Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants

Part II

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Part 2, et al.

Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications, and Combined

Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants; Proposed Rule

Proposed Rules

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2, 20, 21, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73, 140, and 170

RIN 3150-AG24

Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications, and Combined

Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is

proposing to amend its requirements for early site permits, standard

design certifications, combined licenses for nuclear power plants, and

for other licensing processes. The amendments are based on the NRC

staff's experience with the previous design certification reviews and

on discussions with stakeholders about the early site permit (ESP),

design certification, and combined license (COL) processes. This action

is expected to improve the effectiveness of the licensing processes for

future applicants.

DATES: Submit comments by September 16, 2003. Comments received after

this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the

Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received

on or before this date.

design certification, and combined license (COL) processes. This action

is expected to improve the effectiveness of the licensing processes for

future applicants.

DATES: Submit comments by September 16, 2003. Comments received after

this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the

Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received

on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.

Please include the following number RIN 3150-AG24 in the subject line

of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form

will be made available to the public in their entirety on the NRC

rulemaking Web site. Personal information will not be removed from your

comments.

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

E-mail comments to: [email protected]. 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; email

[email protected].

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone

(301) 415-1966).

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at

s 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; email

[email protected].

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone

(301) 415-1966).

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at

(301) 415-1101.

Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be

examined and copied for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),

Public File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland. 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's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737

or by e-mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry N. Wilson, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-3145, email [email protected]; or Nanette V.

Gilles, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1180, e-mail

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

R INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry N. Wilson, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-3145, email [email protected]; or Nanette V.

Gilles, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1180, e-mail

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background.

II. Reorganization of 10 CFR Part 52.

III. Discussion of Substantive Changes.

A. 10 CFR Part 52, Early Site Permits, Standard Design

Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.

General Provisions.

Early Site Permits.

Early Site Reviews.

Standard Design Certifications.

Design Certification Backfit Requirement.

Standard Design Approvals.

Combined Licenses.

Referencing an Early Site Permit.

Testing Requirements for Advanced Reactors.

Probabilistic Risk Assessments.

Resolution of ITAAC.

Commission Finding on Acceptance Criteria.

Combined License Change Process.

Design Certifications for ABWR, System 80+, and AP600.

B. 10 CFR Part 2, Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing

Proceedings and Issuance of Orders.

C. 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation.

D. 10 CFR Part 21, Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance.

E. 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and

Utilization Facilities.

F. 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for

Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.

G. 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste.

H. 10 CFR Part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.

I. 10 CFR Part 140, Financial Protection Requirements and

Indemnity Agreements.

J. 10 CFR Part 170, Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and

Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as Amended.

IV. Specific Requests for Comments.

V. Availability of Documents.

VI. Plain Language.

VII

. 10 CFR Part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.

I. 10 CFR Part 140, Financial Protection Requirements and

Indemnity Agreements.

J. 10 CFR Part 170, Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and

Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as Amended.

IV. Specific Requests for Comments.

V. Availability of Documents.

VI. Plain Language.

VII. Voluntary Consensus Standards.

VIII.Environmental Impact'Categorical Exclusion.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.

X. Regulatory Analysis.

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification.

XII. Backfit Analysis.

I. Background

The Commission promulgated 10 CFR part 52 on April 18, 1989 (54 FR

15386), to reform the licensing process for future nuclear power plant

applicants. The rule added alternative licensing processes in 10 CFR

part 52 for early site permits, standard design certifications, and

combined licenses. These were additions to the two-step licensing

process that already existed in 10 CFR part 50. The processes in 10 CFR

part 52 resolve safety and environmental issues early in licensing

proceedings and are intended to enhance the safety and reliability of

nuclear power plants through standardization. The rule also moved the

licensing processes in appendices M, N, O, and Q of 10 CFR part 50 to

10 CFR part 52. Subsequently, the NRC certified three nuclear plant

designs under subpart B of 10 CFR part 52--the U.S. Advanced Boiling

Water Reactor (ABWR) (62 FR 25827, May 12, 1997), System 80+ (62 FR

27867, May 21, 1997), and AP600 (64 FR 72015, December 23, 1999)

designs--and codified these designs in Appendices A, B, and C of 10 CFR

part 52, respectively.

The NRC had planned to update 10 CFR part 52 after using the design

certification process for these three certified standard plant designs

--the U.S. Advanced Boiling

Water Reactor (ABWR) (62 FR 25827, May 12, 1997), System 80+ (62 FR

27867, May 21, 1997), and AP600 (64 FR 72015, December 23, 1999)

designs--and codified these designs in Appendices A, B, and C of 10 CFR

part 52, respectively.

The NRC had planned to update 10 CFR part 52 after using the design

certification process for these three certified standard plant designs.

In addition, discussions with stakeholders at public meetings and

comments on SECY-00-0092, ``Combined License Review Process,'' dated

April 20, 2000, identified licensing issues associated with subparts A

and C of 10 CFR part 52. As a result, the NRC initiated this proposed

rulemaking to (1) clarify and/

or correct 10 CFR parts 2, 20, 21, 50, 51, 52 (including appendices A,

B, and C), 72, 73, 140, and 170; (2) update 10 CFR part 52; and (3)

incorporate stakeholder comments.

This rulemaking action began with the issuance of SECY-98-282,

``part 52 Rulemaking Plan,'' on December 4, 1998. The Commission issued

a staff requirements memorandum on January 14, 1999, approving the NRC

staff's plan for revising 10 CFR part 52. A notice of the rulemaking

plan was added to the NRC's rulemaking Web site on June 16, 1999. On

September 3, 1999, letters were sent to 10 external stakeholders

alerting them to this proposed rulemaking. In addition, the NRC staff

held three public meetings with interested stakeholders on the 10 CFR

part 52 rulemaking on December 14, 2000, February 16, 2001, and March

7, 2001. Following those meetings, on April 3, 2001, the Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI) submitted comments on issues discussed during the

meetings.

On September 27, 2001, the NRC staff posted draft rule language for

10 CFR part 52 on the NRC's rulemaking Web site. The NRC received

comments on the draft rule language in November 2001, from General

Electric, Entergy, NEI, Westinghouse Electric, and Exelon Generation

e meetings, on April 3, 2001, the Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI) submitted comments on issues discussed during the

meetings.

On September 27, 2001, the NRC staff posted draft rule language for

10 CFR part 52 on the NRC's rulemaking Web site. The NRC received

comments on the draft rule language in November 2001, from General

Electric, Entergy, NEI, Westinghouse Electric, and Exelon Generation.

The NRC staff has considered these comments in the development of this

proposed rule and posted revised draft rule language for 10 CFR part 52

on the NRC's rulemaking Web site on February 28, 2002.

II. Reorganization of 10 CFR Part 52

The NRC is proposing to reorganize 10 CFR part 52 to establish a

separate subpart for each of the seven licensing processes currently

described in 10 CFR part 52 (early site permits, early site reviews,

standard design certification, standard design approvals, combined

licenses, manufacturing licenses, and duplicate design licenses). The

purpose of this reorganization is to clarify that each licensing

process has equal standing. In addition, several subparts would be

reserved for future licensing processes. No substantive changes are

intended by the incorporation of current appendices M, N, O, and Q into

the new subparts in 10 CFR Part 52.

The NRC is also proposing to retitle 10 CFR part 52 as ``Additional

Licensing Processes for Nuclear Power Plants,'' to clarify that the

licensing processes in 10 CFR part 52 are in addition to and supplement

the two-step licensing process in 10 CFR part 50 and the license

renewal process in 10 CFR part 54, and are not limited to the early

site permit, standard design certification, and combined license

processes as the current title implies.

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 52.1 to clarify that all seven

licensing processes are within the scope of 10 CFR part 52. Paragraphs

within current Appendices M, N, O, and Q would also become new sections

of the revised part

process in 10 CFR part 54, and are not limited to the early

site permit, standard design certification, and combined license

processes as the current title implies.

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 52.1 to clarify that all seven

licensing processes are within the scope of 10 CFR part 52. Paragraphs

within current Appendices M, N, O, and Q would also become new sections

of the revised part. In addition, the proposed rule would reserve

subparts for future licensing processes. In doing so, the NRC hopes to

convey that 10 CFR part 52 is the preferred location in 10 CFR for

nuclear power plant licensing processes.

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 52.19, the current Sec. 52.49

(proposed Sec. 52.111), and the current Sec. 52.83 (proposed Sec.

52.215) to provide a standard format in subparts A, D, and G. This

standard format would set forth the standards for review of

applications and the applicability of NRC requirements in a consistent

manner in each of these subparts. The references to the part 170 fee

requirements would be moved to be included in the sections on filing of

applications. This reorganization of 10 CFR part 52 will make the

subparts on early site permits and standard design certifications

consistent with the existing arrangement in the subpart for combined

licenses.

The proposed rule would also move the requirement on duration of a

combined license that is currently located in Sec. 52.83,

``Applicability of part 50 provisions,'' to paragraph (e) of proposed

Sec. 52.227, ``Issuance of combined licenses.'' Proposed Sec.

52.227(e) is a more appropriate location for this requirement.

The Commission has prepared the following table that cross-

references the new proposed provisions in 10 CFR part 52 to the

superseded provisions of 10 CFR part 52.

is currently located in Sec. 52.83,

``Applicability of part 50 provisions,'' to paragraph (e) of proposed

Sec. 52.227, ``Issuance of combined licenses.'' Proposed Sec.

52.227(e) is a more appropriate location for this requirement.

The Commission has prepared the following table that cross-

references the new proposed provisions in 10 CFR part 52 to the

superseded provisions of 10 CFR part 52.

Table 1.--Cross-References Between New and Old 10 CFR Part 52

------------------------------------------------------------------------

New section Old section

------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Provisions:

52.1.................................... 52.1

52.3.................................... 52.3

52.5.................................... 52.5

52.8.................................... 52.8

None.................................... 52.9

Subpart A--Early Site Permits:

52.11................................... 52.11

52.13................................... 52.13

52.15................................... 52.15

52.17................................... 52.17

52.18................................... 52.18

52.19................................... 52.19

52.21................................... 52.21

52.23................................... 52.23

52.24................................... 52.24

52.25................................... 52.25

52.27................................... 52.27

52.29................................... 52.29

52.31................................... 52.31

52.33................................... 52.33

52.35................................... 52.35

52.37................................... 52.37

52.39................................... 52.39

Subpart B--Early Site Reviews:

52.41................................... App. Q, Introduction

52.43(a)................................ App. Q, Paragraph 1

52.43(b)................................ App. Q, Paragraph 2

52.43(c)................................ App

.................................. 52.35

52.37................................... 52.37

52.39................................... 52.39

Subpart B--Early Site Reviews:

52.41................................... App. Q, Introduction

52.43(a)................................ App. Q, Paragraph 1

52.43(b)................................ App. Q, Paragraph 2

52.43(c)................................ App. Q, Paragraph 1

52.45................................... App. Q, Paragraph 3

52.46................................... N/A

52.47(a)................................ App. Q, Paragraph 4

52.47(b)................................ App. Q, Paragraph 5

52.47(c)................................ App. Q, Paragraph 6

52.49................................... App. Q, Paragraph 7

Subpart D--Standard Design Certification:

52.101.................................. 52.41

52.103.................................. 52.43

52.105.................................. 52.45

52.107.................................. 52.47

52.109.................................. 52.48

52.111.................................. 52.49

52.113.................................. 52.51

52.115.................................. 52.53

52.117.................................. 52.54

52.119.................................. 52.55

52.121.................................. 52.57

52.123.................................. 52.59

52.125.................................. 52.61

52.127.................................. 52.63

Subpart E--Standard Design Approvals:

52.131.................................. App. O, Introduction

52.133(a)............................... App. O, Paragraph 1

52.133(b)............................... App. O, Paragraph 2

52.135.................................. App. O, Paragraph 3

52.137.................................. App. O, Paragraph 4

52.139(a)............................... App. O, Paragraph 5

52.139(b)............................... None

52.141(a)............................... App

2.133(a)............................... App. O, Paragraph 1

52.133(b)............................... App. O, Paragraph 2

52.135.................................. App. O, Paragraph 3

52.137.................................. App. O, Paragraph 4

52.139(a)............................... App. O, Paragraph 5

52.139(b)............................... None

52.141(a)............................... App. O, Paragraph 5

52.141(b)............................... App. O, Paragraph 6

52.143.................................. App. O, Paragraph 7

Subpart G--Combined Licenses:

52.201.................................. 52.71

52.203.................................. 52.73

52.205.................................. 52.75

52.207.................................. 52.77

52.209.................................. 52.78

52.211.................................. 52.79

52.213.................................. 52.81

52.215.................................. 52.83

52.217.................................. 52.85

52.219.................................. 52.87

52.221.................................. 52.89

52.223.................................. 52.91

52.225.................................. 52.93

52.227.................................. 52.97

52.229.................................. 52.99

52.231.................................. 52.103

Subpart H--Manufacturing Licenses:

52.241.................................. App. M, Introduction

....... 52.87

52.221.................................. 52.89

52.223.................................. 52.91

52.225.................................. 52.93

52.227.................................. 52.97

52.229.................................. 52.99

52.231.................................. 52.103

Subpart H--Manufacturing Licenses:

52.241.................................. App. M, Introduction

52.243(a)............................... N/A

52.243(b)............................... App. M, Paragraph 7

52.243(c)............................... App. M, Paragraph 9

52.243(d)............................... App. M, Paragraph 10

52.243(e)............................... App. M, Paragraph 11

52.243(f)............................... App. M, Paragraph 8

52.245(a)............................... App. M, Paragraph 2

52.245(b)............................... App. M, Paragraph 3

52.245(c)............................... App. M, Paragraph 4(b)

52.247.................................. App. M, Paragraph 1

52.249.................................. App. M, Paragraph 4(a)

52.251.................................. N/A

52.253 (a) & (b)........................ App. M, Paragraph 5

52.253(c)............................... App. M, Paragraph 6

52.255.................................. N/A

52.257.................................. App. M, Paragraph 12

Subpart I--Duplicate Design Licenses:

52.261.................................. App. N, Introduction

52.263.................................. App. N, Paragraph 1

52.265.................................. App. N, Paragraph 2

52.265(c)............................... App. N, Paragraph 3

Subpart M--Enforcement:

52.401.................................. 52.111

52.403.................................. 52.113

------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Substantive Changes

..................... App. N, Paragraph 1

52.265.................................. App. N, Paragraph 2

52.265(c)............................... App. N, Paragraph 3

Subpart M--Enforcement:

52.401.................................. 52.111

52.403.................................. 52.113

------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Substantive Changes

A section-by-section analysis that explains the purpose and meaning

of all sections in 10 CFR part 52 will be provided in the supplementary

information for the final rule. The proposed rule makes the following

substantive changes:

A. 10 CFR Part 52, Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications,

and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants

General Provisions

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 52.3 to add definitions for

``modular design'' and ``prototype plant'' to the current 10 CFR part

52. A definition of modular design is added to explain the type of

modular reactor design to which the Commission intended to refer to in

the second sentence of the current Sec. 52.103(g) (proposed Sec.

52.231(g)). This special provision for modular designs was added to 10

CFR part 52 to facilitate the licensing of nuclear plants, such as the

Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR) and Power Reactor

Innovative Small Module (PRISM) designs, that consisted of 3 or 4

nuclear reactors in a single power block with a shared power conversion

system. During the period that the power block is under construction,

the Commission could separately authorize operation for each nuclear

reactor when each reactor and all of its necessary support systems were

completed. In a letter dated November 13, 2001 (comment A), NEI stated

that ``Part 1 of the definition would need to be revised for this

purpose so that it does not describe typical multi-unit sites

the period that the power block is under construction,

the Commission could separately authorize operation for each nuclear

reactor when each reactor and all of its necessary support systems were

completed. In a letter dated November 13, 2001 (comment A), NEI stated

that ``Part 1 of the definition would need to be revised for this

purpose so that it does not describe typical multi-unit sites. The NRC

staff should reconsider the need to define this term at all.'' The

Commission disagrees with NEI's recommendation because the term

``modular design'' needs to be defined to aid future use of the current

Sec. 52.103(g) (proposed Sec. 52.231(g)) by distinguishing the

intended definition from other definitions for ``modular design.''

Currently licensed multi-unit sites would not be affected by the

proposed Sec. 52.231(g). However, future applicants for a combined

license for a multi-unit site similar in concept to current multi-unit

sites (where each unit is similar in design but independent of all

other units) could also use this provision.

A definition for prototype plant is added to explain the type of

nuclear reactor that the Commission intended in the current Sec.

52.47(b) (proposed Sec. 52.107(b)) and intends in the proposed Sec.

52.211(b)(3). A prototype plant is a licensed nuclear reactor test

facility that is similar to and representative of either the first-of-

a-kind or certified nuclear plant design in all features and size, but

may have additional safety features. The purpose of the prototype plant

is to perform testing of new or innovative design features for the

first-of-a-kind or certified, advanced nuclear plant design, as well as

being used as a commercial nuclear power facility.

The proposed rule would remove Sec. Sec. 52.5 and 52.9 and replace

them with a new Sec. 52.5 listing all of the licensing provisions in

10 CFR part 50 that also apply to all of the licensing processes in 10

CFR part 52

testing of new or innovative design features for the

first-of-a-kind or certified, advanced nuclear plant design, as well as

being used as a commercial nuclear power facility.

The proposed rule would remove Sec. Sec. 52.5 and 52.9 and replace

them with a new Sec. 52.5 listing all of the licensing provisions in

10 CFR part 50 that also apply to all of the licensing processes in 10

CFR part 52. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that these 10

CFR part 50 provisions are applicable to the licensing processes that

were formerly in 10 CFR part 50 (Appendices M, N, O, and Q) and are now

in 10 CFR part 52, as well as to the new licensing processes for early

site permits, standard design certifications, and combined licenses.

Although these provisions in 10 CFR part 50 may not refer to the

additional licensing processes in 10 CFR part 52, the new Sec. 52.5

makes it clear that a holder of or applicant for an approval,

certification, permit, site report, or license issued under 10 CFR part

52 must comply with all requirements in these provisions that are

otherwise applicable to applicants or licensees under 10 CFR part 50.

In a letter dated November 13, 2001 (comment G), NEI stated:

The industry proposes that additional General Provisions be

added to part 52 in addition to an appropriate provision on Written

Communications. This approach is preferable to including cross-

references in part 52 to part 50 general provisions because these

provisions typically must be tailored to apply appropriately to the

variety of licensing processes in part 52.

(comment G), NEI stated:

The industry proposes that additional General Provisions be

added to part 52 in addition to an appropriate provision on Written

Communications. This approach is preferable to including cross-

references in part 52 to part 50 general provisions because these

provisions typically must be tailored to apply appropriately to the

variety of licensing processes in part 52.

The Commission disagrees with the industry's proposal to create over 35

new general provisions that are tailored for 10 CFR part 52 because it

would appear to be an inefficient and burdensome addition. Therefore,

the Commission is proposing a new Sec. 52.5 that would make the

existing general provisions in 10 CFR part 50 applicable to the

licensing processes in 10 CFR part 52.

Early Site Permits

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 52.13 to state that an early

site permit can also be referenced in an application for a combined

license or a duplicate design license.

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 52.17(a)(1) to state that the

early site permit application should specify the range of facilities

that the applicant is requesting the site to be qualified for (e.g.

one, two, or three pressurized-water reactors). This new language is

consistent with the language in Paragraph 2 of current Appendix Q. The

Commission assumes that an applicant for an early site permit does not

know what type of nuclear plant it will build at the site. Therefore,

the application must specify the postulated design parameters for the

range of reactor types, the numbers of reactors, etc., to increase the

likelihood that the site will be qualified for the actual plant or

plants that the applicant decides to build. In a letter dated November

13, 2001 (comment 27), NEI stated, ``The proposed change is too

limited. To address the required assessment of major SSCs [structures,

systems, and components] that bear on radiological consequences and all

items 52.17(a)(1)(i-viii), industry recommends a new Sec

hood that the site will be qualified for the actual plant or

plants that the applicant decides to build. In a letter dated November

13, 2001 (comment 27), NEI stated, ``The proposed change is too

limited. To address the required assessment of major SSCs [structures,

systems, and components] that bear on radiological consequences and all

items 52.17(a)(1)(i-viii), industry recommends a new Sec. 52.17a.2.''

The Commission disagrees with NEI's proposal to have a separate

provision for applicants who have not determined the type of plant that

they plan to build at the proposed site. The Commission expects that

applicants for an early site permit will not have decided on a

particular type of nuclear power plant and Sec. 52.17(a)(1) was

revised to address this situation.

The Commission proposes to amend Sec. 52.17(a)(2) to clarify that

an ESP applicant has the flexibility of either addressing the matter of

alternative energy sources in the environmental

report supporting its ESP application, or deferring the consideration

of alternative energy sources to the time that the ESP is referenced in

a licensing proceeding. The Commission believes the current regulations

already afford the ESP applicant such flexibility, inasmuch as Sec.

52.17(a)(2) states that the environmental report submitted in support

of an ESP application must ``focus on the environmental effects of

construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors * * *.'' The

environmental report's discussion of alternative energy sources does

not, per se, address the ``environmental effects of construction and

operation of a reactor,'' which is one of the matters which must be

addressed in an environmental impact statement (EIS). See 10 CFR

51.71(d); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Sec.

102(2)(C) (i), (ii) and (v). Rather, alternative energy sources

constitutes part of the discussion of reasonable alternatives to the

proposed action, which is required by Sec. 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA

peration of a reactor,'' which is one of the matters which must be

addressed in an environmental impact statement (EIS). See 10 CFR

51.71(d); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Sec.

102(2)(C) (i), (ii) and (v). Rather, alternative energy sources

constitutes part of the discussion of reasonable alternatives to the

proposed action, which is required by Sec. 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA. See

10 CFR 51.71(e) n.4; 46 FR 39440 (August 3, 1981) (proposed rule

eliminating consideration of need for power and alternative energy

sources at operating license stage), at 39441 (first column).

Accordingly, it is the Commission's view that Sec. 52.17(a)(2) already

provides the ESP applicant the flexibility of choosing to defer

consideration of alternative energy sources to the time (if ever) that

the ESP is referenced in a combined license or a construction permit

application. The proposed rule clarifies that the ESP applicant may

either include a discussion of alternative energy sources in its

environmental report, or defer consideration of the matter. The

Commission proposes to make a conforming amendment to Sec. Sec. 52.18

and 52.21 to make clear that the NRC's EIS need not address need for

power, or alternative energy sources (and therefore such matters may

not be litigated) if the ESP applicant chooses not to address either or

both of these matters in its environmental report. The Commission notes

that both the environmental report and EIS for an ESP must address the

benefits associated with issuance of the ESP (e.g., early resolution of

siting issues, early resolution of issues on the environmental impacts

of construction and operation of a reactor(s) that fall within the site

parameters, and ability of potential nuclear power plant licensees to

``bank'' sites on which nuclear power plants could be located, without

obtaining a full construction permit or combined license)

d with issuance of the ESP (e.g., early resolution of

siting issues, early resolution of issues on the environmental impacts

of construction and operation of a reactor(s) that fall within the site

parameters, and ability of potential nuclear power plant licensees to

``bank'' sites on which nuclear power plants could be located, without

obtaining a full construction permit or combined license). The benefits

(and impacts) of issuing an ESP must always be addressed in the

environmental report and EIS for an ESP, regardless of whether the ESP

applicant chooses to defer, pursuant to Sec. 52.17(a)(2),

consideration of the benefits associated with the construction and

operation of a nuclear power plant that may be located at the ESP site.

This is because the ``benefits * * * of the proposed action'' for which

the discussion may be deferred under Sec. Sec. 52.17(a)(2) are the

benefits associated with the construction and operation of a nuclear

power plant that may be located at the ESP site; the benefits which may

be deferred under Sec. 52.17(a)(2) are entirely separate from the

benefits of issuing an ESP. To put it another way, the proposed action

of issuing an ESP is not the same as the ``proposed action'' of

constructing and operating a nuclear power plant for which the

discussion of benefits (including need for power) may be deferred under

Sec. 52.17(a)(2)\1\. With this clarification, the Commission does not

believe that further changes to the language of Sec. Sec. 52.17 and

52.18 are necessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

he ``proposed action'' of

constructing and operating a nuclear power plant for which the

discussion of benefits (including need for power) may be deferred under

Sec. 52.17(a)(2)\1\. With this clarification, the Commission does not

believe that further changes to the language of Sec. Sec. 52.17 and

52.18 are necessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The Commission emphasizes that under Sec. 52.17(a)(2), only

the discussion of benefits (including need for power) of

constructing and operating a nuclear power reactor (or reactors),

and the discussion of alternative energy sources, may be deferred.

The ER must always address the ``environmental impacts of

construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors, which have

characteristics which fall within the postulated site parameters.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule would amend Sec. Sec. 52.24 and 52.39 to

clarify: (1) The information that the NRC must include in the early

site permit when it is issued; (2) the matters accorded finality in any

subsequent NRC review and proceeding for an application referencing the

early site permit; and (3) the matters that may be challenged in a

contention to be resolved in an adjudication, versus those matters that

may be raised in a petition to be processed in accord with 10 CFR

2.206. Section 52.21 would be amended to clarify that an application

referencing an early site permit must, in addition to showing that the

design of the facility falls within the site parameters specified in

the early site permit, demonstrate that all terms and conditions of the

early site permit have been satisfied. Section 52.24 would also be

amended to provide that the early site permit must state the site

parameters, as well as the ``terms and conditions,'' of the early site

permit, rather than the ``conditions and limitations'' as is currently

provided. No substantive change in Sec

ified in

the early site permit, demonstrate that all terms and conditions of the

early site permit have been satisfied. Section 52.24 would also be

amended to provide that the early site permit must state the site

parameters, as well as the ``terms and conditions,'' of the early site

permit, rather than the ``conditions and limitations'' as is currently

provided. No substantive change in Sec. 52.24 is intended by the

proposed amendment; the change is proposed to provide consistency with

Sec. 52.39(a)(2) and paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of the current rule, which

also refer to ``site parameters'' and ``terms and conditions.''

The proposed rule would add Sec. 52.28 to state that transfer of

an early site permit from its existing holder to a new applicant will

be processed under 10 CFR 50.80, which contains provisions for transfer

of licenses. In a letter dated November 13, 2001 (comment 19), NEI

recommended that a new section be added to part 52 to clarify the

process for transfer of an early site permit. The Commission has

determined that a new section is not necessary because an early site

permit is a partial construction permit and, therefore, is considered

to be a license under the AEA. The Commission believes that the

procedures and criteria for transfer of utilization facility licenses

in 10 CFR 50.80 (and the procedures in subpart M of 10 CFR part 2 for

the conduct of any hearing) should apply to the transfer of an early

site permit.

Section 52.39(a) would be amended to uniformly refer to ``terms or

conditions'' of an early site permit. Section 52.39(a)(1) would also be

amended to remove the term, ``requirements,'' and clarify that the

Commission may not change or impose new site characteristics, terms, or

conditions on the early site permit, including emergency planning

requirements, unless the special backfitting criteria in Sec.

52.39(a)(1) are satisfied

uniformly refer to ``terms or

conditions'' of an early site permit. Section 52.39(a)(1) would also be

amended to remove the term, ``requirements,'' and clarify that the

Commission may not change or impose new site characteristics, terms, or

conditions on the early site permit, including emergency planning

requirements, unless the special backfitting criteria in Sec.

52.39(a)(1) are satisfied. No substantive change is intended by this

clarification; the Commission believes that ``site characteristics,

terms, or conditions'' of an early site permit more accurately describe

the existing scope of matters subject to the special backfitting

criteria in Sec. 52.39(a)(1).

Early Site Reviews

The proposed rule would amend certain paragraphs of the current

Appendix Q to 10 CFR part 52 (proposed Sec. Sec. 52.41, 52.43, and

52.47) to clarify that an early site review can also be used in an

application for a combined license or a duplicate design license.

Standard Design Certifications

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. Sec. 52.41 and

52.45 (proposed Sec. 52.101 and Sec. 52.105) to clarify that a

certified design may be referenced in an application for a duplicate

design license, as well as a combined license application, filed under

part 52.

The proposed rule would remove the requirements currently located

in Sec. Sec. 52.43(c), 52.45(c), and 52.47(b)(2)(ii) because the

Commission has decided not to require a final design approval (FDA) as

a prerequisite for certification

fy that a

certified design may be referenced in an application for a duplicate

design license, as well as a combined license application, filed under

part 52.

The proposed rule would remove the requirements currently located

in Sec. Sec. 52.43(c), 52.45(c), and 52.47(b)(2)(ii) because the

Commission has decided not to require a final design approval (FDA) as

a prerequisite for certification

of a standard plant design under the new subpart D of 10 CFR part 52.

This requirement was included in 10 CFR part 52 because, at the time of

the original rulemaking, the NRC had no experience with design

certification applications. By requiring an FDA as a prerequisite for

certification, the NRC indicated that the licensing processes for

design certifications and FDAs were similar, even though the

requirements for and finality of design certifications differ from that

of FDAs. The NRC has considerable experience with design certification

applications and the requirement to apply for an FDA as part of an

application for design certification is no longer needed.

In a letter dated April 3, 2001 (comment 2), NEI commented

``Industry prefers to retain modified provisions. We agree that an FDA

should be an option but not a prerequisite. Also, deletion recommended

for 52.47(b)(2)(ii).'' The Commission has decided not to retain these

provisions. The proposed processes in subparts D and E allow future

applicants for design certification the option to apply for an FDA for

the same design information.

The proposed rule would also amend the current Sec. 52.45(d)

(proposed Sec. 52.105(c)) to correct the reference to the filing

requirements in Sec. 50.30(a) and delete the reference to Sec. 50.4.

The applicability of the requirements in Sec. 50.4 is set forth in the

new Sec. 52.5. No substantive change in the filing requirements is

intended by this correction.

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.47 (proposed

Sec

the current Sec. 52.45(d)

(proposed Sec. 52.105(c)) to correct the reference to the filing

requirements in Sec. 50.30(a) and delete the reference to Sec. 50.4.

The applicability of the requirements in Sec. 50.4 is set forth in the

new Sec. 52.5. No substantive change in the filing requirements is

intended by this correction.

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.47 (proposed

Sec. 52.107) to conform the statement of the requirements for

acceptable inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria

(ITAAC) in Sec. 52.107 with the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the

requirements in the current Sec. 52.97(b) [proposed Sec. 52.227(b)].

This clarification of the previous regulatory text, which condensed the

language in Sec. 52.79(c) and Sec. 52.97(b), is intended to avoid any

future misunderstandings.

Design Certification Backfit Requirement

The proposed rule would amend the special backfit requirement in

the current Sec. 52.63(a)(1) (proposed Sec. 52.127(a)(1)) to provide

the Commission with the ability to make changes to the design

certification rules or the certification information in the generic

design control documents that reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens.

Section 52.63(a)(1) currently states that the Commission may not

modify, rescind, or impose new requirements on the certification unless

the change is: (1) Necessary for compliance with Commission regulations

applicable and in effect at the time the certification was issued, or

r the certification information in the generic

design control documents that reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens.

Section 52.63(a)(1) currently states that the Commission may not

modify, rescind, or impose new requirements on the certification unless

the change is: (1) Necessary for compliance with Commission regulations

applicable and in effect at the time the certification was issued, or

(2) necessary to provide adequate protection of the public health and

safety or common defense and security. The regulation does not appear,

on its face, to permit changes to the certification which reduce

unnecessary regulatory burdens, in circumstances where the change

continues to maintain protection to public health and safety and common

defense and security. An example of a change which may not be able to

be made under the current Sec. 52.63(a)(1) is a proposed change to the

three design certification rules in Appendices A, B and C of 10 CFR

part 52, to incorporate into the Tier 2 change process the revised

change criteria in 10 CFR 50.59. Section 50.59 was revised in 1999 to

provide new criteria for, inter alia, making changes to a facility, as

described in the final safety analysis report, without prior NRC

approval, in order to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden (64 FR

53582, October 4, 1999).

To allow the Commission to modify the design certification rules in

10 CFR part 52 to incorporate the revised Sec. 50.59 change criteria,

and to allow the Commission to make future changes to reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden, the Commission is proposing to amend

Sec. 52.127(a)(1) to include a new provision that explicitly allows

the Commission to change the design certification rules or

certification information if the change provides a reduction in

regulatory burden and maintains protection to public health and safety

and common defense and security

to make future changes to reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden, the Commission is proposing to amend

Sec. 52.127(a)(1) to include a new provision that explicitly allows

the Commission to change the design certification rules or

certification information if the change provides a reduction in

regulatory burden and maintains protection to public health and safety

and common defense and security. Maintaining protection generally

embodies the same safety principles used by the NRC in applying risk-

informed decision making, e.g., ensuring that adequate protection is

provided, applicable regulations are met, sufficient safety margins are

maintained, defense-in-depth is maintained, and that any changes in

risk are small and consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy

Statement (refer to NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.174). Changes to the

design certification rules must be accomplished through rulemaking,

with opportunity for public comment. Once a design certification rule

is changed through rulemaking, under proposed Sec. 52.127(a)(2) the

provisions would apply to all future applications referencing the

design certification rule as well as all current plans referencing the

design certification, unless the change has been rendered ``technically

irrelevant'' through other action taken under paragraphs (a)(3) or

(b)(1) of Sec. 52.127. Thus, standardization is maintained by ensuring

that any changes to a design certification rule intended to reduce

regulatory burden are imposed upon all nuclear power plants referencing

the design certification rule.

In a letter dated November 13, 2001, NEI stated:

hange has been rendered ``technically

irrelevant'' through other action taken under paragraphs (a)(3) or

(b)(1) of Sec. 52.127. Thus, standardization is maintained by ensuring

that any changes to a design certification rule intended to reduce

regulatory burden are imposed upon all nuclear power plants referencing

the design certification rule.

In a letter dated November 13, 2001, NEI stated:

Furthermore, we do not think it is necessary to modify 10 CFR

52.63(a)(1) in order to make conforming, administrative or similar

changes to the DCRs, such as those needed to conform the DCRs to the

revised 10 CFR 50.59. Nor do we think the Commission intended the

DCR backfit provisions to inhibit these types of changes. Rather, we

believe 10 CFR 52.63(a)(1) is intended to apply to changes in the

standard design approved via the DCR. We recommend the Commission

clarify this intent and provide guidance to the NRC staff allowing

certain changes to the DCRs (such as those needed to conform to the

revised 10 CFR 50.59) within the existing DCR backfit provisions.

The Commission received similar comments from General Electric Company,

Entergy, and Exelon in November 2001. The Commission disagrees with

these comments and has concluded that it is necessary to amend Sec.

52.63(a)(1) to allow changes to the design certification rules that

reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, or do not constitute a backfit.

The current Sec. 52.63(a)(1) (proposed Sec. 52.127(a)(1)) was

also modified to replace ``a modification'' with ``the change,'' in

order to clarify that the three criteria for changes apply to

modifications, rescissions or imposition of new requirements. Also, the

Commission is clarifying the proposed Sec

ication rules that

reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, or do not constitute a backfit.

The current Sec. 52.63(a)(1) (proposed Sec. 52.127(a)(1)) was

also modified to replace ``a modification'' with ``the change,'' in

order to clarify that the three criteria for changes apply to

modifications, rescissions or imposition of new requirements. Also, the

Commission is clarifying the proposed Sec. 52.127 to be consistent

with its original intent (refer to 54 FR 15372; April 18, 1989) that

the special backfit requirements apply to the certification information

in the generic design control documents, not to the provisions in the

design certification rules, e.g., Section VI.E of Appendix A to 10 CFR

part 52. Any proposed changes to these provisions that set forth how

the design certification rules are to be used are controlled by the

normal backfit requirements in 10 CFR 50.109.

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.63(a)(2)

(proposed Sec. 52.127(a)(2)) to delete the reference to Sec.

52.63(a)(4) (proposed Sec. 52.127(a)(4)). The reference to Sec.

52.63(a)(4) was in error because this paragraph discusses the finality

of the findings required for issuance of a combined license or

operating license, whereas Sec. 52.63(a)(2) deals with modifications

that the NRC may impose on a design certification rule under Sec.

52.63(a)(3) or Sec. 52.63(b)(1)

(proposed Sec. 52.127(a)(3) or Sec. 52.127(b)(1)). No substantive

change is intended by the amendment which merely clarifies the original

intent of the rule.

Standard Design Approvals

The proposed rule would amend the current Section 3 of Appendix O

to 10 CFR part 52 (proposed Sec. 52.135) to clarify that applications

for standard design approvals should contain all of the applicable

technical information required by Sec. 50.34

2.127(b)(1)). No substantive

change is intended by the amendment which merely clarifies the original

intent of the rule.

Standard Design Approvals

The proposed rule would amend the current Section 3 of Appendix O

to 10 CFR part 52 (proposed Sec. 52.135) to clarify that applications

for standard design approvals should contain all of the applicable

technical information required by Sec. 50.34. The amendment would also

require applications for standard design approvals to provide the same

technical information required for applications for standard design

certifications (e.g., demonstration of compliance with any technically

relevant Three Mile Island requirements, proposed technical resolutions

of unresolved safety issues and medium- and high-priority generic

safety issues, and a design-specific probabilistic risk assessment

(PRA)). This clarification is consistent with past practice regarding

applications for future designs and would implement the Commission's

Policy Statements on Severe Reactor Accidents (50 FR 32138, August 8,

1985) and Nuclear Power Plant Standardization (52 FR 34884, September

15, 1987). This amendment would not require applicants to provide

proposed ITAAC because standard design approvals are referenced in

applications for construction permits and operating licenses under 10

CFR part 50, and the verification process used for 10 CFR Part 50

applications does not use ITAAC.

The proposed rule would amend the current Appendix O to 10 CFR Part

52 (proposed Sec. 52.139) to specify that the duration of a standard

design approval is for 15 years. In a letter dated November 13, 2001

(comment 18.a), NEI commented:

Industry recommends FDAs be valid for 15 years. This is

consistent with Commission direction in COMSECY-94-025 to update the

lead plant FDA to provide a 15 year duration instead of the five

years initially provided. The ABWR and System 80+ FDAs were so

revised in 1994; the designs were certified in 1997.

val is for 15 years. In a letter dated November 13, 2001

(comment 18.a), NEI commented:

Industry recommends FDAs be valid for 15 years. This is

consistent with Commission direction in COMSECY-94-025 to update the

lead plant FDA to provide a 15 year duration instead of the five

years initially provided. The ABWR and System 80+ FDAs were so

revised in 1994; the designs were certified in 1997.

The Commission agrees with industry's recommendation. The final design

approvals (FDAs) for the three certified designs were originally issued

for a five year duration, in accordance with the Commission's Policy

Statement on Standardization of Nuclear Power Plants (43 FR 38954,

August 31, 1978). Only after design certifications were issued for the

ABWR and the System 80+ designs did the Commission direct, for

consistency, that the FDAs be revised to provide the same term as for

the design certification. These actions did not change the Commission's

policy for FDAs issued by themselves. The Commission has now decided

that the duration of standard design approvals should correspond to the

duration of design certifications. The Commission has not identified

any compelling technical or policy considerations that would lead the

Commission to maintain a shorter effective time period for an FDA as

compared to a design certification.

Combined Licenses

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.73 (proposed

Sec. 52.203(a)) to clarify that a site report issued under proposed

subpart B of 10 CFR part 52 may also be referenced in an application

for a combined license application filed under 10 CFR part 52. This

amendment would also add the requirements in the current Sec. 52.63(c)

(proposed Sec. 52.127(c)) to the new Sec. 52.203(b) to clarify that

this requirement applies to applicants for a combined license

3(a)) to clarify that a site report issued under proposed

subpart B of 10 CFR part 52 may also be referenced in an application

for a combined license application filed under 10 CFR part 52. This

amendment would also add the requirements in the current Sec. 52.63(c)

(proposed Sec. 52.127(c)) to the new Sec. 52.203(b) to clarify that

this requirement applies to applicants for a combined license. This

provision requires that, prior to granting a combined license which

references a standard design certification, information normally

contained in certain procurement specifications and construction and

installation specifications be completed and available for audit if

such information is necessary for the Commission to make its safety

determinations, including the determination that the application is

consistent with the certified design. No substantive change is intended

by the restatement of this requirement. In a letter dated April 3, 2001

(comments 3 and 3.a), NEI agreed with the proposed change but

recommended that the last sentence of Sec. 52.63(c) be deleted and the

remaining provision be added to the current Sec. 52.79 rather than the

current Sec. 52.73. The Commission agrees with NEI that 10 CFR part 52

should be modified to clarify that the requirement in current Sec.

52.63(c) applies to applicants for a combined license, and that the

last sentence be deleted. However, the Commission is adding the

remaining provision to what was Sec. 52.73(b) (proposed Sec.

52.203(b)) and not to Sec. 52.79 (proposed Sec. 52.211) as

recommended by NEI.

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.78 (proposed

Sec. 52.209) to clarify the requirements applicable to an applicant

for, and holder of, a combined license with respect to the training

program required by 10 CFR 50.120. As currently written, Sec. 52.78

simply indicates that the application must demonstrate compliance with

the training program requirements in Sec. 50.120

by NEI.

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.78 (proposed

Sec. 52.209) to clarify the requirements applicable to an applicant

for, and holder of, a combined license with respect to the training

program required by 10 CFR 50.120. As currently written, Sec. 52.78

simply indicates that the application must demonstrate compliance with

the training program requirements in Sec. 50.120. There is no explicit

requirement with respect to the applicant/licensee to implement the

training program. Furthermore, proposed Sec. 52.215(b) indicates that,

after a combined license is issued but before the Commission has

authorized operation under Sec. 52.231, the combined license holder

shall comply with all requirements in Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations applicable to holders of construction permits for nuclear

power reactors. However, Sec. 50.120 refers to a ``nuclear power plant

applicant;'' therefore, Sec. 50.120 would not apply to a combined

license holder even under the language of proposed Sec. 52.215(b).

To remove any ambiguity in this matter, the Commission is proposing

to revise in its entirety the language in current Sec. 52.78, which is

being re-designated as Sec. 52.209. The proposed rule provides that

the application must ``describe'' the training program required by

Sec. 50.120. In addition, the proposed rule states that the training

program described in the application must be ``established,

implemented, and maintained'' no later than eighteen (18) months prior

to the scheduled date for initial loading of fuel, as provided for in

Sec. 52.231(a). By ``established [and] implemented'', the Commission

intends to distinguish between the requirement to merely ``describe''

the training program in the application, versus the requirement for the

combined license holder to establish (e.g., establish a training

organization, fill staff positions, write procedures, etc.) and

implement (i.e., perform training of applicable operating plant

personnel in accordance with Sec

lemented'', the Commission

intends to distinguish between the requirement to merely ``describe''

the training program in the application, versus the requirement for the

combined license holder to establish (e.g., establish a training

organization, fill staff positions, write procedures, etc.) and

implement (i.e., perform training of applicable operating plant

personnel in accordance with Sec. 50.120) the training program. The

proposed rule also clarifies that the eighteen (18) month period by

which the training program must be established and implemented is

measured from the combined licensee's scheduled date for fuel load

under proposed Sec. 52.231(a) (current Sec. 52.103(a)).

Referencing an Early Site Permit

The proposed rule would amend current Sec. Sec. 52.39 and 52.79

(proposed Sec. 52.211) to require a license applicant referencing an

early site permit to update and correct the emergency preparedness

information provided under Sec. 52.17(b). The issue of updating an

early site permit was first raised by the Illinois Department of

Nuclear Safety, who suggested in a September 28, 1994 letter that

emergency plans and/or offsite certifications approved as part of an

early site permit review be kept up-to-date throughout the duration of

an early site permit and the

construction phase of a combined license. In SECY-95-090, ``Emergency

Planning Under 10 CFR part 52,'' (April 11, 1995), the NRC staff stated

that 10 CFR part 52 does not clearly require an applicant referencing

an early site permit to submit updated information on changes in

emergency preparedness information and any emergency plans that were

approved as part of the early site permit in accordance with Sec.

52.18. SECY-95-090 indicated (p. 4) that, in view of the lack of

industry interest in pursuing an early site permit, resolution of this

matter may be deferred until a ``lessons learned'' rulemaking updating

10 CFR part 52 is conducted after the first design certification

rulemakings are issued

and any emergency plans that were

approved as part of the early site permit in accordance with Sec.

52.18. SECY-95-090 indicated (p. 4) that, in view of the lack of

industry interest in pursuing an early site permit, resolution of this

matter may be deferred until a ``lessons learned'' rulemaking updating

10 CFR part 52 is conducted after the first design certification

rulemakings are issued. Following public release of a draft SECY paper

setting forth the NRC staff's preliminary views on the licensing

process for a combined license, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

submitted a letter dated September 8, 1998 (comment 2.d), expressing

NEI's opposition to a requirement for updating emergency preparedness

information throughout the duration of an early site permit absent an

application referencing the early site permit. As an alternative to

updating throughout the duration of an early site permit, NEI proposed

that emergency planning information be updated when an application for

a license referencing the early site permit is filed; portions of the

emergency plans that are unchanged would continue to have finality

under 10 CFR 52.39. Thereafter, in a September 3, 1999 letter, the NRC

staff identified updating of emergency preparedness information in

early site permits as a possible subject for the part 52 rulemaking.

The Commission agrees with the Illinois Department of Nuclear

Safety that the emergency preparedness information approved when the

early site permit was issued must be updated if there is new

information which may materially affect the Commission's earlier

determination on emergency preparedness, or if the new information is

needed to correct inaccuracies in the emergency preparedness

information approved in the early site permit

Department of Nuclear

Safety that the emergency preparedness information approved when the

early site permit was issued must be updated if there is new

information which may materially affect the Commission's earlier

determination on emergency preparedness, or if the new information is

needed to correct inaccuracies in the emergency preparedness

information approved in the early site permit. In the absence of such

an updating requirement, the NRC would bear the responsibility of

identifying whether there is new information on emergency preparedness

that necessitates a re-examination of the Commission's earlier

emergency preparedness determinations for the early site permit, and

the early site permit holder or applicant referencing the early site

permit would be under no obligation to correct inaccurate emergency

preparedness information in the early site permit or approved emergency

plan. However, the Commission also agrees with NEI that a

``continuous'' early site permit update requirement would impose

burdens upon the early site permit holder without any commensurate

benefit if the early site permit is not subsequently referenced.

Accordingly, the Commission has decided that Sec. 52.39 and current

Sec. 52.79 (proposed Sec. 52.211) should contain an updating

requirement to be imposed upon the applicant referencing an early site

permit.

The proposed rule redesignates paragraph (b) of current Sec. 52.39

as paragraph (c), and adds a new paragraph (b) requiring an applicant

for a construction permit, operating license, duplicate design license,

or combined license whose application references an early site permit

to update and correct the emergency preparedness information provided

under Sec. 52.17(b), and to discuss whether the new information may

materially change the bases for compliance with the applicable NRC

requirements. A parallel requirement is included in proposed Sec

on permit, operating license, duplicate design license,

or combined license whose application references an early site permit

to update and correct the emergency preparedness information provided

under Sec. 52.17(b), and to discuss whether the new information may

materially change the bases for compliance with the applicable NRC

requirements. A parallel requirement is included in proposed Sec.

52.211(d)(1) to ensure that applicants for combined licenses

referencing an early site permit will submit the updated emergency

preparedness information. New information which materially changes the

bases for compliance includes: (1) Information which substantially

alters the bases for a previous NRC conclusion with respect to the

acceptability of a material aspect of emergency preparedness or an

emergency preparedness plan, as well as (2) information which would

constitute a sufficient basis for the Commission to modify or impose

new terms and conditions related to emergency preparedness in

accordance with Sec. 52.39(a)(1). New information which materially

changes the Commission's determination of the matters in Sec.

52.17(b), or results in modifications of existing terms and conditions

under Sec. 52.39(a)(1) would be subject to litigation during the

construction permit, operating license, duplicate design license, or

combined license proceedings in accordance with Sec. 52.39(a)(2)(ii).

Not all new information on emergency preparedness would be subject

to challenge in a hearing under Sec. 52.39(a)(2)(ii). For example, an

emergency plan may have to be updated to reflect current telephone

numbers, the names of governmental officials whose positions and

responsibilities are defined in the plan (e.g., the name of the current

police chief for a municipality), or the current name of a hospital

facility. Such corrections do not materially change the NRC's

previously-stated bases for accepting the early site permit emergency

plan; therefore, a hearing contention would not be admitted under Sec

e names of governmental officials whose positions and

responsibilities are defined in the plan (e.g., the name of the current

police chief for a municipality), or the current name of a hospital

facility. Such corrections do not materially change the NRC's

previously-stated bases for accepting the early site permit emergency

plan; therefore, a hearing contention would not be admitted under Sec.

52.39(a)(2)(ii) (or any other provision of Sec. 52.39) in a proceeding

for a license referencing the early site permit. By contrast, if an

emergency plan submitted as part of an early site permit relies upon a

bridge to provide the primary path of evacuation, and that bridge no

longer exists, the change could materially affect the NRC's previous

determination that the emergency plan complied with the Commission's

emergency preparedness regulations in effect at the time of the

issuance of the early site permit. Thus, such information may be the

basis for a change in the early site permit's terms and conditions

related to emergency preparedness under Sec. 52.39(a)(1), as well as

the basis for a hearing contention under Sec. 52.39(a)(2)(ii)--

assuming that the requirements in 10 CFR part 2 for admission of a

contention are met.

An updating requirement for early site permit information other

than emergency preparedness information does not appear to be

necessary, inasmuch as it is unlikely that there would be changes to

the information previously submitted on the site, such that a

significant change to the site characteristics, terms, and conditions

would be necessary if requested under the provisions of Sec.

52.39(a)(2). If the site does not conform to the characteristics of the

early site permit, an interested person may submit a petition under

Sec. 52.39(a)(2)(ii) alleging that the site does not conform to the

early site permit. Accordingly, the proposed rule does not include an

updating requirement for other early site permit information.

The proposed rule would amend Sec

e provisions of Sec.

52.39(a)(2). If the site does not conform to the characteristics of the

early site permit, an interested person may submit a petition under

Sec. 52.39(a)(2)(ii) alleging that the site does not conform to the

early site permit. Accordingly, the proposed rule does not include an

updating requirement for other early site permit information.

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 52.79(a)(1) (proposed Sec.

52.211(a)(1)), which currently requires a combined license application

referencing an early site permit to contain information demonstrating

that the design of the facility falls within the parameters specified

in the early site permit, and information needed to resolve any other

significant environmental issue not considered in the proceeding on the

referenced early site permit. Currently, Sec. 52.79(a)(1) requires a

combined license application referencing an early site permit to

contain information demonstrating that the design of the facility falls

within the site parameters specified in the early site permit. However,

Sec. 52.79(a) does not explicitly require the application to address

whether the terms and conditions specified in the early site permit

under

Sec. 52.24 have been met by the combined license holder, although this

is implicit by the inclusion of any terms and conditions in the early

site permit. To remove any ambiguity in this matter, the Commission is

proposing to include a proposed Sec. 52.211(a)(1)(iii) by requiring

the application to address whether the terms and conditions specified

in the early site permit under Sec. 52.24 have been met (the

Commission also proposes to rearrange paragraph (a)(1) by dividing the

criteria to be met by an application referencing an early site permit

into separate subdivisions (i), (ii), and (iii)). The Commission's

intent, as reflected in the words, ``have been met,'' is that all terms

and conditions will be met prior to issuance of the combined license

ite permit under Sec. 52.24 have been met (the

Commission also proposes to rearrange paragraph (a)(1) by dividing the

criteria to be met by an application referencing an early site permit

into separate subdivisions (i), (ii), and (iii)). The Commission's

intent, as reflected in the words, ``have been met,'' is that all terms

and conditions will be met prior to issuance of the combined license.

Testing Requirements for Advanced Reactors

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.79(b) (proposed

Sec. 52.211(b)) to revise the requirements for combined license

applications that do not reference a design certification rule by

adding the current Sec. 52.47(b)(2) (proposed Sec. 52.107(b)(2)) to

the list of requirements in the proposed Sec. 52.211(b)(1) that a

combined license applicant must comply with. This amendment will

provide consistency between the current advanced reactor testing

requirements in subpart B of part 52 (Sec. 52.47(b)(2)) and the

proposed testing requirements in the proposed subpart G of part 52

(Sec. 52.211(b)). This amendment will require a combined license

applicant that references a custom advanced reactor design to also

perform the design qualification testing required by the current Sec.

52.47(b)(2) for design certification applicants. If a combined license

application references a certified advanced reactor design, the

qualification testing required by Sec. 52.47(b)(2) will have been

performed. The amendment also requires (proposed Sec. 52.211(b)(3))

that if a licensed prototype plant (see definition in proposed Sec.

52.3) is used to meet the qualification testing requirements in the

current Sec. 52.47(b)(2), additional requirements on siting, safety

features, or operational conditions may be required for licensing, in

order to compensate for uncertainties associated with the performance

of new or innovative safety features in the prototype plant.

The codification of testing requirements in the current Sec

2.3) is used to meet the qualification testing requirements in the

current Sec. 52.47(b)(2), additional requirements on siting, safety

features, or operational conditions may be required for licensing, in

order to compensate for uncertainties associated with the performance

of new or innovative safety features in the prototype plant.

The codification of testing requirements in the current Sec.

52.47(b)(2) was a principal issue in the development of 10 CFR part 52

(see Section II of 54 FR 15372; April 18, 1989). The testing

requirements in Sec. 52.47(b)(2), to demonstrate the performance of

safety features for nuclear power plants that differ significantly from

evolutionary light-water reactors or utilize simplified, inherent,

passive, or other innovative means to accomplish their safety functions

(advanced reactors), were included in 10 CFR part 52 to ensure that

these safety features will perform as predicted in the applicant's

safety analysis report, that the effects of systems interactions are

acceptable, and to provide sufficient data to validate analytical

codes. The design qualification testing requirements may be met with

either separate effects or integral system tests; prototype tests; or a

combination of tests, analyses, and operating experience. These

requirements implement the Commission's policy on proof-of-performance

testing for all advanced reactors (see 51 FR 24643; July 8, 1986) and

the Commission's goal of resolving all design issues before authorizing

construction.

During the development of 10 CFR part 52, the focus of the nuclear

industry and the NRC staff was on applications for design

certification. That is why the testing requirements to qualify new or

innovative safety features was only included in subpart B of 10 CFR

part 52, ``Standard Design Certifications.'' The tests to qualify a

design feature are different than verification tests, which are

required by Sec

opment of 10 CFR part 52, the focus of the nuclear

industry and the NRC staff was on applications for design

certification. That is why the testing requirements to qualify new or

innovative safety features was only included in subpart B of 10 CFR

part 52, ``Standard Design Certifications.'' The tests to qualify a

design feature are different than verification tests, which are

required by Sec. 52.79(c) and performed in accordance with section XI,

``Test Control,'' of Appendix B to 10 CFR part 50. Verification tests

are used to provide assurance that construction and installation of

equipment (as-built) in the facility has been accomplished in

accordance with the approved design.

Exelon Generation and NEI commented on the addition of testing

requirements for combined license applications, in letters dated

November 13, 2001. NEI stated:

COL application requirements in Sec. 52.79(b)(1) have been

modified to include a reference to the design certification

application requirements of Sec. 52.47(b)(2)(i). Under this

proposal, an applicant seeking a COL for a non-certified design that

differs significantly from typical light water reactors would have

to demonstrate safety feature performance through either (A)

analysis, testing, or experience, or (B) full-scale prototype

testing. This requirement is entirely appropriate for design

certification applicants. However, as discussed below, we believe it

is unnecessary to apply these requirements to COL applicants, and

that the potential requirement for full-scale prototype testing is

particularly inappropriate.

First, part 52 should not be modified to open the door to

requiring a COL applicant, who does not reference a certified

design, to build and complete testing of a full-scale prototype

before the granting of the license. The potential to require

prototype testing to support issuance of a COL is contrary to

Commission guidance in the part 52 Statements of Consideration

ticularly inappropriate.

First, part 52 should not be modified to open the door to

requiring a COL applicant, who does not reference a certified

design, to build and complete testing of a full-scale prototype

before the granting of the license. The potential to require

prototype testing to support issuance of a COL is contrary to

Commission guidance in the part 52 Statements of Consideration. The

Commission clearly recognized ``licensing the prototype for

commercial operation'' as a path open to applicants under subpart C

of part 52 that could lessen the burden of having to demonstrate

innovative designs through full scale prototype testing. We agree

with the further statement by the Commission that, ``[i]t is well to

remember also that, under the rule, prototype testing is required

only for certification or an unconditional design approval, if at

all.'' * * * In sum, through its existing requirements and

regulatory authority, the NRC is assured of (1) Adequate information

to support required COL reviews and safety determinations, and (2)

satisfactory demonstration of innovative design features during

startup and power ascension testing. The proposed new COL

application requirements are unnecessary and should not be carried

forward into the part 52 NOPR (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).

The Commission disagrees with NEI and Exelon regarding the need to

perform qualification testing for new or innovative safety features in

all advanced reactor designs. The Commission reformed the licensing

process for new nuclear plants with the issuance of 10 CFR part 52 in

1989 and required applicants to demonstrate that safety features will

perform as predicted in their final safety analysis report. Although

the focus of the NRC staff in 1989 was on applications for design

certification, the Commission intended that testing to qualify design

features (proof-of-performance testing) would be required for all

advanced reactors, including custom designs (see Question 6 at 51 FR

24646; July 8, 1986)

nstrate that safety features will

perform as predicted in their final safety analysis report. Although

the focus of the NRC staff in 1989 was on applications for design

certification, the Commission intended that testing to qualify design

features (proof-of-performance testing) would be required for all

advanced reactors, including custom designs (see Question 6 at 51 FR

24646; July 8, 1986). Furthermore, it would make no sense for the

Commission to require testing for design certification (paper designs)

and not require testing for applications to build and operate an actual

advanced nuclear reactor.

Although the Commission has stated that it favors the use of

prototypical demonstration facilities and that prototype testing is

likely to be required for certification of advanced non-light-water

designs (see policy at 51 FR 24646; July 8, 1986 and Section II of 54

FR 15372 on 10 CFR part 52; April 18, 1989), the proposed rule does not

mandate the use of a prototype plant. Rather, the proposed rule

provides that if a prototype plant is used to qualify an advanced

reactor design, then additional requirements may be required for

licensing of the prototype to compensate for any uncertainties with the

unproven safety features. Also, the prototype plant could be used for

commercial operation. Therefore, the Commission proposes to amend Sec.

52.79(b) (proposed Sec. 52.211(b)) to implement its original intent in

adopting 10 CFR Part 52 and its policy on advanced reactors that it is

necessary to demonstrate the performance of new or innovative safety

features through design qualification testing for all advanced nuclear

reactors.

Probabilistic Risk Assessments

The proposed rule would also amend the current Sec. 52.79(b)

(proposed Sec. 52.211(b)) to adopt a requirement to submit a plant-

specific PRA as part of an application for a combined license. The

current Sec. 52.79(b) references Sec. 52.47(a)(1)(v), which requires

a design-specific PRA within a design certification application

for all advanced nuclear

reactors.

Probabilistic Risk Assessments

The proposed rule would also amend the current Sec. 52.79(b)

(proposed Sec. 52.211(b)) to adopt a requirement to submit a plant-

specific PRA as part of an application for a combined license. The

current Sec. 52.79(b) references Sec. 52.47(a)(1)(v), which requires

a design-specific PRA within a design certification application. This

amendment (Sec. 52.211(b)(2)) would require an application for a

combined license to contain a plant-specific PRA that covers all of the

nuclear plant design, including site-specific design features (e.g.,

the ultimate heat sink). If the combined license application referenced

a certified design, this amendment (Sec. 52.211(b)(5)) would require

the design-specific PRA to be updated to include site-specific design

features and to account for any design changes. In a letter dated April

3, 2001 (comment 11.1a), NEI stated ``we agree on the NRC vision for a

plant-specific PRA at COL that supplements the DC PRA with any changes

that affect the DC PRA plus site-specific (interface) design

information.''

The purpose of the requirement for a plant-specific PRA is to

identify and address potential design and operational vulnerabilities,

gain insights about the risk of the design, assess the balance between

preventive and mitigative features in the design, to determine

quantitatively whether the design represents a reduction in risk over

current operating plants, and to determine how the risk associated with

the new design relates to the Commission's safety goals. Accordingly,

the Commission proposes to amend Sec. 52.211(b) to require an

application for a combined license to contain a plant-specific PRA.

Resolution of ITAAC

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.79(c) (proposed

Sec. 52.211(c)), current Sec. 52.97(a) (proposed Sec. 52.227(a)),

current Sec. 52.99 (proposed Sec. 52.229(e)), and current Sec. Sec.

52.103(a) and (g) (proposed Sec. Sec

dingly,

the Commission proposes to amend Sec. 52.211(b) to require an

application for a combined license to contain a plant-specific PRA.

Resolution of ITAAC

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.79(c) (proposed

Sec. 52.211(c)), current Sec. 52.97(a) (proposed Sec. 52.227(a)),

current Sec. 52.99 (proposed Sec. 52.229(e)), and current Sec. Sec.

52.103(a) and (g) (proposed Sec. Sec. 52.231(a) and (g)) to provide an

applicant for a combined license with a process for resolving certain

acceptance criteria in one or more of the ITAAC required by the

proposed Sec. 52.211(c) before issuance of the combined license. In a

letter dated November 13, 2001 (comment 20), NEI recommended that

Subpart C be revised to allow for completion of design acceptance

criteria (DAC) at the COL application stage. NEI made this

recommendation because applicants might want to complete certain DAC

before construction. DAC are special design certification rule ITAAC.

DAC set forth processes and criteria for completing certain design

information, such as information about the digital instrumentation and

control system. DAC were originally written to be verified as part of

the normal, post-combined license, ITAAC verification process.

The Commission agrees with NEI's recommendation that combined

license applicants be permitted to demonstrate DAC completion as part

of the combined license application, for several reasons. First,

completion of the design matters covered by DAC before the issuance of

a combined license is consistent with the Commission's original concept

for design certification and issuance of a combined license. When it

adopted 10 CFR part 52, the Commission intended that a design

certification contain final and complete design information. Allowing a

finding of acceptable completion of DAC before issuance of a combined

license is, therefore, consistent with the Commission's original

intent

consistent with the Commission's original concept

for design certification and issuance of a combined license. When it

adopted 10 CFR part 52, the Commission intended that a design

certification contain final and complete design information. Allowing a

finding of acceptable completion of DAC before issuance of a combined

license is, therefore, consistent with the Commission's original

intent. Second, completion of DAC before issuance of the combined

license is consistent with the Commission's goal of resolving issues

before construction. Determining whether DAC have been successfully

completed before issuance of the combined license avoids the

possibility that improperly completed DAC will result in the

construction of improperly designed structures, systems, and

components. Finally, the Commission believes that completion of DAC

before issuance of the combined license will enhance public confidence

in the overall licensing process because the public will have an

opportunity to challenge whether the design has been properly completed

before construction begins. Accordingly, the Commission proposes that a

finding of successful completion of DAC may be made when a combined

license is issued, if the combined license applicant demonstrates that

the DAC have been successfully completed. This new process would also

allow findings on successful completion of inspections or tests of

components procured before the issuance of the combined license.

The proposed rule would also amend the current Sec. 52.99

(proposed Sec. 52.229 (b), (c) and (d)) and the current Sec. 52.103

(proposed Sec. 52.231(h)) to incorporate rule language from the design

certification rules in 10 CFR part 52 regarding the completion of ITAAC

(see paragraphs IX.A and IX.B.3 of Appendix A to part 52)

of

components procured before the issuance of the combined license.

The proposed rule would also amend the current Sec. 52.99

(proposed Sec. 52.229 (b), (c) and (d)) and the current Sec. 52.103

(proposed Sec. 52.231(h)) to incorporate rule language from the design

certification rules in 10 CFR part 52 regarding the completion of ITAAC

(see paragraphs IX.A and IX.B.3 of Appendix A to part 52). During the

preparation of the design certification rules for the ABWR and System

80+ designs, the NRC staff and nuclear industry representatives agreed

on certain requirements for the performance and completion of the

inspections, tests, or analyses in ITAAC. In the design certification

rulemakings, the Commission codified these ITAAC requirements into

Section IX of the rules. The purpose of the requirement in paragraph

(b) of proposed Sec. 52.229 is to make it clear that an applicant may

proceed at its own risk with design and procurement activities subject

to ITAAC, and that a licensee may proceed at its own risk with design,

procurement, construction, and preoperational testing activities

subject to an ITAAC, even though the NRC may not have found that any

particular ITAAC has been successfully completed. Paragraph (c) of

proposed Sec. 52.229 requires the licensee to notify the NRC that the

required inspections, tests, and analyses in the ITAAC have been

completed and that the acceptance criteria have been met. Paragraph (d)

simply states the options that a licensee will have in the event that

it is determined that any of the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC have

not been met. Finally, paragraph (h) of Sec. 52.231 states that ITAAC

do not, by virtue of their inclusion in the DCD, constitute regulatory

requirements after the licensee has received authorization to load fuel

or for renewal of the license. However, subsequent modifications must

comply with the design descriptions in the design control document

unless the applicable requirements in the current Sec

met. Finally, paragraph (h) of Sec. 52.231 states that ITAAC

do not, by virtue of their inclusion in the DCD, constitute regulatory

requirements after the licensee has received authorization to load fuel

or for renewal of the license. However, subsequent modifications must

comply with the design descriptions in the design control document

unless the applicable requirements in the current Sec. 52.97 and

Section VIII of the design certification rules have been complied with.

In a letter dated April 3, 2001 (comment 23), NEI stated ``consider

incorporating DCR general provisions into subpart C as appropriate.''

The Commission has decided to add these ITAAC requirements to proposed

Sec. 52.229 because it believes that these provisions embody general

principles that are applicable to all holders of combined licenses.

Commission Finding on Acceptance Criteria

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.83 (proposed

Sec. 52.215) and the current Sec. 52.99 (proposed Sec. 52.229(e)) to

clearly state the

Commission's determination that the NRC staff should be responsible for

ensuring (through its inspection and audit activities) that the

combined license holder performs and documents the completion of

inspections, tests and analyses in the ITAAC. Currently, Sec. 52.99

states that ``the Commission shall ensure that the required

inspections, tests, and analyses are performed and, prior to operation

of the facility, shall find that the prescribed acceptance criteria are

met.'' When part 52 was first adopted by the Commission in 1989 (54 FR

15372, April 18, 1989), Sec. 52.99 provided that the NRC staff shall

ensure that the inspections, tests and analyses in the ITAAC are

performed, and did not refer to the Commission finding on acceptance

criteria being met. The requirement for a Commission finding on

acceptance criteria was contained in Sec. 52.103(g). The Commission

adopted the current language of Sec

mmission in 1989 (54 FR

15372, April 18, 1989), Sec. 52.99 provided that the NRC staff shall

ensure that the inspections, tests and analyses in the ITAAC are

performed, and did not refer to the Commission finding on acceptance

criteria being met. The requirement for a Commission finding on

acceptance criteria was contained in Sec. 52.103(g). The Commission

adopted the current language of Sec. 52.99 in 1992 (57 FR 60975,

December 23, 1992) to reflect changes to Section 185 of the AEA made by

Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (1992 EPA), which states:

Following issuance of the combined license, the Commission shall

ensure that the prescribed inspections, tests, and analyses are

performed and, prior to operation of the facility, shall find that

the prescribed acceptance criteria are met.

Thus, the revisions to Sec. 52.99 adopted by the Commission in 1992

simply reflect the language of the 1992 EPA. However, the Commission

does not believe that Congress, by adopting language in section 185

stating that the Commission shall ensure that the ITAAC are performed,

intended to alter the Commission's determination that the NRC staff is

responsible for ensuring that ``the required inspections, tests and

analyses in the ITAAC are performed,'' and by doing so alter the

Commission's long-standing delegation of inspection and oversight

activities to the NRC staff. For these reasons, the Commission proposes

that Sec. 52.99 (proposed Sec. 52.229(e)) state that the NRC staff

shall be responsible for ensuring that inspections, tests and analyses

in the ITAAC have been performed. The requirement for a Commission

finding on acceptance criteria will continue to be addressed separately

in Sec. 52.103(g) (proposed Sec. 52.231(g)).

In a letter dated February 22, 1993, the Nuclear Management and

Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC) stated:

2.229(e)) state that the NRC staff

shall be responsible for ensuring that inspections, tests and analyses

in the ITAAC have been performed. The requirement for a Commission

finding on acceptance criteria will continue to be addressed separately

in Sec. 52.103(g) (proposed Sec. 52.231(g)).

In a letter dated February 22, 1993, the Nuclear Management and

Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC) stated:

There is nothing in Title XXVIII or its legislative history

which compels a change in the Staff responsibilities from that

reflected in prior Sec. 52.99. Indeed, any other implementation of

Sec. 52.99 would be wholly unworkable. Accordingly, it is our

understanding that the reference to ``the Commission'' in amended

Sec. 52.99 is to be read as authorizing the Commission to delegate

to the Staff the responsibility for overseeing ITAAC performance

during the period of facility construction; and further that this is

the Commission's intention. Responsibility for the pre-operational

finding of acceptance criteria conformance would, of course, be the

responsibility of the Commission, as reflected in both amended

Sec. Sec. 52.99 and 52.103(g).

The proposed rule is consistent with NUMARC's recommendation.

The requirements in the proposed Sec. 52.229(e) will be limited to

the responsibilities of the NRC staff. The staff will ensure that the

inspections, tests, and analyses in the ITAAC have been performed and

will publish notices in the Federal Register of the successful

completion of inspections, tests, and analyses. The NRC staff will

perform periodic inspections during construction of the facility and

implementation of the licensee's operational programs, e.g., emergency

planning and training. The NRC staff will issue reports on these

inspections and will make these reports publically available. At the

conclusion of construction, the staff will make a recommendation to the

Commission on its assessment of the licensee's completion of ITAAC

inspections during construction of the facility and

implementation of the licensee's operational programs, e.g., emergency

planning and training. The NRC staff will issue reports on these

inspections and will make these reports publically available. At the

conclusion of construction, the staff will make a recommendation to the

Commission on its assessment of the licensee's completion of ITAAC. If

the Commission determines that all of the acceptance criteria in the

ITAAC for the combined license have been met, it will make the finding

required under proposed Sec. 52.231(g).

Consistent with the language in proposed Sec. 52.229(e), the

proposed rule would also amend the current Sec. 52.83 (proposed Sec.

52.215(c)) to state that the requirements in 10 CFR part 50 that are

applicable to holders of operating licenses become applicable to

holders of combined licenses after the Commission's finding of

successful ITAAC completion under current Sec. 52.103(g) (proposed

Sec. 52.231(g)), rather than referring to the Commission finding under

the current Sec. 52.99. As discussed above, the Commission's 1992

rulemaking amended Sec. 52.99 to refer to the Commission's finding of

ITAAC completion, and amended Sec. 52.83 to refer to the Commission's

finding under Sec. 52.99. Inasmuch as the Commission finding and

authorization of operation would be addressed in proposed Sec.

52.231(g), it follows that proposed Sec. 52.215(c) should refer to the

Commission's authorization of operation under Sec. 52.231(g) rather

than the NRC staff's activities under proposed Sec. 52.229(e).

Combined License Change Process

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.97 (proposed

Sec. 52.227) to clarify the applicability of the change processes in

10 CFR part 50 and Section VIII of the design certification rules in 10

CFR part 52 to a combined license. This amendment will add Sec

ation under Sec. 52.231(g) rather

than the NRC staff's activities under proposed Sec. 52.229(e).

Combined License Change Process

The proposed rule would amend the current Sec. 52.97 (proposed

Sec. 52.227) to clarify the applicability of the change processes in

10 CFR part 50 and Section VIII of the design certification rules in 10

CFR part 52 to a combined license. This amendment will add Sec.

52.227(c), which states that the change processes in 10 CFR part 50

apply to a combined license that does not reference a design

certification rule. This amendment will also add Sec. 52.227(d), which

states that the change processes in Section VIII of the design

certification rules apply to changes within the scope of the referenced

certified design. However, if the proposed change affects the design

information that is outside of the scope of the design certification

rule, the part 50 change processes apply unless the change also affects

the design certification information. For that situation, both change

processes may apply.

In a letter dated November 13, 2001 (comment 21(a)(2)), NEI

recommended that proposed Sec. Sec. 52.227(c) and (d)(2) state that

changes outside the scope of a certified design are subject to ``the

applicable change control requirements in 10 CFR part 50, e.g., 10 CFR

50.59, 50.54 or 50.90.'' The Commission has decided to propose this

amendment to clarify which change processes are applicable to a

combined license and this amendment is consistent with NEI's

recommendation.

Design Certifications for ABWR, System 80+, and AP600

The proposed rule would amend paragraphs VI.B.4, 5, and 6 of the

three design certification rules in 10 CFR part 52, Appendices A, B,

and C (for U.S. ABWR, System 80+, and AP600 designs, respectively), by

substituting the phrase ``but only for that plant'' for the erroneous

phrase ``but only for that proceeding'' (emphasis added). The new

phrase correctly characterizes the scope of issue resolution in three

situations

nd paragraphs VI.B.4, 5, and 6 of the

three design certification rules in 10 CFR part 52, Appendices A, B,

and C (for U.S. ABWR, System 80+, and AP600 designs, respectively), by

substituting the phrase ``but only for that plant'' for the erroneous

phrase ``but only for that proceeding'' (emphasis added). The new

phrase correctly characterizes the scope of issue resolution in three

situations. Paragraph VI.B.4 describes how issues associated with a

design certification rule are resolved when an exemption has been

granted for a plant referencing the design certification rule.

Paragraph VI.B.5 describes how issues are resolved when a plant

referencing the design certification rule obtains a license amendment

for a departure from Tier 2 information. Paragraph VI.B.6 describes how

issues are resolved when the applicant or licensee departs from the

Tier 2 information on the basis of paragraph VIII.B.5, which waives the

requirement to get NRC approval. Thus, once a matter (e.g., an

exemption in the

case of paragraph VI.B.4) was addressed for a specific plant

referencing a design certification rule, the adequacy of that matter

for that plant would not ordinarily be subject to challenge in any

subsequent proceeding or action (such as an enforcement action) listed

in the introductory portion of paragraph IV.B, but there would not be

any issue resolution on that subject matter for any other plant.

Unfortunately, the three design certification rules use the phrase

``but only for that proceeding,'' which may lead to the erroneous

conclusion that issue resolution exists only in the proceeding in which

the matter was approved and/or adjudicated, and not in all subsequent

proceedings for that plant

V.B, but there would not be

any issue resolution on that subject matter for any other plant.

Unfortunately, the three design certification rules use the phrase

``but only for that proceeding,'' which may lead to the erroneous

conclusion that issue resolution exists only in the proceeding in which

the matter was approved and/or adjudicated, and not in all subsequent

proceedings for that plant.

In letters dated November 12, 2001, and November 13, 2001,

respectively, General Electric Company and Westinghouse Electric

Company reiterated earlier recommendations the two companies had made

that Sections VI.B.4 and 5 of the design certification rules state that

exemptions and license amendments have finality ``but only for that

plant.'' For the reasons discussed above, the Commission agrees, and

the Commission proposes to substitute the phrase ``but only for that

plant,'' in order to clarify that issue resolution on a matter applies

in subsequent proceedings for that plant.

Each of the design certification rules in 10 CFR part 52

(Appendices A, B, and C) includes a Section VIII on change processes.

These processes apply to changes depending upon the category of design

information affected. For plant-specific tier 2 information, the change

process established in the rules mirrors, in large part, that in the

former 10 CFR 50.59. The proposed rule would amend paragraph VIII.B.5

of the design certification rules to conform the terminology in the

50.59-like change process to that used in the revised Sec. 50.59. This

amendment deletes references to unreviewed safety question and safety

evaluation, and conforms the evaluation criteria concerning when prior

NRC approval is needed. Also, a definition has been added (paragraph

II.G) for ``departure from a method of evaluation'' to support the

evaluation criterion in VIII.B.5.b(8).

In an earlier rulemaking (see 64 FR 53582; October 4, 1999), the

Commission revised Sec

deletes references to unreviewed safety question and safety

evaluation, and conforms the evaluation criteria concerning when prior

NRC approval is needed. Also, a definition has been added (paragraph

II.G) for ``departure from a method of evaluation'' to support the

evaluation criterion in VIII.B.5.b(8).

In an earlier rulemaking (see 64 FR 53582; October 4, 1999), the

Commission revised Sec. 50.59 to incorporate new thresholds for

permitting changes to a plant as described in the final safety analysis

report without NRC approval. For consistency and clarity, similar

changes are now being proposed for 10 CFR part 52 applicants or

licensees. Because of some differences in how the change control

requirements are structured in the design certification rules, certain

definitions contained in Sec. 50.59 are not necessary for or

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 Sec. 50.59 for a ``departure from a method of

evaluation,'' which is appropriate to include in this rulemaking so

that the eighth criterion in Section VIII.B.5.b of the design

certification rules will be implemented as intended.

B. 10 CFR Part 2, Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings

and Issuance of Orders

The proposed rule would amend Sec. Sec. 2.110, 2.400, 2.401,

2.402, 2.403, 2.404, 2.406, 2.500, 2.501, and 2.502 to correct

references to former 10 CFR part 52 appendices that have been

redesignated as subparts.

C. 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 20.1002 to clarify that the

regulations in 10 CFR part 20 also apply to licenses issued under 10

CFR part 52. This conforming change was inadvertently overlooked when

the Commission originally promulgated 10 CFR part 52.

D. 10 CFR Part 21, Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance

ated as subparts.

C. 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 20.1002 to clarify that the

regulations in 10 CFR part 20 also apply to licenses issued under 10

CFR part 52. This conforming change was inadvertently overlooked when

the Commission originally promulgated 10 CFR part 52.

D. 10 CFR Part 21, Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance

The proposed rule would amend Sec. Sec. 21.2, 21.3, and 21.21 to

clarify the applicability of 10 CFR part 21 to individuals,

corporations, partnerships, or other entities doing business within the

United States, and directors and responsible officers of such

organizations, that hold a permit or license under 10 CFR part 52.

These conforming changes would correct an oversight when the Commission

first adopted 10 CFR part 52, to ensure that the requirements in 10 CFR

part 21 apply to applicants for, and holders of licenses under 10 CFR

part 52, as well as to suppliers of basic components to such licensees.

Combined Licenses, Manufacturing Licenses, Duplicate Design Licenses

The proposed rule would make 10 CFR part 21 applicable to

applicants for, and holders of combined licenses, manufacturing

licenses, and duplicate design licenses under 10 CFR part 52, and

suppliers of basic components to such applicants and holders, by

amending paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Sec. 21.2 regarding the scope

of 10 CFR part 21 and amending the definitions of basic component,

commercial grade item, critical characteristics, dedicating entity,

dedication, defect, and substantial safety hazard in Sec. 21.3. In

addition, the proposed rule would amend Sec

part 52, and

suppliers of basic components to such applicants and holders, by

amending paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Sec. 21.2 regarding the scope

of 10 CFR part 21 and amending the definitions of basic component,

commercial grade item, critical characteristics, dedicating entity,

dedication, defect, and substantial safety hazard in Sec. 21.3. In

addition, the proposed rule would amend Sec. 21.21 to clearly state

when a director or responsible officer subject to 10 CFR part 21 must

notify the Commission that the director or officer has information

reasonably indicating a failure to comply or a defect affecting the

construction or operation of a facility or an activity that is subject

to the licensing requirements under 10 CFR part 52 or affecting a basic

component supplied for a facility or an activity that is subject to the

licensing requirements under 10 CFR part 52. The Commission notes that

a supplier of safety-related analyses and services to a licensee under

part 52 is subject to part 21, inasmuch as such services constitute

``basic components;'' this is no different than the applicability of

part 21 to a supplier of such analyses and services to a licensee under

part 50.

Early Site Permits

With respect to early site permits, the Commission proposes to use

a different approach, such that the requirements of part 21 do not

apply to applicants for early site permits, or holders of early site

permits so long as the early site permit is not referenced in any

license application. During the pendency of the early site permit

application before the NRC, the applicant would be required by 10 CFR

50.9, ``Completeness and accuracy of information,'' to notify the

Commission of any information having a ``significant implication for

public health and safety or the common defense and security'' with

respect to the matters covered in the application, pursuant to proposed

Sec. 52.111. Failure to abide by the completeness and accuracy

requirements in Sec

applicant would be required by 10 CFR

50.9, ``Completeness and accuracy of information,'' to notify the

Commission of any information having a ``significant implication for

public health and safety or the common defense and security'' with

respect to the matters covered in the application, pursuant to proposed

Sec. 52.111. Failure to abide by the completeness and accuracy

requirements in Sec. 50.9 would subject the applicant to potential

criminal liability under Sec. 52.113 (proposed Sec. 52.403). In

addition, under current Sec. 52.9, the early site permit applicant

would be subject to penalties for deliberate misconduct, including

submission to the NRC of information known to be incomplete or

inaccurate in some material aspect. Finally, during the pendency of an

early site permit application, the application has no operative effect

with respect to issue resolution under Sec. 52.39; consequently, an

early site permit application itself could not result in a

``substantial safety hazard'' by virtue of the application being

referenced in a nuclear power plant licensing proceeding. Therefore,

the Commission does not believe that adopting the regulatory overlay of

part 21 during the pendency of an early site permit application is

necessary to effectuate the Commission's regulatory

responsibilities under the AEA, as amended, including providing

reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety

or common defense and security.

The Commission does not believe that part 21 should apply to the

early site permit holder after the early site permit has been issued,

but before the holder has referenced the permit in a license

application.\2\ With one exception, the early site permit does not

authorize any action by the holder with respect to the construction or

operation of a nuclear power plant

mon defense and security.

The Commission does not believe that part 21 should apply to the

early site permit holder after the early site permit has been issued,

but before the holder has referenced the permit in a license

application.\2\ With one exception, the early site permit does not

authorize any action by the holder with respect to the construction or

operation of a nuclear power plant. The exception is when the early

site permit authorizes the holder to conduct the site preparation

activities permitted under 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) (commonly referred to as

limited work authorization-1, or LWA-1, activities). However, these

activities are related to site clearing and preparation, and do not

permit any construction (including subsurface preparation) for

``structures, systems and components which prevent or mitigate the

consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the

health and safety of the public.'' Thus, the conduct of LWA-1

activities do not appear to have any reasonable possibility of

resulting in a ``substantial safety hazard.'' Furthermore, the inherent

nature of an early site permit is site-specific and not susceptible to

generic or wide-ranging applicability. For these reasons, the

Commission proposes that part 21 should not apply to an early site

permit holder until the permit is referenced by a license applicant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

stantial safety hazard.'' Furthermore, the inherent

nature of an early site permit is site-specific and not susceptible to

generic or wide-ranging applicability. For these reasons, the

Commission proposes that part 21 should not apply to an early site

permit holder until the permit is referenced by a license applicant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The Commission would not permit a license applicant to

reference an early site permit which it does not hold (or has rights

to the permit contingent upon a NRC decision to issue a license

whose application references the early site permit). To otherwise

permit referencing of an early site permit by a non-holder would

destroy the commercial value of the permit, and would prevent any

entity from seeking an early site permit. This would frustrate the

Commission's regulatory objective of providing early regulatory

approval of siting, emergency preparedness, and environmental

matters. Since the early site permit is a license, the relevant

requirements of part 21 are those applicable to a licensee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once an early site permit holder references the permit in a license

application, the Commission believes that the holder should be subject

to part 21. The Commission's safety review of a license application

referencing an early site permit is limited in accordance with

Sec. Sec. 52.39 and 52.79 (proposed Sec. 52.211), under the precept

that the site parameters, terms, and conditions which define the

envelope for safe siting of a nuclear power plant have been determined

by the NRC in the early site permit proceeding

d be subject

to part 21. The Commission's safety review of a license application

referencing an early site permit is limited in accordance with

Sec. Sec. 52.39 and 52.79 (proposed Sec. 52.211), under the precept

that the site parameters, terms, and conditions which define the

envelope for safe siting of a nuclear power plant have been determined

by the NRC in the early site permit proceeding. If the early site

permit holder discovers a significant safety concern with respect to

its site (e.g., that the specified site parameter for seismic

acceleration is less than the projected acceleration due to new

information), the concern should be reported to the NRC so that it may

be considered in the review of the application referencing the early

site permit. This reporting attains special importance given the

Commission's proposal (see discussion in Section III.A.8 on referencing

an early site permit) not to impose an updating requirement for early

site permit information other than that related to emergency

preparedness. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the early site

permit holder should be subject to part 21 once it references the

permit in a license application.

The Commission believes that changes to part 21 are unnecessary to

reflect these determinations with respect to early site permit

applicants and holders. A licensee's reporting requirements in part 21

apply only with respect to ``basic components'' used or to be used in

an NRC-licensed or otherwise regulated facility. The safety-related

analyses and consulting services supplied to an applicant for an early

site permit appear to fall within the definition of ``basic

component,'' in that they constitute ``safety-related design [and]

analyses * * * associated with component hardware'' (See 10 CFR 21.3,

``Basic component,'' paragraph (3)). Thus, part 21 could be interpreted

as applying to the early site permit holder immediately upon the

permit's issuance

ices supplied to an applicant for an early

site permit appear to fall within the definition of ``basic

component,'' in that they constitute ``safety-related design [and]

analyses * * * associated with component hardware'' (See 10 CFR 21.3,

``Basic component,'' paragraph (3)). Thus, part 21 could be interpreted

as applying to the early site permit holder immediately upon the

permit's issuance. However, there appears to be little reasonable

likelihood of a ``substantial safety hazard'' unless and until the

early site permit has been referenced by the permit holder in a license

application. Once the early site permit has been referenced, the

potential for a substantial safety hazard clearly exists if a known

defect in site parameters, terms, or conditions defining the envelope

for safe plant operation is not disclosed, and a plant is designed,

constructed, and allowed to operate which does not reflect the actual

limiting parameters and conditions of the site. Thus, no changes to

part 21 are necessary to reflect the Commission's intent.

The Commission also proposes that part 21 apply to suppliers of

safety-related analyses and services to an early site permit holder in

the same manner and extent as part 21 applies to the early site permit

holder. Such suppliers would be subject to part 21 only after the early

site permit holder references the permit in a license application.

Design Certification Rules

Similar to the approach for early site permit applicants and

holders, the Commission proposes that the requirements in part 21

should not apply to the applicant/vendor for a design certification

(and/or its successors) during the pendency of its design certification

application

only after the early

site permit holder references the permit in a license application.

Design Certification Rules

Similar to the approach for early site permit applicants and

holders, the Commission proposes that the requirements in part 21

should not apply to the applicant/vendor for a design certification

(and/or its successors) during the pendency of its design certification

application. During the pendency of the design certification

application, the applicant/vendor would be required by 10 CFR 50.9,

``Completeness and accuracy of information,'' to notify the Commission

of any information having a ``significant implication for public health

and safety or the common defense and security'' with respect to the

matters covered in the application, pursuant to proposed Sec. 52.111.

Failure to abide by the completeness and accuracy requirements in Sec.

50.9 would subject the applicant/vendor to potential criminal liability

under Sec. 52.113 (proposed Sec. 52.403). In addition, under current

Sec. 52.9, the applicant for a design certification is subject to

penalties for deliberate misconduct, including submission to the NRC of

information known to be incomplete or inaccurate in some material

aspect. Finally, during the pendency of a design certification

application, the application has no operative effect with respect to

issue resolution under current Sec. 52.63 (proposed Sec. 52.127);

consequently, a design certification application itself could not

result in a ``substantial safety hazard'' by virtue of the application

being referenced in a nuclear power plant licensing proceeding.

Therefore, the Commission does not believe that adopting the regulatory

overlay of part 21 during the pendency of a design certification

application is necessary to effectuate the Commission's regulatory

responsibilities under the AEA, as amended, including providing

reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety

or common defense and security

t licensing proceeding.

Therefore, the Commission does not believe that adopting the regulatory

overlay of part 21 during the pendency of a design certification

application is necessary to effectuate the Commission's regulatory

responsibilities under the AEA, as amended, including providing

reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety

or common defense and security.

The Commission also believes that the reporting requirements in

part 21 should not apply to the design certification applicant/vendor

after the Commission issuance of a final design certification rule but

before the design certification rule is referenced by at least one

applicant/licensee (nor should either Sec. Sec. 52.9 or 52.111 be

modified to make them applicable to the design certification applicant/

vendor). The Commission does not believe that a design certification

rule would reasonably result in a ``substantial safety hazard'' so long

as the design certification rule is not actually referenced in a

license application (and

thereafter incorporated by reference into a license). It is true that,

unlike an early site permit, a design certification rule is of general

applicability and that a complete nuclear power plant design could be

provided by an entity other than the original design certification

applicant/vendor (see Sec. 52.73 (proposed Sec. 52.203)).

Nonetheless, unless the other entity provides a design which is

subsequently referenced in an NRC license application, there is no

``substantial safety hazard'' created (although the Commission

acknowledges that the entity may incur significant redesign costs if

the entity completes substantial parts of the design before submission

of the application, only to find upon submission of the application

that there were significant defects in the certified design)

sequently referenced in an NRC license application, there is no

``substantial safety hazard'' created (although the Commission

acknowledges that the entity may incur significant redesign costs if

the entity completes substantial parts of the design before submission

of the application, only to find upon submission of the application

that there were significant defects in the certified design). Upon

weighing of all relevant factors, the Commission proposes that part 21

should not apply to the design certification applicant/vendor until a

final, Commission-approved design certification rule is referenced by

at least one applicant/licensee.

However, the Commission believes that once a design certification

rule is referenced by an applicant, the design certification applicant/

vendor should be subject to part 21. The Commission's safety review of

a license application referencing a design certification rule is

limited in accordance with Sec. 52.63 (proposed Sec. 52.127) and

Sec. 52.79 (proposed Sec. 52.211). If the design certification

applicant/vendor has discovered a significant safety concern with

respect to its certified design, it should be reported to the NRC so

that it may be considered in the review of the application referencing

the design certification rule. While this places a continuing

obligation on the design certification applicant/vendor to monitor

whether its design has been referenced in a license application, as a

practical matter it is likely that the license applicant will have

contractually engaged the design certification applicant/vendor prior

to submitting the application. In any event, the Commission concludes

that the design certification applicant/vendor should be subject to

part 21 after its design certification has been referenced by an

applicant for a license.

The Commission believes that, with one exception, changes to part

21 are unnecessary to reflect these determinations with respect to

design certification applicants/vendors

mitting the application. In any event, the Commission concludes

that the design certification applicant/vendor should be subject to

part 21 after its design certification has been referenced by an

applicant for a license.

The Commission believes that, with one exception, changes to part

21 are unnecessary to reflect these determinations with respect to

design certification applicants/vendors. Designs submitted for

certification are ``basic components,'' as defined in Sec. 21.3, as

are any supporting analyses inasmuch as they constitute ``safety-

related design [and] analysis * * * associated with component hardware

whether these services are performed by the component supplier or

not.'' If the design certification applicant/vendor provides the

certified design to a license applicant pursuant to contract or

agreement, the design certification applicant/vendor ``supplies'' the

basic component, see Sec. 21.3. However, there is a possibility that

an entity other than the applicant/vendor of a design which was

certified in a design certification rule may supply the complete plant

design to a referencing license applicant. See Sec. 52.73 (proposed

Sec. 52.203). For these reasons, the Commission is considering a

change to the definition of ``supplying or supplies'' in Sec. 21.3 to

ensure that a design certification applicant/vendor who does not

pursuant to contract supply to a license applicant the complete design

for the design certification, is also subject to part 21 for this

special situation.

For the reasons discussed earlier, the Commission believes that it

is reasonable and appropriate to limit the applicability of part 21

such that it is applicable once the design certification rule has been

referenced by an applicant, permit holder, or licensee

upply to a license applicant the complete design

for the design certification, is also subject to part 21 for this

special situation.

For the reasons discussed earlier, the Commission believes that it

is reasonable and appropriate to limit the applicability of part 21

such that it is applicable once the design certification rule has been

referenced by an applicant, permit holder, or licensee. Therefore,

although the potential ambit of part 21 extends to an applicant/vendor

of a design certification after issuance of a design certification

rule, the Commission has decided not to extend the applicability of

part 21 in such a fashion. By contrast, once the design certification

rule has been referenced, the potential for a substantial safety hazard

exists if a known defect in a design certification rule is not

disclosed, the remainder of the plant is designed, the plant

constructed, and subsequently allowed to operate. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that part 21 should apply to the design

certification applicant/vendor after the design certification rule has

been referenced by a license applicant. Finally, the Commission

concludes that part 21 should apply to suppliers of safety-related

analyses and services to a design certification applicant/vendor in the

same manner and extent as part 21 applies to the design certification

applicant.

E. 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization

Facilities

design certification rule has

been referenced by a license applicant. Finally, the Commission

concludes that part 21 should apply to suppliers of safety-related

analyses and services to a design certification applicant/vendor in the

same manner and extent as part 21 applies to the design certification

applicant.

E. 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization

Facilities

The proposed rule would amend paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 50.109

(backfit rule) to clearly state the applicability of the backfit rule

to some of the licensing processes 10 CFR part 52 and the date that

backfit protection commences for those licensing processes. The

licensing processes to which the backfitting provisions in Sec. 50.109

apply are standard design approvals, combined licenses, manufacturing

licenses, and duplication design licenses issued under subparts E, G,

H, and I of 10 CFR part 52, respectively. The backfitting requirement

in Sec. 50.109 does not apply to early site permits, early site

reviews, and standard design certifications issued under subparts A, B,

and D, respectively, in as much as these licensing processes have their

own special backfitting provisions (the special backfit requirements

set forth in Sec. 52.39, current sections 5 and 6 of Appendix Q

(proposed Sec. 52.47), and current Sec. 52.63(a) (proposed Sec.

52.127(a)) apply to early site permits, early site reviews, and

standard design certifications, respectively). Section

50.109(a)(1)(vii) sets forth the applicability of these special

backfitting provisions for a combined license that references an early

site permit, early site review, or design certification rule.

The proposed rule would also remove appendices M, N, O, and Q from

10 CFR part 50. These appendices were transferred to 10 CFR part 52

when it was first promulgated (54 FR 15372; April 18, 1989). However,

the Commission failed to remove those appendices from 10 CFR part 50,

though the Commission intended to do so (see 54 FR 15385; April 18,

1989).

y site review, or design certification rule.

The proposed rule would also remove appendices M, N, O, and Q from

10 CFR part 50. These appendices were transferred to 10 CFR part 52

when it was first promulgated (54 FR 15372; April 18, 1989). However,

the Commission failed to remove those appendices from 10 CFR part 50,

though the Commission intended to do so (see 54 FR 15385; April 18,

1989).

F. 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic

Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions

The proposed rule would amend paragraph (b)(6) of Sec. 51.20,

``Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions

requiring environmental impact statements,'' to make clear that

issuance of a manufacturing license requires preparation of an

environmental impact statement or a supplement to an environmental

impact statement. Paragraph (b), which defines types of actions that

require an environmental impact statement or a supplement to an

environmental impact statement would replace the current reference to

Appendix M with a reference to subpart H of 10 CFR part 52 which is the

proposed subpart that sets forth the process for manufacturing

licenses, formerly contained in Appendix M.

G. 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage

of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 72.210 to indicate that a

general license would be issued for the storage

of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation at

power reactor sites to persons authorized to possess or operate nuclear

power reactors under a combined license or duplicate design license

under 10 CFR part 52. The proposed rule would also amend the

requirements in Sec. 72.218(b) regarding an application for

termination of a reactor operating license and the removal of the spent

fuel stored at the reactor site to indicate that this provision also

applies to applications for termination of a combined license or

duplicate design license.

reactor have and maintain financial protection in the amount of

$1,000,000. Proof of financial protection would be required to be filed

with the Commission in the manner specified prior to issuance of the

license under 10 CFR part 70.

J. 10 CFR Part 170, Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export

Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as Amended

The proposed rule would amend Sec. 170.2 to clarify the

applicability of the regulations in 10 CFR part 170 to the licensing

processes in 10 CFR parts 50 and 52.

IV. Specific Requests for Comments

In addition to the general invitation to submit comments on the

proposed rule, the Commission also requests comments on the following

questions:

1. Should the final rule include an updating requirement for other

than emergency preparedness information and what portions of the early

site permit (ESP) should be subject to the updating requirement? Also,

if an updating requirement is adopted, in what manner could an

interested person challenge the updated information? (refer to Sec.

52.39(a))

2. Should the final rule include revisions to 10 CFR part 52 to:

(1) Distinguish between site characteristics, site parameters, design

characteristics, and design parameters; (2) require the Commission to

specify the site characteristics and design parameters when issuing

early site permits; (3) require the design certification rule to

specify the site parameters and design characteristics for the design;

final rule include revisions to 10 CFR part 52 to:

(1) Distinguish between site characteristics, site parameters, design

characteristics, and design parameters; (2) require the Commission to

specify the site characteristics and design parameters when issuing

early site permits; (3) require the design certification rule to

specify the site parameters and design characteristics for the design;

(4) require a combined license applicant referencing an early site

permit to demonstrate that either the design of the nuclear power plant

or the site parameters and design characteristics of a referenced

design certification rule fall within the design parameters and site

characteristics of the early site permit; and (5) require a combined

license applicant referencing a design certification rule to

demonstrate that the site parameters and design characteristics of the

design certification rule fall within either: (i) The site

characteristics of a site, or (ii) the site characteristics and design

parameters of a referenced early site permit?

Currently, 10 CFR art 52 uses the various terms, ``site

parameters,'' ``postulated site parameters,'' ``site characteristics,''

``physical characteristics,'' and ``the parameters specified in the

early site permit'' See, e.g., Sec. Sec. 52.17, 52.18, 52.21, 52.47

(proposed Sec. 52.107), Sec. 52.79 (proposed Sec. 52.211). In some

cases, it appears that different terms are used to apply to the same

concept, e.g., ``site parameters,'' and ``postulated site parameters.''

In other cases, information which would appear to constitute ``site

parameters'' as used in the current rule is not characterized as such,

e.g. Sec. 52.17(a)(1)(i) through (viii)

, 52.47

(proposed Sec. 52.107), Sec. 52.79 (proposed Sec. 52.211). In some

cases, it appears that different terms are used to apply to the same

concept, e.g., ``site parameters,'' and ``postulated site parameters.''

In other cases, information which would appear to constitute ``site

parameters'' as used in the current rule is not characterized as such,

e.g. Sec. 52.17(a)(1)(i) through (viii).

To address these inconsistencies, the Commission is considering

amending 10 CFR part 52, including proposed subparts A, D, and G, to

use the terms: ``site characteristics,'' ``site parameters,'' ``design

characteristics,'' and ``design parameters,'' to set forth in clear and

unambiguous terms the Commission's requirements on early site permits,

design certifications, and combined licenses. ``site characteristics''

would be the actual physical and demographic values for the site, e.g.,

the ground force acceleration of a defined earthquake, flood level, or

the atmospheric dispersion value. The ``design parameters'' for an

early site permit would include the postulated values for thermal power

level, radiological effluents, and type of cooling system for the

facility. ``Design characteristics'' for a design certification would

be the actual values for the design, e.g., thermal power level or

building height. ``Site parameters'' for a design certification would

include the postulated values for floods, ground force acceleration of

a postulated earthquake, and tornado wind speeds.

3. Are there terms and conditions for an ESP that can only be

fulfilled after issuance of the referencing combined license, such that

``have been met'' should be changed to ``will be met,'' or ``have been

and will be met''? (refer to proposed Sec. 52.211(a)(1))

4. Should the final rule include a requirement in Sec. 50.34(a)

for a construction permit application that references an ESP to

demonstrate that the design of the facility falls within the site

parameters of the ESP? (refer to proposed Sec. 52.211(a)(1))

5

uch that

``have been met'' should be changed to ``will be met,'' or ``have been

and will be met''? (refer to proposed Sec. 52.211(a)(1))

4. Should the final rule include a requirement in Sec. 50.34(a)

for a construction permit application that references an ESP to

demonstrate that the design of the facility falls within the site

parameters of the ESP? (refer to proposed Sec. 52.211(a)(1))

5. Should the final rule include a requirement in 10 CFR part 50 to

perform testing to qualify advanced reactor designs before licensing?

The purpose of this testing requirement would be to demonstrate that

new or innovative safety features will perform as predicted in an

applicant's safety analysis report, that effects of systems

interactions have been found acceptable, and to provide sufficient data

for analytical code validation, as required by proposed Sec. Sec.

52.107(b) and 52.211(b).

6. Should the final rule include a revision to the current Sec.

52.63 (proposed Sec. 52.127) to allow the original design

certification applicant to petition the Commission for rulemaking to

amend the design certification rule to incorporate ``beneficial

changes,'' including improvements in safety, and/or design changes that

would ``significantly improve efficiency, reliability and economics.''

Refer to letters from Steven A. Hucik, GE Nuclear Energy (March 30,

2002) and Ronald L. Simard, Nuclear Energy Institute (March 22, 2002).

7. Should 10 CFR part 21 apply to: (a) A holder of an early site

permit, but only after the holder references the permit in a license

application, and (b) an applicant/vendor of a design which is the

subject of a design certification rule, but only after the design

certification rule is first referenced in a license application. In

both cases, the

, Nuclear Energy Institute (March 22, 2002).

7. Should 10 CFR part 21 apply to: (a) A holder of an early site

permit, but only after the holder references the permit in a license

application, and (b) an applicant/vendor of a design which is the

subject of a design certification rule, but only after the design

certification rule is first referenced in a license application. In

both cases, the

Commission believes that there is no reasonable possibility of a

``substantial safety hazard'' until either the early site permit or

design certification rule is referenced. The Commission seeks public

comment on the Commission's proposed basis for this proposal, and

whether there are other factors and policy considerations, either in

support of, or in opposition to, the Commission's proposal.

V. Availability of Documents

The NRC is making the documents identified below available to

interested persons through one or more of the following methods as

indicated.

Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC Public Document Room is located

at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

Rulemaking Website (Web). The NRC's interactive rulemaking Website

is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. These documents may be viewed

and downloaded electronically via this Website.

NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR). The NRC's public

electronic reading room is located at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Document PDR Web PERR

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on the draft rule language:

General Electric.......................... X X ML013180207

Entergy................................... X X ML013200006

Nuclear Energy Institute.................. X X ML013200158

Westinghouse.............................. X X ML013200173

Exelon.......................................

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on the draft rule language:

General Electric.......................... X X ML013180207

Entergy................................... X X ML013200006

Nuclear Energy Institute.................. X X ML013200158

Westinghouse.............................. X X ML013200173

Exelon........................................ X X ML020040187

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

\3\.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Plain Language

The Presidential memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled ``Plain

Language in Government Writing'' directed that the Government's writing

be in plain language. This memorandum was published on June 10, 1998

(63 FR 31883). In complying with this directive, the NRC made editorial

changes to improve the organization and readability of the existing

language of the paragraphs being revised. These types of changes are

not discussed further in this document. The NRC requests comments on

the proposed rule specifically with respect to the clarity and

effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the

address listed under the ADDRESSES caption of the preamble.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The regulatory history of the NRC's design certification

reviews is a package of 100 documents that is available in NRC's

PERR and in the PDR. This history spans a 15-year period during

which the NRC simultaneously developed the regulatory standards for

reviewing these designs and the form and content of the rules that

certified the designs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Voluntary Consensus Standards

views is a package of 100 documents that is available in NRC's

PERR and in the PDR. This history spans a 15-year period during

which the NRC simultaneously developed the regulatory standards for

reviewing these designs and the form and content of the rules that

certified the designs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,

Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical

standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with

applicable law or is otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the

NRC is revising the procedural requirements for early site permits,

standard design certifications, and combined licenses for nuclear power

plants to make certain corrections and changes based on the experience

of the previous design certification reviews and on discussions with

stakeholders on these licensing processes. In addition, this proposed

rule would amend certain portions of the three design certification

rules in 10 CFR part 52, appendices A, B, and C (for U.S. ABWR, System

80+, and AP600 designs, respectively) Design certifications are not

generic rulemakings in the sense that design certifications do not

establish standards or requirements with which all licensees must

comply. Rather, design certifications are Commission approvals of

specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking. Furthermore, design

certification rulemakings are initiated by an applicant for a design

certification, rather than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission

concludes that this action does not constitute the establishment of a

standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

VIII. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

ls of

specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking. Furthermore, design

certification rulemakings are initiated by an applicant for a design

certification, rather than the NRC. For these reasons, the Commission

concludes that this action does not constitute the establishment of a

standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

VIII. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

The NRC has determined that the changes made in this proposed rule

fall within the types of action described in categorical exclusions 10

CFR 51.22(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3). Therefore, neither an

environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been

prepared for this proposed regulation.\4\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ When 10 CFR part 52 was promulgated in 1989, the NRC

determined that the regulation met the eligibility criteria for the

categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). As stated in

the Federal Register notice for the final rule (54 FR 15384, April

18, 1989), ``It makes no substantive difference for the purpose of

the categorical exclusion that the amendments are in a new 10 CFR

part 52 rather than in 10 CFR part 50. The amendments are, in fact,

amendments to the 10 CFR part 50 procedures and could have been

placed in that part.'' The categorical exclusion for the current

proposed change to 10 CFR part 52 is consistent with the original

categorical exclusion determination.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

n in 10 CFR part 50. The amendments are, in fact,

amendments to the 10 CFR part 50 procedures and could have been

placed in that part.'' The categorical exclusion for the current

proposed change to 10 CFR part 52 is consistent with the original

categorical exclusion determination.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This proposed rule amends information collection requirements

contained in 10 CFR Part 52 that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). These information collection

requirements have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

for review and approval. The proposed changes to 10 CFR parts 2, 20,

21, 50, 51, 72, 73, 140, and 170 do not contain new or amended

information collection requirements. Existing requirements were

approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number(s)

3150-0014, 3150-0035, 3150-0011, 3150-0021, 3150-0132, 3150-0039, and

3150-0002.

The burden to the public for the information collections in 10 CFR

part 52 is estimated to average 3,429 hours per response. This includes

the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing

the information collection. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is

seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information

collections contained in the proposed rule and on the following issues:

1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the

information will have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of

the information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized,

including the use of automated collection techniques?

ection necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the

information will have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of

the information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized,

including the use of automated collection techniques?

Send comments on any aspect of these proposed information

collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the

Records Management Branch (T-6 E6), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to

[email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0151, 3150-0011, and 3150-

0039), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments to OMB on the information collections or on the above

issues should be submitted by August 4, 2003. Comments received after

this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance

of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a request for information or an information collection

requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid

OMB control number.

X. Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared the following draft regulatory analysis

on the substantive changes in this proposed regulation that could

impose regulatory burdens. The majority of the changes in this proposed

rule involve formatting, reorganization, or process changes that do not

affect regulatory burden. These types of changes are not addressed in

this regulatory analysis, as they would not affect the burden on future

applicants

owing draft regulatory analysis

on the substantive changes in this proposed regulation that could

impose regulatory burdens. The majority of the changes in this proposed

rule involve formatting, reorganization, or process changes that do not

affect regulatory burden. These types of changes are not addressed in

this regulatory analysis, as they would not affect the burden on future

applicants.

The proposed rule contains two amendments that appear to impose

regulatory burdens on future applicants for construction permits,

combined licenses, and duplicate design licenses who may file an

application referencing an early site permit or a certified design.

There are no current applicants who would be burdened by the proposed

amendments.

The first of these changes requires applicants who reference an

early site permit to update and correct emergency planning information

and discuss whether the new information materially alters the bases for

compliance with the applicable requirements. The second change requires

applicants who reference a certified design to include a plant-specific

probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) that uses the design-specific PRA

and is updated to account for site-specific design information and any

design changes.

The Commission believes that, practically speaking, there would be

no change in the burden on future applicants resulting from these

amendments. This is because the information required by the proposed

rule would, in all likelihood, be requested by the NRC staff during the

review of the application if these requirements were not adopted. The

staff could not perform an adequate review of an application

referencing an early site permit without reviewing the most up-to-date

emergency planning information

resulting from these

amendments. This is because the information required by the proposed

rule would, in all likelihood, be requested by the NRC staff during the

review of the application if these requirements were not adopted. The

staff could not perform an adequate review of an application

referencing an early site permit without reviewing the most up-to-date

emergency planning information. Therefore, if this updated information

was not required in the application, the staff would be compelled to

request the information from the applicant in order to make a finding

that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures

can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

Likewise, if the Commission did not require an updated PRA in an

application for a combined license referencing a certified design, the

staff would be compelled to request the information from the applicant.

The Commission would need this information in order to assist it in

finding that the applicable requirements of 10 CFR part 50 have been

met, and in reviewing the licensee's proposed inspections, tests, and

analyses that the licensee must perform, and the acceptance criteria

that, if met, are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable

assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated

in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Atomic Energy

Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations.

For these reasons, the Commission believes it is prudent to proceed

with this proposed rulemaking. The addition of these requirements for

applicants for construction permits, combined licenses, and duplicate

design licenses is necessary to ensure the NRC staff can meet its

regulatory obligations

the license, the provisions of the Atomic Energy

Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations.

For these reasons, the Commission believes it is prudent to proceed

with this proposed rulemaking. The addition of these requirements for

applicants for construction permits, combined licenses, and duplicate

design licenses is necessary to ensure the NRC staff can meet its

regulatory obligations. In addition, giving future applicants

notification up front that the staff requires this information in the

application will relieve them of a larger burden of having to compile

the information during the application review process when the

Commission requests the information to complete its review. The need to

compile the information during the review process could impact the

review schedule and result in other unnecessary burdens on the

applicant.

The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory

analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as

indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if

promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number

of small entities. This proposed rule affects only the licensing of

nuclear power plants. The companies that will apply for an approval,

certification, permit, site report, or license in accordance with the

regulations affected by this proposed rule do not fall within the scope

of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR

2.810).

XII. Backfit Analysis

he licensing of

nuclear power plants. The companies that will apply for an approval,

certification, permit, site report, or license in accordance with the

regulations affected by this proposed rule do not fall within the scope

of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR

2.810).

XII. Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this

proposed rule; therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this

proposed rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions

that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109. The proposed

rule would revise the requirements for early site permits, standard

design certifications, and combined licenses for nuclear power plants,

so it would affect a potential applicant who might, in the future,

apply for an early site permit, design certification, or combined

license. However, the backfit rule does not apply because the proposed

rule would not impose any modifications on a current holder of an early

site permit, certified design, or combined license.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 2

Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct

material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Sex

discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste

treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 20

Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and

health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and

record keeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material,

Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 21

Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Radiation protection,

Reporting and record keeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 50

Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and

health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and

record keeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material,

Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 21

Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Radiation protection,

Reporting and record keeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 50

Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire

protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and

record keeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 51

Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact

statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors,

Reporting and record keeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 52

Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting,

Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees,

Inspection, Limited work authorization, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting

criteria, Redress of site, Reporting and record keeping requirements,

Standard design, Standard design certification.

10 CFR Part 72

Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower

training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health,

Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistle blowing.

10 CFR Part 73

Criminal penalties, Export, Hazardous materials transportation,

Import, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting

and record keeping requirements, Security measures.

10 CFR Part 140

Criminal penalties, Extraordinary nuclear occurrence, Insurance,

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants

and reactors, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 170

, Export, Hazardous materials transportation,

Import, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting

and record keeping requirements, Security measures.

10 CFR Part 140

Criminal penalties, Extraordinary nuclear occurrence, Insurance,

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants

and reactors, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 170

Byproduct material, Import and export licenses, Intergovernmental

relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power

plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization

Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to

adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 20, 21, 50, 51, 52,

72, 73, 140, and 170.

PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS AND

ISSUANCE OF ORDERS

1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42

U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L. 87-615, 76 Stat.

409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat.1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.

5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.

Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104,

105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42

U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f), Pub.

L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(f)); sec. 102,

Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301,

88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105,

2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183i, 189, 68

Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133,

2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L. 97-

415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also

issued under secs. 161 b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951,

955, 83 Stat

8 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105,

2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183i, 189, 68

Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133,

2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L. 97-

415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also

issued under secs. 161 b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951,

955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (i), (o), 2236,

2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Section 2.205(j)

also issued under Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by

section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 (28 U.S.C. 2461

note). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-

190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a,

2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770,

2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 also issued

under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C.

10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat.

936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133), and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800

and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85-256, 71 S

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.