RULEMAKING ISSUE 

INFORMATION 

January 30, 2009 SECY-09-0018

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: STREAMLINING DESIGN CERTIFICATION RULEMAKINGS 

PURPOSE: 

To inform the Commission of staff actions that are being implemented in order to streamline the 

design certification rule (DCR) rulemaking process for new reactor designs. This paper does not 

address new commitments. 

BACKGROUND: 

Recently the nuclear industry has shown significant interest in licensing new reactors. The 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has docketed one combined license (COL) application 

incorporating by reference the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor, a previously certified 

design (Appendix A, “Design Certification Rule for the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor,” to 

10 CFR Part 52). Currently, 10 COL applications docketed by the NRC incorporate by reference 

designs that have been recently submitted to the NRC for certification, such as the U.S. 

Evolutionary Power Reactor, the U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor, and the Economic 

Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor. In addition, six COL applications reference an amendment to 

the Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) design (Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the 

AP1000,” to 10 CFR Part 52). As a result, the staff is reviewing COL applications in parallel with 

the NRC review of the design certification (DC) applications being referenced. 

The referenced DCR must be completed (i.e., the final rule published in the Federal Register) 

before the NRC can make a decision on the COL application referencing that DC. The DC 

schedule consists of: (1) the design review and issuance of a final safety evaluation report 

documenting the NRC’s safety conclusions related to the design; and (2) a rulemaking approved 

by the Commission that codifies that DC in the agency’s regulations. The review schedules for 

CONTACT: George M. Tartal, NRO/DNRL 

 (301) 415-0016 
The Commissioners -2- 

certain DCs and their reference COLs are projected to be nearly parallel, with the DCR being 

completed just before the completion of the COL hearing process and subsequent licensing 

decision. If the DCR is not issued by the time that the NRC is ready to make a decision on the 

COL application, the COL decision may, under certain circumstances, have to await the 

issuance of the final DCR.1

 Based on this background the staff concluded that a rulemaking 

schedule shorter than the typical 24-month NRC rulemaking schedule would be of value for 

DCR rulemakings. 

DISCUSSION: 

The staff recognized the potential for the DCR to become part of the critical path for a COL 

application decision and proceeded to look for schedule improvements to the DCR process. 

The Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO) approved a request by the Office of 

New Reactors (NRO) to conduct a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) review of the DCR process. A team of 

NRC subject matter experts (the team) joined with an OEDO LSS black-belt trainee and the 

OEDO LSS contractor to undertake a Kaizen (rapid improvement) event. The overall goal of the 

Kaizen event was to identify improvements that would aid completion of the final rule before the 

scheduled date for a decision on the COL application. Before conducting the review, the team 

identified two subgoals in achieving the overall goal — (1) reduce the overall duration of the 

rulemaking process to 12 months or less; and (2) start the rulemaking earlier in the DC process. 

During the Kaizen event, the team first thoroughly examined the rulemaking process by breaking 

down the proposed and final rule phases into several steps and substeps. Time frames for each 

of the steps and substeps were estimated based on the team’s experience with previous 

rulemakings, including those of the four currently certified designs. The team’s evaluation 

shows that, when applying the current rulemaking process, completion of a DCR could take 

19-23 months (this paper subsequently uses 19.5 months as a best estimate). This conforms to 

the expectation for an average NRC rulemaking (1 year for the proposed rule and 1 year for the 

final rule). The team then identified several staff-initiated process changes that could be 

implemented to streamline the rulemaking process specifically for DCRs. The staff is currently 

implementing those changes, which do not involve policy issues The team, initially, did not 

include stakeholders, such as representatives from the Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS), during the Kaizen event. Upon further consideration, the team discussed 

its proposal to streamline the DCR rulemaking process with the ACRS and considered other 

potential opportunities as described in the enclosure. The staff-initiated process changes being 

implemented and other changes considered but not being pursued by the staff are described 

further in the enclosure. The durations of the nine rulemaking process phases before and after 

implementing the process changes are also described. 

Each staff-initiated process change is intended to enhance the NRC’s ability to promulgate 

DCRs efficiently and effectively and contribute to the NRC’s successful execution of its Strategic 

Plan. More specifically, these process changes will aid the NRC in meeting the Strategic Plan 

organizational excellence objectives of openness, effectiveness, and operational excellence. 

The openness goal is met by maintaining an adequate public comment period for the proposed 

rule and using a standard communications plan to promptly inform internal and external 

 

1 The COL applicant could voluntarily amend its application in a manner in which the plant’s design would be 

regarded as a “custom” design and would not necessitate a rulemaking. This would be a significant change 

to the application and is unlikely to be considered a practical alternative to the DCR process. 
The Commissioners -3- 

stakeholders of the NRC’s rulemaking activities. The effectiveness goal is met by ensuring that 

DCRs are published within the scheduled COL time frame while still meeting all NRC policy and 

legal requirements. The operational excellence goal is met by optimizing business processes 

(e.g., concurrence and intra-agency reviews) and using standardized document templates and 

procedures to streamline the rulemaking process. 

The staff-initiated process changes will reduce the DCR schedule by approximately 7 months 

(from 19.5 months to 12.5 months). Meeting the subgoal of an earlier start of rulemaking 

activities complements other process changes in meeting the overall project goal. Therefore, as 

a result of these process changes, the NRC should be able to meet the overall goal of 

coordinating the DCR and COL schedules such that the final rule is completed to support a 

decision on the first COL application referencing each DC application. 

RESOURCES: 

Resources for the planned process changes are included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 budget. 

NRO has requested 2.2 full-time equivalents in its FY 2010 budget to work on NRO’s highest 

priority rulemakings. Resources for FY 2011 and beyond will be requested through the 

Planning, Budget, and Performance Management process. 

COORDINATION: 

The staff has discussed its proposed focused scope of review as described in the enclosure with 

ACRS. This paper has been coordinated with the Office of General Counsel (OGC), the Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of Administration (ADM). OGC has no legal 

objection to this paper. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission 

paper for resource implications and has no objections. The NRC’s Rulemaking Coordinating 

Committee has been informed of those identified process changes that could be applied 

generically to other rulemakings. 

OGC and ADM will review the document templates, procedures, and other products as they are 

developed to ensure that the DCR rulemaking process continues to conform to the NRC’s 

rulemaking policies and procedures and all applicable statutes and regulations. 

/RA/ 

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

LSS Methodological Approach to Determine 

 Actions Needed to Streamline DCRs 
The Commissioners -3- 

stakeholders of the NRC’s rulemaking activities. The effectiveness goal is met by ensuring that 

DCRs are published within the scheduled COL time frame while still meeting all NRC policy and 

legal requirements. The operational excellence goal is met by optimizing business processes 

(e.g., concurrence and intra-agency reviews) and using standardized document templates and 

procedures to streamline the rulemaking process. 

The staff-initiated process changes will reduce the DCR schedule by approximately 7 months 

(from 19.5 months to 12.5 months). Meeting the subgoal of an earlier start of rulemaking 

activities complements other process changes in meeting the overall project goal. Therefore, as 

a result of these process changes, the NRC should be able to meet the overall goal of 

coordinating the DCR and COL schedules such that the final rule is completed to support a 

decision on the first COL application referencing each DC application. 

RESOURCES: 

Resources for the planned process changes are included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 budget. 

NRO has requested 2.2 full-time equivalents in its FY 2010 budget to work on NRO’s highest 

priority rulemakings. Resources for FY 2011 and beyond will be requested through the 

Planning, Budget, and Performance Management process. 

COORDINATION: 

The staff has discussed its proposed focused scope of review as described in the enclosure with 

ACRS. This paper has been coordinated with the Office of General Counsel (OGC), the Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of Administration (ADM). OGC has no legal 

objection to this paper. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission 

paper for resource implications and has no objections. The NRC’s Rulemaking Coordinating 

Committee has been informed of those identified process changes that could be applied 

generically to other rulemakings. 

OGC and ADM will review the document templates, procedures, and other products as they are 

developed to ensure that the DCR rulemaking process continues to conform to the NRC’s 

rulemaking policies and procedures and all applicable statutes and regulations. 

/RA/ 

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

LSS Methodological Approach to Determine 

 Actions Needed to Streamline DCRs 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML082750046 WITS 200800413/EDATS: OEDO-2008-0858 

OFFICE NRO/DNRL NRO/DNRL TECH EDITOR NRO/DNRL NRO/DNRL NRR 

NAME GTartal RRobinson KAzariah-Kribbs 

(via email) 

WReckley DMatthews ELeeds 

(BBoger for) 

DATE 10/9/2008 10/9/2008 10/6/2008 10/16/2008 10/17/2008 10/31/2008 

OFFICE ADM OIS OCFO OGC NRO EDO 

NAME MLesar GTrussell JDyer (via email) 

(RMitchell for) 

KCyr (BJones for) MJohnson RWBorchardt 

(BMallett for) 

DATE 10/31/2008 10/27/2008 10/28/2008 01/09/2009 01/21/2009 01/30/2009 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
Enclosure 

LEAN SIX SIGMA METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DETERMINE ACTIONS 

NEEDED TO STREAMLINE DESIGN CERTIFICATION RULEMAKINGS 

Approach 

Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is a highly structured methodology used to accomplish sustained 

improvements to processes, transactions, and services. It combines two improvement 

approaches: making work faster (using Lean principles) and making work better (using Six 

Sigma). Following LSS methodology, a team, comprised of subject matter experts and process 

stakeholders, defines the processes, identifies opportunities for improvements, and brainstorms 

potential solutions. LSS requires close cooperation and communications among team members 

and their representative stakeholders to maximize the likelihood that: (i) the ultimate decision 

maker will approve of the LSS process improvement recommendations, and (ii) the LSS process 

improvements will be successfully implemented. LSS involves systematic identification of all

potential opportunities for reduction in time and resources necessary to achieve the desired 

product – in this LSS project, to issue a final design certification (DC) rule in time to support, 

without delay, a decision on a referencing COL. 

LSS eliminates “non-value added” steps thereby reducing time and resources needed to achieve 

the project goals. In LSS terminology, “non-value added” refers to activities that add no value 

from the customer’s perspective and are not required for legal, financial, or other business 

reasons. Examples of non-value added activities include overproduction, over processing, 

rework, duplicative work, and waiting/idle time. In the context of DC rulemaking, non-value 

added activities also include process steps which are not necessary to meet the needs of the 

COL applicant referencing (or considering referencing) the DC.1

Design Certification Rulemaking Kaizen Event 

Due to the small amount of historical data and the need for improvement, the team decided to 

perform its LSS review using the LSS Kaizen (rapid improvement) event methodology. A Kaizen 

event is a focused, intense, short-term event to improve a process within the scope of the 

process participants. It usually includes training followed by process analysis, solution 

brainstorming, and implementation design. A Kaizen event normally takes 5 days and the 

results are intended to be immediate, dramatic and satisfying. The overall goal of the design 

certification rule (DCR) streamlining Kaizen event was to identify improvements that would 

ensure completion of the final rule before the scheduled date for a decision on the COL 

application. Before conducting the review, the team identified two subgoals in achieving the 

overall goal—(1) reduce the overall duration of the rulemaking process to 12 months or less and 

(2) start the rulemaking earlier in the DC process. 

During the Kaizen event, the team first thoroughly examined the rulemaking process by breaking 

down the proposed and final rule phases into several steps and substeps. Time frames for each 

of the steps and substeps were estimated based on the team’s experience with previous 

rulemakings, including those of the four currently certified designs. The team’s evaluation 

showed that, when applying the current rulemaking process, completion of a DCR could take 

 

1 Although elimination of non-value added activities could also benefit a design certification applicant, the 

staff believes that the design certification was not an end in itself but was adopted by the Commission as a 

more effective regulatory approach for licensing nuclear power plants. 
-2- 

19-23 months (this paper subsequently uses 19.5 months2 as a best estimate). This conforms 

to the expectation for an average U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 

Commission) rulemaking (1 year for the proposed rule and 1 year for the final rule). The team 

then identified several staff-initiated process changes that could be implemented to streamline 

the rulemaking process specifically for DCRs. The staff is currently implementing those 

changes, which do not involve policy issues. The team, initially, did not include stakeholders 

such as representatives from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), during 

the Kaizen event. Upon further consideration, the team discussed its proposal to streamline the 

DCR rulemaking process with the ACRS and considered other potential opportunities. The 

staff-initiated process changes being implemented and other changes considered are described 

below. 

Staff-Initiated Design Certification Rulemaking Process Changes 

1. Dedicate a rulemaking project manager (PM) from the Office of New Reactors (NRO) to 

 each DC rulemaking 

In past DCRs one of the PMs for that DC was assigned to manage the review of the design 

control document (DCD) and issue the final safety evaluation report (FSER), as well as manage 

the DCR. To manage each of these projects (FSER and DCR) more efficiently and effectively, 

this process change will assign a separate and dedicated PM to work under the direction of 

NRO management and manage one DCR. The term “dedicated,” as used in this context, means 

that the DCR is the highest priority activity for that PM. Only during periods in the DCR schedule 

when the rulemaking PM is not actively working on the DCR would that individual be available to 

work on other tasks. This change provides its greatest benefit during the package preparation 

phases of the rulemaking process. 

2. Develop standard document templates, procedures, and training 

As discussed in the body of this paper, by the time the NRC issued the fourth existing DC, the 

regulatory text and Statement of Considerations had become largely standardized. This process 

change will improve upon that concept by developing standardized DCR-specific templates for 

all documents required for, and to support concurrence on, the rulemaking package. These 

templates will highlight those parts of the documents that are design specific, thus enabling the 

PM and other reviewers to focus on those areas and ensure standardization for all future DCRs. 

Procedures will be developed to guide the PMs through each phase of the rulemaking 

processes and focus other concurring/interfacing offices on specific parts of the package that 

are more relevant to that office. Training will be developed for and provided to the PMs on how 

to use the templates and procedures. This change provides its greatest benefit during the 

package preparation and concurrence phases of the rulemaking process. 

 

2 This includes a total of 3.0 months for Commission review of the proposed and final rules based on 

historical data of Commission review times for the previous four DCRs. This is discussed further under 

“Other Streamlining Considerations” later in this enclosure. 
-3- 

3. Start the rulemaking when the advanced FSER for the design is under review by 

 the ACRS 

Under the current DC project schedule, DCRs are scheduled to start 3 months before the FSER 

is issued. This process change will start the DCR when the ACRS begins its review of the 

advanced FSER, currently 2 to 5 months earlier than under the current schedule. The staff’s 

review of the design is nearly complete at this phase of the FSER development, and significant 

FSER or design changes are not expected. However, as the design review progresses, this 

earlier start time continues to change and varies between DC schedules. While this change 

provides no schedule reduction benefit, it provides additional margin between the final rule 

publication and the COL issuance dates, thus supporting the second subgoal of this effort. 

4. Optimize the concurrence process 

Under the current concurrence process, all of the branch-, division-, and office-level reviews are 

performed sequentially. That is, branches complete their review before the divisions, and the 

divisions complete their reviews before the offices. Several entities at each level of 

management may review the package in parallel, but not in parallel with different levels of 

management. This process change includes a number of actions to facilitate timely concurrence 

on DCRs. A DCR steering committee will be established to focus management attention on the 

allocation of resources and the resolution of issues that may impact concurrence on that 

rulemaking(s) (see process change number 5). All branch, division, and office concurrences will 

be performed in parallel to facilitate the concurrence process. In a concurrence meeting, all 

concurring branches, divisions, and offices will meet to discuss and resolve comments and to 

provide their concurrence at the end of the meeting. The staff will also eliminate any 

unnecessary concurrences from offices that might typically be asked to concur on rulemakings 

(e.g., the Office of Enforcement), but only with prior agreement of those offices. The 

concurrence of the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) will be completed within 2 weeks. 

This change provides benefits during the concurrence phases of the rulemaking process. 

5. Initiate a working group and steering committee 

Working groups are currently used on many NRC rulemakings and provide the benefits of 

involving key staff members in the rulemaking and helping to streamline concurrence through 

the staff’s branch, division, and/or office management. Under this process change, NRO will 

establish a working group for each DCR that is composed of staff from key concurring offices. 

Working group members will help identify and resolve any issues that could delay preparation of 

or concurrence on the DCR package. The working group will present issues that it cannot 

resolve to a steering committee, which will be responsible for timely and independently resolving 

any interoffice or technical/policy issues. The steering committee will be comprised of divisionlevel management from NRO and other NRC offices as appropriate, and may be the same 

committee that oversees similar issues for DCs and COLs. This change provides benefits 

during the concurrence and comment resolution phases of the rulemaking process. 

6. Manage the impact of the information collection approval process 

Currently, the NRC policy is to withhold the publication of the final rule until after receiving the 

Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) approval of the information collection requirements 

contained in the final rule. Within 60 days OMB may approve, instruct the NRC to make a 
-4- 

substantive change to, or disapprove, the collection of information contained in the final rule. 

The staff will examine options for streamlining OMB approval of information collections 

contained in DCRs with the goal of minimizing the potential for delay in the issuance of the final 

rule. The staff will review the criteria for what constitutes an insignificant information collection 

burden and determine if these rulemakings qualify for processing as an insignificant change in 

burden. The staff will also evaluate whether it is possible to obtain a generic approval for DCRs, 

with the understanding that the minimal increases in burden will be reflected in the information 

collection budget. This change may provide, in certain cases, benefits during the OMB 

clearance phase of the rulemaking process. 

7. Inform applicants of the consequences of late design changes 

The vendors for each of the four currently certified designs made changes to those designs 

during the rulemaking phase of DC. As a result, the staff was required to review the changes 

and provide a supplement to the issued FSER. With the currently submitted license applications 

referencing designs under review for certification, late design changes could cause significant 

delays in the rulemaking schedule and adversely affect the NRC’s ability to support the 

reference COL, and possibly subsequent COL, schedules. The staff will discuss the 

consequences of late design changes by a DC applicant with each of the new reactor design 

centers. The staff will determine the DC schedule milestone that would constitute a “late” 

change. The staff then plans to write a letter to the DC applicants to formally inform them of the 

NRC staff’s position on late design changes and their consequences. While this change may 

not provide a schedule reduction benefit, it reduces the risk that any late design changes would 

necessitate a DCR schedule revision. 

8. Proposed rule need not reference the FSER as a published NUREG 

In past DC rulemakings, the staff has converted the FSER document into a published NUREG 

before the proposed rule’s publication. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has determined 

that a DCR proposed rule can be published without the FSER being converted into and 

published as a NUREG. Instead, under this process change, the FSER can be placed into the 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) and made publicly 

available with no reduction in the public availability of that information. During the final rule 

phase, the FSER will be converted to a NUREG and the DCR reference to the FSER will be 

revised to reflect the NUREG number assigned to it. In its initial assessment, the team assumed 

that the ADAMS version would be sufficient. However, without it, the DCR process for 

publishing the proposed rule could be delayed by approximately 2 months. 

9. Management review of changes to staff requirements memorandum (SRM) 

Management should be informed of any SRM requirements imposed on DCRs. However, the 

team decided that management could be informed using informal communications (e-mail, 

meetings, briefings, etc.), rather than requiring a formal reconcurrence on the DCR. The staff 

will resolve and incorporate all comments from the Commission and use informal 

communications to inform management of SRM-related changes to the final rule. The team 

assumed this change when estimating schedule durations. However, without it, the concurrence 

process during both the proposed and final rule phases could be delayed by approximately 1–2 

weeks. 
-5- 

10. Optimize ACRS review time

The provisions of 10 CFR 52.53 require ACRS to report to the Commission on its safety review 

of each DC application. The team believed that ACRS fulfills this requirement during its review 

of the staff’s FSER and the DC application (including the DCD), and that ACRS need not 

separately review the proposed or final DCR. The team noted that ACRS waived its review of 

the Advanced Passive 600 (AP600) and Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) final rules. 

The team decided that optimizing the review of DCRs by ACRS was appropriate. Because of 

the standardized rule language for DCRs, and because ACRS has previously reviewed the 

technical basis (DC application and associated FSER) for the rulemaking, the team decided that 

the ACRS review could be optimized by focusing on technical comments made on the proposed 

rule. As a result, the staff proposed to send all technical comments on the rule and the staff’s 

resolution of those comments to ACRS for its review instead of the entire rulemaking package. 

Furthermore, because ACRS briefings would not be expected for these focused scope reviews, 

they would not be scheduled but provided upon request. Because the ACRS waived its review 

of the AP600 and AP1000 final rules, the team assumed ACRS briefings would not be needed 

on subsequent DCR final rules. If a briefing is requested, the DCR process for publishing the 

final rule could be delayed by 0.5 to 2 months, depending on the timing of the fixed ACRS 

briefing dates with the concurrence process on the final rule. 

During the 556th meeting of ACRS, October 2–4, 2008, the team discussed with ACRS its 

proposal to optimize ACRS review of DCRs. The ACRS expressed concern with the team’s 

proposal because, should ACRS agree to this proposal and subsequently request a staff 

briefing, they would be viewed as forcing their way back into the process and thus be 

responsible for delaying the DCR. The ACRS suggested the staff use the normal process for 

requesting a waiver of ACRS' review of a rulemaking. The ACRS would consider the individual 

proposal, expedite its decision, and not further delay the DCR process. The ACRS 

recommended that the staff not change this part of the rulemaking process for DCRs, but rather 

plan for an ACRS review and briefing as part of the generic DCR schedule. If ACRS agrees with 

the staff's proposal, it could waive its review. However, this should be considered on a case-bycase basis. Based on this input, the staff will not propose a change at this time, but will continue 

to evaluate its process and procedures for seeking ACRS review of DCRs, with the goal of 

optimizing the ACRS review process. 
-6- 

Table 1. Time Savings (Months) Resulting from Staff-Implemented Process Changes 

Process Change Time Savings 

Dedicate an NRO rulemaking PM to each DCR 1.5 

Develop standard document templates, procedures, and training 2.75 

Start the rulemaking when the design FSER is under review by the ACRS 03

Optimize the concurrence process 1 

Initiate a working group and steering committee 0.25 

Manage the impact of the information collection approval process 1 

Inform applicants of the consequences of late design changes 04

Proposed rule need not reference the FSER as a published NUREG 04 

Management review of SRM changes 0.5 

Optimize ACRS review time 04

TOTAL SAVINGS 7.0 

Schedule Improvements 

As a result of the 10 improvements described above and in Table 1, the staff estimates that the 

DCR rulemaking process can be shortened from 19.5 months to 12.5 months. The results of 

streamlining each phase of the DCR rulemaking process are shown in Figure 1 and Table 2 

below. 

 

3 Although this change shows no net time savings, it contributes to the subgoal of starting the rulemaking 

earlier in the DC process to minimize the impact on COL schedules. The amount of contribution varies 

between designs because each DC schedule is unique and changes as the design review progresses. 

4 The team assumed these changes in its initial assessment of rulemaking process durations. Although 

these changes show no net time savings, they could further extend the rulemaking process if they are not 

adhered to or are not implemented. 
-7- 

Figure 1. DCR Rulemaking Schedules Before and After Streamlining 

Table 2. DCR Rulemaking Phase Durations (Months) Before and After Streamlining 

Phase Description Current Duration New Duration 

1 Prepare proposed rule 3.0 1.5 

2 Proposed rule concurrence 2.5 1.0 

3 Proposed rule Commission review / SRM 1.5 1.5 

4 Publish proposed rule 1.0 1.0 

5 Public comment period 2.5 2.5 

6 Prepare final rule 2.5 1.0 

7 Final rule concurrence 2.5 1.0 

8 Final rule Commission review / SRM 1.5 1.5 

9 OMB & Office of the Federal Register 

approvals; Publish final rule 

2.5 1.5 

 TOTALS 19.5 12.5 

Other Streamlining Considerations 

The team considered two other possible opportunities for streamlining the DCR rulemaking 

process: 1) Reducing the public comment period to 60 days, and 2) Streamlining the 

Commission’s review and approval. As described below, when weighing the potential benefits 

against their drawbacks, the staff has decided to not further consider either opportunity. 

1. Reduce the public comment period to 60 days 

The team considered whether the 75-day comment period could be reduced, consistent with 

legal requirements. Neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended, requires a specific amount of time for a public comment period on 

rulemaking. The NRC staff’s current practice of either recommending (in a rulemaking that the 

Commission acts on) or using (in a rulemaking where the Commission has delegated 

rulemaking authority to the EDO) a 75-day comment period is derived from Executive Order 

(EO) 12889, “Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement” (NAFTA), dated 

December 27, 1993. For each of the four existing DCRs, the staff determined that 75 days 

should be the minimum duration provided for submission of public comments, consistent with 

EO 12889 and NAFTA. For the first two DCRs (the U.S. Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor 

(ABWR) and the System 80+), however, the NRC provided a 120-day public comment period; 

Calendar Months

↑ ↑

Advanced FSER to ACRS for review Issuance of FSER

DCR Current Process

DCR Process After Staff Improvements

45 6 7 8 9

34 5 6

1234 5678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3

1 2 7 8 9

21 22 23 24

1 2
-8- 

supplemental proposed rules were published for 30-day comment periods with 60-day 

extensions granted. For the third and fourth DCRs (the AP600 and the AP1000), the NRC 

provided a 75-day public comment period. Although the NRC received more comment letters for 

the first two DCRs, which resulted in the need to resolve policy issues for DCRs, the NRC 

received only one comment letter during the AP600 comment period and four comment letters 

during the AP1000 comment period. In light of the small number of stakeholder comments in 

the last two DCRs, the standardized nature of the rule language and the DCD form and content, 

and the Commission’s authority to grant an extension to the public comment period upon 

request of an external stakeholder, the staff considered the use of a 60-day public comment 

period for a future proposed DCR. During its consideration of this process change, the staff 

determined that a reduction in the public comment period could be negatively perceived as 

emphasizing the licensing schedule over public participation in the DC rulemaking. In addition, if 

a shorter public comment period were provided, it is possible that a member of the public would 

request an extension of the comment period such that the comment period would exceed the 

75-day period that the NRC would have ordinarily provided. If granted, the extension of the 

public comment period would likely exceed 15 days and negate any benefit this change could 

have provided. That is, the schedule risk (i.e., receiving and granting an extension of the public 

comment period) in implementing this change far outweighs the small benefit it would have 

provided. Therefore, the staff did not recommend implementing a reduced public comment 

period. 

2. Optimize Commission review time

During the Kaizen event, the team identified possible ways to optimize the Commission review 

time and voting on DCRs. The team considered the possible schedule improvements if the 

Commission were to delegate to the EDO the authority to issue the proposed rule for public 

comment, the final rule following resolution of public comments, or both the proposed and final 

rules. Of these three options, the team considered the delegation of the proposed rule to be the 

most viable option given the standardized nature of DCR rulemakings, the sharing of information 

with the Commission regarding the staff’s review of each design, and the Commission’s role as 

the ultimate decision-making body in the final rulemaking. However, following discussions with 

the team and with OGC and NRO, the staff determined that such delegation raises a number of 

concerns, regardless if such delegation is done generically or on a case-by-case basis. These 

concerns include: (i) the fairness of the adjudicatory process for COL applications referencing 

DC applications; (ii) the possibility that some external stakeholders may have reduced 

confidence in the NRC’s regulatory process where DC applications are referenced by COL 

applications – regardless of whether there is an adjudicatory hearing on the referencing COL 

application; and (iii) the perceived (if not actual) reduction in effective Commission oversight over 

DC rulemakings. The staff has decided that no changes to current process are necessary. 

Conclusion 

The staff-initiated process changes will reduce the DCR schedule by approximately 7 months 

(from 19.5 months to 12.5 months). Although the modified schedule falls short by 0.5 month of 

the subgoal of this project to complete the rulemaking in 12 months (or as quickly as possible), 

meeting the subgoal of an earlier start of rulemaking activities complements other process 

changes in meeting the overall project goal. Therefore, as a result of these process changes, 

the NRC should be able to meet the overall goal of coordinating the DCR and COL schedules 
-9- 

such that the final rule is completed to support a decision on the first COL application 

referencing each DC application. 

The staff will use existing briefings and updates to inform the Commission about the various 

aspects of new reactor licensing, including schedules and relationships between specific DCRs 

and their related licensing proceedings. In order to minimize schedule issues and ensure that 

information is provided to the Commission in a timely manner and decisions are not 

unnecessarily deferred to the rulemaking process, the staff will continue its practices from 

previous DCRs by: 

(1) Seeking early Commission direction on policy and regulatory issues during the design 

review and inform the Commission of significant technical issues contained in the original DC 

application and responses to requests for additional information.5

(2) Providing an information copy of each design review advanced FSER to the Commission 

when it is provided to the ACRS. 

 

5 It would be difficult to seek Commission guidance in advance of the proposed DCR package on technical or 

regulatory issues that result from amendments to the DCR application filed near the end of the staff’s 

technical review. The staff also notes that previous DCR applicants have filed amendments to their DCD 

after the close of the public comment period on the proposed DCR, but that the staff, in consultation with 

OGC, determined that those DCD changes did not require renoticing of the DCR in the Federal Register for 

public comment.