This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

16549 

Vol. 76, No. 57 

Thursday, March 24, 2011 

1For 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 (FOIA) and the NRC’s 

implementing regulation at Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 9. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 52 

[NRC–2010–0135] 

RIN 3150–AI85 

ESBWR Design Certification 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or Commission) 

proposes to amend its regulations to 

certify the Economic Simplified BoilingWater Reactor (ESBWR) standard plant 

design. This action is necessary so that 

applicants or licensees intending to 

construct and operate an ESBWR design 

may do so by referencing this design 

certification rule (DCR). The applicant 

for certification of the ESBWR design is 

GE–Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH). The 

public is invited to submit comments on 

this proposed DCR, the generic design 

control document (DCD) that would be 

incorporated by reference into the DCR, 

and the environmental assessment (EA) 

for the ESBWR design. 

DATES: Submit comments on the DCR, 

DCD and/or EA by June 7, 2011. Submit 

comments specific to the information 

collections aspects of this rule by April 

25, 2011. Comments received after the 

above dates will be considered if it is 

practical to do so, but assurance of 

consideration cannot be given to 

comments received after these dates. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2010–0135 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–2010–0135. 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 301–415–1966. 

• Hand Deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

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

during Federal workdays (telephone: 

301–415–1966). 

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George M. Tartal, Office of New 

Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–0016; e-mail: 

george.tartal@nrc.gov; or Bruce M. 

Bavol, Office of New Reactors, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–6715; e-mail: 

bruce.bavol@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Submitting Comments and Accessing 

Information 

II. Background 

III. Regulatory and Policy Issues 

IV. Technical Evaluation of the ESBWR 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

A. Introduction (Section I) 

B. Definitions (Section II) 

C. Scope and Contents (Section III) 

D. Additional Requirements and 

Restrictions (Section IV) 

E. Applicable Regulations (Section V) 

F. Issue Resolution (Section VI) 

G. Duration of This Appendix (Section VII) 

H. Processes for Changes and Departures 

(Section VIII) 

I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) (Section IX) 

J. Records and Reporting (Section X) 

VI. Agreement State Compatibility 

VII. Availability of Documents 

VIII. Procedures for Access to Proprietary 

Information, Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (Including 

Proprietary Information) and Safeguards 

Information for Preparation of Comments 

on the Proposed ESBWR Design 

Certification Rule 

IX. Plain Language 

X. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

XI. Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact: Availability 

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

XIII. Regulatory Analysis 

XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

XV. 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. 

Documents that are not publicly 

available because they are considered to 

be either Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) 

(including SUNSI constituting 

‘‘proprietary information’’ 1) or 

Safeguards Information (SGI) may be 

available to interested persons who may 

wish to comment on the proposed 

design certification. Such persons shall 

follow the procedures described in the 

Supplementary Information section of 

this notice, under the heading, ‘‘VIII. 

Procedures for Access to SUNSI 

(Including Proprietary information) and 

Safeguards Information for Preparation 

of Comments on the Proposed ESBWR 

Design Certification Rule.’’ 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document, 

including the following documents, 

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 O– 

1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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, or 

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–2010–0135. 

II. Background 

Subpart B to 10 CFR part 52 sets forth 

the process for obtaining standard 

design certifications. On August 24, 

2005 (70 FR 56745), GEH tendered its 

application for certification of the 

ESBWR standard plant design with the 

NRC. The GEH submitted this 

application in accordance with Subpart 

B of 10 CFR part 52. The NRC formally 

accepted the application as a docketed 

application for design certification 

(Docket No. 52–010) on December 1, 

2005 (70 FR 73311). The pre-application 

information submitted before the NRC 

formally accepted the application can be 

found in ADAMS under Docket No. 

PROJ0717 (Project No. 717). 

The application for design 

certification of the ESBWR design has 

been referenced in the following 

combined license (COL) application as 

of the date of this document: 

Detroit Edison Company, Fermi Unit 

3, Docket No. 52–033 (73 FR 73350; 

December 2, 2008). 

III. Regulatory and Policy Issues 

Human Factors Operational Programs 

The NRC is implementing existing 

Commission policy, that operational 

programs should be excluded from 

finality except where necessary to find 

design elements acceptable, in a manner 

different from other existing design 

certification rules. This policy is 

described in the December 6, 1996, staff 

requirements memorandum (SRM) to 

SECY–96–077, ‘‘Certification of Two 

Evolutionary Designs,’’ dated April 15, 

1996. The NRC proposes to exclude the 

two Human Factors Engineering (HFE) 

operational program elements in 

Chapter 18 of the ESBWR DCD from the 

scope of the design approved in the 

rule. There are 12 elements in the HFE 

program. Two of the elements concern 

operational programs (procedures and 

training) that are not used to assess the 

adequacy of the HFE design. However, 

the GEH description of these two HFE 

operational programs addresses existing 

NRC guidelines in NUREG–0711, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Human Factors Engineering 

Program Review Model,’’ which are 

comprehensive, and go beyond the 

operational program information needed 

as input to the HFE design. In addition, 

the training and procedure elements 

included in the HFE program are 

redundant to what is reviewed as part 

of the operational programs described in 

Chapter 13 of the Standard Review Plan 

(NUREG–0800). Accordingly, the NRC is 

revising the HFE regulatory guidance in 

NUREG–0711 to address this overlap, 

but the revised guidance is not expected 

to be completed until late 2011. In 

keeping with the established 

Commission policy of not approving 

operational program elements through 

design certification except where 

necessary to find design elements 

acceptable, the NRC proposes to exclude 

the two HFE operational program 

elements in the ESBWR DCD from the 

scope of the design approved in the 

rule. This would be done explicitly in 

Section VI, Issue Resolution, of the rule, 

by excluding the two HFE operational 

program elements from the finality 

accorded to the design. This exclusion 

would be unique to the ESBWR design 

because all other DCDs for the 

previously certified designs do not 

include operational program 

descriptions of HFE training and 

procedures and the respective DCRs did 

not include specific exclusions from 

finality for it. 

Access to SUNSI and SGI in Connection 

With License Applications 

In the four currently approved design 

certifications (10 CFR part 52, 

Appendices A through D), paragraph 

VI.E sets forth specific directions on 

how to obtain access to proprietary 

information and SGI on the design 

certification in connection with a 

license application proceeding 

referencing that design certification 

rule. These provisions were developed 

before the events of September 11, 2001. 

After September 11, 2001, Congress has 

changed the statutory requirements 

governing access to SGI, and the NRC 

has revised its rules, procedures, and 

practices governing control of and 

access to SUNSI and SGI. The NRC now 

believes that generic direction on 

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 VI.E of 

the four currently approved DCRs 

should not be included in the design 

certification rule for the ESBWR. 

Instead, the NRC should specify the 

procedures to be used for obtaining 

access at an appropriate time in the COL 

proceeding referencing the ESBWR 

DCR. The NRC intends to include this 

change in any future amendment or 

renewal of the existing DCRs. However, 

the NRC is not planning to initiate 

rulemaking to change paragraph VI.E of 

the existing DCRs, in order to minimize 

unnecessary resource expenditures by 

both the original DCR applicant and the 

NRC. 

IV. Technical Evaluation of the ESBWR 

The NRC issued a final safety 

evaluation report (FSER) for the ESBWR 

design in March 2011. The FSER 

provides the basis for issuance of a 

design certification under Subpart B to 

10 CFR part 52 and a final design 

approval under Subpart E to 10 CFR 

part 52. The GEH has requested the NRC 

provide its design approval for the 

ESBWR design under Subpart E. The 

final design approval for the ESBWR 

design will be issued before publication 

of a final rule. 

The significant technical issues that 

were resolved during the review of the 

ESBWR design are the regulatory 

treatment of non-safety systems 

(RTNSS), containment performance, 

control room cooling, steam dryer 

methodology, feedwater temperature 

(FWT) domain, aircraft impact 

assessment and the use of Code Case N– 

782. 

Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety 

Systems 

The ESBWR relies on passive systems 

to perform safety functions credited in 

the design basis for 72 hours following 

an initiating event. After 72 hours, nonsafety systems, either passive or active, 

replenish the passive systems in order 

to keep them operating or perform postaccident recovery functions directly. 

The ESBWR design also uses nonsafetyrelated active systems to provide 

defense-in-depth capabilities for key 

safety functions provided by passive 

systems. The challenge during the 

review was to identify the non-safety 

systems, structures and components 

(SSCs) that should receive enhanced 

regulatory treatment and to identify the 

appropriate regulatory treatment to be 

applied to these SSCs. Such SSCs are 

denoted as ‘‘RTNS SSCs.’’ As a result of 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16551 

the NRC’s review, the applicant added 

Appendix 19A to the DCD to identify 

the nonsafety systems that perform 

these post-72 hour or defense-in-depth 

functions and the basis for their 

selection. The applicant’s selection 

process was based on the guidance in 

SECY–94–084, ‘‘Policy and Technical 

Issues Associated with the Regulatory 

Treatment of Non-Safety Systems in 

Passive Plant Designs.’’ 

To provide reasonable assurance that 

RTNSS SSCs will be available if called 

upon to function, the applicant 

established availability controls in DCD 

Tier 2, Appendix 19ACM, and 

Technical Specifications (TS) in DCD 

Tier 2, Chapter 16, when required by 10 

CFR 50.36. The applicant also included 

all RTNSS SSCs in the reliability 

assurance program described in Chapter 

17 of DCD Tier 2 and applied 

augmented design standards as 

described in DCD Tier 2, Section 

19A.8.3. The NRC finds the applicant’s 

implementation of the RTNSS process 

described in the DCD acceptable. 

Containment Performance 

The passive containment cooling 

system (PCCS) maintains the 

containment within its design pressure 

and temperature limits for design-basis 

accidents. The system is passive and 

does not rely upon moving components 

or external power for initiation or 

operation for 72 hours following a lossof-coolant accident (LOCA). The PCCS 

and its design basis are described in 

detail in Section 6.2.2 of the DCD Tier 

2. The NRC identified a concern 

regarding the PCCS long-term cooling 

capability for the period from 72 hours 

to 30 days following a LOCA. To 

address this concern, the applicant 

proposed additional design features 

credited after 72 hours to reduce the 

long-term containment pressure. The 

features are the PCCS vent fans and 

passive autocatalytic recombiners as 

described in DCD Tier 2, Section 6.2.1. 

These SSCs have been indentified in 

DCD Appendix 19A as RTNSS SSCs. 

The applicant provided calculation 

results to demonstrate that the long-term 

containment pressure would be 

acceptable and that the design complies 

with general design criterion (GDC) 38. 

The NRC’s independent calculations 

confirmed the applicant’s conclusion 

and the NRC accepts the proposed 

design and licensing basis. The NRC 

also raised a concern regarding the 

potential accumulation of high 

concentrations of hydrogen and oxygen 

in the PCCS and isolation condenser 

system (ICS), which could lead to 

combustion following a LOCA. The 

applicant modified the design of the 

PCCS and ICS heat exchangers to 

withstand potential hydrogen 

detonations. The NRC concludes that 

the design changes to the PCCS and ICS 

are acceptable and meet the applicable 

requirements. 

Control Room Cooling 

The ESBWR primarily relies on the 

mass and structure of the control 

building to maintain acceptable 

temperatures for human and equipment 

performance for up to 72 hours on loss 

of normal cooling. The NRC had not 

previously approved this approach for 

maintaining acceptable temperatures in 

the control building. The applicant 

proposed acceptance criteria for the 

evaluation of the control building 

structure’s thermal performance based 

on industry and NRC guidelines. The 

applicant incorporates by reference an 

analysis of the control building 

structure’s thermal performance as 

described in Tier 2, Sections 3H, 6.4, 

and 9.4. The applicant also proposed 

ITAAC to confirm that an updated 

analysis of the as-built structure 

continues to meet the thermal 

performance acceptance criteria. The 

NRC finds that the applicant’s 

acceptance criteria are consistent with 

the advanced light-water reactor control 

room envelope atmosphere temperature 

limits in NUREG–1242, ‘‘NRC Review of 

Electric Power Research Institute’s 

Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility 

Requirements Document,’’ and the use 

of the wet bulb globe temperature index 

in evaluation of heat stress conditions as 

described in NUREG–0700, ‘‘HumanSystem Interface Design Review 

Guidelines.’’ The NRC finds the control 

building structure thermal performance 

analysis and ITAAC acceptable based on 

the analysis using bounding 

environmental assumptions which will 

be confirmed by the ITAAC. 

Accordingly, the NRC finds that the 

acceptance criteria, control building 

structure thermal performance analysis, 

and the ITAAC, provide reasonable 

assurance that acceptable temperatures 

will be maintained in the control 

building for 72 hours. Therefore, the 

NRC finds that the control building 

design in regard to thermal performance 

conforms to the guidelines of Standard 

Review Plan Section 6.4 and complies 

with the requirements of the general 

design criteria of 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix A, GDC 19. 

Feedwater Temperature Operating 

Domain 

In operating boiling-water reactors the 

recirculation pumps are used in 

combination with the control rods to 

control and maneuver reactor power 

level during normal power operation. 

The ESBWR design is unique in that the 

core is cooled by natural circulation 

during normal operation, and there are 

no recirculation pumps. In Chapter 15 

of the DCD, GEH references the 

licensing topical report (LTR) NEDO– 

33338, Revision 1, ‘‘ESBWR Feedwater 

Temperature Operating Domain 

Transient and Accident Analysis.’’ This 

LTR describes a broadening of the 

ESBWR operating domain, which allows 

for increased flexibility of operation by 

adjusting the FWT. This increased 

flexibility accommodates the so-called 

‘‘soft’’ operating practices, which reduce 

the duty (mechanical stress) to the fuel 

and minimize the probability of pelletclad interactions and associated fuel 

failures. 

By adjusting the FWT, the operator 

can control the reactor power level 

without control blade motion and with 

minimum impact on the fuel duty. 

Control blade maneuvering can also be 

performed at lower power levels. 

To control the FWT, the ESBWR 

design includes a seventh feedwater 

heater with high-pressure steam. FWT is 

controlled by either manipulating the 

main steam flow to the No. 7 feedwater 

heater to increase FWT above the 

temperature normally provided by the 

feedwater heaters with turbine 

extraction steam (normal FWT) or by 

directing a portion of the feedwater flow 

around the high-pressure feedwater 

heaters to decrease FWT below the 

normal FWT. An increase in FWT 

decreases reactor power, and a decrease 

in FWT increases reactor power. The 

applicant provided analyses that 

demonstrated ample margin to 

acceptance criteria. The NRC concludes 

that the applicant has adequately 

accounted for the effects of the proposed 

FWT operating domain extension on the 

nuclear design. Further, the applicant 

has demonstrated that the fuel design 

limits will not be exceeded during 

normal or anticipated operational 

transients and that the effects of 

postulated transients and accidents will 

not impair the capability to cool the 

core. Based on this evaluation, the NRC 

concludes that the nuclear design of the 

fuel assemblies, control systems, and 

reactor core will continue to meet the 

applicable regulatory requirements. 

Steam Dryer Design Methodology 

As a result of reactor pressure vessel 

(RPV) steam dryer issues at operating 

BWRs, the NRC issued revised guidance 

concerning the evaluation of steam 

dryers. The guidance requested analysis 

to show that the dryer will maintain its 

structural integrity during plant 

operation in spite of or in the face of 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

acoustic and hydrodynamic fluctuating 

pressure loads. This demonstration of 

RPV steam dryer structural integrity 

consists of three steps: 

(1) Predict the fluctuating pressure 

loads on the dryer, 

(2) Use these fluctuating pressure 

loads in a structural analysis to qualify 

the steam dryer design, and 

(3) Implement a startup test program 

for confirming the steam dryer design 

analysis results during the initial plant 

power ascension testing. 

The Plant Based Load Evaluation 

(PBLE) methodology is an analytical 

tool developed by GEH to predict 

fluctuating pressure loads on the steam 

dryer. Section 3.9.5 of the DCD 

references the GEH LTR NEDE–33313P, 

‘‘ESBWR Steam Dryer Structural 

Evaluation,’’ which references LTR 

NEDE–33312P, ‘‘ESBWR Steam Dryer 

Acoustic Load Definition,’’ which 

references the PBLE load definition 

method. The PBLE method is described 

in LTR NEDC–33408P, ‘‘ESBWR Steam 

Dryer-Plant Base Load Evaluation 

Methodology.’’ This LTR provides the 

theoretical basis for determining the 

fluctuating loads on the ESBWR steam 

dryer, describes the PBLE analytical 

model, determines the biases and 

uncertainties of the PBLE formulation, 

and describes the application of the 

PBLE method to the evaluation of the 

ESBWR steam dryer. 

The NRC’s review of the PBLE 

methodology concludes that it is 

technically sound and provides a 

conservative analytical approach for 

definition of flow-induced acoustic 

pressure loading on the ESBWR steam 

dryer. The application of the PBLE load 

definition process together with the 

design criteria from the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) Code, Section III, Article NG– 

3000 in combination with the proposed 

start up test program provide assurance 

of the structural integrity of the steam 

dryer. Implementation of the analytical, 

design, and testing methodology for the 

ESBWR steam dryer demonstrate 

conformance with the general design 

criteria of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, 

GDCs 1, 2, and 4. 

Aircraft Impact Assessment 

Under 10 CFR 50.150, which became 

effective on July 13, 2009, designers of 

new nuclear power reactors are required 

to perform an assessment of the effects 

on the designed facility of the impact of 

a large, commercial aircraft. An 

applicant for a new design certification 

rule is required to submit a description 

of the design features and functional 

capabilities identified as a result of the 

assessment (key design features) in its 

DCD together with a description of how 

the identified design features and 

functional capabilities show that the 

acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1) are met. 

To address the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.150, GEH completed an 

assessment of the effects on the 

designed facility of the impact of a large, 

commercial aircraft. The GEH also 

added Appendix 19D to DCD Tier 2 to 

describe the design features and 

functional capabilities of the ESBWR 

identified as a result of the assessment 

that ensure the reactor core remains 

cooled and the spent fuel pool integrity 

is maintained. 

The NRC finds that the applicant has 

performed an aircraft impact assessment 

using NRC-endorsed methodology that 

is reasonably formulated to identify 

design features and functional 

capabilities to show, with reduced use 

of operator action, that the acceptance 

criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) are met. 

The NRC finds that the applicant 

adequately describes the key design 

features and functional capabilities 

credited to meet 10 CFR 50.150, 

including descriptions of how the key 

design features and functional 

capabilities show that the acceptance 

criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) are met. 

Therefore, the NRC finds that the 

applicant meets the applicable 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.150(b). 

Code Case N–782 

Under 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3), GEH 

requested NRC approval for the use of 

Code Case N–782 as a proposed 

alternative to the rules of Section III 

Subsection NCA–1140 regarding 

applied Code Editions and Addenda 

required by 10 CFR 50.55a(c), (d), and 

(e). Code Case N–782 provides that the 

Code Edition and Addenda endorsed in 

a certified design or licensed by the 

regulatory authority may be used for 

systems and components subject to 

ASME Code, Section III requirements. 

These alternative requirements are in 

lieu of the requirements that base the 

Edition and Addenda on the date of the 

COL or manufacturing license, or the 

application for a construction permit, 

standard design approval, or standard 

design certification. Reference to Code 

Case N–782 will be included in 

component and system design 

specifications and design reports to 

permit certification of these 

specifications and reports to the Code 

Edition and Addenda cited in the DCD. 

The NRC’s bases for approving the use 

of Code Case N–782 as a proposed 

alternative to the requirements of 

Section III Subsection NCA–1140 under 

10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3) for the ESBWR are 

described in Section 5.2.1.1.3 of the 

FSER. 

Exemptions 

The NRC is proposing to approve an 

exemption from 10 CFR 50.34(f)(2)(iv) 

as it relates to the safety parameter 

display system. This provision requires 

an applicant to provide a plant safety 

parameter display console that will 

display to operators a minimum set of 

parameters defining the safety status of 

the plant, capable of displaying a full 

range of important plant parameters and 

data trends on demand and indicating 

when process limits are being 

approached or exceeded. The ESBWR 

design integrates the safety parameter 

display system into the design of the 

non-safety related distribution control 

and information system, rather than use 

a stand-alone console. The NRC’s bases 

for providing the exemption are 

described in Section 18.8.3.2 of the 

FSER. 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion sets forth 

the purpose and key aspects of each 

section and paragraph of the proposed 

ESBWR DCR. All section and paragraph 

references are to the provisions in the 

proposed Appendix E to 10 CFR part 52 

unless otherwise noted. The NRC has 

modeled the ESBWR DCR on the 

existing DCRs, with certain 

modifications where necessary to 

account for differences in the ESBWR 

design documentation, design features, 

and EA (including severe accident 

mitigation design alternatives 

(SAMDAs)). As a result, the DCRs are 

standardized to the extent practical. 

A. Introduction (Section I) 

The purpose of Section I of proposed 

Appendix E to 10 CFR part 52 (this 

appendix) is to identify the standard 

plant design that would be approved by 

this DCR and the applicant for 

certification of the standard design. 

Identification of the design certification 

applicant is necessary to implement this 

appendix for two reasons. First, the 

implementation of 10 CFR 52.63(c) 

depends on whether an applicant for a 

COL contracts with the design 

certification applicant to provide the 

generic DCD and supporting design 

information. If the COL applicant does 

not use the design certification 

applicant to provide the design 

information and instead uses an 

alternate nuclear plant vendor, then the 

COL applicant must meet the 

requirements in 10 CFR 52.73. The COL 

applicant must demonstrate that the 

alternate supplier is qualified to provide 

the standard plant design information. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16553 

Second, paragraph X.A.1 would require 

the design certification applicant to 

maintain the generic DCD throughout 

the time this appendix may be 

referenced. Thus, it is necessary to 

identify the entity to which the 

requirement in paragraph X.A.1 applies. 

B. Definitions (Section II) 

During development of the first two 

DCRs, the Commission decided that 

there would be both generic (master) 

DCDs maintained by the NRC and the 

design certification applicant, as well as 

individual plant-specific DCDs 

maintained by each applicant and 

licensee that reference this appendix. 

This distinction is necessary in order to 

specify the relevant plant-specific 

requirements to applicants and 

licensees referencing the appendix. In 

order to facilitate the maintenance of the 

master DCDs, the NRC proposes that 

each application for a standard design 

certification be updated to include an 

electronic copy of the final version of 

the DCD. The final version would be 

required to incorporate all amendments 

to the DCD submitted since the original 

application as well as any changes 

directed by the NRC as a result of its 

review of the original DCD or as a result 

of public comments. This final version 

would become the master DCD 

incorporated by reference in the DCR. 

The master DCD would be revised as 

needed to include generic changes to 

the version of the DCD approved in this 

design certification rulemaking. These 

changes would occur as the result of 

generic rulemaking by the Commission, 

under the change criteria in Section 

VIII. 

The Commission would also require 

each applicant and licensee referencing 

this appendix to submit and maintain a 

plant-specific DCD as part of the COL 

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). 

This plant-specific DCD would include 

or incorporate by reference the 

information in the generic DCD. The 

plant-specific DCD would be updated as 

necessary to reflect the generic changes 

to the DCD that the Commission may 

adopt through rulemaking, plantspecific departures from the generic 

DCD that the Commission imposed on 

the licensee by order, and any plantspecific departures that the licensee 

chooses to make in accordance with the 

relevant processes in Section VIII. Thus, 

the plant-specific DCD would function 

like an updated FSAR because it would 

provide the most complete and accurate 

information on a plant’s design basis for 

that part of the plant within the scope 

of this appendix. Therefore, this 

appendix would define both a generic 

DCD and a plant-specific DCD. 

Also, the Commission decided to treat 

the TS in Chapter 16 of the generic DCD 

as a special category of information and 

to designate them as generic TS in order 

to facilitate the special treatment of this 

information under this appendix. A 

COL applicant must submit plantspecific TS that consist of the generic 

TS, which may be modified under 

paragraph VIII.C, and the remaining 

plant-specific information needed to 

complete the TS. The FSAR that is 

required by 10 CFR 52.79 will consist of 

the plant-specific DCD, the site-specific 

portion of the FSAR, and the plantspecific TS. 

The terms Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2*, and 

COL action items (license information) 

are defined in this appendix because 

these concepts were not envisioned 

when 10 CFR part 52 was developed. 

The design certification applicants and 

the NRC used these terms in 

implementing the two-tiered rule 

structure that was proposed by 

representatives of the nuclear industry 

after issuance of 10 CFR part 52. 

Therefore, appropriate definitions for 

these additional terms are included in 

this appendix. The nuclear industry 

representatives requested a two-tiered 

structure for the DCRs to achieve issue 

preclusion for a greater amount of 

information than was originally planned 

for the DCRs, while retaining flexibility 

for design implementation. The 

Commission approved the use of a twotiered rule structure in its SRM, dated 

February 14, 1991, on SECY–90–377, 

‘‘Requirements for Design Certification 

under 10 CFR Part 52,’’ dated November 

8, 1990. This document and others are 

available in the Regulatory History of 

Design Certification (see Section VII of 

this document). 

The Tier 1 portion of the designrelated information contained in the 

DCD would be certified by this 

appendix and, therefore, subject to the 

special backfit provisions in paragraph 

VIII.A. An applicant who references this 

appendix would be required to include 

or incorporate by reference and comply 

with Tier 1, under paragraphs III.B and 

IV.A.1. This information consists of an 

introduction to Tier 1, the system based 

and non-system based design 

descriptions and corresponding ITAAC, 

significant interface requirements, and 

significant site parameters for the design 

(refer to Section C.I.1.8 of Regulatory 

Guide 1.206 for guidance on significant 

interface requirements and site 

parameters). The design descriptions, 

interface requirements, and site 

parameters in Tier 1 were derived from 

Tier 2, but may be more general than the 

Tier 2 information. The NRC staff’s 

evaluation of the Tier 1 information is 

provided in Section 14.3 of the FSER. 

Changes to or departures from the Tier 

1 information must comply with Section 

VIII.A. 

The Tier 1 design descriptions serve 

as requirements for the lifetime of a 

facility license referencing the design 

certification. The inspection, test, 

analysis, and acceptance criterion/ 

criteria (ITAAC) verify that the as-built 

facility conforms to the approved design 

and applicable regulations. Under 10 

CFR 52.103(g), the Commission must 

find that the acceptance criteria in the 

ITAAC are met before authorizing 

operation. After the Commission has 

made the finding required by 10 CFR 

52.103(g), the ITAAC do not constitute 

regulatory requirements for licensees or 

for renewal of the COL. However, 

subsequent modifications to the facility 

within the scope of the design 

certification must comply with the 

design descriptions in the plant-specific 

DCD unless changes are made under the 

change process in Section VIII. The Tier 

1 interface requirements are the most 

significant of the interface requirements 

for systems that are wholly or partially 

outside the scope of the standard 

design. Tier 1 interface requirements 

must be met by the site-specific design 

features of a facility that references this 

appendix. An application that 

references this appendix must 

demonstrate that the site characteristics 

at the proposed site fall within the site 

parameters (both Tier 1 and Tier 2) 

(refer to paragraph IV.D of this 

document). 

Tier 2 is the portion of the designrelated information contained in the 

DCD that would be approved by this 

appendix but not certified. Tier 2 

information would be subject to the 

backfit provisions in paragraph VIII.B. 

Tier 2 includes the information required 

by 10 CFR 52.47(a) and 52.47(c) (with 

the exception of generic TS and 

conceptual design information) and the 

supporting information on inspections, 

tests, and analyses that will be 

performed to demonstrate that the 

acceptance criteria in the ITAAC have 

been met. As with Tier 1, paragraphs 

III.B and IV.A.1 would require an 

applicant who references this appendix 

to include or incorporate by reference 

Tier 2 and to comply with Tier 2, except 

for the COL action items, including the 

availability controls in Appendix 

19ACM of the generic DCD. The 

definition of Tier 2 makes clear that Tier 

2 information has been determined by 

the Commission, by virtue of its 

inclusion in this appendix and its 

designation as Tier 2 information, to be 

an approved sufficient method for 

meeting Tier 1 requirements. However, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

there may be other acceptable ways of 

complying with Tier 1 requirements. 

The appropriate criteria for departing 

from Tier 2 information would be 

specified in paragraph VIII.B. 

Departures from Tier 2 information 

would not negate the requirement in 

paragraph III.B to incorporate by 

reference Tier 2 information. 

A definition of ‘‘combined license 

action items’’ (COL information), which 

is part of the Tier 2 information, would 

be added to clarify that COL applicants 

who reference this appendix are 

required to address COL action items in 

their license application. However, the 

COL action items are not the only 

acceptable set of information. An 

applicant may depart from or omit COL 

action items, provided that the 

departure or omission is identified and 

justified in the FSAR. After issuance of 

a construction permit or COL, these 

items would not be requirements for the 

licensee unless they are restated in the 

FSAR. For additional discussion, see 

Section IV.D of this document. 

The availability controls, which are 

set forth in Appendix 19ACM of the 

generic DCD, would be added to the 

information that is part of Tier 2 to 

clarify that the availability controls are 

not operational requirements for the 

purposes of paragraph VIII.C. Rather, 

the availability controls are associated 

with specific design features. The 

availability controls may be changed if 

the associated design feature is changed 

under paragraph VIII.B. For additional 

discussion, see Section IV.C of this 

document. 

Certain Tier 2 information has been 

designated in the generic DCD with 

brackets and italicized text as ‘‘Tier 2*’’ 

information and, as discussed in greater 

detail in the section-by-section analysis 

for Section H, a plant-specific departure 

from Tier 2* information would require 

prior NRC approval. However, the Tier 

2* designation expires for some of this 

information when the facility first 

achieves full power after the finding 

required by 10 CFR 52.103(g). The 

process for changing Tier 2* 

information and the time at which its 

status as Tier 2* expires is set forth in 

paragraph VIII.B.6. Some Tier 2* 

requirements concerning special 

preoperational tests are designated to be 

performed only for the first plant or first 

three plants referencing the ESBWR 

DCR. The Tier 2* designation for these 

selected tests would expire after the first 

plant or first three plants complete the 

specified tests. However, a COL action 

item requires that subsequent plants 

also perform the tests or justify that the 

results of the first-plant-only or firstthree-plants-only tests are applicable to 

the subsequent plant. 

The regulations at 10 CFR 50.59 set 

forth thresholds for permitting changes 

to a plant as described in the FSAR 

without NRC approval. Inasmuch as 10 

CFR 50.59 is the primary change 

mechanism for operating nuclear plants, 

the Commission believes that future 

plants referencing the ESBWR DCR 

should use thresholds as close to 10 

CFR 50.59 as is practicable and 

appropriate for new reactors. Because of 

some differences in how the change 

control requirements are structured in 

the DCRs, certain definitions contained 

in 10 CFR 50.59 are not applicable to 10 

CFR part 52 and are not being included 

in this proposed rule. The Commission 

is including a definition for a ‘‘departure 

from a method of evaluation’’ (paragraph 

II.G), which is appropriate to include in 

this rulemaking so that the eight criteria 

in paragraph VIII.B.5.b will be 

implemented for new reactors as 

intended. 

C. 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 set forth how documentation 

discrepancies or inconsistencies are to 

be resolved. Paragraph III.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 TS into this 

appendix. Paragraph III.B requires COL 

applicants and licensees to comply with 

the requirements of this appendix. 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. Tier 1 and Tier 2 information, as 

well as the generic TS, have been 

combined into a single document called 

the generic DCD, in order to effectively 

control this information and facilitate its 

incorporation by reference into the rule. 

The generic 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 1 CFR 

part 51. One of the requirements of the 

OFR for incorporation by reference is 

that the design certification applicant 

must make the generic DCD available 

upon request after the final rule 

becomes effective. Therefore, paragraph 

III.A would identify a GEH 

representative to be contacted in order 

to obtain a copy of the generic DCD. 

Paragraphs III.A and III.B would also 

identify the availability controls in 

Appendix 19ACM of the generic DCD as 

part of the Tier 2 information. During its 

review of the ESBWR design, the NRC 

determined that residual uncertainties 

associated with passive safety system 

performance increased the importance 

of non-safety-related active systems in 

providing defense-in-depth functions 

that back-up the passive systems. As a 

result, GEH developed administrative 

controls to provide a high level of 

confidence that active systems having a 

significant safety role are available 

when challenged. The GEH named these 

additional controls ‘‘availability 

controls.’’ The Commission included 

this characterization in Section III to 

ensure that these availability controls 

would be binding on applicants and 

licensees that reference this appendix 

and would be enforceable by the NRC. 

The NRC’s evaluation of the availability 

controls is provided in Chapter 22 of the 

FSER. 

The generic DCD (master copy) for 

this design certification is electronically 

accessible under ADAMS Accession No. 

ML103440266; at the OFR; and at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

under Docket ID NRC–2010–0135. 

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 

applicant makes a generic change 

(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 

Commission would require that the 

design certification applicant maintain 

an up-to-date copy of the master DCD 

that includes any generic changes it has 

made under paragraph X.A.1 because it 

is likely that most applicants intending 

to reference the standard design would 

obtain the generic DCD from the design 

certification applicant. Plant-specific 

changes to and departures from the 

generic DCD would be maintained by 

the applicant or licensee that references 

this appendix in a plant-specific DCD 

under paragraph X.A.2. 

In addition to requiring compliance 

with this appendix, paragraph III.B 

would clarify that the conceptual design 

information and GEH’s evaluation of 

SAMDAs are not considered to be part 

of this appendix. The conceptual design 

information is for those portions of the 

plant that are outside the scope of the 

standard design and are contained in 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16555 

Tier 2 information. As provided by 10 

CFR 52.47(a)(24), these conceptual 

designs are not part of this appendix 

and, therefore, are not applicable to an 

application that references this 

appendix. Therefore, the applicant 

would not be required to conform with 

the conceptual design information that 

was provided by the design certification 

applicant. The conceptual design 

information, which consists of sitespecific design features, was required to 

facilitate the design certification review. 

Conceptual design information is 

neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2. Section 1.8.2 

of Tier 2 identifies the location of the 

conceptual design information. The 

GEH’s evaluation of various design 

alternatives to prevent and mitigate 

severe accidents does not constitute 

design requirements. The Commission’s 

assessment of this information is 

discussed in Section X of this 

document. 

Paragraphs III.C and III.D would set 

forth the way potential conflicts are to 

be resolved. Paragraph III.C would 

establish the Tier 1 description in the 

DCD as controlling in the event of an 

inconsistency between the Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 information in the DCD. 

Paragraph III.D would establish the 

generic DCD as the controlling 

document in the event of an 

inconsistency between the DCD and the 

FSER for the certified standard design. 

Paragraph III.E would clarify that 

design activities that are wholly outside 

the scope of this design certification 

may be performed using actual site 

characteristics, provided the design 

activities do not affect Tier 1 or Tier 2, 

or conflict with the interface 

requirements in the DCD. This provision 

would apply to site-specific portions of 

the plant, such as the administration 

building. Because this statement is not 

a definition, this provision has been 

located in Section III. 

D. Additional Requirements and 

Restrictions (Section IV) 

Section IV would set forth additional 

requirements and restrictions imposed 

upon an applicant who references this 

appendix. Paragraph IV.A would set 

forth the information requirements for 

these applicants. This paragraph would 

distinguish between information and/or 

documents which must actually be 

included in the application or the DCD, 

versus those which may be incorporated 

by reference (i.e., referenced in the 

application as if the information or 

documents were included in the 

application). Any incorporation by 

reference in the application should be 

clear and should specify the title, date, 

edition, or version of a document, the 

page number(s), and table(s) containing 

the relevant information to be 

incorporated. 

Paragraph IV.A.1 would require an 

applicant who references this appendix 

to incorporate by reference this 

appendix in its application. The legal 

effect of such an incorporation by 

reference is that this appendix would be 

legally binding on the applicant or 

licensee. Paragraph IV.A.2.a would 

require that a plant-specific DCD be 

included in the initial application to 

ensure that the applicant commits to 

complying with the DCD. This 

paragraph would also require the plantspecific DCD to either include or 

incorporate by reference the generic 

DCD information. Further, this 

paragraph would also require the plantspecific DCD to use the same format as 

the generic DCD and reflect the 

applicant’s proposed exemptions and 

departures from the generic DCD as of 

the time of submission of the 

application. The plant-specific DCD 

would be part of the plant’s FSAR, along 

with information for the portions of the 

plant outside the scope of the referenced 

design. Paragraph IV.A.2.a would also 

require that the initial application 

include the reports on departures and 

exemptions as of the time of submission 

of the application. 

Paragraph IV.A.2.b would require that 

an application referencing this appendix 

include the reports required by 

paragraph X.B for exemptions and 

departures proposed by the applicant as 

of the date of submission of its 

application. Paragraph IV.A.2.c would 

require submission of plant-specific TS 

for the plant that consists of the generic 

TS from Chapter 16 of the DCD, with 

any changes made under paragraph 

VIII.C, and the TS for the site-specific 

portions of the plant that are either 

partially or wholly outside the scope of 

this design certification. The applicant 

must also provide the plant-specific 

information designated in the generic 

TS, such as bracketed values (refer to 

guidance provided in Interim Staff 

Guidance DC/COL–ISG–8, ‘‘Necessary 

Content of Plant-Specific Technical 

Specifications’’). 

Paragraph IV.A.2.d would require the 

applicant referencing this appendix to 

provide information demonstrating that 

the proposed site characteristics fall 

within the site parameters for this 

appendix and that the plant-specific 

interface requirements have been met as 

required by 10 CFR 52.79(d). If the 

proposed site has a characteristic that 

does not fall within one or more of the 

site parameters in the DCD, then the 

proposed site would be unacceptable for 

this design unless the applicant seeks an 

exemption under Section VIII and 

provides adequate justification for 

locating the certified design on the 

proposed site. Paragraph IV.A.2.e would 

require submission of information 

addressing COL action items, identified 

in the generic DCD as COL information 

in the application. The COL information 

identifies matters that need to be 

addressed by an applicant who 

references this appendix, as required by 

Subpart C of 10 CFR part 52. An 

applicant may differ from or omit these 

items, provided that the difference or 

omission is identified and justified in its 

application. Based on the applicant’s 

difference or omission, the NRC may 

impose additional licensing 

requirement(s) on the COL applicant as 

appropriate. Paragraph IV.A.2.f would 

require that the application include the 

information specified by 10 CFR 

52.47(a) that is not within the scope of 

this rule, such as generic issues that 

must be addressed or operational issues 

not addressed by a design certification, 

in whole or in part, by an applicant that 

references this appendix. Paragraph 

IV.A.3 would require the applicant to 

physically include, not simply 

reference, the SUNSI (including 

proprietary information) and SGI 

referenced in the DCD, or its equivalent, 

to ensure that the applicant has actual 

notice of these requirements. 

Paragraph IV.A.4 would 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 

IV.A.4 would require that a COL 

applicant referencing this appendix 

include, as part of its application, a 

demonstration that an entity other than 

GEH Nuclear Energy is qualified to 

supply the ESBWR certified design 

unless GEH Nuclear Energy supplies the 

design for the applicant’s use. In cases 

where a COL applicant is not using GEH 

Nuclear Energy to supply the ESBWR 

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. 

Paragraph IV.B would reserve to the 

Commission the right to determine in 

what manner this appendix may be 

referenced by an applicant for a 

construction permit or operating license 

under 10 CFR part 50. This 

determination may occur in the context 

of a subsequent rulemaking modifying 

10 CFR part 52 or this design 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

certification rule, or on a case-by-case 

basis in the context of a specific 

application for a 10 CFR part 50 

construction permit or operating 

license. This provision is necessary 

because the previous DCRs were not 

implemented in the manner that was 

originally envisioned at the time that 10 

CFR part 52 was promulgated. The 

Commission’s concern is with the way 

ITAAC were developed and the lack of 

experience with design certifications in 

license proceedings. Therefore, it is 

appropriate that the Commission retain 

some discretion regarding the way this 

appendix could be referenced in a 10 

CFR part 50 licensing proceeding. 

E. Applicable Regulations (Section V) 

The purpose of Section V is to specify 

the regulations that would be applicable 

and in effect at the time this proposed 

design certification is approved (i.e., as 

of the date specified in paragraph V.A, 

which would be the date that this 

appendix is approved by the 

Commission and signed by the Secretary 

of the Commission). These regulations 

would consist of the technically 

relevant regulations identified in 

paragraph V.A, except for the 

regulations in paragraph V.B that would 

not be applicable to this certified 

design. 

In paragraph V.B, the Commission 

would identify the regulations that do 

not apply to the ESBWR design. The 

Commission has determined that the 

ESBWR design should be exempt from 

portions of 10 CFR 50.34 as described in 

the FSER (NUREG–XXXX) and/or 

summarized below: 

(1) Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 

50.34—Contents of Construction Permit 

and Operating License Applications: 

Technical Information 

This paragraph requires an applicant 

to provide a plant safety parameter 

display console that will display to 

operators a minimum set of parameters 

defining the safety status of the plant, 

capable of displaying a full range of 

important plant parameters and data 

trends on demand, and capable of 

indicating when process limits are being 

approached or exceeded. The ESBWR 

design integrates the safety parameter 

display system into the design of the 

non-safety related distribution control 

and information system, rather than use 

a stand-alone console. The safety 

parameter display system is described 

in Section 7.1.5 of the DCD. 

The Commission has also determined 

that the ESBWR design is approved to 

use the following alternative. Under 10 

CFR 50.55a(a)(3), GEH requested NRC 

approval for the use of Code Case N–782 

as a proposed alternative to the rules of 

Section III, Subsection NCA–1140, 

regarding applied Code Editions and 

Addenda required by 10 CFR 50.55a(c), 

(d), and (e). Code Case N–782 provides 

that the Code Edition and Addenda 

endorsed in a certified design or 

licensed by the regulatory authority may 

be used for systems and components 

constructed to ASME Code, Section III 

requirements. These alternative 

requirements are in lieu of the 

requirements that base the Edition and 

Addenda on the construction permit 

date. Reference to Code Case N–782 will 

be included in component and system 

design specifications and design reports 

to permit certification of these 

specifications and reports to the Code 

Edition and Addenda cited in the DCD. 

The NRC’s bases for approving the use 

of Code Case N–782 as a proposed 

alternative to the requirements of 

Section III Subsection NCA–1140 under 

10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3) for ESBWR are 

described in Section 5.2.1.1.3 of the 

FSER. 

F. Issue Resolution (Section VI) 

The purpose of Section VI is to 

identify the scope of issues that would 

be resolved by the Commission in this 

rulemaking and, therefore, are ‘‘matters 

resolved’’ within the meaning and intent 

of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). The section is 

divided into five parts: paragraph A 

identifies the Commission’s safety 

findings in adopting this appendix, 

paragraph B identifies the scope and 

nature of issues which are resolved by 

this rulemaking, paragraph C identifies 

issues which are not resolved by this 

rulemaking, paragraph D identifies the 

backfit restrictions applicable to the 

Commission with respect to this 

appendix, and paragraph E identifies 

the availability of secondary references. 

Paragraph VI.A would describe the 

nature of the Commission’s findings in 

general terms and make the findings 

required by 10 CFR 52.54 for the 

Commission’s approval of this DCR. 

Furthermore, paragraph VI.A would 

explicitly state the Commission’s 

determination that this design provides 

adequate protection of the public health 

and safety. 

Paragraph VI.B would set forth the 

scope of issues that may not be 

challenged as a matter of right in 

subsequent proceedings. The 

introductory phrase of paragraph VI.B 

clarifies that issue resolution as 

described in the remainder of the 

paragraph extends to the delineated 

NRC proceedings referencing this 

appendix. The remainder of paragraph 

VI.B describes the categories of 

information for which there is issue 

resolution. Specifically, paragraph 

VI.B.1 would provide that all nuclear 

safety issues arising from the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that 

are associated with the information in 

the NRC staff’s FSER (NUREG–XXXX), 

the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information 

(including the availability controls in 

Appendix 19ACM of the generic DCD), 

and the rulemaking record for this 

appendix are resolved within the 

meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). These 

resolved issues include the information 

referenced in the DCD that are 

requirements (i.e., ‘‘secondary 

references’’), as well as all issues arising 

from proprietary information and SGI 

that are intended to be requirements, 

but does not include the HFE processes 

for procedure development and training 

program development identified in 

Sections 18.9 and 18.10 of the generic 

DCD. 

Paragraph VI.B.2 would provide for 

issue preclusion of SUNSI (including 

proprietary information) and SGI. 

Paragraphs VI.B.3, VI.B.4, VI.B.5, and 

VI.B.6 would clarify that approved 

changes to and departures from the 

DCD, which are accomplished in 

compliance with the relevant 

procedures and criteria in Section VIII, 

continue to be matters resolved in 

connection with this rulemaking. 

Paragraphs VI.B.4, VI.B.5, and VI.B.6, 

which would characterize the scope of 

issue resolution in three situations, use 

the phrase ‘‘but only for that plant.’’ 

Paragraph VI.B.4 would describe how 

issues associated with a design 

certification rule are resolved when an 

exemption has been granted for a plant 

referencing the design certification rule. 

Paragraph VI.B.5 would describe how 

issues are resolved when a plant 

referencing the DC rule obtains a license 

amendment for a departure from Tier 2 

information. Paragraph VI.B.6 would 

describe how issues are resolved when 

the applicant or licensee departs from 

the Tier 2 information on the basis of 

paragraph VIII.B.5, which would waive 

the requirement for NRC approval. In all 

three situations, after a matter (e.g., an 

exemption in the case of paragraph 

VI.B.4) is addressed for a specific plant 

referencing a design certification rule, 

the adequacy of that matter for that 

plant is resolved and would constitute 

part of the licensing basis for that plant. 

Therefore, that matter would not 

ordinarily be subject to challenge in any 

subsequent proceeding or action for that 

plant (e.g., an enforcement action) listed 

in the introductory portion of paragraph 

IV.B. By contrast, there would be no 

legally binding issue resolution on that 

subject matter for any other plant, or in 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16557 

2Certain activities, ordinarily conducted 

following fuel load and therefore considered 

‘‘operational requirements’’ but which may be relied 

upon to support a Commission finding under 10 

CFR 52.103(g), may themselves be the subject of 

ITAAC to ensure their implementation prior to the 

10 CFR 52.103(g) finding. 

a subsequent rulemaking amending the 

applicable design certification rule. 

However, the NRC’s consideration of the 

safety, regulatory or policy issues 

necessary to the determination of the 

exemption or license amendment may, 

in appropriate circumstances, be relied 

upon as part of the basis for NRC action 

in other licensing proceedings or 

rulemaking. 

Paragraph VI.B.7 would provide that, 

for those plants located on sites whose 

site characteristics fall within the site 

parameters assumed in the GEH 

evaluation of SAMDAs, all issues with 

respect to SAMDAs arising under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), associated 

with the information in the EA for this 

design and the information regarding 

SAMDAs in NEDO–33306, Revision 4, 

‘‘ESBWR Severe Accident Mitigation 

Design Alternatives’’ are also resolved 

within the meaning and intent of 10 

CFR 52.63(a)(5). If a deviation from a 

site parameter is granted, the deviation 

applicant has the initial burden of 

demonstrating that the original SAMDA 

analysis still applies to the actual site 

characteristics; but, if the deviation is 

approved, requests for litigation at the 

COL stage must meet the requirements 

of 10 CFR 2.309 and present sufficient 

information to create a genuine 

controversy in order to obtain a hearing 

on the site parameter deviation. 

Paragraph VI.C would reserve the 

right of the Commission to impose 

operational requirements on applicants 

that reference this appendix. This 

provision would reflect the fact that 

only some operational requirements, 

including portions of the generic TS in 

Chapter 16 of the DCD, and no 

operational programs, such as 

operational QA, were completely or 

comprehensively reviewed by the NRC 

in this design certification rulemaking 

proceeding. Therefore, the special 

backfit and finality provisions of 10 CFR 

52.63 would apply only to those 

operational requirements that either the 

NRC completely reviewed and 

approved, or formed the basis for an 

NRC safety finding of the adequacy of 

the ESBWR, as documented in the 

NRC’s safety evaluation report for the 

ESBWR. This is consistent with the 

currently approved design certifications 

in 10 CFR part 52, Appendices A 

through D. Although information on 

operational matters is included in the 

DCDs of each of these currently 

approved designs, for the most part 

these design certifications do not 

provide approval for operational 

information, and none provide approval 

for operational ‘‘programs’’ (e.g., 

emergency preparedness programs, 

operational quality assurance programs). 

Most operational information in the 

DCD simply serves as ‘‘contextual 

information’’ (i.e., information necessary 

to understand the design of certain SSCs 

and how they would be used in the 

overall context of the facility). The NRC 

did not use contextual information to 

support the NRC’s safety conclusions, 

and such information does not 

constitute the underlying safety bases 

for the adequacy of those SSCs. Thus, 

contextual operational information on 

any particular topic would not 

constitute one of the ‘‘matters resolved’’ 

under paragraph VI.B. 

The NRC notes that operational 

requirements may be imposed on 

licensees referencing this design 

certification through the inclusion of 

license conditions in the license, or 

inclusion of a description of the 

operational requirement in the plantspecific FSAR.2 The NRC’s choice of the 

regulatory vehicle for imposing the 

operational requirements will depend 

upon, among other things: (1) Whether 

the development and/or implementation 

of these requirements must occur prior 

to either the issuance of the COL or the 

Commission finding under 10 CFR 

52.103(g), and (2) the nature of the 

change controls which the NRC believes 

are appropriate given the regulatory, 

safety, and security significance of each 

operational requirement. 

Paragraph VI.C would allow the NRC 

to impose future operational 

requirements (distinct from design 

matters) on applicants who reference 

this design certification. Also, license 

conditions for portions of the plant 

within the scope of this design 

certification (e.g., start-up and power 

ascension testing), are not restricted by 

10 CFR 52.63. The requirement to 

perform these testing programs is 

contained in Tier 1 information. 

However, ITAAC cannot be specified for 

these subjects because the matters to be 

addressed in these license conditions 

cannot be verified prior to fuel load and 

operation, when the ITAAC are 

satisfied. Therefore, another regulatory 

vehicle is necessary to ensure that 

licensees comply with the matters 

contained in the license conditions. 

License conditions for these areas 

cannot be developed now because this 

requires the type of detailed design 

information that will be developed 

during a COL review. In the absence of 

detailed design information to evaluate 

the need for and develop specific postfuel load verifications for these matters, 

the Commission is reserving in this rule 

the right to impose, at the time of COL 

issuance, license conditions addressing 

post-fuel load verification activities for 

portions of the plant within the scope of 

this design certification. 

Paragraph VI.D would reiterate the 

restrictions (contained in Section VIII) 

placed upon the Commission when 

ordering generic or plant-specific 

modifications, changes or additions to 

structures, systems, or components, 

design features, design criteria, and 

ITAAC (paragraph VI.D.3 would address 

ITAAC) within the scope of the certified 

design. 

Paragraph VI.E would provide that the 

NRC will specify at an appropriate time 

the procedures for interested persons to 

obtain access to proprietary information, 

SUNSI, and SGI information for the 

ESBWR design certification rule. 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 this 

appendix; (2) any hearing provided 

under 10 CFR 52.103 where the 

underlying COL references this 

appendix; and (3) any other hearing 

relating to this appendix in which 

interested persons have the right to 

request an adjudicatory hearing. 

For proceedings where the notice of 

hearing was published before 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the Commission’s order governing 

access to SUNSI and SGI shall be used 

to govern access to proprietary 

information, SUNSI, and SGI within the 

scope of the rulemaking. For 

proceedings in which the notice of 

hearing or opportunity for hearing is 

published after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], paragraph VI.E applies 

and governs access to proprietary 

information, SUNSI, and SGI. For these 

proceedings, as stated in paragraph VI.E, 

the NRC will specify the access 

procedures at an appropriate time. 

For both a hearing required by 10 CFR 

52.85 where the underlying application 

references this appendix, and in any 

hearing on ITAAC completion under 10 

CFR 52.103, the NRC expects to follow 

its current practice of establishing the 

procedures by order at the time that the 

notice of hearing is published in the 

Federal Register. See, for example, 

Florida Power and Light Co., Combined 

License Application for the Turkey 

Point Units 6 & 7, Notice of Hearing, 

Opportunity To Petition for Leave To 

Intervene and Associated Order 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16558 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Imposing Procedures for Access to 

SUNSI 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 SUNSI and Safeguards 

Information for Contention Preparation; 

In the Matter of AREVA Enrichment 

Services, LLC (Eagle Rock Enrichment 

Facility) (74 FR 38052; July 30, 2009). 

G. Duration of This Appendix (Section 

VII) 

The purpose of Section VII would be, 

in part, to specify the period during 

which this design certification may be 

referenced by an applicant for a COL, 

under 10 CFR 52.55. This section would 

also state that the design certification 

would remain valid for an applicant or 

licensee that references the design 

certification until the application is 

withdrawn or the license expires. 

Therefore, if an application references 

this design certification during the 15- 

year period, then the design certification 

would be effective until the application 

is withdrawn or the license issued on 

that application expires. Also, the 

design certification would be effective 

for the referencing licensee if the license 

is renewed. The Commission intends for 

this appendix to remain valid for the life 

of the plant that references the design 

certification to achieve the benefits of 

standardization and licensing stability. 

This means that changes to, or plantspecific departures from, information in 

the plant-specific DCD must be made 

under the change processes in Section 

VIII for the life of the plant. 

H. Processes for Changes and 

Departures (Section VIII) 

The purpose of Section VIII would be 

to set forth the processes for generic 

changes to, or plant-specific departures 

(including exemptions) from, the DCD. 

The Commission adopted this restrictive 

change process in order to achieve a 

more stable licensing process for 

applicants and licensees that reference 

this DCR. Section VIII is divided into 

three paragraphs, which correspond to 

Tier 1, Tier 2, and operational 

requirements. The language of Section 

VIII distinguishes between generic 

changes to the DCD versus plantspecific departures from the DCD. 

Generic changes must be accomplished 

by rulemaking because the intended 

subject of the change is this DCR itself, 

as is contemplated by 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1). Consistent with 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(3), any generic rulemaking 

changes are applicable to all plants, 

absent circumstances which render the 

change [‘‘modification’’ in the language 

of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(3)] ‘‘technically 

irrelevant.’’ By contrast, plant-specific 

departures could be either a 

Commission-issued order to one or more 

applicants or licensees; or an applicant 

or licensee-initiated departure 

applicable only to that applicant’s or 

licensee’s plant(s), similar to a 10 CFR 

50.59 departure or an exemption. 

Because these plant-specific departures 

will result in a DCD that is unique for 

that plant, Section X would require an 

applicant or licensee to maintain a 

plant-specific DCD. For purposes of 

brevity, this discussion refers to both 

generic changes and plant-specific 

departures as ‘‘change processes.’’ 

Section VIII refers to an exemption 

from one or more requirements of this 

appendix and the criteria for granting an 

exemption. The Commission cautions 

that when the exemption involves an 

underlying substantive requirement 

(applicable regulation), then the 

applicant or licensee requesting the 

exemption must also show that an 

exemption from the underlying 

applicable requirement meets the 

criteria of 10 CFR 52.7. 

Tier 1 Information 

The change processes for Tier 1 

information would be covered in 

paragraph VIII.A. Generic changes to 

Tier 1 are accomplished by rulemakings 

that amend the generic DCD and are 

governed by the standards in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1) and 10 CFR 52.63(a)(2). No 

matter who proposes it, a generic 

change under 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) will 

not be made to a certified design while 

it is in effect unless the change: (1) Is 

necessary for compliance with 

Commission regulations applicable and 

in effect at the time the certification was 

issued; (2) is necessary to provide 

adequate protection of the public health 

and safety or common defense and 

security; (3) reduces unnecessary 

regulatory burden and maintains 

protection to public health and safety 

and common defense and security; (4) 

provides the detailed design 

information necessary to resolve 

selected design acceptance criteria; (5) 

corrects material errors in the 

certification information; (6) 

substantially increases overall safety, 

reliability, or security of a facility and 

the costs of the change are justified; or 

(7) contributes to increased 

standardization of the certification 

information. The rulemakings must 

provide for notice and opportunity for 

public comment on the proposed 

change, as required by 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(2). The Commission will give 

consideration to whether the benefits 

justify the costs for plants that are 

already licensed or for which an 

application for a permit or license is 

under consideration. 

Departures from Tier 1 may occur in 

two ways: (1) the Commission may 

order a licensee to depart from Tier 1, 

as provided in paragraph VIII.A.3; or (2) 

an applicant or licensee may request an 

exemption from Tier 1, as provided in 

paragraph VIII.A.4. If the Commission 

seeks to order a licensee to depart from 

Tier 1, paragraph VIII.A.3 would require 

that the Commission find both that the 

departure is necessary for adequate 

protection or for compliance and that 

special circumstances are present. 

Paragraph VIII.A.4 would provide that 

exemptions from Tier 1 requested by an 

applicant or licensee are governed by 

the requirements of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1) 

and 52.98(f), which provide an 

opportunity for a hearing. In addition, 

the Commission would not grant 

requests for exemptions that may result 

in a significant decrease in the level of 

safety otherwise provided by the design. 

Tier 2 Information 

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, 

would be set forth in paragraph VIII.B. 

The change process for Tier 2 has the 

same elements as the Tier 1 change 

process, but some of the standards for 

plant-specific orders and exemptions 

would be different. 

The process for generic Tier 2 changes 

(including changes to Tier 2* and Tier 

2* with a time of expiration) tracks the 

process for generic Tier 1 changes. As 

set forth in paragraph VIII.B.1, generic 

Tier 2 changes would be accomplished 

by rulemaking amending the generic 

DCD and would be governed by the 

standards in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1). No 

matter who proposes it, a generic 

change under 10 CFR 52 52.63(a)(1) will 

not be made to a certified design while 

it is in effect unless the change: (1) Is 

necessary for compliance with 

Commission regulations applicable and 

in effect at the time the certification was 

issued; (2) is necessary to provide 

adequate protection of the public health 

and safety or common defense and 

security; (3) reduces unnecessary 

regulatory burden and maintains 

protection to public health and safety 

and common defense and security; (4) 

provides the detailed design 

information necessary to resolve 

selected design acceptance criteria; (5) 

corrects material errors in the 

certification information; (6) 

substantially increases overall safety, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16559 

reliability, or security of a facility and 

the costs of the change are justified; or 

(7) contributes to increased 

standardization of the certification 

information. If a generic change is made 

to Tier 2* information, then the category 

and expiration, if necessary, of the new 

information would also be determined 

in the rulemaking and the appropriate 

change process for that new information 

would apply. 

Departures from Tier 2 would occur 

in five ways: (1) The Commission may 

order a plant-specific departure, as set 

forth in paragraph VIII.B.3; (2) an 

applicant or licensee may request an 

exemption from a Tier 2 requirement as 

set forth in paragraph VIII.B.4; (3) a 

licensee may make a departure without 

prior NRC approval under paragraph 

VIII.B.5; (4) the licensee may request 

NRC approval for proposed departures 

which do not meet the requirements in 

paragraph VIII.B.5 as provided in 

paragraph VIII.B.5.d; and (5) the 

licensee may request NRC approval for 

a departure from Tier 2* information 

under paragraph VIII.B.6. 

Similar to Commission-ordered Tier 1 

departures and generic Tier 2 changes, 

Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures 

could not be imposed except when 

necessary either to bring the 

certification into compliance with the 

Commission’s regulations applicable 

and in effect at the time of approval of 

the design certification or to ensure 

adequate protection of the public health 

and safety or common defense and 

security, as set forth in paragraph 

VIII.B.3. However, the special 

circumstances for the Commissionordered Tier 2 departures would not 

have to outweigh any decrease in safety 

that may result from the reduction in 

standardization caused by the plantspecific order, as required by 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(4). The Commission 

determined that it was not necessary to 

impose an additional limitation similar 

to that imposed on Tier 1 departures by 

10 CFR 52.63(a)(4) and (b)(1). This type 

of additional limitation for 

standardization would unnecessarily 

restrict the flexibility of applicants and 

licensees with respect to Tier 2 

information. 

An applicant or licensee would be 

permitted to request an exemption from 

Tier 2 information as set forth in 

paragraph VIII.B.4. The applicant or 

licensee would have to demonstrate that 

the exemption complies with one of the 

special circumstances in 10 CFR 

50.12(a). In addition, the Commission 

would not grant requests for exemptions 

that may result in a significant decrease 

in the level of safety otherwise provided 

by the design. However, the special 

circumstances for the exemption do not 

have to outweigh any decrease in safety 

that may result from the reduction in 

standardization caused by the 

exemption. If the exemption is 

requested by an applicant for a license, 

the exemption would be subject to 

litigation in the same manner as other 

issues in the license hearing, consistent 

with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1). If the 

exemption is requested by a licensee, 

then the exemption would be subject to 

litigation in the same manner as a 

license amendment. 

Paragraph VIII.B.5 would allow an 

applicant or licensee to depart from Tier 

2 information, without prior NRC 

approval, if the proposed departure does 

not involve a change to, or departure 

from, Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, TS, 

or does not require a license amendment 

under paragraphs VIII.B.5.b or 

VIII.B.5.c. The TS referred to in 

VIII.B.5.a of this paragraph are the TS in 

Chapter 16 of the generic DCD, 

including bases, for departures made 

prior to issuance of the COL. After 

issuance of the COL, the plant-specific 

TS would be controlling under 

paragraph VIII.B.5. The bases for the 

plant-specific TS would be controlled 

by the bases control program, which is 

specified in the plant-specific TS 

administrative controls section. The 

requirement for a license amendment in 

paragraph VIII.B.5.b would be similar to 

the requirement in 10 CFR 50.59 and 

apply to all information in Tier 2 except 

for the information that resolves the 

severe accident issues. 

The Commission believes that the 

resolution of ex-vessel severe accident 

design features should be preserved and 

maintained in the same fashion as all 

other safety issues that were resolved 

during the design certification review 

(refer to SRM on SECY–90–377, 

‘‘Requirements for Design Certification 

Under 10 CFR Part 52,’’ dated February 

15, 1991, ADAMS Accession No. 

ML003707892). However, because of the 

increased uncertainty in ex-vessel 

severe accident issue resolutions, the 

Commission has proposed separate 

criteria in paragraph VIII.B.5.c for 

determining if a departure from 

information that resolves ex-vessel 

severe accident design features would 

require a license amendment. For 

purposes of applying the special criteria 

in paragraph VIII.B.5.c, ex-vessel severe 

accident resolutions would be limited to 

design features where the intended 

function of the design feature is relied 

upon to resolve postulated accidents 

when the reactor core has melted and 

exited the reactor vessel, and the 

containment is being challenged. These 

design features are identified in 

Sections 19.2.3, 19.3.2, 19.3.3, 19.3.4, 

and Appendices 19A and 19B of the 

DCD, with other issues, and are 

described in other sections of the DCD. 

Therefore, the location of design 

information in the DCD is not important 

to the application of this special 

procedure for ex-vessel severe accident 

design features. However, the special 

procedure in paragraph VIII.B.5.c would 

not apply to design features that resolve 

so-called ‘‘beyond design-basis 

accidents’’ or other low-probability 

events. The important aspect of this 

special procedure is that it would be 

limited to ex-vessel severe accident 

design features, as defined above. Some 

design features may have intended 

functions to meet ‘‘design basis’’ 

requirements and to resolve ‘‘severe 

accidents.’’ If these design features are 

reviewed under paragraph VIII.B.5, then 

the appropriate criteria from either 

paragraphs VIII.B.5.b or VIII.B.5.c would 

be selected depending upon the 

function being changed. 

An applicant or licensee that plans to 

depart from Tier 2 information, under 

paragraph VIII.B.5, would be required to 

prepare an evaluation which provides 

the bases for the determination that the 

proposed change does not require a 

license amendment or involve a change 

to Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, or a 

change to the TS, as explained above. In 

order to achieve the Commission’s goals 

for design certification, the evaluation 

would need to consider all of the 

matters that were resolved in the DCD, 

such as generic issue resolutions that 

are relevant to the proposed departure. 

The benefits of the early resolution of 

safety issues would be lost if departures 

from the DCD were made that violated 

these resolutions without appropriate 

review. 

The evaluation of the relevant matters 

would need to consider the proposed 

departure over the full range of power 

operation from startup to shutdown, as 

it relates to anticipated operational 

occurrences, transients, design-basis 

accidents, and severe accidents. The 

evaluation would also have to include a 

review of all relevant secondary 

references from the DCD because Tier 2 

information, which is intended to be 

treated as a requirement, would be 

contained in the secondary references. 

The evaluation should consider Tables 

14.3–1a through 14.3–1c and 19.2–3 of 

the generic DCD to ensure that the 

proposed change does not impact Tier 1 

information. These tables contain crossreferences from the safety analyses and 

probabilistic risk assessment in Tier 2 to 

the important parameters that were 

included in Tier 1. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16560 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Paragraph VIII.B.5.d addresses 

information described in the DCD to 

address aircraft impacts, in accordance 

with 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28). Under 10 CFR 

52.47(a)(28), applicants are required to 

include the information required by 10 

CFR 50.150(b) in their DCD. Under 10 

CFR 50.150(b), applications for standard 

design certifications are required to 

include: 

1. A description of the design features 

and functional capabilities identified as 

a result of the aircraft impact assessment 

required by 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1); and 

2. A description of how such design 

features and functional capabilities meet 

the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). 

An applicant or licensee who changes 

this information is required to consider 

the effect of the changed design feature 

or functional capability on the original 

aircraft impact assessment required by 

10 CFR 50.150(a). The applicant or 

licensee is also required to describe in 

the plant-specific DCD how the 

modified design features and functional 

capabilities continue to meet the 

assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). Submittal of this updated 

information is governed by the reporting 

requirements in Section X.B. 

In an adjudicatory proceeding (e.g., 

for issuance of a COL) a person who 

believes that an applicant or licensee 

has not complied with paragraph 

VIII.B.5 when departing from Tier 2 

information, would be permitted to 

petition to admit such a contention into 

the proceeding under paragraph 

VIII.B.5.f. This provision has been 

proposed because an incorrect departure 

from the requirements of this appendix 

essentially would place the departure 

outside of the scope of the 

Commission’s safety finding in the 

design certification rulemaking. 

Therefore, it follows that properly 

founded contentions alleging such 

incorrectly implemented departures 

cannot be considered ‘‘resolved’’ by this 

rulemaking. As set forth in paragraph 

VIII.B.5.f, the petition would have to 

comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 

2.309 and show that the departure does 

not comply with paragraph VIII.B.5. 

Other persons would be allowed to file 

a response to the petition under 10 CFR 

2.309. If on the basis of the petition and 

any responses, the presiding officer in 

the proceeding determines that the 

required showing has been made, the 

matter would be certified to the 

Commission for its final determination. 

In the absence of a proceeding, petitions 

alleging nonconformance with 

paragraph VIII.B.5 requirements 

applicable to Tier 2 departures would be 

treated as petitions for enforcement 

action under 10 CFR 2.206. 

Paragraph VIII.B.6 would provide 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 

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, which 

would not be specified in Tier 1 that are 

acceptable for meeting ITAAC, were 

specified in Tier 2. The result of these 

departures would be that certain 

significant information only exists in 

Tier 2 and the Commission would not 

want this significant information to be 

changed without prior NRC approval. 

This Tier 2* information would be 

identified in the generic DCD with 

italicized text and brackets (See Table 

1D–1 in Appendix 1D of the ESBWR 

DCD). 

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 

(100 percent) power, 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 full power is first achieved 

(first full power) 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 

VIII.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 

VIII.B.5. By contrast, the Tier 2* 

information identified in paragraph 

VIII.B.6.b would retain its Tier 2* 

designation throughout the duration of 

the license, including any period of 

license renewal. 

Certain preoperational tests in 

paragraph VIII.B.6.c would be 

designated to be performed only for the 

first plant that references this appendix. 

The GEH’s basis for performing these 

‘‘first-plant-only’’ preoperational tests is 

provided in Section 14.2.8 of the DCD. 

The NRC found GEH’s basis for 

performing these tests and its 

justification for only performing the 

tests on the first plant acceptable. The 

NRC’s decision was based on the need 

to verify that plant-specific 

manufacturing and/or construction 

variations do not adversely impact the 

predicted performance of certain 

passive safety systems, while 

recognizing that these special tests 

would result in significant thermal 

transients being applied to critical plant 

components. The NRC believes that the 

range of manufacturing or construction 

variations that could adversely affect the 

relevant passive safety systems would 

be adequately disclosed after performing 

the designated tests on the first plant. 

The Tier 2* designation for these tests 

would expire after the first completes 

these tests, as indicated in paragraph 

VIII.B.6.c. 

If Tier 2* information is changed in a 

generic rulemaking, the designation of 

the new information (Tier 1, 2*, or 2) 

would also be determined in the 

rulemaking and the appropriate process 

for future changes would apply. If a 

plant-specific departure is made from 

Tier 2* information, then the new 

designation would apply only to that 

plant. If an applicant who references 

this design certification makes a 

departure from Tier 2* information, the 

new information would be subject to 

litigation in the same manner as other 

plant-specific issues in the licensing 

hearing. If a licensee makes a departure 

from Tier 2* information, it would be 

treated as a license amendment under 

10 CFR 50.90 and the finality would be 

determined under paragraph VI.B.5. 

Any requests for departures from Tier 

2* information that affects Tier 1 would 

also have to comply with the 

requirements in paragraph VIII.A. 

Operational Requirements 

The change process for TS and other 

operational requirements in the DCD 

would be set forth in paragraph VIII.C. 

This change process has elements 

similar to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 change 

processes in paragraphs VIII.A and 

VIII.B, but with significantly different 

change standards. Because of the 

different finality status for TS and other 

operational requirements (refer to 

paragraph V.F of this document), the 

Commission designated a special 

category of information, consisting of 

the TS and other operational 

requirements, with its own change 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16561 

process in proposed paragraph VIII.C. 

The key to using the change processes 

proposed in Section VIII is to determine 

if the proposed change or departure 

would require a change to a design 

feature described in the generic DCD. If 

a design change is required, then the 

appropriate change process in paragraph 

VIII.A or VIII.B would apply. However, 

if a proposed change to the TS or other 

operational requirements does not 

require a change to a design feature in 

the generic DCD, then paragraph VIII.C 

would apply. The language in paragraph 

VIII.C would also distinguish between 

generic (Chapter 16 of the DCD) and 

plant-specific TS to account for the 

different treatment and finality accorded 

TS before and after a license is issued. 

The process in paragraph VIII.C.1 for 

making generic changes to the generic 

TS in Chapter 16 of the DCD or other 

operational requirements in the generic 

DCD would be accomplished by 

rulemaking and governed by the backfit 

standards in 10 CFR 50.109. The 

determination of whether the generic TS 

and other operational requirements 

were completely reviewed and 

approved in the design certification 

rulemaking would be based upon the 

extent to which the NRC reached a 

safety conclusion in the FSER on this 

matter. If it cannot be determined, in the 

absence of a specific statement, that the 

TS or operational requirement was 

comprehensively reviewed and 

finalized in the design certification 

rulemaking, then there would be no 

backfit restriction under 10 CFR 50.109 

because no prior position, consistent 

with paragraph VI.B, was taken on this 

safety matter. Generic changes made 

under paragraph VIII.C.1 would be 

applicable to all applicants or licensees 

(refer to paragraph VIII.C.2), unless the 

change is irrelevant because of a plantspecific departure. 

Some generic TS and availability 

controls contain values in brackets [ ]. 

The brackets are placeholders indicating 

that the NRC’s review is not complete, 

and represent a requirement that the 

applicant for a COL referencing the 

ESBWR DCR must replace the values in 

brackets with final plant-specific values 

(refer to guidance provided in Interim 

Staff Guidance DC/COL–ISG–8, 

‘‘Necessary Content of Plant-Specific 

Technical Specifications’’). The values 

in brackets are neither part of the design 

certification rule nor are they binding. 

Therefore, the replacement of bracketed 

values with final plant-specific values 

does not require an exemption from the 

generic TS or availability controls. 

Plant-specific departures may occur 

by either a Commission order under 

paragraph VIII.C.3 or an applicant’s 

exemption request under paragraph 

VIII.C.4. The basis for determining if the 

TS or operational requirement was 

completely reviewed and approved for 

these processes would be the same as 

for paragraph VIII.C.1 above. If the TS 

or operational requirement is 

comprehensively reviewed and 

finalized in the design certification 

rulemaking, then the Commission must 

demonstrate that special circumstances 

are present before ordering a plantspecific departure. If not, there would 

be no restriction on plant-specific 

changes to the TS or operational 

requirements, prior to the issuance of a 

license, provided a design change is not 

required. Although the generic TS were 

reviewed and approved by the NRC staff 

in support of the DC review, the 

Commission intends to consider the 

lessons learned from subsequent 

operating experience during its 

licensing review of the plant-specific 

TS. The process for petitioning to 

intervene on a TS or operational 

requirement contained in paragraph 

VIII.C.5 would be similar to other issues 

in a licensing hearing, except that the 

petitioner must also demonstrate why 

special circumstances are present 

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.335. 

Finally, the generic TS would have no 

further effect on the plant-specific TS 

after the issuance of a license that 

references this appendix. The bases for 

the generic TS would be controlled by 

the change process in paragraph VIII.C. 

After a license is issued, the bases 

would be controlled by the bases change 

provision set forth in the administrative 

controls section of the plant-specific TS. 

I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) (Section 

IX) 

This section is reserved for future use. 

J. Records and Reporting (Section X) 

The purpose of Section X would be to 

set forth the requirements that would 

apply to maintaining records of changes 

to and departures from the generic DCD, 

which would be reflected in the plantspecific DCD. Section X would also set 

forth the requirements for submitting 

reports (including updates to the plantspecific DCD) to the NRC. This section 

of the appendix would be similar to the 

requirements for records and reports in 

10 CFR part 50, except for minor 

differences in information collection 

and reporting requirements. 

Paragraph X.A.1 would require that a 

generic DCD and the SUNSI (including 

proprietary information) and SGI 

referenced in the generic DCD be 

maintained by the applicant for this 

rule. The generic DCD concept was 

developed, in part, to meet the OFR 

requirements for incorporation by 

reference, including public availability 

of documents incorporated by reference. 

However, the SUNSI (including 

proprietary information) and SGI could 

not be included in the generic DCD 

because they are not publicly available. 

Nonetheless, the SUNSI (including 

proprietary information) and SGI was 

reviewed by the NRC and, as stated in 

paragraph VI.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 

not in the generic DCD, this 

information, or its equivalent, is 

required to be provided by an applicant 

for a license referencing this design 

certification rule. Paragraph X.A.1 

would require the design certification 

applicant to maintain the SUNSI 

(including proprietary information) and 

SGI, which it developed and used to 

support its design certification 

application. This would ensure that the 

referencing applicant has direct access 

to this information from the design 

certification applicant, if it has 

contracted with the applicant to provide 

the proprietary information and SGI to 

support its license application. The NRC 

may also inspect this information if it 

was not submitted to the NRC (e.g., the 

aircraft impact assessment required by 

10 CFR 50.150). Only the generic DCD 

would be identified and incorporated by 

reference into this rule. The generic 

DCD and the NRC-approved version of 

the SUNSI (including proprietary 

information) and SGI would be 

maintained for the period of time that 

this appendix may be referenced. 

Paragraphs X.A.2 and X.A.3 would 

place recordkeeping requirements on 

the applicant or licensee that references 

this design certification so that its plantspecific DCD accurately reflects both 

generic changes to the generic DCD and 

plant-specific departures made under 

Section VIII. The term ‘‘plant-specific’’ 

would be used in paragraph X.A.2 and 

other sections of this appendix to 

distinguish between the generic DCD 

that would be incorporated by reference 

into this appendix, and the plantspecific DCD that the applicant would 

be required to submit under paragraph 

IV.A. The requirement to maintain 

changes to the generic DCD would be 

explicitly stated to ensure that these 

changes are not only reflected in the 

generic DCD, which would be 

maintained by the applicant for design 

certification, but also in the plantspecific DCD. Therefore, records of 

generic changes to the DCD would be 

required to be maintained by both 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16562 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

entities to ensure that both entities have 

up-to-date DCDs. 

Paragraph X.A.4.a would require the 

applicant to maintain a copy of the 

aircraft impact assessment 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), will facilitate 

any NRC inspections of the assessment 

that the NRC decides to conduct. 

Similarly, the NRC is proposing new 

paragraph X.A.4.b that would require an 

applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix to maintain a copy of the 

aircraft impact assessment 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 

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) will be met. 

Paragraph X.A would not place 

recordkeeping requirements on sitespecific information that is outside the 

scope of this rule. As discussed in 

paragraph IV.D of this document, the 

FSAR required by 10 CFR 52.79 would 

contain the plant-specific DCD and the 

site-specific information for a facility 

that references this rule. The phrase 

‘‘site-specific portion of the final safety 

analysis report’’ in paragraph X.B.3.c 

would refer to the information that is 

contained in the FSAR for a facility 

(required by 10 CFR 52.79) but is not 

part of the plant-specific DCD (required 

by paragraph IV.A). Therefore, this rule 

would not require that duplicate 

documentation be maintained by an 

applicant or licensee that references this 

rule, because the plant-specific DCD 

would be part of the FSAR for the 

facility. 

Paragraph X.B.1 would require 

applicants or licensees that reference 

this rule to submit reports, which 

describe departures from the DCD and 

include a summary of the written 

evaluations. The requirement for the 

written evaluations would be set forth 

in paragraph X.A.1. The frequency of 

the report submittals would be set forth 

in paragraph X.B.3. The requirement for 

submitting a summary of the 

evaluations would be similar to the 

requirement in 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2). 

Paragraph X.B.2 would require 

applicants or licensees that reference 

this rule to submit updates to the DCD, 

which include both generic changes and 

plant-specific departures. The frequency 

for submitting updates would be set 

forth in paragraph X.B.3. The 

requirements in paragraph X.B.3 for 

submitting the reports and updates 

would vary according to certain time 

periods during a facility’s lifetime. If a 

potential applicant for a COL who 

references this rule decides to depart 

from the generic DCD prior to 

submission of the application, then 

paragraph X.B.3.a would require that 

the updated DCD be submitted as part 

of the initial application for a license. 

Under paragraph X.B.3.b, the applicant 

may submit any subsequent updates to 

its plant-specific DCD along with its 

amendments to the application 

provided that the submittals are made at 

least once per year. Because 

amendments to an application are 

typically made more frequently than 

once a year, this should not be an 

excessive burden on the applicant. 

Paragraph X.B.3.b would also require 

semi-annual submission of the reports 

required by paragraph X.B.1 throughout 

the period of application review and 

construction. The NRC would use the 

information in the reports to help plan 

the NRC’s inspection and oversight 

during this phase, when the licensee is 

conducting detailed design, 

procurement of components and 

equipment, construction, and 

preoperational testing. In addition, the 

NRC would use the information in 

making its finding on ITAAC under 10 

CFR 52.103(g), as well as any finding on 

interim operation under section 

189.a.(1)(B)(iii) of the AEA. Once a 

facility begins operation (for a COL 

under 10 CFR part 52, after the 

Commission has made a finding under 

10 CFR 52.103(g)), the frequency of 

reporting would be governed by the 

requirements in paragraph X.B.3.c. 

VI. 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 

AEA or the provisions of this chapter. 

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. 

VII. 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. 

Public Document Room (PDR). The 

NRC PDR is located at 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, e-mail: 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Regulations.gov (Web). These 

documents may be viewed and 

downloaded electronically through the 

Federal rulemaking Web site, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, by searching 

under Docket ID NRC–2010–0135. 

NRC’s Electronic Reading Room 

(ERR). The NRC’s public electronic 

reading room is located at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 

Document PDR Web ERR (ADAMS) 

SECY–11–0006, ‘‘Proposed Rule—ESBWR Design Certification’’ ............................................................ X X ML102220172 

Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY–11–0006, ‘‘Proposed Rule—ESBWR Design Certification’’ X X ML110670047 

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Application for Design Certification of the ESBWR Design ........................... X X ML052450245 

ESBWR Design Control Document, Revision 9 ......................................................................................... X X ML103440266 

ESBWR Final Safety Evaluation Report ..................................................................................................... X ............ ML103470210 

ESBWR Environmental Assessment .......................................................................................................... X X ML102220247 

NEDO–33306, Revision 4, ‘‘ESBWR Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives’’ ............................ X ............ ML102990433 

NEDO–33338, Revision 1, ‘‘ESBWR Feedwater Temperature Operating Domain Transient and Accident Analysis’’.X ............ ML091380173 

NEDC–33408P, Revision 1, ‘‘ESBWR Steam Dryer—Plant Based Load Evaluation Methodology‘‘ ......... X ............ ML102880132 

Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY–96–077, ‘‘Certification of Two Evolutionary Designs’’ ........ X ............ ML003754873 

SECY–94–084, ‘‘Policy and Technical Issues Associated with the Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety 

Systems in Passive Plant Designs’’.

X ............ ML003708068 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16563 

3The regulatory history of the NRC’s design 

certification reviews is a package of documents that 

is available in NRC’s PDR and ERR. 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. 

4For 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 

FOIA and the NRC’s implementing regulation at 10 

CFR part 9. 

Document PDR Web ERR (ADAMS) 

Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY–90–377, ‘‘Requirements for Design Certification Under 10 

CFR Part 52’’.

X ............ ML003707892 

NUREG–0700, Revision 2, ‘‘Human-Systems Interface Design Review Guidelines’’ (three volumes) ...... X ............ ML021700337 

ML021700342 

ML021700371 

NUREG–0711, Revision 2, ‘‘Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model’’ ................................. ............ ............ ML040770540 

NUREG–0800, Ch. 6.4, Revision 3, ‘‘Control Room Habitability System’’ ................................................. X ............ ML070550069 

NUREG–0800, Ch. 13.5.2.1, Revision 2, ‘‘Operating and Emergency Operating Procedures’’ ................ X ............ ML070100635 

NUREG–1242, ‘‘NRC Review of Electric Power Research Institute’s Advanced Light Water Reactor 

Utility Requirements Document, Evolutionary Plant Designs’’ (five volumes).

X ............ ML100610048 

ML100430013 

ML063620331 

ML070600372 

ML070600373 

Regulatory Guide 1.206, Section C.I.1, ‘‘Standard Format and Content of Combined License Applications—Introduction and General Description of the Plant’’.X ............ ML070630005 

Interim Staff Guidance DC/COL–ISG–8, ‘‘Necessary Content of Plant-Specific Technical Specifications’’.X ............ ML083310237 

Regulatory History of Design Certification 3 ................................................................................................ X ............ ML003761550 

VIII. Procedures for Access to SUNSI 

(Including Proprietary Information) 

and SGI for Preparation of Comments 

on the Proposed ESBWR Design 

Certification Rule 

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 proprietary information 4), 

and SGI, in order to prepare their 

comments. Requirements for access to 

SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR 

parts 2 and 73. This notice of proposed 

rulemaking provides information 

specific to this rulemaking; however, 

nothing in this notice is intended to 

conflict with the SGI regulations. 

Interested persons who desire access 

to SUNSI information on the ESBWR 

design constituting proprietary 

information 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 for 

Access 

Within 10 days after publication of 

this notice of proposed rulemaking, any 

individual or entity who, in order to 

submit comments on the proposed 

design certification, believes access to 

information in this rulemaking docket 

that the NRC has categorized as SUNSI 

or SGI is necessary may request access 

to this information. Requests for access 

to SUNSI or SGI submitted more than 10 

days after publication of this notice 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 individual or entity requesting 

access to the information (hereinafter, 

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. 

Requests to the applicant must be sent 

to Rick E. Kingston, Vice President, 

ESBWR Licensing, GE-Hitachi Nuclear 

Energy, 3901 Castle Hayne Road, MC 

A65, Wilmington, NC 28401, e-mail: 

rick.kingston@ge.com. For purposes of 

complying with this requirement, a 

‘‘request’’ includes all the information 

required to be submitted to the NRC as 

set forth in this section. 

The request must include the 

following information: 

1. The name of this design 

certification—ESBWR Design 

Certification, the rulemaking 

identification number RIN 3150–AI85, 

the rulemaking docket number NRC– 

2010–0135, and a citation to this 

Federal Register notice of proposed 

rulemaking 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 

in order 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 design control 

document, 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 

3.(a)(i) above; and 

(iii) Information demonstrating that 

the individual to whom access is to be 

provided has the technical competence 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16564 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5Broad 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 notice 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. 

6The 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 one business day. 

7This fee is subject to change as specified by the 

NRC’s adjustable billing rates. 

(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 proprietary information, 

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 proprietary information must 

be submitted. 

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

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

required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 

73.22(b)(1) must be demonstrated. 

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 design control 

document, 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; 5 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 SGI, in order to 

develop meaningful comments 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 NRC’s 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. To obtain online access to 

the form, the requester should contact 

the NRC’s Office of Administration at 

301–492–3524.6

(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 301–415–7232 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 

Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as 

amended, which mandates that all 

persons with access to SGI must be 

fingerprinted for an Federal Bureau of 

Investigation identification and criminal 

history records check; 

(d) A check or money order in the 

amount of $200.00 7 payable to the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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 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 

notice of proposed rulemaking 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. 

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) 

above, as applicable, the NRC staff will 

determine within 10 days of receipt of 

the written access request whether the 

requester has established a legitimate 

need for SUNSI access or need to know 

the SGI requested. 

7. For SUNSI access requests, if the 

NRC staff determines that the requester 

has established a legitimate need for 

access to SUNSI, the NRC staff will 

notify the requester in writing that 

access to SUNSI has been granted; 

provided, however, that if the SUNSI 

consists of proprietary information (i.e., 

trade secrets or confidential or financial 

information), the NRC staff must first 

notify the applicant of the staff’s 

determination to grant access to the 

requester not less than 10 days before 

informing the requester of the staff’s 

decision. If the applicant wishes to 

challenge the NRC staff’s determination, 

it must follow the procedures in 

paragraph 12 below. The NRC staff will 

not provide the requester access to 

disputed proprietary information to the 

requester until the procedures in 

paragraph 12 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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16565 

include, but are not necessarily limited 

to, the signing of a protective order 

setting forth 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: 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 T7–D24, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

8. For requests for access to SGI, if the 

NRC staff 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: 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 T7–D24, 

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 

staff 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 opt 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 information 

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 

all 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 staff, the 

NRC 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, as specified by 

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 under 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 

staff determines, under paragraph 7 

above, 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 staff notice in 

paragraph 7 above 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.’’ 

IX. 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. 

X. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology and 

Transfer Act of 1995 (Act), Public Law 

104–113, requires that Federal agencies 

use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus 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 the ESBWR 

standard plant design for use in nuclear 

power plant licensing under 10 CFR 

part 50 or 52. Design certifications 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 are 

Commission approvals of specific 

nuclear power plant designs by 

rulemaking. Furthermore, design 

certifications are initiated by an 

applicant for rulemaking, rather than by 

the NRC. For these reasons, the NRC 

concludes that the Act does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

XI. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact: Availability 

The NRC has determined under 

NEPA, and the NRC’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 a proposed 

design certification rule, 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 NRC’s generic 

determination in this regard is reflected 

in 10 CFR 51.32(b)(1). The basis for the 

NRC’s categorical exclusion in this 

regard, as discussed in the 2007 final 

rule amending 10 CFR parts 51 and 52 

(August 28, 2007; 72 FR 49352–49566), 

is based upon the following 

considerations. A design certification 

rule does not authorize the siting, 

construction, or operation of a facility 

referencing any particular using design; 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16566 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

it would only codify the ESBWR 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 any 

particular design certification rule. 

In addition, consistent with 10 CFR 

51.30(d) and 10 CFR 51.32(b), the NRC 

has prepared a draft EA for the ESBWR 

design addressing various design 

alternatives to prevent and mitigate 

severe accidents. The EA is based, in 

part, upon the NRC’s review of GEH’s 

evaluation of various design alternatives 

to prevent and mitigate severe accidents 

in NEDO–33306, Revision 4, ‘‘ESBWR 

Severe Accident Mitigation Design 

Alternatives.’’ Based upon review of 

GEH’s evaluation, the Commission 

concludes that: (1) GEH identified a 

reasonably complete set of potential 

design alternatives to prevent and 

mitigate severe accidents for the ESBWR 

design; (2) none of the potential design 

alternatives are justified on the basis of 

cost-benefit considerations; and (3) it is 

unlikely that other design changes 

would be identified and justified during 

the term of the design certification on 

the basis of cost-benefit considerations, 

because the estimated core damage 

frequencies for the ESBWR are very low 

on an absolute scale. These issues are 

considered resolved for the ESBWR 

design. 

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 NEDO– 

33306 will be considered resolved for 

facility applications referencing the 

ESBWR design if the site characteristics 

at the site proposed in the facility 

application fall within the site 

parameters specified in NEDO–33306. 

The draft EA, upon which the 

Commission’s finding of no significant 

impact is based, and the ESBWR DCD 

are available for examination and 

copying at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room, One White Flint North, Room O– 

1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. 

XII. 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 the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for approval of the 

information collection requirements. 

Type of submission, new or revision: 

Revision. 

The title of the information collection: 

Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 52, ESBWR 

Design Certification, Proposed Rule. 

Current OMB Approval Number: 

3150–0151. 

The form number if applicable: Not 

applicable. 

How often the collection is required: 

Semi-annually. 

Who will be required or asked to 

report: Applicant for a combined license 

or a design certification amendment. 

An estimate of the number of annual 

responses: 3 (1 response plus 2 

recordkeepers). 

The estimated number of annual 

respondents: 2. 

An estimate of the total number of 

hours needed annually to complete the 

requirement or request: Approximately 

45 additional burden hours (5 hours 

reporting plus 40 hours recordkeeping). 

Abstract: The NRC proposes to amend 

its regulations to certify the ESBWR 

standard plant design under Subpart B 

of 10 CFR part 52. This action is 

necessary so that applicants or licensees 

intending to construct and operate an 

ESBWR design may do so by referencing 

this DCR. The applicant for certification 

of the ESBWR design is GE-Hitachi 

Nuclear Energy. 

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 Public Document Room, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD 

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 notice. 

Send comments on any aspect of 

these proposed information collections, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden and on the above issues, by 

April 25, 2011 to the Records and FOIA/ 

Privacy Services Branch (T–5 F52), U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, or by email 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– 

2010–0135. 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. 

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. 

XIII. 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 are not generic 

rulemakings in the sense that design 

certifications do not establish standards 

or requirements with which all 

licensees must comply. Rather, design 

certifications 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, 

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. 

XIV. 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 a 

nuclear power plant design. Neither the 

design certification applicant, nor 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16567 

prospective nuclear power plant 

licensees who reference this design 

certification rule, fall within the scope 

of the definition of ‘‘small entities’’ set 

forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

or the size standards set established by 

the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). Thus, this rule 

does not fall within the purview of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

XV. Backfitting 

The Commission has determined that 

this proposed rule does not constitute a 

backfit as defined in the backfit rule 

(10 CFR 50.109) because this design 

certification does not impose new or 

changed requirements on existing 10 

CFR part 50 licensees, nor does it 

impose new or changed requirements on 

existing DCRs in Appendices A through 

D to 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, a backfit 

analysis was not prepared 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 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; 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 10 CFR 52.11, paragraph (b) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 52.11 Information collection 

requirements: OMB approval. 

* * * * * 

(b) The approved information 

collection requirements contained in 

this part appear in 10 CFR part 52, 52.7, 

52.15, 52.16, 52.17, 52.29, 52.35, 52.39, 

52.45, 52.46, 52.47, 52.57, 52.63, 52.75, 

52.77, 52.79, 52.80, 52.93, 52.99, 52.110, 

52.135, 52.136, 52.137, 52.155, 52.156, 

52.157, 52.158, 52.171, 52.177, and 

appendices A, B, C, D, E, and N to this 

part. 

3. Appendix E to 10 CFR part 52 is 

added to read as follows: 

Appendix E to Part 52—Design 

Certification Rule for the ESBWR 

Design 

I. Introduction 

Appendix E constitutes the standard 

design certification for the Economic 

Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) 

design, in accordance with 10 CFR part 52, 

Subpart B. The applicant for certification of 

the ESBWR design is GE-Hitachi Nuclear 

Energy. 

II. Definitions 

A. Generic design control document 

(generic DCD) means the document 

containing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information 

and generic technical specifications that is 

incorporated by reference into this appendix. 

B. Generic technical specifications (generic 

TS) means the information required by 10 

CFR 50.36 and 50.36a for the portion of the 

plant that is within the scope of this 

appendix. 

C. Plant-specific DCD means that portion of 

the combined license (COL) final safety 

analysis report (FSAR) that sets forth both the 

generic DCD information and any plantspecific changes to generic DCD information. 

D. Tier 1 means the portion of the designrelated information contained in the generic 

DCD that is approved and certified by this 

appendix (Tier 1 information). The design 

descriptions, interface requirements, and site 

parameters are derived from Tier 2 

information. Tier 1 information includes: 

1. Definitions and general provisions; 

2. Design descriptions; 

3. Inspections, tests, analyses, and 

acceptance criteria (ITAAC); 

4. Significant site parameters; and 

5. Significant interface requirements. 

E. Tier 2 means the portion of the designrelated information contained in the generic 

DCD that is approved but not certified by this 

appendix (Tier 2 information). Compliance 

with Tier 2 is required, but generic changes 

to and plant-specific departures from Tier 2 

are governed by Section VIII of this 

appendix. Compliance with Tier 2 provides 

a sufficient, but not the only acceptable, 

method for complying with Tier 1. 

Compliance methods differing from Tier 2 

must satisfy the change process in Section 

VIII of this appendix. Regardless of these 

differences, an applicant or licensee must 

meet the requirement in paragraph III.B of 

this appendix to reference Tier 2 when 

referencing Tier 1. Tier 2 information 

includes: 

1. Information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a) 

and 52.47(c), with the exception of generic 

TS and conceptual design information; 

2. Supporting information on the 

inspections, tests, and analyses that will be 

performed to demonstrate that the acceptance 

criteria in the ITAAC have been met; 

3. COL action items (COL license 

information), which identify certain matters 

that must be addressed in the site-specific 

portion of the FSAR by an applicant who 

references this appendix. These items 

constitute information requirements but are 

not the only acceptable set of information in 

the FSAR. An applicant may depart from or 

omit these items, provided that the departure 

or omission is identified and justified in the 

FSAR. After issuance of a construction 

permit or COL, these items are not 

requirements for the licensee unless such 

items are restated in the FSAR; and 

4. The availability controls in Appendix 

19ACM of the DCD. 

F. Tier 2* means the portion of the Tier 2 

information, designated as such in the 

generic DCD, which is subject to the change 

process in paragraph VIII.B.6 of this 

appendix. This designation expires for some 

Tier 2* information under paragraph VIII.B.6 

of this appendix. 

G. Departure from a method of evaluation 

described in the plant-specific DCD used in 

establishing the design bases or in the safety 

analyses means: 

1. Changing any of the elements of the 

method described in the plant-specific DCD 

unless the results of the analysis are 

conservative or essentially the same; or 

2. Changing from a method described in 

the plant-specific DCD to another method 

unless that method has been approved by the 

NRC for the intended application. 

H. All other terms in this appendix have 

the meaning set out in 10 CFR 50.2, 10 CFR 

52.1, or Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended, as applicable. 

III. Scope and Contents 

A. All Tier 1, Tier 2 (including the 

availability controls in Appendix 19ACM), 

and the generic TS in the ESBWR DCD, 

Revision 9, dated December 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. You may obtain copies of the generic 

DCD from Rick E. Kingston, Vice President, 

ESBWR Licensing, GE–Hitachi Nuclear 

Energy, 3901 Castle Hayne Road, MC A65, 

Wilmington, NC 28401. 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 the 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. To view the generic DCD in 

ADAMS, search under ADAMS Accession 

No. ML103440266. If you do not have access 

to ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 

then contact the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397– 

4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. A copy of the generic 

DCD is also available for examination and 

copying at the NRC PDR, Room O–1F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. Copies are also 

available for examination at the NRC Library, 

Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16568 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

8Proprietary information includes trade secrets 

and commercial or financial information obtained 

from a person that are privileged or confidential. 10 

CFR 2.390 and 10 CFR part 9. 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, telephone: 

301–415–5610, e-mail: 

library.resource@nrc.gov. 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. The generic DCD can also be 

viewed at the Federal rulemaking Web site, 

http://www.regulations.gov, by searching for 

documents filed under Docket ID NRC–2010– 

0135. 

B. An applicant or licensee referencing this 

appendix, in accordance with Section IV of 

this appendix, shall incorporate by reference 

and comply with the requirements of this 

appendix, including Tier 1, Tier 2 (including 

the availability controls in Appendix 19ACM 

of the DCD), and the generic TS except as 

otherwise provided in this appendix. 

Conceptual design information in the generic 

DCD and the evaluation of severe accident 

mitigation design alternatives in NEDO– 

33306, Revision 4, ‘‘ESBWR Severe Accident 

Mitigation Design Alternatives,’’ are not part 

of this appendix. 

C. If there is a conflict between Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 of the DCD, then Tier 1 controls. 

D. If there is a conflict between the generic 

DCD and either the application for design 

certification of the ESBWR design or 

NUREG–XXXX, ‘‘Final Safety Evaluation 

Report Related to Certification of the ESBWR 

Standard Design,’’ (FSER), then the generic 

DCD controls. 

E. Design activities for structures, systems, 

and components that are wholly outside the 

scope of this appendix may be performed 

using site characteristics, provided the design 

activities do not affect the DCD or conflict 

with the interface requirements. 

IV. Additional Requirements and 

Restrictions 

A. An applicant for a COL that wishes to 

reference this appendix shall, in addition to 

complying with the requirements of 10 CFR 

52.77, 52.79, and 52.80, comply with the 

following requirements: 

1. Incorporate by reference, as part of its 

application, this appendix. 

2. Include, as part of its application: 

a. A plant-specific DCD containing the 

same type of information and using the same 

organization and numbering as the generic 

DCD for the ESBWR design, either by 

including or incorporating by reference the 

generic DCD information, and as modified 

and supplemented by the applicant’s 

exemptions and departures; 

b. The reports on departures from and 

updates to the plant-specific DCD required by 

paragraph X.B of this appendix; 

c. Plant-specific TS, consisting of the 

generic and site-specific TS that are required 

by 10 CFR 50.36 and 50.36a; 

d. Information demonstrating that the site 

characteristics fall within the site parameters 

and that the interface requirements have been 

met; 

e. Information that addresses the COL 

action items; and 

f. Information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a) 

that is not within the scope of this appendix. 

3. Include, in the plant-specific DCD, the 

sensitive, unclassified, non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI) (including proprietary 

information) and safeguards information 

(SGI) referenced in the ESBWR generic DCD. 

4. Include, as part of its application, a 

demonstration that an entity other than GE– 

Hitachi Nuclear Energy is qualified to supply 

the ESBWR design unless GE–Hitachi 

Nuclear Energy supplies the design for the 

applicant’s use. 

B. The Commission reserves the right to 

determine in what manner this appendix 

may be referenced by an applicant for a 

construction permit or operating license 

under 10 CFR part 50. 

V. Applicable Regulations 

A. Except as indicated in paragraph B of 

this section, the regulations that apply to the 

ESBWR design 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 

FSER (NUREG–XXXX). 

B. The ESBWR design is exempt from 

portions of the following regulations: 

1. Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34— 

Contents of Applications: Technical 

Information. 

VI. Issue Resolution 

A. The Commission has determined that 

the structures, systems, components, and 

design features of the ESBWR design comply 

with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended, and the applicable 

regulations identified in Section V of this 

appendix; and therefore, provide adequate 

protection to the health and safety of the 

public. A conclusion that a matter is resolved 

includes the finding that additional or 

alternative structures, systems, components, 

design features, design criteria, testing, 

analyses, acceptance criteria, or justifications 

are not necessary for the ESBWR design. 

B. The Commission considers the 

following matters resolved within the 

meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5) in subsequent 

proceedings for issuance of a COL, 

amendment of a COL, or renewal of a COL, 

proceedings held under 10 CFR 52.103, and 

enforcement proceedings involving plants 

referencing this appendix: 

1. All nuclear safety issues, except for the 

generic TS and other operational 

requirements such as human factors 

engineering procedure development and 

training program development in Chapters 

18.9 and 18.10 of the generic DCD, associated 

with the information in the FSER, Tier 1, Tier 

2 (including referenced information, which 

the context indicates is intended as 

requirements, and the availability controls in 

Appendix 19ACM of the DCD), and the 

rulemaking record for certification of the 

ESBWR design; 

2. All nuclear safety and safeguards issues 

associated with the referenced information in 

SUNSI (including proprietary information) 

and safeguards information which, in 

context, are intended as requirements in the 

generic DCD for the ESBWR design, with the 

exception of human factors engineering 

procedure development and training program 

development in Chapters 18.9 and 18.10 of 

the generic DCD; 

3. All generic changes to the DCD under 

and in compliance with the change processes 

in paragraphs VIII.A.1 and VIII.B.1 of this 

appendix; 

4. All exemptions from the DCD under and 

in compliance with the change processes in 

paragraphs VIII.A.4 and VIII.B.4 of this 

appendix, but only for that plant; 

5. All departures from the DCD that are 

approved by license amendment, but only for 

that plant; 

6. Except as provided in paragraph 

VIII.B.5.f of this appendix, all departures 

from Tier 2 under and in compliance with 

the change processes in paragraph VIII.B.5 of 

this appendix that do not require prior NRC 

approval, but only for that plant; 

7. All environmental issues concerning 

severe accident mitigation design alternatives 

associated with the information in the NRC’s 

EA for the ESBWR design (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML102220247) and NEDO– 

33306, Revision 4, ‘‘ESBWR Severe Accident 

Mitigation Design Alternatives,’’ (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML102990433) for plants 

referencing this appendix whose site 

characteristics fall within those site 

parameters specified in NEDO–33306. 

C. The Commission does not consider 

operational requirements for an applicant or 

licensee who references this appendix to be 

matters resolved within the meaning of 10 

CFR 52.63(a)(5). The Commission reserves 

the right to require operational requirements 

for an applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix by rule, regulation, order, or 

license condition. 

D. Except under the change processes in 

Section VIII of this appendix, the 

Commission may not require an applicant or 

licensee who references this appendix to: 

1. Modify structures, systems, components, 

or design features as described in the generic 

DCD; 

2. Provide additional or alternative 

structures, systems, components, or design 

features not discussed in the generic DCD; or 

3. Provide additional or alternative design 

criteria, testing, analyses, acceptance criteria, 

or justification for structures, systems, 

components, or design features discussed in 

the generic DCD. 

E. The NRC will specify at an appropriate 

time the procedures to be used by an 

interested person who wishes to review 

portions of the design certification or 

references containing SGI or SUNSI 

(including proprietary information 8), 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. 

VII. Duration of This Appendix 

This appendix may be referenced for a 

period of 15 years from [DATE 30 DAYS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16569 

except as provided for in 10 CFR 52.55(b) 

and 52.57(b). This appendix remains valid 

for an applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix until the application is 

withdrawn or the license expires, including 

any period of extended operation under a 

renewed license. 

VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures 

A. Tier 1 Information 

1. Generic changes to Tier 1 information 

are governed by the requirements in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1). 

2. Generic changes to Tier 1 information 

are applicable to all applicants or licensees 

who reference this appendix, except those for 

which the change has been rendered 

technically irrelevant by action taken under 

paragraphs A.3 or A.4 of this section. 

3. Departures from Tier 1 information that 

are required by the Commission through 

plant-specific orders are governed by the 

requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4). 

4. Exemptions from Tier 1 information are 

governed by the requirements in 10 CFR 

52.63(b)(1) and 52.98(f). The Commission 

will deny a request for an exemption from 

Tier 1, if it finds that the design change will 

result in a significant decrease in the level of 

safety otherwise provided by the design. 

B. Tier 2 Information 

1. Generic changes to Tier 2 information 

are governed by the requirements in 10 CFR 

52.63(a)(1). 

2. Generic changes to Tier 2 information 

are applicable to all applicants or licensees 

who reference this appendix, except those for 

which the change has been rendered 

technically irrelevant by action taken under 

paragraphs B.3, B.4, B.5, or B.6 of this 

section. 

3. The Commission may not require new 

requirements on Tier 2 information by plantspecific order while this appendix is in effect 

under 10 CFR 52.55 or 52.61, unless: 

a. A modification is necessary to secure 

compliance with the Commission’s 

regulations applicable and in effect at the 

time this appendix was approved, as set forth 

in Section V of this appendix, or to ensure 

adequate protection of the public health and 

safety or the common defense and security; 

and 

b. Special circumstances as defined in 10 

CFR 50.12(a) are present. 

4. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix may request an exemption 

from Tier 2 information. The Commission 

may grant such a request only if it determines 

that the exemption will comply with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a). The 

Commission will deny a request for an 

exemption from Tier 2, if it finds that the 

design change will result in a significant 

decrease in the level of safety otherwise 

provided by the design. The grant of an 

exemption to an applicant must be subject to 

litigation in the same manner as other issues 

material to the license hearing. The grant of 

an exemption to a licensee must be subject 

to an opportunity for a hearing in the same 

manner as license amendments. 

5.a. An applicant or licensee who 

references this appendix may depart from 

Tier 2 information, without prior NRC 

approval, unless the proposed departure 

involves a change to or departure from Tier 

1 information, Tier 2* information, or the TS, 

or requires a license amendment under 

paragraph B.5.b or B.5.c of this section. When 

evaluating the proposed departure, an 

applicant or licensee shall consider all 

matters described in the plant-specific DCD. 

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 aircraft 

impacts, requires a license amendment if it 

would: 

(1) Result in more than a minimal increase 

in the frequency of occurrence of an accident 

previously evaluated in the plant-specific 

DCD; 

(2) Result in more than a minimal increase 

in the likelihood of occurrence of a 

malfunction of a structure, system, or 

component (SSC) important to safety and 

previously evaluated in the plant-specific 

DCD; 

(3) Result in more than a minimal increase 

in the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated in the plant-specific 

DCD; 

(4) Result in more than a minimal increase 

in the consequences of a malfunction of an 

SSC important to safety previously evaluated 

in the plant-specific DCD; 

(5) Create a possibility for an accident of 

a different type than any evaluated 

previously in the plant-specific DCD; 

(6) Create a possibility for a malfunction of 

an SSC important to safety with a different 

result than any evaluated previously in the 

plant-specific DCD; 

(7) Result in a design basis limit for a 

fission product barrier as described in the 

plant-specific DCD being exceeded or altered; 

or 

(8) Result in a departure from a method of 

evaluation described in the plant-specific 

DCD used in establishing the design bases or 

in the safety analyses. 

c. A proposed departure from Tier 2 

affecting resolution of an ex-vessel severe 

accident design feature identified in the 

plant-specific DCD, requires a license 

amendment if: 

(1) There is a substantial increase in the 

probability of an ex-vessel severe accident 

such that a particular ex-vessel severe 

accident previously reviewed and 

determined to be not credible could become 

credible; or 

(2) There is a substantial increase in the 

consequences to the public of a particular exvessel severe accident previously reviewed. 

d. A proposed departure from Tier 2 

information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a)(28) 

to address aircraft impacts shall consider the 

effect of the changed design feature or 

functional capability on the original aircraft 

impact assessment required by 10 CFR 

50.150(a). The applicant or licensee shall 

describe in the plant-specific DCD how the 

modified design features and functional 

capabilities continue to meet the aircraft 

impact assessment requirements in 10 CFR 

50.150(a)(1). 

e. If a departure requires a license 

amendment under paragraph B.5.b or B.5.c of 

this section, it is governed by 10 CFR 50.90. 

f. A departure from Tier 2 information that 

is made under paragraph B.5 of this section 

does not require an exemption from this 

appendix. 

g. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding 

for either the issuance, amendment, or 

renewal of a license or for operation under 

10 CFR 52.103(a), who believes that an 

applicant or licensee who references this 

appendix has not complied with paragraph 

VIII.B.5 of this appendix when departing 

from Tier 2 information, may petition to 

admit into the proceeding such a contention. 

In addition to compliance with the general 

requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, the petition 

must demonstrate that the departure does not 

comply with paragraph VIII.B.5 of this 

appendix. Further, the petition must 

demonstrate that the change bears on an 

asserted noncompliance with an ITAAC 

acceptance criterion in the case of a 10 CFR 

52.103 preoperational hearing, or that the 

change bears directly on the amendment 

request in the case of a hearing on a license 

amendment. Any other party may file a 

response. If, on the basis of the petition and 

any response, the presiding officer 

determines that a sufficient showing has been 

made, the presiding officer shall certify the 

matter directly to the Commission for 

determination of the admissibility of the 

contention. The Commission may admit such 

a contention if it determines the petition 

raises a genuine issue of material fact 

regarding compliance with paragraph VIII.B.5 

of this appendix. 

6.a. An applicant who references this 

appendix may not depart from Tier 2* 

information, which is designated with 

italicized text or brackets and an asterisk in 

the generic DCD, without NRC approval. The 

departure will not be considered a resolved 

issue, within the meaning of Section VI of 

this appendix and 10 CFR 52.63(a)(5). 

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) Fuel mechanical and thermalmechanical design evaluation reports, 

including fuel burnup limits. 

(2) Control rod mechanical and nuclear 

design reports. 

(3) Fuel nuclear design report. 

(4) Critical power correlation. 

(5) Fuel licensing acceptance criteria. 

(6) Control rod licensing acceptance 

criteria. 

(7) Mechanical and structural design of 

spent fuel storage racks. 

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) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 

Section III. 

(2) American Concrete Institute 349 and 

American National Standards Institute/ 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16570 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

American Institute of Steel ConstructionN690. 

(3) Motor-operated valves. 

(4) Equipment seismic qualification 

methods. 

(5) Piping design acceptance criteria. 

(6) Instrument setpoint methodology. 

(7) Safety-Related Distribution Control and 

Information System performance 

specification and architecture. 

(8) Safety System Logic and Control 

hardware and software. 

(9) Human factors engineering design and 

implementation. 

(10) First of a kind testing for reactor 

stability (first plant only). 

(11) Reactor precritical heatup with reactor 

water cleanup/shutdown cooling (first plant 

only). 

(12) Isolation condenser system heatup and 

steady state operation (first plant only). 

(13) Power maneuvering in the feedwater 

temperature operating domain (first plant 

only). 

(14) Load maneuvering capability (first 

plant only). 

(15) Defense-in-depth stability solution 

evaluation test (first plant only). 

d. Departures from Tier 2* information that 

are made under paragraph B.6 of this section 

do not require an exemption from this 

appendix. 

C. Operational Requirements 

1. Generic changes to generic TS and other 

operational requirements that were 

completely reviewed and approved in the 

design certification rulemaking and do not 

require a change to a design feature in the 

generic DCD are governed by the 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.109. Generic 

changes that require a change to a design 

feature in the generic DCD are governed by 

the requirements in paragraphs A or B of this 

section. 

2. Generic changes to generic TS and other 

operational requirements are applicable to all 

applicants who reference this appendix, 

except those for which the change has been 

rendered technically irrelevant by action 

taken under paragraphs C.3 or C.4 of this 

section. 

3. The Commission may require plantspecific departures on generic TS and other 

operational requirements that were 

completely reviewed and approved, provided 

a change to a design feature in the generic 

DCD is not required and special 

circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 2.335 are 

present. The Commission may modify or 

supplement generic TS and other operational 

requirements that were not completely 

reviewed and approved or require additional 

TS and other operational requirements on a 

plant-specific basis, provided a change to a 

design feature in the generic DCD is not 

required. 

4. An applicant who references this 

appendix may request an exemption from the 

generic TS or other operational requirements. 

The Commission may grant such a request 

only if it determines that the exemption will 

comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 

52.7. The grant of an exemption must be 

subject to litigation in the same manner as 

other issues material to the license hearing. 

5. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding 

for the issuance, amendment, or renewal of 

a license, or for operation under 10 CFR 

52.103(a), who believes that an operational 

requirement approved in the DCD or a TS 

derived from the generic TS must be changed 

may petition to admit such a contention into 

the proceeding. The petition must comply 

with the general requirements of 10 CFR 

2.309 and must demonstrate why special 

circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 2.335 are 

present, or demonstrate compliance with the 

Commission’s regulations in effect at the time 

this appendix was approved, as set forth in 

Section V of this appendix. Any other party 

may file a response to the petition. If, on the 

basis of the petition and any response, the 

presiding officer determines that a sufficient 

showing has been made, the presiding officer 

shall certify the matter directly to the 

Commission for determination of the 

admissibility of the contention. All other 

issues with respect to the plant-specific TS 

or other operational requirements are subject 

to a hearing as part of the license proceeding. 

6. After issuance of a license, the generic 

TS have no further effect on the plantspecific TS. Changes to the plant-specific TS 

will be treated as license amendments under 

10 CFR 50.90. 

IX. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) 

[Reserved] 

X. Records and Reporting 

A. Records 

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 the SUNSI (including proprietary 

information) and safeguards information 

referenced in the generic DCD for the period 

that this appendix may be referenced, as 

specified in Section VII of this appendix. 

2. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix shall maintain the plantspecific DCD to accurately reflect both 

generic changes to the generic DCD and 

plant-specific departures made under Section 

VIII of this appendix throughout the period 

of application and for the term of the license 

(including any period of renewal). 

3. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix shall prepare and maintain 

written evaluations which provide the bases 

for the determinations required by Section 

VIII of this appendix. These evaluations must 

be retained throughout the period of 

application and for the term of the license 

(including any period of renewal). 

4.a. The applicant for the ESBWR design 

shall maintain a copy of the aircraft impact 

assessment 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 

aircraft impact assessment 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). 

B. Reporting 

1. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix shall submit a report to the 

NRC containing a brief description of any 

plant-specific departures from the DCD, 

including a summary of the evaluation of 

each. This report must be filed in accordance 

with the filing requirements applicable to 

reports in 10 CFR 52.3. 

2. An applicant or licensee who references 

this appendix shall submit updates to its 

DCD, which reflect the generic changes to 

and plant-specific departures from the 

generic DCD made under Section VIII of this 

appendix. These updates shall be filed under 

the filing requirements applicable to final 

safety analysis report updates in 10 CFR 52.3 

and 50.71(e). 

3. The reports and updates required by 

paragraphs X.B.1 and X.B.2 of this appendix 

must be submitted as follows: 

a. On the date that an application for a 

license referencing this appendix is 

submitted, the application must include the 

report and any updates to the generic DCD. 

b. During the interval from the date of 

application for a license to the date the 

Commission makes its finding required by 10 

CFR 52.103(g), the report must be submitted 

semi-annually. Updates to the plant-specific 

DCD must be submitted annually and may be 

submitted along with amendments to the 

application. 

c. After the Commission makes the finding 

required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), the reports and 

updates to the plant-specific DCD must be 

submitted, along with updates to the sitespecific portion of the final safety analysis 

report for the facility, at the intervals 

required by 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2) and 

50.71(e)(4), respectively, or at shorter 

intervals as specified in the license. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of March 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6839 Filed 3–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Part 741 

RIN 3133–AD66 

Interest Rate Risk 

AGENCY: National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: NCUA proposes to amend its 

regulations to require Federally insured 

credit unions to have a written policy 

addressing interest rate risk (IRR) 

management and an effective IRR 

program as part of their asset liability 

management. NCUA also is proposing 

draft guidance in the form of an 

appendix to its regulations to assist 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1