Source: http://www.govpulse.us/entries/2005/04/18/05-7658/ap1000-design-certification
Timestamp: 2015-07-04 05:05:03
Document Index: 113021478

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 52', 'art 52', 'art 52', 'art 52', 'art 52', 'art 52', 'art 52', 'art 52', 'art 52', '§ 52', 'art 52', 'art 52', 'art 52', '§ 50', '§ 50', '§ 50', '§ 50', 'art 52', '§ 50', 'art 51']

govpulse | AP1000 Design Certification
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) proposes to amend its regulations to certify the AP1000 standard plant design. This action is necessary so that applicants or licensees intending to construct and operate an AP1000 design may do so by referencing the AP1000design certification rule (DCR). This proposed DCR is nearly identical to the AP600 DCR in the current regulations. The applicant for certification of the AP1000 design is Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). The public is invited to submit comments on this proposed DCR and the AP1000 design control document (DCD) that would be incorporated by reference into the DCR. The NRC also invites the public to submit comments on the environmental assessment for the AP1000 design.
II. Technical Evaluation of the AP1000 Design
C. Scope and Contents
D. Additional Requirements and Restrictions
E. Applicable Regulations
F. Issue Resolution
G. Duration of This Appendix
H. Processes for Changes and Departures
I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
J. Records and Reporting
Appendix D To Part 52—Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design
A. Tier 1 Information
B. Tier 2 Information
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH56) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission.
E-mail comments to:SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (telephone (301) 415-1966).
Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Lauren Quinones-Navarro or Jerry N. Wilson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-2007 or (301) 415-3145; e-mail:lnq@nrc.gov or jnw@nrc.gov.
G. Duration of this Appendix (Section VII)
H. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) (Section IX)
J. Records and Reporting (Section X)
The NRC added 10 CFR part 52 to its regulations to provide for the issuance of early site permits (ESPs), standard design certifications, and combined licenses (COLs) for nuclear power plants. Subpart B of 10 CFR part 52 established the process for obtaining design certifications. On March 28, 2002 (67 FR 20845), Westinghouse tendered its application for certification of the AP1000 standard plant design with the NRC. Westinghouse submitted this application in accordance with subpart B and appendix O of 10 CFR part 52. The NRC formally accepted the application as a docketed application for design certification (Docket No. 52-006) on June 25, 2002 (67 FR 43690). The pre-application information submitted before the NRC formally accepted the application can be found under Project No. 711.
II. Technical Evaluation of the AP1000 Design ↑
As stated above, the procedure for certifying a standard design is performed under 10 CFR part 52, subpart B, and is carried out in two stages (technical and administrative). The technical review stage is initiated by an application filed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.45, “Filing of Applications.” This stage continues with reviews by the NRC staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and ends with the issuance of a final safety evaluation report (FSER) that discusses the staff's conclusions related to the acceptability of the AP1000 design. The NRC staff issued the AP1000 FSER in September 2004(NUREG-1793). The FSER provides the bases for issuance of a final design approval under appendix O to part 52, which is a prerequisite to a design certification. The final design approval for the AP1000 design was issued on September 13, 2004, and published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2004 (69 FR 56101).
The administrative review stage begins with the publication of a Federal Register notice that initiates rulemaking, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.51, “Administrative Review of Applications,” and includes a proposed design certification rule. The rulemaking culminates with the denial of the application or the issuance of a design certification rule.
III. Section-By-Section Discussion ↑
The following discussion sets forth the purpose and key aspects of each section and paragraph of the proposed AP1000 DCR. All section and paragraph references are to the provisions in the proposed appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The proposed DCR for the AP1000 standard plant design is nearly identical to the AP600 DCR, which the NRCpreviously codified in 10 CFR part 52, appendix C (Design Certification Rule for the AP600 Design, 64 FR 72015, December 23, 1999). Many of the procedural issues and their resolutions for the AP600 DCR (e.g., the two-tier structure, Tier 2*, the scope of issue resolution) were developed after extensive discussions with public stakeholders, including Westinghouse. Also, Westinghouse requested that policy resolutions for the AP600 design review be applied to the AP1000. Accordingly, the NRC has modeled the AP1000 DCR on the existing DCRs, with certain departures. These departures are necessary to account for differences in the AP1000 design documentation, design features, and environmental assessment (including severe accident mitigation design alternatives).
A. Introduction ↑
The purpose of Section I of proposed appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 (this appendix) would be to identify the standard plant design that is approved by this DCR and the applicant for certification of the standard design. Identification of the design certification applicant is necessary to implement this appendix, for two reasons. First, the implementation of 10 CFR 52.63(c) depends on whether an applicant for a COL contracts with the design certification applicant to provide the generic design control document (DCD) and supporting design information. If the COL applicant does not use the design certification applicant to provide this information, then the COL applicant must meet the requirements in 10 CFR 52.63(c). Also, X.A.1 of this appendix would impose a requirement on the design certification applicant to maintain the generic DCD throughout the time period in which this appendix may be referenced.
B. Definitions ↑
During development of the first two design certification rules, the Commission decided that there would be both generic (master) DCDs maintained by the NRC and the design certification applicant, as well as individual plant-specific DCDs, maintained by each applicant and licensee who reference the appendix. This distinction is necessary in order to specify the plant-specific requirements applicable to applicants and licensees referencing the appendix. The generic DCDs would reflect generic changes to the version of the DCD approved in this design certification rulemaking. The generic changes would occur as the result of generic rulemaking by the Commission, in accordance with the change criteria in section VIII of this appendix. In addition, the Commission understood that each applicant and licensee referencing this appendix would be required to submit and maintain a plant-specific DCD.
This plant-specific DCD would contain (not just incorporate by reference) the information in the generic DCD. The plant-specific DCD would be updated as necessary to reflect the generic changes to the DCD that the Commission may adopt through rulemaking, any plant-specific departures from the generic DCD that the Commission imposed on the licensee by order, and any plant-specific departures that the licensee chooses to make in accordance with the relevant processes in section VIII of this appendix. Thus, the plant-specific DCD would function like an updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) because it would provide the most complete and accurate information on a plant's licensing basis for that part of the plant within the scope of this appendix. Therefore, this appendix would define both a generic DCD and a plant-specific DCD.
Also, the Commission decided to treat the technical specifications (TS) in section 16.1 of the generic DCD as a special category of information and to designate them as generic TS in order to facilitate the special treatment of this information under this appendix. A COL applicant must submit plant-specific TS that consist of the generic TS, which may be modified under paragraph VIII.C of this appendix, and the remaining plant-specific information needed to complete the TS. The FSAR that is required by § 52.79(b) will consist of the plant-specific DCD, the site-specific portion of the FSAR, and the plant-specific TS.
The terms Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2*, and COL action items (license information) are defined in this appendix because these concepts were not envisioned when 10 CFR part 52 was developed. The design certification applicants and the NRC used these terms in implementing the two-tiered rule structure that was proposed by representatives of the nuclear industry after issuance of 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, appropriate definitions for these additional terms are included in this appendix. The nuclear industry representatives requested a two-tiered structure for the design certification rules to achieve issue preclusion for a greater amount of information than was originally planned for the design certification rules, while retaining flexibility for design implementation. The Commission approved the use of a two-tiered rule structure in its staff requirements memorandum (SRM), dated February 14, 1991, on SECY-90-377, “Requirements for Design Certification Under 10 CFR Part 52,” dated November 8, 1990. This document and others are available in the Regulatory History of Design Certification (see section IV, Availability of Documents).
The Tier 1 portion of the design-related information contained in the DCD would be certified by this appendix and, therefore, be subject to the special backfit provisions in paragraph VIII.A of this appendix. An applicant who references this appendix would be required to incorporate by reference and comply with Tier 1, under paragraphs III.B and IV.A.1 of this appendix. This information consists of an introduction to Tier 1, the system based and non-system based design descriptions and corresponding inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC), significant interface requirements, and significant site parameters for the design. The design descriptions, interface requirements, and site parameters in Tier 1 were derived from Tier 2, but may be more general than the Tier 2 information. The NRC staff's evaluation of the Tier 1 information is provided in section 14.3 of the FSER. Changes to or departures from the Tier 1 information must comply with section VIII.A of this appendix.
The Tier 1 design descriptions serve as commitments for the lifetime of a facility referencing the design certification. The ITAAC verifies that the as-built facility conforms with the approved design and applicable regulations. Under 10 CFR 52.103(g), the Commission must find that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC are met before authorizing operation. After the Commission has made the finding required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), the ITAAC do not constitute regulatory requirements for licensees or for renewal of the COL. However, subsequent modifications to the facility must comply with the design descriptions in the plant-specific DCD unless changes are under the change process in section VIII of this appendix. The Tier 1 interface requirements are the most significant of the interface requirements for systems that are wholly or partially outside the scope of the standard design. Tier 1 interface requirements were submitted in response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(vii) and must be met by the site-specific design features of a facility that references this appendix. The Tier 1 site parameters are the most significant site parameters,which were submitted in response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(iii). An application that references this appendix must demonstrate that the site parameters (both Tier 1 and Tier 2) are met at the proposed site (refer to paragraph III.D of this statement of consideration [SOC]).
Tier 2 is the portion of the design-related information contained in the DCD that would be approved by this appendix but not certified. Tier 2 information would be subject to the backfit provisions in paragraph VIII.B of this appendix. Tier 2 includes the information required by 10 CFR 52.47 (with the exception of generic TS, conceptual design information, and the evaluation of severe accident mitigation design alternatives) and the supporting information on inspections, tests, and analyses that will be performed to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC have been met. As with Tier 1, paragraphs III.B and IV.A.1 of this appendix would require an applicant who references this appendix to incorporate Tier 2 by reference and to comply with Tier 2, except for the COL action items, including the investment protection short-term availability controls in section 16.3 of the generic DCD. The definition of Tier 2 makes clear that Tier 2 information has been determined by the Commission, by virtue of its inclusion in this appendix and its designation as Tier 2 information, to be an approved sufficient method for meeting Tier 1 requirements. However, there may be other acceptable ways of complying with Tier 1. The appropriate criteria for departing from Tier 2 information would be specified in paragraph VIII.B of this appendix. Departures from Tier 2 would not negate the requirement in paragraph III.B to reference Tier 2.
A definition of “combined license action items” (COL information), which is part of the Tier 2 information, would be added to clarify that COL applicants who reference this appendix are required to address COL action items in their license application. However, the COL action items are not the only acceptable set of information. An applicant may depart from or omit COL action items, provided that the departure or omission is identified and justified in the FSAR. After issuance of a construction permit or COL, these items would not be requirements for the licensee unless they are restated in the FSAR. For additional discussion, see section D.
The investment protection short-term availability controls, which are set forth in section 16.3 of the generic DCD, would be added to the information that is part of Tier 2. These requirements were added to Tier 2 to make it clear that the availability controls are not operational requirements for the purposes of paragraph VIII.C of this appendix. Rather, the availability controls are associated with specific design features. The availability controls may be changed if the associated design feature is changed under paragraph VIII.B of this appendix. For additional discussion, see section C.
Certain Tier 2 information has been designated in the generic DCD with brackets and italicized text as “Tier 2*” information and, as discussed in greater detail in the section-by-section explanation for section H, a plant-specific departure from Tier 2* information would require prior NRC approval. However, the Tier 2* designation expires for some of this information when the facility first achieves full power after the finding required by 10 CFR 52.103(g). The process for changing Tier 2* information and the time at which its status as Tier 2* expires is set forth in paragraph VIII.B.6 of this appendix. Some Tier 2* requirements concerning special preoperational tests are designated to be performed only for the first plant or first three plants referencing the AP1000 DCR. The Tier 2* designation for these selected tests would expire after the first plant or first three plants complete the specified tests. However, a COL action item requires that subsequent plants shall also perform the tests or justify that the results of the first-plant-only or first-three-plants-only tests are applicable to the subsequent plant.
In an earlier rulemaking (64 FR 53582; October 4, 1999), the Commission revised 10 CFR § 50.59 to incorporate new thresholds for permitting changes to a plant as described in the FSAR without NRC approval. For consistency and clarity, the Commission proposes to use these new thresholds in the proposed AP1000 DCR. Inasmuch as § 50.59 is the primary change mechanism for operating nuclear plants, the Commission believes that future plants referencing the AP1000 DCR should utilize thresholds as close to § 50.59 as is practicable and appropriate. Because of some differences in how the change control requirements are structured in the DCRs, certain definitions contained in § 50.59 are not applicable to 10 CFR part 52 and are not being included in this proposed rule. One definition that the Commission is including is the definition from the new § 50.59 for a “departure from a method of evaluation,” (paragraph II.G), which is appropriate to include in this rulemaking so that the eight criteria in paragraph VIII.B.5.b of the proposed rule will be implemented as intended.
C. Scope and Contents ↑
The purpose of section III of this DCR would be to describe and define the scope and contents of this design certification and to set forth how documentation discrepancies or inconsistencies are to be resolved. Paragraph A is the required statement of the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for approval of the incorporation by reference of Tier 1, Tier 2, and the generic TS into this appendix. Paragraph B requires COL applicants and licensees to comply with the requirements of this appendix. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the incorporated material has the same legal status as if it were published in the Code of Federal Regulations. This material, like any other properly-issued regulation, has the force and effect of law. Tier 1 and Tier 2 information, as well as the generic TS, have been combined into a single document called the generic DCD, in order to effectively control this information and facilitate its incorporation by reference into the rule. The generic DCD was prepared to meet the requirements of the OFR for incorporation by reference (10 CFR part 51). One of the requirements of the OFR for incorporation by reference is that the design certification applicant must make the generic DCD available upon request after the final rule becomes effective. Therefore, paragraph III.A of this appendix would identify a Westinghouse representative to be contacted in order to obtain a copy of the generic DCD.
Paragraphs A and B would also identify the investment protection short-term availability controls in Section 16.3 of the generic DCD as part of the Tier 2 information. During its review of the AP1000 design, the NRC determined that residual uncertainties associated with passive safety system performance increased the importance of non-safety-related active systems in providing defense-in-depth functions that back-up the passive systems. As a result, Westinghouse developed administrative controls to provide a high level of confidence that active systems having a significant safety role are available when challenged. Westinghouse named these additional controls “investment protection short-term availability controls.” The Commission included this characterization in section III to ensure that these availability controls are binding on applicants and licensees that reference this appendix and will be enforceable by the NRC. The NRC'sevaluation of the availability controls is provided in chapter 22 of the FSER.
The generic DCD (master copy) for this design certification will be accessible electronically in ADAMS and at the OFR. Copies of the generic DCD will also be available at the NRC's PDR. Questions concerning the accuracy of information in an application that references this appendix will be resolved by checking the master copy of the generic DCD in ADAMS. If a generic change (rulemaking) is made to the DCD by the change process provided in section VIII of this appendix, then at the completion of the rulemaking the NRC would request approval of the Director, OFR, for the changed incorporation by reference and change its copies of the generic DCD and notify the OFR and the design certification applicant to change their copies. The Commission would require that the design certification applicant maintain an up-to-date copy under paragraph X.A.1 of this appendix because it is likely that most applicants intending to reference the standard design would obtain the generic DCD from the design certification applicant. Plant-specific changes to and departures from the generic DCD would be maintained by the applicant or licensee that references this appendix in a plant-specific DCD under paragraph X.A.2 of this appendix.
In addition to requiring compliance with this appendix, paragraph B would clarify that the conceptual design information and Westinghouse's evaluation of severe accident mitigation design alternatives are not considered to be part of this appendix. The conceptual design information is for those portions of the plant that are outside the scope of the standard design an