse requested changes to 

the AP1000 DCD to correct spelling, 

punctuation, grammar, designations, 

and references. None of these changes is 

intended to make any substantive 

changes to the certified design, and 

NUREG–1793, ‘‘Final Safety Evaluation 

Report Related to Certification of the 

AP1000 Standard Design,’’ Supplement 

2 (SER) does not address these changes. 

Changes To Address Consistency and 

Uniformity 

Westinghouse requested changes to 

the AP1000 DCD to achieve consistency 

and uniformity in the description of the 

certified design throughout the DCD. 

For example, a change to the type of 

reactor coolant pump (RCP) motor is 

evaluated in Chapter 5 of the SER on the 

application for the AP1000 amendment; 

Westinghouse requested that wherever 

this RCP motor is described in the DCD, 

the new description of the changed 

motor be used. The NRC reviewed the 

proposed change (to be used 

consistently throughout the DCD) to 

ensure that the proposed changes 

needed for uniformity and consistency 

are technically acceptable and do not 

adversely affect the previously approved 

design description. The NRC’s bases for 

approval of these changes are set forth 

in the SER for the AP1000 amendment. 

Substantive Technical Changes to the 

AP1000 Design (Other Than Those 

Needed for Compliance With the AIA 

Rule) 

Among the many technical changes 

that are proposed by Westinghouse for 

inclusion in Revision 18 of the AP1000 

DCD, the NRC selected 15 substantive 

changes for specific discussion in this 

proposed rule document, based on their 

safety significance: 

• Removal of Human Factors 

Engineering (HFE) Design Acceptance 

Criteria (DAC) from the DCD 

• Change to Instrumentation and 

Control (I&C) DAC and Inspection, Test, 

Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria 

(ITAAC) 

• Minimization of Contamination 

• Extension of Seismic Spectra to Soil 

Sites and Changes to Stability and 

Uniformity of Subsurface Materials and 

Foundations 

• Long-Term Cooling 

• Control Room Emergency 

Habitability System 

• Changes to the Component Cooling 

Water System (CCWS) 

• Changes to I&C Systems 

• Changes to the Passive Core Cooling 

System (PCCS)—Gas Intrusion 

• Integrated Head Package (IHP)—Use 

of the QuickLoc Mechanism 

• Reactor Coolant Pump Design 

• Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) 

Support System 

• Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Decay Heat 

Analysis and Associated Design 

Changes 

• Spent Fuel Rack Design and 

Criticality Analysis 

• Vacuum Relief System 

The NRC evaluated each of the 

proposed changes and concluded that 

they are acceptable. The NRC’s bases for 

approval of these changes are set forth 

in the SER for the AP1000 amendment. 

Further information about how each of 

these changes is provided in Section 

XIV, ‘‘Backfitting,’’ of this document. 

Changes To Address Compliance With 

the AIA Rule 

Westinghouse requested changes to 

the AP1000 design in order to comply 

with the requirements of the AIA rule, 

10 CFR 50.150. The NRC confirmed that 

Westinghouse has adequately described 

key AIA design features and functional 

capabilities in accordance with the AIA 

rule and conducted an assessment 

reasonably formulated to identify design 

features and functional capabilities to 

show, with reduced use of operator 

action, that the facility can withstand 

the effects of an aircraft impact. In 

addition, the NRC determined that there 

will be no adverse impacts from 

complying with the requirements for 

consideration of aircraft impacts on 

conclusions reached by the NRC in its 

review of the original U.S. AP1000 

design certification. The NRC’s bases for 

approval of these changes are set forth 

in the SER for the AP1000 amendment. 

As a result of these changes, the AP1000 

design will achieve the Commission’s 

objectives of enhanced public health 

and safety and enhanced common 

defense and security through 

improvement of the facility’s inherent 

robustness to the impact of a large 

commercial aircraft at the design stage. 

B. Changes to Appendix D 

1. Scope and Contents (Section III) 

The purpose of Section III is to 

describe and define the scope and 

contents of this design certification and 

to present how documentation 

discrepancies or inconsistencies are to 

be resolved. Paragraph A is the required 

statement of the Office of the Federal 

Register (OFR) for approval of the 

incorporation by reference of Tier 1, 

Tier 2, and the generic technical 

specifications (TSs) into this appendix. 

The NRC is proposing to update the 

revision number of the DCD that would 

be incorporated by reference to the 

revision Westinghouse provided to the 

NRC in its application for amendment to 

this DCR. 

The legal effect of incorporation by 

reference is that the incorporated 

material has the same legal status as if 

it were published in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. This material, like any 

other properly issued regulation, has the 

force and effect of law. The AP1000 

DCD was prepared to meet the technical 

information contents of application 

requirements for design certifications 

under 10 CFR 52.47(a) and the 

requirements of the OFR for 

incorporation by reference under 10 

CFR part 51. One requirement of the 

OFR for incorporation by reference is 

that the applicant for the design 

certification (or amendment to the 

design certification) makes the generic 

DCD available upon request after the 

final rule becomes effective. Therefore, 

paragraph A would identify a 

Westinghouse representative to be 

contacted to obtain a copy of the 

AP1000 DCD. The NRC is proposing to 

update the Westinghouse 

representative’s contact information in 

this DCR. 

The AP1000 DCD is electronically 

accessible under ADAMS Accession No. 

ML103480572, at the OFR, and at 

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 upto-date copy of the master DCD under 

paragraph A.1 in Section X and that it 

include any generic changes made. 

The NRC is also proposing a change 

to paragraph D. Paragraph D establishes 

the generic DCD as the controlling 

document in the event of an 

inconsistency between the DCD and the 

design certification application or the 

FSER for the certified standard design. 

The proposed revision would renumber 

paragraph D as paragraph D.1, clarify 

this requirement as applying to the 

initial design certification, and add a 

similar paragraph D.2 to indicate that 

this is also the case for an inconsistency 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 NonSafeguards Information and Safeguards 

Information for Contention Preparation 

(75 FR 34777; June 18, 2010); Notice of 

Receipt of Application for License; 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

License; Notice of Hearing and 

Commission Order and Order Imposing 

Procedures for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information and Safeguards Information 

for Contention Preparation; In the 

Matter of AREVA Enrichment Services, 

LLC (Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility) 

(74 FR 38052; July 30, 2009). 

In the four currently approved design 

certifications (10 CFR part 52, 

Appendices A through D), paragraph E 

presents specific directions on how to 

obtain access to PI and SGI on the 

design certification in connection with 

a license application proceeding 

referencing that DCR. The NRC is 

proposing this change because these 

provisions were developed before the 

terrorist events of September 11, 2001. 

After September 11, 2001, Congress 

changed the statutory requirements 

governing access to SGI, and the NRC 

revised its rules, procedures, and 

practices governing control and access 

to SUNSI and SGI. The NRC now 

believes that generic direction on 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10274 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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, plantspecific departures from the AIA 

information in the FSAR would not 

require a license amendment, but may 

be made by the licensee upon 

compliance with the substantive 

requirements of the AIA rule (i.e., the 

AIA rule acceptance criteria). The 

applicant or licensee would also be 

required to document, in the plantspecific departure, how the modified 

design features and functional 

capabilities continue to meet the 

assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1), in accordance with Section 

X of Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. 

Applicants and licensees making 

changes to design features or 

capabilities included in the certified 

design may also need to develop 

alternate means to cope with the loss of 

large areas of the plant from explosions 

or fires to comply with the requirements 

in 10 CFR 50.54(hh). The proposed 

addition of these provisions to 

Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 is 

consistent with the NRC’s intent when 

it issued the AIA rule in 2009, as noted 

in the statements of consideration for 

that rule (74 FR 28112; June 12, 2009, 

at page 28122, third column). 

Paragraph B.6 of Appendix D to 10 

CFR part 52 provides a process for 

departing from Tier 2* information. The 

creation of, and restrictions on 

changing, Tier 2* information resulted 

from the development of the Tier 1 

information for the ABWR design 

certification (Appendix A to 10 CFR 

part 52) and the ABB–CE [ASEA Brown 

Boveri—Combustion Engineering] 

System 80+ design certification 

(Appendix B to 10 CFR part 52). During 

this development process, these 

applicants requested that the amount of 

information in Tier 1 be minimized to 

provide additional flexibility for an 

applicant or licensee who references 

these appendices. Also, many codes, 

standards, and design processes that 

would not be specified in Tier 1, but 

were acceptable for meeting ITAAC, 

were specified in Tier 2. The result of 

these actions was that certain significant 

information only exists in Tier 2 and the 

Commission did not want this 

significant information to be changed 

without prior NRC approval. This Tier 

2* information was identified in the 

generic DCD with italicized text and 

brackets (See Table 1–1 of the AP1000 

DCD Introduction for a list of the Tier 

2* items). Although the Tier 2* 

designation was originally intended to 

last for the lifetime of the facility, like 

Tier 1 information, the NRC determined 

that some of the Tier 2* information 

could expire when the plant first 

achieves full power (100 percent), after 

the finding required by 10 CFR 

52.103(g), while other Tier 2* 

information must remain in effect 

throughout the life of the facility. The 

factors determining whether Tier 2* 

information could expire after the first 

full-power was achieved were whether 

the Tier 1 information would govern 

these areas after first full-power and the 

NRC’s determination that prior approval 

was required before implementation of 

the change due to the significance of the 

information. Therefore, certain Tier 2* 

information listed in paragraph B.6.c 

would cease to retain its Tier 2* 

designation after full-power operation is 

first achieved following the Commission 

finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). 

Thereafter, that information would be 

deemed to be Tier 2 information that 

would be subject to the departure 

requirements in paragraph B.5. By 

contrast, the Tier 2* information 

identified in paragraph B.6.b would 

retain its Tier 2* designation throughout 

the duration of the license, including 

any period of license renewal. 

The NRC is proposing to revise 

certain items designated as Tier 2*. The 

item on HFE would be moved from 

paragraph B.5.b to paragraph B.5.c, with 

the effect that the Tier 2* designation on 

that information would expire after fullpower operation is achieved rather than 

never expiring. In addition, a new item 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 (securityrelated information), which is required 

by 10 CFR 2.390 to be protected in the 

same manner as commercial or financial 

information (i.e., they are exempt from 

public disclosure). This change is 

necessary because the NRC is proposing 

to approve PI and security-related 

information. This change would also 

ensure that Westinghouse (as well as 

any future applicants for amendments to 

the AP1000 DCR who intend to supply 

the certified design) are required to 

maintain a copy of the applicable 

generic DCD, and maintain the 

applicable SUNSI (including PI) and 

SGI—developed by that applicant—that 

were approved as part of the relevant 

design certification rulemakings. 

The NRC notes that the generic DCD 

concept was developed, in part, to meet 

OFR requirements for incorporation by 

reference, including public availability 

of documents incorporated by reference. 

However, the PI and SGI were not 

included in the public version of the 

DCD. Only the public version of the 

generic DCD would be identified and 

incorporated by reference into this rule. 

Nonetheless, the SUNSI for this 

amendment was reviewed by the NRC 

and, as stated in paragraph B.2, the NRC 

would consider the information to be 

resolved within the meaning of 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(5). Because this information is 

in the non-public version of the DCD, 

this SUNSI (including PI) and SGI, or its 

equivalent, is required to be provided by 

an applicant for a license referencing 

this DCR. 

In addition, the NRC is proposing to 

add a new paragraph A.4.a that would 

require the applicant for the AP1000 

design to maintain a copy of the AIA 

performed to comply with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) for the 

term of the certification (including any 

period of renewal). The NRC is also 

proposing a new paragraph A.4.b that 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10276 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

broader term ‘‘sensitive unclassified 

non-safeguards information.’’ 

The NRC is also proposing to add a 

new paragraph A.4 to indicate 

requirements that must be met in cases 

where the COL applicant is not using 

the entity that was the original applicant 

for the design certification (or 

amendment) to supply the design for the 

applicant’s use. Proposed paragraph A.4 

would require a COL applicant 

referencing Appendix D to 10 CFR part 

52 to include, as part of its application, 

a demonstration that an entity other 

than Westinghouse is qualified to 

supply the AP1000 certified design, 

unless Westinghouse supplies the 

design for the applicant’s use. In cases 

where a COL applicant is not using 

Westinghouse to supply the AP1000 

certified design, the required 

information would be used to support 

any NRC finding under 10 CFR 52.73(a) 

that an entity other than the one 

originally sponsoring the design 

certification or design certification 

amendment is qualified to supply the 

certified design. 

D. Applicable Regulations (Section V) 

The NRC proposes to revise paragraph 

A to distinguish between the regulations 

that are applicable and in effect at the 

time the initial design certification was 

approved (paragraph A.1) and the 

regulations that would be applicable 

and in effect at the time that 

Amendment 1 is approved (paragraph 

A.2). 

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 fullpower 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10277 

2The 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. 

3For 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. 

documentation retained onsite should 

describe the methodology used in 

performing the assessment, including 

the identification of potential design 

features and functional capabilities to 

show that the acceptance criteria in 10 

CFR 50.150(a)(1) would be met. 

V. Agreement State Compatibility 

Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on 

Adequacy and Compatibility of 

Agreement States Programs,’’ approved 

by the Commission on June 20, 1997, 

and published in the Federal Register 

(62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997), this 

rule is classified as compatibility ‘‘NRC.’’ 

Compatibility is not required for 

Category ‘‘NRC’’ regulations. The NRC 

program elements in this category are 

those that relate directly to areas of 

regulation reserved to the NRC by the 

Act or the provisions of this section. 

Although an Agreement State may not 

adopt program elements reserved to the 

NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees 

of certain requirements by a mechanism 

that is consistent with the particular 

State’s administrative procedure laws. 

Category ‘‘NRC’’ regulations do not 

confer regulatory authority on the State. 

VI. Availability of Documents 

The NRC is making the documents 

identified below available to interested 

persons through one or more of the 

following methods, as indicated. To 

access documents related to this action, 

see Section I, ‘‘Submitting Comments 

and Accessing Information’’ of this 

notice. 

Document PDR Web ADAMS 

SECY–11–0002, ‘‘Proposed Rule—AP1000 Design Certification Amendment’’ ............. X X ML103000397 

AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) Revision 18, Transmittal Letter ................... X X ML103480059 

Westinghouse AP1000 DCD Revision 18 (public version) ............................................. X ............................ ML103480572 

Advanced Final Safety Evaluation Report for Revision 18 to the AP1000 Standard 

Design Certification (publicly available) ....................................................................... X ............................ ML103260072 

AP1000 Environmental Assessment ............................................................................... X X ML103000415 

Interim Staff Guidance DC/COL–ISG–011, ‘‘Finalizing Licensing-basis Information’’ .... X X ML092890623 

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-Term Recirculation Cooling 

Following a LOCA,’’ Revision 8 ................................................................................... X X ML102170123 

TR–54, ‘‘Spent Fuel Storage Racks Structure and Seismic Analysis,’’ Revision 4 ........ X X ML101580475 

TR–65, ‘‘Spent Fuel Storage Racks Criticality Analysis,’’ Revision 2 ............................. X X ML100082093 

TR–103, ‘‘Fluid System Changes,’’ Revision 2 ............................................................... X X ML072830060 

‘‘Evaluation of the Effect of the AP1000 Enhanced Shield Building on the Containment Response and Safety Analysis,’’ Revision 1 ...................................................... X X ML102220579 

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 FSER to AP1000 DCD) ..... X X ML103410351 

December 20, 2010 ACRS Letter to Chairman (Long-Term Core Cooling) ................... X X ML103410348 

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. 

Interested persons who desire access 

to SUNSI information on the AP1000 

design constituting PI should first 

request access to that information from 

the design certification applicant. A 

request for access should be submitted 

to the NRC if the applicant does not 

either grant or deny access by the 

10-day deadline described below. 

Submitting a Request to the NRC 

Within 10 days after publication of 

this document, an individual or entity 

(thereinafter, the ‘‘requester’’) may 

request access to such information. 

Requests for access to SUNSI or SGI 

submitted more than 10 days after 

publication of this document will not be 

considered absent a showing of good 

cause for the late filing explaining why 

the request could not have been filed 

earlier. 

The requester shall submit a letter 

requesting permission to access SUNSI 

and/or SGI to the Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Attention: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff, Washington DC 

20555–0001. The expedited delivery or 

courier mail address is: Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Attention: Rulemakings 

and Adjudications Staff, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. The e-mail address for the Office 

of the Secretary is 

rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov. The 

requester must send a copy of the 

request to the design certification 

applicant at the same time as the 

original transmission to the NRC using 

the same method of transmission. 

Copies of the request to the applicant 

must be sent to Stanley E. Ritterbusch, 

Manager, AP1000 Design Certification, 

Westinghouse Electric Company, 1000 

Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10278 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4Broad 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. 

5The 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. 

6This fee is subject to change pursuant to the 

OPM’s adjustable billing rates. 

Township, PA 16066, or by e-mail to 

ritterse@westinghouse.com. For 

purposes of complying with this 

requirement, a ‘‘request’’ includes all the 

information required to be submitted to 

the NRC as presented in this section. 

The request must include the 

following information: 

1. The name of this design 

certification amendment (AP1000 

Design Certification Amendment), the 

rulemaking identification number RIN 

3150–AI81, the rulemaking Docket ID 

NRC–2010–0131, and a citation to this 

document at the top of the first page of 

the request; 

2. The name, address, e-mail, or fax 

number of the requester. If the requester 

is an entity, the name of the 

individual(s) to whom access is to be 

provided, then the address and e-mail or 

fax number for each individual, and a 

statement of the authority granted by the 

entity to each individual to review the 

information and to prepare comments 

on behalf of the entity must be 

provided. If the requester is relying 

upon another individual to evaluate the 

requested SUNSI and/or SGI and 

prepare comments, then the name, 

affiliation, address, and e-mail or fax 

number for that individual must be 

provided. 

3.(a) If the request is for SUNSI, then 

the requester’s need for the information 

to prepare meaningful comments on the 

proposed design certification must be 

demonstrated. Each of the following 

areas must be addressed with 

specificity. 

(i) The specific issue or subject matter 

on which the requester wishes to 

comment; 

(ii) An explanation why information 

which is publicly available, including 

the publicly available versions of the 

application and DCD, and information 

on the NRC’s docket for the design 

certification application is insufficient 

to provide the basis for developing 

meaningful comment on the proposed 

design certification with respect to the 

issue or subject matter described 

previously in paragraph 3.(a)(i); and 

(iii) Information demonstrating that 

the individual to whom access is to be 

provided has the technical competence 

(demonstrable knowledge, skill, 

experience, education, training, or 

certification) to understand and use (or 

evaluate) the requested information for 

a meaningful comment on the proposed 

design certification with respect to the 

issue or subject matter described in 

paragraph 3.(a)(i) above. 

(b) If the request is for SUNSI 

constituting PI, then a chronology and 

discussion of the requester’s attempts to 

obtain the information from the design 

certification applicant, and the final 

communication from the requester to 

the applicant and the applicant’s 

response with respect to the request for 

access to PI must be submitted. 

4.(a) If the request is for SGI, then the 

requester’s ‘‘need to know’’ the SGI must 

be demonstrated as required by 10 CFR 

73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent 

with the definition of ‘‘need to know’’ as 

stated in 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 

73.22(b)(1), each of the following areas 

must be addressed with specificity: 

(i) The specific issue or subject matter 

on which the requester wishes to 

comment; 

(ii) An explanation why information 

which is publicly available, including 

the publicly available versions of the 

application and DCD, and information 

on the NRC’s docket for the design 

certification application is insufficient 

to provide the basis for developing 

meaningful comment on the proposed 

design certification with respect to the 

issue or subject matter described in 

paragraph 4.(a)(i) above, and that the 

SGI requested is indispensible in order 

to develop meaningful comments; 4

(iii) Information demonstrating that 

the individual to whom access is to be 

provided has the technical competence 

(demonstrable knowledge, skill, 

experience, education, training, or 

certification) to understand and use (or 

evaluate) the requested SGI, for 

meaningful comment on the proposed 

design certification with respect to the 

issue or subject matter described in 

paragraph 4.(a)(i) above. 

(b) A completed Form SF–85, 

‘‘Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive 

Positions,’’ must be submitted for each 

individual who would have access to 

SGI. The completed Form SF–85 will be 

used by the Office of Administration to 

conduct the background check required 

for access to SGI, as required by 10 CFR 

part 2, Subpart G, and 10 CFR 

73.22(b)(2), to determine the requester’s 

trustworthiness and reliability. For 

security reasons, Form SF–85 can only 

be submitted electronically through the 

electronic Questionnaire for 

Investigations Processing (e-QIP) Web 

site, a secure Web site that is owned and 

operated by the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). To obtain online 

access to the form, the requester should 

contact the NRC’s Office of 

Administration at 301–492–3524.5

(c) A completed Form FD–258 

(fingerprint card), signed in original ink, 

and submitted under 10 CFR 73.57(d). 

Copies of Form FD–258 may be obtained 

by writing the Office of Information 

Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; by calling 301–415–5877 or 301– 

492–7311; or by e-mail to 

Forms.Resource@nrc.gov. The 

fingerprint card will be used to satisfy 

the requirements of 10 CFR Part 2, 10 

CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the 

Act, which mandates that all persons 

with access to SGI must be fingerprinted 

for a Federal Bureau of Investigation 

identification and criminal history 

records check; 

(d) A check or money order in the 

amount of $200.00 6 payable to the NRC 

for each individual for whom the 

request for access has been submitted; 

and 

(e) If the requester or any individual 

who will have access to SGI believes 

they belong to one or more of the 

categories of individuals relieved from 

the criminal history records check and 

background check requirements, as 

stated in 10 CFR 73.59, the requester 

should also provide a statement 

specifically stating which relief the 

requester is invoking, and explaining 

the requester’s basis (including 

supporting documentation) for believing 

that the relief is applicable. While 

processing the request, the NRC’s Office 

of Administration, Personnel Security 

Branch, will make a final determination 

whether the stated relief applies. 

Alternatively, the requester may contact 

the Office of Administration for an 

evaluation of their status prior to 

submitting the request. Persons who are 

not subject to the background check are 

not required to complete the Form SF– 

85 or Form FD–258; however, all other 

requirements for access to SGI, 

including the need to know, are still 

applicable. 

Copies of documents and materials 

required by paragraphs 4(b), (c), (d), and 

(e), as applicable, of this section of this 

document must be sent to the following 

address: Office of Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Personnel Security Branch, Mail Stop: 

TWB–05 B32M, Washington, DC 20555– 

0012. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 tollfree safety hotline at 800–695–7403. 

Please note that calls to this number are 

not recorded between the hours of 7 

a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. However, 

calls received outside these hours are 

answered by the NRC’s Incident 

Response Operations Center on a 

recorded line. Claims may also be filed 

via e-mail sent to 

NRO_Allegations@nrc.gov, or may be 

sent in writing to the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, ATTN: N. 

Rivera-Feliciano, Mail Stop: T–7D24, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

8. For requests for access to SGI, if the 

NRC determines that the requester has 

established a need to know the SGI, the 

NRC’s Office of Administration will 

then determine, based upon completion 

of the background check, whether the 

proposed recipient is trustworthy and 

reliable, as required for access to SGI by 

10 CFR 73.22(b). If the NRC’s Office of 

Administration determines that the 

individual or individuals are 

trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will 

promptly notify the requester in writing. 

The notification will provide the names 

of approved individuals as well as the 

conditions under which the SGI will be 

provided. Those conditions will 

include, but are not necessarily limited 

to, the signing of a protective order by 

each individual who will be granted 

access to SGI. Claims that the provisions 

of such a protective order have not been 

complied with may be filed by calling 

NRC’s toll-free safety hotline at 1–800– 

695–7403. Please note that calls to this 

number are not recorded between the 

hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. 

However, calls received outside these 

hours are answered by the NRC’s 

Incident Response Operations Center on 

a recorded line. Claims may also be filed 

via e-mail sent to 

NRO_Allegations@nrc.gov, or may be 

sent in writing to the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, ATTN: N. 

Rivera-Feliciano, Mail Stop: T–7D24, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. Because 

SGI requires special handling, initial 

filings with the NRC should be free from 

such specific information. If necessary, 

the NRC will arrange an appropriate 

setting for transmitting SGI to the NRC. 

9. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to 

providing SGI to the requester, the NRC 

will conduct (as necessary) an 

inspection to confirm that the 

recipient’s information protection 

system is sufficient to satisfy the 

requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. 

Alternatively, recipients may choose to 

view SGI at an approved SGI storage 

location rather than establish their own 

SGI protection program to meet SGI 

protection requirements. 

10. Filing of Comments on the 

Proposed Design Certification. Any 

comments in this rulemaking 

proceeding that are based upon the 

disclosed SUNSI or SGI must be filed by 

the requester no later than 25 days after 

receipt of (or access to) that information, 

or the close of the public comment 

period, whichever is later. The 

commenter must comply with the NRC 

requirements regarding the submission 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10280 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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/doccomment/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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10281 

Services Branch (T5–F52), U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, or by e-mail to 

INFOCOLLECTS.RESOURCE@

NRC.GOV; and to the Desk Officer, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, NEOB–10202, (3150–0151), 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC 20503. Comments on 

the proposed information collections 

may also be submitted via the Federal 

rulemaking Web site, 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 Christine_J._Kymn@

omb.eop.gov 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 Westinghouserequested 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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10282 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

previously accepted by the NRC, are 

contained in Revision 18 to the DCD. 

A September 22, 2008, Westinghouse 

letter provides a similar set of crossreferences for those changes associated 

with DCD Revision 17, as compared to 

DCD Revision 16. For Revision 16, in 

contrast, Westinghouse used TRs to 

identify the DCD changes in DCD 

Revision 16, as compared to DCD 

Revision 15, and listed the 

corresponding applicable 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1) criteria in an enclosure to a 

Westinghouse letter dated May 26, 2007 

(Table 1). These tables include the 

editorial and consistency changes 

described above as well as design 

changes. In the course of the NRC 

review of the technical changes 

proposed by Westinghouse, the NRC 

considered the basis offered by 

Westinghouse and made conclusions 

about whether the criteria of 10 CFR 

52.63(a) were satisfied. These 

conclusions are included in the chapters 

of the Advanced Final Safety Evaluation 

Report. The NRC concluded that all of 

these changes met at least one of the 

criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a) and are not 

otherwise inconsistent with the issue 

finality provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 and 

52.83. Fifteen of the most significant 

changes are discussed below, to show 

that each of the 15 substantive changes 

to the AP1000 certified design meet at 

least one of the criteria in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vii) and, 

therefore, do not constitute a violation 

of the finality provisions in that section. 

Revision 17 provides a similar crossreference in the DCD as submitted by a 

September 22, 2008, Westinghouse 

letter for those changes associated with 

Revision 17. Revision 16 on the other 

hand, uses TRs to identify the DCD 

changes and lists the corresponding 

applicable 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) criteria in 

an enclosure to a Westinghouse letter, 

dated May 26, 2007 (Table 1). These 

tables include the editorial and 

consistency changes described above as 

well as design changes. In the course of 

the NRC review of the technical changes 

proposed by Westinghouse, the NRC 

considered the basis offered by 

Westinghouse and made conclusions 

about whether the criteria of 10 CFR 

52.63(a) were satisfied. These 

conclusions are included in the chapters 

of the Advanced Final Safety Evaluation 

Report. The NRC concluded that all of 

these changes met at least one of the 

criteria in 10 CFR 52.63(a) and are not 

otherwise inconsistent with the issue 

finality provisions of 10 CFR 52.63 and 

52.83. Fifteen of the most significant 

changes are discussed below, to show 

that each of the 15 substantive changes 

to the AP1000 certified design meet at 

least one of the criteria in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vii) and, 

therefore, do not constitute a violation 

of the finality provisions in that section. 

I. 10 CFR 52.63 Criterion (a)(1)(iv): 

Provides the Detailed Design 

Information to be Verified under those 

ITAAC, which are Directed at 

Certification Information (i.e., DAC). 

Title: Removal of Human Factors 

Engineering Design Acceptance Criteria 

from the Design Control Document. 

Item: 1 of 15. 

Significant Change: The ITAAC 

Design Commitments for Human Factor 

Engineering (HFE) is in Tier 1, Table 

3.2–1. In Revision 17 of the AP1000 

DCD, Westinghouse proposed deletion 

of the Human Factors DAC (Design 

Commitments 1 through 4) and 

provided sufficient supporting 

documentation to meet the requirements 

of these ITAAC. Design Commitment 1 

pertains to the integration of human 

reliability analysis with HFE design. 

Design Commitment 2 pertains to the 

HFE task analysis. Design Commitment 

3 pertains to the human-system 

interface. Design Commitment 4 

pertains to the HFE program verification 

and validation implementation. The 

information developed by Westinghouse 

to satisfy these ITAAC is included in 

Chapter 18 of the DCD. 

Location within the Safety Evaluation 

(SER) where the changes are principally 

described: 

The details of the NRC’s evaluation of 

Westinghouse’s design features 

associated with the HFE DAC are in 

Sections 18.7.6 (design commitment 1), 

18.5.9 (design commitment 2), 18.2.8 

(design commitment 3), and 18.11 

(design commitment 4) of the SER 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072). 

Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1): 

The additional information included 

in Tier 2 provides detailed design 

information on human factors design 

that would otherwise have to be 

addressed through verification of 

implementation of the human factors 

DAC. Therefore, the changes to the DCD 

eliminate the need for DAC on human 

factors and meet the finality criteria in 

§ 52.63(a)(1)(iv). 

Title: Change to Instrumentation and 

Control DAC and Associated ITAAC. 

Item: 2 of 15. 

Significant Change: In the proposed 

revision to DCD Chapter 7, 

Westinghouse chose the Common Q 

platform to implement the Protection 

and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) 

and removed all references to the Eagle 

21 platform. This design change, 

coupled with the development of other 

information about the PMS system 

definition design phase, was the basis 

for Westinghouse’s proposed removal of 

its Tier 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2, 

Design Commitment 11(a) Design 

Requirements phase from Table 2.5.2–8, 

‘‘Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria,’’ for the PMS. 

In its proposed revision to the DCD in 

Chapter 7, Westinghouse altered its 

design for the Diverse Actuation System 

(DAS) by implementing it with Field 

Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) 

technology instead of microprocessorbased technology. Additional 

information about the design process for 

the DAS was added as the basis for 

Westinghouse’s proposed completion of 

its Tier 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.5.1, 

Design Commitment 4a) and 4b) Design 

Requirements and System Definition 

phases from Table 2.5.1–4 ‘‘Inspections, 

Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance 

Criteria’’ for the DAS. 

Location within the Safety Evaluation 

(SER) where the changes are principally 

described: 

The details of the NRC’s evaluation of 

Westinghouse’s design features 

associated with I&C DAC and ITAAC are 

in Sections 7.2.2.3.14, 7.2.5, 7.8.2, 7.9.2, 

and 7.9.3 of the SER (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML103260072). 

Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1): 

Westinghouse provided additional 

information that incorporates the results 

of the design process implementation 

for the PMS and DAS (which both 

support completion of Design 

Commitments 11a from Table 2.5.2–8 

and 4a and 4b from Table 2.5.1–4, 

respectively) into the DCD. The 

additional information included in Tier 

2 provides detailed design information 

on I&C design that would otherwise 

have to be addressed through 

verification of implementation of the 

I&C DAC. Therefore, the changes to the 

DCD eliminate the need for DAC on 

I&Cs and meet the finality criteria in 

§ 52.63(a)(1)(iv). 

II. 10 CFR 52.63 CRITERION 

(a)(1)(vii): Contributes to Increased 

Standardization of the Certification 

Information 

The changes being proposed for the 

AP1000 amendment generally fall into 

one of two categories: (1) Changes 

which provide additional information or 

a greater level of detail not previously 

available in the currently-approved 

version of the AP1000 DCD (Revision 

15); or (2) changes requested by COL 

applicants referencing the AP1000 who 

would plan to include these changes in 

their application as departures if they 

were not approved in the AP1000 DCR 

amendment. The Commission 

concludes that both categories of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 plantspecific departures from the AP1000 if 

Westinghouse did not initiate such 

changes to the AP1000 DCR. Such 

departures may be pursued by 

individual COL applicants (and 

licensees) as described in Part VIII, 

‘‘Processes for Changes and Departures’’ 

of the AP1000 DCR (Appendix D to 10 

CFR Part 52). Incorporating these 

proposed changes into the AP1000 DCR 

as part of this amendment contributes to 

the increased standardization of the 

certification information by eliminating 

the possibility of multiple departures. 

Therefore, all Westinghouse-initiated 

changes for the purpose of eliminating 

plant-specific departures enhance 

standardization, and meet the finality 

criterion for changes in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1)(vii). 

Title: Minimization of Contamination 

(10 CFR 20.1406 (b)). 

Item: 3 of 15. 

Significant Change: In DCD Section 

12.1.2.4, Westinghouse discussed 

features incorporated into the amended 

design certification to demonstrate 

compliance with 10 CFR 52.47(a)(6), 

which requires that a design 

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 currentlyapproved hard rock sites. Therefore, the 

change increases standardization and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10284 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

meets the finality criterion for changes 

in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii). 

Title: Long-Term Cooling. 

Item: 5 of 15. 

Significant Change: DCD Tier 2, 

Section 6.3.8 describes the changes to 

COL information items related to 

containment cleanliness and 

verification of water sources for longterm recirculation cooling following a 

loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The 

COL information item related to 

verification of water sources for longterm recirculation cooling following a 

LOCA was closed based on 

Westinghouse TR–26, ‘‘AP1000 

Verification of Water Sources for LongTerm Recirculation Cooling Following a 

LOCA,’’ APP–GW–GLR–079 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML102170123) and other 

information contained in DCD Chapter 

6. Section 6.3.2.2.7 describes the 

evaluation of the water sources for longterm recirculation cooling following a 

LOCA, including the design and 

operation of the AP1000 PCCS debris 

screens. DCD Tier 1, Section 2.2.3, 

includes the associated design 

descriptions and ITAAC. The COL 

information item requires a cleanliness 

program to limit the amount of latent 

debris in containment consistent with 

the analysis and testing assumptions. 

Location within the SE where the 

changes are principally described: 

The details of the NRC’s evaluation of 

Westinghouse’s design features 

associated with long-term cooling in the 

presence of LOCA-generated and latent 

debris and General Design Criteria 35 

and 38 are in Subsection 6.2.1.8 of the 

SE (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML103260072). 

Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1): 

Inclusion in the DCD of the design 

and analysis information that 

demonstrates adequacy of long-term 

core cooling provides additional 

information leading to increased 

standardization of this aspect of the 

design. Therefore, the change meets the 

finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1)(vii). 

Title: Control Room Emergency 

Habitability System. 

Item: 6 of 15. 

Significant Change: DCD Tier 2, 

Section 6.4 has undergone significant 

revision. Westinghouse re-designed its 

main control room emergency 

habitability system to meet control room 

radiation dose requirements using the 

standard assumed in-leakage of 5 cubic 

feet per minute in the event of a release 

of radiation. The changes include the 

addition of a single-failure proof passive 

filter train. The flow through the filter 

train is provided by an eductor 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10286 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

August 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML102220579). 

Location within the SER where the 

changes are principally described: 

The details of the NRC’s evaluation of 

Westinghouse’s design features 

associated with the SFP decay heat 

analysis are in Section 9.2.2 of the SER 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML103260072). 

Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1): 

Inclusion in the DCD of the changes 

to the SFP decay heat analysis would 

contribute to the increased 

standardization of this aspect of the 

design. Therefore, the change meets the 

finality criterion for changes in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1)(vii). 

Title: Spent Fuel Rack Design and 

Criticality Analysis. 

Item: 14 of 15. 

Significant Change: In DCD Tier 2 

Section 9.1.2, Westinghouse proposed 

changes to the spent fuel racks: (1) to 

increase the storage capacity by 270 

additional fuel assemblies, and (2) to 

integrate a new neutron poison into the 

rack design. These changes included a 

different rack design and associated 

structural analysis and a revised 

criticality analysis. These DCD changes 

are documented in TR–54, ‘‘Spent Fuel 

Storage Racks Structure and Seismic 

Analysis,’’ APP–GW–GLR–033, Revision 

4, dated June 2, 2010 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML101580475); and TR– 

65, ‘‘Spent Fuel Storage Racks Criticality 

Analysis,’’ APP–GW–GLR–029, Revision 

2, date January 5, 2010 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML100082093). 

Location within the SER where the 

changes are principally described: 

The details of the NRC’s evaluation of 

Westinghouse’s design features 

associated with the spent fuel rack 

design and criticality analysis are in 

Section 9.1.2 of the SER (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML103260072). 

Evaluation of the Criteria in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1): 

Inclusion in the DCD of the changes 

to the spent fuel rack design and 

criticality analysis would contribute to 

the increased standardization of this 

aspect of the design. Therefore, the 

change meets the finality criterion for 

changes in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1)(vii). 

Title: Vacuum Relief System. 

Item: 15 of 15. 

Significant Change: In Revision 18 to 

AP1000 DCD Tier 2, Chapters 3, 6, 7, 9, 

and 16, Westinghouse proposed changes 

to the design of the containment which 

add a vacuum relief system to the 

existing containment air filtration 

system vent line penetration. The 

proposed vacuum relief system consists 

of redundant vacuum relief devices 

inside and outside containment sized to 

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: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 LIBRARY.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV. 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/ibrlocations.html. 

* * * * * 

D.1. If there is a conflict between the 

generic DCD and either the application for 

the initial design certification of the AP1000 

design or NUREG–1793, ‘‘Final Safety 

Evaluation Report Related to Certification of 

the Westinghouse Standard Design,’’ and 

Supplement No. 1, then the generic DCD 

controls. 

2. If there is a conflict between the generic 

DCD and either the application for 

Amendment 1 to the design certification of 

the AP1000 design or NUREG–1793, ‘‘Final 

Safety Evaluation Report Related to 

Certification of the Westinghouse Standard 

Design,’’ Supplement No. 2, then the generic 

DCD controls. 

* * * * * 

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. * * * 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
10288 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1. The applicant for this appendix shall 

maintain a copy of the generic DCD that 

includes all generic changes it makes to Tier 

1 and Tier 2, and the generic TS and other 

operational requirements. The applicant shall 

maintain SUNSI (including PI) and SGI 

referenced in the generic DCD for the period 

that this appendix may be referenced, as 

specified in Section VII of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

4.a. The applicant for the AP1000 design 

shall maintain a copy of the AIA performed 

to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 

50.150(a) for the term of the certification 

(including any period of renewal). 

b. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix shall maintain a copy of the 

AIA performed to comply with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(a) throughout 

the pendency of the application and for the 

term of the license (including any period of 

renewal). 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of February 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3989 Filed 2–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0044; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–059–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 767–200, –300, –300F, 

and –400ER Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 767–200, –300, and –300F series 

airplanes. The existing AD currently 

requires inspections to detect cracking 

or corrosion of the fail-safe straps 

between the side fitting of the rear spar 

bulkhead at body station 955 and the 

skin; and follow-on and corrective 

actions. Since we issued that AD, we 

have received additional reports of 

cracks in 51 fail-safe straps on 41 

airplanes; we have also received a report 

of a crack found in the ‘‘T’’ fitting that 

connects the fail-safe strap to the 

outboard edge of the pressure deck. This 

proposed AD would expand the 

applicability, and would add an 

inspection for cracking in the fail-safe 

strap, and repair or replacement if 

necessary. We are proposing this AD to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking or 

corrosion of the fail-safe straps and the 

‘‘T’’ fittings, which could result in 

cracking of adjacent structure and 

consequent reduced structural integrity 

of the fuselage. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6577; fax: 425–917–6590; e-mail: 

berhane.alazar@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2011–0044; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–059–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On September 26, 2005, we issued AD 

2004–19–06 R1, amendment 39–14313 

(70 FR 58000, October 5, 2005), for 

certain Model 767–200, –300, and 

–300F series airplanes. That AD requires 

inspections to detect cracking or 

corrosion of the fail-safe straps between 

the side fitting of the rear spar bulkhead 

at body station (BS) 955 and the skin; 

and follow-on/corrective actions. That 

AD resulted from reports of cracked 

and/or corroded fail-safe straps at BS 

955 on Model 767–200 series airplanes. 

We issued that AD to detect and correct 

fatigue cracking or corrosion of the failsafe straps, which could result in 

cracking of adjacent structure and 

consequent reduced structural integrity 

of the fuselage. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2004–19–06 R1, 

we have received additional reports of 

cracks in 51 fail-safe straps on 41 

airplanes. There were 42 fail-safe straps 

repaired, and 9 were not repairable and 

were replaced. Fail-safe straps were 

repaired on 33 airplanes with total 

accumulated flight cycles ranging from 

39,886 to 89,236. Fail-safe straps were 

replaced on 9 airplanes with flight 

cycles ranging from 12,565 to 31,809, 

and flight hours ranging from 48,704 to 

93,212. In addition, 4 fail-safe straps on 

4 airplanes with total accumulated flight 

cycles ranging from 12,540 to 23,987 

and flight hours ranging from 37,634 to 

74,823 were replaced due to corrosion 

damage. 

One report was received of a crack 

found in the ‘‘T’’ fitting that connects the 

fail-safe strap and the pressure deck. 

The cracked ‘‘T’’ fitting was found at 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS