POLICY ISSUE 

INFORMATION

August 9, 2011 SECY-11-0110

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: STAFF STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE UNCONTESTED HEARING 

FOR ISSUANCE OF COMBINED LICENSES AND LIMITED WORK 

AUTHORIZATIONS FOR VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, 

UNITS 3 AND 4 (DOCKET NOS. 52-025 AND 52-026) 

PURPOSE: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Office of New Reactors (NRO) has 

completed its review of the application for two combined licenses (COLs) to authorize 

construction and operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in 

Burke County, GA. The COL application also includes a request for two limited work 

authorizations (LWAs). This reference COL (RCOL) application references the AP1000 Design 

Control Document (DCD), Revision 19, as well as the VEGP Early Site Permit (ESP) (ESP-004), 

dated August 26, 2009. 

NRO presents this information paper pursuant to the revised Internal Commission Procedures 

dated May 12, 2011 (see http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/internal.html). Issuance of 

this paper follows the issuance of the VEGP COL final safety evaluation report (FSER) 

(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

No. ML110450302). Previously, the agency issued the VEGP COL final supplemental 

environmental impact statement (FSEIS), NUREG-1947, on March 25, 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML11076A010). Two other references to this paper are a draft COL and draft 

CONTACTS: Donald Habib, NRO/DNRL Jeffrey Cruz, NRO/DNRL 

301-415-1035 301-415-0599 

 

 Brent Clayton NRO/DSER 

 301-415-3360 
The Commissioners - 2 - 

LWA for VEGP Unit 3 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML111780143 and ML112140559, 

respectively). This paper, with its references, provides the information requested to support the 

Commission’s determination that the staff’s review has been adequate to support the findings 

set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 52.97, “Issuance of combined 

licenses,” 10 CFR 50.10, “License required; limited work authorization,” and 10 CFR 51.107, 

“Public hearings in proceedings for issuance of combined licenses; limited work authorizations.” 

The staff’s review of the application is complete. Subject to the final certification by rulemaking 

of the amended AP1000 design referenced by the application, the staff concludes that all 

required findings can be made to support issuance of the COLs and LWAs. Although the 

design certification rulemaking is ongoing, there are no significant technical or policy issues 

related to the rulemaking that the staff believes would be of significant Commission interest for 

this action or would preclude issuance of the COLs and LWAs upon the effective date of the 

rule. 

Subject to the completion of rulemaking and Commission approval, the final rule is scheduled 

for publication in January 2012. The rule would become effective 30 days after publication in 

the Federal Register (FR). 

SUMMARY: 

This paper addresses each of the findings in 10 CFR 52.97(a), 10 CFR 50.10(e), and 

10 CFR 51.107(a) and (d) and provides an adequate basis for the Commission to conclude that 

each of these findings can be made. This paper also focuses on non-routine or novel matters 

such as unique features of the facility or novel issues that arose as part of the review process. 

This paper does not address routine aspects of the safety and environmental review process. 

BACKGROUND: 

I. Application History 

Application, Ownership, and Location 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) submitted an application for the planned VEGP 

Units 3 and 4, on March 28, 2008. SNC most recently updated the VEGP COL application on 

June 24, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11180A086). The publicly available portions of the 

application are available in ADAMS and on the NRC website at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html. 

SNC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Southern Company and is engaged in the operation of 

nuclear power plants. SNC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State 

of Delaware. SNC currently operates Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and VEGP, 

Units 1 and 2, for co-owners Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton (i.e., Dalton Utilities). SNC also 

operates Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, for Alabama Power Company. The 

combined electric generation of the existing Hatch, VEGP, and Farley plants is in excess of 

6,000 megawatts electric (MWe). The traditional service area of Southern Company includes 

Alabama, Georgia, and portions of Mississippi and Florida. Southern Company’s portfolio of 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

power plants had a total installed generating capacity of over 42,000 MWe as of 

January 1, 2010. 

VEGP owner Georgia Power Company (which acts as agent for the other VEGP owners) has 

authorized SNC to apply for COLs for VEGP Units 3 and 4. SNC will construct and operate 

these units on behalf of the VEGP owners. As noted above, VEGP has the following co-owner 

co-licensees: 

• Georgia Power Company (45.7 percent ownership) 

• Oglethorpe Power Corporation (an Electric Membership Corporation) (30.0 percent 

ownership) 

• Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent ownership) 

• City of Dalton, GA, an incorporated municipality in the State of Georgia acting by and 

through its Board of Water, Light and Sinking Fund Commissioners (Dalton Utilities) 

(1.6 percent ownership) 

The site of proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 is located on a 3,169-acre coastal plain bluff on the 

southwest side of the Savannah River in eastern Burke County, GA. The site is 

approximately 30 river miles above the U.S. 301 bridge and directly across the river from the 

U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site (Barnwell County, SC). The VEGP site is 

approximately 15 miles east-northeast of Waynesboro, GA, and 26 miles southeast of 

Augusta, GA. It is also about 100 miles from Savannah, GA, and 150 river miles from the 

mouth of the Savannah River. 

Additional information about the applicant and ownership appears in Part 1 (General and 

Financial Information) of the VEGP COL application. Additional information about the site 

location and characteristics appears in Part 2 (Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)), Chapters 1 

and 2, of the COL application. As noted previously, the COL application references the VEGP 

ESP, by which the NRC approved the suitability of the site. 

Referenced Design Certification and Design Certification Amendments 

Westinghouse Electric Company is the applicant for certification of the amended AP1000 design 

(DCD Revision 19) referenced in the VEGP COL application. Westinghouse Electric Company 

was also the applicant for the AP1000 design certified in Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule 

for the AP1000 Design,” to 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear 

Power Plants.” On February 24, 2011, the staff issued a proposed rule to amend the 

Westinghouse AP1000 design certification based on DCD Revision 18. Westinghouse 

submitted the referenced DCD Revision 19 on June 13, 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML11171A287). In August 2011, the NRC staff issued an FSER for the DCD (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML112061231). The rulemaking that would certify the AP1000 design 

amendment is pending, and the staff expects a final rule would be issued by January 2012. 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

Referenced Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization 

The VEGP COL application incorporates by reference the VEGP ESP and LWA (LWA-1) 

(ESP-004), dated August 26, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092290157). To document its 

review of the ESP application, the NRC issued an FSER (NUREG-1923, ADAMS Accession 

No. ML090130038) and final environment impact statement (FEIS) (NUREG-1872, ADAMS 

Accession No. ML082260190) for the ESP and LWA on February 5, 2009, and August 8, 2008, 

respectively. Following both a contested and an uncontested evidentiary hearing, the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) issued findings and an order authorizing issuance of the 

ESP and LWA-1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092290724) on August 17, 2009. During the COL 

review, based on amendment requests from SNC relating to activities authorized under LWA-1, 

the NRC approved three amendments to the ESP that addressed the sources and 

categorization of backfill material to be used in the installation of the nuclear island foundation; 

these amendments were issued on May 21, June 25, and July 9, 2010 (ADAMS Accession 

Nos. ML101400509, ML101760370, and ML101870522, respectively). 

On October 2, 2009, SNC requested an additional LWA (LWA-2) for each unit that would allow 

additional limited construction activity at the VEGP site, including installation of reinforcing steel, 

sumps, and drain lines and other embedded items in the nuclear island foundation base slabs, 

and placement of concrete for the nuclear island foundation base slabs for Units 3 and 4 

(ADAMS Accession Nos. ML092960549 and ML092960512). The LWA-2 request was included 

as a supplement to the COL application. The staff technical review of the safety aspects of the 

LWA-2 request is complete and appears in Section 3.8.5 of the FSER. The FSEIS for the COL, 

prepared as a supplement to the ESP FEIS as required by NRC regulations, also addresses 

environmental considerations associated with issuance of LWA-2, in accordance with 

10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(i). Additional information about the LWA-2 request appears in the 

discussion of Other Aspects of the Staff Review Not Tied to Specific Findings, at the end of the 

Discussion section of this paper. 

The staff has completed preparation of a draft LWA for VEGP Unit 3 that is available to the 

Commission for information (ADAMS Accession No. ML112140559). The draft LWAs for Units 

3 and 4 are expected to be identical. 

Reference Combined License 

The VEGP COL application is the RCOL application for the AP1000 design center. Before 

early 2009 the RCOL applicant for the AP1000 design center was the Tennessee Valley 

Authority Bellefonte Nuclear Station, Units 3 and 4, and VEGP was a subsequent COL (SCOL) 

applicant. In April 2009, the NuStart Energy Development, LLC, consortium informed the NRC 

that it had changed the RCOL designation for the AP1000 design center from Bellefonte Units 3 

and 4 to VEGP Units 3 and 4. Because of this change, some portions of the VEGP FSER 

contain information from previously issued safety evaluations for Bellefonte. In these areas, the 

two applicants submitted similar information and, in accordance with “New Reactor 

Standardization Needed to Support the Design-Centered Licensing Review Approach” (RIS 

2006-06, ADAMS Accession No. ML053540251), the staff determined that the similar 

information was standard for the AP1000 design center and that the evaluation of the Bellefonte 

application was directly applicable to the VEGP units. The portions of the application where a 

single review was performed for multiple applicants are referred to as “standard content.” 
The Commissioners - 5 - 

The staff has completed preparation of draft COL for VEGP Unit 3, and the Unit 3 draft license 

is available to the Commission for information (ADAMS Accession No. ML111780143). The 

draft licenses for Units 3 and 4 are expected to be identical except for an inspection, test, 

analysis, and acceptance criterion (ITAAC) pertaining to the common technical support center 

(TSC) (see discussion of Other Aspects of the Staff Review Not Tied to Specific Findings, at the 

end of this paper). 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

The staff presented the results of its review to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

(ACRS) AP1000 subcommittee at four meetings on June 24–25, July 21–22, September 20–21, 

and December 15–16, 2010. In addition, the staff presented the results of its review of the 

Bellefonte COL application, including the review of standard content, at ACRS AP1000 

subcommittee meetings on July 23–24, 2009, February 2–3, 2010, and April 22, 2010. The 

standard content in the Bellefonte COL application has been endorsed by other AP1000 COL 

applicants, including VEGP. Following the change in the RCOL from Bellefonte to VEGP, 

standard content now also refers to the portions of the VEGP application that will be endorsed 

by future SCOLs. The staff presented the results of its VEGP COL review to the ACRS full 

committee on January 13, 2011. ACRS issued its final recommendation on January 24, 2011 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML110170006). The ACRS conclusions and recommendations and the 

staff response are discussed further in later sections of this paper. 

II. Outreach 

Public Meetings 

After the NRC docketed the application on May 30, 2008, the staff held a public outreach 

meeting in Waynesboro, GA, on July 17, 2008, to explain the COL review process and take 

questions from the public. After issuing the draft supplemental environmental impact statement 

(DSEIS) on September 10, 2010, the staff held a public meeting on October 7, 2010, to present 

an overview of the DSEIS and to accept comments on the document. While reviewing the 

application, the staff conducted approximately 60 public meetings and public conference calls. 

Federal Register Notices 

The NRC published Federal Register notices as required for key milestones of the licensing 

process: 

• After the NRC received the COL application on March 28, 2008, the agency published 

notice of such receipt in the FR on May 5, 2008 (73 FR 24616). 

• The NRC staff docketed the COL application on May 30, 2008, and published a notice of 

docketing on June 11, 2008 (73 FR 33118). 

• On September 16, 2008, the NRC published a notice of hearing and opportunity to 

petition for leave to intervene (73 FR 53446). On May 3, 2010, in light of the LWA-2 
The Commissioners - 6 - 

request by SNC, the agency published a supplementary notice of hearing and 

opportunity to petition for leave to intervene (75 FR 23306). 

• On September 28, 2009, the NRC published a notice of intent to prepare a supplemental 

environmental impact statement (74 FR 49407). 

• On September 3, 2010, the NRC published a notice of the availability of the DSEIS for 

public comment and a public meeting to present an overview of the DSEIS and accept 

public comments on the document (75 FR 54190). 

• On March 3, 10, 17, and 24, 2011, the NRC published notices of the COL application in 

accordance with Section 182(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 

10 CFR 50.43(a)(3) (76 FR 11822, 13241, 14699, and 16645). 

• On March 24, 2011, the NRC published a notice of availability of the FSEIS 

(76 FR 16645). 

Consultations 

In accordance with Section 657 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the NRC consulted with the 

Department of Homeland Security. As part of its environmental review in accordance with 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable statutes, including the 

Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, the staff consulted with and 

obtained input from appropriate Federal, State, local, and Tribal organizations. 

Adjudicatory Actions 

On September 16, 2008, the NRC published in the Federal Register (73 FR 53446) a notice of 

an opportunity to petition for leave to intervene. In response to this notice, a group of five 

petitioners filed a petition to intervene on November 17, 2008. The ASLB granted the petition 

and admitted a contention that addressed low-level radioactive waste storage (LBP-09-03; 

ADAMS Accession No. ML090640918). On May 19, 2010, the ASLB issued a memorandum 

and order granting a motion filed by SNC on January 29, 2010, for summary disposition of the 

admitted contention (LBP-10-08; ADAMS Accession No. ML101390246). In granting summary 

disposition, the ASLB determined that the purported failures of the FSAR to provide information 

about design, location, and worker health impacts related to the storage of low-level radioactive 

waste did not identify a deficiency under 10 CFR 52.79(a)(3). 

On August 12, 2010, a group of three petitioners filed a late-filed petition to intervene regarding 

the AP1000 containment design and containment coatings inspection program. A board 

established to rule on the petition denied it on November 30, 2010 (LBP-10-21; ADAMS 

Accession No. ML103340432). The petitioners appealed denial of their petition, and the appeal 

is currently pending before the Commission. 

From April 14 to 18, 2011, a number of organizations jointly filed an emergency petition to 

suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions and related rulemaking decisions pending 

investigation of lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power station accident 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML111091154). This petition was filed on numerous adjudicatory 
The Commissioners - 7 - 

dockets, including in the Vogtle COL proceeding. The Commission has not yet ruled on the 

petition. 

III. Review Process/Methodology 

The key processes and methodologies used to ensure quality, consistency, and completeness 

in preparation of the FSER and FSEIS are described below. 

NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for 

Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition.” The principal purpose of the standard review plan 

(SRP) is to ensure the quality and uniformity of staff safety reviews. The staff uses the SRP as 

a routine tool for evaluating the safety of nuclear power plant designs. The SRP was 

comprehensively updated in 2007 and is the most definitive basis available for demonstrating 

that an application meets the set of regulations established by the Commission. Each section of 

the SRP outlines the specific regulations that will be met when the review is complete, including 

the general design criteria from Appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” 

to 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” Section 1.9.2 

of the applicant’s FSAR identifies the departures from the SRP associated with the VEGP COL 

application. This list does not include SRP departures associated with the AP1000 DCD and 

VEGP ESP that have been incorporated by reference. 

NUREG-1555, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 

Plants: Environmental Standard Review Plan.” This guidance, including a 2007 update that 

addresses environmental reviews for COLs, contains environmental SRPs that NRC staff uses 

when conducting environmental reviews of applications related to nuclear power plants, in 

accordance with NEPA and the NRC’s NEPA implementing regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, 

“Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions.” 

Regulatory Guides. Regulatory guides provide guidance to licensees and applicants on 

implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques used by the NRC staff in 

evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data needed by the staff in its review 

of applications for permits or licenses. Appendix 1AA to the applicant’s FSAR identifies the 

regulatory guides associated with the VEGP COL application and whether the applicant 

conforms with or departs from each regulatory guide. This list does not include departures from 

regulatory guidance associated with the AP1000 DCD and VEGP ESP that have been 

incorporated by reference. 

Interim Staff Guidance. For areas where the existing SRP does not contain review guidance, 

the staff prepared and used interim staff guidance (ISG) documents. The ISGs clarify technical 

review approaches and address questions related to processes and licensing. The staff used 

the following ISGs in the VEGP review (and it is indicated below to which FSER section(s) each 

ISG primarily related): 

• DC/COL-ISG-1, “Interim Staff Guidance on Seismic Issues of High Frequency Ground 

Motion,” dated May 19, 2008; see FSER Section 3.8.4 

• DC/COL-ISG-3, “PRA Information to Support Design Certification and Combined 

License Applications,” dated June 11, 2008; see FSER Sections 19.55, 19.58, and 19.59 
The Commissioners - 8 - 

• COL/ESP-ISG-4, “Interim Staff Guidance on the Definition of Construction and on 

Limited Work Authorizations,” dated February 9, 2009 

• DC/COL-ISG-7, “Assessment of Normal and Extreme Winter Precipitation Loads on the 

Roofs of Seismic Category I Structures,” dated June 23, 2009; see FSER Sections 2.3.1 

and 3.7.2 

• DC/COL-ISG-8, “Necessary Content of Plant-Specific Technical Specifications,” dated 

December 9, 2008; see FSER Section 16.1.4.3.3 

• DC/COL-ISG-11, “Finalizing Licensing-Basis Information,” dated November 2, 2009; see 

FSER Section 1.1 

• DC/COL-ISG-15, “Post-Combined License Commitments,” dated October 7, 2009; see 

FSER Sections 1.4.4 and 1.5.4 

• DC/COL-ISG-16, “Compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) and 10 CFR 52.80(d),” (nonpublic) dated June 9, 2010; see FSER Section 19A 

• DC/COL-ISG-20, “Seismic Margin Analysis for New Reactors Based on Probabilistic 

Risk Assessment,” dated March 15, 2010; see FSER Chapter 19 

• DC/COL-ISG-22, draft for comment, “Interim Staff Guidance on Impact of Construction 

of New Nuclear Power Plants on Operating Units at Multi-Unit Sites,” dated February, 7, 

2011; see FSER Section 1.4.4 

Office Instructions. In its review, the staff followed administrative guidance contained in a 

number of Office Instructions. These internal documents address a range of procedure matters, 

including the staff’s process for issuing requests for additional information, performance of 

audits, qualification and training of technical staff and managers, ensuring consistency between 

staff offices, and interactions with applicants, interveners, and public stakeholders. 

Design-Centered Review Approach, SECY-06-0019, “Semiannual Update on the Status of 

New Reactor Licensing Activities and Future Planning for New Reactors,” dated 

January 31, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML053530315). Under the design-centered review 

approach, NRO has used, to the extent practicable, a “one issue-one review-one position” 

strategy in order to optimize the review effort and resources needed to perform these reviews. 

Within the AP1000 design center, the staff has conducted one technical review for each reactor 

design issue and is using this one decision to support the review of multiple COL applications. 

“Addressing Construction and Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, 

General Conformity Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for Power, Cumulative 

Impact Analysis, and Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues in Environmental 

Impact Statements,” dated December 10, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100760503). 

This guidance assisted the staff in addressing certain aspects of the environmental reviews for 

ESP and COL applications that had evolved since the 2007 update to NUREG-1555 or were 

identified during the first several reviews of ESP and COL applications. 
The Commissioners - 9 - 

IV. ACRS Report 

The ACRS review of the VEGP COL application culminated with a January 24, 2011, letter to 

the Commission concluding that there is reasonable assurance that VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be 

built and operated without undue risk to public health and safety and that the SNC COL 

application for VEGP should be approved following its final revision. The ACRS letter also 

identified specific recommendations. On March 3, 2011, the staff issued a response to the 

letter, which provided for specific changes to the application and the FSER, other actions, and 

appropriate explanation (ADAMS Accession No. ML110480429). The ACRS conclusions and 

recommendations and the staff response are summarized below. 

Containment Interior Debris Limitation 

The ACRS noted that, in a previous letter discussing the AP1000 design, it had concluded that 

the stringent cleanliness requirements specified for the AP1000 containment interior are needed 

to ensure that long-term core cooling requirements are met. In order to ensure that the 

cleanliness requirements are not relaxed during plant life without consideration by the NRC staff 

and to make them highly visible to both the plant operators and to the NRC staff, the ACRS 

recommended that the plant technical specifications include these requirements. 

In response, the AP1000 applicant changed the designation of the cleanliness requirement in 

the DCD from Tier 2 to Tier 2* (see DCD Section 6.3.2.2.7.1). This will ensure that changes to 

these criteria by the COL applicant will require NRC review and that the criteria will be 

standardized across the entire fleet of AP1000 COLs. 

Inservice Inspection/Inservice Testing Requirements for Squib Valves 

The ACRS noted that the automatic depressurization system ADS-4 squib valves must operate 

to achieve passive long-term cooling after a loss-of-coolant accident. The valves, actuated by 

an explosive charge, are one-time-use valves until the internals are replaced. According to the 

ACRS, the development of an effective inservice inspection/inservice testing (ISI/IST) program 

to ensure the operability of the valves is needed. The ACRS suggested that periodic removal 

and firing of the explosive charge that initiates operation of the valve may not be sufficient for 

ensuring the operability of these critical components. The ACRS recommended that the NRC 

establish a regulatory requirement focused on the development of an ISI/IST program, including 

a review of the lessons learned from the valve design and qualification process. 

The staff addressed this recommendation through several actions that will culminate in a 

requirement for an ISI/IST program for squib valves in new reactors. The near-term actions 

include coordination and information exchanges between the staff, Westinghouse, SNC, nuclear 

regulators in other countries, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. However, 

these actions do not necessitate any changes to the Vogtle COL application or proposed COLs 

as part of the response. 
The Commissioners - 10 - 

Power Measurement Uncertainty 

The applicant proposed using an ultrasonic flow meter that the staff has previously approved to 

support a 1-percent power uncertainty. The ACRS recommended that the NRC require the 

applicant to make an explicit commitment to perform calibrations both prior to installation and as 

part of the commissioning process. 

In response, the applicant revised the FSAR to include a specific commitment for appropriate 

calibration and testing of the instrument prior to installation and as part of the commissioning 

process. 

Future Changes to the AP1000 DCD and VEGP FSAR

The staff conducted the VEGP COL application review in parallel with the review of the AP1000 

design certification amendment (DCA) application. As a consequence, the VEGP COLA 

reviewed by the ACRS referenced DCD Revision 17 (plus additional changes that were 

proposed but not yet included in DCD Revision 18), whereas the staff’s FSER references DCD 

Revision 19. The ACRS asked the staff to review with them the changes and commitments in 

the final DCD and FSAR that deviate significantly from those the ACRS previously reviewed. 

The staff evaluated the changes made to the DCD and FSAR after the ACRS review and 

determined that none of the changes had significance warranting further interaction with the 

ACRS. 

V. Task Force Evaluation of Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Event 

The Commission has options associated with a decision to proceed with new reactor licensing 

in light of the recommendations from the Fukushima Task Force report (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML111861807). The Fukushima Task Force report contains three specific 

recommendations for near-term COL applications: 1) confirm station blackout and spent fuel 

pool capabilities associated with the AP1000 design, 2) enhance onsite emergency response 

capability through the integration of emergency operating procedures, severe accident 

management guidelines, and extensive damage mitigation guidelines and 3) enhance 

emergency planning to address prolonged station blackout and multi-unit accidents. Prior to 

issuance of the COLs, the Commission could choose to adopt some or all of these 

recommendations and implement them in the COLs through license conditions. Alternatively, 

the Commission could issue the COLs and later modify, add, or delete any terms or conditions 

of the COLs to reflect any new Commission requirements in accordance with the regulatory 

provisions found in 10 CFR 52.83, 52.98, and 50.109, depending on whether the conditions 

address matters within the scope of the referenced ESP or certified design. Under this 

approach, the criteria for implementation of any Commission decisions on the Task Force 

recommendations generally would be comparable for both the near-term COLs and for 

operating reactors. 
The Commissioners - 11 - 

DISCUSSION: 

I. Excluded Matters 

This information paper does not discuss matters that were previously addressed and resolved in 

the context of other reviews undertaken as part of the 10 CFR Part 52 process. Such excluded 

matters include issues addressed under the AP1000 DCA review or the VEGP ESP and LWA-1 

review. 

Excluded matters under the realm of the ESP and LWA include, for example, the excavation 

and placement of backfill, the seismic characteristics of the site, and aspects of the VEGP 

emergency plan reviewed under the ESP. The FSER and FEIS for the VEGP ESP contain a 

complete listing of matters resolved by the VEGP ESP and LWA-1. In the Vogtle ESP 

proceeding, the Board conducted a contested hearing on three environmental contentions and 

an uncontested (mandatory) hearing that considered the adequacy of the staff’s review, 

including such aspects as cumulative water use impacts, radiological impacts, ground water 

impacts on safety-related structures, environmental impacts of alternatives, the LWA-1 and the 

site redress plan, the site emergency plan, the seismic evaluation, severe accident mitigation 

design alternatives, and future regulatory and licensing activities associated with the ESP. 

Following the proceeding, the Board determined that the staff’s safety and environmental review 

was adequate and supported issuance of the ESP and LWA (see Vogtle ESP First Partial Initial 

Decision on the contested hearing, LBP-09-07, dated June 22, 2009 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML091770506), and VEGP ESP Second and Final Partial Initial Decision on the 

uncontested hearing, LBP-09-19, dated August 19, 2009 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092290724)). 

Excluded matters under the AP1000 DCA include design issues such as the use of design 

acceptance criteria for digital instrumentation & control and piping, the ability of the AP1000 

shield building to withstand stresses from seismic and aircraft impacts, and performance of the 

containment sump strainer during a postulated loss-of-coolant accident. A discussion of matters 

that the staff considers resolved by the design certification can be found in the proposed rule at 

76 FR 10269 and in the FSER for the DCA. In some instances, where technical areas involved 

interfaces between the COL and the excluded matters addressed by the design certification, 

they were accordingly addressed as part of the COL proceeding. For example, the COL loss of 

large areas (LOLA) review (Chapter 19 of the FSER) and the emergency plan review (Section 

13.3 of the FSER) interface with the DCA aircraft impact analysis, and the COL containment 

cleanliness program review interfaces with the performance of the containment sump strainer 

evaluated in the DCA. Two tables in the DCA identify COL areas that interface with 

corresponding areas of the DCA. Table 1.8-1 of the DCA presents a complete listing of 

interfaces between the COL and the DCA. Table 1.8-2 of the DCA lists COL information items, 

which address those areas for which a COL applicant referencing the AP1000 design must 

provide additional supporting information to meet a regulatory requirement. The staff review 

confirmed that the applicant satisfactorily addressed all interface items and COL information 

items. 

Also excluded from consideration in the uncontested hearing is the part of the applicant’s 

containment coatings inspection program (Section 6.1.2 of the FSER) that is the subject of the 

one denied contention currently under appeal to the Commission. 
The Commissioners - 12 - 

Finally, excluded from consideration from the uncontested hearing is an emergency petition to 

suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions and related rulemaking decisions pending 

investigation of lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power station accident. A 

number of organizations filed this petition jointly on numerous adjudicatory dockets between 

April 14 and 18, 2011, including in the Vogtle COL proceeding. The Commission has not yet 

ruled on the petition. 

II. Exemptions, Departures, and Variances 

Exemptions from NRC Regulations 

The staff evaluated and found acceptable the following three exemptions from NRC regulations 

requested by the applicant: 

Description Regulation Location of 

Evaluation in FSER 

COL application organization and 

numbering 

10 CFR Part 52, 

Appendix D, 

Section IV.A.2.a 

Section 1.5.4 

Exemption criteria 10 CFR 52.93(a)(1) Section 1.5.4 

Special nuclear material control and 

accounting (MC&A) program description 

10 CFR 70.22(b), 

70.32(c), 74.31, 

74.41, 74.51 

Section 1.5.4 

For the COL organization and numbering exemption request, the applicable regulation (see 

10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section IV.A.2.a) requires that a COL application referencing a 

certified design include a plant-specific DCD using the same organization and numbering as the 

generic DCD. In support of its exemption request, the applicant asserted that complying with 

this requirement would be less efficient and indicated that a modified organization is needed to 

address the topics identified in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.206, “Combined License Applications 

for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition),” and NUREG-0800, and to include plant-specific 

discussions. 

Before considering whether this numbering exemption should be granted, the staff needed to 

address a threshold question regarding the review standard applicable to the request. Under 

10 CFR 52.93(a)(1), if a request for an exemption is from any part of a design certification rule, 

then the Commission may grant the exemption if the exemption complies with the appropriate 

change provision in the referenced design certification rule or, if there is no applicable change 

provision, if the exemption complies with 10 CFR 52.63. Here, there is no applicable change 

provision in the referenced design certification rule, so according to Section 52.93(a)(1), the 

exemption must meet 10 CFR 52.63. However, the pertinent standards of 10 CFR 52.63, by 

their terms, also do not apply to this change. As such, the numbering exemption cannot comply 

with the plain language of Section 52.93(a)(1); accordingly, this exemption should have fallen 

under 10 CFR 52.93(a)(2), and, thus, be analyzed under the requirements in 10 CFR 52.7. 

Because the plant-specific DCD’s organization and numbering is not “certification information” 

but solely administrative, the language of Section 52.93(a)(1) does not appear to serve the 

underlying purpose of the regulation as described by the Commission in the Statements of 
The Commissioners - 13 - 

Consideration to the rule, in which the Commission stated that only changes to certification 

information must meet 10 CFR 52.63 (see 72 FR 49444). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.7, 

for the purpose of determining the standards applicable to the numbering exemption, the staff 

finds an exemption to Section 52.93(a)(1) to be acceptable. 

For the MC&A program exemption request, the applicable regulations in 10 CFR Parts 70 

and 74 require that a special nuclear material license application contain a description of an 

MC&A program and that the applicant establish, implement, maintain, and follow an MC&A 

program. The applicant noted that the cited regulations include exceptions from these 

requirements for nuclear reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 50. The applicant stated that, for 

the MC&A program, there is no reason to treat reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 

differently than those licensed under 10 CFR Part 50. 

Part 7, Section B, of the COL application presents a full discussion of the exemption requests. 

For each of these exemptions, the staff evaluation determined that the exemption is authorized 

by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and is consistent with the 

common defense and security, and that special circumstances are present 

(10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)). For all three exemptions, the special circumstance present is that 

application of the regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The 

staff evaluation of the exemption requests appears in Section 1.5.4 of the FSER. 

Departures from AP1000 DCD Revision 19 

The staff evaluated and found acceptable the applicant’s proposed departures from Tier 2 

information in AP1000 DCD Revision 19, presented in the table below. Part 7, Section A, of the 

COL application describes and justifies the departures and evaluates each departure against 

the criteria in Section VIII.B.5 of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 52, determining whether the 

applicant can implement the departure without NRC approval. 

DCD 

Departure 

Number 

Location of 

Evaluation in 

COL FSER 

Description and Acceptability 

VEGP DEP 

1.1-1 Section 1.5.4 

Administrative departure for organization and numbering of 

the FSAR sections. This departure is administrative and is 

related to the corresponding exemption request. 

VEGP DEP 

2.5-1 Section 2.5.4 

Mudmat thickness. The COL specifies 6 inches as the 

nominal thickness while the DCD specifies 6 inches as the 

minimum thickness. The staff agreed that the nominal 

thickness specification would still allow the mudmat to 

meet the DCD functional requirements, including providing 

a working surface for construction of the foundation, 

protecting the waterproof membrane, and providing an 

adequate transfer of shear forces. 
The Commissioners - 14 - 

DCD 

Departure 

Number 

Location of 

Evaluation in 

COL FSER 

Description and Acceptability 

VEGP DEP 

3.4-1 

Sections 

3.4.1 

and 3.8.5 

Waterproofing membrane material. The applicant initially 

proposed the selected material in the VEGP ESP, and the 

staff reviewed and approved it in Section 3.8.5 (page 3-18) 

of the ESP FSER. The selected material does not fall 

within the class of materials specified in DCD Revision 19. 

However, for the reasons explained in the ESP FSER, the 

staff determined the material to be acceptable because it 

would limit infiltration of subsurface water for seismic 

Category I structures below grade and would also provide 

for adequate transfer of horizontal seismic shear forces, 

consistent with the design described in the DCD. The 

COL application incorporates by reference an inspection, 

test, analysis, and acceptance criterion (ITAAC) in the 

ESP SSAR for testing the waterproof membrane to confirm 

a minimum coefficient of friction to resist sliding. 

STD DEP 

8.3-1 Section 8.3.2 

Class 1E voltage regulating transformer current limiting 

features. The staff found the departure acceptable 

because the use of breakers and fuses, instead of the 

current limiting characteristics specified in the DCD, to 

provide the isolation function of regulating transformers is 

consistent with recommendations in applicable industry 

standards. This is a “standard” departure for AP1000 COL 

applicants in that it is expected to be requested generically 

by future AP1000 COL applicants. 

VEGP DEP 

9.2-1 Section 9.2.5 

Potable water system filtration. The staff agreed that 

filtration of the potable water supply was not needed 

because the available onsite well water proposed by the 

applicant meets applicable regulatory standards for safe 

drinking water. 
The Commissioners - 15 - 

DCD 

Departure 

Number 

Location of 

Evaluation in 

COL FSER 

Description and Acceptability 

VEGP DEP 

18.8-1 

Section 

13.3.4 

Emergency response facility locations. This departure 

proposed locations of the TSC and the operational support 

centers (OSCs) that differed from those specified in the 

DCD. The proposed location of the TSC also is different 

from that stated in the ESP SSAR (see Variance 1.2-1, 

below). The staff had found the previously proposed 

locations of the OSCs and the centralized TSC acceptable 

when initially evaluated in Section 13.3.2.2.8 of the VEGP 

ESP FSER (page 13-58). The staff found the TSC 

location proposed in the COL to still be acceptable 

because it was not materially different from that previously 

accepted in the ESP. For the OSC, the staff found the 

proposed locations in each unit’s control support area 

acceptable because the location of the control support 

area exceeded requirements for an OSC in NUREG-0696, 

“Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities,” 

issued February 1981, and NUREG-0737, “Clarification of 

TMI Action Plan Requirements,” Supplement 1, 

“Requirements for Emergency Response Capability,” 

issued January 1983. An ITAAC for a full participation 

emergency response exercise was established to 

demonstrate the adequacy of the TSC location. 
The Commissioners - 16 - 

Variances from the VEGP ESP Application SSAR, Revision 5 

The applicant requested six variances from the VEGP ESP, listed in the table below. The NRC 

staff evaluated each variance request and determined that, for each variance, the alternative 

information supplied by the applicant was acceptable. Part 7, Section C, of the COL application 

describes the variances in detail. 

ESP 

Variance 

Number 

Location of 

Evaluation in 

FSER 

Description and Justification 

VEGP ESP 

VAR 1.6-1 Section 1.4.4 These three variances correspond to areas where the COL incorporates by reference information from a more 

recent version of the AP1000 DCD (Revision 19) than the 

version referenced in the ESP (Revision 15). 

1.6-1—Overall reference to AP1000 DCD relating to LWA 

1.6-2—Foundations 

1.6-3—Accident analysis 

VEGP ESP 

VAR 1.6-2 Section 3.8.5 

VEGP ESP 

VAR 1.6-3 Chapter 15 

VEGP ESP 

VAR 1.2-1 Section 13.3 

Variance from VEGP ESP SSAR Section 1.2, “General 

Site Description,” and Section 13.3, “Emergency 

Planning,” and VEGP ESP Part 5, “Emergency Plan.” 

This variance provides for updated site layout 

information, including relocation of the TSC. 

VEGP ESP 

VAR 2.2-1 Section 2.2 

Variance from VEGP ESP SSAR Section 2.2.3.2, 

“Hazardous Chemicals,” and Table 2.3-6, “Potential 

Hazards.” This variance provides for updated information 

about hazardous chemicals in the vicinity of the site. 

VEGP ESP 

VAR 2.3-1 Section 2.3 

Variance from VEGP ESP SSAR Section 2.3.1.5, 

“Meteorology.” This variance provides for updated 

climatological data. 

III. Nonroutine, Unique Facility Features or Novel Issues 

Safety Matters 

a. Cyber Security—Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the NRC 

issued a series of advisories and orders requiring nuclear power plants to take certain 

actions, including enhancing the protection of their computer systems. Since that time, 

the NRC has replaced those interim measures with regulations. The NRC added a 

cyber-security threat component to the design-basis threat in 2007. In March 2009, the 

NRC issued cyber-security requirements under 10 CFR 73.54, “Protection of Digital 

Computer and Communication Systems and Networks.” The scope of systems under 

10 CFR 73.54 includes systems associated with safety, important-to-safety, security, 

and emergency preparedness functions, as well as support systems and equipment that, 

if compromised, could adversely impact safety, security, and emergency preparedness 

functions. 
The Commissioners - 17 - 

The NRC also developed regulatory guidance for cyber security. In January 2010, NRC 

issued RG 5.71, “Cyber Security Programs for Nuclear Facilities.” This regulatory guide 

provides an acceptable approach for protecting digital computers, communications 

systems, and networks from a cyber attack. 

The applicable regulations used by the staff in conducting the evaluation include 

10 CFR 73.54, 10 CFR 73.55(a)(1), 10 CFR 73.55(b)(8), 10 CFR 73.55(m), and 

Appendix G, “Reportable Safeguards Events,” to 10 CFR Part 73, “Physical Protection of 

Plants and Materials.” The staff also used RG 5.71 to review the cyber security plan 

(CSP). 

The review of the VEGP COL applicant’s CSP was the first CSP review for a new 

reactor. Although the NRC received the VEGP COL application in March 2008, the 

applicant did not submit its CSP until June 2010, after the issuance of RG 5.71. The 

VEGP CSP describes how VEGP meets the new regulation, and the plan is based on a 

generic CSP template in Appendix A to RG 5.71. Key elements of RG 5.71 that were 

adopted by the applicant include identifying and analyzing critical digital assets, 

establishing a cyber security team, applying defensive architecture, addressing 

148 security controls to each critical digital asset, implementing defensive strategies, 

and conducting ongoing assessments of security measures for effectiveness. 

The staff recognizes the cyber security program as an additional operational program as 

discussed in SECY-05-0197, “Review of Operational Programs in a Combined License 

Application and Generic Emergency Planning Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria,” dated October 28, 2005. The applicant’s CSP describes the 

program, and the applicant would complete implementation of the entire program 

between NRC issuance of the COL and the establishment of an operational protected 

area prior to fuel load. Consistent with the policy established in SECY-05-0197, this 

program would not be subject to ITAAC. However, the NRC would conduct 

post-licensing inspections to confirm that the applicant has implemented the program as 

required. The draft COL contains a license condition requiring that the applicant provide 

a schedule that would support NRC inspections of the detailed elements of the program. 

The staff reviewed the CSP at the same time that the Commission reached the policy 

decision that clarified that the scope of 10 CFR 73.54(a)(1)(i) structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) important-to-safety functions includes balance of plant (BOP) SSCs 

that have a nexus to radiological health and safety (see Staff Requirements 

Memorandum (SRM) CMWCO-10-0001, “Regulation of Cyber Security at Nuclear Power 

Plants,” dated October 21, 2010, and SECY-10-0153, “Cyber Security—Implementation 

of the Commission’s Determination of Systems and Equipment within the Scope of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 73.54,” dated November 19, 2010). 

The expanded scope of SSCs in the BOP includes important-to-safety SSCs having the 

potential to directly or indirectly affect the reactivity of the nuclear power plant. After the 

Commission’s policy decision, the VEGP applicant revised its CSP to clarify that the 

scope of the program included the covered SSCs as defined in the Commission policy. 

The CSP review considered 69 deviations taken by the applicant from the CSP template 

in RG 5.71. The staff analyzed each deviation individually and found that the deviations 
The Commissioners - 18 - 

were all acceptable. The applicant justified each deviation from RG 5.71, explaining that 

the deviations were to clarify the intent of certain statements taken from RG 5.71 that 

had been adopted in the VEGP CSP, to provide the applicant flexibility, or to use an 

alternative approach from that used in RG 5.71. For each deviation, the staff determined 

that the RG 5.71 objective was still met or protection to the plant was not reduced. The 

staff evaluation, which appears in Section 13.8 of the FSER, follows the organization of 

the CSP. It includes a section-by-section evaluation of the VEGP CSP against the CSP 

template in Appendix A to RG 5.71, followed by a separate evaluation for each individual 

deviation against the regulatory positions in RG 5.71. 

The staff determined that the VEGP cyber security program will likely be employed by 

other AP1000 COL applicants; thus, the staff’s evaluation of the VEGP application is 

expected to be generically applicable to AP1000 SCOLs. Accordingly, the staff does not 

anticipate addressing the evaluation of the cyber security programs for SCOLs in its 

Commission papers for future mandatory hearings unless there is a plant-specific 

difference between the RCOL and SCOL programs. 

The cyber security evaluation in the VEGP FSER focuses on a comparison between the 

VEGP CSP and the CSP template in RG 5.71. While the VEGP CSP is a nonpublic 

document that appears in Part 9, “Withheld Information,” of the VEGP COL application, 

the staff evaluation, which appears in Section 13.8 of the FSER, is a public document. 

b. Loss of Large Areas of the Plant Due to Explosions or Fires—The provisions of 

10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2), promulgated in March 2009 (74 FR 13926), require licensees to 

develop and implement guidance and strategies for addressing the LOLAs of the plant 

because of explosions or fires from a beyond-design-basis event. The guidance and 

strategies address the provisions necessary to maintain or restore core cooling, 

containment, and spent fuel pool (SFP) cooling capabilities including fire fighting, 

operations to mitigate fuel damage, and actions to minimize radiological release. 

Applicants document the guidance and strategies in a mitigative strategies document 

(MSD). 

Because the NRC promulgated the LOLA rule so recently, the design aspects of the 

LOLA requirements were not included in the previously approved AP1000 DCD, 

Revision 15, certified in 2007. The LOLA review for the VEGP COL is the first LOLA 

review performed for a new reactor applicant requesting a license under 

10 CFR Part 52. The applicant submitted an MSD pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2). 

The staff reviewed the applicant’s MSD using ISG-16 and referenced documents 

(Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 06-12, “B.5.b Phase 2 & 3 Submittal Guideline,” dated 

December 2006, and the February 25, 2005, guidance letter, “NRC Staff Guidance for 

Use in Achieving Satisfactory Compliance with February 25, 2002 Order 

Section B.5.b,”). 

SNC’s approach was in most ways similar to that used by operating reactors licensed 

under 10 CFR Part 50. In particular, as part of demonstrating conformance with the 

guidance in ISG-16, the applicant considered Attachment 2 to the ISG, “Experience 

Gained from Implementation of Temporary Instruction 2515/171 at Currently Licensed 

Power Reactor Sites and Related Staff Positions.” Following this guidance ensured that 
The Commissioners - 19 - 

the applicant applied lessons learned from LOLA evaluations of operating reactors, 

further demonstrating the adequacy of the applicant’s LOLA provisions. 

Although the approaches taken by the Part 52 applicants and 10 CFR Part 50 licensees 

were similar, there was one significant difference. ISG-16 recognizes that the strategies 

required by 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) are similar to those operational programs, as described 

under SECY-05-0197, for which a description of the program is provided as part of the 

COL application but the program is implemented later, after COL issuance but prior to 

initial fuel load. The staff reviewed the program description (the MSD) provided in the 

application as part of the licensing process. The staff found that the program description 

complied with the regulation and, for those instances where the program details could 

not be finalized and implemented until the construction phase, the applicant identified 

such commitments for future action and documented the aspects of the program that 

would be finalized prior to initial fuel load. The staff reviewed the commitments in the 

applicant’s MSD and is satisfied that all procedural and strategy development is 

appropriately scheduled prior to initial fuel load. 

While 10 CFR 50.54(hh) requires the applicant to develop and implement the program, 

the staff ensured the timely maintenance of the mitigative strategies by including in the 

draft license a license condition requiring that the licensee maintain the program. This 

license condition addresses the concern that 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) does not explicitly 

require maintenance of the guidance and strategies. 

In its MSD, the applicant provided a mitigative strategies table that followed the template 

guidance in NEI 06-12. The mitigative strategies table addresses various areas and 

issues pertinent to LOLAs and describes commitments that are most appropriately 

implemented closer to the completion of construction. The commitments made in the 

submittal would be implemented prior to initial fuel load. 

The MSD addresses the three phases considered in NEI 06-12—firefighting, SFP 

cooling, and reactor core cooling and fission product release mitigation. During the 

staff’s review, SFP cooling was a significant technical issue that was ultimately resolved 

with a design change as part of the AP1000 DCA (ADAMS Accession 

Nos. ML072130353 and ML102290038), which increased the spray capacity to the SFP. 

This change was needed to provide more complete coverage of cooling water spray to 

the SFP. Section 6.2.2.2 of the FSER for the AP1000 DCD evaluates the design 

change. 

The staff determined that, with some exceptions, the VEGP approach will likely be 

employed by other AP1000 COL applicants; thus, the staff’s evaluation of the LOLA 

MSD is expected to constitute a standard review for the AP1000 COLs. Site-specific 

portions of the evaluation involved water sources for firefighting and locations for various 

functions related to emergency response, such as firefighting dressout areas, personnel 

assembly areas, and radio spare battery and charger storage areas. Accordingly, the 

staff does not anticipate addressing the LOLA evaluation for SCOLs in future mandatory 

hearings unless there are plant-specific differences between the RCOL and SCOL 

programs. 
The Commissioners - 20 - 

The staff found the applicant’s proposed mitigative strategies acceptable, and details of 

the staff’s review are documented in the nonpublic Attachment A to Section 19.A of the 

VEGP FSER and summarized in the publicly available FSER, Section 19A. 

c. Licenses for Byproduct, Source, and Special Nuclear Material under 

10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70—The review of the application and supporting information 

for issuance of associated material licenses under 10 CFR Part 30, “Rules of General 

Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material,” 10 CFR Part 40, “Domestic 

Licensing of Source Material,” and 10 CFR Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special 

Nuclear Material,” is a first-of-a-kind review for an application in the 10 CFR Part 52 

licensing process. At this time, NRC has not yet issued formal guidance to address how 

a 10 CFR Part 52 applicant can meet applicable regulatory requirements for 

10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70. 

NRO staff coordinated the review for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 licenses with the 

other NRC offices responsible for these reviews from applicants not applying under 

10 CFR Part 52, including the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (for 

10 CFR Part 70), the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs and NRC Region I (for 10 CFR Parts 30 and 40), and the Office 

of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (for security and emergency preparedness 

requirements applicable to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70). 

For 10 CFR Part 30 and 40 reviews, the staff used portions of NUREG-1556, 

“Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses,” as a guide for evaluating the 

applications. For 10 CFR Part 70 safety and security reviews, the staff used portions of 

NUREG-1520, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel 

Cycle Facility,” and NUREG-0800. 

The review confirmed that some of the key information requirements under 

10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 were met by information previously submitted by SNC to 

meet 10 CFR Part 52 requirements. In particular, 10 CFR Part 52 information pertaining 

to radiation protection, fire protection, emergency planning, and physical security, 

including the operational programs for those areas, was directly applicable to the 

licensing requirements of 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092120064). This aspect of the staff review is discussed in Section 1.5.5 of the 

FSER. 

A key element of the staff review was to ensure the presence of appropriate controls on 

sources and materials during construction (i.e., prior to fuel load). Therefore, the draft 

license includes license conditions that establish limits on the type and quantity of 

materials that the licensee may possess before the finding in 10 CFR 52.103(g) is made. 

The staff focused on the control of these materials during construction, because the staff 

found that once the 52.103(g) finding is made, the requirements for these sources and 

materials are met by the control programs in place for the operation of the reactor. 

The staff determined that the VEGP approach will likely be employed by other AP1000 

COL applicants; thus, the staff evaluation of the VEGP requests for material licenses is 

expected to constitute a standard review for the AP1000 COLs. The staff does not 
The Commissioners - 21 - 

anticipate addressing the evaluation of the materials license requests for SCOLs in 

future mandatory hearings unless there is a plant-specific difference between the RCOL 

and SCOL programs. 

The applicant also requested an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 70.22(b), 

10 CFR 70.32(c), 10 CFR 70.31, 10 CFR 70.41, and 10 CFR 70.51, related to the 

applicant’s MC&A program for special nuclear material. These regulations include an 

exemption for nuclear reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 50, but not those licensed 

under 10 CFR Part 52. The staff’s evaluation and approval of the exemption appears in 

Section 1.5.4 of the FSER and is summarized above in Section II of the discussion 

portion of this paper. 

Environmental Matters 

Review of Impacts for ESP Amendment and COL - As described previously, the COL 

application references the previously-issued VEGP ESP and LWA. The applicant’s 

environmental report in support of the ESP, and subsequently the staff’s ESP FEIS, evaluated 

the impacts at the VEGP site of building and operating new units with the parameters of a 

specific plant design (rather than using the plant parameter envelope approach employed by 

previous ESP applicants), namely the AP1000 certified design. The applicant also chose to 

address additional topics that under NRC regulations are optional for ESP applicants, such as 

analyses of the economic, technical, and other benefits and costs of the project and evaluation 

of alternative energy sources, so the staff likewise evaluated those matters in the EIS. Because 

these optional issues were addressed and because the review was based solely on design 

parameters from the existing AP1000 certified design, there were no unresolved environmental 

issues at the ESP stage. 

Consequently, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92, the staff’s COL environmental review focused on 

whether there was new and significant information. For information to be significant it must be 

material to the issue being considered. That is, it must have the potential to affect the staff’s 

finding or conclusions from the ESP FEIS. The staff began the COL environmental review by 

conducting a site audit where the staff reviewed environmental information and analyses to 

determine if the design of the facility remained within the site characteristics and design 

parameters specified in the early site permit; reviewed new and potentially significant 

information; and reviewed the applicant’s methodology for identifying and evaluating the 

significance of new information to determine if the applicant’s process was reasonable. Based 

on its independent review, the staff determined that the process was adequate. Moreover, the 

scope and nature of potentially new and significant information was consistent with the short 

time between the completion of the ESP environmental review and the COL review. The staff 

also found new information that warranted further analysis but which it determined was not 

significant within the meaning of 10 CFR 51.92. 

There was one resource area in which new information arising during the COL review resulted 

in a change in the staff’s conclusion in the ESP FEIS. Concurrent with the staff’s preparation of 

the COL DSEIS, the applicant was completing work authorized under the LWA, which included 

installation of Category 1 and 2 engineered backfill for the foundation of the nuclear island. As 

the LWA work proceeded, SNC determined that there was insufficient backfill of adequate 

quality from areas reviewed and approved as part of the LWA and described in the ESP SSAR. 
The Commissioners - 22 - 

Consequently, SNC needed to obtain backfill from additional borrow areas. The use of material 

as Category 1 or 2 backfill from borrow sources other than those identified in the SSAR would 

require an amendment to the ESP. To determine additional sources of borrow material, the 

applicant identified potential additional sources onsite but also acknowledged the possible need 

for offsite borrow sources. (SNC ultimately determined that sufficient backfill was available from 

the onsite borrow areas and that it did not need to request an amendment to permit the use of 

backfill from offsite locations.) Some of the potential onsite borrow sources were located within 

the original ground disturbance footprint for preconstruction activities (cooling tower area, 

temporary parking area, temporary warehouse, office, and laydown area, and spoils area) and 

the environmental impacts of disturbing these areas were previously analyzed as part of the 

ESP FEIS. Three other onsite borrow locations were in areas that were previously undisturbed. 

Clearing and excavating backfill from these areas would affect two State-listed species 

(southeastern pocket gopher and sandhills milkvetch) and habitat enrolled in a Georgia 

safe-harbor program for the red-cockaded woodpecker (a Federally listed endangered species). 

In April 2010, SNC submitted a license amendment request (LAR) to amend the ESP SSAR to 

obtain and install backfill material from additional onsite borrow locations. In May 2010, SNC 

also submitted an LAR seeking to change the classification of backfill over the slopes of Units 3 

and 4 excavations from Category 1 and 2 backfill to engineered granular backfill, which would 

decrease the total amount of qualified backfill needed. The ESP EIS had concluded that 

impacts on terrestrial ecology resources would be SMALL, including with respect to the 

southeastern pocket gopher, sandhills milkvetch, and the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. 

(The presence of sandhills milkvetch on the VEGP site, rather than its potential occurrence 

within 10 miles of it, was discovered during SNC’s environmental evaluation of the new borrow 

areas.) As a result, while the staff would perform an environmental review for the ESP 

amendments, the applicant’s need to obtain backfill material from additional onsite sources was 

also considered new and potentially significant information with respect to the COL 

environmental review. 

Given the need to perform an environmental evaluation of these backfill activities in connection 

with the COL as well as the ESP amendments, the staff structured its review to ensure that the 

information was evaluated consistently in both contexts. The current regulatory framework does 

not specifically address how the staff should approach its environmental review for an ongoing 

COL action with a need to amend the ESP referenced by the COL. The Statements of 

Consideration for the Part 52 final rulemaking states the following: 

The NRC is also adding a new provision to § 52.39 to allow ESP holders to make 

changes to the ESP, including changes to the SSAR, under the license 

amendment process. These changes will provide ESP holders with additional 

flexibility to resolve issues that were not addressed in the original ESP review 

and to achieve finality on new information. The NRC does not believe it is 

necessary to add rule language to address the situation where a COL applicant 

references an ESP for which there is an amendment review pending before the 

NRC. The NRC will address these situations on a case-by-case basis. 

In this situation, since it was clear that the staff would need to consider the effects of the backfill 

amendments on its impact analysis in the COL DSEIS, the staff modified its timetable for issuing 
The Commissioners - 23 - 

the DSEIS so that it could integrate the environmental analysis being prepared for the ESP 

amendments. 

The staff proceeded to prepare three environmental assessments for the LARs.1

 The first was 

for obtaining backfill from onsite borrow sources in areas whose disturbance had already been 

evaluated in the ESP EIS. The second was for borrow sources in previously undisturbed areas. 

The third was to change the classification of backfill over the slopes of Units 3 and 4 

excavations. In each case, the staff reached a finding of no significant impact from the 

proposed action. 

Consistent with NEPA, and to minimize duplication of effort, the staff discussed the three ESP 

amendments in the COL FSEIS, and incorporated the description and analysis in the second 

environmental assessment by reference. While the impacts discussed in the first and third 

environmental assessments were already encompassed by the analysis in the ESP EIS, the use 

of additional onsite borrow areas resulted in some impacts outside the footprint previously 

analyzed, in particular with respect to the sandhills milkvetch and the southeastern pocket 

gopher. The staff noted, however, that SNC identified some voluntary measures to mitigate 

impacts to these species and also committed to replant longleaf pine in areas that would be 

disturbed, if possible. The staff also found that potential impacts to these species would not 

jeopardize the stability or viability of the remaining populations in the State. Moreover, with 

respect to the red-cockaded woodpecker, as there were no active clusters or nest trees onsite 

or within foraging distance, the loss of some acreage of habitat enrolled in the safe-harbor 

program continued to support the ESP conclusion that this species would not be affected by the 

proposed action. 

In integrating these new impacts to the sandhills milkvetch and the southeastern pocket gopher 

into the SEIS, the staff determined that environmental effects associated with site preparation 

and construction activities were now sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, important 

attributes of the resource, and therefore concluded that there could be an overall MODERATE 

impact on local terrestrial resources. Consequently, the conclusions regarding the magnitude of 

the impact to terrestrial species onsite changed from that stated in the ESP FEIS; however, as 

explained in the COL FSEIS, even in light of this change in the impacts associated with one 

resource area, the staff’s conclusion with respect to the issuance of COLs was still that the 

benefits of the proposed action outweigh the environmental costs of the action. 

In summary, the staff’s review of the applicant’s process for identifying and evaluating new 

information for significance, the staff’s independent look for new information, and the staff’s 

thorough evaluation of the new information identified, conformed to NRC’s regulations 

implementing Section 102(2) of NEPA. 

 

1

 As explained above, the applicant submitted license amendment requests to obtain Category 1 and 2 

backfill from additional onsite borrow sources and to change the classification of backfill over the slopes 

of Units 3 and 4 excavations. Because the staff determined that exigent circumstances existed to support 

a limited-scope approval of the initial LAR, SNC’s requests were approved by the staff via the issuance of 

three amendments. 
The Commissioners - 24 - 

IV. COL Findings 

 

10 CFR 52.97(a)(1): 

(i) The applicable standards and requirements of the Act and the Commission’s regulations 

have been met. 

The staff reviewed the application and evaluated it against the applicable regulations in 

10 CFR Parts 20, 26, 30, 31, 32, 40, 50, 51, 52, 55, 70, 73, 74, 100, and 140. The staff 

performed this evaluation using applicable portions of the SRP, ISG documents, 

regulatory guides, bulletins, and generic letters. Based on the staff’s review, 

documented in the FSER and FSEIS, and the conclusions of the ACRS, the staff 

concludes that, for the purpose of issuing COLs for VEGP Units 3 and 4, the applicable 

standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the 

Commission’s regulations have been met. 

(ii) Any required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly made. 

As required by Section 182(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 

10 CFR 50.43(a), on March 2, 2011, the NRC notified the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Rural Utilities Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Georgia Public Service Commission of the 

VEGP application. In addition, in October 2006 and October 2007, the NRC published a 

notice of the application in The Aiken Standard, The Augusta Chronicle, and The True 

Citizen serving Burke County and Waynesboro County. In accordance with 

Section 182(c), the staff also published a notice of the application in the Federal Register

on March 3, 10, 17, and 24, 2011 (76 FR 11822, 13241, 14699, and 16645). 

Based on the staff’s completion of notifications to regulatory agencies and the public 

notices described above, the staff concludes that, for the purpose of issuing COLs for 

VEGP Units 3 and 4, all required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been 

duly made. 

(iii) There is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and will operate in 

conformity with the licenses, the provisions of the Act, and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The staff reviewed information provided by the applicant to ensure that the plants will be 

constructed and will operate in conformity with the licenses, applicable provisions of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and applicable regulations. This includes the 

FSAR and other portions of the application, including general and financial information; 

technical specifications; the emergency plan; requests for departures, variances, and 

exemptions; the quality assurance (QA) plan; and the security plan. 

In areas where the staff found that the initially submitted information was incomplete or 

insufficient to allow the staff to reach a reasonable assurance conclusion, the staff 

issued RAIs to the applicant to obtain sufficient information. The staff reviewed applicant 

responses to ensure that the additional information provided was sufficient to support the 
The Commissioners - 25 - 

staff conclusion. Where necessary, the applicant provided multiple supplemental 

responses. As necessary, the staff also conducted audits of the applicant records and 

calculations and performed its own confirmatory calculations to confirm applicant 

statements. 

In some cases, the staff’s reasonable assurance finding required the imposition of 

license conditions or ITAAC as part of the licenses. The draft COL lists the license 

conditions and ITAAC. The basis for each license condition or ITAAC appears in the 

technical evaluations in the VEGP COL FSER or in the FSERs prepared for the VEGP 

ESP and AP1000 DCD referenced by the VEGP COL application. 

On the basis of the staff’s review of the application discussed in this information paper 

and documented in the FSER and FSEIS, the staff concludes that, for the purpose of 

issuing COLs for VEGP Units 3 and 4, there is reasonable assurance that the facility will 

be constructed and will operate in conformance with the licenses, the provisions of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission’s regulations. 

(iv) The applicant is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities 

authorized. 

The staff reviewed information provided by the applicant about technical and financial 

qualifications. 

a. Technical Qualifications. The staff reviewed information provided by SNC about 

the technical qualifications of the applicant. The review included an evaluation of 

the operating experience, organizational structure, and QA program of SNC. 

SNC, with its architectural-engineering predecessor Southern Company 

Services, Inc., has over 30 years of experience in the design, construction, and 

operation of nuclear generating plants and has designed, constructed, and 

currently operates Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, VEGP Units 1 

and 2, and Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The combined 

electric generation of the three plants is in excess of 5,900 MWe. SNC holds 

10 CFR Part 50 licenses for these three nuclear power plants and has 

demonstrated its ability to build and operate these plants. SNC has 

demonstrated the ability to choose and manage the oversight of nuclear steam 

supply system vendors, architect-engineers, and constructors of nuclear-related 

work. The staff’s review of the applicant’s organizational structure concluded that 

the management, technical support, and operating organizations are acceptable. 

The staff reviewed the QA program and found it acceptable. This QA program 

includes requirements that will be implemented by SNC’s nuclear steam supply 

system vendor, architect-engineer, and constructor. 

The staff’s evaluation of this information appears in Sections 1.4 and 13.1 and 

Chapter 17 of the FSER. Based on the staff’s evaluation of SNC’s experience 

with nuclear power plants, its operating organization, and its QA program, the 

staff concludes that SNC is technically qualified to hold licenses for VEGP Units 

3 and 4 issued under 10 CFR Part 52 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.97(a)(1)(iv). 
The Commissioners - 26 - 

b. Financial Qualifications. The staff reviewed information provided by the applicant 

about financial qualifications. The review included an evaluation of financial 

qualifications, decommissioning funding assurance, foreign ownership, and 

nuclear insurance and indemnity. The staff evaluated information about the total 

cost of VEGP Units 3 and 4, consisting of engineering, procurement, and 

construction costs; owners’ costs; financing costs; inflation; and information 

pertaining to funding sources for each of the VEGP owners. Applicable 

regulations and guidance considered by the staff include 10 CFR Part 140, 

“Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements”; 

10 CFR 52.97(a)(1)(iv); 10 CFR 50.33, “Contents of Applications; General 

Information”; Section I.A.2 of Appendix C, “A Guide for the Financial Data and 

Related Information Required To Establish Financial Qualifications for 

Construction Permits and Combined Licenses,” to 10 CFR Part 50; and 

NUREG-1577, “Standard Review Plan on Power Reactor Licensee Financial 

Qualifications and Decommissioning Funding Assurance,” Revision 1, issued 

February 1999. 

The staff’s evaluation of this information appears in Chapter 1 of the FSER and 

includes an evaluation of SNC as the applicant, operator, and a co-licensee of 

VEGP and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal 

Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton as co-owners and 

co-licensees of VEGP. Based on the staff’s evaluation of financial information 

provided by SNC, the NRC staff concludes that the prospective co-licensees, 

co-owners and operator of VEGP Units 3 and 4, comprising Georgia Power 

Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of 

Georgia, the City of Dalton, and SNC, have demonstrated that they possess or 

have access to the financial resources necessary to meet estimated construction 

costs, operation costs, and related fuel cycle costs. Therefore, the NRC staff 

concludes that the applicant is financially qualified to construct and operate 

VEGP Units 3 and 4 and engage in the activities authorized by the licenses. 

(v) Issuance of the licenses will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to 

the health and safety of the public. 

The staff reviewed the COL application to assure that issuance of the licenses will not be 

inimical to the common defense and security or to public health and safety. Specifically, 

the staff evaluated the applicant’s analysis and conclusions about site-specific 

conditions, including the geography and demography of the site; nearby industrial, 

transportation, and military facilities; site meteorology; site hydrology; and site geology, 

seismology, and geotechnical engineering to ensure that issuance of the licenses will not 

be inimical to public health and safety. With respect to conclusions about these site 

suitability issues that were incorporated by reference from the VEGP ESP without a 

variance, the staff verified that none of the criteria for disturbing ESP finality were met. 

The review also evaluated the design of structures, components, equipment, and 

systems to ensure safe operation, performance, and shutdown when subjected to 

extreme weather, floods, seismic events, missiles (including aircraft impacts), chemical 

and radiological releases, and loss of offsite power, to the extent not already resolved by 

the incorporation of the AP1000 design. The review confirmed that radiological releases 
The Commissioners - 27 - 

and human doses during both normal operation and accident scenarios will remain 

within regulatory limits, which supports the staff’s conclusion that issuance of the 

licenses will not be inimical to public health and safety. The review determined that the 

physical security to be implemented at the site is adequate to protect the facility, which 

supports the staff’s conclusion that issuance of the licenses will not be inimical to the 

common defense and security. 

The review also determined that operational programs identified by the applicant are 

sufficiently described to assure the staff of compliance with regulations. Where the staff 

needed to confirm operational program implementation to reach a reasonable assurance 

finding but the details of program implementation were not governed by specific 

regulatory requirements, the draft license contains license conditions to ensure that 

operational programs will be properly implemented and thus that issuance of the COLs 

will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to public health and safety. 

The staff evaluation addressed the operational programs identified in 

SRM SECY-05-0197, dated February 22, 2006, as well as three additional operational 

programs, including a cyber security program, a special nuclear material MC&A 

program, and a special nuclear material physical security program. The staff’s review of 

the applicant’s emergency planning information, including the complete and integrated 

emergency plans that were reviewed and approved as part of the ESP and incorporated 

by reference in the COL, demonstrates that the emergency plan is acceptable and 

supports the staff’s conclusion that issuance of the licenses will not be inimical to the 

health and safety of the public. 

On the basis of the staff’s review of the application, as discussed in this information 

paper and the referenced documents, the staff concludes that issuance of the COLs for 

VEGP Units 3 and 4 will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to public 

health and safety. 

(vi) The findings required by Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been made. 

As discussed below, the staff concludes that, for the purpose of issuing COLs for VEGP 

Units 3 and 4, the environmental review has been adequate to support the findings set 

forth in 10 CFR 51.107(a). 

10 CFR 52.97(a)(2): 

The staff concludes that there are no acceptance criteria from ITAAC in the referenced 

ESP or standard design certification that the applicant has asserted are met. Therefore, 

no Commission finding under this section is required for the purpose of issuing COLs for 

VEGP Units 3 and 4. 
The Commissioners - 28 - 

10 CFR 51.107(a): 

(i) Determine whether the requirements of Sections 102(2) (A), (C), and (E) of NEPA and 

the regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been met. 

The staff reviewed the application and evaluated it against the applicable regulations in 

10 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52, and 100. The staff performed this evaluation using applicable 

portions of the environmental SRP (NUREG-1555), issued in 2000 and updated in 2007, 

and ISG documents, regulatory guides, and generic letters. The staff addressed 

supplemental guidance providing additional information on contemporary and evolving 

issues in a memorandum dated December 10, 2010 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML100760503). 

In accordance with NEPA Section 102(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(A)), the staff prepared 

the FSEIS (NUREG-1947) and the FEIS for the VEGP ESP based on its independent 

assessment of the information provided by the applicant and information developed 

independently by the staff, including through consultation with other agencies. The 

staff’s technical analysis used a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to integrate 

information from many fields, including the natural and social sciences as well as the 

environmental design arts. Consequently, the staff concludes that its review comports 

with the NRC’s requirements in Appendix A, “Format for Presentation of Material in 

Environmental Impact Statements,” to 10 CFR Part 51. The staff concludes that 

environmental findings in the FSEIS constitute the “hard look” required by NEPA and 

have reasonable support in logic and fact. 

In accordance with NEPA Section 102(2)(C)(i–v) (42 USC § 4332(2)(C)(i–v), the FSEIS 

for the VEGP COL and the FEIS for the VEGP ESP together address (1) the 

environmental impact of the proposed action, (2) any unavoidable adverse 

environmental effects, (3) alternatives to the proposed action, (4) the relationship 

between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and (5) any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action should it be 

implemented. 

As supported by correspondence presented in Appendix F to the FSEIS, the staff 

concludes that it fulfilled the requirement of NEPA Section 102(2)(C) by consulting with 

and obtaining comments from other Federal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise (see 42 USC § 4332(2)(C)). The staff did not identify any other Federal 

agencies as cooperating agencies in preparation of the FSEIS. 

The staff concludes that the FSEIS demonstrates that the staff adequately considered 

alternatives to the proposed action to the extent that it involves unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources, consistent with the requirements of 

NEPA Section 102(2)(E) (42 USC § 4332(2)(E)). The alternatives considered in the 

FSEIS include the no-action alternative, energy alternatives, and system design 

alternatives, with the focus on considering any new and significant information relevant 

to the alternatives examined in the ESP FEIS. 
The Commissioners - 29 - 

(ii) Independently consider the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the 

record of the proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken. 

Section 11.6 of the FSEIS provides the staff summary of the cost-benefit assessment. 

The staff determined that the assessment of costs and benefits presented in the ESP 

FEIS remains valid. The staff concluded that “the construction and operation of the 

proposed Units 3 and 4, with mitigation measures identified by the staff, would have 

accrued benefits that most likely would outweigh the economic, environmental, and 

social costs associated with constructing and operating two new units at the VEGP site.” 

(iii) Determine, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits 

against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, whether 

the COL should be issued, denied, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental 

values. 

As noted above, in its FSEIS, the staff considered the cost-benefit analysis as well as 

reasonable alternatives. Based on that analysis, the staff recommends that the COLs be 

issued. The staff based its recommendation on (1) the VEGP COL application 

environmental report and responses to staff RAIs, (2) the staff’s review conducted for the 

VEGP ESP application and the assessment documented in the VEGP ESP EIS, 

(3) consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, (4) the staff’s own independent 

review of potential new and significant information available since preparation and 

publication of the VEGP ESP EIS, (5) the assessments summarized in the FSEIS, 

including the potential mitigation measures identified and consideration of public 

comments received on the DSEIS, and (6) the staff determination that the requested 

LWA construction activities defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a) and described in the site redress 

plan would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be 

redressed. 

(iv) Determine, in an uncontested proceeding, whether the NEPA review conducted by the 

NRC staff has been adequate. 

The staff conducted an independent evaluation of the application; developed 

independent, reliable information; and conducted a systematic, interdisciplinary review of 

the potential impacts of the proposed action on the human environment and reasonable 

alternatives to the applicant’s proposal. Before development of the DSEIS, the staff 

issued a notice of intent and invited the public to provide any new and potentially 

significant information relevant to the environmental review since issuance of the ESP 

FEIS. The staff also provided opportunities for governmental and general public 

participation during the public meeting on the DSEIS and used publicly available 

guidance in the development of its SEIS in conformance with the requirements of 

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 51. 

The staff considered the purpose of and need for the proposed action, the environment 

that could be affected by the action, and the consequences of the proposed action, 

including mitigation that could reduce impacts. The energy alternatives and system 

design alternatives considered in the FSEIS for the COL are the same as those 

considered in the ESP FEIS. In the FSEIS, the staff also supplemented the ESP FEIS’s 
The Commissioners - 30 - 

evaluation of alternatives to the proposed action. The FSEIS considered the no-action 

alternative and evaluated whether any new and significant information affected the 

conclusions previously made in the ESP FEIS with respect to energy alternatives, 

system design alternatives, and the potential impact of conservation measures in 

determining the demand for power and consequent need for additional generating 

capacity. The FSEIS compared the alternatives to the proposed action. The staff 

considered any adverse environmental effects that could not be avoided should the 

proposed action be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of the human 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the 

proposed project. 

The NRC filed the DSEIS with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its 

review consistent with its requirements of Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (see 

42 U.S.C. § 7609). The staff considered all comments received on the DSEIS and, in 

Appendix E to the FSEIS, described the manner in which each comment was 

dispositioned. 

On these bases, the staff concludes that, for the purpose of issuing the COLs, it 

conducted a thorough and complete environmental review sufficient to meet the 

requirements of NEPA and adequate to inform the Commission’s action on the COL 

request. 

IV. Limited Work Authorization Findings 

10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(iii): 

The applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 

the Commission's regulations applicable to the activities to be conducted under the LWAs have 

been met, the applicant is technically qualified to engage in the activities authorized, and 

issuance of the LWAs will provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health 

and safety and will not be inimical to the common defense and security.

The staff reviewed the LWA-2 application and evaluated it against the applicable regulations in 

10 CFR 50.55a, “Codes and Standards,” and General Design Criteria 1, “Quality Standards and 

Records,” 2, “Design Bases for Fire Protection against Natural Phenomena,” and 4, 

“Environmental and Dynamic Effects Design Bases,” of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 in 

accordance with Section 3.8.5 of NUREG-0800. The activities requested under LWA-2 rely on 

incorporation by reference of a portion of the amendment to the AP1000 certified design for 

which rulemaking is currently pending. Based on the review documented in Section 3.8.5 of the 

FSER, including the incorporation by reference of Section 3.8 of AP1000 DCD, Revision 19, 

which the staff evaluated in NUREG-1793, “Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to 

Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design,” issued September 2004, and its supplements 

prepared in support of the AP1000 DCA, the staff concludes that, subject to the completion of 

the AP1000 DCA rulemaking, the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission’s regulations applicable to the activities to be 

conducted under LWA-2 have been met. 
The Commissioners - 31 - 

For the reasons described above in the staff finding for the technical qualification of the COL 

applicant according to 10 CFR 52.97(a)(1)(iv), the staff concludes that SNC is technically 

qualified to engage in the activities authorized under LWA-2. 

For the reasons described above in the staff finding under 10 CFR 52.97(a)(1)(v) for the COLs, 

the staff concludes that issuance of LWA-2 will provide reasonable assurance of adequate 

protection to public health and safety and will not be inimical to the common defense and 

security. 

10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(iv): 

There are no unresolved safety issues relating to the activities to be conducted under the LWAs

that would constitute good cause for withholding the authorization.

All regulated activities that the applicant would perform under LWA-2 are consistent with the 

activities evaluated by the staff in the review of the COL application, including design 

information which the staff has found acceptable in the evaluation of AP1000 DCD, Revision 19, 

which is incorporated by reference into the COL application for VEGP Units 3 and 4. In 

evaluating the LWA-2 activities, the staff used the same technical standards applied in the 

evaluation of the COL application. During the review, the staff determined that all safety 

questions and issues had been satisfactorily resolved. Therefore, the staff concludes that, 

subject to the completion of the AP1000 DCA rulemaking, there are no unresolved safety issues 

relating to the activities to be conducted under LWA-2 that would constitute good cause for 

withholding the authorization. 

10 CFR 51.107(d)(1)(i): 

Determine whether the requirements of Section 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) of NEPA and the 

regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been met, with respect to the activities to be 

conducted under the LWAs.

The staff’s NEPA evaluation documented in the FSEIS included consideration of the issuance of 

the LWAs, including with respect to potential adverse impacts and alternatives. Accordingly, the 

staff’s independent assessment, consideration of alternatives, and consultation with agencies, 

described above in the corresponding 10 CFR 51.107(a)(1) finding for issuance of the COLs, 

evaluates and supports issuance of the LWAs. Therefore, the staff concludes that, for the 

purpose of issuing the LWAs, the requirements of Section 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) of NEPA and 

the regulations of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A have been met. 

10 CFR 51.107(d)(1)(ii): 

Independently consider the balance among conflicting factors with respect to the LWAs, which 

is contained in the record of the proceeding, with a view to determining the appropriate action to 

be taken.

Section 11.6 of the FSEIS presents the staff summary of the cost-benefit assessment, including 

an assessment of the LWAs. The staff determined that the assessment of costs and benefits 

presented in the ESP FEIS remains valid and that the economic and environmental costs 
The Commissioners - 32 - 

associated with the LWAs would be a small fraction of the overall costs of construction and 

operating the proposed facility. The primary benefit from authorizing the LWA activities in the 

second LWA request in advance of issuing the COLs is that it would enable the applicant to 

maintain the overall project schedule of construction and operation-need dates, thereby 

decreasing the chance for cost overruns. The staff concluded that “the construction and 

operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4, with mitigation measures identified by the staff, would 

have accrued benefits that most likely would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social 

costs associated with constructing and operating two new units at the VEGP site.” 

10 CFR 51.107(d)(1)(iii): 

Determine whether the redress plan will adequately redress the activities performed under the 

LWAs, should limited work activities be terminated by the holder or the LWAs be revoked by the 

NRC, or upon effectiveness of the Commission's final decision denying the COL application.

The LWA-2 application indicates that the existing site redress plan from the VEGP ESP 

application is applicable to the LWA-2 activities, and the activities requested in LWA-2 would 

involve no additional impacts beyond those presented in the ESP FEIS. The staff verified that 

the site redress plan discussed in the ESP EIS would adequately redress the impacts requested 

under LWA-2 in the event construction is terminated, the COL application is withdrawn or 

denied, or the LWAs are revoked. Therefore, the staff determined that the redress plan will 

adequately redress the activities performed under the LWAs, should limited work activities be 

terminated by the holder or the LWAs be revoked by the NRC, or upon effectiveness of the 

Commission's final decision denying the COL application. 

10 CFR 51.107(d)(1)(iv): 

In an uncontested proceeding, determine whether the NEPA review conducted by the NRC staff 

for the LWAs has been adequate.

After receipt of the LWA-2 request, the staff issued a supplemental notice of hearing stating that 

the staff would consider both the COL and LWA-2 in a supplement to the VEGP ESP FEIS. In 

developing the FSEIS, the staff supplemented the detailed analysis in the ESP FEIS that the 

Commission had determined to be adequate under NEPA to support issuance of the ESP. In its 

review, including consideration of whether new and significant information had been identified 

since the ESP review, the staff conducted an independent evaluation of the application for both 

the COLs and the LWAs, developed independent reliable information, and thereby documented 

a systematic, interdisciplinary review of the potential impacts of the proposed action on the 

human environment and reasonable alternatives to the applicant’s proposal. The staff 

considered the purpose of and need for the proposed action, the environment that could be 

affected by the action, and the consequences of the proposed action, including mitigation that 

could reduce impacts. The DSEIS was filed with and reviewed by EPA, and the staff 

considered all comments received on the DSEIS. On these bases, the staff concludes that it 

conducted a thorough and complete environmental review sufficient to meet the requirements of 

NEPA and adequate to inform the Commission’s action on the LWA-2 request. 
The Commissioners - 33 - 

V. Other Aspects of the Staff Review Not Tied to Specific Findings 

The staff identified the following two additional areas of interest for the Commission: 

• Commission decision on LWA-2 

• ITAAC in the draft COL for VEGP Unit 4 

Commission Decision on LWA-2 

As noted above in the Summary section of this paper, on October 2, 2009, SNC requested an 

additional LWA (LWA-2) for each unit that would allow additional limited construction activity at 

the VEGP site, including installation of reinforcing steel, sumps, and drain lines and other 

embedded items in the nuclear island foundation base slabs, and placement of concrete for the 

nuclear island foundation base slabs for Units 3 and 4. This LWA request was included as part 

of the COL application. The staff review of LWA-2 is complete and appears in Section 3.8.5 of 

the FSER. The staff prepared the FSEIS for the COLs so that it also fulfilled applicable NEPA 

requirements for issuance of the LWAs. 

Because the LWAs incorporate by reference portions of the AP1000 DCD (Section 3.8.5), the 

NRC cannot issue the LWA prior to completion of the AP1000 final rule. Any theoretical delay 

associated with the AP1000 rule would also delay the LWAs. However, in a situation where the 

Commission made affirmative decisions on the mandatory hearing for both the COLs and the 

LWAs, but an unspecified delay occurred affecting the issuance of the COLs, issuance of the 

LWA would still provide the applicant with some risk mitigation against the interruption of 

construction activities.2

ITAAC in the Draft COL for VEGP Unit 4 

The VEGP Units 3 and 4 FSAR Section 1.1.5 (Schedule) provides the anticipated schedule for 

construction and operation of Units 3 and 4. The VEGP FSAR indicates that the construction 

activities of Unit 4 will be completed after construction of Unit 3. Consequently, one Unit 3 

ITAAC is not to be included in the Unit 4 COL because completion of ITAAC for Unit 4 is 

predicated on prior completion of ITAAC on Unit 3. However, if a licensee alters its schedule 

such that Unit 4 is constructed before Unit 3, there is a possibility that certain ITAAC included in 

the Unit 3 COL would not be satisfied at the time the licensee might seek the Commission’s 

10 CFR 52.103(g) finding for Unit 4. If such a situation were to arise, the NRC would use 

existing regulatory processes to ensure that Unit 4 remains subject to the requisite Unit 3 

ITAAC, such as an order for Unit 4 specifying that Unit 4 must satisfy Unit 3 ITAAC before the 

Commission makes the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding for Unit 4. 

 

2 The staff notes that with respect to the presiding officer’s findings under 10 CFR 51.107, the provisions 

of 51.107(d)(4) call for the presiding officer to issue its findings with respect to the LWA in a decision that 

is issued separate from and prior to that for the COL. However, under the present circumstances, in 

particular the expected date for completion of the AP1000 rulemaking on which both the COLs and LWA 

depend, it is unclear that there would be any practical advantage to issuing separate presiding officer 

decisions on the COL and LWA aspects of the mandatory hearing.
The Commissioners - 34 - 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. 

 /RA by Martin J. Virgilio for/ 

 R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director 

 for Operations 
The Commissioners -34- 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. 

 /RA by Martin J. Virgilio for/

 R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director 

 for Operations 

EDATS: NRO-2011-0010 

ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML110600264 * via email SECY-012 

OFFICE PM:DNRL:NWE1 LA:DNRL:NWE1* PM:DNRL:NWE1* Tech Editor* 

NAME DHabib SGreen RJoshi JDougherty 

DATE 7/1/2011 7/22/2011 7/20/2011 6/16/2011 

OFFICE BC:DNRL:NRGA* BC:DNRL:NWE1* D:DSER D:DSRA* 

NAME WBurton JCruz NChokshi CAder (MLombard for) 

DATE 7/20/2011 7/21/2011 7/8/2011 7/13/2011 

OFFICE DD:NSIR: DSP* D:NSIR:DPR* BC:NMSS: FCSSFFLD* BC:FSME: DMSSA:NMPD*

NAME MLayton(DDiec for) SMorris (MDudek for) RKJohnson DWhite 

DATE 7/14 /2011 7/13/2011 7/11/2011 7/5/2011 

OFFICE D:DNRL* OGC* D:NRO OEDO 

NAME DMatthews MZobler MJohnson RWBorchardt 

DATE 7/5/2011 8/3/2011 8/05/2011 08/09/2011 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
 

References:

1. “Final Safety Evaluation Report for Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 3 and 4,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML110450302) 

2. NUREG-1947, “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined 

Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4,” U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, March 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11076A010) 

3. “Combined License, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 3,” draft, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, August 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111780143) 

4. “Limited Work Authorization, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 3,” draft, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, August 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML112140559) 

5. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, 

“Combined License Application, Submittal 8 of the Application,” June 24, 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML11180A086) 

6. “Westinghouse AP1000 Design Control Document Revision 19,” June 20, 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML11171A287) 

7. “Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design,” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML112061231) 

8. “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site 

Docket No. 52-011 Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization,” August 26, 2009 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML092290157) 

9. NUREG-1923 “Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) ESP Site”, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

February 5, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090130038) 

10. NUREG-1872, “Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) ESP Site,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, August 31, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML082260190) 

11. “Second and Final Partial Initial Decision (Mandatory/Uncontested Proceeding),” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 17, 2009, (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092290724) 

12. “Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site - Issuance of Exigent Amendment RE: 

Request for Changes to the Site Safety Analysis Report,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, May 21, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101400509)
 2 

13. “Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site - Issuance of Amendment Re: Request for 

Changes to the Site Safety Analysis Report Regarding Onsite Sources of Backfill,” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 25, 2010 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML101760370) 

14. “Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Early Site Permit - Issuance of 

Amendment #3, Re: Request for changes to the Classification of Backfill Over the 

Slopes of Units 3 and 4 Excavations,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

July 9, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101870522) 

15. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, 

“Combined License Application, Revision 1 to Part 6, LWA Request,” October 2, 2009 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML092960549) 

16. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

“COLA (LWA Request), Revision 1 – Limited Authorization Report,” October 2, 2009 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML092960512) 

17. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-06, “New Reactor Standardization Needed to 

Support the Design-Centered Licensing Review Approach,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, May 31, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML053540251) 

18. “Report on the Safety Aspects of the Southern Nuclear Operating Company Combined 

License Application for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4,” Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safety and Safeguards, January 24, 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML110170006) 

19. “Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Standing and Contention Admissibility),” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 

March 25, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML090640918) 

20. “Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Dispositive Motion Regarding Contention 

SAFETY-1),” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, March 25, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML101390246) 

21. “Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Request to Admit New Contention LBP-10-21),” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 

November 30, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103340432) 

22. “Corrected Emergency Petition to Suspend All Pending Reactor Licensing Decisions 

And Related Rulemaking Decisions Pending Investigation of Lessons Learned from 

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident,” April 18, 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML111091154) 

23. SECY-06-0019, “Semiannual Update on the Status of New Reactor Licensing Activities 

and Future Planning for New Reactors,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

January 31, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML053530315) 
3 

24. Flanders, Scott, “Addressing Construction and Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse 

Gas Issues, General Conformity Determinations, Environmental Justice, Need for 

Power, Cumulative Impact Analysis, and Cultural/Historical Resources Analysis Issues 

in Environmental Impact Statements,” December 10, 2010 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML100760503). 

25. G20110090/LTR-11-0049/EDATS: SECY-2011-0058 - Letter to J. S. Armijo, ACRS, 

from R. W. Borchardt, “Report on the Safety Aspects of the Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company Combined License Application for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 

and 4,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 3, 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML110480429) 

26. “Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century, The Near-Term 

Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,” U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, July 12, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111861807) 

27. “First Partial Initial Decision (Contested Proceeding),” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, June 22, 2009, (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML091770506) 

28. “Second and Final Partial Initial Decision (Mandatory/Uncontested Proceeding),” U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 

August 17, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092290724) 

29. Westinghouse Electric Company, ”AP1000 COL Standard Technical Report Submittal of 

AP-GW-GLN-019,” Revision 1 (TR 103), July 27, 2007 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML072130353) 

30. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle, Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

“Combined License Application Response to Request for Additional Information Letter 

No. 042, Supplement 4 Loss of Large Areas of the Plant Due to Explosions or Fire - 

Mitigative Strategies Description,” August 13, 2010 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML102290038) 

31. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle, Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

“Combined License Application, Response to Bellefonte Safety Evaluation Report Open 

Items for Chapter 01,” July 29, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092120064)