POLICY ISSUE

INFORMATION 

August 19, 2011 SECY-11-0115

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 FOR THE 

VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 (DOCKET 

NOS. 52-027 and 52-028) 

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 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, located 

in Fairfield County, SC. This subsequent COL (SCOL) application references the 

AP1000 Design Certification Document (DCD), Revision 19. 

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 VCSNS COL final safety evaluation report (FSER) 

(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

No. ML110450305). Previously, the agency issued the final environmental impact statement 

(FEIS), on April 19, 2011 (NUREG-1939, Volumes 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession 

Nos. ML11098A044 and ML11098A057, respectively)). Another key reference to this paper is a 

draft COL for VCSNS Unit 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111920134). This paper, with its 

references, provides the information requested to support the Commission’s determination that 

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

 301-415-1035 301-415-0599 

 

 Ryan Whited, NRO/DSER 

 301-415-1154 
The Commissioners 2 

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,” 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. 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 upon the effective date of the rule. 

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

for publication by early 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) and 10 CFR 51.107(a) and 

provides an adequate basis for the Commission to conclude that each of these findings can be 

made. This paper also focuses on nonroutine 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 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and the South Carolina Public Service 

Authority (commonly referred to as "Santee Cooper") submitted an application for the planned 

VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, on March 27, 2008. The applicant most recently updated the VCSNS 

COL application on June 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11187A074). 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/summer/documents.html. 

Santee Cooper has authorized SCE&G to act as its agent in applying for a COL for VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3. SCE&G and Santee Cooper will jointly own the facility and share in the costs and 

output of the facility as follows: SCE&G, 55 percent; Santee Cooper, 45 percent. SCE&G is the 

principal subsidiary of SCANA Corporation, an energy-based holding company with 

headquarters in Cayce, SC. SCE&G is a regulated public utility engaged in the generation, 

transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity in South Carolina. SCE&G has constructed and 

currently operates Virgil. C. Summer Unit 1. Construction on Unit 1 began in April 1973, and it 

has been commercially operated since January 1984. Santee Cooper is South Carolina's Stateowned electric and water utility with headquarters in Moncks Corner, SC. 
The Commissioners 3 

The site for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is located approximately 1 mile from the center of VCSNS 

Unit 1 in western Fairfield County, SC. The Monticello Reservoir will provide the water 

necessary for the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The reservoir is located east of the Broad 

River and west of South Carolina State Highway 215. VCSNS Units 2 and 3 will be located 

approximately 15 miles west of Winnsboro, the county seat. Newberry, the county seat of 

Newberry County, is about 17 miles away to the west. Columbia, the South Carolina State 

capital, is located about 26 miles to the southeast. 

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

Administrative Information) of the VCSNS 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. 

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 VCSNS COL application. Westinghouse 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), and 

the staff anticipates that Revision 19 will serve as the basis for the final rule submitted for 

Commission approval. 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 early 2012. 

Subsequent Combined License 

In implementing the design centered review approach (see ADAMS Accession 

No. ML053540251), COL applications designated as subsequent COLs (SCOLs) include in 

some areas standard content information identical to the information in the designated reference 

COL (RCOL) application for the design center (in this case, the AP1000 design center). In 

these areas, the staff performs a single evaluation of the standard content as part of the RCOL 

application review. To apply the RCOL application review to an SCOL application, the staff 

confirms that the information submitted by the SCOL applicant is identical to that previously 

reviewed for the RCOL application. The staff also evaluates any site-specific differences to 

ensure that they do not affect the SCOL application analysis. Generally, the first COL 

application for a particular design submitted for NRC staff review is designated as the RCOL 

application, and the subsequent applications in the design center are designated as SCOL 

applications. The Staff Statement in Support of the Uncontested Hearing for Issuance of 

Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, includes a 

discussion on how VEGP was designated as the RCOL application for the AP1000 design 

center (ADAMS Accession No. ML110600264). The COL application for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

has been designated as an SCOL application in the AP1000 design center. 
The Commissioners 4 

In this paper, the staff does not discuss issues addressed under the Vogtle COL review that the 

staff recognized as “standard” matters under the design centered review approach and that are 

also applicable to the VCSNS COL application. The FSER for the VCSNS COLs identifies 

matters from the Vogtle COL application determined to be “standard” and applicable to the 

VCSNS COLs and discusses them in Section 1.2.3. 

The staff has completed preparation of a draft COL for VCSNS Unit 2. The draft license is 

available to the Commission for information (ADAMS Accession No. ML111920134). The COL 

for Unit 3 will be similar to the COL for Unit 2, with the only exception being that the Unit 3 COL 

includes a license condition for geologic mapping of the excavation. This license condition was 

unnecessary for Unit 2 because the applicant already performed this activity for Unit 2. 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

To support the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) in providing an independent 

review and report to the Commission regarding the VCSNS COL application, the staff presented 

the results of its safety review to the ACRS AP1000 subcommittee at two meetings on 

July 21-22, 2010, and January 24, 2011. The staff presented the results of its VCSNS COL 

safety review to the ACRS full committee on February 10, 2011. The ACRS issued its final 

recommendation on February 17, 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 

Prior to NRC docketing the application, the staff held a public outreach meeting in Winnsboro, 

SC, on August 28, 2007, to explain the COL review process and take questions from the public. 

The staff held two public scoping meetings on January 27, 2009, in Winnsboro, SC and on 

January 28, 2009, in South Blair, SC. Additionally, the staff held an outreach meeting on 

March 28, 2009, in Jenkinsville, SC. After issuing the draft environmental impact statement 

(DEIS) on April 16, 2010, the staff held a public meeting on May 27, 2010, to present an 

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

application, the staff conducted a total of eight public meetings and public conference calls. 

Federal Register Notices 

The NRC published Federal Register (FR) notices as required for key milestones of the 

licensing process. 

• After receiving the application on March 27, 2008, the agency published notice of such 

receipt in the FR on July 9, 2008 (73 FR 39339). 

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

docketing on August 6, 2008 (73 FR 45792). 
The Commissioners 5 

• On October 10, 2008, the NRC published a notice of hearing and opportunity to petition 

for leave to intervene (73 FR 60362). 

• On January 5, 2009, the NRC published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and to 

conduct scoping (74 FR 323). 

• On April 23, 2010, the NRC published a notice of the availability of the DEIS for public 

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

comments on the document (75 FR 21368). 

• On March 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2011, the NRC published notices of the 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 11522, 12998, 14436, and 16456). 

• On April 22, 2011, the NRC published a notice of availability of the FEIS (76 FR 22734). 

Consultations 

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

U.S. 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 October 10, 2008, the NRC published in the Federal Register (73 FR 60632) a notice of 

hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene. In response to this notice, the NRC 

received two petitions to intervene. On February 18, 2009 (LBP-09-02; ADAMS Accession 

No. ML090490756) and March 17, 2010 (LBP-10-06; ADAMS Accession No. ML100760500), 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) issued memoranda and orders denying the 

admission of all proposed contentions. On March 26, 2010, the Sierra Club and Friends of the 

Earth appealed the March 17, 2010, ASLB’s memorandum and order. On August 27, 2010, the 

Commission affirmed the ASLB’s decision and terminated the contested portion of the 

proceeding (CLI-10-21; ADAMS Accession No. ML102390081). 

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

suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions and related rulemaking decisions until the NRC 

investigated lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station accident 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML111091154). This petition was filed on numerous adjudicatory 

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

petition. 
The Commissioners 6 

III. Review Process/Methodology 

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

in preparation of the FSER and FEIS 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, 

comprehensively updated in 2007, is the most definitive basis available for evaluating whether 

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 VCSNS COL 

application. This listing does not include SRP departures associated with the AP1000 DCD 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, includes environmental SRPs that NRC staff uses 

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

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (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 (RGs) 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 RGs 

associated with the VCSNS COL application and whether the applicant conformed with or 

departed from each RG. This listing does not include departures from regulatory guidance 

associated with the AP1000 DCD 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 VCSNS review, and it is indicated below to which FSER section(s) 

each ISG primarily relates: 

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

Motion,” dated May 19, 2008; see FSER Section 19.55 

• 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 7 

• 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 Section 2.3.1 

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

December 9, 2008; see FSER Section 16.1 

• 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 1.5.5 

• DC/COL-ISG-16, “Compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) and 10 CFR 52.80(d),” 

(non-public) 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 Sections 19.55 and 19.58 

• DC/COL-ISG-22, “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 8 

IV. ACRS Report 

The ACRS review of the VCSNS COL application culminated with a letter to the Commission 

dated February 17, 2011, concluding that there is reasonable assurance that VCSNS Units 2 

and 3 can be built and operated without undue risk to public health and safety and that the 

Commission should approve the SCE&G COL application for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 following its 

final revision (ADAMS Accession No. ML110450490). The ACRS letter also identified specific 

recommendations. On March 26, 2011, the staff issued a response to the ACRS letter, which 

described specific changes to the application and the FSER, other actions taken by the staff and 

applicant, and an explanation of the staff’s actions. (ADAMS Accession No. ML110560591). 

The ACRS conclusions and recommendations and the staff response are summarized below. 

Applicability of ACRS Recommendations Regarding Vogtle COLs to VCSNS COLs 

The ACRS noted that recommendations in its January 24, 2011, letter concerning the VEGP 

Unit 3 and 4 RCOL application are also applicable to the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 SCOL 

application. The recommendations are associated with the following topics: 

• containment interior debris limitations 

• inservice inspection/inservice testing program requirements for squib valves 

• power measurement uncertainty, and 

• future changes to the AP1000 DCD and VEGP FSAR 

In its response, the staff stated that it intends to resolve these issues for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

in the same manner it committed to resolving them for the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COL application. 

Use of HABIT Code for Toxic Gas 

The ACRS noted the staff’s use of the HABIT code to perform confirmatory toxic gas hazard 

analysis. The applicant performed toxic gas analyses with a different code and concluded that 

the VCSNS site is adequately protected. RG 1.78, “Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear 

Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release,” Revision 1, 

dated December 2001, specifies HABIT as an acceptable code for toxic gas analysis. In 

accordance with the regulatory guide, the staff used the HABIT code to perform independent 

confirmatory calculations of the effects of an accidental release of toxic gas. The staff 

confirmatory analyses also concluded that the VCSNS site is adequately protected from 

accidental toxic gas releases. After its review of offsite hazards for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, the 

ACRS observed in its February 17, 2011, letter that HABIT only models neutral density gas 

dispersion and does not consider heavy gas effects; and recommended that the staff limit the 

use of the current version of the HABIT code to neutral density gas dispersion modeling. While 

noting its concern regarding HABIT, the February 17, 2011, ACRS letter also states that there is 

reasonable assurance that VCSNS Units 2 and 3 can be built and operated without undue risk 

to the health and safety of the public, and the staff agrees with that conclusion. Based on the 

ACRS recommendation, the staff is taking steps to improve HABIT and RG 1.78. The staff 

continues to find that, based on the applicant’s analysis and the staff confirmatory analysis, toxic 

gas is adequately addressed for the VCSNS application. 
The Commissioners 9 

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 on-site 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 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. 

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 design certification amendment review. 

Also excluded from consideration from the uncontested hearing is an emergency petition to 

suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions and related rulemaking decisions until NRC 

investigates lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station accident. A 

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

April 14-18, 2011, including in the VCSNS COL proceeding. More recently, on August 10, 2011, 

a subset of those petitioners filed “Supplemental Comments” on the VCSNS docket in 

connection with that petition. The Commission has not yet ruled on the petition. 
The Commissioners 10 

II. Exemptions and Departures 

Exemptions from NRC Regulations 

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

associated with the review of the application: 

Description Regulation Location of 

Evaluation in FSER 

COL application organization and 

numbering 

10 CFR Part 52, 

Appendix D, 

Section IV.A.2.a 

Sections 1.5.4 and 

2.0.4 

Exemption criteria 10 CFR 52.93(a)(1) Sections 1.5.4 and 

2.0.4 

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 

Maximum safety wet bulb (noncoincident) 

air temperature 

10 CFR Part 52, 

Appendix D, 

Section IV.A.2.d 

Section 2.0.4 

The exemption request for COL organization and numbering is substantively similar to an 

exemption request by the Vogtle RCOL applicant. For this request, the applicable regulation 

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 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 11 

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. 

The MC&A program exemption request is similar to an exemption request by the Vogtle RCOL 

applicant. The applicable regulations in 10 CFR Part 70, “Domestic licensing of special nuclear 

material,” and 10 CFR Part 74, “Material control and accounting of special nuclear material,” 

require that a special nuclear material license application describe 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 when reviewing 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. 

For the exemption request for maximum safety wet bulb (noncoincident) air temperature, 

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

certified design include information demonstrating compliance with the site parameters and 

interface requirements. The applicant included an analysis to show that the higher maximum 

safety wet bulb (noncoincident) air temperature will not adversely affect any safety-related 

structures, systems, or components. This exemption request is discussed in more detail later in 

this paper. 

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

For these four exemptions, the staff evaluation in each case 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 four exemptions, the special circumstance determined by the 

staff is that application of the regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of 

the rule. In addition, for the wet bulb temperature exemption, the staff found that the exemption 

will not result in a decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design, and the 

special circumstances outweigh any decrease in the safety that may result from the reduction in 

standardization caused by the exemption. The staff evaluation of the exemptions appears in the 

FSER sections listed in the above table. 

Departures from AP1000 DCD Revision 19 

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

in the 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, to determine whether the applicant 

could implement the departure without NRC approval. 
The Commissioners 12 

Description Location of Evaluation 

in FSER 

STD DEP 1.1-1. Organization and numbering for FSAR 

sections Section 1.5.4 

VCS DEP 2.0-1. Organization and numbering for FSAR 

Chapter 2 Section 2.0 

VCS DEP 2.0-2. Maximum safety wet bulb 

(noncoincident) air temperature 

Sections 2.0, 2.3.1, 5.4, 

6.2, 6.4, 9.1.3, 9.2.2, and 

9.2.7 

STD DEP 8.3-1. Class 1E voltage regulating 

transformer current limiting features Section 8.3.2 

VCS DEP 18.8-1. Emergency response facility 

locations Section 13.3 

 

Part 7 of the COL application provides additional information on each departure request, 

including the affected FSAR sections and a summary, justification, and evaluation of each 

departure. 

The two departures designated above as “STD,” are standard for COL applicants adopting the 

AP1000 design. The remaining three departures are specific to the VCSNS application. Each 

departure and the staff basis for accepting it is summarized below. 

STD DEP 1.1-1 – This is one of two administrative departures related to the exemption on COL 

organization and numbering, discussed above. The applicant requested this departure to 

include content consistent with RG 1.206 and NUREG-0800. The renumbered sections 

associated with this Tier 2 departure appear in FSAR Chapters 9, 13, and 17. 

VCS DEP 2.0-1 – This is the second of two administrative departures related to the exemption 

on COL organization and numbering, discussed above. It is similar to STD DEP 1.1-1 but 

affects only Chapter 2 of the FSAR. The applicant requested this departure to support NRC 

review and the applicant’s presentation of information consistent with RG 1.206. 

VCS DEP 2.0-2 – This departure is a change to the site parameter value for the maximum 

safety wet bulb (noncoincident) air temperature established in DCD Tier 1 Table 5.0-1, and it 

corresponds to the related exemption request discussed above. The departure increases the 

DCD wet bulb value of 86.1 degrees Fahrenheit (F) by 1.2 degrees F to 87.3 degrees F, which 

is the maximum wet-bulb temperature expected to occur once every 100 years. The results of 

the analysis submitted by the applicant show that the higher temperature will not adversely 

affect safety-related or defense-in-depth structures, systems, or components (SSCs), their 
The Commissioners 13 

functional capabilities, or analysis methods as presented in the DCD in Tier 2 information. The 

staff found that the potentially affected SSCs, including the following, would perform acceptably 

at the increased temperature: 

• passive containment cooling system 

• control room habitability 

• normal residual heat removal system (RNS) 

• component cooling water system (CCS) 

• spent fuel pool (SFP) cooling system 

• Service water system (SWS) 

• Central chilled water system 

Section III below further discusses this departure. 

STD DEP 8.3-1 – This standard departure involves the applicant’s use of breakers and fuses to 

provide the isolation function instead of current limiting devices in Class 1E voltage regulating 

transformers. It is the same as the departure that the staff previously evaluated in the Vogtle 

RCOL application and discussed in the “Staff Statement in Support of the Uncontested Hearing 

for Issuance of Combined Licenses and a Limited Work Authorization for the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4.” 

VCS DEP 18.8-1 – Under this departure, the applicant is changing the locations of the technical 

support center (TSC) and operations support center (OSC) from the locations designated in the 

DCD. The DCD specifies the location of the TSC in the control support area (CSA) and the 

location of the OSC in the annex building. In the COL application, the applicant relocated the 

TSC to a central location that can serve VCSNS Units 1, 2, and 3, and moved the OSC to the 

CSA space vacated by the move of the TSC. The staff found that the changed locations met 

regulatory requirements and are, therefore, acceptable. 

III. Nonroutine Unique Facility Features or Novel Issues 

Safety Matters 

a. Emergency Planning Zone for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

The plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) established to facilitate a 

preplanned strategy for protective actions during an emergency has a radius of about 10 miles 

from the reactor site. The exact size and shape of an EPZ is a result of detailed planning which 

includes consideration of the specific conditions at the site, unique geographical features of the 

area, and demographic information. 

The VCSNS COL application stated that the existing EPZ for Unit 1 would also be the EPZ for 

Units 2 and 3. The existing EPZ has a boundary that is approximately 10 miles in radius from 

the proposed reactors but, because of the road network and other factors, some portions of the 

EPZ are greater than 10 miles from the proposed reactors and others are less. The 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for 
The Commissioners 14 

Production and Utilization Facilities,” to 10 CFR Part 50 state that the EPZ should generally be 

about 10 miles (16 kilometers) in radius. However, the regulations do not require an exact 

10-mile radius; instead, they state that the actual EPZ shall be determined in relation to local 

emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by local conditions. In its 

review of the VCSNS COL application, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

raised a concern over the applicant’s statement that the center of the proposed Units 2 and 3 is 

approximately 1 mile southwest of the center of the existing Unit 1. The current EPZ is based 

on a 10-mile radius from the center of Unit 1 and then adjusted based on demography, 

topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries. When 

considering all of these attributes, the established EPZ did not include a 10-mile radius in all 

cases. FEMA issued a request for additional information (RAI) to address whether the existing 

EPZ should be expanded approximately 1 mile to the southwest to account for the new units or 

whether the current EPZ boundary was adequate for both the new units and the existing units. 

The applicant coordinated the RAI response with the State of South Carolina Emergency 

Management Agency and the local risk county emergency management agencies of Lexington, 

Newberry, Richland, and Fairfield counties. The additional area identified in the RAI was 

determined to be largely a managed area of planted trees supporting the extensive logging 

industry in this area. The area’s population is small and the secondary road infrastructure has 

roads that run away from the EPZ toward a recreational lake area approximately 20 to 25 miles 

from VCSNS Unit 1. 

The applicant met with the State emergency management staff and the elected officials from the 

four risk counties of Lexington, Newberry, Richland, and Fairfield. The applicant obtained 

resolutions from each county commission indicating that the existing EPZ boundary is 

appropriate for the emergency planning needs of the jurisdictions and is adequate to protect 

public health and safety for the proposed new reactors. 

As a result of this coordinated effort, FEMA determined that the response to the RAI was 

acceptable and consistent with the guidance in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, 

“Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and 

Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,” issued November 1980. In turn, FEMA 

provided the NRC with its finding of reasonable assurance for planning in its Interim Findings 

Report, which is addressed in FSER Section 13.3. The NRC staff visited the VCSNS site three 

times and traveled the EPZ and the evacuation routes to evaluate the area identified in the 

FEMA RAI. The NRC staff also met with the State and local emergency management staff to 

discuss the issues in the FEMA RAI. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E 

of 10 CFR Part 50, and after reviewing FEMA’s reasonable assurance finding, the staff found 

the EPZ acceptable based on clear demarcations considering demography, topography, land 

characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries. 

b. Maximum Safety Wet Bulb (Noncoincident) Temperature

For the VCSNS site, the non-safety related cooling towers primarily use latent heat of 

vaporization (evaporation) to cool process water. Cooling tower performances are based on 

water flow rate, water inlet temperature, water outlet temperature, and ambient wet bulb 
The Commissioners 15 

temperature. Cooling tower performance is also dependent on adequate fan speed for the 

mechanical draft service water system cooling towers and water makeup flow. The measured 

wet bulb temperature is a function of relative humidity and ambient air temperature. Wet bulb 

temperature essentially measures how much water vapor the atmosphere can hold at current 

weather conditions. A lower wet bulb temperature means the air is drier and can hold more 

water vapor than it can at a higher wet bulb temperature, which affects the efficiency of the 

cooling tower as a medium for cooling. 

The applicant proposed a departure from the maximum safety wet bulb (noncoincident) air 

temperature in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 material of the AP1000 DCD. In addition, Part 7 of the 

VCSNS COL application requests an exemption from this site parameter value. The site 

parameter value provided in AP1000 DCD Tier 1, Table 5.0-1 for the air temperature maximum 

wet bulb (noncoincident) is 86.1 degrees F. However, AP1000 DCD, Section 2.3.6.1 states that 

a COL applicant shall address the site-specific regional climatological information. The 

applicant presented information documenting the regional meteorological characteristics, 

including the maximum wet-bulb temperature expected to occur once every 100 years (see 

FSAR Subsection 2.3.1.5). The VCSNS site characteristic for the maximum safety wet bulb 

(noncoincident) air temperature for Units 2 and 3 is 87.3 degrees F, which exceeds the DCD 

site parameter by 1.2 degrees F. The applicant analyzed the maximum safety wet bulb 

(noncoincident) air temperature of 87.3 degrees F for Units 2 and 3. The staff reviewed the 

analyses and, although the increase in the temperature is small, the change impacted the 

systems listed below. As documented in the FSER, the staff concluded the following regarding 

the impact of the higher temperature on the following systems: 

• Passive containment cooling system - There is no impact on the performance of the 

safety system because the peak containment pressure remains bounded by the current 

AP1000 analysis. The staff’s evaluation appears in Section 6.2 of the FSER. 

• Control room habitability – Based on the system design margin of the nonradioactive 

ventilation system, the main control room temperature and humidity at the higher 

VCSNS maximum safety wet bulb temperature will remain at or below the desired 

design points during normal operation. The staff’s evaluation appears in Section 6.4 of 

the FSER. 

• Normal residual heat removal system - Section 5.4.7.1 of the AP1000 DCD provides the 

design bases for the normal residual heat removal system. The staff reviewed the bases 

for this system that could be affected by the higher wet bulb temperature and determined 

that the following two bases for this system were maintained: 

o The RNS reduces the temperature of the reactor coolant system from 

350 degrees F to 125 degrees F within 96 hours after shutdown and the RNS 

system maintains the reactor coolant temperature at or below 125 degrees F for 

the plant shutdown. 

o The RNS system limits the temperature of the water in the in-containment 

refueling water storage tank to less than boiling temperature during extended 
The Commissioners 16 

operation of the passive residual heat removal system and keeps it at 

120 degrees F or below during normal operation. 

The staff’s evaluation appears in Section 5.4 of the FSER. 

• Component cooling water – The staff found that the CCS water supply temperature to 

plant components is not more than 100 degrees F assuming a wet bulb temperature of 

87.3 degrees F for service water cooling. The staff’s evaluation appears in Section 9.2.2 

of the FSER. 

• Spent fuel pool cooling – The staff found that the SFP maximum temperature will be 

maintained at less than 120 degrees F during a partial core fuel shuffle refueling with the 

CCS cooling the SFP. The staff’s evaluation appears in Section 9.1.3 of the FSER. 

• Service water system – The SWS, which includes mechanical draft cooling towers, cools 

the CCS. The staff found that the higher wet bulb temperature did not affect the ability of 

the SWS to perform its function. The staff’s evaluation appears in Section 9.2.2 of the 

FSER and is associated with the SWS’s ability to cool the CCS at the higher wet bulb 

temperature. 

• Central chilled water system – The system consists of two closed-loop subsystems—a 

high cooling-capacity subsystem and a low cooling-capacity subsystem. The high 

capacity chilled water subsystem is the primary system used to provide chilled water to 

the majority of plant heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems and other plant 

equipment requiring chilled water cooling. The low capacity chilled water subsystem 

(LCCWS) is dedicated to the nuclear island nonradioactive ventilation system. Only the 

LCCWS is directly affected by the change in wet bulb temperatures. The staff found that 

the increased heat load produced by operation at the higher VCSNS maximum safety 

ambient wet bulb temperature of 87.3 degrees F can be accommodated within the 

available capacity margin of the air cooled chiller units without impacting the LCCWS or 

supporting systems’ design or plant operation. The staff’s evaluation appears in 

Section 9.2.7 of the FSER. 

The results of these evaluations show that the higher maximum safety wet bulb (noncoincident) 

air temperature will not adversely affect safety-related or defense-in-depth SSCs. 

Environmental Matters 

c. Environmental Justice 

Background 

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy established by Presidential Executive 

Order 12898, “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,” dated February 11, 1994 (59 FR 7629), under which each Federal 
The Commissioners 17 

agency in the executive branch identifies and addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority or low-income populations. The Commission has voluntarily committed to undertake 

environmental justice reviews as part of the staff’s socioeconomics evaluations in preparing 

environmental impact statements (69 FR 52040). Environmental justice was a concern on this 

project because the review team (collectively, the NRC staff and the staff of the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)) determined that the high proportion of minority and 

low-income people living near the VCSNS site created the potential for a disproportionately high 

and adverse impact that warranted more detailed analysis. In conducting its analysis, the staff 

provided additional opportunities for public participation in the environmental review process. 

Scoping and Outreach 

The staff initiated its environmental review process by publishing in the Federal Register a 

notice of intent to prepare an EIS and to conduct scoping (74 FR 323). Two public scoping 

meetings took place in Winnsboro and Blair, SC, on January 27 and 28, 2009, respectively, to 

facilitate public participation in the scoping process. During the scoping meetings, the staff 

identified potential environmental justice issues related to the demographics of the population 

living near the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. After the scoping meetings were held, the 

Mayor of Jenkinsville, SC (located approximately 2 miles from the proposed VCSNS Units 2 

and 3), requested an extension of the scoping period to ensure that his constituency could 

provide meaningful comments to the NRC. The staff concluded that the Mayor’s reasonable 

request, coupled with comments provided during the scoping meetings, warranted an extension 

of the scoping period; consequently, the staff extended the scoping period by 30 days to 

April 6, 2009 (74 FR 9112). 

Following the initial scoping efforts, the staff expanded its outreach to local officials and leaders. 

Based on feedback from that additional outreach, the staff held an informal public open house in 

the local community on Saturday, March 28, 2009. For this open house, the staff developed an 

alternate approach to the traditional open house used by the staff for its scoping process. For 

example, to facilitate the participation of individuals who would not otherwise offer public 

statements, the staff offered private transcription so that the public record would include their 

concerns. In addition, the staff held one-on-one discussions and small group presentations. 

More staff than is typically involved in public meetings participated in the open house to ensure 

that knowledgeable persons were available to answer questions on all aspects of the staff’s 

review. 

On May 27, 2010, the review team conducted two public meetings to receive comments on the 

DEIS. The review team expanded the open house period before the transcribed public 

comment meetings to allow for greater interaction with members of the community. In addition, 

the review team arranged for private transcription for members of the public who did not want to 

speak before a larger audience. The staff implemented these additional measures based on the 

staff’s outreach efforts and experience in conducting the March 28, 2009, open house, to allow 

for maximum public participation and to ensure that local community needs were adequately 

addressed. 
The Commissioners 18 

Analysis 

The staff reviewed the comments received from the public and from Federal, State, Tribal, 

regional, and local agencies during the development of the EIS, including the scoping process. 

The review team interviewed State, local, and county officials, business leaders, and key 

members of minority communities within the economic impact area to assess the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects that could be 

experienced by minority or low-income communities when building and operating the additional 

units. 

Analysis of demographic data indicated that there were low-income, African American, and 

aggregated minority populations of interest (i.e., the populations exceeded the threshold criteria 

established for environmental justice analyses) within the 50-mile region. The review team 

found that several African-American populations of interest were in census block groups 

clustered near the VCSNS site and further analysis revealed that these block groups contained 

a high concentration of low-income households that were not evident at the census block group 

level. These populations exhibited unique characteristics and practices (subsistence fishing, 

hunting, and gardening) that further identified them as vulnerable to disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts. Therefore, the review team performed additional analyses before making a 

final environmental justice determination. For each of the low-income and minority populations 

identified, the review team had to determine whether or not the populations had one or more 

unique characteristics that would cause an impact to disproportionately affect them. The review 

team (1) identified potentially significant pathways for human health and welfare effects; 

(2) determined the impact of each pathway for the populations; and (3) determined whether or 

not the characteristics of the pathway or special circumstances of the minority or low-income 

populations would result in a disproportionately high and adverse impact. 

Conclusions 

The review team analyzed potential environmental justice impacts during both the building and 

operation of the facility in the following areas: health impacts; physical and environmental 

impacts; subsistence and special conditions; and socioeconomic impacts. Based on information 

provided by SCE&G, information provided in the public scoping process, the review team’s 

interviews with local public officials, and the review team’s independent evaluation and 

confirmatory analyses, the review team found only one pathway, traffic, near the proposed site 

that could result in disproportionately high and adverse environmental or health impacts to any 

minority or low-income population in the 50-mile region during the building of the facility. 

The review team determined that traffic impacts related to building the additional units would be 

noticeable in the Jenkinsville area. This area was identified in the review team’s site visits and 

technical analysis as having minority populations of interest and a high proportion of low-income 

households. The staff determined that, while the peak employment period traffic during the 

building of the facility would not exceed daily road capacity standards, the peak-hour traffic 

levels would exceed current State management standards and construction worker traffic would 

result in (1) a 50-percent increase in average daily traffic along SC-213, and (2) a 125-percent 

increase in average daily traffic along SC-215. Therefore, the review team concluded that there 
The Commissioners 19 

could be traffic-related disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income 

populations in the Jenkinsville area. However, the review team found that because the 

traffic-related impacts would be temporary and of short duration, and because they would be 

mitigated to some extent by SCE&G commitments, including the development of a traffic 

management plan, the impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing. Therefore, the review 

team concluded that the environmental justice impacts related to traffic during the building of the 

facility would be MODERATE. The review team concluded that all other environmental justice 

impacts during the building of the facility would be SMALL. 

The review team did not find environmental pathways that would lead to disproportionately high 

and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations as a result of plant operations. 

Therefore, the review team concluded that the environmental justice impacts of operations 

would be SMALL. 

d. First Project Implementing Updated Memorandum of Understanding with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

On September 12, 2008, the NRC and the USACE signed an updated Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) regarding the review of nuclear power plant applications (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML082540354). The MOU establishes a framework that allows for early 

coordination and participation of both regulatory agencies to ensure the timely review of 

applications so that each agency’s review responsibilities under NEPA and other related 

statutes can be met in a manner that is effective for the Federal Government. The agreement 

anticipates that the NRC will usually serve as the lead agency, as it did for the VCSNS review, 

and that USACE will act as a cooperating agency, as defined in 10 CFR 51.14. The VCSNS 

environmental review was among the first to implement the updated MOU and is the first new 

reactor FEIS completed under this MOU to come to a mandatory hearing before the 

Commission. The MOU helped to avoid duplication of effort and conserved resources in 

developing an EIS that met both NRC and USACE needs. 

Practices for performing environmental reviews differ somewhat between the two agencies. For 

example, the NRC staff evaluates environmental impacts in its EIS by using the impact category 

levels of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE in accordance with Footnote 3 of 10 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix B, Table B-1, and alternatives to the proposed action are compared to determine 

whether there are “environmentally preferable” alternatives and, if so, whether they are 

“obviously superior.” However, for permit decisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the USACE must determine that the proposed 

action is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative and must address the 

USACE public interest review factors. The USACE’s final permit decision will be made in its 

Record of Decision, and to the extent possible, it will rely on the information in the FEIS. 

The USACE staff was integrated into the environmental project team and was involved in public 

meetings, the consideration of public comments, and the preparation of the DEIS and FEIS. 

There were differences in the information needs of the NRC and USACE due to differences in 

the two agencies’ regulatory frameworks and differences in the proposed actions for each 

agency. The proposed actions are: (1) NRC issuance of COLs for two new nuclear power 
The Commissioners 20 

reactor units and (2) USACE issuance of a Department of the Army Individual Permit pursuant 

to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 

The differing information needs of each agency required close coordination between the NRC 

and USACE staffs to ensure that certain issues were adequately addressed in the EIS. For 

example, the building of transmission lines is not part of the NRC’s action because NRC 

regulations specifically exclude such activities from the definition of “construction” (see 10 CFR 

51.4); thus, potential impacts from transmission lines are typically considered as part of the 

staff’s cumulative impacts evaluation However, the USACE considers construction of 

transmission lines to be part of its proposed action if wetlands or waters of the U.S. are affected 

by the project. Because of the differences in regulatory authority and the different proposed 

actions of the two agencies, the review team requested more data regarding transmission lines 

than the staff would ordinarily request for an NRC EIS. For instance, more detailed plans from 

the applicant regarding transmission line routing and impact assessments for potentially 

affected species along transmission line rights of ways were needed. As the project 

progressed, the USACE and the staff worked together to request sufficient information from the 

applicant to meet the needs of both agencies. The resulting EIS achieved the objectives of the 

MOU in terms of timeliness and effective use of resources. 

IV. 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 the FEIS, and the conclusions of the ACRS, the staff 

concludes that, for the purpose of issuing COLs for VCSNS Units 2 and 3, 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 February 23, 2011, the NRC notified the Public Service 

Commission of South Carolina of the VCSNS COL application (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML110490240). In addition, in January 2009, the NRC published notices of the 

application in the Winnsboro Herald Independent, the Newberry Observer, the Union 

Daily, the Blythewood Chronicle, and The State. In accordance with Section 182(c), the 

staff also published a notice of the application in the Federal Register on March 2, 9, 16, 

and 23, 2011 (76 FR 11522, 12998, 14436, and 16456). 
The Commissioners 21 

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

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

COLs for VCSNS Units 2 and 3, 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 and exemptions; 

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

In areas where the staff found that the information submitted initially 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 

staff conclusion. Where necessary, the applicant provided multiple supplemental 

responses. As necessary, the staff also conducted audits of the applicant’s 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 inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (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 VCSNS COL 

FSER and the AP1000 DCD FSER referenced by the VCSNS COL application. 

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

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

issuing COLs for VCSNS Units 2 and 3, there is reasonable assurance that the facilities 

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 regarding technical and 

financial qualifications. 

a. Technical Qualification. The staff reviewed information provided by the applicant 

regarding technical qualifications. The review included an evaluation of the 

operating experience, organizational structure, and QA program of SCE&G. The 
The Commissioners 22 

review included the fact that SCE&G operates VCSNS Unit 1, which is a 

1,000-megawatt electric, pressurized water reactor plant located approximately 

30 miles northwest of Columbia in Jenkinsville, SC. SCE&G holds a 10 CFR Part 50 

license for VCSNS Unit 1 and has demonstrated its ability to build and operate a 

nuclear power reactor. SCE&G 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 SCE&G’s engineering, procurement and construction contractor, 

Westinghouse and Shaw. 

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 SCE&G’s experience 

with building and operating a nuclear power plant, its operating organization, and its 

QA program, the staff finds that SCE&G is technically qualified to hold a 

10 CFR Part 52 license in accordance with 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(iv). 

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

about financial qualifications. The review included an evaluation of the financial 

qualifications, decommissioning funding assurance, foreign ownership, and nuclear 

insurance and indemnity. The staff evaluated information pertaining to the total cost 

of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, consisting of engineering, procurement, construction costs, 

owners’ costs, financing costs, inflation and information pertaining to funding sources 

for each of the owners. Applicable regulations and guidance considered by the staff 

included 10 CFR Part 140, 10 CFR 52.97(a)(1)(iv),10 CFR 50.33,10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix C, Section I.A.2, and NUREG-1577. 

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

on the financial information provided by SCE&G, the NRC staff concludes that the 

owners of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, comprising SCE&G and Santee Cooper, have 

demonstrated that they possess or have access to the financial resources necessary 

to meet estimated operation, construction costs and related fuel cycle costs. 

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that SCE&G and Santee Cooper, as joint owners 

of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, are financially qualified to construct and operate VCSNS 

Units 2 and 3 and to 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 license 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, 
The Commissioners 23 

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

be inimical to public health and safety. 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 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 plant 

operation 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 staff 

requirements memorandum SECY-05-0197, dated February 22, 2006, as well as three 

additional operational programs, including a cyber security program, an MC&A program 

for special nuclear material, and a special nuclear material physical security program. 

The staff’s review of the applicant’s emergency planning information concluded that the 

emergency plan is acceptable and supports the staff’s conclusion that issuance of the 

licenses will not be inimical to public health and safety. 

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 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to 

public health and safety. 

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

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

VCSNS Units 2 and 3, 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 

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 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 
The Commissioners 24 

10 CFR 51.107(a) 

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

regulations in this subpart 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 FEIS (NUREG-1939) 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 FEIS 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 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(i–v)), the FEIS 

for the VCSNS COL addresses (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 FEIS, 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 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)). The USACE fully participated with the NRC in 

preparing this EIS as a cooperating agency and participated collaboratively on the 

review team under the Commission’s MOU with the USACE. The staff did not identify 

any other Federal agencies as cooperating agencies in preparation of the FEIS. 

The staff concludes that the FEIS 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 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E)). The alternatives considered in the 

FEIS include the no-action alternative, site alternatives, energy alternatives, system 

design alternatives, and mitigation alternatives for severe accidents. 
The Commissioners 25 

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 10.6.3 of the FEIS provides the staff summary of the cost-benefit assessment. 

The staff concluded that “the construction and operation of the proposed Units 2 and 3, 

with mitigation measures identified by the staff, would have accrued benefits that most 

likely would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs. For the 

NRC-proposed action (NRC-authorized construction and operation) the accrued benefits 

would also outweigh the costs of construction and operation of Units 2 and 3.” 

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 FEIS, the staff considered the cost-benefit analysis, including the 

need for power, 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 

VCSNS COL application environmental report, (2) consultation with Federal, State, 

Tribal and local agencies (3) the staff’s own independent review, (4) the NRC staff’s 

consideration of comments related to the environmental review that were received 

during the public scoping process, (5) the NRC staff’s consideration of comments on the 

DEIS, and (6) the assessments summarized in the EIS, including the potential mitigation 

measures identified in the environmental report and in the EIS. 

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 of 

reasonable alternatives to the applicant’s proposal. Before developing the DEIS, the 

staff issued a notice of intent to conduct scoping and invited public participation. The 

staff also provided opportunities for governmental and general public participation during 

the scoping process for the DEIS and used publicly available guidance in the 

development of its EIS 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 staff considered the no-action 

alternative and reasonable 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 Commissioners 26 

The NRC filed the DEIS with the EPA for its review consistent with the requirements of 

Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (see 42 U.S.C. § 7609). The staff considered all 

comments received on the DEIS and, in Appendix E to the FEIS, 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. 

V. Other Aspects of the Staff Review Not Tied to Specific Findings 

SCE&G has not yet received from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 

Control the certification required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The Section 401 

certification would indicate that the discharges into navigable waters associated with the 

activities permitted under the COLs are in compliance with certain applicable Clean Water Act 

requirements. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the NRC from issuing the COLs 

until NRC receives the certification from SCE&G. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. 

 /RA/ 

 R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director 

 for Operations 
The Commissioners 26 

The NRC filed the DEIS with the EPA for its review consistent with the requirements of 

Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (see 42 U.S.C. § 7609). The staff considered all 

comments received on the DEIS and, in Appendix E to the FEIS, 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. 

V. Other Aspects of the Staff Review Not Tied to Specific Findings 

SCE&G has not yet received from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 

Control the certification required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The Section 401 

certification would indicate that the discharges into navigable waters associated with the 

activities permitted under the COLs are in compliance with certain applicable Clean Water Act 

requirements. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the NRC from issuing the COLs 

until NRC receives the certification from SCE&G. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. 

 /RA/

 R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director 

 for Operations 

EDATS: NRO-2011-0012 

ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML111320113 *via email SECY-012 

OFFICE PM:DNRL:NWE1 LA:DNRL:NWE1* PM:DNRL:NWE1* Tech Editor* 

NAME DHabib KGoldstein JSebrosky KAzariah-Kribbs 

DATE 8/1/2011 8/2/2011 8/2/2011 7/27/2011 

OFFICE BC:DNRL:NRGA* BC:DNRL:NWE1* D:DSER (A)* D:DSRA* 

NAME WBurton JCruz NChokshi(GHatchett for) CAder(MLombard for) 

DATE 8/2/2011 8/1/2011 7/27/2011 7/27/2011 

OFFICE D:NSIR:DSP* D:NSIR:DPR* D:DNRL* OGC* 

NAME MLayton(BSchnetzler for) SMorris(MDudek for) DMatthews MZobler 

DATE 7/27/2011 7/27/11 8/4/2011 8/9/2011 

OFFICE D:NRO OEDO 

NAME MJohnson RWBorchardt 

DATE 8/17/2011 8/19/2011 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
References

1. “Final Safety Evaluation Report for Combined Licenses for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

Station, Units 2 and 3,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML110450305) 

2. NUREG-1939, “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) 

for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3,” Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, April 19, 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML11098A044 and ML11098A057) 

3. “Combined License, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2, South Carolina Electric 

and Gas, Inc., South Carolina Public Service Authority,” draft, August 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML111920134) 

4. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 

and 3 Combined License Application Submittal 5, June 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML11187A074) 

5. “Westinghouse AP1000 Design Control Document Revision 19,” June 20, 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML11171A287) 

6. “Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design,” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML112061231) 

7. 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) 

8. “Report on the Safety Aspects of the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company 

Combined License Application for V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3,” 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety and Safeguards, February 17, 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML110450490) 

9. “Order (Ruling on Standing and Contention Admissibility),” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, February 18, 2009 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML090490756) 

10. “Memorandum and Order on Remand (Denying on Remand the Sierra Club and Friends 

of the Earth’s Petition to Intervene),” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, March 17, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML100760500) 

11. “CLI-10-21, Memorandum and Order,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 27, 

2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102390081)
2 

12. “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) 

13. “Report on the Safety Aspects of the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company 

Combined License Application for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3,” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 26, 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML110560591) 

14. “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,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 9, 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML110600264) 

15. “Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of 

Authorizations to Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Plants,” September 12, 2008 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML082540354)